The short- and mid-term efficacy and safety of elagolix in the management of pain associated with endometriosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Elagolix, an approved non-peptide GnRH antagonist, shows promise in relieving endometriosis-related pain, but its short- and mid-term efficacy and potential side effects are still under investigation.

OBJECTIVE

The aim is to provide data for therapeutic applications by methodically evaluating elagolix's safety and effectiveness in treating endometriosis-related pain.

METHODS

Databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and others were thoroughly searched. The search time was from the establishment date to September 2023. The study included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of elagolix versus placebo in treating endometriosis-associated pain. After data extraction and literature scanning, quality assessment was carried out using Quality evaluation was carried out using the bias risk assessment tool suggested by the Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook 5.1.0 after literature screening and data extraction. Stata 15.0 was used to do the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

In total, five RCTs involving 2056 patients were included in the analysis. The meta-analysis demonstrated a significant superiority of elagolix over placebo in the management of endometriosis-related pain, specifically in endometriosis pain [WMD=-0.77, 95% CI (-1.00, -0.53), P<0.001], as well as in non-menstrual pelvic pain, daily assessment of dysmenorrhea (DYS), and dyspareunia (DYSP), all of which are associated with endometriosis. Regarding safety, no discernible variation was observed in the incidence of serious adverse responses between the elagolix and placebo groups [RR=0.90, 95% CI (0.58, 1.40), P=0.643]. Conversely, the elagolix group exhibited a significantly higher incidence rate of general adverse responses [RR = 1.34, 95% CI (1.18, 1.52), P<0.001] compared to the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of elagolix in reducing pain in premenopausal women with endometriosis has been demonstrated over the short- to mid-term. However, careful monitoring for potential adverse effects is essential throughout the treatment duration.

A systematic literature review on patient-reported outcome domains and measures in nonsurgical efficacy trials related to chronic pain associated with endometriosis: an urgent call to action

ABSTRACT

Endometriosis, a common cause for chronic pelvic pain, significantly affects quality of life, fertility, and overall productivity of those affected. Therapeutic options remain limited, and collating evidence on treatment efficacy is complicated. One reason could be the heterogeneity of assessed outcomes in nonsurgical clinical trials, impeding meaningful result comparisons. This systematic literature review examines outcome domains and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in clinical trials. Through comprehensive search of Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL up until July 2022, we screened 1286 records, of which 191 were included in our analyses. Methodological quality (GRADE criteria), information about publication, patient population, and intervention were assessed, and domains as well as PROMs were extracted and analyzed. In accordance with IMMPACT domain framework, the domain pain was assessed in almost all studies (98.4%), followed by adverse events (73.8%). By contrast, assessment of physical functioning (29.8%), improvement and satisfaction (14.1%), and emotional functioning (6.8%) occurred less frequently. Studies of a better methodological quality tended to use more different domains. Nevertheless, combinations of more than 2 domains were rare, failing to comprehensively capture the bio-psycho-social aspects of endometriosis-associated pain. The PROMs used showed an even broader heterogeneity across all studies. Our findings underscore the large heterogeneity of assessed domains and PROMs in clinical pain-related endometriosis trials. This highlights the urgent need for a standardized approach to both, assessed domains and high-quality PROMs ideally realized through development and implementation of a core outcome set, encompassing the most pivotal domains and PROMs for both, stakeholders and patients.

Why do oestrogens matter: systematic review and meta-analysis assessing GnRH antagonists, considering add-back therapy, for endometriosis-associated pain

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists have been demonstrated to reduce endometriosis-associated pain. Because of the hypo-oestrogenic state they induce, however, higher dosages of GnRH antagonists are not recommended for used long term. This unwanted effect may be eliminated by so-called add-back therapy (ABT). This review was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of GnRH antagonists, with or without add-back hormonal replacement therapy. Out of the 345 studies selected through the initial search, seven randomized controlled trials were included, comparing different oral GnRH antagonists at varying dosages, from a minimum of 50 mg to a maximum of 200 mg once or twice daily. Women treated with the lowest dose of GnRH antagonists had significantly greater mean pain score reductions from baseline throughout treatment compared with those treated with placebo (odds ratio [OR] -13.12, 95% CI -17.35 to -8.89 and OR -3.08, 95% CI -4.39 to -1.76 for dysmenorrhoea and non-menstrual pelvic pain, respectively). Compatible with the dose-response effect, a positive correlation was found between response rates and adverse event rates. While GnRH antagonists offer an advantage in terms of pain reduction for endometriosis, the more recent literature suggests using GnRH antagonists with ABT, which, while mitigating the hypo-oestrogenic effects of GnRH antagonists, maintain their efficacy, while allowing their long-term use.

Randomized, controlled, proof-of-concept trial of gefapixant for endometriosis-related pain

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the P2X3 receptor antagonist, gefapixant, for treating moderate-to-severe endometriosis-related pain.

DESIGN

Randomized, double-blind, phase 2, and proof-of-concept trial.

SETTING

Outpatients at hospitals, medical centers or clinical research sites.

PATIENT(S)

Premenopausal women age 18-49 years with moderate-to-severe endometriosis-related pain who were not using hormonal treatment.

INTERVENTION(S)

Gefapixant (45-mg twice daily) or placebo over two menstrual cycles.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Participants rated peak pelvic pain severity daily on a 0 (no pain) - 10 (extremely severe pain) scale. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in average daily peak pelvic pain severity during treatment cycle 2.

RESULT(S)

All 187 participants randomized (gefapixant, N = 94; placebo, N = 93) took ≥1 dose of investigational treatment and all but six in each treatment group completed the trial. The model-based least-squares mean reduction from baseline in average daily peak pelvic pain severity during treatment cycle 2 was -2.2 for gefapixant and -1.7 for placebo (difference, -0.5; 95% confidence interval, -1.01 to 0.03). In secondary analyses, the difference between gefapixant and placebo in peak pelvic pain severity reduction from baseline on menstrual days was -0.6 (95% confidence interval, -1.18 to -0.06) and -0.5 (95% confidence interval, -1.04 to 0.03) on nonmenstrual days. Taste-related adverse events were reported in 31.9% of participants for gefapixant vs. 4.3% for placebo. Pharmacokinetic assessments at months 1 and 2 clinic visits indicated that of the 94 participants in the gefapixant group, 39 had detectable levels of gefapixant in the blood for both assessments although 38 had no detectable levels for ≥1 assessment.

CONCLUSION(S)

Gefapixant (45-mg twice daily) was not shown to be superior to placebo in reducing endometriosis-related pain, although the results directionally favored gefapixant. This trial result should be considered inconclusive given possible issues with treatment compliance.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03654326.

Efficacy, tolerability, and bone density outcomes of elagolix with add-back therapy for endometriosis-associated pain: twelve months of an ongoing randomized phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Elagolix, an approved oral treatment for endometriosis-associated pain, has been associated with hypoestrogenic effects when used as monotherapy. Hormonal add-back therapy has the potential to mitigate these effects.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate efficacy, tolerability, and bone density outcomes of elagolix 200 mg twice daily with 1 mg estradiol/0.5 mg norethindrone acetate (add-back) therapy once daily compared with placebo in premenopausal women with moderate-to-severe endometriosis-associated pain.

STUDY DESIGN

This ongoing, 48-month, phase 3 study consists of a 12-month double-blind period, with randomization 4:1:2 to elagolix 200 mg twice daily with add-back therapy, elagolix 200 mg twice daily monotherapy for 6 months followed by elagolix with add-back therapy, or placebo. The coprimary endpoints were proportion of patients with clinical improvement (termed "responders") in dysmenorrhea and nonmenstrual pelvic pain at month 6. We report 12-month results on efficacy of elagolix with add-back therapy vs placebo in reducing dysmenorrhea, nonmenstrual pelvic pain, dyspareunia, and fatigue. Tolerability assessments include adverse events and change from baseline in bone mineral density.

