Skip to main content
NCBI home page
F&S Reports logoLink to F&S Reports
. 2025 Dec 8;7(1):38–45. doi: 10.1016/j.xfre.2025.12.002

Impact of estetrol and drospirenone combination therapy on alleviation of the pelvic pain of endometriosis: a randomized control trial

Tasuku Harada a,∗, Masayoshi Nogami b, Masato Iizuka b, Kanna Meguro b, Chrispin Manda b, Masashi Hirayama b, Takao Kobayashi c
PMCID: PMC12905615  PMID: 41694262

Abstract

Objective

To study the impact of estetrol (E4), a novel native estrogen with selective tissue activity, on endometriosis-associated pelvic pain (EAPP) and global impressions of endometriosis pain.

Design

Multicenter, randomized, open-label, active-controlled study; 88 eligible Japanese participants with endometriosis were randomized to either the E4 15 mg/drospirenone (DRSP) 3 mg group or the ethinyl estradiol (EE) 20 μg/DRSP 3 mg group. Participants received assigned treatment for 12 weeks.

Subjects

Japanese patients aged ≥20 and <50 years diagnosed with endometriosis. Eligibility required an EAPP score ≥40 mm on the visual analogue scale (VAS).

Intervention

Participants were randomized 1:1 to E4/DRSP or EE/DRSP groups.

Main Outcome Measures

Change in EAPP intensity from baseline to week 12, assessed using a 100 mm VAS, and patient’s global impression of improvement (PGI-I) and clinician’s global impression of improvement (CGI-I) scores after 12 weeks.

Results

Changes in the most severe EAPP from baseline to week 12 were similar between the groups. The VAS score over time profiles showed lower scores with E4/DRSP than with EE/DRSP during the nonmenstrual period. Responders were defined as participants achieving ≥70 mm reduction from the most severe VAS score at baseline on ≥80% of nonmenstrual period days. On Fisher’s exact test comparing responders and nonresponders, significant differences in patient’s and clinician’s global impression of improvement scores were seen. Furthermore, E4/DRSP had significantly higher responder rates than EE/DRSP.

Conclusion

The E4/DRSP combination therapy has the potential to improve the quality of life of patients with endometriosis, with greater amelioration of nonmenstrual EAPP than EE/DRSP.

Trial registration

JPRN-jRCT2080225090

Key Words: Endometriosis, pelvic pain, estetrol/drospirenone, global impression of improvement

Endometriosis is a gynecological disorder characterized by the presence and growth of endometrium or similar tissue in locations other than the uterine cavity (1, 2). It affects approximately 10% of the general female population (3) and is marked by symptoms such as menstrual and nonmenstrual pain, lower back pain, dyspareunia, and dyschezia (2). A study done by the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology reported that 88% of patients definitively diagnosed with endometriosis experienced these symptoms (2), significantly impacting their quality of life (QOL) (2, 4, 5, 6).

Treatment of endometriosis includes symptomatic treatment with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, estrogen and progestin combinations, progestin alone, gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues, and surgery. Of these treatments, low-dose estrogen/progestin combinations and progestin alone are the first choices when analgesics are inadequate or when treatment of the endometriosis itself is necessary; therefore, guidelines recommend that estrogen and progestin combination drugs be considered early to treat pelvic pain (2, 7, 8).

Estetrol (E4) is a native estrogen produced exclusively in the fetal liver (9) that binds specifically to estrogen receptors (ER) α and β with four to five times greater affinity for ERα, which exhibits diverse estrogenic activities (10, 11). Estradiol activates both nuclear and membrane ERα equally, whereas E4 acts as an agonist of nuclear ERα and as an antagonist of ERα-dependent membrane-initiated steroid signaling. Therefore, E4 was termed the first native estrogen with selective tissue activity and classified differently from selective ER modulators (12). Estetrol was found to have less impact on production of proteins in the liver such as blood coagulation factors in early clinical studies (13, 14, 15); thus, it would be anticipated to mitigate the risk of thromboembolic events (16), which is the serious safety concern for ethinyl estradiol (EE), a widely used estrogen, combined with progestins such as drospirenone (DRSP) (17, 18, 19, 20). The E4/DRSP combination was proven to suppress ovarian function in early clinical development phases (21, 22) and to meet the criteria for contraception; therefore, it received regulatory approval as a combined oral contraceptive (COC) in 2021 (23, 24) and for treatment of dysmenorrhea in Japan in 2024 (25).

