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

Paolo Vercellini, Veronica Bandini, Laura Buggio, Giussy Barbàra, Nicola Berlanda, Dhouha Dridi, Maria Pina Frattaruolo, Edgardo Somigliana
Human reproduction open · 2023 · vol. 2023(2) , pp. hoad008 · doi:10.1093/hropen/hoad008 · PMID:37016694 · PMC10067151 · W4362237377
review OA: gold CC0 ⤵ 5 in-corpus citations
📄 Open PDF View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-07 ⓘ

An extended-interval dosing regimen of 3.75 mg triptorelin every 6 weeks for endometriosis reduces therapy costs by one-third without compromising pain relief.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

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 INTERESTS: 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.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

endometriosisadenomyosis

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (60)

Cited by (5)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-06-22T06:15:23.361955+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-06-22T06:14:29.992053+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK