Medical Management of Endometriosis in Adolescent and Young Adult Women: A Review of 91 Cases of Biopsy-Confirmed Endometriosis.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise contemporary trends in the hormonal management of endometriosis in adolescent and young adult patients with biopsy-proven endometriosis. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of women aged 14-25 years who underwent laparoscopy for pelvic pain with biopsy-proven endometriosis between January 2011 and September 2020 at an academic tertiary hospital system. The final sample included 91 patients with biopsy-confirmed endometriosis. RESULTS: Combined oral contraceptives (COCs) were the most common initial treatment (64% of patients). Progestin-only formulations (low- and high-dose norethindrone acetate) were offered to younger patients (age 15.9 ± 2.7 years) than those offered COCs (19.9 ± 3.3 years) and levonorgestrel intrauterine devices (LNG-IUDs) (21.9 ± 1.7 years). Current treatments varied widely and included COCs (32%), LNG-IUDs (18%), oral progestins (low- and high-dose norethindrone, medroxyprogesterone) (14%), elagolix (9%), and leuprolide (8%). Oral adjuncts to LNG-IUD were common: usually low- or high-dose norethindrone (37% of patients with an LNG-IUD), but also included progesterone, COCs, and elagolix. CONCLUSIONS: Oral progestins, LNG-IUDs, and COCs were the mainstay of initial treatment. Subsequent treatments varied widely and included COCs, LNG-IUDs, oral progestins, elagolix, leuprolide, and combinations of these agents. We observed that most young women switched between therapies, suggesting that a personalised approach is often used to determine treatment plans among the wide range of options currently available. This study helps define the spectrum of treatment regimens for endometriosis in adolescent females.

Linzagolix therapy versus a placebo in patients with endometriosis-associated pain: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, Phase 3 study (EDELWEISS 3).

STUDY QUESTION: Does linzagolix administered orally once daily for up to 3 months at a dose of 75 mg alone or 200 mg in combination with add-back therapy (ABT) (1.0 mg estradiol; 0.5 mg norethindrone acetate, also known as norethisterone acetate [NETA]) demonstrate better efficacy than placebo in the management of endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain? SUMMARY ANSWER: Combining 200 mg linzagolix with ABT was found to significantly reduce dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain at 3 months of therapy, while a daily dose of 75 mg linzagolix yielded a significant decrease only in dysmenorrhea at 3 months. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY?: A previously published Phase 2, dose-finding study reported that at a dose of 200 mg daily, linzagolix promotes full suppression of estradiol secretion to serum levels below 20 pg/ml and noted that the addition of ABT may be needed to manage hypoestrogenic side effects. At lower doses (75 mg and 100 mg/day), linzagolix maintains estradiol values within the target range of 20-60 pg/ml, which could be ideal to alleviate symptoms linked to endometriosis. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: EDELWEISS 3 was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy Phase 3 study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of linzagolix for the treatment of moderate-to-severe endometriosis-associated pain. Treatment was administered orally once daily for up to 6 months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In the EDELWEISS 3 trial, 486 subjects with moderate-to-severe endometriosis-associated pain were randomized at a 1:1:1 ratio to one of the three study groups: placebo, 75 mg linzagolix alone or 200 mg linzagolix in association with ABT. Pain was measured daily on a verbal rating scale and recorded in an electronic diary. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: At 3 months, the daily 200 mg linzagolix dose with ABT met the primary efficacy objective, showing clinically meaningful and statistically significant reductions in dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain, with stable or decreased use of analgesics. The proportion of responders for dysmenorrhea in the 200 mg linzagolix with ABT group was 72.9% compared with 23.5% in the placebo group (P < 0.001), while the rates of responders for non-menstrual pelvic pain were 47.3% and 30.9% (P = 0.007), respectively. The 75 mg linzagolix daily dose demonstrated a clinically meaningful and statistically significant reduction in dysmenorrhea versus placebo at 3 months. The proportion of responders for dysmenorrhea in the 75 mg linzagolix group was 44.0% compared with 23.5% in the placebo group (P < 0.001). Although the 75 mg dose showed a trend toward reduction in non-menstrual pelvic pain at 3 months relative to the placebo, it was not statistically significant (P = 0.279). Significant improvements in dyschezia and overall pelvic pain were observed in both linzagolix groups when compared to placebo. Small improvements in dyspareunia scores were observed in both linzagolix groups but they were not significant. In both groups, hypoestrogenic effects were mild, with low rates of hot flushes and bone density loss of <1%. A daily dose of 200 mg linzagolix with ABT or 75 mg linzagolix alone was found to significantly reduce dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain also at 6 months of therapy. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Efficacy was compared between linzagolix groups and placebo; however, it would be useful to have results from comparative studies with estro-progestogens or progestogens. It will be important to ascertain whether gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists have significant benefits over traditional first-line medications. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Linzagolix administered orally once daily at a dose of 200 mg in combination with add-back therapy (ABT) demonstrated better efficacy and safety than placebo in the management of moderate-to-severe endometriosis-associated pain. The quality of life was improved and the risks of bone loss and vasomotor symptoms were minimized due to the ABT. The 75 mg dose alone could be suitable for chronic treatment of endometriosis-associated pain without the need for concomitant hormonal ABT, but further research is needed to confirm this. If confirmed, it would offer a viable option for women who do not want to wish to have ABT or for whom it is contraindicated. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Funding for the EDELWEISS 3 study was provided by ObsEva (Geneva, Switzerland). Analysis of data and manuscript writing were partially supported by ObsEva (Geneva, Switzerland), Theramex (London, UK) and Kissei (Japan) and grant 5/4/150/5 was awarded to M.-M.D. by FNRS. J.D. was a member of the scientific advisory board of ObsEva until August 2022, a member of the scientific advisory board of PregLem, and received personal fees from Gedeon Richter, ObsEva and Theramex. J.D. received consulting fees, speakers' fees, and travel support from Gedeon Richter, Obseva and Theramex, which was paid to their institution. C.B. has received fees from Theramex, Gedeon Richter, and Myovant, and travel support from Gedeon Richter-all funds went to the University of Oxford. He was a member of the data monitoring board supervising the current study, and served at an advisory board for endometriosis studies of Myovant. H.T. has received grants from Abbvie and was past president of ASRM. F.C.H. has received fees from Gedeon Richter and Theramex. O.D. received fees for lectures from Gedeon Richter and ObsEva and research grants for clinical studies from Preglem and ObsEva independent from the current study. A.H. has received grants from NIHR, UKRI, CSO, Wellbeing of Women, and Roche Diagnostics; he has received fees from Theramex. A.H.'s institution has received honoraria for consultancy from Roche Diagnostics, Gesynta, and Joii. M.P. has nothing to declare. F.P. has received fees from Theramex. S.P.R. has been a member of the scientific advisory board of Gedeon Richter and received fees from Gedeon Richter. A.P. and M.B. are employees of Theramex. E.B. was an employee of ObsEva, sponsor chair of the data monitoring board supervising the current study, and has been working as a consultant for Theramex since December 2022; she owns stock options in ObsEva. M.-M.D. has received fees and travel support from Gedeon Richter and Theramex. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03992846. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 20 June 2019. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLLMENT: 13 June 2019.

