A recent study [2] has sparked discussions within the endometriosis community. The headline on endonews.org reads “Dienogest Treatment Increases the Risk of Endometriosis Reoperation Rate.” This title implies that a Korean study has established a link between Dienogest use and a higher risk of reoperation.
However, we aim to delve deeper into the study’s findings to gain a clearer understanding.
In a Nutshell
The study conducted by Korean researchers from Inje University and Kyungpook National University focused on analyzing data from the Korean Health Insurance Fund.
The study included individuals who met the following criteria:
The study divided participants into two distinct groups:
Within the group of women who received Dienogest therapy during the observation period, a higher number of re-operations were noted.
The central question revolves around whether it can be concluded that taking Dienogest increases the likelihood of requiring another surgery.
The study’s retrospective nature immediately draws attention. Analyzing past data seems logical, yet complications arise when isolated historical data lacks the ability to consider crucial influencing factors.
To elaborate, consider the analogy below:
Imagine examining data from Sydney, correlating shark bite rates with ice cream consumption. It might appear that more shark bites coincide with increased ice cream consumption, even suggesting that consuming ice cream attracts shark attacks. But intuitively, we would hesitate to conclude such a link, right?
While a higher incidence of shark bites may align with greater ice cream consumption, causality is not straightforward. The surge in ice cream consumption could align with warmer temperatures, leading to more beachgoers, surfers hitting the waves, and subsequently more shark encounters. Ice cream does not trigger shark bites; a deeper influence is at play.
In retrospective studies, this complexity persists. Concluding that Dienogest directly heightens reoperation risk is akin to mistaking ice cream for a shark attractant. The design inherently hinders deriving definitive cause-and-effect relationships.
Retrospective data unveils co-occurrences, not causation. Yes, those on Dienogest faced more reoperations, but asserting Dienogest’s direct causative role requires caution. Just as ice cream consumption is not to blame for shark bites, Dienogest is not definitively responsible for reoperations.
Deeper scrutiny unveils subtler correlations, more akin to the summer driving both ice cream consumption and shark interactions. Within the study, grasping these underlying connections is pivotal—identifying the “summer factor” in the Dienogest scenario.
A meticulous analysis of the data reveals a key distinction: not all women began Dienogest treatment simultaneously. On average, it commenced approximately 100 days after GnRH analog therapy. The initiation varied, with some starting immediately, while others waited 6, 12, or even more months post-GnRH analog therapy completion.
From a clinical standpoint, two primary scenarios emerge for Dienogest prescription: prophylaxis against relapse or addressing recurrent symptoms.
Hence, the re-prescription of Dienogest can be attributed to one of three motives:
Reason 2 or 3 inherently signify an increased reoperation risk, motivating Dienogest use as a countermeasure.
Upon closer scrutiny, a pattern emerges:
One plausible explanation surfaces: this latter group likely received Dienogest due to recurring symptoms. If the Dienogest treatment inadequately managed those, subsequent surgery might have been inevitable.
It is a theory – an interpretation rather than a definitive explanation. The data does not distinctly elucidate why these women exhibited a heightened surgery likelihood.
Within the study, the authors themselves acknowledge additional constraints:
The study lacked insight into symptoms, reasons for surgery, and various influential factors like the use of other contraceptives, pregnancies, and detailed surgery specifics. Consequently, the impact of these variables remains unexplored.
Does this render the study flawed?
Retrospective studies hold significance; they unveil intriguing correlations that fuel further inquiry—then undertaken through planned and prospective research.
While this study bears limitations and imperfections, its existence serves a purpose. Published in a peer-reviewed journal, it serves as a foundation for constructing future theories. For instance, the authors dissect data to determine when Dienogest usage post-GnRH analogs might be reasonable or not. This insight lays the groundwork for prospective studies.
To robustly examine the link between Dienogest and reoperation rates and to establish conclusive evidence, a well-designed confirmatory study should encompass the following characteristics:
In summary, the goal is to minimize confounding variables and achieve a clear understanding of Dienogest’s role in reoperation risk reduction. This approach is unattainable in retrospective studies, reinforcing the need for a meticulously designed prospective study.
Understanding the limitations of retrospective studies, one should approach their findings cautiously. Generalizations from such studies are limited, as variables often cannot be fully controlled.
Looking at the broader landscape of research, multiple studies together provide a more comprehensive perspective. For instance, a randomized controlled trial demonstrated Dienogest’s reoperation risk reduction similar to GnRH analogs [3]. Furthermore, a 2020 meta-analysis found Dienogest to significantly reduce endometriosis surgery recurrence risk [4].
Informed by current research, the guideline “Diagnostics and Therapy of Endometriosis” [1] recommends Dienogest usage for symptom control and recurrence prevention in Germany. Alternative options exist, like other progestogens and combined pills, with personalized discussions between patients and physicians being pivotal.
Conclusions from the Study [2]:
Hormone therapy, including Dienogest, necessitates individual discussions with healthcare professionals. While guidelines might recommend Dienogest in specific contexts, ongoing assessment of benefits, risks, and side effects with physicians ensures optimal decision-making aligned with each patient’s unique situation.
Psychologist Teresa Götz (Endo-App) interviewed Dr. Cecilia Ng, who is doing research on endometriosis in…
Psychologist Teresa Götz (Endo-App) interviewed Dr. Cecilia Ng, who is doing research on endometriosis in…
Psychologist Teresa Götz (Endo-App) interviewed Dr. Cecilia Ng, who is doing research on endometriosis in…
Psychologist Teresa Götz (Endo-App) interviewed Dr. Cecilia Ng, who is doing research on endometriosis in…
Psychologist Teresa Götz (Endo-App) interviewed Dr. Cecilia Ng, who is doing research on endometriosis in…
Endo-App - kostenlos
Endometriose lindern
App auf Rezept