Review evaluates pharmacotherapy effects in endometriosis, suggesting new treatment options for better patient outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: Endometriosis presents a multitude of challenges for individuals. Current treatment of the disease is based on pharmacotherapy that aims to relieve pain, improves future fertility, potentially slows disease progression and lessen the likelihood of recurrence. The present review outlines recent reports on the importance of Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone antagonists/antagonists and a new prospective as a significant second- line treatment option. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A review of the literature from the last 5 years was conducted. The search included the following medical subject: "endometriosis", "GnRh agonists", "GnRh antagonists", "pharmacotherapy".The articles published in English were included. Publications without full text access and duplicates were rejected. RESULTS: Current researches no longer focuse exclusively on finding new GnRH agonists/antagonists, but rather on maximizing their usage, in favour of the latter ones . Multiple active substances are now being combined into one tablet, which makes it easier for patients to take their medication and improves their adherence to treatment recommendations. 24 months monotherapy of linzagolix did not indicate any clinically relevant impact on overall bone condition in comparison to placebo group. Relugolix combination therapy maintained bone mass density over two years while effectively alleviating pain symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Despite being effective, all of treatments may have additional negative effects. The best approach to pharmacotherapy depends on the individual patient's needs and circumstances. Taking into consideretion potential effects, an appropriate dose or a combination of the above options should be performed. The treatment options of Relugolix and Linzagolix are both promising and well-tolerated. Further researches should focuse on long-term bone health monitoring strategies and its safety profile.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kopeć et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: