4.7 Article

Dienogest is as effective as leuprolide acetate in treating the painful symptoms of endometriosis: a 24-week, randomized, multicentre, open-label trial

期刊

HUMAN REPRODUCTION
卷 25, 期 3, 页码 633-641

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dep469

关键词

dienogest; progestins; endometriosis; pelvic pain; GnRH agonists

资金

  1. Bayer Schering Pharma AG

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dienogest is a selective progestin that has been investigated in a clinical trial programme for the treatment of endometriosis. The current non-inferiority trial compared the efficacy and safety of dienogest against leuprolide acetate (LA) for treating the pain associated with endometriosis. Patients with confirmed endometriosis were randomized to treatment with dienogest (2 mg/day, orally) or LA (3.75 mg, depot i.m. injection, every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was absolute change in pelvic pain from baseline to end of treatment, assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS). Safety variables included adverse event profile, laboratory parameters, bone mineral density (BMD), bone markers and bleeding patterns. A total of 252 women were randomized to treatment with dienogest (n = 124) or LA (n = 128); 87.9 and 93.8% of the respective groups completed the trial. Absolute reductions in VAS score from baseline to Week 24 were 47.5 mm with dienogest and 46.0 mm with LA, demonstrating the equivalence of dienogest relative to LA. Hypoestrogenic effects (e.g. hot flushes) were reported less frequently in the dienogest group. As expected, bleeding episodes were suppressed less with dienogest than with LA. Changes in mean lumbar BMD between screening and final visit were +0.25% with dienogest and -4.04% with LA subgroups (P = 0.0003). Markers of bone resorption increased with LA but not dienogest. Dienogest 2 mg/day orally demonstrated equivalent efficacy to depot LA at standard dose in relieving the pain associated with endometriosis, although offering advantages in safety and tolerability.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据