Cargando…

Mitigating the economic burden of GnRH agonist therapy for progestogen-resistant endometriosis: why not?

STUDY QUESTION: Is it possible to reduce the cost of GnRH agonist treatment for endometriosis by using non-standard dosing regimens? SUMMARY ANSWER: An extended-interval dosing regimen of a 3.75 mg depot formulation of triptorelin injected every 6 weeks instead of every 4 weeks reduces the cost by o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vercellini, Paolo, Bandini, Veronica, Buggio, Laura, Barbara, Giussy, Berlanda, Nicola, Dridi, Dhouha, Frattaruolo, Maria Pina, Somigliana, Edgardo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10067151/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37016694
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoad008
_version_ 1785018406249955328
author Vercellini, Paolo
Bandini, Veronica
Buggio, Laura
Barbara, Giussy
Berlanda, Nicola
Dridi, Dhouha
Frattaruolo, Maria Pina
Somigliana, Edgardo
author_facet Vercellini, Paolo
Bandini, Veronica
Buggio, Laura
Barbara, Giussy
Berlanda, Nicola
Dridi, Dhouha
Frattaruolo, Maria Pina
Somigliana, Edgardo
author_sort Vercellini, Paolo
collection PubMed
description STUDY QUESTION: Is it possible to reduce the cost of GnRH agonist treatment for endometriosis by using non-standard dosing regimens? SUMMARY ANSWER: An extended-interval dosing regimen of a 3.75 mg depot formulation of triptorelin injected every 6 weeks instead of every 4 weeks reduces the cost by one-third without compromising the effect on pain relief. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Cost constitutes a limit to prolonged GnRH agonists use. Alternative modalities to reduce the economic burden of GnRH agonist treatment have been anecdotally attempted. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A systematic review was conducted to evaluate and compare the effect of three alternative modalities for GnRH use in women with endometriosis, i.e. intermittent oestrogen deprivation therapy, reduced drug dosage, and extended-interval dosing regimens of depot formulations. A PubMed and Embase search was initially conducted in October 2022 and updated in January 2023 using the following search strings: (endometriosis OR adenomyosis) AND (GnRH-agonists OR gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists OR triptorelin OR leuprorelin OR goserelin OR buserelin OR nafarelin). Full-length articles published in English in peer-reviewed journals since 1 January 1980, and reporting original data on GnRH agonist treatment of pain symptoms associated with endometriosis were selected. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Information was extracted on study design, GnRH-agonist used, dosage, total duration of therapy, side effects, treatment adherence, and pelvic pain relief. Reviews, commentaries, conference proceedings, case reports, and letters to the editor were excluded. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 1664 records screened, 14 studies regarding clinical outcomes associated with the 3 considered alternative modalities for GnRH agonist use were eventually included (intermittent oestrogen deprivation therapy, n = 2; low-dose or ‘draw-back’ therapy, n = 8; extended-interval dosing regimen, n = 4). Six studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (double blind, n = 2) and eight adopted a prospective cohort design (non-comparative, n = 6; comparative, n = 2). A total of 776 women with endometriosis were recruited in the above studies (intermittent oestrogen deprivation therapy, n = 77; low-dose or ‘draw-back’ therapy, n = 528; extended-interval dosing regimen, n = 171). Robust data demonstrating cost saving without detrimental clinical consequences were available for the extended-interval dosing regimen only. In particular, the 3.75 mg triptorelin depot preparation inhibits ovarian function for a longer period compared with the 3.75 mg leuprorelin depot preparation, allowing injections every 6 instead of 4 weeks. Based on the cost indicated by the Italian Medicine Agency for the 3.75 mg triptorelin depot preparation, this would translate in a yearly saving of €744.60 (€2230.15–€1485.55; −33.4%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The quality of the evidence reported in the selected articles was not formally evaluated and a quantitative synthesis could not be performed. Some studies were old and the tested therapeutic approaches were apparently obsolete. Only cost containment associated with GnRH analogue use, and not cost-effectiveness, has been addressed. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Consuming less resources without negatively impacting on health outcomes carries ethical and practical implications for individuals and the community, as this approach may result in overall increased healthcare access. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health (Ricerca Corrente 2023, IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico Milano). E.S. discloses payments from Ferring for research grants and honoraria from Merck-Serono for lectures. All other authors declare they have no conflict of interest. REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10067151
