通过长效孕激素疗法预防子宫内膜异位症相关疼痛复发:PRE-EMPT RCT。

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Kevin G Cooper, Siladitya Bhattacharya, Jane P Daniels, Versha Cheed, Laura Gennard, Lisa Leighton, Danielle Pirie, Melyda Melyda, Mark Monahan, Annalise Weckesser, Tracy Roberts, Elaine Denny, Laura Ocansey, Clive Stubbs, Emma Cox, Georgina Jones, T Justin Clark, Ertan Saridogan, Janesh K Gupta, Hilary Om Critchley, Andrew Horne, Lee J Middleton
{"title":"通过长效孕激素疗法预防子宫内膜异位症相关疼痛复发:PRE-EMPT RCT。","authors":"Kevin G Cooper, Siladitya Bhattacharya, Jane P Daniels, Versha Cheed, Laura Gennard, Lisa Leighton, Danielle Pirie, Melyda Melyda, Mark Monahan, Annalise Weckesser, Tracy Roberts, Elaine Denny, Laura Ocansey, Clive Stubbs, Emma Cox, Georgina Jones, T Justin Clark, Ertan Saridogan, Janesh K Gupta, Hilary Om Critchley, Andrew Horne, Lee J Middleton","doi":"10.3310/SQWY6998","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endometriosis affects 1 in 10 women, many of whom have surgery for persistent pain. Recurrence of symptoms following an operation is common. Although hormonal treatment can reduce this risk, there is uncertainty about the best option.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of long-acting progestogen therapy compared with the combined oral contraceptive pill in preventing recurrence of endometriosis-related pain and quality of life.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A multicentre, open, randomised trial with parallel economic evaluation. The final design was informed by a pilot study, qualitative exploration of women's lived experience of endometriosis and a pretrial economic model.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Thirty-four United Kingdom hospitals.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Women of reproductive age undergoing conservative surgery for endometriosis.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Long-acting progestogen reversible contraceptive (either 150 mg depot medroxyprogesterone acetate or 52 mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system) or combined oral contraceptive pill (30 µg ethinylestradiol, 150 µg levonorgestrel).</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcome was the pain domain of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 questionnaire at 36 months post randomisation. The economic evaluation estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four hundred and five women were randomised to receive either long-acting reversible contraceptive (<i>N</i> = 205) or combined oral contraceptive pill (<i>N</i> = 200). Pain scores improved in both groups (24 and 23 points on average) compared with preoperative values but there was no difference between the two (adjusted mean difference: -0.8, 95% confidence interval -5.7 to 4.2; <i>p</i> = 0.76). The long-acting reversible contraceptive group underwent fewer surgical procedures or second-line treatments compared with the combined oral contraceptive group (73 vs. 97; hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.00). The mean adjusted quality-adjusted life-year difference between two arms was 0.043 (95% confidence interval -0.069 to 0.152) in favour of the combined oral contraceptive pill, although this cost an additional £533 (95% confidence interval 52 to 983) per woman.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Limitations include the absence of a no-treatment group and the fact that many women changed treatments over the 3 years of follow-up. Use of telephone follow-up to collect primary outcome data in those who failed to return questionnaires resulted in missing data for secondary outcomes. The COVID pandemic may have affected rates of further surgical treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>At 36 months, women allocated to either intervention had comparable levels of pain, with both groups showing around a 40% improvement from presurgical levels. Although the combined oral contraceptive was cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the difference between the two was marginal and lower rates of repeat surgery might make long-acting reversible contraceptives preferable to some women.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>Future research needs to focus on evaluating newer hormonal preparations, a more holistic approach to symptom suppression and identification of biomarkers to diagnose endometriosis and its recurrence.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This trial is registered as ISRCTN97865475. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN97865475.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 11/114/01) and is published in full in <i>Health Technology Assessment</i>; Vol. 28, No. 55. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. The NIHR recognises that people have diverse gender identities, and in this report, the word 'woman' is used to describe patients or individuals whose sex assigned at birth was female, whether they identify as female, male or non-binary.</p>","PeriodicalId":12898,"journal":{"name":"Health technology assessment","volume":"28 55","pages":"1-77"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11417646/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preventing recurrence of endometriosis-related pain by means of long-acting progestogen therapy: the PRE-EMPT RCT.\",\"authors\":\"Kevin G Cooper, Siladitya Bhattacharya, Jane P Daniels, Versha Cheed, Laura Gennard, Lisa Leighton, Danielle Pirie, Melyda Melyda, Mark Monahan, Annalise Weckesser, Tracy Roberts, Elaine Denny, Laura Ocansey, Clive Stubbs, Emma Cox, Georgina Jones, T Justin Clark, Ertan Saridogan, Janesh K Gupta, Hilary Om Critchley, Andrew Horne, Lee J Middleton\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/SQWY6998\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endometriosis affects 1 in 10 women, many of whom have surgery for persistent pain. Recurrence of symptoms following an operation is common. Although hormonal treatment can reduce this risk, there is uncertainty about the best option.