Endometriosis is a disease condition that causes diverse types of pain symptoms, translating into negative effects on work productivity, psychological health, and QOL (2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Several studies have explored whether alleviation of endometriosis-associated pelvic pain (EAPP) would improve patients’ QOL; however, both were examined separately, and thus only less conclusive outcomes were measured (26, 27), so that an indisputable association between them could not be demonstrated. This study, therefore, aimed to demonstrate that alleviation of EAPP is directly associated with improvement in QOL after treatment with E4/DRSP and EE/DRSP, and to explicitly delineate whether this improvement in QOL was greater with E4/DRSP, which contains E4, a novel estrogen, than with EE/DRSP. Although E4/DRSP was originally developed as a contraceptive, its use in endometriosis-associated pain is supported by guidelines recommending COCs as first-line therapy (2, 28, 29). Continuous regimens may offer additional benefits in pain control, as suggested in the literature. For example, a prospective cohort study demonstrated that continuous use of oral contraceptives after surgery for endometriosis was associated with significantly lower recurrence rates of dysmenorrhea, nonmenstrual pelvic pain, and endometriomas than cyclic use (30). However, the cyclic regimen was selected on the basis of the approved indication and available dosing schedule for E4/DRSP at the time of study initiation. In Japan, the only COC currently approved for the treatment of endometriosis-associated pain is the flexible regimen of EE/DRSP. Therefore, this regimen was selected as the comparator in the present study to ensure clinical relevance and regulatory alignment within the Japanese context.

Materials and methods

Study design

This study used a multicenter, randomized, open-label, active-controlled, parallel-group design and included Japanese patients diagnosed with endometriosis. The objective of the study was to clarify the association of EAPP alleviation with improvement in QOL-related questionnaires after 12-week treatment with either E4/DRSP or EE/DRSP.

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and good clinical practice protocols and met all local legal and regulatory requirements. The protocol was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board of each study site, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants (study registration code: jRCT2080225090).

Participants

Patients aged ≥20 and <50 years who were diagnosed with endometriosis were enrolled in this study. The clinical diagnoses were on the basis of laparotomy/laparoscopy, transvaginal ultrasonography, or magnetic resonance imaging (i.e., the presence of ovarian endometriomas). For surgically diagnosed cases, endometriosis was confirmed by direct visualization of lesions during laparotomy or laparoscopy. Specifically, transvaginal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging findings used for diagnosis included the identification of ovarian endometriomas (chocolate cysts). Another eligibility criterion was an EAPP score ≥40 mm on the visual analogue scale (VAS) during two consecutive menstrual cycles in the baseline observation period. Additional eligibility criteria are provided in the Supplemental Materials.

Treatment

Eligible participants were randomly allocated to either the E4 15 mg/DRSP 3 mg group or the EE 20 μg/DRSP 3 mg group in a 1:1 ratio using stratification factors, i.e., baseline VAS scores (<60 mm or ≥60 mm) and complications (none, uterine fibroids, or adenomyosis), to eliminate potential biases between groups. Rescue medications (loxoprofen, ibuprofen) were allowed as needed throughout the study in both groups. Stratified randomization codes were developed by the interactive web response system using a permuted-block design managed by an office independent of the clinical investigators and other stakeholders. Immediately after randomization, the participants took one tablet per day at a consistent time of day from the first day of menstruation. In the E4/DRSP group, participants were treated with one tablet daily (24-day oral administration of E4/DRSP tablets, followed by a 4-day hormone-free interval per cycle) for three consecutive cycles over 12 weeks. In the EE/DRSP group, one tablet was administered daily for 84 days according to the dosage and administration that received regulatory approval for EAPP treatment in Japan (31). The dosing regimens were selected on the basis of the approved indications and available formulations at the time of study initiation. Although E4/DRSP was originally developed as a contraceptive, its use in endometriosis-associated pain is supported by clinical guidelines recommending COCs as first-line therapy. At the time of protocol development, the cyclic (24/4) regimen was the only dosing schedule available for E4/DRSP in clinical practice. In contrast, EE/DRSP was administered as a flexible extended regimen, which is the only COC currently approved in Japan specifically for the treatment of EAPP. These choices ensured both regulatory alignment and clinical relevance within the Japanese context. In both groups, a 56-day follow-up period was scheduled after the treatment.

Evaluating endpoints

The participants were requested to visit the clinical sites every 4 weeks during the baseline observation and treatment periods. During the study, participants were asked to assess and report EAPP intensity on a 100 mm VAS scale (0: no pain to 100: worst possible pain) and bleeding events using the patients’ daily diary.

