Uterine Adenomyosis Treated by Linzagolix, an Oral Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Receptor Antagonist: A Pilot Study with a New ’Hit Hard First and then Maintain’ Regimen of Administration
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Trial Design and Overview
2.2. Patients
2.3. Trial Procedures and Assessments
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Patients
3.2. Primary Efficacy Endpoint
3.3. Secondary Efficacy Endpoints
3.4. Estradiol Levels
3.5. Bone Mineral Density
3.6. Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events
3.7. Clinical Laboratory Tests
4. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bird, C.C.; McElin, T.W.; Manalo-Estrella, P. The elusive adenomyosis of the uterus. Am. J. Obs. Gynecol. 1972, 112, 583–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Solares, J.; Donnez, J.; Donnez, O.; Dolmans, M.M. Pathogenesis of uterine adenomyosis: Invagination or metaplasia? Fertil. Steril. 2018, 109, 371–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Donnez, J.; Donnez, O.; Dolmans, M.M. Introduction: Uterine adenomyosis, another enigmatic disease of our time. Fertil. Steril. 2018, 109, 369–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chapron, C.; Vannuccini, S.; Santulli, P.; Abrão, M.S.; Carmona, F.; Fraser, I.S.; Gordts, S.; Guo, S.W.; Just, P.A.; Noël, J.C.; et al. Diagnosing adenomyosis: An integrated clinical and imaging approach. Hum. Reprod. Update 2020, 26, 392–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Habiba, M.; Gordts, S.; Bazot, M.; Brosens, I.; Benagiano, G. Exploring the Challenges for a New Classification of Adenomyosis. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2020, 40, 569–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, S.W. The pathogenesis of adenomyosis vis-à-vis endometriosis. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Levgur, M.; Abadi, M.A.; Tucker, A. Adenomyosis: Symptoms, histology, and pregnancy terminations. Obstet. Gynecol. 2000, 95, 688–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bazot, M.; Darai, E. Role of transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of uterine adenomyosis. Fertil. Steril. 2018, 109, 389–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vercellini, P.; Viganò, P.; Somigliana, E.; Daguati, R.; Abbiati, A.; Fedele, L. Adenomyosis: Epidemiological factors. Best Pr. Res. Clin. Obs. Gynaecol. 2006, 20, 465–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Parazzini, F.; Mais, V.; Cipriani, S.; Busacca, M.; Venturini, P. Determinants of adenomyosis in women who underwent hysterectomy for benign gynecological conditions: Results from a prospective multicentric study in Italy. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2009, 143, 103–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Naftalin, J.; Hoo, W.; Pateman, K.; Mavrelos, D.; Holland, T.; Jurkovic, D. How common is adenomyosis? A prospective study of prevalence using transvaginal ultrasound in a gynaecology clinic. Hum. Reprod. 2012, 27, 3432–3439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Donnez, J.; Dolmans, M.M.; Fellah, L. What if deep endometriotic nodules and uterine adenomyosis were actually two forms of the same disease? Fertil. Steril. 2019, 111, 454–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Brosens, I.; Gordts, S.; Habiba, M.; Benagiano, G. Uterine cystic adenomyosis: A disease of younger women. J. Pediatr. Adolesc. Gynecol. 