Treatment of Endometriosis-Associated Pain with Elagolix, an Oral GnRH Antagonist

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_TAYLOR_Treatment_of_EndometriosisAssociated_Pain_with_Elagolix_an_Oral_2017.PDF (536.81 KB)
Citações na Scopus
339
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2017
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOC
Autores
TAYLOR, H. S.
GIUDICE, L. C.
LESSEY, B. A.
KOTARSKI, J.
ARCHER, D. F.
DIAMOND, M. P.
SURREY, E.
JOHNSON, N. P.
WATTS, N. B.
Citação
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, v.377, n.1, p.28-40, 2017
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
BACKGROUND Endometriosis is a chronic, estrogen-dependent condition that causes dysmenorrhea and pelvic pain. Elagolix, an oral, nonpeptide, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, produced partial to nearly full estrogen suppression in previous studies. METHODS We performed two similar, double-blind, randomized, 6-month phase 3 trials (Elaris Endometriosis I and II [EM-I and EM-II]) to evaluate the effects of two doses of elagolix - 150 mg once daily (lower-dose group) and 200 mg twice daily (higher-dose group) - as compared with placebo in women with surgically diagnosed endometriosis and moderate or severe endometriosis-associated pain. The two primary efficacy end points were the proportion of women who had a clinical response with respect to dysmenorrhea and the proportion who had a clinical response with respect to nonmenstrual pelvic pain at 3 months. Each of these end points was measured as a clinically meaningful reduction in the pain score and a decreased or stable use of rescue analgesic agents, as recorded in a daily electronic diary. RESULTS A total of 872 women underwent randomization in Elaris EM-I and 817 in Elaris EM-II; of these women, 653 (74.9%) and 632 (77.4%), respectively, completed the intervention. At 3 months, a significantly greater proportion of women who received each elagolix dose met the clinical response criteria for the two primary end points than did those who received placebo. In Elaris EM-I, the percentage of women who had a clinical response with respect to dysmenorrhea was 46.4% in the lower-dose elagolix group and 75.8% in the higher-dose elagolix group, as compared with 19.6% in the placebo group; in Elaris EM-II, the corresponding percentages were 43.4% and 72.4%, as compared with 22.7% (P< 0.001 for all comparisons). In Elaris EM-I, the percentage of women who had a clinical response with respect to nonmenstrual pelvic pain was 50.4% in the lower-dose elagolix group and 54.5% in the higher-dose elagolix group, as compared with 36.5% in the placebo group (P < 0.001 for all comparisons); in Elaris EM-II, the corresponding percentages were 49.8% and 57.8%, as compared with 36.5% (P = 0.003 and P < 0.001, respectively). The responses with respect to dysmenorrhea and nonmenstrual pelvic pain were sustained at 6 months. Women who received elagolix had higher rates of hot flushes (mostly mild or moderate), higher levels of serum lipids, and greater decreases from baseline in bone mineral density than did those who received placebo; there were no adverse endometrial findings. CONCLUSIONS Both higher and lower doses of elagolix were effective in improving dysmenorrhea and nonmenstrual pelvic pain during a 6-month period in women with endometriosis-associated pain. The two doses of elagolix were associated with hypoestrogenic adverse effects. (Funded by AbbVie; Elaris EM-I and EM-II ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01620528 and NCT01931670.)