The investigator confirmed the bleeding events to determine the menstrual period for each participant. Seven-point QOL-related questionnaires, clinician’s global impression of improvement (CGI-I) and patient’s global impression of improvement (PGI-I), were scored after 12 weeks of treatment. The CGI-I was rated by investigators in the following seven categories: “1, Very much improved”; “2, Much improved”; “3, Minimally improved”; “4, No change”; “5, Minimally worse”; “6, Much worse”; and “7, Very much worse”. The PGI-I was rated by participants in the following seven categories: “1, Very much satisfied”; “2, Much satisfied”; “3, Minimally satisfied”; “4, Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied”; “5, Minimally dissatisfied”; “6, Much dissatisfied”; and “7, Very much dissatisfied”.

As safety endpoints, treatment-emergent adverse events were monitored throughout the study.

Statistical analyses

Statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). No formal sample size estimation was conducted because of the exploratory nature of this study; however, assuming a moderate effect size of 0.5 and a dropout rate of 15%, 40 participants per group were required to ensure statistical power ≥80%. The most severe EAPP scores were based on daily VAS scores every 4 weeks over the course of the study. Changes in the VAS score of the most severe EAPP from baseline to week 12 were expressed as mean ± standard deviation values every 4 weeks. A spline function was applied to depict the EAPP VAS scores over time profiles during the treatment periods using the entire set of individual data. On the basis of the time profiles, steadily alleviating pain was identified as a “≥70 mm VAS decrease from baseline lasting ≥80% days of the nonmenstrual periods after treatment from day 29 to day 84”. The 1st cycle treatment (day 1 to day 28) was not included in the evaluation because of the unstable hormonal condition. Participants who met the criteria were defined as “responders”; the others were “nonresponders”. Data obtained after E4/DRSP and EE/DRSP treatment were consolidated, the 7-point CGI-I and PGI-I scores were collapsed into the top 3 and bottom 4 response levels, respectively, and Fisher’s exact tests were performed comparing responders and nonresponders. Finally, responder rates were compared between E4/DRSP and EE/DRSP treatment groups using Fisher’s exact test.

Results

Participants

The first visit of the first participant was on March 5, 2020. From the 18 clinical sites, 88 eligible participants were randomized. Two subjects did not receive the study drug because of predose discontinuation. The full analysis set population consisted of 86 participants: 45 in the E4/DRSP group and 41 in the EE/DRSP group. Early termination occurred in one participant because of “Withdrawal by Participant” in the E4/DRSP group, and one because of “Adverse Event” and four because of “Investigator’s decision” reasons in the EE/DRSP group (Fig. 1). Participants’ background characteristics were comparable between the E4/DRSP and EE/DRSP groups, with age of 34.9 ± 7.61 years and a body mass index of 20.8 ± 2.44 kg/m2. Of the 86 participants, 30 (34.9%) and 22 (25.6%) presented with adenomyosis and uterine fibroids as comorbidities, respectively. Both adenomyosis and uterine fibroids were observed in six participants (7.0%). At baseline, the mean and standard deviation of the most severe VAS scores were 71.5 ± 14.50 mm, and those of the nonmenstrual EAPP VAS score were 45.3 ± 26.23 mm. All participants had dysmenorrhea. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between the groups (all P values>.15), indicating that the groups were well balanced. The P value for dysmenorrhea could not be calculated because all subjects had it (Table 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Participant flow. Investigator’s decision: The principal investigators determined that there was a breach of the study protocol and decided that premature termination was appropriate because of poor compliance with the study protocol. E4/DRSP = estetrol 15 mg/drospirenone 3 mg; EE/DRSP = ethinyl estradiol 20 μg/drospirenone 3 mg; FAS = full analysis set.

Table 1.

Demographics and baseline characteristics (FAS).

