-
The New England Journal of Medicine Mar 2015Ovarian failure is a common toxic effect of chemotherapy. Studies of the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists to protect ovarian function have shown... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Ovarian failure is a common toxic effect of chemotherapy. Studies of the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists to protect ovarian function have shown mixed results and lack data on pregnancy outcomes.
METHODS
We randomly assigned 257 premenopausal women with operable hormone-receptor-negative breast cancer to receive standard chemotherapy with the GnRH agonist goserelin (goserelin group) or standard chemotherapy without goserelin (chemotherapy-alone group). The primary study end point was the rate of ovarian failure at 2 years, with ovarian failure defined as the absence of menses in the preceding 6 months and levels of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) in the postmenopausal range. Rates were compared with the use of conditional logistic regression. Secondary end points included pregnancy outcomes and disease-free and overall survival.
RESULTS
At baseline, 218 patients were eligible and could be evaluated. Among 135 with complete primary end-point data, the ovarian failure rate was 8% in the goserelin group and 22% in the chemotherapy-alone group (odds ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09 to 0.97; two-sided P=0.04). Owing to missing primary end-point data, sensitivity analyses were performed, and the results were consistent with the main findings. Missing data did not differ according to treatment group or according to the stratification factors of age and planned chemotherapy regimen. Among the 218 patients who could be evaluated, pregnancy occurred in more women in the goserelin group than in the chemotherapy-alone group (21% vs. 11%, P=0.03); women in the goserelin group also had improved disease-free survival (P=0.04) and overall survival (P=0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Although missing data weaken interpretation of the findings, administration of goserelin with chemotherapy appeared to protect against ovarian failure, reducing the risk of early menopause and improving prospects for fertility. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; POEMS/S0230 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00068601.).
Topics: Adult; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Disease-Free Survival; Female; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Goserelin; Humans; Middle Aged; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Premenopause; Primary Ovarian Insufficiency; Regression Analysis
PubMed: 25738668
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1413204 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Endometriosis is associated with pain and infertility. Surgical interventions aim to remove visible areas of endometriosis and restore the anatomy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Endometriosis is associated with pain and infertility. Surgical interventions aim to remove visible areas of endometriosis and restore the anatomy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of pain and infertility associated with endometriosis.
SEARCH METHODS
This review has drawn on the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group including searching the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, reference lists for relevant trials, and trial registries from inception to April 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic surgery with any other laparoscopic or robotic intervention, holistic or medical treatment, or diagnostic laparoscopy only.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed selection of studies, assessment of trial quality and extraction of relevant data with disagreements resolved by a third review author. We collected data for the core outcome set for endometriosis. Primary outcomes included overall pain and live birth. We evaluated the quality of evidence using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 RCTs. The studies randomised 1563 women with endometriosis. Four RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with diagnostic laparoscopy only. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic excision with diagnostic laparoscopy only. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with laparoscopic ablation or excision and uterine suspension. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection with diagnostic laparoscopy only. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation with diagnostic laparoscopy and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation with laparoscopic excision. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with helium thermal coagulator with laparoscopic ablation or excision with electrodiathermy. One RCT compared conservative laparoscopic surgery with laparoscopic colorectal resection of deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectum. Common limitations in the primary studies included lack of clearly described blinding, failure to fully describe methods of randomisation and allocation concealment, and poor reporting of outcome data. Laparoscopic treatment versus diagnostic laparoscopy We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment on overall pain scores compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only at six months (mean difference (MD) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 1.49; 1 RCT, 16 participants; very low quality evidence) and at 12 months (MD 1.65, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.19; 1 RCT, 16 participants; very low quality evidence), where a positive value means pain relief (the higher the score, the more pain relief) and a negative value reflects pain increase (the lower the score, the worse the increase in pain). No studies looked at live birth. We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment on quality of life compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only: EuroQol-5D index summary at six months (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.18; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence), 