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100671512023-04-03 Mitigating the economic burden of GnRH agonist therapy for progestogen-resistant endometriosis: why not? Vercellini, Paolo Bandini, Veronica Buggio, Laura Barbara, Giussy Berlanda, Nicola Dridi, Dhouha Frattaruolo, Maria Pina Somigliana, Edgardo Hum Reprod Open Review STUDY QUESTION: Is it possible to reduce the cost of GnRH agonist treatment for endometriosis by using non-standard dosing regimens? SUMMARY ANSWER: An extended-interval dosing regimen of a 3.75 mg depot formulation of triptorelin injected every 6 weeks instead of every 4 weeks reduces the cost by one-third without compromising the effect on pain relief. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Cost constitutes a limit to prolonged GnRH agonists use. Alternative modalities to reduce the economic burden of GnRH agonist treatment have been anecdotally attempted. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A systematic review was conducted to evaluate and compare the effect of three alternative modalities for GnRH use in women with endometriosis, i.e. intermittent oestrogen deprivation therapy, reduced drug dosage, and extended-interval dosing regimens of depot formulations. A PubMed and Embase search was initially conducted in October 2022 and updated in January 2023 using the following search strings: (endometriosis OR adenomyosis) AND (GnRH-agonists OR gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists OR triptorelin OR leuprorelin OR goserelin OR buserelin OR nafarelin). Full-length articles published in English in peer-reviewed journals since 1 January 1980, and reporting original data on GnRH agonist treatment of pain symptoms associated with endometriosis were selected. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Information was extracted on study design, GnRH-agonist used, dosage, total duration of therapy, side effects, treatment adherence, and pelvic pain relief. Reviews, commentaries, conference proceedings, case reports, and letters to the editor were excluded. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 1664 records screened, 14 studies regarding clinical outcomes associated with the 3 considered alternative modalities for GnRH agonist use were eventually included (intermittent oestrogen deprivation therapy, n = 2; low-dose or ‘draw-back’ therapy, n = 8; extended-interval dosing regimen, n = 4). Six studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (double blind, n = 2) and eight adopted a prospective cohort design (non-comparative, n = 6; comparative, n = 2). A total of 776 women with endometriosis were recruited in the above studies (intermittent oestrogen deprivation therapy, n = 77; low-dose or ‘draw-back’ therapy, n = 528; extended-interval dosing regimen, n = 171). Robust data demonstrating cost saving without detrimental clinical consequences were available for the extended-interval dosing regimen only. In particular, the 3.75 mg triptorelin depot preparation inhibits ovarian function for a longer period compared with the 3.75 mg leuprorelin depot preparation, allowing injections every 6 instead of 4 weeks. Based on the cost indicated by the Italian Medicine Agency for the 3.75 mg triptorelin depot preparation, this would translate in a yearly saving of €744.60 (€2230.15–€1485.55; −33.4%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The quality of the evidence reported in the selected articles was not formally evaluated and a quantitative synthesis could not be performed. Some studies were old and the tested therapeutic approaches were apparently obsolete. Only cost containment associated with GnRH analogue use, and not cost-effectiveness, has been addressed. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Consuming less resources without negatively impacting on health outcomes carries ethical and practical implications for individuals and the community, as this approach may result in overall increased healthcare access. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health (Ricerca Corrente 2023, IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico Milano). E.S. discloses payments from Ferring for research grants and honoraria from Merck-Serono for lectures. All other authors declare they have no conflict of interest. REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A. Oxford University Press 2023-03-14 /pmc/articles/PMC10067151/ /pubmed/37016694 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoad008 Text en © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Vercellini, Paolo
Bandini, Veronica
Buggio, Laura
Barbara, Giussy
Berlanda, Nicola
Dridi, Dhouha
Frattaruolo, Maria Pina
Somigliana, Edgardo
Mitigating the economic burden of GnRH agonist therapy for progestogen-resistant endometriosis: why not?
title Mitigating the economic burden of GnRH agonist therapy for progestogen-resistant endometriosis: why not?
title_full Mitigating the economic burden of GnRH agonist therapy for progestogen-resistant endometriosis: why not?
title_fullStr Mitigating the economic burden of GnRH agonist therapy for progestogen-resistant endometriosis: why not?
title_full_unstemmed Mitigating the economic burden of GnRH agonist therapy for progestogen-resistant endometriosis: why not?
title_short Mitigating the economic burden of GnRH agonist therapy for progestogen-resistant endometriosis: why not?
title_sort mitigating the economic burden of gnrh agonist therapy for progestogen-resistant endometriosis: why not?
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10067151/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37016694
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoad008
work_keys_str_mv AT vercellinipaolo mitigatingtheeconomicburdenofgnrhagonisttherapyforprogestogenresistantendometriosiswhynot
AT bandiniveronica mitigatingtheeconomicburdenofgnrhagonisttherapyforprogestogenresistantendometriosiswhynot
AT buggiolaura mitigatingtheeconomicburdenofgnrhagonisttherapyforprogestogenresistantendometriosiswhynot
AT barbaragiussy mitigatingtheeconomicburdenofgnrhagonisttherapyforprogestogenresistantendometriosiswhynot
AT berlandanicola mitigatingtheeconomicburdenofgnrhagonisttherapyforprogestogenresistantendometriosiswhynot
AT drididhouha mitigatingtheeconomicburdenofgnrhagonisttherapyforprogestogenresistantendometriosiswhynot
AT frattaruolomariapina mitigatingtheeconomicburdenofgnrhagonisttherapyforprogestogenresistantendometriosiswhynot
AT somiglianaedgardo mitigatingtheeconomicburdenofgnrhagonisttherapyforprogestogenresistantendometriosiswhynot