RESULTS

A total of 679 patients were randomized to elagolix with add-back therapy (n=389), elagolix monotherapy (n=97), or placebo (n=193). Compared with patients randomized to placebo, a significantly greater proportion of patients randomized to elagolix with add-back therapy responded with clinical improvement in dysmenorrhea (62.8% vs 23.7%; P≤.001) and nonmenstrual pelvic pain (51.3% vs 36.8%; P≤.001) at 6 months. Compared with placebo, elagolix with add-back therapy produced significantly greater improvement from baseline in 7 hierarchically ranked secondary endpoints including dysmenorrhea (months 12, 6, 3), nonmenstrual pelvic pain (months 12, 6, 3), and fatigue (months 6) (all P<.01). Overall, the incidence of adverse events was 73.8% with elagolix plus add-back therapy and 66.8% with placebo. The rate of severe and serious adverse events did not meaningfully differ between treatment groups. Study drug discontinuations associated with adverse events were low in patients receiving elagolix with add-back therapy (12.6%) and those receiving placebo (9.8%). Patients randomized to elagolix monotherapy exhibited decreases from baseline in bone mineral density of -2.43% (lumbar spine), -1.54% (total hip), and -1.78% (femoral neck) at month 6. When add-back therapy was added to elagolix at month 6, the change from baseline in bone mineral density remained in a similar range of -1.58% to -1.83% at month 12. However, patients who received elagolix plus add-back therapy from baseline exhibited little change from baseline in bone mineral density (<1% change) at months 6 and 12.

CONCLUSION

Compared with placebo, elagolix with add-back therapy resulted in significant, clinically meaningful improvement in dysmenorrhea, nonmenstrual pelvic pain, and fatigue at 6 months that continued until month 12 for both dysmenorrhea and nonmenstrual pelvic pain. Elagolix with add-back therapy was generally well tolerated. Loss of bone mineral density at 12 months was greater in patients who received elagolix with add-back therapy than those who received placebo. However, the change in bone mineral density with elagolix plus add-back therapy was <1% and was attenuated compared with bone loss observed with elagolix monotherapy.

A systematic review to determine use of the Endometriosis Health Profiles to measure quality of life outcomes in women with endometriosis

BACKGROUND

The Endometriosis Health Profiles (EHPs), the EHP-30 and EHP-5, are patient-reported outcome measures that were developed to measure the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of women living with endometriosis. Prior to their development, a systematic review was undertaken which identified that the HRQoL of women living with endometriosis was poorly understood, with only three medical and one surgical study identified.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

The 20-year anniversary of the EHP-30 provided a timely opportunity to assess how the tools have been used and explore what the findings tell us about the impact of endometriosis and its associated treatments upon women's QoL. Applying robust systematic review methodology, following PRISMA guidelines, we sought to answer: How many studies have used the EHP and for what purpose?; What are the demographic characteristics and international context of the studies?; What is the methodological nature and quality of the studies?; Which interventions have been assessed and what are the reported EHP outcomes?; and Can the EHP outcomes of these interventions be analysed using a meta-analysis and, if so, what do the results show?

SEARCH METHODS

The electronic databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Google Scholar were searched from the year the EHP was first published, in 2001 to 26 February 2020 using the search terms 'EHP30', 'EHP5', 'EHP-30', 'EHP-5', 'endometriosis health profile 30', and 'endometriosis health profile 5'. We updated the searches on 9 April 2021. All included studies were quality assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).

OUTCOMES

The review included 139 papers. In clinical intervention studies, the EHPs were deployed most frequently to measure the outcomes of medical (n = 35) and surgical (n = 21) treatment. The EHPs were also used in 13 other intervention studies, 29 non-interventional studies, 32 psychometric/cross cultural validation studies; six diagnostic studies, and in three other studies to measure outcomes in related conditions. They were mainly deployed in studies undertaken in Europe and North America. Overall, regardless of the nature of the intervention, most women reported improvements in HRQoL after treatment. Surgical interventions generally resulted in significant improvements for the longest amount of time. There was also evidence that when participants stopped taking medication their EHP scores worsened, perhaps reinforcing the temporary impact of medical treatment. Younger patients reported more negative impact upon their HRQoL. Further evidence using classical test theory to support the EHPs' robust psychometric properties, including acceptability, dimensionality, reliability, validity (including cross-cultural), and responsiveness, was demonstrated, particularly for the EHP-30. Strikingly, using anchor-based methods, EHP-30 responsiveness studies demonstrate the largest mean changes in the 'control and powerlessness' domain post-intervention, followed by 'pain'. MMAT outcomes indicated the quality of the papers was good, with the exception of five studies. A meta-analysis was not undertaken owing to the heterogeneity of the interventions and papers included in this review.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Women with endometriosis face a lifetime of surgical and/or medical interventions to keep the condition under control. Less invasive treatments that can lead to improved longer term physical and psycho-social outcomes are needed. The EHPs are reliable, valid, acceptable, and responsive tools, but more assessment of EHP outcomes using modern psychometric methods and in the context of women from ethnically diverse backgrounds and in routine clinical care would be beneficial. Given the brevity of the EHP-5, it may be the most appropriate version to use in routine clinical practice, whereas the longer EHP-30, which provides more granularity, is more appropriate for research.

UHPLC-MS/MS Method Development and Validation for the Genotoxic Impurities Trimethyl Phosphate and Triisopropyl Phosphate of Elagolix Sodium

Elagolix sodium is a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonist that inhibits endogenous GnRH signaling by competitively binding to GnRH receptors in the pituitary gland to treat moderate to severe pain associated with endometriosis. To keep the safety and quality of the drug, a fast quantitative method by reversed-phase ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry has been developed and validated for the identification, assay and estimation of potential genotoxic impurities trimethyl phosphate and triisopropyl phosphate in commercial batches of this active pharmaceutical ingredient in accordance with International Conference on Harmonization guidelines Q2 and M7. The method was validated by assessing specificity, sensitivity, linearity, the limit of quantification and detection, accuracy, precision and robustness for above analytes at a very low concentration, whose quantification and detection limits reached to 24 and 4.8 pg/ml, respectively, and the total run time for a single injection was 6 min.

Considerations on implementation of the newest treatment for symptomatic uterine fibroids: Oral GnRH antagonists

Novel gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist treatments have recently been developed in combination with hormonal add-back therapy, as an oral treatment option for women suffering from uterine fibroids. Registration trials assessing the GnRH antagonist combination preparations with relugolix, elagolix and linzagolix have assessed treatment efficacy for fibroid-related heavy menstrual blood loss in comparison to placebo. Marketing authorization has been granted by several agencies including those in Europe, the United Kingdom and the United States. While the registration trials report a robust effect on the reduction of heavy menstrual blood loss and improvement in quality of life scores, reticence is advised before widespread prescription. In this review, we demonstrate limitations in the trial data, namely a lack of generalizability due to the restricted study population, the lack of transparency in the distribution of disease-level characteristics limiting the predictability of treatment success in the real-world diverse population, and the absence of any comparison to current alternative treatment methods. Importantly, no clinically meaningful volume reductions were found with GnRH antagonist combination preparations, and long-term safety data, particularly concerning modest but stable bone mineral density decline, need further addressing. Symptoms related to uterine fibroids adversely affect many women's quality of life and effective medical treatments are lacking. However, despite the urgent need for conservative treatments, it is vitally important that novel drugs, like combination oral GnRH antagonists, undergo sufficiently rigorous evaluation of safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in a representative population and are compared with alternative treatment methods before introduction into mainstream clinical practice.

