Search

Background: Endometriosis is a condition characterised by the presence of ectopic deposits of endometrial-like tissue outside the uterus, usually in the pelvis. The impact of laparoscopic treatment on overall pain is uncertain and a significant proportion of women will require further surgery. Therefore, adjuvant medical therapies following surgery, such as the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD), have been considered to reduce recurrence of symptoms.  OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of post-operative LNG-IUD in women with symptomatic endometriosis., Search Methods: We searched the following databases from inception to January 2021: The Specialised Register of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, CENTRAL (which now includes records from two trial registries), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS and Epistemonikos. We handsearched citation lists of relevant publications, review articles, abstracts of scientific meetings and included studies. We contacted experts in the field for information about any additional studies., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing women undergoing surgical treatment of endometriosis with uterine preservation who were assigned to LNG-IUD insertion, versus control conditions including expectant management, post-operative insertion of placebo (inert intrauterine device), or other medical treatment such as gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) drugs., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, and extracted data to allow for an intention-to-treat analysis. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method. For continuous data, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI using the inverse variance fixed-effect method., Main Results: Four RCTs were included, with a total of 157 women. Two studies are ongoing. The GRADE certainty of evidence was very low to low. The certainty of evidence was graded down primarily for serious risk of bias and imprecision. LNG-IUD versus expectant management Overall pain: No studies reported on the primary outcome of overall pain. Dysmenorrhoea: We are uncertain whether LNG-IUD improves dysmenorrhoea at 12 months. Data on this outcome were reported on by two RCTs; meta-analysis was not possible (RCT 1: delta of median visual analogue scale (VAS) 81 versus 50, P = 0.006, n = 55; RCT 2: fall in VAS by 50 (35 to 65) versus 30 (25 to 40), P = 0.021, n = 40; low-certainty evidence). Quality of life: We are uncertain whether LNG-IUD improves quality of life at 12 months. One trial demonstrated a change in total quality of life score with postoperative LNG-IUD from baseline (mean 61.2 (standard deviation (SD) 14.8) to 12 months (mean 70.3 (SD 16.2) compared to expectant management (baseline 55.1 (SD 17.0) to 57.0 (SD 33.2) at 12 months) (n = 55, P = 0.014, very low-certainty evidence). Patient satisfaction: Two studies found higher rates of satisfaction with LNG-IUD compared to expectant management; however, combining the studies in meta-analysis was not possible (n = 95, very low-certainty evidence). One study found 75% (15/20) of those given post-operative LNG-IUD were "satisfied" or "very satisfied", compared to 50% (10/20) of those in the expectant management group (RR 1.5, 95% CI 0.90-2.49, 1 RCT, n=40, very low-certainty evidence). The second study found that fewer were "very satisfied" in the expectant management group when compared to LNG, but there were no data to include in a meta-analysis.  Adverse events: One study found a significantly higher proportion of women reporting melasma (n = 55, P = 0.015, very low-certainty evidence) and bloating (n = 55, P = 0.021, very low-certainty evidence) following post-operative LNG-IUD. There were no differences in other reported adverse events, such as weight gain, acne, and headaches.  LNG-IUD versus GnRH-a Overall pain: No studies reported on the primary outcome of overall pain. Chronic pelvic pain: We are uncertain whether LNG-IUD improves chronic pelvic pain at 12 months when compared to GnRH-a (VAS pain scale) (MD -2.0, 95% CI -20.2 to 16.2, 1 RCT, n = 40, very low-certainty evidence). Dysmenorrhoea: We are uncertain whether LNG-IUD improves dysmenorrhoea at six months when compared to GnRH-a (measured as a reduction in VAS pain score) (MD 1.70, 95%.CI -0.14 to 3.54, 1 RCT, n = 18, very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events: One study suggested that vasomotor symptoms were the most common adverse events reported with patients receiving GnRH-a, and irregular bleeding in those receiving LNG-IUD (n = 40, very low-certainty evidence) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Post-operative LNG-IUD is widely used to reduce endometriosis-related pain and to improve operative outcomes. This review demonstrates that there is no high-quality evidence to support this practice. This review highlights the need for further studies with large sample sizes to assess the effectiveness of post-operative adjuvant hormonal IUD on the core endometriosis outcomes (overall pain, most troublesome symptom, and quality of life)., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: 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., Objectives: 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., Selection Criteria: 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., Data Collection and Analysis: 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 I 2 statistic to evaluate heterogeneity amongst studies. We employed