Characteristic E4/DRSP
 EE/DRSP
 Total
 P value a
n=45 n=41 n=86
Age, year 34.4 ± 7.15b [22–49]c 35.3 ± 8.16 [20–48] 34.9 ± 7.61 [20–49] .5984
Height, cm 161.49 ± 4.763 160.47 ± 4.804 161.00 ± 4.782 .3246
Weight, kg 54.19 ± 5.892 53.73 ± 7.956 53.97 ± 6.915 .7637
BMI, kg/m2 20.72 ± 1.921 20.81 ± 2.931 20.76 ± 2.440 .8688
Menstrual cycle, days 28.58 ± 2.350 28.40 ± 2.555 28.49 ± 2.437 .7411
Most severe VAS score, mm 69.61 ± 14.039 73.52 ± 14.828 71.48 ± 14.469 .2120
Nonmenstrual EAPP VAS score, mm 43.78 ± 25.280 46.94 ± 27.565 45.28 ± 26.285 .5805
eGFR (ml/min/1.73 m2) 96.66 ± 17.112 [74.2–146.1] 93.53 ± 17.764 [61.1–156.8] 95.17 ± 17.394 [61.1–156.8] .4077
Dysmenorrhea, n (%) 45 (100) 41 (100) 86 (100) NC
Endometrioma, n (%) 44 (97.8) 41 (100) 85 (98.8) 1.0000
Age category, n (%) .3847
 20–29 (y) 14 (31.1) 13 (31.7) 27 (31.4)
 30–39 (y) 20 (44.4) 13 (31.7) 33 (38.4)
 40–49 (y) 11 (24.4) 15 (36.6) 26 (30.2)
Smoking Status, n (%) .3070
 Never 31 (68.9) 34 (82.9) 65 (75.6)
 Former 8 (17.8) 5 (12.2) 13 (15.1)
 Current 6 (13.3) 2 (4.9) 8 (9.3)
Comorbidity, n (%) .9861
 Uterine fibroids / adenomyosis 3 (6.7) 3 (7.3) 6 (7.0)
 Uterine fibroids 9 (20.0) 7 (17.1) 16 (18.6)
 Adenomyosis 12 (26.7) 12 (29.3) 24 (27.9)
 None 21 (46.7) 19 (46.3) 40 (46.5)
Open in a new tab

BMI = body mass index; E4/DRSP = estetrol 15 mg/drospirenone 3 mg; EE/DRSP = ethinyl estradiol 20 μg/drospirenone 3 mg; eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate; FAS = full analysis set; VAS = visual analog scale.

a

Statistical comparisons were performed using the two-sample t-test for continuous variables and Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables.

b

Mean ± standard deviation.

c

Range (min–max).

VAS scores

Changes in the most severe EAPP VAS scores from baseline to weeks 4, 8, and 12 were −12.6 ± 15.48, −29.0 ± 20.14, and −32.5 ± 19.57 mm in the E4/DRSP group and −12.8 ± 17.21, −35.4 ± 24.77, and −33.9 ± 27.02 mm in the EE/DRSP group, respectively (Supplemental Fig. 1, available online). This would suggest that the changes from baseline in the most severe EAPP VAS over time profiles were quite similar between the E4/DRSP and EE/DRSP groups. Furthermore, the spline function curves inferred on the basis of the individual daily VAS scores showed that E4/DRSP suppressed the nonmenstrual pain more than EE/DRSP (Fig. 2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Spline function curves on the basis of the individual VAS scores over time profiles. Treatment period is from day 1 to day 84. The best fit curves were developed using the Akaike information criterion, varying the degrees of freedom for each treatment group. E4/DRSP = estetrol 15 mg/drospirenone 3 mg; EE/DRSP = ethinyl estradiol 20 μg/drospirenone 3 mg; VAS = visual analogue scale.

Global impression of improvement scores (CGI-I, PGI-I) and responder rates

Supplemental Figure 2, available online shows the percentages of participants who responded “very much improved”, “much improved”, or “minimally improved” on the CGI-I and “very much satisfied”, “much satisfied”, or “minimally satisfied” on the PGI-I. Supplemental Figure 2 shows that responders were significantly more likely to give answers in the top 3 response levels on both the CGI-I and PGI-I than nonresponders (Fisher’s exact test: P=.006, P=.006, respectively). The sum of the percentages of participants rating the highest three grades on the CGI-I was estimated to be 95.2% and 57.7% in the responders and nonresponders, respectively. On the PGI-I, a similarly larger portion of participants rated the highest three grades in responders (95.2%) than in nonresponders (57.7%). Ultimately, significantly higher responder rates were observed in the E4/DRSP group (61.9%) than in the EE/DRSP group (30.8%, P=.043) (Fig. 3).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Proportion of responders after 12-week E4/DRSP or EE/DRSP treatment. P value was estimated by Fisher’s exact test. Error bars show two-sided 95% confidence intervals inferred by the Clopper-Pearson method. E4/DRSP = estetrol 15 mg/drospirenone 3 mg, EE/DRSP = ethinyl estradiol 20 μg/drospirenone 3 mg.

Adverse events

The incidence of adverse events (AEs) among the 86 participants was 88.9% (40/45) in the E4/DRSP group and 92.7% (38/41) in the EE/DRSP group. The incidence of adverse drug reactions was 77.8% (35/45) in the E4/DRSP group and 90.2% (37/41) in the EE/DRSP group.

