Pre- and postsurgical medical therapy for endometriosis surgery.

Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition affecting 10% to 15% of reproductive-age women and may cause dyspareunia, dysmenorrhoea, and infertility. One treatment strategy is combining surgery and medical therapy to reduce the recurrence of endometriosis. Though the combination of surgery and medical therapy appears to be beneficial, there is a lack of clarity about the appropriate timing of when medical therapy should be used in relation with surgery, that is, before, after, or both before and after surgery, to maximize treatment response. To determine the effectiveness of medical therapies for hormonal suppression before, after, or both before and after surgery for endometriosis for improving painful symptoms, reducing disease recurrence, and increasing pregnancy rates. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and two trials registers in November 2019 together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared medical therapies for hormonal suppression before, after, or before and after, therapeutic surgery for endometriosis. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible, we combined data using risk ratio (RR), standardized mean difference or mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Primary outcomes were: painful symptoms of endometriosis as measured by a visual analogue scale (VAS) of pain, other validated scales or dichotomous outcomes; and recurrence of disease as evidenced by EEC (Endoscopic Endometriosis Classification), rAFS (revised American Fertility Society), or rASRM (revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine) scores at second-look laparoscopy. We included 26 trials with 3457 women with endometriosis. We used the term "surgery alone" to refer to placebo or no medical therapy. Presurgical medical therapy compared with placebo or no medical therapy Compared to surgery alone, we are uncertain if presurgical medical hormonal suppression reduces pain recurrence at 12 months or less (dichotomous) (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.66; 1 RCT, n = 262; very low-quality evidence) or whether it reduces disease recurrence at 12 months - total (AFS score) (MD -9.6, 95% CI -11.42 to -7.78; 1 RCT, n = 80; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if presurgical medical hormonal suppression decreases disease recurrence at 12 months or less (EEC stage) compared to surgery alone (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00; 1 RCT, n = 262; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if presurgical medical hormonal suppression improves pregnancy rates compared to surgery alone (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.36; 1 RCT, n = 262; very low-quality evidence). No trials reported pelvic pain at 12 months or less (continuous) or disease recurrence at 12 months or less. Postsurgical medical therapy compared with placebo or no medical therapy We are uncertain about the improvement observed in pelvic pain at 12 months or less (continuous) between postsurgical medical hormonal suppression and surgery alone (MD -0.48, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.31; 4 RCTs, n = 419; I2 = 94%; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if there is a difference in pain recurrence at 12 months or less (dichotomous) between postsurgical medical hormonal suppression and surgery alone (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; 5 RCTs, n = 634; I2 = 20%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if postsurgical medical hormonal suppression improves disease recurrence at 12 months - total (AFS score) compared to surgery alone (MD -2.29, 95% CI -4.01 to -0.57; 1 RCT, n = 51; very low-quality evidence). Disease recurrence at 12 months or less may be reduced with postsurgical medical hormonal suppression compared to surgery alone (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.54; 4 RCTs, n = 433; I2 = 58%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain about the reduction observed in disease recurrence at 12 months or less (EEC stage) between postsurgical medical hormonal suppression and surgery alone (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.91; 1 RCT, n = 285; very low-quality evidence). Pregnancy rate is probably increased with postsurgical medical hormonal suppression compared to surgery alone (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.39; 11 RCTs, n = 932; I2 = 24%; moderate-quality evidence). Pre- and postsurgical medical therapy compared with surgery alone or surgery and placebo There were no trials identified in the search for this comparison. Presurgical medical therapy compared with postsurgical medical therapy We are uncertain about the difference in pain recurrence at 12 months or less (dichotomous) between postsurgical and presurgical medical hormonal suppression therapy (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.07; 2 RCTs, n = 326; I2 = 2%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain about the difference in disease recurrence at 12 months or less (EEC stage) between postsurgical and presurgical medical hormonal suppression therapy (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.28; 1 RCT, n = 273; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain about the difference in pregnancy rate between postsurgical and presurgical medical hormonal suppression therapy (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.21; 1 RCT, n = 273; very low-quality evidence). No trials reported pelvic pain at 12 months or less (continuous), disease recurrence at 12 months - total (AFS score) or disease recurrence at 12 months or less (dichotomous). Postsurgical medical therapy compared with pre- and postsurgical medical therapy There were no trials identified in the search for this comparison. Serious adverse effects for medical therapies reviewed There was insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion regarding serious adverse effects, as no studies reported data suitable for analysis. Our results indicate that the data about the efficacy of medical therapy for endometriosis are inconclusive, related to the timing of hormonal suppression therapy relative to surgery for endometriosis. In our various comparisons of the timing of hormonal suppression therapy, women who receive postsurgical medical therapy compared with no medical therapy or placebo may experience benefit in terms of disease recurrence and pregnancy. There is insufficient evidence regarding hormonal suppression therapy at other time points in relation to surgery for women with endometriosis.