A review of phase II and III drugs for the treatment and management of endometriosis

INTRODUCTION

Endometriosis is an estrogen-dependent disease that gives rise to pelvic pain and infertility. Although estroprogestins and progestins currently stand as the first-line treatments for this condition, demonstrating efficacy in two-thirds of patients, a significant portion of individuals experience only partial relief or symptom recurrence following the cessation of these therapies. The coexistence of superficial, deep endometriosis, and ovarian endometriomas, as three distinct phenotypes with unique pathogenetic and molecular characteristics, may elucidate the current heterogeneous biological response to available therapy.

AREAS COVERED

The objective of this review is to furnish the reader with a comprehensive summary pertaining to phase II-III hormonal treatments for endometriosis.

EXPERT OPINION

Ongoing research endeavors are directed toward the development of novel hormonal options for this benign yet debilitating disease. Among them, oral GnRH antagonists emerge as a noteworthy option, furnishing rapid therapeutic onset without an initial flare-up; these drugs facilitate partial or complete estrogen suppression, and promote prompt ovarian function recovery upon discontinuation, effectively surmounting the limitations associated with previously employed GnRH agonists. Limited evidence supports the use of selective estrogen and progesterone receptor modulators. Consequently, further extensive clinical research is imperative to garner a more profound understanding of innovative targets for novel hormonal options.

Safety, Pharmacokinetics, and Pharmacodynamics of SHR7280, a Non-peptide GnRH Antagonist in Premenopausal Women with Endometriosis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase 1 Study

BACKGROUND

Oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists are promising agents in the treatment of endometriosis-related pain. Here we assessed the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics (PD) of SHR7280, an oral non-peptide GnRH antagonist in premenopausal women with endometriosis.

METHODS

In the Phase 1 part of the randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, dose-ascending, Phase 1/2 trial, premenopausal women with endometriosis were randomized (4:1) to receive SHR7280 or placebo treatment for 21 consecutive days. The treatment dose started from 200 mg QD, and then increased to 300 mg QD and 200 mg BID. Safety, PK, and PD parameters were assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 30 patients received assigned treatment, 24 with SHR7280 and 6 with placebo. SHR7280 was well tolerated. Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 19 (79.2%, 19/24) patients in the SHR7280 group and 5 (83.3%, 5/6) patients in the placebo group. Most AEs were mild and no severe AEs occurred. SHR7280 showed a rapid absorption, with a time to maximum plasma concentration (Tmax) of 1.0 h, 1.0 h, and 0.8 h for the 200 mg QD, 300 mg QD, and 200 mg BID regimens, respectively. Plasma concentration of SHR7280 was dose dependent. The mean half-life (t1/2) at steady state was 6.9 h, 7.4 h, and 2.8 h, respectively, and little or no accumulation was observed. Pharmacodynamic analysis showed that SHR7280 could effectively suppress estradiol and luteinizing hormone concentrations and prevent progesterone increase in a dose-dependent manner. SHR7280 at doses of 300 mg QD and 200 mg BID could suppress estradiol levels within the desired therapeutic window of 20-50 pg/mL throughout the treatment period.

CONCLUSIONS

SHR7280 showed favorable safety, PK, and PD profiles in the doses of 200 mg QD, 300 mg QD, and 200 mg BID. The results of this study provide evidence to support the further development of SHR7280 as a GnRH antagonist for the treatment of endometriosis-related pain in the subsequent Phase 2 trial.

TRIAL REGISTRY

Trial registration number: Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT04417972. Trial registration date: 5 June 2020.

Epigenetic Dysregulation in Endometriosis: Implications for Pathophysiology and Therapeutics

Endometriosis is a prevalent gynecological condition associated with pelvic pain and infertility. Despite more than a century of research, the etiology of endometriosis still eludes scientific consensus. This lack of clarity has resulted in suboptimal prevention, diagnosis, and treatment options. Evidence of genetic contributors to endometriosis is interesting but limited; however, significant progress has been made in recent years in identifying an epigenetic role in the pathogenesis of endometriosis through clinical studies, in vitro cell culture experiments, and in vivo animal models. The predominant findings include endometriosis-related differential expression of DNA methyltransferases and demethylases, histone deacetylases, methyltransferases, and demethylases, and regulators of chromatin architecture. There is also an emerging role for miRNAs in controlling epigenetic regulators in the endometrium and endometriosis. Changes in these epigenetic regulators result in differential chromatin organization and DNA methylation, with consequences for gene expression independent of a genetic sequence. Epigenetically altered expression of genes related to steroid hormone production and signaling, immune regulation, and endometrial cell identity and function have all been identified and appear to play into the pathophysiological mechanisms of endometriosis and resulting infertility. This review summarizes and critically discusses early seminal findings, the ever-growing recent evidence of epigenetic contributions to the pathophysiology of endometriosis, and implications for proposed epigenetically targeted therapeutics.

Efficacy and safety of oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists in moderate-to-severe endometriosis-associated pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this NMA is to comprehensively analyze evidence of oral GnRH antagonist in the treatment of moderate-to-severe endometriosis-associated pain.

METHODS

Literature searching was performed to select eligible studies published prior to April 2022 in PubMed, Cochrane, Embase and Web of Science. Randomized controlled trials involving patients who suffered from moderate-to-severe endometriosis-associated pain and treated with oral nonpeptide GnRH antagonists or placebo were included.

RESULTS

Elagolix 400 mg and ASP1707 15 mg were most efficient in reducing pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea and dyspareunia. Relugolix 40 mg was best in reducing the analgesics use. The rates of any TEAEs and TEAEs-related discontinuation were highest in relugolix 40 mg and elagolix 250 mg, respectively, while rates of hot flush and headache were highest in relugolix 40 mg and elagolix 150 mg. Significantly decreased spinal BMD was observed in elagolix 250 mg.

CONCLUSION

Oral GnRH antagonists were effective in endometriosis-associated pain in 12w, and most of the efficiency and safety outcomes were expressed in a dose-dependent manner, but linzagolix 75 mg was an exception.

The Present and the Future of Medical Therapies for Adenomyosis: A Narrative Review

Uterine Adenomyosis is a benign condition characterized by the presence of endometrium-like epithelial and stromal tissue in the myometrium. Several medical treatments have been proposed, but still, no guidelines directing the management of adenomyosis are available. While a hysterectomy is typically regarded as the definitive treatment for adenomyosis, the scarcity of high-quality data leaves patients desiring fertility with limited conservative options. Based on the available data, the levonorgestrel-IUD appears to offer the most favorable outcomes. Other treatments, including GnRH antagonists, dienogest, prolactin, and oxytocin modulators, show promise; however, further data are required to establish their efficacy definitively. Furthermore, there are many emerging therapies that have been developed that seem worthy of consideration in the near future. The aim of this narrative review was to explore the current medical treatments available for adenomyosis and to provide a glimpse of future therapies under assessment. For this scope, we performed a literature search on PubMed and Medline from incept to September 2022 using the keywords: "medical treatment", "non-steroidal anti-inflammatory", "progesterone intrauterine device", "dienogest", "combined oral contraceptives", "gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist", "gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist", "danazol", "aromatase inhibitors", "ulipristal acetate", "anti-platelet therapy", "dopamine", "oxytocin antagonists", "STAT3", "KRAS", "MAPK", "micro-RNA", "mifepristone", "valproic acid", "levo-tetrahydropalamatine", and "andrographolide". The search was limited to articles in English, with subsequent screening of abstracts. Abstracts were screened to select relevant studies.

Clinical Efficacy, Pharmacokinetics, and Safety of the Available Medical Options in the Treatment of Endometriosis-Related Pelvic Pain: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

In this scoping review, we sought to identify published studies evaluating the drugs currently used in the treatment of endometriosis-related pelvic pain, with reflection on their chemical properties, pharmacokinetics, safety profile, and clinical efficacy.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted with the use of the PubMed and EMBASE electronic databases, focusing on identifying articles published in English between January 1990 and 2023.

RESULTS

Based on the included studies, current therapy options for the treatment of endometriosis-related pain identified and reviewed in this article were: (1) non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; (2) combined oral contraceptive (COCs); (3) progestins; (4) gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists; (5) aromatase inhibitors (AIs); (6) selective estrogen and progesterone receptor modulators; and (7) levonorgestrel-intrauterine device.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the published evidence, clinicians should consider NSAIDs, COCs, and progestins as the first-line medical therapies. Compared with second-line options, such as GnRH agonists/antagonists or AIs, the abovementioned first-line options are well tolerated, efficacious, and exhibit lower overall price. Future research priorities should be to identify novel target therapies and to evaluate the effects of available drugs through different routes of administration.

Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone (GnRH)/GnRH Receptors and Their Role in the Treatment of Endometriosis

Endometriosis, defined as the development of endometrial tissue outside of the uterine cavity, is a common gynecological disorder. The prevalence of pelvic endometriosis approaches 6%-10% in the general female population, and in women with pain, infertility, or both, the frequency is 35%-50%. The gold standard recommended process for diagnosing endometriosis is laparoscopy, an invasive surgical procedure, with or without histologic verification. The currently available nonsurgical treatments include oral contraceptives (estrogen-progestogen preparations), progestogen preparations (containing progesterone derivatives), androgenic hormones (danazol), and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists and antagonists. Two GnRH types have been discovered in mammals, GnRH I and GnRH II. In particular, GnRH I is released by the hypothalamus; however, it can be present in various tissues and organs of the body, including neural tissue, where it exerts neuroendocrine, autocrine, and paracrine actions in the peripheral and central nervous system (CNS). Interestingly, another GnRH isoform, GnRH III, has been identified, which has 60% similarity with GnRH I from which it varies by four amino acids. This peptide has been shown to have a significant role in reproduction, specifically in gametogenesis and steroidogenesis. Further research is needed to identify innovative treatment options for endometriosis, such as the therapeutic exogenous administration of GnRH II or antagonists of the GnRH I receptor. In this review, we examined the role of GnRH in endometriosis, outlining the specific actions of GnRH and GnRH receptors (GnRHRs). The innovative use of GnRH analogs and antagonists in the treatment of endometriosis is also discussed.

Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Antagonists-A New Hope in Endometriosis Treatment?

Endometriosis is a chronic disease, in which endometrial-like tissue is found outside the uterine cavity. Lesions are typically located in the true pelvis but can be found, in addition to extragenital endometriosis, in the respiratory system, the diaphragm, the pleura or the pericardium. As the extrauterine endometrial lesions undergo the menstrual cycle, they cause many symptoms, including pain, and besides infertility, they all mostly affect the quality of the patient's life. Pharmacological management of endometriosis significantly increases in importance either as a first-line treatment or as a complementary therapy after surgery. Yet, current research on antagonists of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) has revealed their potential benefits in endometriosis treatment. Their mechanism of action is to down-regulate the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis and therefore induce a hypoestrogenic state. The resulting reduction of estrogen levels prevents disease progression and diminishes the recurrence rate after surgical removal of endometriosis. The present review summarizes recent reports of the role oral GnRH antagonists have as a significant treatment option for pain reduction in endometriosis patients.

Oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists for treating endometriosis-associated pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To review the use of oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists and synthesize their efficacy and safety parameters for the treatment of endometriosis-associated pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Premenopausal women with endometriosis who had experienced moderate or severe pain.

INTERVENTION(S)

The Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and MEDLINE were searched until April 10, 2022. Only randomized controlled trials were included. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2. A Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis was used to perform indirect comparisons. I² was used to assess the global heterogeneity. Relative treatment estimates were performed. Treatment ranking was performed through the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Endometriosis-associated pain, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, and noncyclic pelvic pain reduction.

RESULT

(s): Five studies and 6 randomized controlled trials, including a total of 2,796 women and 10 different doses of oral GnRH antagonist treatments, were eligible for inclusion. All studies were considered to have a low risk of bias. Almost all efficacy- and safety-related outcomes showed a dose-response relationship. Regarding endometriosis-associated pain, the top 3 treatments were elagolix 400 mg, linzagolix 75 mg, and linzagolix 200 mg, with mean differences of -1.26 (95% credible interval [CrI], -1.70 to -0.79), -0.98 (95% CrI, -1.84 to -0.15), and -0.98 (95% CrI, -1.90 to -0.064), respectively. The top 3 treatments to decrease dysmenorrhea were relugolix 40 mg, elagolix 400 mg, and relugolix 20 mg, with mean differences of -1.60 (95% CrI, -2.07 to -1.14), -1.25 (95% CrI, -1.56 to -0.95), and -1.10 (95% CrI, -1.59 to -0.62), respectively. However, only high-dose treatments were significantly associated with most quality of life- and adverse effect-related outcomes. Relugolix 40 and 20 mg and elagolix 400 mg, with odds ratios of 6.88 (95% CrI, 2.18-24.58), 1.60 (95% CrI, 0.62-4.13), and 1.85 (95% CrI, 1.05-3.30), had a significantly increased incidence of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

(s): Oral GnRH antagonists are effective for endometriosis-associated pain and dysmenorrhea and the patient global impression. The incidence of ovarian hypoestrogenic effects in a short-term duration was significant in a dose-effect response, particularly the highest dose.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews registration number CRD42022332904.

Conservative Management of Uterine Adenomyosis: Medical vs. Surgical Approach

Uterine adenomyosis is a commonly encountered estrogen-dependent disease in reproductive-age women, causing heavy menstrual bleeding, intense pelvic pain, and infertility. Although adenomyosis was previously considered a disease of multiparous women, it is becoming increasingly evident that it also affects younger nulliparous women and may compromise their fertility potential. It is clear that hysterectomy, the standard approach to definitively manage the disease, is not an option for patients wishing to preserve their fertility, so there is an urgent need to develop novel conservative strategies. We searched the current literature for available methods for conservative management of adenomyosis, including both pharmacological and surgical approaches. There is no existing drug that can cure adenomyosis at present, but some off-label treatment options may be used to tackle disease symptoms and improve fertility outcomes. Adenomyosis in patients wishing to conceive can be 'treated' by conservative surgery, though these procedures require highly experienced surgeons and pose a considerable risk of uterine rupture during subsequent pregnancies. While currently available options for conservative management of adenomyosis do have some capacity for alleviating symptoms and enhancing patient fertility perspectives, more effective new options are needed, with gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists showing encouraging results in preliminary studies.

Current approaches to overcome the side effects of GnRH analogs in the treatment of patients with uterine fibroids

Introduction: Uterine fibroids (UFs) are the most prevalent benign neoplastic threat originating from myometria of reproductive age women, with a profound financial load valued in hundreds of billions of dollars. Unfortunately, there is no curative treatment so far except surgery and available pharmacological treatments are restricted for short-term treatment options. Thus, there is a large unmet need in the UF space for noninvasive therapeutics.Areas covered: The authors reviewed the literature available for the utility of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogs in women with UFs. We also focused on clinical studies exploring the therapeutic benefits of novel oral non-peptide GnRH antagonists that were recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in combination with estradiol/norethindrone acetate for the management of heavy menstrual bleeding associated with UFs in premenopausal women.Expert opinion: The results regarding the efficacy of new-generation oral GnRH-antagonists, such as elagolix, relugolix and linzagolix, are promising and offer potential prospect for the future therapy of UFs. However, these antagonists must be combined with hormonal add-back therapy to minimize the resultant hypoestrogenic side effects such as bone loss.

GnRH Antagonists with or without Add-Back Therapy: A New Alternative in the Management of Endometriosis?

To evaluate the effectiveness of a new class of medical drugs, namely oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists, in the management of premenopausal women with endometriosis-associated pelvic pain. We reviewed the most relevant papers (n = 27) on the efficacy of new medical alternatives (oral GnRH antagonists) as therapy for endometriosis. We first briefly summarized the concept of progesterone resistance and established that oral contraceptives and progestogens work well in two-thirds of women suffering from endometriosis. Since clinical evidence shows that estrogens play a critical role in the pathogenesis of the disease, lowering their levels with oral GnRH antagonists may well prove effective, especially in women who fail to respond to progestogens. There is a need for reliable long-term oral treatment capable of managing endometriosis symptoms, taking into consideration both the main symptoms and phenotype of the disease. Published studies reviewed and discussed here confirm the efficacy of GnRH antagonists. There is a place for GnRH antagonists in the management of symptomatic endometriosis. Novel algorithms that take into account the different phenotypes are proposed.

New Therapeutics in Endometriosis: A Review of Hormonal, Non-Hormonal, and Non-Coding RNA Treatments

Endometriosis is defined as endometrial-like tissue outside the uterine cavity. It is a chronic inflammatory estrogen-dependent disease causing pain and infertility in about 10% of women of reproductive age. Treatment nowadays consists of medical and surgical therapies. Medical treatments are based on painkillers and hormonal treatments. To date, none of the medical treatments have been able to cure the disease and symptoms recur as soon as the medication is stopped. The development of new biomedical targets, aiming at the cellular and molecular mechanisms responsible for endometriosis, is needed. This article summarizes the most recent medications under investigation in endometriosis treatment with an emphasis on non-coding RNAs that are emerging as key players in several human diseases, including cancer and endometriosis.

Efficacy and safety of elagolix with add-back therapy in women with uterine fibroids and coexisting adenomyosis

Objective

To determine if coexisting adenomyosis limits the efficacy of elagolix, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, with hormonal add-back therapy in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding in women with uterine fibroids.

Design

Pooled analysis of two identical, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, 6-month phase 3 trials (Elaris Uterine Fibroids [UF]-1 and UF-2).

Setting

A total of 153 gynecological clinical care settings in the United States and Canada.

Patients

Premenopausal women (18-51 years) with >80 mL of menstrual blood loss (MBL)/cycle and uterine fibroids with and without coexisting adenomyosis diagnosed by ultrasound and/or magnetic resonance imaging at baseline.

Interventions

Participants were randomized 1:1:2 to placebo, elagolix 300 mg twice daily alone, or elagolix 300 mg twice daily with estradiol 1 mg/norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg once daily.

Main Outcome Measures

The primary endpoint was the proportion of women who had <80 mL of MBL during the final month and ≥50% reduction in MBL from baseline to the final month. Adverse events were monitored.

Results

Of 786 women treated across the two trials, 16% (126 women) had coexisting adenomyosis. Among this subset, a significantly greater proportion of women who received elagolix with add-back therapy (77.1% [95% confidence interval, 66.2, 88.0]) met both primary endpoint criteria compared with women who received placebo (12.2% [95% confidence interval, 1.0, 23.4]). Adverse events most frequently reported in the elagolix with add-back adenomyosis subset were hot flushes (18.3%), nausea (11.7%), and night sweats (8.3%).

Conclusions

Elagolix with add-back therapy significantly reduced heavy menstrual bleeding in women with uterine fibroids and coexisting adenomyosis, suggesting that elagolix efficacy was not adversely affected by the presence of adenomyosis (Elaris UF-1 and UF-2 Clinical-Trials.gov numbers, NCT02654054 and NCT02691494).

Bone Mineral Density Changes Associated With Pregnancy, Lactation, and Medical Treatments in Premenopausal Women and Effects Later in Life

Bone mineral density (BMD) changes during the life span, increasing rapidly during adolescence, plateauing in the third decade of life, and subsequently entering a phase of age-related decline. In women, menopause leads to accelerated bone loss and an increase in fracture risk. Between peak bone mass attainment and menopause, BMD is generally stable and the risk of fracture is typically low. This time period is marked by life events such as pregnancy and lactation, which transiently decrease BMD, yet their long-term effects on fracture risk are less certain. BMD may also be altered by exposure to medications that affect bone metabolism (e.g., contraceptives, glucocorticoids, antidiabetic medications, antiepileptic drugs). Although oral contraceptives are often believed to be neutral with regard to bone health, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists have been associated with decreases in BMD. Development of newer medical therapies, principally GnRH antagonists (e.g., ASP1707, elagolix, linzagolix, relugolix), for treatment of endometriosis-associated pelvic pain and heavy menstrual bleeding due to uterine fibroids has renewed interest in the short- and long-term impacts of changes in BMD experienced by premenopausal women. It is important to understand how these drugs influence BMD and put the findings into context with regard to measurement variability and naturally occurring factors that influence bone health. This review summarizes what is known about the effects on bone health pregnancy, lactation, and use of DMPA, GnRH agonists, and GnRH antagonists in premenopausal women and potential consequences later in life. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03213457.

Role of medical treatment of endometriosis

Endometriosis is a chronic benign disease that affects women of reproductive age. Medical therapy is often the first line of management for women with endometriosis in order to ameliorate symptoms or to prevent post-surgical disease recurrence. Currently, there are several medical options for the management of patients with endometriosis and long-term treatments should balance clinical efficacy (controlling pain symptoms and preventing recurrence of disease after surgery) with an acceptable safety-profile. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used in the treatment of chronic inflammatory conditions, being efficacious in relieving primary dysmenorrhea. Combined oral contraceptives and progestins, available for multiple routes of administration, are commonly administered as first-line hormonal therapies. Several studies demonstrated that they succeed in improving pain symptoms in the majority of patients; moreover, they are well tolerated and not expensive. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone-agonists are prescribed when first line therapies are ineffective, not tolerated or contraindicated. Even if these drugs are efficacious in treating women not responding to COCs or progestins, they are not orally available and have a less favorable tolerability profile (needing an appropriate add-back therapy). Because few data are available on long-term efficacy and safety of aromatase inhibitors they should be reserved only for women with symptoms who are refractory to other treatments only in a research environment. Almost all of the currently available treatment options for endometriosis suppress ovarian function and are not curative. For this reason, research into new drugs is unsurprisingly demanding. Amongst the drugs currently under investigation, gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists have shown most promise, currently in late-stage clinical development. There is a number of potential future therapies currently tested only in vitro, in animal models of endometriosis or in early clinical studies with a small sample size. Further studies are necessary to conclude whether these treatments would be of value for the treatment of endometriosis.

A Clinician's Guide to the Treatment of Endometriosis with Elagolix

Pain associated with endometriosis is a considerable burden for women, permeating all aspects of their lives, from their ability to perform daily activities to their quality of life. Although there are many options for endometriosis-associated pain management, they are often limited by insufficient efficacy, inconvenient routes of administration, and/or intolerable side effects. Elagolix, a nonpeptide, small-molecule gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonist, is the first new oral therapy to be approved for the treatment of endometriosis-associated pain in the United States in more than a decade. Modulation of estradiol with elagolix is dose dependent and ranges from partial to full suppression. Clinical evidence has shown that elagolix at both approved doses (150 mg once daily and 200 mg twice daily) is effective for reducing symptoms of pelvic pain (dysmenorrhea, nonmenstrual pelvic pain, and dyspareunia), improving quality of life, and decreasing use of rescue analgesics (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and/or opioids). The availability of two dosing options allows for individualization of treatment based on baseline clinical factors and response to therapy. Elagolix is well tolerated, with less pronounced hypoestrogenic effects compared with GnRH agonists. This review provides an overview of elagolix, highlighting currently available treatment options and the application of this new treatment for women with endometriosis-associated pain.

Elagolix in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids in premenopausal women

INTRODUCTION

Uterine fibroids (UFs) are the most common benign tumor arising from myometrium of reproductive age women, with significant financial burden estimated in hundreds of billions of dollars. Unfortunately, there are limitations in available long-term treatment options. Thus, there is a large unmet need in the UF space for noninvasive therapeutics.