12-item Short Form (SF-12) mental health component (MD 2.30, 95% CI -4.50 to 9.10; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence) and SF-12 physical health component (MD 2.70, 95% CI -2.90 to 8.30; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence). Laparoscopic treatment probably improves viable intrauterine pregnancy rate compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only (odds ratio (OR) 1.89, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.86; 3 RCTs, 528 participants; I = 0%; moderate quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only on ectopic pregnancy (MD 1.18, 95% CI 0.10 to 13.48; 1 RCT, 100 participants; low quality evidence) and miscarriage (MD 0.94, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.54; 2 RCTs, 112 participants; low quality evidence). There was limited reporting of adverse events. No conversions to laparotomy were reported in both groups (1 RCT, 341 participants). Laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection versus diagnostic laparoscopy We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection on adverse events (more specifically vascular injury) compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.32; 1 RCT, 141 participants; low quality evidence). No studies looked at overall pain scores (at six and 12 months), live birth, quality of life, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage. Laparoscopic ablation versus laparoscopic excision There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in overall pain, measured at 12 months, for laparoscopic ablation compared with laparoscopic excision (MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.22 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 103 participants; very low quality evidence). No studies looked at overall pain scores at six months, live birth, quality of life, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage and adverse events. Helium thermal coagulator versus electrodiathermy We are uncertain whether helium thermal coagulator compared to electrodiathermy improves quality of life using the 30-item Endometriosis Health Profile (EHP-30) at nine months, when considering the components: pain (MD 6.68, 95% CI -3.07 to 16.43; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence), control and powerlessness (MD 4.79, 95% CI -6.92 to 16.50; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence), emotional well-being (MD 6.17, 95% CI -3.95 to 16.29; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence) and social support (MD 5.62, 95% CI -6.21 to 17.45; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence). Adverse events were not estimable. No studies looked at overall pain scores (at six and 12 months), live birth, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis. No data were reported on live birth. There is moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic surgery increases viable intrauterine pregnancy rates confirmed by ultrasound compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only. No studies were found that looked at live birth for any of the comparisons. Further research is needed considering the management of different subtypes of endometriosis and comparing laparoscopic interventions with lifestyle and medical interventions. There was insufficient evidence on adverse events to allow any conclusions to be drawn regarding safety.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Denervation; Electrocoagulation; Endometriosis; Female; Goserelin; Helium; Humans; Infertility, Female; Laparoscopy; Pelvic Pain; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Uterus
PubMed: 33095458
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011031.pub3 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2022Endometriosis is recognized as an estrogen-dependent inflammation disorder, estimated to affect 8%-15% of women of childbearing age. Currently, the etiology and...
BACKGROUND
Endometriosis is recognized as an estrogen-dependent inflammation disorder, estimated to affect 8%-15% of women of childbearing age. Currently, the etiology and pathogenesis of endometriosis are not completely clear. Underlying mechanism for endometriosis is still under debate and needs further exploration. The involvement of transcription factors and immune mediations may be involved in the pathophysiological process of endometriosis, but the specific mechanism remains to be explored. This study aims to investigate the underlying molecular mechanisms in endometriosis.
METHODS
The gene expression profile of endometriosis was obtained from the gene expression omnibus (GEO) database. Gene set variation analysis (GSVA) and gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) were applied to the endometriosis GSE7305 datasets. Cibersort and MCP-counter were used to explore the immune response gene sets, immune response pathway, and immune environment. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified and screened. Common biological pathways were being investigated using the kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes (KEGG) pathway enrichment analysis. Transcription factors were from The Human Transcription Factors. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (Lasso) model identified four differential expressions of transcription factors (AEBP1, HOXB6, KLF2, and RORB). Their diagnostic value was calculated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and validated in the validation cohort (GSE11691, GSE23339). By constructing the interaction network of crucial transcription factors, weighted gene coexpression network analysis (WGCNA) was used to search for key module genes. Metascape was used for enrichment analysis of essential module genes and obtained HOXB6, KLF2. The HOXB6 and KLF2 were further verified as the only two intersection genes according to Support Vector Machine Recursive Feature Elimination (SVM-RFE) and random forest models. We constructed ceRNA (lncRNA-miRNA-mRNA) networks with four potential transcription factors. Finally, we performed molecular docking for goserelin and dienogest with four transcription factors (AEBP1, HOXB6, KLF2, and RORB) to screen potential drug targets.
