4.3 Review

Use of dienogest in endometriosis: a narrative literature review and expert commentary

期刊

CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION
卷 36, 期 5, 页码 895-907

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2020.1744120

关键词

Endometriosis; hormone; progestin; consensus; review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Endometriosis affects up to 10% of women of reproductive age, and the main goal of treatment is to relieve symptoms. Progestins have been the mainstay of endometriosis suppression, of which dienogest has become an important option in many parts of the world. This is an expert literature review, with recommendations on the use of dienogest in the context of various clinical considerations when treating endometriosis. Methods: A search of PubMed was conducted for papers published between 2007 and 2019 on the use of dienogest in endometriosis. Experts reviewed these and included those they considered most relevant in clinical practice, according to their own clinical experience. Results: Evidence regarding the long-term use (>15 months) of dienogest for the management of endometriosis is presented, with experts concluding that the efficacy of dienogest should be assessed primarily on its impact on pain and quality of life. Fertility preservation, the option to avoid or delay surgery, and managing bleeding irregularities that can occur with this treatment are also considered. Counseling women on potential bleeding risks before starting treatment may be helpful, and evidence suggests that few women discontinue treatment for this reason, with the benefits of treatment outweighing any impact of bleeding irregularities. Conclusions: Overall, the evidence demonstrates that dienogest offers an effective and tolerable alternative or adjunct to surgery and provides many advantages over combined hormonal contraceptives for the treatment of endometriosis. It is important that treatment guidelines are followed and care is tailored to the woman's individual needs and desires.

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

4.3
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