Chen I ，Veth VB ，Choudhry AJ ，Murji A ，Zakhari A ，Black AY ，Agarpao C ，Maas JW ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues for endometriosis.

Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition affecting 6 to 11% of reproductive-age women and may cause dyspareunia, dysmenorrhoea, and infertility. One treatment strategy is medical therapy with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) to reduce pain due to endometriosis. One of the adverse effects of GnRHas is a decreased bone mineral density. In addition to assessing the effect on pain, quality of life, most troublesome symptom and patients' satisfaction, the current review also evaluated the effect on bone mineral density and risk of adverse effects in women with endometriosis who use GnRHas versus other treatment options. To assess the effectiveness and safety of GnRH analogues (GnRHas) in the treatment of painful symptoms associated with endometriosis and to determine the effects of GnRHas on bone mineral density of women with endometriosis. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the trial registries in May 2022 together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared GnRHas with other hormonal treatment options, including analgesics, danazol, intra-uterine progestogens, oral or injectable progestogens, gestrinone and also GnRHas compared with no treatment or placebo. Trials comparing GnRHas versus GnRHas in conjunction with add-back therapy (hormonal or non-hormonal) or calcium-regulation agents were also included in this review.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodology as recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes are relief of overall pain and the objective measurement of bone mineral density. Secondary outcomes include adverse effects, quality of life, improvement in the most troublesome symptoms and patient satisfaction.  Due to high risk of bias associated with some of the studies, primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at low risk of selection bias. Sensitivity analysis including all studies was then performed. Seventy-two studies involving 7355 patients were included. The evidence was very low to low quality: the main limitations of all studies were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision.  Trials comparing GnRHas versus no treatment  We did not identify any studies. Trials comparing GnRHas versus placebo There may be a decrease in overall pain, reported as pelvic pain scores (RR 2.14; 95% CI 1.41 to 3.24, 1 RCT, n = 87, low-certainty evidence), dysmenorrhoea scores (RR 2.25; 95% CI 1.59 to 3.16, 1 RCT, n = 85, low-certainty evidence), dyspareunia scores (RR 2.21; 95% CI 1.39 to 3.54, 1 RCT, n = 59, low-certainty evidence), and pelvic tenderness scores (RR 2.28; 95% CI 1.48 to 3.50, 1 RCT, n = 85, low-certainty evidence) after three months of treatment. We are uncertain of the effect for pelvic induration, based on the results found after three months of treatment (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.79, 1 RCT, n = 81, low-certainty evidence). Besides, treatment with GnRHas may be associated with a greater incidence of hot flushes at three months of treatment (RR 3.08; 95% CI 1.89 to 5.01, 1 RCT, n = 100, low-certainty evidence). Trials comparing GnRHas versus danazol For overall pain, for women treated with either GnRHas or danazol, a subdivision was made between pelvic tenderness, partly resolved and completely resolved. We are uncertain about the effect on relief of overall pain, when a subdivision was made for overall pain (MD -0.30; 95% CI -1.66 to 1.06, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), pelvic pain (MD 0.20; 95% CI -0.26 to 0.66, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), dysmenorrhoea (MD 0.10; 95% CI -0.49 to 0.69, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), dyspareunia (MD -0.20; 95% CI -0.77 to 0.37, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), pelvic induration (MD -0.10; 95% CI -0.59 to 0.39, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), and pelvic tenderness (MD -0.20; 95% CI -0.78 to 0.38, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) after three months of treatment. For pelvic pain (MD 0.50; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.90, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) and pelvic induration (MD 0.70; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), the complaints may decrease slightly after treatment with GnRHas, compared to danazol, for six months of treatment. Trials comparing GnRHas versus analgesics  We did not identify any studies. Trials comparing GnRHas versus intra-uterine progestogens We did not identify any low risk of bias studies. Trials comparing GnRHas versus GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents There may be a slight decrease in bone mineral density (BMD) after 12 months treatment with GnRHas, compared to GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents for anterior-posterior spine (MD -7.00; 95% CI -7.53 to -6.47, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) and lateral spine (MD -12.40; 95% CI -13.31 to -11.49, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For relief of overall pain, there may be a slight decrease in favour of treatment with GnRHas compared to placebo or oral or injectable progestogens. We are uncertain about the effect when comparing GnRHas with danazol, intra-uterine progestogens or gestrinone. For BMD, there may be a slight decrease when women are treated with GnRHas, compared to gestrinone. There was a bigger decrease of BMD in favour of GnRHas, compared to GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents. However, there may be a slight increase in adverse effects when women are treated with GnRHas, compared to placebo or gestrinone. Due to a very low to low certainty of the evidence, a wide range of outcome measures and a wide range of outcome measurement instruments, the results should be interpreted with caution.

Veth VB ，van de Kar MM ，Duffy JM ，van Wely M ，Mijatovic V ，Maas JW ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Pentoxifylline for the treatment of endometriosis-associated pain and infertility.

Endometriosis is a chronic inflammatory condition that occurs during the reproductive years. It is characterised by endometrium-like tissue developing outside the uterine cavity. This endometriotic tissue development is dependent on oestrogen produced primarily by the ovaries and partially by the endometriotic tissue itself, therefore traditional management has focused on ovarian suppression. In this review we considered the role of modulation of the immune system as an alternative approach. This is an update of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2012. To determine the effectiveness and safety of pentoxifylline in the management of endometriosis.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and AMED on 16 December 2020, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pentoxifylline with placebo or no treatment, other medical treatment, or surgery in women with endometriosis. The primary outcomes were live birth rate and overall pain (as measured by a visual analogue scale (VAS) of pain, other validated scales, or dichotomous outcomes) per woman randomised. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, rate of recurrence, and adverse events resulting from the pentoxifylline intervention. Two review authors independently assessed studies against the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias, consulting a third review author where required. We contacted study authors as needed. We analysed dichotomous outcomes using Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (RRs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and a fixed-effect model. For small numbers of events, we used a Peto odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI instead. We analysed continuous outcomes using the mean difference (MD) between groups presented with 95% CIs. We used the I2 statistic to evaluate heterogeneity amongst studies. We employed the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence. We included five parallel-design RCTs involving a total of 415 women. We included one additional RCT in this update. Three studies did not specify details relating to allocation concealment, and two studies were not blinded. There were also considerable loss to follow-up, with four studies not conducting intention-to-treat analysis. We judged the quality of the evidence as very low. Pentoxifylline versus placebo No trials reported on our primary outcomes of live birth rate and overall pain. We are uncertain as to whether pentoxifylline treatment affects clinical pregnancy rate when compared to placebo (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.10; 3 RCTs, n = 285; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the clinical pregnancy rate with placebo is estimated to be 20%, then the rate with pentoxifylline is estimated as between 18% and 43%. We are also uncertain as to whether pentoxifylline affects the recurrence rate of endometriosis (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.36; 1 RCT, n = 121; very low-quality evidence) or miscarriage rate (Peto OR 1.99, 95% CI 0.20 to 19.37; 2 RCTs, n = 164; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). No trials reported on the effect of pentoxifylline on improvement of endometriosis-related symptoms other than pain or adverse events. Pentoxifylline versus no treatment No trials reported on live birth rate. We are uncertain as to whether pentoxifylline treatment affects overall pain when compared to no treatment at one month (MD -0.36, 95% CI -2.12 to 1.40; 1 RCT, n = 34; very low-quality evidence), two months (MD -1.25, 95% CI  -2.67 to 0.17; 1 RCT, n = 34; very low-quality evidence), or three months (MD -1.60, 95% CI -3.32 to 0.12; 1 RCT, n = 34; very low-quality evidence). No trials reported on adverse events caused by pentoxifylline or any of our other secondary outcomes. Pentoxifylline versus other medical therapies One study (n = 83) compared pentoxifylline to the combined oral contraceptive pill after laparoscopic surgery to treat endometriosis, but could not be included in the meta-analysis as it was unclear if the data were presented as +/- standard deviation and what the duration of treatment was. No trials reported on adverse events caused by pentoxifylline or any of our other secondary outcomes. Pentoxifylline versus conservative surgical treatment  No study reported on this comparison. No studies reported on our primary outcome of live birth rate. Due to the very limited evidence, we are uncertain of the effects of pentoxifylline on clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, or overall pain. There is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of pentoxifylline in the management of women with endometriosis with respect to subfertility and pain relief outcomes.

