MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164862257 · doi:10.1016/j.xfre.2021.05.004

Efficacy and safety of elagolix with add-back therapy in women with uterine fibroids and coexisting adenomyosis

2021· article· en· W3164862257 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ozgul Muneyyirci‐Delale, David F. Archer, Charlotte D. Owens, Kurt T. Barnhart, Eve C. Feinberg, Veronica Gillispie, Sandra Hurtado, Jin Hee Kim, Alice Wang, Hui Wang, Elizabeth A. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueF&S Reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityAbbVie
KeywordsAdenomyosisMedicineClinical endpointPlaceboUterine fibroidsAdverse effectGynecologyConfidence intervalInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialObstetricsUrologyUterusPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine if coexisting adenomyosis limits the efficacy of elagolix, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, with hormonal add-back therapy in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding in women with uterine fibroids. DESIGN: Pooled analysis of two identical, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, 6-month phase 3 trials (Elaris Uterine Fibroids [UF]-1 and UF-2). SETTING: A total of 153 gynecological clinical care settings in the United States and Canada. PATIENTS: Premenopausal women (18-51 years) with >80 mL of menstrual blood loss (MBL)/cycle and uterine fibroids with and without coexisting adenomyosis diagnosed by ultrasound and/or magnetic resonance imaging at baseline. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized 1:1:2 to placebo, elagolix 300 mg twice daily alone, or elagolix 300 mg twice daily with estradiol 1 mg/norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg once daily. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was the proportion of women who had <80 mL of MBL during the final month and ≥50% reduction in MBL from baseline to the final month. Adverse events were monitored. RESULTS: Of 786 women treated across the two trials, 16% (126 women) had coexisting adenomyosis. Among this subset, a significantly greater proportion of women who received elagolix with add-back therapy (77.1% [95% confidence interval, 66.2, 88.0]) met both primary endpoint criteria compared with women who received placebo (12.2% [95% confidence interval, 1.0, 23.4]). Adverse events most frequently reported in the elagolix with add-back adenomyosis subset were hot flushes (18.3%), nausea (11.7%), and night sweats (8.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Elagolix with add-back therapy significantly reduced heavy menstrual bleeding in women with uterine fibroids and coexisting adenomyosis, suggesting that elagolix efficacy was not adversely affected by the presence of adenomyosis (Elaris UF-1 and UF-2 Clinical-Trials.gov numbers, NCT02654054 and NCT02691494).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueF&S ReportsSame topicEndometriosis Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207