Full text
1,874 characters
· extracted from
oa-html
· click to expand
18.03.2025
Linzagolix for endometriosis: comparative data are lacking
For endometriosis, there are no comparative studies with established drugs. Placebo comparisons are unsuitable for assessing the added benefit.
Press release
Last updated 17.03.2025
Project no.:
A24-123
Commission:
Commission awarded on 16.12.2024 by the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA).
Report type:
Dossier assessment
Status:
Commission completed
Department/Division:
Drug Assessment
Topic:
Reproductive health and birth
Indication:
Symptomatic treatment of endometriosis in adult women of reproductive age with a history of previous medical or surgical treatment for their endometriosis; with concomitant hormonal add-back therapy
Result of dossier assessment:
Added benefit not proven
Note:
After completion of the assessment by IQWiG the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) conducts a commenting procedure. This may provide supplementary information and as a result lead to a modified benefit assessment. Further information and the decision on the early benefit assessment can be found on the relevant page of the G-BA website.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60584/A24-123_en
18.03.2025
For endometriosis, there are no comparative studies with established drugs. Placebo comparisons are unsuitable for assessing the added benefit.
Press release
-
Extract of dossier assessment: Linzagolix (endometriosis) – Benefit assessment according to §35a Social Code Book V
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60584/A24-123_en
EN, PDF, 244 kB, PDFpublished on Mar 17, 2025
-
Dossier assessment: Linzagolix (endometriosis) – Benefit assessment according to §35a Social Code Book V
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60584/A24-123
DE, PDF, 423 kB, PDFpublished on Mar 17, 2025
| Project no. | Title | Status |
|---|---|---|
| A24-92 | Linzagolix (uterine fibroids) – Benefit assessment according to §35a Social Code Book V | Commission completed |
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.