AREAS COVERED

Authors reviewed the literature available for elagolix; an orally bioavailable, second-generation, non-peptide gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in combination with estradiol/norethindrone acetate for the management of heavy menstrual bleeding associated with UFs in premenopausal women.

EXPERT OPINION

The utility of new-generation oral GnRH-antagonists, such as elagolix, relugolix and linzagolix, is offering a new potential opportunity for the future therapy of UFs: elagolix has been the most studied drug of this class for treating benign gynecological diseases, including endometriosis and UFs, for which it has been US FDA-approved in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

Suppression of TLR4-MyD88 signaling pathway attenuated chronic mechanical pain in a rat model of endometriosis

BACKGROUND

As a classic innate immunity pathway, Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) signaling has been intensively investigated for its function of pathogen recognition. The receptor is located not only on immune cells but also on sensory neurons and spinal glia. Recent studies revealed the involvement of neuronal TLR4 in different types of pain. However, the specific role of TLR4 signaling in the pain symptom of endometriosis (EM) remains obscure.

METHODS

The rat endometriosis model was established by transplanting uterine horn tissue into gastrocnemius. Western blotting and/or immunofluorescent staining were applied to detect high mobility group box 1 (HMGB1), TLR4, myeloid differentiation factor-88 adaptor protein (MyD88), and nuclear factor kappa-B-p65 (NF-κB-p65) expression, as well as the activation of astrocyte and microglia. The antagonist of TLR4 (LPS-RS-Ultra, LRU) and MyD88 homodimerization inhibitory peptide (MIP) were intrathecally administrated to assess the behavioral effects of blocking TLR4 signaling on endometriosis-related pain.

RESULTS

Mechanical hyperalgesia was observed at the graft site, while HMGB1 was upregulated in the implanted uterine tissue, dorsal root ganglion (DRG), and spinal dorsal horn (SDH). Compared with sham group, upregulated TLR4, MyD88, and phosphorylated NF-κB-p65 were detected in the DRG and SDH in EM rats. The activation of astrocytes and microglia in the SDH was also confirmed in EM rats. Intrathecal application of LRU and MIP alleviated mechanical pain on the graft site of EM rats, with decreased phosphorylation of NF-κB-p65 in the DRG and reduced activation of glia in the SDH.

CONCLUSIONS

HMGB1-TLR4-MyD88 signaling pathway in the DRG and SDH may involve in endometriosis-related hyperpathia. Blockade of TLR4 and MyD88 might serve as a potential treatment for pain in endometriosis.

Endometriosis and Medical Therapy: From Progestogens to Progesterone Resistance to GnRH Antagonists: A Review

Background: The first objective of this review was to present, based on recent literature, the most frequently applied medical options (oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) and progestogens) for the management of symptomatic endometriosis, and evaluate their effectiveness in treating premenopausal women with endometriosis-associated pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, non-menstrual pelvic pain and dyspareunia. The second objective was to review the concept of progesterone resistance and newly available treatment options. Methods: We reviewed the most relevant papers (n = 73) on the efficacy of OCPs and progestogens as medical therapy for endometriosis, as well as those on progesterone resistance and new medical alternatives (oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist). Eleven papers, essentially reviews, were selected and scrutinized from among 94 papers discussing the concept of progesterone resistance. Results: Having reviewed the most significant papers, we can confirm that OCPs and progestogens are effective in two-thirds of women suffering from endometriosis, but that other options are required in case of failure (in one-third of women due to progesterone resistance) or intolerance to these compounds. It is clear that there is a need for effective long-term oral treatment capable of managing endometriosis symptoms, while mitigating the impact of side effects. Biochemical, histological and clinical evidence show that estrogens play a critical role in the pathogenesis of endometriosis, so lowering levels of circulating estrogens should be considered an effective medical approach. The efficacy of three oral GnRH antagonists is discussed on the basis of published studies. Conclusion: There is a place for GnRH antagonists in the management of symptomatic endometriosis and clinical trials should be conducted, taking into account the different phenotypes in order to propose novel algorithms.

Predictors of response for elagolix with add-back therapy in women with heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids

BACKGROUND:

Uterine fibroids are one of the most common neoplasms found among women globally, with a prevalence of approximately 11 million women in the United States alone. The morbidity of this common disease is significant because it is the leading cause of hysterectomy and causes significant functional impairment for women of reproductive age. Factors including age, body mass index, race, ethnicity, menstrual blood loss, fibroid location, and uterine and fibroid volume influence the incidence of fibroids and severity of symptoms. Elagolix is an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor antagonist that competitively inhibits pituitary gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor activity and suppresses the release of gonadotropins from the pituitary gland, resulting in dose-dependent suppression of ovarian sex hormones, follicular growth, and ovulation. In Elaris Uterine Fibroids 1 and Uterine Fibroids 2, 2 replicate multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies, treatment of premenopausal women with elagolix with hormonal add-back therapy demonstrated reduction in heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids.

OBJECTIVE:

This analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of elagolix (300 mg twice a day) with add-back therapy (1 mg estradiol/0.5 mg norethindrone acetate once a day) in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids in various subgroups of women over 6 months of treatment.

STUDY DESIGN:

Data were pooled from Elaris Uterine Fibroid-1 and Uterine Fibroid-2 studies, which evaluated premenopausal women (18–51 years) with heavy menstrual bleeding (>80 mL menstrual blood loss per cycle, alkaline hematin methodology) and ultrasound-confirmed uterine fibroid diagnosis. Subgroups analyzed included age, body mass index, race, ethnicity, baseline menstrual blood loss, fibroid location, and uterine and primary fibroid volume (largest fibroid identified by ultrasound). The primary endpoint was the proportion of women with <80 mL menstrual blood loss during the final month and ≥50% menstrual blood loss reduction from baseline to final month. Secondary and other efficacy endpoints included mean change in menstrual blood loss from baseline to final month, amenorrhea, symptom severity, and health-related quality of life. Adverse events and other safety endpoints were monitored.

RESULTS:

The overall pooled Elaris Uterine Fibroid-1 and Uterine Fibroid-2 population was typical of women with fibroids, with a mean age of 42.4 (standard deviation, 5.4) years and a mean body mass index of 33.6 (standard deviation, 7.3) kg/m² and 67.6% of participants being black or African American women. A wide range of baseline uterine and fibroid volumes and menstrual blood loss were also represented in the overall pooled study population. In all subgroups, the proportion of responders to the primary endpoint, mean change in menstrual blood loss, amenorrhea, reduction in symptom severity, and improvement in health-related quality of life were clinically meaningfully greater for women who received elagolix with add-back therapy than those who received placebo and consistent with the overall pooled study population for the primary endpoint (72.2% vs 9.3%), mean change in menstrual blood loss (−172.5 mL vs −0.8 mL), amenorrhea (50.4% vs 4.5%), symptom severity (−37.1 vs −9.2), and health-related quality of life score (39.9 vs 8.9). Adverse events by subgroup were consistent with the overall pooled study population.

CONCLUSION:

Elagolix with hormonal add-back therapy was effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids independent of age, body mass index, race, ethnicity, baseline menstrual blood loss, fibroid location, and uterine and primary fibroid volume.

Pathophysiological Basis of Endometriosis-Linked Stress Associated with Pain and Infertility: A Conceptual Review

Women with endometriosis are often under stress due to the associated pain, infertility, inflammation-related and other comorbidities including cancer. Additionally, these women are also under stress due to taboos, myths, inter-personal troubles surrounding infertility and pain of the disease as well as due to frequent incidences of missed diagnosis and treatment recurrence. Often these women suffer from frustration and loss of valuable time in the prime phase of life. All these complexities integral to endometriosis posit a hyperstructure of integrative stress physiology with overt differentials in effective allostatic state in women with disease compared with disease-free women. In the present review, we aim to critically examine various aspects of pathophysiological basis of stress surrounding endometriosis with special emphasis on pain and subfertility that are known to affect the overall health and quality of life of women with the disease and promising pathophysiological basis for its effective management.