RESULTS
Immune and metabolic pathways were enriched in GSVA and GSEA. In single sample gene set enrichment analysis (ssGSEA), most immune infiltrating cells, immune response gene sets, and immune response pathways are differentially expressed between endometriosis and non-endometriosis. Twenty-seven transcription factors were screened from differentially expressed genes. Most of the twenty-seven transcription factors were correlated with immune infiltrating cells, immune response gene sets and immune response pathways. Furthermore, Adipocyte enhancer binding protein 1 (AEBP1), Homeobox B6 (HOXB6), Kruppel Like Factor 2 (KLF2) and RAR Related Orphan Receptor B (RORB) were selected out from twenty-seven transcription factors. ROC analysis showed that the four genes had a high diagnostic value for endometriosis. In addition, KLF2 and HOXB6 were found to play particularly important roles in multiple modules (String, WGCNA, SVM-RFE, random forest) on the gene interaction network. Using the ceRNA network, we found that NEAT1 may regulate the expressions of AEBP1, HOXB6 and RORB, while X Inactive Specific Transcript (XIST) may control the expressions of HOXB6, RORB and KLF2. Finally, we found that goserelin and dienogest may be potential drugs to regulate AEBP1, HOXB6, KLF2 and RORB through molecular docking.
CONCLUSIONS
AEBP1, HOXB6, KLF2, and RORB may be potential biomarkers for endometriosis. Two of them, KLF2 and HOXB6, are critical molecules in the gene interaction network of endometriosis. Discovered by molecular docking, AEBP1, HOXB6, KLF2, and RORB are targets for goserelin and dienogest.
Topics: Humans; Female; Transcription Factors; Goserelin; Molecular Docking Simulation; Gene Expression Profiling; Endometriosis; RNA, Long Noncoding; Carboxypeptidases; Repressor Proteins
PubMed: 36532015
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1037504 -
Investigative and Clinical Urology Jul 2019To investigate the changes in testosterone levels and rates of chemical castration following androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with goserelin, triptorelin, and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
Effectiveness of three different luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists in the chemical castration of patients with prostate cancer: Goserelin versus triptorelin versus leuprolide.
PURPOSE
To investigate the changes in testosterone levels and rates of chemical castration following androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with goserelin, triptorelin, and leuprolide.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 125 patients with prostate cancer treated with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists between January 2009 and December 2015. Changes in testosterone concentration during 9 months of ADT with goserelin 11.34 mg, triptorelin 11.25 mg, and leuprolide 11.25 mg were analyzed using a mixed model. The number of patients with serum testosterone below castration levels defined as various values (<50 ng/dL, <20 ng/dL, or <10 ng/dL) at 3, 6, and 9 months were also evaluated.
RESULTS
Of the 125 patients, 59 received goserelin, 44 received triptorelin, and 22 received leuprolide, respectively. The lowest mean testosterone levels during 9 months of treatment were achieved in patients treated with triptorelin, followed by those treated with leuprolide, and then by those treated with goserelin (p=0.001). Significant differences in chemical castration levels were observed only at <10 ng/dL, with 54.2% of goserelin, 93.2% of triptorelin, and 86.4% of leuprolide treated patients (p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Three LHRH agonists showed comparable efficacy for achieving castration when the castration threshold was 50 or 20 ng/dL. However, triptorelin was the most potent LHRH agonist, achieving the lowest mean testosterone levels and the highest rate of chemical castration at <10 ng/dL testosterone.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Goserelin; Humans; Leuprolide; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Triptorelin Pamoate
PubMed: 31294133
DOI: 10.4111/icu.2019.60.4.244 -
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official... Dec 2022To assess the long-term (20-year) endocrine therapy benefit in premenopausal patients with breast cancer. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
PURPOSE
To assess the long-term (20-year) endocrine therapy benefit in premenopausal patients with breast cancer.
METHODS
Secondary analysis of the Stockholm trial (STO-5, 1990-1997) randomly assigning 924 premenopausal patients to 2 years of goserelin (3.6 mg subcutaneously once every 28 days), tamoxifen (40 mg orally once daily), combined goserelin and tamoxifen, or no adjuvant endocrine therapy (control) is performed. Random assignment was stratified by lymph node status; lymph node-positive patients (n = 459) were allocated to standard chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil). Primary tumor immunohistochemistry (n = 731) and gene expression profiling (n = 586) were conducted in 2020. The 70-gene signature identified genomic low-risk and high-risk patients. Kaplan-Meier analysis, multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression, and multivariable time-varying flexible parametric modeling assessed the long-term distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI). Swedish high-quality registries allowed a complete follow-up of 20 years.