the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence., Main Results: 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; I 2 = 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; I 2 = 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., Authors' Conclusions: 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., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Endometriosis is known to have an impact on fertility and it is common for women affected by endometriosis to require fertility treatments, including in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), to improve the chance of pregnancy. It has been postulated that long-term gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist therapy prior to IVF or ICSI can improve pregnancy outcomes. This systematic review supersedes the previous Cochrane Review on this topic (Sallam 2006)., Objectives: To determine the effectiveness and safety of long-term gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist therapy (minimum 3 months) versus no pretreatment or other pretreatment modalities, such as long-term continuous combined oral contraception (COC) or surgical therapy of endometrioma, before standard in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in women with endometriosis., Search Methods: We searched the following electronic databases from their inception to 8 January 2019: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL via the Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Studies ONLINE (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We searched trial registries to identify unpublished and ongoing trials. We also searched DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects), Web of Knowledge, OpenGrey, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS), PubMed, Google and reference lists from relevant papers for any other relevant trials., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving women with surgically diagnosed endometriosis that compared use of any type of GnRH agonist for at least three months before an IVF/ICSI protocol to no pretreatment or other pretreatment modalities, specifically use of long-term continuous COC (minimum of 6 weeks) or surgical excision of endometrioma within six months prior to standard IVF/ICSI. The primary outcomes were live birth rate and complication rate per woman randomised., Data Collection and Analysis: Two independent review authors assessed studies against the inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. A third review author was consulted, if required. We contacted the study authors, as required. 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 and presented with 95% CIs. We studied heterogeneity of the studies via the I 2 statistic. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE criteria., Main Results: We included eight parallel-design RCTs, involving a total of 640 participants. We did not assess any of the studies as being at low risk of bias across all domains, with the main limitation being lack of blinding. Using GRADE methodology, the quality of the evidence ranged from very low to low quality. Long-term GnRH agonist therapy versus no pretreatment We are uncertain whether long-term GnRH agonist therapy affects the live birth rate (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.87; 1 RCT, n = 147; I 2 not calculable; very low-quality evidence) or the overall complication rate (Peto OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.37; to 4.14; 3 RCTs, n = 318; I 2 = 73%; very low-quality evidence) compared to standard IVF/ICSI. Further, we are uncertain whether this intervention affects the clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.41; 6 RCTs, n = 552, I 2 = 66%; very low-quality evidence), multiple pregnancy rate (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.56; 2 RCTs, n = 208, I 2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence), miscarriage rate (Peto OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.00; 2 RCTs, n = 208; I 2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence), mean number of oocytes (MD 0.72, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.38; 4 RCTs, n = 385; I 2 = 81%; very low-quality evidence) or mean number of embryos (MD -0.76, 95% CI -1.33 to -0.19; 2 RCTs, n = 267; I 2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Long-term GnRH agonist therapy versus long-term continuous COC No studies reported on this comparison. Long-term GnRH agonist therapy versus surgical therapy of endometrioma No studies reported on this comparison., Authors' Conclusions: This review raises important questions regarding the merit of long-term GnRH agonist therapy compared to no pretreatment prior to standard IVF/ICSI in women with endometriosis. Contrary to previous findings, we are uncertain as to whether long-term GnRH agonist therapy impacts on the live birth rate or indeed the complication rate compared to standard IVF/ICSI. Further, we are uncertain whether this intervention impacts on the clinical pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, mean number of oocytes and mean number of embryos. In light of the paucity and very low quality of existing data, particularly for the primary outcomes examined, further high-quality trials are required to definitively determine the impact of long-term GnRH agonist therapy on IVF/ICSI outcomes, not only compared to no pretreatment, but also compared to other proposed alternatives to endometriosis management., (Copyright © 2019 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)