Efficacy and safety of different subsequent therapies after fertility preserving surgery for endometriosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Journal
Medicine
ISSN: 1536-5964
Titre abrégé: Medicine (Baltimore)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 2985248R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Aug 2023
04 Aug 2023
Historique:
medline:
7
8
2023
pubmed:
6
8
2023
entrez:
6
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Endometriosis (EMT) is a benign and common estrogen-dependent disease. Hormonal therapy improves pain symptoms in most women with EMT. However, in many cases, laparoscopic fertility preservation surgery is considered a common treatment for EMT. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dienogest, leuprolide, danazol, gestrinone, mifepristone and levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in relieving symptoms and delaying the recurrence of EMT cysts after fertility protection surgery. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Database, China Biology Medicine disc, WanFang Data databases to collect randomized controlled trials (RCT) related to dienogest, leuprolide, danazol, gestrinone, mifepristone and LNG-IUS as a follow-up treatment after fertility preserving surgery for EMT. After literature screening, data extraction and quality evaluation, effective rate, recurrence rate, pregnancy rate and adverse reaction rate were used as outcome indicators to evaluate the efficacy and safety of drugs. Evidence networks included in the study were drawn and publication bias was assessed. The drugs most likely to be the best postoperative treatment were explored through mixed comparison of different drugs and efficacy ranking. Effective rate: dienogest, leprerelin, gestrinone and LNG-IUS were better than placebo after EMT fertility preservation surgery; dienogest was superior to mifepristone and danazol. LNG-IUS is superior to danazol. LNG-IUS has the highest potential for improving the effectiveness of EMT symptoms. Recurrence rate: the application of dienogest, leuprolide, gestrinone, mifepristone and LNG-IUS after EMT fertility preservation surgery was lower than that of placebo; dienogest and LNG-IUS were lower than danazol. The recurrence rate of dinorgestrel was the last place with the highest performance. Pregnancy rate: in the cases with fertility requirements, dienogest and,leuprolide were better than placebo after EMT fertility preservation surgery; dienogest was superior to danazol, gestrinone and mifepristone. Leuprolide is superior to danazol and gestrinone. The first rank of dienogest pregnancy rate was the highest. Adverse reaction rate: the application of dienogest, leuprolide, danazol, gestrinone, mifepristone and LNG-IUS after EMT fertility preservation surgery was higher than that of placebo. After placebo, LNG-IUS had the highest adverse reaction rate. For patients after fertility preserving surgery for EMT, the recurrence rate of dienogest was the last place with highest preference. The first rank of dienogest pregnancy was the highest.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Endometriosis (EMT) is a benign and common estrogen-dependent disease. Hormonal therapy improves pain symptoms in most women with EMT. However, in many cases, laparoscopic fertility preservation surgery is considered a common treatment for EMT. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dienogest, leuprolide, danazol, gestrinone, mifepristone and levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in relieving symptoms and delaying the recurrence of EMT cysts after fertility protection surgery.
METHODS
METHODS
We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Database, China Biology Medicine disc, WanFang Data databases to collect randomized controlled trials (RCT) related to dienogest, leuprolide, danazol, gestrinone, mifepristone and LNG-IUS as a follow-up treatment after fertility preserving surgery for EMT. After literature screening, data extraction and quality evaluation, effective rate, recurrence rate, pregnancy rate and adverse reaction rate were used as outcome indicators to evaluate the efficacy and safety of drugs. Evidence networks included in the study were drawn and publication bias was assessed. The drugs most likely to be the best postoperative treatment were explored through mixed comparison of different drugs and efficacy ranking.
RESULT
RESULTS
Effective rate: dienogest, leprerelin, gestrinone and LNG-IUS were better than placebo after EMT fertility preservation surgery; dienogest was superior to mifepristone and danazol. LNG-IUS is superior to danazol. LNG-IUS has the highest potential for improving the effectiveness of EMT symptoms. Recurrence rate: the application of dienogest, leuprolide, gestrinone, mifepristone and LNG-IUS after EMT fertility preservation surgery was lower than that of placebo; dienogest and LNG-IUS were lower than danazol. The recurrence rate of dinorgestrel was the last place with the highest performance. Pregnancy rate: in the cases with fertility requirements, dienogest and,leuprolide were better than placebo after EMT fertility preservation surgery; dienogest was superior to danazol, gestrinone and mifepristone. Leuprolide is superior to danazol and gestrinone. The first rank of dienogest pregnancy rate was the highest. Adverse reaction rate: the application of dienogest, leuprolide, danazol, gestrinone, mifepristone and LNG-IUS after EMT fertility preservation surgery was higher than that of placebo. After placebo, LNG-IUS had the highest adverse reaction rate.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
For patients after fertility preserving surgery for EMT, the recurrence rate of dienogest was the last place with highest preference. The first rank of dienogest pregnancy was the highest.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37543781
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034496
pii: 00005792-202308040-00024
pmc: PMC10403030
doi:
Substances chimiques
Danazol
N29QWW3BUO
Gestrinone
1421533RCM
Leuprolide
EFY6W0M8TG
Mifepristone
320T6RNW1F
Levonorgestrel
5W7SIA7YZW
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e34496Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Références
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2021 Oct;37(10):930-933
pubmed: 34036845
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014 Dec;183:164-8
pubmed: 25461372
J Reprod Med. 2004 Dec;49(12):955-9
pubmed: 15656211
J Clin Pharmacol. 2012 Nov;52(11):1704-13
pubmed: 22128200
Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2016 Dec;43(4):215-220
pubmed: 28090460
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2015 Mar;50(3):188-93
pubmed: 26268408
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2005 Jan;40(1):5-8
pubmed: 15774083
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014 Nov-Dec;21(6):1080-5
pubmed: 25544711
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928
pubmed: 22008217
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009 Nov;147(1):72-7
pubmed: 19665279
Fertil Steril. 2003 Aug;80(2):305-9
pubmed: 12909492
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015 Jun;94(6):637-45
pubmed: 25761587
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2022 Jan;156(1):124-132
pubmed: 33728657
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2013 Aug;48(8):584-8
pubmed: 24199923
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020 Aug;99(8):1050-1056
pubmed: 32049366
Steroids. 2008 Feb;73(2):222-31
pubmed: 18061638
Contraception. 2005 Jan;71(1):60-4
pubmed: 15639075
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010 Jun;50(3):273-9
pubmed: 20618247
Fertil Steril. 2004 Jun;81(6):1522-7
pubmed: 15193471
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Aug;25(4):299-301
pubmed: 23812378
Chin J Integr Med. 2006 Sep;12(3):218-20
pubmed: 17005086
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2016 Sep;42(9):1152-8
pubmed: 27225336
Healthcare (Basel). 2022 Dec 12;10(12):
pubmed: 36554040
J Clin Med. 2020 Jan 06;9(1):
pubmed: 31935969
Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2014 May;10(5):261-75
pubmed: 24366116
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015 Aug;55(4):357-62
pubmed: 26201679
Hum Reprod. 1999 May;14(5):1335-7
pubmed: 10325289
Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2016;43(3):350-3
pubmed: 27328489
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2017 Jul;33(7):534-539
pubmed: 28266234
Fertil Steril. 2011 Feb;95(2):492-6
pubmed: 20883991
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020 Oct;99(10):1330-1338
pubmed: 32274789
Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Mar;119(3):519-26
pubmed: 22314873
Hum Reprod. 2001 Nov;16(11):2399-402
pubmed: 11679528
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2018 Sep;44(9):1779-1786
pubmed: 29974633