RESULTS
In estrogen receptor-positive patients (n = 584, median age 47 years), goserelin, tamoxifen, and the combination significantly improved long-term distant recurrence-free interval compared with control (multivariable hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.75, HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.87, and HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.94, respectively). Significant goserelin-tamoxifen interaction was observed ( = .016). Genomic low-risk patients (n = 305) significantly benefitted from tamoxifen (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.60), and genomic high-risk patients (n = 158) from goserelin (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.54). Increased risk from the addition of tamoxifen to goserelin was seen in genomic high-risk patients (HR, 3.36; 95% CI, 1.39 to 8.07). Moreover, long-lasting 20-year tamoxifen benefit was seen in genomic low-risk patients, whereas genomic high-risk patients had early goserelin benefit.
CONCLUSION
This study shows 20-year benefit from 2 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy in estrogen receptor-positive premenopausal patients and suggests differential treatment benefit on the basis of tumor genomic characteristics. Combined goserelin and tamoxifen therapy showed no benefit over single treatment. Long-term follow-up to assess treatment benefit is critical.
Topics: Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Breast Neoplasms; Genomics; Goserelin; Receptors, Estrogen; Tamoxifen; Premenopause
PubMed: 35862873
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.21.02844 -
Indian Journal of Cancer Mar 2022Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) using gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (s) (GnRH-A) remains the backbone of advanced prostate cancer treatment. In this review,... (Review)
Review
Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) using gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (s) (GnRH-A) remains the backbone of advanced prostate cancer treatment. In this review, we assessed the efficacy, safety, and convenience of administration of various GnRH-A. All GnRH-A (goserelin, triptorelin, buserelin, histrelin, and leuprorelin) have comparable potential to suppress testosterone (T) levels (≤50 ng/dL in a month and ≤20 ng/dL in 3 months). However, goserelin has shown better efficacy in maintaining T levels ≤50 ng/dL compared with leuprolide. The incidences of T escape are lower with goserelin and leuprolide than buserelin. Goserelin also has maximum benefit in prostate-specific antigen suppression. In neoadjuvant setting, when only goserelin was used, the 10-year overall survival (OS) rate was 42.6% to 86%. When either goserelin or leuprolide was used, the 10-year OS rate was 62%. As an adjuvant to radical prostatectomy, goserelin had a 10-year survival rate of 87%, and triptorelin had an 8-year survival rate of 84.6%. Goserelin further showed an absolute survival rate of 49% when used as an adjuvant to radiotherapy. The survival rates further improved when GnRH-A are used as combined androgen blockade compared with monotherapy. The frequency and severity of adverse events (hot flushes, fatigue, sexual dysfunction) are comparable among the GnRH-A. Goserelin appears to be the most convenient of all the GnRH-A for administration. Lack of conclusive comparative evidence makes it imperative to have a holistic approach of considering the patient profile and the disease characteristics to select the appropriate GnRH-A for ADT in prostate cancer.
Topics: Androgen Antagonists; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Goserelin; Humans; Leuprolide; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 35343198
DOI: 10.4103/ijc.IJC_65_21 -
Indian Journal of Cancer Mar 2022Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist (LHRH-A), goserelin, and antagonist, degarelix, are both indicated for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer (PCa);... (Review)
Review
A review of clinical evidence to assess differences in efficacy and safety of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist (goserelin) and LHRH antagonist (degarelix).
Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist (LHRH-A), goserelin, and antagonist, degarelix, are both indicated for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer (PCa); however, large comparative trials evaluating their efficacy and safety are lacking. In this review, we assessed the available evidence for both the drugs. Although degarelix achieves an early rapid decline in testosterone (T) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, median T and PSA levels, in addition to prostate volume and International Prostate Symptom Scores, become comparable with goserelin over the remaining treatment period. Degarelix causes no initial flare, therefore it is recommended in patients with spinal metastases or ureteric obstruction. Goserelin achieves lower PSA, improved time to progression, and better survival outcomes when administered adjunctively to radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone, with significant results even over long-term follow-up. The evidence supporting adjuvant degarelix use is limited. Goserelin has better injection site safety, single-step delivery, and an efficient administration schedule compared with degarelix, which has significantly higher injection site reactions and less efficient administration mechanism. There is conflicting evidence about the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and caution is required when using LHRH-A in patients with preexisting CVD. There is considerable long-term evidence for goserelin in patients with advanced PCa, with degarelix being a more recent option. The available comparative evidence of goserelin versus degarelix has several inherent limitations related to study design, sample size, conduct, and statistical analyses, and hence warrants robust prospective trials and long-term follow-up.