Medical therapy options for endometriosis related pain, which is better? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Our objective was to assess and rank different pharmacological interventions for relieving endometriosis-related pain. We conducted an online bibliographic search in different databases from their inception until March 2019. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed different medical therapies in the management of endometriosis-related pain. We applied this network meta-analysis (NMA) based on the frequentist approach using statistical package "netmeta" (version 1.0-1) in R software. Our main outcomes were the change in severity of pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea score, non-menstrual pelvic pain score, and dyspareunia score. Overall, 36 RCTs were included in this study (patients no. = 7942). Dienogest (0.94), combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) (0.782), and elagolix (0.38) were the highest-ranked interventions for reducing the severity of pelvic pain at three months, while at six months, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues (0.75), levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) (0.73), and dienogest (0.65) were linked to more reduction in pelvic pain. The ranking p-score showed that GnRH analogues was the highest-ranked treatment for reducing dysmenorrhea at 3 months (1.00), while CHCs were the highest-ranked treatment at 6 months (0.97), followed by GnRH analogues (0.89). GnRH analogues (0.63) and elagolix (0.54) at three months while desogestrel (0.94) and CHCs (0.91) at six months were the highest-ranked treatment to reduce non-menstrual pelvic pain. GnRH analogues and elagolix were the highest-ranked pharmacologic therapies for reducing dyspareunia. In conclusion, CHCs, GnRH analogues, progesterone, and elagolix were the best approaches in reducing the pain of endometriosis.

Elagolix Suppresses Ovulation in a Dose-Dependent Manner: Results From a 3-Month, Randomized Study in Ovulatory Women

CONTEXT

Elagolix is an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist recently approved for the treatment of endometriosis-associated pain and being developed for heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to evaluate the effects of elagolix on ovulation and ovarian sex hormones.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This was a randomized, open-label, multicenter study.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were healthy ovulatory women aged 18 to 40 years.

INTERVENTIONS

Elagolix was administered orally for 3 continuous 28-day dosing intervals at 100 to 200 mg once daily (QD), 100 to 300 mg twice daily (BID), and 300 mg BID plus estradiol/norethindrone acetate (E2/NETA) 1/0.5 mg QD.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcomes measures were ovulation rates measured by transvaginal ultrasound, progesterone concentrations, and hormone suppression.

RESULTS

Elagolix suppressed ovulation in a dose-dependent manner. The percentage of women who ovulated was highest at 100 mg QD (78%), intermediate at 150 and 200 mg QD and 100 mg BID (47%-57%), and lowest at 200 and 300 mg BID (32% and 27%, respectively). Addition of E2/NETA to elagolix 300 mg BID further suppressed the ovulation rate to 10%. Elagolix also suppressed luteinizing hormone and follicle stimulating hormone in a dose-dependent manner, leading to dose-dependent suppression of estradiol and progesterone. Elagolix had no effect on serum biomarker of ovarian reserve, and reduced endometrial thickness compared to the screening cycle.

CONCLUSION

Women being treated with elagolix may ovulate and should use effective methods of contraception. The rate of ovulation was lowest with elagolix 300 mg BID plus E2/NETA 1/0.5 mg QD.

Elagolix in the treatment of endometriosis: impact beyond pain symptoms

While the most common symptom associated with endometriosis is pelvic pain, the systemic manifestations of the disease and the accompanying adverse psychological, emotional, social, familial, sexual, educational and workplace effects are increasingly recognized. Elagolix is an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor antagonist that is approved for the management of moderate to severe pain associated with endometriosis. However, the benefits of elagolix extend beyond reducing pain symptoms. This article reviews the non-pain systemic manifestations associated with endometriosis and summarizes the beneficial effects of elagolix on non-pain outcomes. This includes improvements in quality of life, reductions in fatigue and improvements in workplace and household productivity. These results indicate that elagolix provides non-pain benefits in women with endometriosis and improves outcomes that are clinically meaningful to patients.

Long-Term Outcomes of Elagolix in Women With Endometriosis: Results From Two Extension Studies

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of elagolix, an oral, nonpeptide gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, over 12 months in women with endometriosis-associated pain.

METHODS

Elaris Endometriosis (EM)-III and -IV were extension studies that evaluated an additional 6 months of treatment after two 6-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials (12 continuous treatment months) with two elagolix doses (150 mg once daily and 200 mg twice daily). Coprimary efficacy endpoints were the proportion of responders (clinically meaningful pain reduction and stable or decreased rescue analgesic use) based on average monthly dysmenorrhea and nonmenstrual pelvic pain scores. Safety assessments included adverse events, clinical laboratory tests, and endometrial and bone mineral density assessments. The power of Elaris EM-III and -IV was based on the comparison to placebo in Elaris EM-I and -II with an expected 25% dropout rate.

RESULTS

Between December 28, 2012, and October 31, 2014 (Elaris EM-III), and between May 27, 2014, and January 6, 2016 (Elaris EM-IV), 569 participants were enrolled. After 12 months of treatment, Elaris EM-III responder rates for dysmenorrhea were 52.1% at 150 mg once daily (Elaris EM-IV 550.8%) and 78.2% at 200 mg twice daily (Elaris EMIV 575.9%). Elaris EM-III nonmenstrual pelvic pain responder rates were 67.5% at 150 mg once daily (Elaris EM-IV 566.4%) and 69.1% at 200 mg twice daily (Elaris EM-IV 567.2%).”After 12 months of treatment, Elaris EM-III dyspareunia responder rates were 45.2% at 150 mg once daily (Elaris EM-IV=45.9%) and 60.0% at 200 mg twice daily (Elaris EM-IV=58.1%). Hot flush was the most common adverse event. Decreases from baseline in bone mineral density and increases from baseline in lipids were observed after 12 months of treatment. There were no adverse endometrial findings.

CONCLUSION

Long-term elagolix treatment provided sustained reductions in dysmenorrhea, nonmenstrual pelvic pain, and dyspareunia. The safety was consistent with reduced estrogen levels and no new safety concerns were associated with long-term elagolix use.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01760954 and NCT02143713.

Clinical evaluation of the oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone-antagonist elagolix for the management of endometriosis-associated pain

Endometriosis is an estrogen-dependent chronic inflammatory disease associated with pelvic pain symptoms that are often severe, mainly dysmenorrhea, nonmenstrual pelvic pain and dyspareunia. This condition is also associated with peripheral and central sensitization. The current medical treatment options for endometriosis-associated pain are limited. Recently, the US FDA approved the novel, oral, nonpeptide gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist elagolix for the management of moderate to severe endometriosis-associated pain. Elagolix produces dose-dependent estrogen suppression, from partial suppression at lower doses to nearly full suppression at higher doses. This review article summarizes the current understanding of the pathophysiology of endometriosis, with a focus on the role of estrogen and the mechanisms of pain symptoms, and reviews the clinical development of elagolix in women with endometriosis-associated pain.

