A prospective, single-centre, single-arm, open label study of the long term use of a gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist (Triptorelin SR, 11.25 mg) in combination with Tibolone add-back therapy in the management of chronic cyclical pelvic pain

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.

Salvia miltiorrhiza-Containing Chinese Herbal Medicine Combined With GnRH Agonist for Postoperative Treatment of Endometriosis: A Systematic Review and meta-Analysis

Background: Endometriosis is an estrogen-dependent gynecological inflammatory condition that may lead to infertility and recurrent pelvic pain. The purpose of this research was to determine the efficacy and safety of Salvia miltiorrhiza-containing Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) combined with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) for postoperative endometriosis management.

Methods:Eight databases were systematically searched before October 2021, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Sceince, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang. Finally, all randomized controlled studies comparing Salvia miltiorrhiza-containing CHM paired with GnRH-a to GnRH-a alone for postoperative endometriosis management were included.

Results: A total of 10 trials involving 836 patients were reported and analyzed. Compared with the control group, the Salvia miltiorrhiza-containing CHM combined with GnRH-a group showed significant superiority in decreasing endometriosis recurrence (risk ratio [RR] = 0.26; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.16–0.41) and increasing the pregnancy rate ([RR] = 1.96; 95% CI: 1.58–2.44). Similarly, the effect of the Salvia miltiorrhiza-containing CHM combined with GnRH-a on CA-125 serum levels was positive (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.79; 95% CI: −1.11 to −0.47). Furthermore, this group showed a significant reduction in adverse effects.

Conclusion: The results indicate that Salvia miltiorrhiza-containing CHM may be a viable choice for postoperative endometriosis therapy, with the potential to enhance pregnancy while decreasing recurrence and adverse effects.

Major depressive symptoms in breast cancer patients with ovarian function suppression: a cross-sectional study comparing ovarian ablation and gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists

BACKGROUND

Ovarian function suppression (OFS) is indicated in premenopausal women with early or metastasis breast cancer, which may be achieved with similar effect by gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) or ovarian ablation (OA). We examined whether there were differences in major depressive symptoms outcomes and its associated factors between gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) and ovarian ablation (OA) in premenopausal breast cancer patients.

METHODS

Premenopausal breast cancer patients from seven hospitals who received OFS participated in the study between June 2019 and June 2020. The correlated variable was the type of ovarian suppression, categorized as either OA (n = 174) or GnRHa (n = 389). Major depressive symptoms was evaluated using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and the Female Sexual Function Index questionnaire was used to assess sexual function.

RESULTS

A total of 563 patients completed the surveys. The mean PHQ-9 sum score was slightly lower in the GnRHa cohort than in the OA cohort (11.4 ± 5.7 vs. 12.8 ± 5.8, P = 0.079). There were significantly fewer patients with major depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 ≥ 15) in the GnRHa cohort (31.1% vs. 40.2%, Exp (B)=1.805, P=0.004). Further, breast-conserving surgery and sexual dysfunction were negatively correlated with major depressive symptoms [mastectomy vs. breast-conserving: Exp (B) = 0.461, P <0.001;[sexual dysfunction vs. normal: Exp (B) = 0.512, P = 0.001].

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to demonstrate that GnRHa results in more favorable depressive symptoms outcomes than OA. Moreover, most patients preferred alternatives to their OFS treatment. These findings can contribute to improving and alleviating the adverse effects of OFS.