Topics: Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Goserelin; Humans; Male; Oligopeptides; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 35343199
DOI: 10.4103/ijc.IJC_1415_20 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition which affects many women of reproductive age worldwide and is a major cause of pain and infertility. The combined oral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition which affects many women of reproductive age worldwide and is a major cause of pain and infertility. The combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) is widely used to treat pain occurring as a result of endometriosis, although the evidence for its efficacy is limited.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of oral contraceptive preparations in the treatment of painful symptoms ascribed to the diagnosis of laparoscopically proven endometriosis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following from inception to 19 October 2017: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and the trial registers ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). We also handsearched reference lists of relevant trials and systematic reviews retrieved by the search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) of the use of COCPs in the treatment of women of reproductive age with symptoms ascribed to the diagnosis of endometriosis that had been made visually at a surgical procedure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. One review author was an expert in the content matter. We contacted study authors for additional information. The primary outcome was self-reported pain (dysmenorrhoea) at the end of treatment.
MAIN RESULTS
Five trials (612 women) met the inclusion criteria. Only three trials (404 women) provided data that were suitable for analysis.Combined oral contraceptive pill versus placeboTwo trials compared COCP with a placebo. These studies were at high risk of bias. For GRADE outcomes (self-reported pain (dysmenorrhoea) at the end of treatment), the quality of the evidence very low. Evidence was downgraded for imprecision as it was based on a single, small trial and for the visual analogue scale data there were wide confidence intervals (CIs). There appeared to have been substantial involvement of the pharmaceutical company funding the trials.Treatment with the COCP was associated with an improvement in self-reported pain at the end of treatment as evidenced by a lower score on the Dysmenorrhoea verbal rating scale (scale 0 to 3) compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) -1.30 points, 95% CI -1.84 to -0.76; 1 RCT, 96 women; very low quality evidence), a lower score on the Dysmenorrhoea visual analogue scale (no details of scale) compared with placebo (MD -23.68 points, 95% CI -28.75 to -18.62, 2 RCTs, 327 women; very low quality evidence) and a reduction in menstrual pain from baseline to the end of treatment (MD 2.10 points, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.82; 1 RCT, 169 women; very low quality evidence).Combined oral contraceptive pill versus medical therapiesOne underpowered trial compared the COCP with another medical treatment (goserelin). The study was at high risk of bias; the trial was unblinded and there was insufficient detail to judge allocation concealment and randomisation. For GRADE outcomes (self-reported pain (dysmenorrhoea) at the end of treatment), the quality of the evidence ranged from low to very low.At the end of treatment, the women in the goserelin group were amenorrhoeic and therefore no comparisons could be made between the groups for the primary outcome. At six months' follow-up, there was no clear evidence of a difference between women treated with the COCP and women treated with goserelin for measures of dysmenorrhoea on a visual analogue scale (scale 1 to 10) (MD -0.10, 95% CI -1.28 to 1.08; 1 RCT, 50 women; very low quality evidence) or a verbal rating scale (scale 0 to 3) (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.99 to 0.79; 1 RCT, 50 women; very low quality evidence). At six months' follow-up, there was no clear evidence of a difference between the COCP and goserelin groups for reporting complete absence of pain as measured by the visual analogue scale (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.02 to 8.43; 1 RCT, 50 women; very low quality evidence) or the verbal rating scale (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; 1 RCT, 49 women; low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the limited evidence from two trials at high risk of bias and limited data for the prespecified outcomes for this review, there is insufficient evidence to make a judgement on the effectiveness of the COCP compared with placebo and the findings cannot be generalised.Based on the limited evidence from one small trial that was at high risk of bias, there is insufficient evidence to make a judgement on the effectiveness of the COCP compared with other medical treatments. Only one comparison was possible, with the medical intervention being goserelin, and the findings cannot be generalised.Further research is needed to fully evaluate the role of COCPs in managing pain-related symptoms associated with endometriosis. There are other formulations of the combined hormonal contraception such as the transdermal patch, vaginal ring or combined injectable contraceptives which this review did not cover but should be considered in future updates.
Topics: Contraceptives, Oral; Dysmenorrhea; Endometriosis; Female; Goserelin; Humans; Pelvic Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29786828
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001019.pub3