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of long-acting progestogen therapy compared with the combined oral contraceptive pill in preventing recurrence of endometriosis-related pain and quality of life.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A multicentre, open, randomised trial with parallel economic evaluation. The final design was informed by a pilot study, qualitative exploration of women's lived experience of endometriosis and a pretrial economic model.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Thirty-four United Kingdom hospitals.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Women of reproductive age undergoing conservative surgery for endometriosis.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Long-acting progestogen reversible contraceptive (either 150 mg depot medroxyprogesterone acetate or 52 mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system) or combined oral contraceptive pill (30 µg ethinylestradiol, 150 µg levonorgestrel).</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcome was the pain domain of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 questionnaire at 36 months post randomisation. The economic evaluation estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four hundred and five women were randomised to receive either long-acting reversible contraceptive (<i>N</i> = 205) or combined oral contraceptive pill (<i>N</i> = 200). Pain scores improved in both groups (24 and 23 points on average) compared with preoperative values but there was no difference between the two (adjusted mean difference: -0.8, 95% confidence interval -5.7 to 4.2; <i>p</i> = 0.76). The long-acting reversible contraceptive group underwent fewer surgical procedures or second-line treatments compared with the combined oral contraceptive group (73 vs. 97; hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.00). The mean adjusted quality-adjusted life-year difference between two arms was 0.043 (95% confidence interval -0.069 to 0.152) in favour of the combined oral contraceptive pill, although this cost an additional £533 (95% confidence interval 52 to 983) per woman.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Limitations include the absence of a no-treatment group and the fact that many women changed treatments over the 3 years of follow-up. Use of telephone follow-up to collect primary outcome data in those who failed to return questionnaires resulted in missing data for secondary outcomes. The COVID pandemic may have affected rates of further surgical treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>At 36 months, women allocated to either intervention had comparable levels of pain, with both groups showing around a 40% improvement from presurgical levels. Although the combined oral contraceptive was cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the difference between the two was marginal and lower rates of repeat surgery might make long-acting reversible contraceptives preferable to some women.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>Future research needs to focus on evaluating newer hormonal preparations, a more holistic approach to symptom suppression and identification of biomarkers to diagnose endometriosis and its recurrence.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This trial is registered as ISRCTN97865475. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN97865475.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 11/114/01) and is published in full in <i>Health Technology Assessment</i>; Vol. 28, No. 55. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. The NIHR recognises that people have diverse gender identities, and in this report, the word 'woman' is used to describe patients or individuals whose sex assigned at birth was female, whether they identify as female, male or non-binary.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12898,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health technology assessment\",\"volume\":\"28 55\",\"pages\":\"1-77\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11417646/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health technology assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/SQWY6998\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/SQWY6998","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:每 10 名妇女中就有 1 人患有子宫内膜异位症,其中许多人因持续疼痛而接受手术治疗。手术后症状复发很常见。虽然激素治疗可以降低这种风险,但最佳方案尚不确定:评估长效孕激素疗法与复方口服避孕药相比,在预防子宫内膜异位症相关疼痛复发和提高生活质量方面的临床效果和成本效益:设计:多中心、开放式、随机试验,同时进行经济评估。最终设计参考了试点研究、对妇女子宫内膜异位症生活经历的定性探索以及试验前经济模型:地点:英国 34 家医院:干预措施:长效孕激素可逆避孕药(150 毫克醋酸甲羟孕酮或 52 毫克左炔诺孕酮宫内释放系统)或复方口服避孕药(30 微克炔雌醇、150 微克左炔诺孕酮):主要结果是随机分配后 36 个月的子宫内膜异位症健康档案-30 问卷的疼痛域。经济评价估算了每获得质量调整生命年的成本:45 名妇女被随机分配接受长效可逆避孕药(205 人)或复方口服避孕药(200 人)。与术前相比,两组患者的疼痛评分均有所改善(平均分别为 24 分和 23 分),但两者之间没有差异(调整后的平均差异为-0.8,95% 置信度为-0.8):-0.8,95% 置信区间-5.7 至 4.2;P = 0.76)。与复方口服避孕药组相比,长效可逆避孕药组接受手术或二线治疗的次数较少(73 对 97;危险比为 0.67,95% 置信区间为 0.44 至 1.00)。两组间调整后的质量调整生命年平均差异为0.043(95%置信区间-0.069至0.152),复方口服避孕药更优,但每名妇女额外花费533英镑(95%置信区间52至983):局限性:该研究的局限性包括缺乏未接受治疗组,以及许多妇女在 3 年的随访期间更换了治疗方法。由于采用电话随访的方式收集未能返回问卷者的主要结果数据,导致次要结果数据缺失。COVID大流行可能影响了进一步手术治疗的比例:36个月后,接受两种干预的妇女的疼痛程度相当,与手术前相比,两组妇女的疼痛程度均改善了约40%。虽然在每质量调整生命年20,000英镑的临界值下,联合口服避孕药具有成本效益,但两者之间的差异微乎其微,而且较低的重复手术率可能会使一些妇女更青睐长效可逆避孕药:未来工作:未来的研究需要重点评估更新的激素制剂、更全面的症状抑制方法以及诊断子宫内膜异位症及其复发的生物标志物的鉴定:本试验的注册号为ISRCTN97865475。https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN97865475.Funding:该奖项由美国国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)健康技术评估项目资助(NIHR奖项编号:11/114/01),全文发表于《健康技术评估》(Health Technology Assessment)第28卷第55期。如需了解更多奖项信息,请参阅 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。英国国家卫生研究院承认人们有不同的性别认同,在本报告中,"女性 "一词用于描述出生时性别分配为女性的患者或个人,无论他们的性别认同是女性、男性或非二元性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Preventing recurrence of endometriosis-related pain by means of long-acting progestogen therapy: the PRE-EMPT RCT.