Relugolix/Estradiol/Norethisterone Acetate: A Review in Endometriosis-Associated Pain.

An oral fixed-dose combination of relugolix/estradiol/norethisterone (also known as norethindrone) acetate [Myfembree® (USA); Ryeqo® (EU)] (hereafter referred to as relugolix combination therapy) has been approved in the USA for the management of moderate to severe pain associated with endometriosis in premenopausal women and in the EU for the symptomatic treatment of endometriosis in adult women of reproductive age with a history of previous medical or surgical treatment for their endometriosis. The gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonist relugolix decreases estradiol and progesterone levels, while the addition of estradiol/norethisterone acetate mitigates hypoestrogenic effects including bone mineral density (BMD) loss and vasomotor symptoms. In two pivotal phase III trials, relugolix combination therapy significantly improved dysmenorrhoea and non-menstrual pelvic pain in premenopausal women with moderate to severe endometriosis. The combination also reduced overall pelvic pain and dyspareunia, reduced analgesic and opioid use, and improved health-related quality of life. The efficacy of relugolix combination therapy was sustained over the longer term (up to 2 years). Relugolix combination therapy was generally well tolerated and BMD loss over time was minimal. With the convenience of a once daily oral dosing regimen, relugolix combination therapy is a valuable addition to the options currently available for the management of endometriosis-associated pain.

Endometriosis is a disease where tissue similar to the lining of the uterus grows outside the uterus and may reach other organs. This causes chronic pain as a result of increased inflammation and scar tissue. Women with endometriosis may experience painful menstrual periods, pelvic pain between periods, pain during sex, painful bowel movements and painful urination. Recently, a fixed-dose tablet comprising relugolix, estradiol and norethisterone (also known as norethindrone) acetate [Myfembree^® (USA); Ryeqo^® (EU)] (hereafter referred to as relugolix combination therapy) has been approved to treat endometriosis-associated pain. The treatment works by decreasing levels of ovarian hormones (estrogen and progesterone). In clinical trials, relugolix combination therapy improved period pain and pain between periods in women with moderate to severe pain associated with endometriosis. The treatment also improved other symptoms (overall pelvic pain and pain during sex), reduced the need for pain medications and improved health-related quality of life. Relugolix combination therapy was generally well tolerated and caused minimal bone loss, which is known to occur with some hormone therapies. With the convenience of a once daily oral pill, relugolix combination therapy is a valuable addition to the options currently available for women with endometriosis-associated pain.