Palavras-chave
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/28168
Referências
  1. BARBIERI RL, 1992, AM J OBSTET GYNECOL, V166, P740, DOI 10.1016/0002-9378(92)91706-G
  2. Brosens JJ, 2012, MOL CELL ENDOCRINOL, V358, P145, DOI 10.1016/j.mce.2012.02.023
  3. Brown J., 2010, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, V12, DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD008475.PUB2
  4. Bulun SE, 2002, ANN NY ACAD SCI, V955, P75, DOI 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2002.tb02767.x
  5. Bulun SE, 2009, NEW ENGL J MED, V360, P268, DOI 10.1056/NEJMra0804690
  6. Burney RO, 2007, ENDOCRINOLOGY, V148, P3814, DOI 10.1210/en.2006-1692
  7. Carr B, 2013, J ENDOMETR PELVIC PA, V5, P105, DOI 10.5301/je.5000157
  8. Carr B, 2014, REPROD SCI, V21, P1341, DOI 10.1177/1933719114549848
  9. Diamond MP, 2014, REPROD SCI, V21, P363, DOI 10.1177/1933719113497292
  10. Dragoman MV, 2016, CONTRACEPTION, V94, P202, DOI 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.02.003
  11. Du HL, 2007, STEM CELLS, V25, P2082, DOI 10.1634/stemcells.2006-0828
  12. Farrar JT, 2001, PAIN, V94, P149, DOI 10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00349-9
  13. Gao X, 2006, FERTIL STERIL, V86, P1561, DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.06.015
  14. Giudice LC, 2010, NEW ENGL J MED, V362, P2389, DOI 10.1056/NEJMcp1000274
  15. Guo SW, 2009, HUM REPROD UPDATE, V15, P441, DOI 10.1093/humupd/dmp007
  16. Gylfason JT, 2010, AM J EPIDEMIOL, V172, P237, DOI 10.1093/aje/kwq143
  17. Hornstein MD, 1998, OBSTET GYNECOL, V91, P16, DOI 10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00620-0
  18. Jacobson TA, 2014, J CLIN LIPIDOL, V8, P473, DOI 10.1016/j.jacl.2014.07.007
  19. Johnson NP, 2013, HUM REPROD, V28, P1552, DOI 10.1093/humrep/det050
  20. Leyland Nicholas, 2010, J Obstet Gynaecol Can, V32, pS1
  21. Maggi R, 2016, HUM REPROD UPDATE, V22, P358, DOI 10.1093/humupd/dmv059
  22. Missmer SA, 2004, OBSTET GYNECOL, V104, P965, DOI 10.1097/01.AOG.0000142714.54857.f8
  23. Mu F, 2016, CIRC-CARDIOVASC QUAL, V9, P257, DOI 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.115.002224
  24. Ng J, 2017, J CLIN ENDOCR METAB, V102, P1683, DOI 10.1210/jc.2016-3845
  25. Nnoaham KE, 2011, FERTIL STERIL, V96, P366, DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.05.090
  26. Ofer Adam, 2016, Am J Obstet Gynecol, V214, P672, DOI 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.12.022
  27. Olive DL, 2008, NEW ENGL J MED, V359, P1136, DOI 10.1056/NEJMct0803719
  28. Parazzini F, 2017, EUR J OBSTET GYN R B, V209, P3, DOI 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.04.021
  29. Petta CA, 2005, HUM REPROD, V20, P1993, DOI 10.1093/humrep/deh869
  30. PRACTICE C, 2014, FERTIL STERIL, V101, P927, DOI 10.1016/J.FERTNSTERT.2014.02.012)
  31. Prentice A, 2000, COCHRANE DB SYST REV
  32. Reis FM, 2013, HUM REPROD UPDATE, V19, P406, DOI 10.1093/humupd/dmt010
  33. Sagsveen M., 2003, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, V4, DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD001297
  34. Simoens S, 2012, HUM REPROD, V27, P1292, DOI 10.1093/humrep/des073
  35. Soliman AM, 2016, HUM REPROD, V31, P712, DOI 10.1093/humrep/dev335
  36. Stratton P, 2011, HUM REPROD UPDATE, V17, P327, DOI 10.1093/humupd/dmq050
  37. Surrey ES, 2002, OBSTET GYNECOL, V99, P709, DOI 10.1016/S0029-7844(02)01945-2
  38. Vercellini P, 2011, REPROD SCI, V18, P114, DOI 10.1177/1933719110382921
  39. Watts NB, 2013, J CLIN DENSITOM, V16, P472, DOI 10.1016/j.jocd.2013.08.001

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MOG
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/58