2015, 28, 420–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cope, A.G.; Ainsworth, A.J.; Stewart, E.A. Current and Future Medical Therapies for adenomyosis. Semin. Reprod. 2020, 38, 151–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vannuccini, S.; Luisi, S.; Tosti, C.; Sorbi, F.; Petraglia, F. Role of medical therapy in the management of uterine adenomyosis. Fertil. Steril. 2018, 109, 398–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Vannuccini, S.; Petraglia, F. Recent advances in understanding and managing adenomyosis. F1000Research 2019, 13, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Donnez, J.; Dolmans, M.M. Uterine fibroid management: From the present to the future. Hum. Reprod. Update 2016, 22, 665–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Conway, F.; Morosetti, G.; Camilli, S.; Martire, F.G.; Sorrenti, G.; Piccione, E.; Zupi, E.; Exacoustos, C. Ulipristal acetate therapy increases ultrasound features of adenomyosis: A good treatment given in an erroneous diagnosis of uterine fibroids. Gynecol. Endocrinol. 2019, 35, 207–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donnez, J.; Taylor, R.N.; Taylor, H.S. Partial suppression of estradiol: A new strategy in endometriosis management? Fertil. Steril. 2017, 107, 568–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Donnez, O.; Donnez, J. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (linzagolix): A new therapy for uterine adenomyosis. Fertil. Steril. 2020, 114, 640–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Leyendecker, G.; Wildt, L.; Mall, G. The pathophysiology of endometriosis and adenomyosis: Tissue injury and repair. Arch. Gynecol Obs. 2009, 280, 529–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Stratopoulou, C.A.; Donnez, J.; Dolmans, M.M. Origin and Pathogenic Mechanisms of Uterine Adenomyosis: What is known so far. Reprod. Sci. 2021, 28, 2087–2097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mehasseb, M.K.; Panchal, R.; Taylor, A.H.; Brown, L.; Bell, S.C.; Habiba, M. Estrogen and progesterone receptor isoform distribution through the menstrual cycle in uteri with and without adenomyosis. Fertil. Steril. 2011, 95, 2228–2235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, X.; Shen, M.; Qi, Q.; Zhang, H.; Guo, S.W. Corroborating evidence for platelet-induced epithelial-mesenchymal transition and fibroblast-to-myofibroblast trans differentiation in the development of adenomyosis. Hum. Reprod. 2016, 31, 734–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nie, J.; Liu, X.; Guo, S.W. Promoter hypermethylation of progesterone receptor isoform B (PR-B) in adenomyosis and its rectification by a histone deacetylase inhibitor and a demethylation agent. Reprod. Sci. 2010, 17, 995–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbieri, R.L. Endometriosis and the estrogen threshold theory: Relation to surgical and medical treatment. J. Reprod. Med. 1998, 433, 287–292. [Google Scholar]
- Taylor, H.S.; Giudice, L.C.; Lessey, B.A.; Abrao, M.S.; Kotarski, J.; Archer, D.F.; Diamond, M.P.; Surrey, E.; Johnson, N.P.; Watts, N.B.; et al. Treatment of endometriosis-associated pain with elagolix, an oral GnRH antagonist. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017, 377, 28–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donnez, J.; Taylor, H.S.; Taylor, R.N.; Akin, M.D.; Tatarchuk, T.F.; Wilk, K.; Gotteland, J.P.; Lecomte, V.; Bestel, E. Treatment of endometriosis-associated pain with linzagolix, an oral GnRH antagonist, a randomized clinical trial. Fertil. Steril. 