The high incidence of AEs was primarily because of intermenstrual bleeding, which occurred in 68.9% of participants in the E4/DRSP group and 73.2% in the EE/DRSP group. Of them, 26 out of 31 participants in the E4/DRSP group and 23 out of 30 participants in the EE/DRSP group experienced intermenstrual bleeding before day 28 of treatment, indicating that these events were mainly observed during the initial phase of hormonal adjustment. Other frequently reported AEs included headache (E4/DRSP: 17.8%, EE/DRSP: 26.8%) and nausea (E4/DRSP: 6.7%, EE/DRSP: 22.0%).

In terms of severity, most AEs were mild (E4/DRSP: 66.7%, EE/DRSP: 70.7%), whereas over the moderate AEs occurred in 22.2% of E4/DRSP and 21.9% of EE/DRSP participants.

Regarding study discontinuation because of an AE, this was attributed to two events (malaise and decreased appetite) reported in the same participant in the EE/DRSP group.

Furthermore, E4/DRSP had less effect on hemostasis than EE/DRSP (15). Kobayashi et al. (15) provide a detailed report of the coagulation and fibrinolytic parameters assessed in the same clinical trial described in the present manuscript.

Discussion

This study revealed that E4/DRSP was as effective as EE/DRSP in reducing the most severe EAPP after 12 weeks of treatment. Additionally, pain intensity in the nonmenstrual period appeared to influence global impressions, and E4/DRSP was found to decrease the pain intensity more than EE/DRSP. As a result, a significantly higher proportion of participants in the E4/DRSP group experienced an improvement in their global impressions compared with those in the EE/DRSP group.

Endometriosis is a complex gynecological disease that presents with a wide range of pain symptoms, including dysmenorrhea, intermenstrual lower abdominal and back pain, defecation pain, and dyspareunia, as well as infertility (1, 2). These symptoms extend beyond physical complaints and have significant socioeconomic impacts, negatively affecting patients’ QOL (2, 4, 5, 6). Facchin et al. (26) showed that pelvic pain in endometriosis is associated with poor QOL, and that nonmenstrual pelvic pain had a higher impact on physical and mental QOL, anxiety, and depression. However, amelioration of EAPP has not been found to translate into improvement of QOL even after treatment with estrogen-progestin combination products. Grandi et al. (27) reported that the reduction of both menstrual pain and nonmenstrual pain improved QOL in their systematic review; however, there was no perception of how closely the two are inter-linked. The present study, therefore, aimed to give due consideration to better QOL by ameliorating EAPP experienced during the nonmenstrual periods after E4/DRSP treatment compared with EE/DRSP treatment. In the present study, steadily alleviating pain was defined as VAS reduced ≥70 mm from baseline during ≥80% of days in the nonmenstrual period; participants with such steadily alleviating pain were considered “responders”. The baseline VAS value was approximately 70 mm; thus, the definition would translate into a health condition that was relieved from painful symptoms for approximately 6 days in a week.

The present study proposes that the intensity of nonmenstrual pain relief was significantly associated with improvement of both CGI-I and PGI-I in responders and nonresponders; however, E4/DRSP led to significantly higher responder rates than EE/DRSP. This provides new insights into the management of EAPP, although these findings warrant further exploration in future studies.

The dosing regimens differed between the two groups, with cyclic administration including hormone-free intervals in the E4/DRSP group and continuous administration in the EE/DRSP group. Although this difference in dosing regimens may have affected the outcomes, previous studies have suggested that both cyclic and continuous administration of low-dose estrogen-progestin combinations can improve pain symptoms and QOL in women with endometriosis (30). Therefore, although variations in bleeding patterns may have occurred, the impact on pain relief and overall patient impressions is likely minimal. Nonetheless, further research is warranted to clarify the potential influence of dosing schedules on pain-related outcomes.

The mechanism by which endometriosis causes chronic pain remains unclear; however, endometriosis is a chronic inflammatory condition, and proinflammatory responses translate into sensory nerve activation and alteration of nociceptive pathway activation (32). Menstrual debris results in recruiting immune cells such as neutrophils, macrophages, and natural killer cells, resulting in several mediators such as prostaglandin E2, nerve growth factor, interleukin (IL)-8, IL-1β, and so forth being elevated. Eventually, the enhanced inflammatory response leads to the interaction of the immune cells with sensory nerves, inducing chronic pelvic pain (CPP). Immune cells also regulate neuroangiogenesis, which promotes the blood supply for lesion growth, as well as the density of unmyelinated nerve fibers, C-fibers, which strongly generate CPP.