Dienogest versus norethisterone acetate in management of endometrial hyperplasia without atypia.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of dienogest (DIE) and norethisterone acetate (NETA) regimens in the treatment of endometrial hyperplasia (EH) without atypia. METHODS: Participants were premenopausal women with irregular uterine bleeding, and endometrial hyperplasia without atypia on endometrial biopsy. Enrolled patients were randomly allocated into two groups: group I got DIE 2 mg/day (orally Visanne) for 14 days (10th to the 25th day of cycle) while group II received between the 16th and 25th day of the cycle, norethisterone acetate (NETA) 15 mg/d (orally Primolut Nor) was administered for 10 days. Both groups continued the therapy for six months. RESULTS: The DIE group showed a higher resolution (32.7%) and regression (57.7%) than NETA group (31% & 37.9%, respectively) with significant regression (p = 0.039). No progression in DIE group while four (6.9%) women in NETA group were recorded a progression to complex type without a significance. Also, NETA group showed a significant persistence rate (22.5%) than DIE group (3.8%) (p = 0.005). Also number in NETA group managed by hysterectomy with significant difference (p = 0.042). CONCLUSION: If used as first-line treatment, Dienogest produces a better rate of regression and a lower incidence of hysterectomy than Norethisterone Acetate does when used in EH without atypia.

Fostemsavir and ethinyl estradiol drug interaction: Clinical recommendations for co-administration.

OBJECTIVES: Fostemsavir, a prodrug of temsavir, is indicated for heavily treatment-experienced adults with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection, antiretroviral (ARV) intolerance, or safety considerations. Understanding drug-drug interactions (DDIs) is important in individuals taking fostemsavir with hormonal contraceptives or menopausal or gender-affirming hormonal therapies. METHODS: Effect of temsavir (active moiety) on the pharmacokinetics of ethinyl estradiol (EE) and norethindrone (NET) was evaluated in an open-label, single-sequence, four-cycle, four-treatment study in 26 healthy female participants (study 206279, NCT02480881). Relevant ARV-contraceptive interaction studies and guideline recommendations were reviewed; that information was then applied to other contraceptive methods and hormone-based therapies to predict the impact of fostemsavir co-administration. RESULTS: Temsavir increased EE concentrations by 40% and had no effect on NET concentrations. Fostemsavir co-administration with hormone therapy is not expected to impact hormone treatment efficacy. Fostemsavir did not impact progestin; therefore, progestin-only and non-hormonal contraceptives will not be impacted by fostemsavir. Recommendations for co-administration of fostemsavir and hormonal contraceptives or menopausal or gender-affirming hormone therapies are based upon known and predicted DDIs, ensuring adequate hormonal concentrations to maintain the target effect. CONCLUSIONS: Applying the results of Study 206279 and other relevant ARV-contraceptive studies, we recommend that when co-administering fostemsavir with combined oral contraceptives (COCs) and other oestrogen-based therapies, EE dose should not exceed 30 µg or equivalent, and caution is advised in the case of individuals with risk factors for thromboembolic events. Other oestrogen-based therapies may be co-administered with fostemsavir, with monitoring of oestrogen concentrations and appropriate dose adjustments. No impact of fostemsavir on COC efficacy is expected.

Efficacy of Low-Dose Estrogen-Progestins and Progestins in Japanese Women with Dysmenorrhea: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Although several studies suggest beneficial effects of low-dose estrogen-progestins (LEPs) and progestins on dysmenorrhea in Japanese women, the difference in efficacy between drugs remains unknown. METHODS: We identified studies by searching the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and ICHUSHI databases and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that used total dysmenorrhea score and visual analogue scale (VAS) as outcome measures to evaluate LEPs and progestins for primary and secondary dysmenorrhea. We analyzed results by meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA). RESULTS: We identified 10 articles on eight RCTs and included seven drugs (six LEPs and one progestin, i.e., dienogest) and placebo in the analysis. Meta-analysis showed improvements in total dysmenorrhea score and VAS for almost all drugs compared with placebo. In NMA, VAS in secondary dysmenorrhea improved more with dienogest than with norethisterone/ethinylestradiol (mean difference - 25.84 [95% CrI - 44.46 to - 7.15]). In the comparison of administration regimens, VAS improved more with progestin-continuous than LEP-cyclic and the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) of LEP-extended and progestin-continuous appeared to be higher than that of LEP-cyclic. CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed that LEPs and dienogest are effective for primary and secondary dysmenorrhea and suggest that continuous regimens may be more effective than cyclic regimens in improving outcomes.

Progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems for heavy menstrual bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) impacts the quality of life of otherwise healthy women. The perception of HMB is subjective and management depends upon, among other factors, the severity of the symptoms, a woman's age, her wish to get pregnant, and the presence of other pathologies. Heavy menstrual bleeding was classically defined as greater than or equal to 80 mL of blood loss per menstrual cycle. Currently the definition is based on the woman's perception of excessive bleeding which is affecting her quality of life. The intrauterine device was originally developed as a contraceptive but the addition of progestogens to these devices resulted in a large reduction in menstrual blood loss: users of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) reported reductions of up to 90%. Insertion may, however, be regarded as invasive by some women, which affects its acceptability. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL (from inception to June 2019); and we searched grey literature and for unpublished trials in trial registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in women of reproductive age treated with LNG-IUS devices versus no treatment, placebo, or other medical or surgical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and conducted GRADE assessments of the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 RCTs (2511 women). Limitations in the evidence included risk of attrition bias and low numbers of participants. The studies compared the following interventions. LNG-IUS versus other medical therapy The other medical therapies were norethisterone acetate, medroxyprogesterone acetate, oral contraceptive pill, mefenamic acid, tranexamic acid or usual medical treatment (where participants could choose the oral treatment that was most suitable). The LNG-IUS may improve HMB, lowering menstrual blood loss according to the alkaline haematin method (mean difference (MD) 66.91 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) 42.61 to 91.20; 2 studies, 170 women; low-certainty evidence); and the Pictorial Bleeding Assessment Chart (MD 55.05, 95% CI 27.83 to 82.28; 3 studies, 335 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether the LNG-IUS may have any effect on women's satisfaction up to one year (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.63; 3 studies, 141 women; I² = 0%, very low-certainty evidence). The LNG-IUS probably leads to slightly higher quality of life measured with the SF-36 compared with other medical therapy if (MD 2.90, 95% CI 0.06 to 5.74; 1 study: 571 women; moderate-certainty evidence) or with the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MD 13.40, 95% CI 9.89 to 16.91; 1 trial, 571 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The LNG-IUS and other medical therapies probably give rise to similar numbers of women with serious adverse events (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 1 study, 571 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Women using other medical therapy are probably more likely to withdraw from treatment for any reason (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.60; 1 study, 571 women, moderate-certainty evidence) and to experience treatment failure than women with LNG-IUS (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.44; 6 studies, 535 women; moderate-certainty evidence). LNG-IUS versus endometrial resection or ablation (EA) Bleeding outcome results are inconsistent. We are uncertain of the effect of the LNG-IUS compared to EA on rates of amenorrhoea (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.72; 8 studies, 431 women; I² = 21%; low-certainty evidence) and hypomenorrhoea (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.33; 4 studies, 200 women; low-certainty evidence) and eumenorrhoea (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.00; 3 studies, 160 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether both treatments may have similar rates of satisfaction with treatment at 12 months (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07; 5 studies, 317 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if the LNG-IUS compared to EA has any effect on quality of life, measured with SF-36 (MD -14.40, 95% CI -22.63 to -6.17; 1 study, 33 women; very low-certainty evidence). Women with the LNG-IUS compared with EA are probably more likely to have any adverse event (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.94; 3 studies, 201 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Women with the LNG-IUS may experience more treatment failure compared to EA at one year follow up (persistent HMB or requirement of additional treatment) (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.90; 5 studies, 320 women; low-certainty evidence); or requirement of hysterectomy may be higher at one year follow up (RR 2.56, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.42; 3 studies, 400 women; low-certainty evidence). LNG-IUS versus hysterectomy We are uncertain whether the LNG-IUS has any effect on HMB compared with hysterectomy (RR for amenorrhoea 0.52, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.70; 1 study, 75 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether there is difference between LNG-IUS and hysterectomy in satisfaction at five years (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; 1 study, 232 women; low-certainty evidence) and quality of life (SF-36 MD 2.20, 95% CI -2.93 to 7.33; 1 study, 221 women; low-certainty evidence). Women in the LNG-IUS group may be more likely to have treatment failure requiring hysterectomy for HMB at 1-year follow-up compared to the hysterectomy group (RR 48.18, 95% CI 2.96 to 783.22; 1 study, 236 women; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported cost data suitable for meta-analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The LNG-IUS may improve HMB and quality of life compared to other medical therapy; the LNG-IUS is probably similar for HMB compared to endometrial destruction techniques; and we are uncertain if it is better or worse than hysterectomy. The LNG-IUS probably has similar serious adverse events to other medical therapy and it is more likely to have any adverse events than EA.

