4.5 Article

Comparison of dienogest versus combined oral contraceptive pills in the treatment of women with adenomyosis: A randomized clinical trial

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.13600

关键词

adenomyosis; combined oral contraceptive pill; dienogest; uterine artery Doppler

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the efficacy and safety of dienogest with combined oral contraceptives for treating adenomyosis-associated symptoms. Results showed that dienogest was more effective in reducing pain, improving bleeding pattern, decreasing uterine volume, and uterine artery blood flow, but had a higher rate of side effects.
Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of dienogest with combined oral contraceptives (COCs) for treating adenomyosis-associated symptoms. Methods This was a randomized clinical trial including women with symptomatic adenomyosis conducted from March 1, 2019 to August 1, 2020 at Assiut Woman's Health Hospital, Egypt. Participants were randomly assigned to the dienogest group or COCs group. The primary outcome was the level of adenomyosis-associated pain from before to 6 months after treatment measured by a visual analog scale (VAS). Changes in the uterine bleeding pattern, uterine volume, and uterine artery blood flow were also reported. Results The VAS score of pain was significantly decreased in both groups; however, the decreased rate was more pronounced in the dienogest group (3.21 +/- 1.18) in comparison with the COCs group (4.92 +/- 1.22). Bleeding pattern was improved greatly; uterine volume and uterine artery blood flow decreased significantly in the dienogest group. However, women in the dienogest group reported a higher rate of side effects. Conclusion Dienogest and COCs are effective in treating adenomyosis-associated symptoms after 6 months of use but dienogest is more effective. The decrease in uterine volume and uterine artery blood flow may be the cause of the treatment effect. Dienogest carries a higher risk of side effects. Clinical trial.gov: NCT03890042.

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

4.5
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