Background: Endometriosis affects 1 in 10 women, many of whom have surgery for persistent pain. Recurrence of symptoms following an operation is common. Although hormonal treatment can reduce this risk, there is uncertainty about the best option.

Objectives: To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of long-acting progestogen therapy compared with the combined oral contraceptive pill in preventing recurrence of endometriosis-related pain and quality of life.

Design: A multicentre, open, randomised trial with parallel economic evaluation. The final design was informed by a pilot study, qualitative exploration of women's lived experience of endometriosis and a pretrial economic model.

Setting: Thirty-four United Kingdom hospitals.

Participants: Women of reproductive age undergoing conservative surgery for endometriosis.

Interventions: Long-acting progestogen reversible contraceptive (either 150 mg depot medroxyprogesterone acetate or 52 mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system) or combined oral contraceptive pill (30 µg ethinylestradiol, 150 µg levonorgestrel).

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the pain domain of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 questionnaire at 36 months post randomisation. The economic evaluation estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained.

Results: Four hundred and five women were randomised to receive either long-acting reversible contraceptive (N = 205) or combined oral contraceptive pill (N = 200). Pain scores improved in both groups (24 and 23 points on average) compared with preoperative values but there was no difference between the two (adjusted mean difference: -0.8, 95% confidence interval -5.7 to 4.2; p = 0.76). The long-acting reversible contraceptive group underwent fewer surgical procedures or second-line treatments compared with the combined oral contraceptive group (73 vs. 97; hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.00). The mean adjusted quality-adjusted life-year difference between two arms was 0.043 (95% confidence interval -0.069 to 0.152) in favour of the combined oral contraceptive pill, although this cost an additional £533 (95% confidence interval 52 to 983) per woman.

Limitations: Limitations include the absence of a no-treatment group and the fact that many women changed treatments over the 3 years of follow-up. Use of telephone follow-up to collect primary outcome data in those who failed to return questionnaires resulted in missing data for secondary outcomes. The COVID pandemic may have affected rates of further surgical treatment.

Conclusions: At 36 months, women allocated to either intervention had comparable levels of pain, with both groups showing around a 40% improvement from presurgical levels. Although the combined oral contraceptive was cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the difference between the two was marginal and lower rates of repeat surgery might make long-acting reversible contraceptives preferable to some women.

Future work: Future research needs to focus on evaluating newer hormonal preparations, a more holistic approach to symptom suppression and identification of biomarkers to diagnose endometriosis and its recurrence.

Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN97865475. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN97865475.

Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 11/114/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 55. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. The NIHR recognises that people have diverse gender identities, and in this report, the word 'woman' is used to describe patients or individuals whose sex assigned at birth was female, whether they identify as female, male or non-binary.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health technology assessment
Health technology assessment 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
94
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) publishes research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS.
×
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