2020, 114, 44–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osuga, Y.; Seki, Y.; Tanimoto, M.; Kusumoto, T.; Kudou, K.; Terakwa, N. Relugolix, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor antagonist, reduces endometriosis-associated pain in a dose-response manner: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Fertil. Steril. 2021, 115, 397–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Borini, A.; Coticchio, G. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist linzagolix: Possible treatment for assisted reproduction patients presenting with adenomyosis and endometriosis? Fertil. Steril. 2020, 114, 517–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donnez, J.; Donnez, O.; Brethous, M.; Bestel, E.; Garner, E.; Charpentier, S.; Humberstone, A.; Loumaye, E. Treatment of symptomatic uterine adenomyosis with linzagolix, an oral gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist: A pilot study. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Baseline | Week 12 | Week 24 | |
---|---|---|---|
n | 8 | 7 | 8 |
Uterine Volume (cm3) by MRI | |||
Mean (SD) | 333.0 (249.8) | 158.6 (95.1) | 203.9 (125.7) |
Median (range) | 231 (104, 882) | 120 (73, 304) | 196 (55, 366) |
Mean change (SD) | −207.1 (170.1) | −129.1 (180.4) | |
Mean % change (SD) | −55.0 (9.6) | −32.4 (33.3) | |
Estimated mean change (95% CI) | −198.3 (−240.9, −155.6) | −138.8 (−219.7, −58.0) | |
p Value | <0.0001 | 0.0057 | |
Uterine volume (cm3) by TVUS | |||
Mean (SD) | 213.3 (171.3) | 88.30 (59.30) | 103.89 (61.18) |
Median (range) | 131 (102, 581) | 57 (45, 186) | 114 (29, 180) |
Mean change (SD) | −140.2 (131.5) | −109.5 (141) | |
Mean % change (SD) | −57.70 (14.87) | −39.04 (45.16) | |
Estimated mean change (95% CI) | −137.1 (−168.8, −105.3) | −114.9 (−159.3, −70.6) | |
p Value | <0.0001 | 0.0007 | |
Maximum value of anterior or posterior wall (mm) by MRI | |||
Mean (SD) | 35.5 (13.0) | 28.0 (10.2) | 30.8 (10.2) |
Median (range) | 32 (25, 65) | 23 (21, 48) | 30.5 (18, 49) |
Mean change (SD) | −9.0 (5.4) | −4.8 (7.4) | |
Mean % change (SD) | −23.9 (10.8) | −11.6 (18.2) | |
Maximum value of anterior or posterior wall (mm) by TVUS | |||
Mean (SD) | 38.4 (13.1) | 28.3 (8.3) | 31.0 (10.5) |
Median (range) | 32.5 (30, 68) | 24 (21, 42) | 31.5 (20, 50) |
Mean change (SD) | −11.1 (7.3) | −7.4 (7.9) | |
Mean % change (SD) | −27.0 (10.2) | −17.9 (21.1) | |
Junctional Zone (mm) by MRI | |||
Mean (SD) | 29.0 (11.9) | 19.3 (11.7) | 23.3 (11.1) |
Median (range) | 25 (19, 57) | 16 (8, 42) | 24.5 (7, 44) |
Mean change (SD) | −10.3 (3.1) | −5.8 (6.6) | |
Mean % change (SD) | −38.1 (14.7) | −20.2 (26.0) | |
Junctional Zone (mm) by TVUS | |||
Mean (SD) | 24.5 (11.2) | 11.7 (5.6) | 14.9 (9.1) |
Median (range) | 22 (13, 49) | 10 (4, 20) | 14.5 (3, 28) |
Mean change (SD) | −13.4 (7.5) | −9.6 (6.5) | |
Mean % change (SD) | −53.3 (11.6) | −41.4 (24.2) | |
Endometrial thickness (mm) by TVUS | |||
Mean (SD) | 10.6 (3.8) | 4.1 (1.8) | 4.5 (4.4) |
Median (range) | 11.5 (4, 17) | 4.0 (1, 6) | 3.0 (2, 15) |
Baseline | Week 12 | Week 24 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Dysmenorrhea | n | 8 | 8 | 8 |
Mean (SD) | 2.8 (0.5) | 0.0 (0.0) | 0.1 (0.4) | |
Mean Change (SD) | −2.8 (0.5) | −2.6 (0.7) | ||
Deep Dyspareunia | n | 8 | 8 | 7 |
Mean (SD) | 2.1 (1.1) | 0.6 (0.7) | 0.0 (0.0) | |
Mean Change (SD) | −1.5 (1.3) | −2.0 (1.2) | ||
Non-Menstrual Pelvic Pain | n | 8 | 8 | 8 |
Mean (SD) | 2.0 (0.8) | 0.8 (1.0) | 0.3 (0.5) | |
Mean Change (SD) | −1.3 (1.3) | −1.8 (0.9) | ||
Total Pelvic Pain Score | n | 8 | 8 | 7 |
Mean (SD) | 6.9 (1.7) | 1.4 (1.5) | 0.3 (0.5) | |
Mean Change (SD) | −5.5 (2.2) | −6.3 (1.8) | ||
Pelvic Tenderness | n | 8 | 7 | 8 |
Mean (SD) | 2.4 (0.7) | 0.3 (0.5) | 0.3 (0.5) | |
Mean Change (SD) | −2.0 (0.6) | −2.1 (1.0) | ||
Induration | n | 8 | 7 | 8 |
Mean (SD) | 0.9 (0.6) | 0.1 (0.4) | 0.0 (0.0) | |
Mean Change (SD) | −0.7 (0.8) | −0.9 (0.6) | ||
Total Physical Sign Score | n | 8 | 7 | 8 |
Mean (SD) | 3.3 (0.9) | 0.4 (0.5) | 0.3 (0.5) | |
Mean Change (SD) | −2.7 (1.0) | −3.0 (1.1) | ||
Composite Pelvic Pain Physical Sign Score | n | 8 | 7 | 7 |
Mean (SD) | 10.1 (2.5) | 1.7 (1.8) | 0.6 (0.8) | |
Mean Change (SD) | −8.4 (3.0) | −9.1 (2.7) |
Baseline | Week 12 | Week 24 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Pain score | n | 8 | 8 | 8 |
Mean (SD) | 64.5 (21.1) | 6.3 (17.7) | 3.4 (6.4) | |
Mean Change (SD) | −58.2 (23.3) | −61.1 (19.9) | ||
Control and powerlessness score | n | 8 | 8 | 8 |
Mean (SD) | 82.8 (14.3) | 9.9 (23.4) | 10.4 (16.4) | |
Mean Change (SD) | −72.9 (21.0) | −72.4 (17.9) | ||
Emotional well-being score | n | 8 | 8 | 8 |
Mean (SD) | 60.4 (23.5) | 9.4 (15.7) | 8.3 (15.9) | |
Mean Change (SD) | −51.0 (20.9) | −52.1 (21.2) | ||
Social support score | n | 8 | 8 | 8 |
Mean (SD) | 69.5 (31.9) | 10.2 (24.1) | 6.3 (17.7) | |
Mean Change (SD) | −59.4 (30.3) | −63.3 (30.0) | ||
Self-image score | n | 8 | 8 | 8 |
Mean (SD) | 68.8 (34.7) | 24.0 (36.6) | 12.5 (20.9) | |
Mean Change (SD) | −44.8 (44.1) | −56.3 (33.9) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Donnez, J.; Donnez, O.; Tourniaire, J.; Brethous, M.; Bestel, E.; Garner, E.; Charpentier, S.; Humberstone, A.; Loumaye, E. Uterine Adenomyosis Treated by Linzagolix, an Oral Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Receptor Antagonist: A Pilot Study with a New ’Hit Hard First and then Maintain’ Regimen of Administration. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 5794. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10245794
Donnez J, Donnez O, Tourniaire J, Brethous M, Bestel E, Garner E, Charpentier S, Humberstone A, Loumaye E. Uterine Adenomyosis Treated by Linzagolix, an Oral Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Receptor Antagonist: A Pilot Study with a New ’Hit Hard First and then Maintain’ Regimen of Administration. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021; 10(24):5794. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10245794
Chicago/Turabian StyleDonnez, Jacques, Olivier Donnez, Jean Tourniaire, Michel Brethous, Elke Bestel, Elizabeth Garner, Sébastien Charpentier, Andrew Humberstone, and Ernest Loumaye. 2021. "Uterine Adenomyosis Treated by Linzagolix, an Oral Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Receptor Antagonist: A Pilot Study with a New ’Hit Hard First and then Maintain’ Regimen of Administration" Journal of Clinical Medicine 10, no. 24: 5794. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10245794
APA StyleDonnez, J., Donnez, O., Tourniaire, J., Brethous, M., Bestel, E., Garner, E., Charpentier, S., Humberstone, A., & Loumaye, E. (2021). Uterine Adenomyosis Treated by Linzagolix, an Oral Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Receptor Antagonist: A Pilot Study with a New ’Hit Hard First and then Maintain’ Regimen of Administration. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10(24), 5794. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10245794