ArticleAJOG global reports2026
Safety of 48 months of elagolix with add-back therapy for endometriosis-associated pain.
Article in AJOG global reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evidence-based recommendations for advancing the chronic pelvic pain syndrome management by the paradigm change from reactive symptom suppression to proactive 3PM-guided patient-centered care.The EPMA journal · 2026Review
- Medical Treatment for Endometriosis: One Size Does Not Fit All.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Endometriosis-associated bone loss: re-evaluating the potential role of systemic inflammation and hypoestrogenic therapies.Frontiers in global women's health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Elagolix (ELA) 200 mg twice daily is an oral treatment approved for moderate-to-severe endometriosis-associated pain. However, the clinical use of ELA is limited by potential hypoestrogenic effects, including the loss of bone mineral density (BMD). The addition of hormonal add-back (AB) therapy (1-mg estradiol/0.5-mg norethindrone acetate once daily) may attenuate BMD loss. Objectives: To provide long-term safety results from a 48-month phase 3 trial assessing ELA+AB therapy in premenopausal women with moderate-to-severe endometriosis-associated pain. Study Design: This multicenter, phase 3 trial was conducted between July 7, 2017, and December 6, 2023, and included a 12-month double-blind treatment period, a 36-month open-label extension period, and a 12-month post-treatment follow-up (PTFU) period. At the beginning of the double-blind period, premenopausal women (aged 18-49 years) with moderate-to-severe endometriosis-associated pain were randomized 4:1:2 to ELA+AB therapy, ELA monotherapy for 6 months followed by ELA+AB therapy for the remaining 6 months, or placebo. After the double-blind treatment period, all patients were treated with open-label ELA+AB therapy (referred to as the ELA+AB/ELA+AB, ELA/ELA+AB, and placebo/ELA+AB groups) for the remainder of the 36-month open-label treatment period. Safety was assessed throughout the open-label treatment period. BMD was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck during the screening period and every 6 months throughout the study. BMD was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment as the main effect and baseline values as covariates. Results: Among 380 patients who entered the open-label period, 140 (36.8%) completed the treatment period, and 240 (63.2%) discontinued, primarily due to withdrawn consent and adverse events (AEs). In total, 159 (74.0%) patients in the ELA+AB/ELA+AB group, 41 (69.5%) patients in the ELA/ELA+AB group, and 80 (75.5%) patients in the placebo/ELA+AB group reported at least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) during the open-label period. TEAEs were generally mild or moderate and nonserious. The most commonly reported TEAEs were COVID-19, bone density decreases, and sinusitis. No serious AEs were reported in >1 patient in any study group. BMD remained generally stable, with a least squares mean percent decrease from baseline to week 48 <2% in all groups and at all anatomical sites. Similarly, the least squares mean decrease from baseline in BMD was <2% in the ELA+AB/ELA+AB group at all anatomical sites and all time points throughout the study period. For patients in the ELA+AB/ELA+AB group with ≥48 months of treatment and reduced BMD at the final on-treatment visit, the majority (lumbar spine, 13 [59.1%]; total hip, 8 [53.3%]; femoral neck, 12 [57.1%]) partially or fully recovered at month 12 of the PTFU period. Conclusions: This study extends findings from a previously reported 12-month analysis of the efficacy and safety of ELA+AB therapy in premenopausal women with moderate-to-severe endometriosis-associated pain. The safety profile of ELA+AB therapy was generally consistent with that observed in prior studies. BMD remained mostly stable through 48 months of continuous treatment. This analysis represents the longest safety study of ELA+AB therapy to date and supports long-term treatment with ELA+AB therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.