Elagolix treatment in women with heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroid: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Elagolix is effective and safe for treating menorrhagia in women with uterine fibroid. However, it is reported to be associated with hypoestrogenism that can be alleviated by adding estradiol/norethindrone acetate. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effectiveness of elagolix treatment in women with heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroid by comparing: elagolix versus placebo and elagolix versus estradiol/norethindrone acetate. Methodology The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2021, Issue 3 of 12), MEDLINE databases (1980 to December week 1, 2020), and trial registries for relevant randomized clinical trials were used. All randomized clinical trials were reviewed and evaluated. Random effects models were used to estimate the dichotomous outcomes and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Data for risk of bias, heterogeneity, sensitivity, reporting bias and quality of evidence were assessed. Results Four randomized controlled trials with 1949 premenopausal women from 323 locations were included. Elagolix improved menstrual blood loss of less than 80 ml (RR 4.81, 95% CI 2.45 to 9.45; four trials, 869 participants; moderate quality evidence) or more than 50% reduction from baseline (RR 4.87, 95% CI 2.55 to 9.31; four trials, 869 participants; moderate quality evidence) compared to placebo. There was no difference in menstrual blood loss of less than 80 ml (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.16; five trials, 1365 participants; moderate quality evidence) or more than 50% reduction from baseline between the elagolix (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.15; five trials, 1365 participants; high quality evidence) and elagolix with estradiol/norethindrone acetate. In both comparisons, elagolix has reduced the mean percentage change in uterine and fibroid volume, improved symptoms, and health-related quality of life. More patients had hot flush, and bone mineral density loss in the elagolix treatment compared to both placebo and elagolix with estradiol/norethindrone acetate. Conclusions Elagolix appeared to be effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding caused by uterine fibroid and combination with estradiol/norethindrone acetate was able to alleviate the hypoestrogenism side effects in premenopausal women. Review registration PROSPERO CDR 42021233898.

Elagolix Treatment in Women With Heavy Menstrual Bleeding Associated With Uterine Fibroid: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background: Elagolix is effective and safe for treating menorrhagia in women with uterine fibroid. However, it is reported to be associated with hypoestrogenism that can be alleviated by adding estradiol/norethindrone acetate. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effectiveness of elagolix treatment in women with heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroid by comparing: elagolix versus placebo and elagolix versus estradiol/norethindrone acetate.Methodology: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2021, Issue 3 of 12), MEDLINE databases (1980 to December week 1, 2020), and trial registries for relevant randomized clinical trials were used. All randomized clinical trials were reviewed and evaluated. Random effects models were used to estimate the dichotomous outcomes and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Data for risk of bias, heterogeneity, sensitivity, reporting bias and quality of evidence were assessed. Results: Four randomized controlled trials with 1949 premenopausal women from 323 locations were included. Elagolix improved menstrual blood loss of less than 80 ml (RR 4.81, 95% CI 2.45 to 9.45; four trials, 869 participants; moderate quality evidence) or more than 50% reduction from baseline (RR 4.87, 95% CI 2.55 to 9.31; four trials, 869 participants; moderate quality evidence) compared to placebo. There was no difference in menstrual blood loss of less than 80 ml (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.16; five trials, 1365 participants; moderate quality evidence) or more than 50% reduction from baseline between the elagolix (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.15; five trials, 1365 participants; high quality evidence) and elagolix with estradiol/norethindrone acetate. In both comparisons, elagolix has reduced the mean percentage change in uterine and fibroid volume, improved symptoms, and health-related quality of life. More patients had hot flush, and bone mineral density loss in the elagolix treatment compared to both placebo and elagolix with estradiol/norethindrone acetate.Conclusions: Elagolix appeared to be effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding caused by uterine fibroid and combination with estradiol/norethindrone acetate was able to alleviate the hypoestrogenism side effects in premenopausal women.Review registration. PROSPERO CDR 42021233898.

Thromboembolic safety profile of low-dose estradiol (valerate) in combined hormonal preparations: Implications for the development of new hormonal endometriosis and uterine fibroid therapies

Background: Several promising new medications containing low-dose estradiol (E2) in combination with a progestin and an additional component, such as gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists, are currently being developed for use in pre-menopausal women. Objective: This pooled analysis was designed to estimate the thromboembolic safety profile of E2 and its ester, estradiol valerate (E2Val), when used in combined hormonal treatments in a pre-menopausal population. Methods: Data regarding users of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) and combined menopausal hormonal therapy (MHT) containing either E2/E2Val or ethinylestradiol (EE) ⩽ 30 µg were retrieved from five large prospective, non-interventional, cohort studies in Europe, US, and Canada with similar study design but differing medication cohorts. Propensity score sub-classification was applied to balance baseline parameters between cohorts and time-to-event analysis of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) was carried out based on the extended Cox model to calculate crude and adjusted hazard ratios (HR). Results: (1) Crude incidence rates of VTE were higher in MHT users compared to pre-menopausal COC users, (2) the VTE risk in menopausal users of E2/E2Val-norethindrone acetate was not higher than that in menopausal users of E2/E2Val-progestin (adjusted HR 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-1.26) and (3) the VTE risk in pre-menopausal users of E2/E2Val-progestin was similar, or lower, than pre-menopausal users of EE⩽30µg-progestin (adjusted HR 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.28–0.84). Conclusion: Our data presents a solid safety assessment of combined hormonal preparations containing E2/E2Val. We conclude that the risk of E2/E2Val-norethindrone acetate in pre-menopausal users is unlikely to be higher than the known risk of COCs containing EE ⩽ 30 µg-progestin.