The difference in the pharmacological mode of action in the management of endometriosis between E4 and EE remains unknown, although it has been intensively investigated; however, it was recently reported that E4 inhibited E2-induced invasion and migration of human endometrial stromal cells (33). In that study, E4 was found to downregulate Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome protein family member 1, the expression of which may contribute to the alleviation of endometriotic lesions. In addition, Patiño-García et al. (34) showed that E4 did not affect cell growth or migration, but increased ERα and progesterone receptors, and reduced ERβ, which translated into improvement of the ERα-to-ERβ ratio and progestin resistance. It was also reported that the regulatory mechanism via G protein-coupled estrogen receptor 1 (GPER-1) was predominantly expressed on the endoplasmic reticulum in the migration and invasion of ectopic endometrial stromal cells (35, 36). Zhang et al. (37) found that GPER-1 was profoundly expressed in endometrial stromal cells. Therefore, the interplay between E4 and GPER-1 would be of interest. Further investigations are required to elucidate the different features of pain alleviation during the nonmenstrual period between E4/DRSP and EE/DRSP.

This study has several limitations. First, this study was not blinded because of the different manners of dosage and administration, i.e., E4/DRSP in a cyclic regimen and EE/DRSP in a flexible extended regimen. Second, no formal sample size estimation was considered; however, the sample size was large enough to detect a medium effect size of 0.5 with a statistical power of 0.8.

Conclusion

Both E4/DRSP and EE/DRSP alleviated the most severe EAPP similarly at week 12; however, nonmenstrual pain intensities were decreased more with E4/DRSP than with EE/DRSP. Features of nonmenstrual pain intensities could be proposed to define responders who achieve significantly greater improvement in global impression scores. Significantly higher responder rates were achieved in the E4/DRSP group than in the EE/DRSP group. Consequently, this study showed that E4/DRSP has the potential to improve QOL in patients with endometriosis, with greater amelioration of nonmenstrual EAPP than EE/DRSP.

Declaration of Interests

T.H. reports medical writing and clinical trial advisory fee payment was made to me based on medical expert contract from Fuji Pharma Co., Ltd. for the submitted work; Case study meeting fee payment was made to me based on medical expert contracts from Fuji Pharma Co., Ltd; Medical writing fees for other clinical trials other than this manuscript were paid to me in accordance with the Medical Expert Contract from Fuji Pharma Co., Ltd. M.N. report this study was sponsored by Fuji Pharma Co., Ltd. All funds for study and my salary and article processing charges are paid by Fuji Pharma Co., Ltd.; Fuji Pharma Co., Ltd. and Mithra Pharmaceuticals. A patent has been filed with regard to the improvement of cul-de sac induration, pelvic tenderness and uterine mobility in subjects with endometriosis complicated by adenomyosis. M.I. reports this study was sponsored by Fuji Pharma Co., Ltd. All funds for study and my salary and article processing charges are paid by Fuji Pharma Co., Ltd. T.H. reports medical writing and clinical trial advisory fee payment was made to me based on medical expert contract from Fuji Pharma Co., Ltd. for the submitted work; Case study meeting fee payment was made to me based on medical expert contracts from Fuji Pharma Co., Ltd; Medical writing fees for other clinical trials other than this manuscript were paid to me in accordance with the Medical Expert Contract from Fuji Pharma Co., Ltd. K.M. reports this study was sponsored by Fuji Pharma Co., Ltd. All funds for study and my salary and article processing charges are paid by Fuji Pharma Co., Ltd. T.H. reports medical writing and clinical trial advisory fee payment was made to me based on medical expert contract from Fuji Pharma Co., Ltd. for the submitted work; Case study meeting fee payment was made to me based on medical expert contracts from Fuji Pharma Co., Ltd; Medical writing fees for other clinical trials other than this manuscript were paid to me in accordance with the Medical Expert Contract from Fuji Pharma Co., Ltd. C.M. has nothing to disclose. M.H. has nothing to disclose. T.K. reports medical writing and clinical trial advisory fee payment was made to me based on medical expert contract from Fuji Pharma Co., Ltd. for the submitted work; Case study meeting fee payment was made to me based on medical expert contracts from Fuji Pharma Co., Ltd

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the investigators who participated in this multicenter study. Please refer to the full list in the Supplemental Materials. This study was conducted at the same clinical sites reported in reference (15).

CRediT Authorship Contribution Statement

Tasuku Harada: Writing – review & editing. Masayoshi Nogami: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Formal analysis. Masato Iizuka: Writing – review & editing. Kanna Meguro: Writing – review & editing. Chrispin Manda: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. Masashi Hirayama: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. Takao Kobayashi: Writing – review & editing.

Footnotes

Supported by Fuji Pharma, Ltd.

Data were partially presented at an academic conference (45th Japanese Endometriosis Society Academic Conference: http://endo45.umin.jp/). No data sharing is available because of the nature of this as an exploratory study.