Electrochemotherapy and Ablative Therapies in Non-melanoma Skin Cancer.

Although surgery and radiotherapy remain the most commonly used treatments for non-melanoma skin cancer, there are a variety of alternatives. Here we discuss the use of electrochemotherapy and ablative treatments and examine the evidence for their effectiveness against a number of non-melanoma skin cancers.

Dienogest or Norethindrone acetate for the treatment of ovarian endometriomas: Can we avoid surgery?

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of Dienogest (D) and Norethindrone acetate (N) in symptomatic women with ovarian endometriomas, analyzing the efficacy in reducing endometrioma size and symptom relief and drug tolerability. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study including 135 symptomatic women with ultrasonographic diagnosis of ovarian endometrioma. Women were divided into two groups: 1) women who received D 2 mg/day (group D); 2) women who received N 2.5 mg/day (group N). Women were evaluated at therapy prescription and after 6 and 12 months of treatment: transvaginal ultrasound was performed to assess the mean diameter of endometriomas, a Visual Analogue Scale was used to rank endometriosis related symptoms (dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, chronic pelvic pain). The main outcome measure was the comparison between the 2 groups in terms of variations in endometrioma size and endometriosis related symptoms during the follow-up. Drug tolerability was also analyzed in terms of side effects. RESULTS: A reduction in ovarian endometrioma size was observed during treatment in both groups, with no significant differences between groups D and N. Endometriosis related symptoms decreased in both groups, but the decrease was significantly higher in group D than in group N for all symptoms, both at 6 and 12 months of treatment. Regarding drug tolerability, uterine bleeding/spotting and weight gain were reported more frequently by women in the group N than women in the group D, both at 6 and 12 months of treatment. CONCLUSION: Progestin therapy with D or N appears to be effective in reducing the size of endometriomas and related symptoms, with a greater effect on symptoms relief and higher tolerability in women treated with D.

Hormonal contraception in women with endometriosis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: A systematic review was carried out of studies of women with endometriosis, to examine the evidence for efficacy of the use of hormonal contraception to improve disease-related pain and decrease postoperative risk of disease recurrence. METHODS: A search of the Medline/PubMed and Embase databases was performed to identify all published English language studies on hormonal contraceptive therapies (combined hormonal contraceptives [CHCs], combined oral contraceptives [COCs], progestin-only pills [POPs] and progestin-only contraceptives [POCs]) in women with a validated endometriosis diagnosis, in comparison with placebo, comparator therapies or other hormonal therapies. Main outcome measures were endometriosis-related pain (dysmenorrhoea, pelvic pain and dyspareunia), quality of life (QoL) and postoperative rate of disease recurrence during treatment. RESULTS: CHC and POC treatments were associated with clinically significant reductions in dysmenorrhoea, often accompanied by reductions in non-cyclical pelvic pain and dyspareunia and an improvement in QoL. Only two COC preparations (ethinylestradiol [EE]/norethisterone acetate [NETA] and a flexible EE/drospirenone regimen) demonstrated significantly increased efficacy compared with placebo. Only three studies found that the postoperative use of COCs (EE/NETA, EE/desogestrel and EE/gestodene) reduced the risk of disease recurrence. There was no evidence that POCs reduced the risk of disease recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: CHCs and POCs are effective for the relief of endometriosis-related dysmenorrhoea, pelvic pain and dyspareunia, and improve QoL. Some COCs decreased the risk of disease recurrence after conservative surgery, but POCs did not. There is insufficient evidence, however, to reach definitive conclusions about the overall superiority of any particular hormonal contraceptive.

Comparison of Outcomes of Different Postoperative Hormone Therapy in the Treatment of Ovarian Endometriosis: A Brief Report.

INTRODUCTION: Hormone therapy is widely used in the treatment of patients with ovarian endometriosis after surgery, and progestin and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) are two of the most widely used hormones. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of progestin and GnRH in the treatment of ovarian endometriosis after surgery. METHODS: A total of 399 patients with ovarian endometriosis were included and divided into four groups to receive different treatments. Group A received no postoperative hormone therapy; patients in group B1 and B2 were treated with different doses of norethindrone (progestin, 1.2 and 5 mg/day, respectively); patients in group C were treated with GnRH (2.0 mg every 2 weeks). Treatment outcomes including menstrual bleeding profiles, cumulative recurrence rate, incidence of complications, and endometrioma diameter in the case of recurrence were recorded and compared between groups. RESULTS: Compared with group A, group B1, B2 and C showed significantly improved menstrual bleeding profiles and reduced cumulative recurrence rate and endometrioma diameter after recurrence. In addition, compared with group C, menstrual bleeding profiles were significantly improved and cumulative recurrence rate and endometrioma diameter were significantly reduced in group B1 and B2. No significant differences in incidence of complications during treatment were found among groups. After treatment, recurrence rate and endometrioma diameter were significantly increased in group B1, B2, and C. CONCLUSION: Both progestin and GnRH can significantly improve the conditions of patients with ovarian endometriosis after surgery, but progestin may be a better choice. Both therapies are challenged by the increased recurrence rate and endometrioma diameter after treatment.

Current understanding on pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy and safety of progestins for treating pain associated to endometriosis.

INTRODUCTION: Endometriosis is a chronic estrogen and progestogen responsive inflammatory disease associated with pain symptoms and infertility. The medical therapy of endometriosis aims to induce decidualization within the hormonally dependent ectopic endometrium, and it is often administered to ameliorate women' pain symptoms or to prevent post-surgical disease recurrence. A variety of progestins have been used in monotherapy for the medical management of women with endometriosis. Areas covered: This review aims to offer the reader a complete overview of pharmacokinetic (PK) and clinical efficacy of progestins for the treatment of endometriosis. Expert opinion: Each progestin has a distinct PK parameters and pharmacodynamics affinity not only for progesterone receptor, but also for other steroid receptors, such as estrogen, androgen, and glucocorticoid. Moreover, progestins can also be delivered in different formulations. All these characteristics influence their final biological effect. Randomized, controlled, non-blinded studies support the use of oral progestin-only treatment for pelvic pain associated with endometriosis. Currently, the only two progestins approved by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of endometriosis are norethindrone acetate (NETA) and depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA).

Long-Term Effects of Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonists and Add-Back in Adolescent Endometriosis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To explore the potential occurrence of long-term side effects and tolerability of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) plus 2 different add-back regimens in adolescent patients with endometriosis. DESIGN: Follow-up questionnaire sent in 2016 to patients who participated in a drug trial between 2008 and 2012. SETTING: Tertiary care center in Boston, Massachusetts. PARTICIPANTS: Female adolescents with surgically confirmed endometriosis (n = 51) who enrolled in a GnRHa plus add-back trial as adolescents. INTERVENTIONS: Leuprolide depot 11.25 mg intramuscular injection every 3 months, plus oral norethindrone acetate 5 mg daily or oral norethindrone acetate 5 mg daily and oral conjugated equine estrogens 0.625 mg daily. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Side effects during and after treatment, irreversible side effects, changes in pain, overall satisfaction. RESULTS: The response rate was 61% (25 of 41; 10 subjects could not be located). Almost all (24 of 25) reported side effects during treatment; 80% (16 of 21) reported side effects lasting longer than 6 months after stopping treatment. Almost half (9 of 20) reported side effects they considered irreversible, including memory loss, insomnia, and hot flashes. Despite side effects, participants rated GnRHa plus add-back as the most effective hormonal medication for treating endometriosis pain; two-thirds (16 of 25) would recommend it to others. More participants who received a modified 2-drug add-back regimen vs standard 1-drug add-back would recommend GnRHa and believed it was the most effective hormonal medication. CONCLUSION: Subjects believed that GnRHa used with add-back was effective and would recommend it to others, despite significant side effects. Those who received 2-drug add-back reported more success than those who received standard add-back. A subset of patients reported side effects they consider to be irreversible.

Is Shifting to a Progestin Worthwhile When Estrogen-Progestins Are Inefficacious for Endometriosis-Associated Pain?

The purpose of this study was to assess the proportion of patients satisfied with their treatment after a change from a low-dose oral contraceptive (OC) to norethisterone acetate (NETA) because of inefficacy of OC on pain symptoms. To this end, prospective, self-controlled study was conducted on 153 women using OC as a treatment for endometriosis and with persistence of one or more moderate or severe pain symptoms. At baseline and during 12 months after a shift from OC to oral NETA, 2.5 mg/d, pelvic pain was measured by means of a 0- to 10-point numerical rating scale and a multidimensional categorical rating scale. Variations in health-related quality of life, psychological status, and sexual function were also evaluated with validated scales. At the end of the study period, participants indicated the degree of satisfaction with their treatment according to a 5-degree scale from very satisfied to very dissatisfied. A total of 28 women dropped out of the study, the main reason was intolerable side effects (n = 15). At 12-month assessment, 70% of participants were very satisfied or satisfied with NETA treatment (intention-to-treat analysis). Statistically significant improvements were observed in health-related quality of life, psychological status, and sexual function. At per-protocol analysis, almost half of the patients (58/125) reported suboptimal drug tolerability. However, complaints were not severe enough to cause dissatisfaction, drug discontinuation, or request for surgery. These encouraging results could be used to counsel women with symptomatic endometriosis not responding to OC and to inform their decisions on modifications of disease management.

Hepatic Adenomas in Adolescents and Young Women with Endometriosis Treated with Norethindrone Acetate.

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis-ectopic implantation of endometrial-like tissue-affects 10% of female adolescents and adults. First-line treatment includes progesterone only (such as norethindrone acetate [NET-A]) or combined estrogen/progestin oral contraceptive pills. Estrogen-containing contraceptives confer increased risk of hepatic adenomas, whereas the association with NET-A is very rarely reported. CASE: Three adolescents with stage I to II endometriosis managed with NET-A (up to 15 mg/d for 28-78 months) were diagnosed with hepatic adenomas at ages 17-22 years. They previously received estrogen-containing medications, which were stopped 24 months or longer before diagnosis of hepatic adenoma. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: NET-A in a dose greater than 10 mg/d might be associated with increased risk for hepatic adenomas, likely due to peripheral conversion to ethinyl estradiol. Use of NET-A might not be advisable in patients with known hepatic adenomas.

Does menopausal hormone therapy (MHT), exercise or a combination of both, improve pain and function in post-menopausal women with greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS)? A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS) is pathology in the gluteus medius and minimus tendons and trochanteric bursa that causes debilitating tendon pain and dysfunction, particularly in post-menopausal women. Limited evidence in clinical studies suggests hormone changes after menopause may have a negative effect on tendon. This protocol describes a randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) and exercise therapy in reducing pain and dysfunction associated with GTPS in post-menopausal women. METHOD: One hundred and sixteen post-menopausal women will be recruited and randomised to receive one of two exercise programs (sham or targeted intervention exercise) and transdermal creams (MHT cream containing oestradiol 50mcg and norethisterone acetate 140mcg or placebo cream). Interventions will be 12-weeks in duration and outcomes will be examined at baseline, 12-weeks and 52-weeks. The primary outcome measure will be the VISA-G questionnaire and secondary outcomes measures will include three hip pain and function questionnaires (Hip dysfunction and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Oxford Hip Score, Lateral Hip Pain questionnaire), a global change in symptom questionnaire (using a 15-point Likert scale) and a quality of life measure (AQoL-8D questionnaire). Data will be analysed using the intention to treat principle. DISCUSSION: This study is the first randomised controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of menopausal hormone therapy therapy alone, and with the combination of exercise therapy, to treat pain and dysfunction associated with GTPS. This study has been pragmatically designed to ensure that the interventions in this study can be integrated into policy and clinical practice if found to be effective in the treatment of GTPS in post-menopausal women. If successful, there is potential for this treatment regimen to be explored in future studies of other persistent tendon conditions in the post-menopausal population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614001157662 Registered 31 October 2014.

No Evidence for the Benefit of Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonist in Preserving Ovarian Function and Fertility in Lymphoma Survivors Treated With Chemotherapy: Final Long-Term Report of a Prospective Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: We have reported previously that after 1-year follow up, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) did not prevent chemotherapy-induced premature ovarian failure (POF) in patients with lymphoma, but may provide protection of the ovarian reserve. Here, we report the final analysis of the cohort after 5 years of follow up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 129 patients with lymphoma were randomly assigned to receive either triptorelin plus norethisterone (GnRHa group) or norethisterone alone (control group) during chemotherapy. Ovarian function and fertility were reported after 2, 3, 4, and 5 to 7 years of follow up. The primary end point was POF, defined as at least one follicle-stimulating hormone value of > 40 IU/L after 2 years of follow up. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients 26.21 ± 0.64 years of age had available data after a median follow-up time of 5.33 years in the GnRHa group and 5.58 years in the control group (P = .452). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed a significantly increased risk of POF in patients according to age (P = .047), the conditioning regimen for hematopoietic stem cell transplant (P = .002), and the cumulative dose of cyclophosphamide > 5 g/m(2) (P = .019), but not to the coadministration of GnRHa during chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.702; P = .651). The ovarian reserve, evaluated using anti-Müllerian hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone levels, was similar in both groups. Fifty-three percent and 43% achieved pregnancy in the GnRHa and control groups, respectively (P = .467). CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first long-term analysis confirming that GnRHa is not efficient in preventing chemotherapy-induced POF in young patients with lymphoma and did not influence future pregnancy rate. These results reopen the debate about the drug's benefit in that it should not be recommended as standard for fertility preservation in patients with lymphoma.

