Dienogest vs. combined oral contraceptive: A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and side effects to inform evidence-based guidelines.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Ilaria Piacenti, Veronica Tius, Maria Federica Viscardi, Anna Biasioli, Martina Arcieri, Stefano Restaino, Ludovico Muzii, Giuseppe Vizzielli, Maria Grazia Porpora
{"title":"Dienogest vs. combined oral contraceptive: A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and side effects to inform evidence-based guidelines.","authors":"Ilaria Piacenti, Veronica Tius, Maria Federica Viscardi, Anna Biasioli, Martina Arcieri, Stefano Restaino, Ludovico Muzii, Giuseppe Vizzielli, Maria Grazia Porpora","doi":"10.1111/aogs.15145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Dienogest is a synthetic fourth-generation progestin that has been approved for the medical treatment of endometriosis, and its efficacy on pain symptoms and quality of life is well established even in the long term. Nowadays, only a few controlled trials evaluating the safety of dienogest compared with other hormonal therapies have been published. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare efficacy and tolerability data between dienogest and combined oral contraceptives (COC) in patients taking hormonal therapy for endometriosis treatment in order to inform evidence-based guidelines.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>PubMed (Medline), Web of Science, and Google Scholar were systematically searched from the inception of each database until October 2024. Selection criteria included any articles comparing efficacy outcomes and at least one tolerability data between dienogest and COC in patients diagnosed with endometriosis. Studies comparing COC containing Dienogest or another type of hormonal treatment were excluded. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted if adequate data were available from at least three studies, reporting pooled mean differences and odds ratios between groups using Review Manager V.7.9.0. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024598455.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of four randomized control trials and one observational study were included, showing moderate risk at bias assessment. Meta-analysis did not show any statistical difference in improving pelvic pain after treatment [CI 95% (-1.45-1.17); I<sup>2</sup> = 86%; p = 0.84]. In contrast, dyspareunia after treatment was significantly lower in the COC group [CI 95% (0.64-1.33); I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; p < 0.00001]. No statistical difference was found in terms of vaginal bleeding [OR = 0.88; CI 95% (0.39-1.96); I<sup>2</sup> = 41%; p = 0.75], nausea and vomiting [OR = 0.51; CI 95% (0.16-1.63); I<sup>2</sup> = 67%; p = 0.26], headache [OR = 0.91; CI 95% (0.38-2.21); I<sup>2</sup> = 59%; p = 0.84], hot flushes [OR = 1.16; CI 95% (0.54-2.48); I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; p = 0.71], and hair loss [OR = 1.69; CI 95% (0.52-5.53); I<sup>2</sup> = 46%; p = 0.39]. Treatment discontinuation rate was similar between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Dienogest is comparable to COC in terms of efficacy and tolerability. The therapeutic choice should be based on the patient's preference, clinical history, and experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":6990,"journal":{"name":"Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.15145","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Dienogest is a synthetic fourth-generation progestin that has been approved for the medical treatment of endometriosis, and its efficacy on pain symptoms and quality of life is well established even in the long term. Nowadays, only a few controlled trials evaluating the safety of dienogest compared with other hormonal therapies have been published. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare efficacy and tolerability data between dienogest and combined oral contraceptives (COC) in patients taking hormonal therapy for endometriosis treatment in order to inform evidence-based guidelines.

Material and methods: PubMed (Medline), Web of Science, and Google Scholar were systematically searched from the inception of each database until October 2024. Selection criteria included any articles comparing efficacy outcomes and at least one tolerability data between dienogest and COC in patients diagnosed with endometriosis. Studies comparing COC containing Dienogest or another type of hormonal treatment were excluded. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted if adequate data were available from at least three studies, reporting pooled mean differences and odds ratios between groups using Review Manager V.7.9.0. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024598455.

Results: A total of four randomized control trials and one observational study were included, showing moderate risk at bias assessment. Meta-analysis did not show any statistical difference in improving pelvic pain after treatment [CI 95% (-1.45-1.17); I2 = 86%; p = 0.84]. In contrast, dyspareunia after treatment was significantly lower in the COC group [CI 95% (0.64-1.33); I2 = 0%; p < 0.00001]. No statistical difference was found in terms of vaginal bleeding [OR = 0.88; CI 95% (0.39-1.96); I2 = 41%; p = 0.75], nausea and vomiting [OR = 0.51; CI 95% (0.16-1.63); I2 = 67%; p = 0.26], headache [OR = 0.91; CI 95% (0.38-2.21); I2 = 59%; p = 0.84], hot flushes [OR = 1.16; CI 95% (0.54-2.48); I2 = 0%; p = 0.71], and hair loss [OR = 1.69; CI 95% (0.52-5.53); I2 = 46%; p = 0.39]. Treatment discontinuation rate was similar between groups.

Conclusions: Dienogest is comparable to COC in terms of efficacy and tolerability. The therapeutic choice should be based on the patient's preference, clinical history, and experience.

Dienogest vs.联合口服避孕药:疗效和副作用的系统回顾和荟萃分析,为循证指南提供信息。
简介:Dienogest是第四代合成黄体酮,已被批准用于子宫内膜异位症的医学治疗,其对疼痛症状和生活质量的疗效是很好的,即使是长期的。目前,仅有少数对照试验评价了地诺孕酮与其他激素疗法的安全性。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在比较双炔诺孕酮和联合口服避孕药(COC)在接受激素治疗子宫内膜异位症患者中的疗效和耐受性数据,以便为循证指南提供信息。材料和方法:系统检索PubMed (Medline)、Web of Science和谷歌Scholar,从每个数据库建立到2024年10月。选择标准包括任何比较诊断为子宫内膜异位症的dienogest和COC之间疗效结果和至少一个耐受性数据的文章。比较COC含有Dienogest或其他类型的激素治疗的研究被排除。如果从至少三个研究中获得足够的数据,则进行随机效应荟萃分析,使用Review Manager V.7.9.0报告组间的汇总平均差异和优势比。普洛斯彼罗注册号:CRD42024598455。结果:共纳入4项随机对照试验和1项观察性研究,偏倚评估风险为中等。meta分析显示治疗后盆腔疼痛改善无统计学差异[CI 95% (-1.45-1.17);i2 = 86%;p = 0.84]。相比之下,COC组治疗后性交困难明显降低[CI 95% (0.64-1.33);i2 = 0%;p 2 = 41%;p = 0.75],恶心呕吐[OR = 0.51;Ci 95% (0.16-1.63);i2 = 67%;p = 0.26],头痛[OR = 0.91;Ci 95% (0.38-2.21);i2 = 59%;p = 0.84],潮热[OR = 1.16;Ci 95% (0.54-2.48);i2 = 0%;p = 0.71],脱发[OR = 1.69;Ci 95% (0.52-5.53);i2 = 46%;p = 0.39]。两组间停药率相似。结论:Dienogest在疗效和耐受性方面与COC相当。治疗选择应基于患者的偏好、临床病史和经验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
4.70%
发文量
180
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Published monthly, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica is an international journal dedicated to providing the very latest information on the results of both clinical, basic and translational research work related to all aspects of women’s health from around the globe. The journal regularly publishes commentaries, reviews, and original articles on a wide variety of topics including: gynecology, pregnancy, birth, female urology, gynecologic oncology, fertility and reproductive biology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信