Supplementary data

Supplemental Materials
mmc1.docx (138.5KB, docx)

References

  • 1.Giudice L.C., Kao L.C. Endometriosis. Lancet. 2004;364:1789–1799. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17403-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Harada T., Taniguchi F., Kitajima M., Kitawaki J., Koga K., Momoeda M., et al. Clinical practice guidelines for endometriosis in Japan (The 3rd edition) J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2022;48:2993–3044. doi: 10.1111/jog.15416. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Janssen E.B., Rijkers A.C.M., Hoppenbrouwers K., Meuleman C., D’Hooghe T.M. Prevalence of endometriosis diagnosed by laparoscopy in adolescents with dysmenorrhea or chronic pelvic pain: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19:570–582. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmt016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Nnoaham K.E., Hummelshoj L., Webster P., d’Hooghe T., de Cicco Nardone F., de Cicco Nardone C., et al. Impact of endometriosis on quality of life and work productivity: a multicenter study across ten countries. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:366–373. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.05.090. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Souza C.A., Oliveira L.M., Scheffel C., Genro V.K., Rosa V., Chaves M.F., et al. Quality of life associated to chronic pelvic pain is independent of endometriosis diagnosis - a cross-sectional survey. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9:41–45. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-9-41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Jones G., Jenkinson C., Kennedy S. The impact of endometriosis upon quality of life: a qualitative analysis. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;25:123–133. doi: 10.1080/01674820400002279. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Practice bulletin no. 114: management of endometriosis. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:223–236. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181e8b073. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kawaguchi R., Matsumoto K., Ishikawa T., Ishitani K., Okagaki R., Ogawa M., et al. Guideline for gynecological practice in Japan: Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Japan association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2020 edition. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2021;47:5–25. doi: 10.1111/jog.14487. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hagen A.A., Barr M., Diczfalusy E. Metabolism of 17β-oestradiol-4-14c in early infancy. Eur J Endocrinol. 1965;49:207–220. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Visser M., Foidart J.-M., Coelingh Bennink H.J.T. In vitro effects of estetrol on receptor binding, drug targets and human liver cell metabolism. Climacteric. 2008;11(Suppl 1):64–68. doi: 10.1080/13697130802050340. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Coelingh Bennink H.J.T., Holinka C.F., Diczfalusy E. Estetrol review: profile and potential clinical applications. Climacteric. 2008;11(Suppl 1):47–58. doi: 10.1080/13697130802073425. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Foidart J.M., Gaspard U., Pequeux C., Jost M., Gordenne V., Tskitishvili E., et al. In: Sex steroids’ effects on brain, heart and vessels. Volume 6: Frontiers in Gynecological Endocrinology. ISGE Series. Brinton R.D., Genazzani A.R., Simoncini T., editors. Springer International Publishing; Switzerland: 2019. Unique vascular benefits of estetrol, a native fetal estrogen with specific actions in tissues (NEST) pp. 169–195. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Mawet M., Maillard C., Klipping C., Zimmerman Y., Foidart J.M., Coelingh Bennink H.J. Unique effects on hepatic function, lipid metabolism, bone and growth endocrine parameters of estetrol in combined oral contraceptives. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2015;20:463–475. doi: 10.3109/13625187.2015.1068934. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kluft C., Zimmerman Y., Mawet M., Klipping C., Duijkers I.J.M., Neuteboom J., et al. Reduced hemostatic effects with drospirenone-based oral contraceptives containing estetrol vs. ethinyl estradiol. Contraception. 2017;95:140–147. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.08.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kobayashi T., Hirayama M., Nogami M., Meguro K., Iiduka M., Foidart J.-M., et al. Impact of estetrol combined with drospirenone on blood coagulation and fibrinolysis in patients with endometriosis: a multicenter, randomized, open-label, active-controlled, parallel-group study. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2024;30 doi: 10.1177/10760296241286514. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Abot A., Fontaine C., Buscato M., Solinhac R., Flouriot G., Fabre A., et al. The uterine and vascular actions of estetrol delineate a distinctive profile of estrogen receptor α modulation, uncoupling nuclear and membrane activation. EMBO Mol Med. 2014;6:1328–1346. doi: 10.15252/emmm.201404112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sugiura K., Kobayashi T., Ojima T. Risks of thromboembolism associated with hormonal contraceptives related to body mass index and aging in Japanese women. Thromb Res. 2016;137:11–16. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2015.11.038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kobayashi T., Sugiura K., Ojima T. Risks of thromboembolism associated with hormone contraceptives in Japanese compared with Western women. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2017;43:789–797. doi: 10.1111/jog.13304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Anderson F.A., Jr., Spencer F.A. Risk factors for venous thromboembolism. Circulation. 