Grammatis AL ，Georgiou EX ，Becker CM 《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) for endometriosis.

Endometriosis is defined as the presence of endometrial tissue outside the uterine cavity. This chronic and recurring condition occurs in women of reproductive age. It is a common cause of pain or infertility and can cause non-specific symptoms such as lower back pain, dyspareunia (pain during or after intercourse), and dysmenorrhoea (menstrual pain). Endometriosis is an oestrogen-dependent disease. Medical treatment aims to relieve symptoms and shrink lesions by suppressing the normal menstrual cycle. In this review, we consider medication specifically aiming to modulate oestrogen receptors as an alternative method of treatment. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) in the management of endometriosis. We searched for trials in the following databases (from their inception to 28 May 2020): Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Studies (CRS Online), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and registers of ongoing trials. In addition, we searched all reference lists of included trials, and we contacted experts in the field, in an attempt to locate trials. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) with placebo, no treatment, other medical treatment, or surgery for endometriosis. We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data using data extraction forms. We used risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for reporting dichotomous data. Primary review outcomes were relief of pelvic pain and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, recurrence rate, and economic and fertility outcomes. We included only one RCT, which included 93 women, comparing the SERM raloxifene with placebo in biopsy-proven endometriosis. All women first underwent complete surgical excision of all lesions. Evidence was of very low quality: the main limitation was imprecision - with very sparse data from only one small study, which included only women after surgical treatment. Relief of pelvic pain The included study did not specifically measure the primary outcome of pain relief. Study authors reported that time to return of pelvic pain (defined as two months of pain equal to or more severe than pain at study entry) was more rapid in the raloxifene group (P = 0.03). Adverse events The included study reported adverse events such as pelvic pain, ovarian cyst, headache, migraine, and depression. We are uncertain whether raloxifene improves the incidence of pelvic pain (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.45), ovarian cysts (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.43), headache (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.43), migraine (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.95), depression (RR 1.96, 95% CI 0.63 to 6.06), or other adverse events (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.30) (all: 1 study, n = 93; very low-quality evidence). Quality of life The study described a statistically significant difference in mental health quality of life (QoL) by 12 months, in favour of placebo treatment (mean difference 11.1, 95% CI 0.01 to 21.19). Other QoL data did not differ between groups but were not reported in detail. Recurrence rate, fertility, and economic outcomes We are uncertain whether raloxifene improves the recurrence rate of endometriosis, proven by biopsy, when compared to placebo (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.21; 1 study, n = 93; very low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 28% of women taking placebo have biopsy-proven recurrence of endometriosis, between 19% and 62% of those taking raloxifene will do so. These outcomes are prone to bias, as not all women had an actual second laparoscopy. Recurrence based on symptoms (non-menstrual pain, dysmenorrhoea, or dyspareunia) was described; in these cases, symptoms improved after use of raloxifene as well as after use of placebo. The included study did not report data on economic outcomes. No comparative data were available on pregnancy, as the study included only women who agreed to postpone pregnancy until after the study endpoint; the few pregnancies that did occur were uneventful but were regarded as an adverse event.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on a single, small RCT and incomplete data, we are uncertain of the effects of SERMs on pain relief in surgically treated patients with endometriosis. The included study was stopped prematurely because of higher pain scores among women who took SERMs when compared to scores among those receiving placebo. Further research is needed to fully evaluate the role of SERMs in endometriosis.

van Hoesel MH ，Chen YL ，Zheng A ，Wan Q ，Mourad SM ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Oral contraceptives for pain associated with endometriosis.

Brown J ，Crawford TJ ，Datta S ，Prentice A ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》