Analysis of Adherence, Persistence, and Surgery Among Endometriosis Patients Treated with Leuprolide Acetate Plus Norethindrone Acetate Add-Back Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis affects over 10 million women in the United States. Depot leuprolide acetate (LA), a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist, has been used extensively for the treatment of women with endometriosis but is associated with hypoestrogenic symptoms and bone mineral density loss. The concomitant use of add-back therapies, specifically norethindrone acetate (NETA), can alleviate these adverse effects. OBJECTIVE: To compare adherence to and persistence with LA treatment and time to endometriosis-related surgery among women treated with NETA and women treated with LA plus other add-back therapies or LA only. METHODS: This retrospective analysis was conducted using Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database. Women with a diagnosis of endometriosis (ICD-9-CM code 617.xx) who initiated LA (index date) in 2005-2011 were selected for inclusion. Additional requirements were 12 months of continuous enrollment pre- and post-index and no evidence of endometriosis-related surgeries pre-index or up to 30 days post-index; no pre-index use of estrogen or noncontraceptive hormones; and no diagnoses of uterine fibroids, malignant neoplasms, infertility, or pregnancy. Patients were characterized as using NETA; other add-back therapies (estrogens, progestins, or estrogen-progestin combinations); or no add-back therapy. Adherence to and persistence with LA were measured over the 6 months following the index date using outpatient medical and pharmacy claims. Patients were considered adherent if their proportion of days covered was greater than or equal to 0.80. Persistence was operationalized as time to discontinuation, defined as a continuous gap of > 60 days without LA on hand. Time to endometriosis-related surgery (laparotomy, laparoscopy, excision/ablation/fulguration, oophorectomy, and hysterectomy) was measured over the 12 months following the index date. Surgeries were identified from inpatient and outpatient medical claims using procedure codes. Outcomes were compared among cohorts using multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression models controlling for demographics and baseline clinical characteristics. RESULTS: The final sample included 3,114 women, with a mean age of 36.9 years. The majority of women used LA only with no add-back therapy (n = 1,963, 63.0%), while 15.1% (n = 470) used NETA, and 21.9% (N = 681) used other add-back therapies. During the 6-month follow-up, more patients in the LA plus NETA cohort were adherent to LA therapy compared with LA only (47.2% vs. 31.5%, P < 0.001), and fewer patients discontinued (37.9% vs. 59.6%, P < 0.001). Additionally, fewer patients underwent endometriosis-related surgery in the 12 months after LA initiation in the LA plus NETA cohort (12.6% vs. 16.9%, P = 0.021). In multivariable models, women who initiated LA plus NETA or LA plus other add-back therapies had a higher likelihood of being adherent to LA than LA only patients (OR = 1.91, 95% CI = 1.55-2.36 and OR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.63-2.34) and lower likelihood of LA discontinuation (HR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.46-0.63 and HR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.52-0.68). NETA patients had a lower surgery rate in the 12-month post-index period compared with other add-back patients (HR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.50-0.93) or LA only patients (HR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.52-0.92). CONCLUSIONS: For women with endometriosis, treatment with LA and concomitant add-back therapies was associated with better adherence to and persistence with LA over the 6 months following initiation, compared with treatment with LA only. The increased adherence and persistence to LA may translate into decreased need for surgical intervention, although fewer endometriosis-related surgeries were only observed in the 12 months following LA initiation for patients using concomitant NETA add-back therapy. These results support an increased and earlier use of NETA add-back therapy among women who initiate LA. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by AbbVie, which also markets the endometriosis drugs Lupron and Lupaneta Pack. AbbVie participated in the study design, research, data collection, analysis and interpretation, writing, review, and approval of this publication. Soliman and Castelli-Haley are employees of AbbVie and may own AbbVie stock or stock options. Bonafede and Farr are employees of Truven Health Analytics, which received a research contract to conduct this study with and on behalf of AbbVie. Winkel is a clinical professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, and has served in a consulting role on research to AbbVie for this project. An earlier version of the current research was presented at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) 20th Annual International Meeting; Philadelphia, PA; May 2015. All authors participated in data analysis and interpretation and contributed to the development of the manuscript.

Medical management of heavy menstrual bleeding.

Women with benign heavy menstrual bleeding have the choice of a number of medical treatment options to reduce their blood loss and improve quality of life. The role of the clinician is to provide information to facilitate women in making an appropriate choice. Unfortunately, many options can be associated with hormonal side effects, prevention of fertility and lack of efficacy, leading to discontinuation and progression to surgical interventions. Herein, we discuss the various options currently available to women, including antifibrinolytics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory preparations, oral contraceptive pills and oral, injectable and intrauterine progestogens. In addition, we describe the more novel option of selective progesterone receptor modulators and their current benefits and limitations.