Is Scientific Medical Literature Related to Endometriosis Treatment Evidence-Based? A Systematic Review on Methodological Quality of Randomized Clinical Trials

Background and objectives: Informed decision-making requires the ability to identify and integrate high-quality scientific evidence in daily practice. We aimed to assess whether randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on endometriosis therapy follow methodological criteria corresponding to the RCTs' specific level in the hierarchy of evidence in such details to allow the reproduction and replication of the study. Materials and Methods: Using the keywords "therapy" and "endometriosis" and "efficacy" three bibliographic databases were searched for English written scientific articles published from 1 January 2008 to 3 March 2018. Only the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were evaluated in terms of whether they provided the appropriate level of scientific evidence, equivalent to level 1, degree 1b in the hierarchy of evidence. A list of criteria to ensure study replication and reproduction, considering CONSORT guideline and MECIR standards, was developed and used to evaluate RCTs' methodological soundness, and scores were granted. Three types of bias, namely selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), and attrition bias (incomplete outcome data) were also evaluated. Results: We found 387 articles on endometriosis therapy, of which 38 were RCTs: 30 double-blinded RCTs and 8 open-label RCTs. No article achieved the maximum score according to the evaluated methodological criteria. Even though 73.3% of the double-blinded RCTs had clear title, abstract, introduction, and objectives, only 13.3% provided precise information regarding experimental design and randomization, and also showed a low risk of bias. The blinding method was poorly reported in 43.3% of the double-blinded RCTs, while allocation concealment and random sequence generation were inadequate in 33.3% of them. Conclusions: None of the evaluated RCTs met all the methodological criteria, none had only a low risk of bias and provided sufficient details on methods and randomization to allow for the reproduction and replication of the study. Consequently, the appropriate level of scientific evidence (level 1, degree 1b) could not be granted. On endometriosis therapy, this study evaluated the quality of reporting in RCTs and not the quality of how the studies were performed.

Elagolix: First Global Approval

Elagolix (ORILISSA™), an orally bioavailable, second-generation, non-peptide gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonist, is being developed AbbVie and Neurocrine Biosciences for the treatment of reproductive hormone-dependent disorders in women. In July 2018, the US FDA approved elagolix tablets for the management of moderate to severe pain associated with endometriosis. This approval was based on positive results in two replicate phase III trials; additional phase III trials in the USA, Canada and Puerto Rico are currently evaluating elagolix as both monotherapy and in combination with low-dose hormone add-back therapy in the same indication. Elagolix with and without low-dose hormone add-back therapy is also undergoing phase III clinical development for heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids in the aforementioned locations. This article summarizes the milestones in the development of elagolix leading to its first approval for the management of moderate to severe pain associated with endometriosis.

Comparing the effects of Triptorelin and Calendula officinalis on size and pathology of induced endometriosis in rats

Background:

Endometriosis is defined as the growth of endometrial glands and stoma extra-uterine sites. It is an estrogen-dependent inflammatory disease estimated to affect 10% of women of reproductive age. This study aimed at comparing the effects of Triptorelin and Calendula officinalis on the induced endometriosis in female rats.

Materials and Methods:

In this experimental study in an animal model, 52 rats with induced endometriosis were divided into four groups. The control group was treated with 0.5 mL/kg normal saline orally, the second group with single intramuscular injection of Triptorelin S.R.11.25 (3 mg/kg), the third group with Calendula 1000 mg/kg, and the fourth group with Calendula 2000 mg/kg for 6 weeks. The mean area and volume of endometriosis and pathological scores of endometriotic implants were compared between groups.

Results:

After 6 weeks of treatment, Triptorelin was able to reduce the mean area and volume of endometriotic implants (p < 0.05), but Calendula did not have a significant effect compared to the control group. Mean rank of pathologic score in Triptorelin group had a significant difference with the control group and Calendula 1000 mg/kg (adjusted α < 0.001, adjusted α = 0.004). There was no significant difference in score between the control group and Calendula 1000 mg/kg and 2000 mg/kg.

Conclusion:

Based on our findings in the used doses, Calendula was not effective for the treatment of experimental endometriosis in rats.

Randomized clinical trials with run-in periods: frequency, characteristics and reporting

Background

Run-in periods are occasionally used in randomized clinical trials to exclude patients after inclusion, but before randomization. In theory, run-in periods increase the probability of detecting a potential treatment effect, at the cost of possibly affecting external and internal validity. Adequate reporting of exclusions during the run-in period is a prerequisite for judging the risk of compromised validity. Our study aims were to assess the proportion of randomized clinical trials with run-in periods, to characterize such trials and the types of run-in periods and to assess their reporting.

Materials and methods

This was an observational study of 470 PubMed-indexed randomized controlled trial publications from 2014. We compared trials with and without run-in periods, described the types of run-in periods and evaluated the completeness of their reporting by noting whether publications stated the number of excluded patients, reasons for exclusion and baseline characteristics of the excluded patients.

Results

Twenty-five trials reported a run-in period (5%). These were larger than other trials (median number of randomized patients 217 vs 90, P=0.01) and more commonly industry trials (11% vs 3%, P<0.01). The run-in procedures varied in design and purpose. In 23 out of 25 trials (88%), the run-in period was incompletely reported, mostly due to missing baseline characteristics.

Conclusion

Approximately 1 in 20 trials used run-in periods, though much more frequently in industry trials. Reporting of the run-in period was often incomplete, precluding a meaningful assessment of the impact of the run-in period on the validity of trial results. We suggest that current trials with run-in periods are interpreted with caution and that updates of reporting guidelines for randomized trials address the issue.

New insights on the pathogenesis of endometriosis and novel non-surgical therapies

Endometriosis is a disease of theories, but none has succeeded to explain the whole picture. Most widely available drugs for endometriosis aim to relieve symptoms and improve fertility. Unfortunately, many short and long-term side-effects are associated with the treatments. To overcome this problem, researchers have developed many novel therapeutic agents, including non-invasive technique. We aim to provide new insights on pathogenesis model and novel non-surgical treatments for endometriosis, including drugs already available in the market and also drugs which are still under research. Seven novel treatment modalities are recognized, namely dienogest, aromatase inhibitor (AI), gonadotrophine-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, anti tumor necrosing factor (TNF)-α, selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM), selective progesterone receptor modulator (SPRM), and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). Dienogest, AI, and GnRH antagonists are effective novel treatments with good tolerance and safety. SERM and SPRM show inconsistent results, while anti-TNF-α is still in the animal experimental stage. HIFU is a potential futuristic treatment. However, it is still a long way until this technology is truly applicable.

Investigational drugs for the treatment of endometriosis, an update on recent developments

INTRODUCTION

Endometriosis is a hormone-dependent benign chronic disease that requires a chronic medical therapy. Although currently available drugs are efficacious in treating endometriosis-related pain, some women experience partial or no improvement. Moreover, the recurrence of symptoms is expected after discontinuation of the therapies. Currently, new drugs are under intense clinical investigation for the treatment of endometriosis.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to offer the reader a complete and updated overview on new investigational drugs and early molecular targets for the treatment of endometriosis. The authors describe the pre-clinical and clinical development of these agents.

EXPERT OPINION

Among the drugs under investigation, late clinical trials on gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists (GnRH-ant) showed the most promising results for the treatment of endometriosis. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are efficacious in treating endometriosis related pain symptoms but they cause significant adverse effects that limit their long-term use. New targets have been identified to produce drugs for the treatment of endometriosis, but the majority of these new compounds have only been investigated in laboratory studies or early clinical trials. Thus, further clinical research is required in order to elucidate their efficacy and safety in human.

[New medical treatments for painful endometriosis: CNGOF-HAS Endometriosis Guidelines]

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this work is to evaluate the place of new treatments in the management of endometriosis outside the context of infertility.

METHODS

A review of the literature was conducted by consulting Medline data until July 2017.

RESULTS

Dienogest is effective compared to placebo in short term (NP2) and long term (NP4) for the treatment of painful endometriosis. In comparison with GnRH agonists, dienogest is also effective in terms of decreased pain and improved quality of life in non-operated patients (NP2) as well as for recurrence of lesions and symptomatology postoperatively (NP2). Data on GnRH antagonists, selective progesterone receptor modulators as well as selective inhibitors (anti-TNF-α, matrix metalloprotease inhibitors, angiogenesis growth factor inhibitors) are insufficient to provide evidence of interest in clinical practice for the management of painful endometriosis (NP3).

CONCLUSION

Dienogest is recommended as second-line therapy for the management of painful endometriosis (Grade B). Because of lack of evidence, aromatase inhibitors, elagolix, SERM, SPRM and anti-TNF-α are not recommended for the management of painful endometriosis (Grade C).