2003;107:I9–I16. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000078469.07362.E6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Sugiura K., Kobayashi T., Ojima T. The epidemiological characteristics of thromboembolism related to oral contraceptives in Japan: results of a national survey. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2021;47:198–207. doi: 10.1111/jog.14452. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Fruzzetti F., Fidecicchi T., Montt Guevara M.M., Simoncini T. Estetrol: a new choice for contraception. J Clin Med. 2021;10:5625–5636. doi: 10.3390/jcm10235625. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Apter D., Zimmerman Y., Beekman L., Mawet M., Maillard C., Foidart J.-M., et al. Estetrol combined with drospirenone: an oral contraceptive with high acceptability, user satisfaction, well-being and favourable body weight control. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2017;22:260–267. doi: 10.1080/13625187.2017.1336532. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gemzell-Danielsson K., Apter D., Zatik J., Weyers S., Piltonen T., Suturina L., et al. Estetrol-drospirenone combination oral contraceptive: a clinical study of contraceptive efficacy, bleeding pattern and safety in Europe and Russia. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2022;129:63–71. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.16840. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Creinin M.D., Westhoff C.L., Bouchard C., Chen M.J., Jensen J.T., Kaunitz A.M., et al. Estetrol-drospirenone combination oral contraceptive: North American phase 3 efficacy and safety results. Contraception. 2021;104:222–228. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2021.05.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Osuga Y., Kobayashi T., Hirakawa A., Takayanagi T., Nogami M., Tayzar K., et al. Efficacy and safety of estetrol (15 mg)/drospirenone (3 mg) combination in a cyclic regimen for the treatment of primary and secondary dysmenorrhea: a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized study. Fertil Steril. 2024;123:700–708. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2024.11.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Facchin F., Barbara G., Saita E., Mosconi P., Roberto A., Fedele L., et al. Impact of endometriosis on quality of life and mental health: pelvic pain makes the difference. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2015;36:135–141. doi: 10.3109/0167482X.2015.1074173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Grandi G., Barra F., Ferrero S., Sileo F.G., Bertucci E., Napolitano A., et al. Hormonal contraception in women with endometriosis: a systematic review. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2019;24:61–70. doi: 10.1080/13625187.2018.1550576. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Becker C.M., Bokor A., Heikinheimo O., Horne A., Jansen F., Kiesel L., et al. ESHRE guideline: endometriosis. Hum Reprod Open. 2022;2022 doi: 10.1093/hropen/hoac009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Endometriosis and infertility: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:591–598. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.05.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Vlahos N., Vlachos A., Triantafyllidou O., Vitoratos N., Creatsas G. Continuous versus cyclic use of oral contraceptives after surgery for symptomatic endometriosis: a prospective cohort study. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1337–1342. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.07.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Harada T., Kosaka S., Elliesen J., Yasuda M., Ito M., Momoeda M. Ethinylestradiol 20 μg/drospirenone 3 mg in a flexible extended regimen for the management of endometriosis-associated pelvic pain: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2017;108:798–805. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.07.1165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Maddern J., Grundy L., Castro J., Brierley S.M. Pain in endometriosis. Front Cell Neurosci. 2020;14:1–16. doi: 10.3389/fncel.2020.590823. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Wakatsuki A., Lin Y., Kojima S., Matsushita H., Takeuchi K., Umezawa K. Inhibitory effects of estetrol on the invasion and migration of immortalized human endometrial stromal cells. Endocr J. 2024;71:199–206. doi: 10.1507/endocrj.EJ23-0397. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Patiño-García D., Palomino J., Pomés C., Celle C., Torres-Estay V., Orellana R. Estetrol increases progesterone genetic response without triggering common estrogenic effects in endometriotic cell lines and primary cultures. Biomedicines. 2023;11:1169–1181. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines11041169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Shi H., Xu K., Huang M., Mao M., Ou J. Regulatory mechanism of GPER in the invasion and migration of ectopic endometrial stromal cells in endometriosis. Women Health. 2024;64:109–120. doi: 10.1080/03630242.2023.2296522. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Revankar C.M., Cimino D.F., Sklar L.A., Arterburn J.B., Prossnitz E.R. A transmembrane intracellular estrogen receptor mediates rapid cell signaling. Science. 2005;307:1625–1630. doi: 10.1126/science.1106943. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Zhang L., Xiong W., Li N., Liu H., He H., Du Y., et al. Estrogen stabilizes hypoxia-inducible factor 1α through G protein-coupled estrogen receptor 1 in eutopic endometrium of endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:439–447. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.11.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental Materials
mmc1.docx (138.5KB, docx)

Articles from F&S Reports are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES