Reported trial results for Endometriosis
Every Endometriosis trial Voxsanity tracks that has reported results to a public registry, newest first. These trials have finished, so they are not recruiting. Not medical advice.
26 trials have reported results.
AI generated results summary. Written by an AI model from the official source data and checked on a sample basis. It can contain mistakes, so confirm anything important against the original source. How we use AI
-
NCT04173169 · results posted 12 June 2026
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04173169) enrolled 103 people in total — 53 in a group that took a 60-day course of an oral hormonal medication called a GnRH antagonist before starting IVF, and 50 in a comparison group that received either a placebo (a dummy pill) or standard IVF care. The trial's main goal was to measure how many people in each group went on to have a live birth (a baby born at 24 weeks of pregnancy or later). A number of secondary measurements were also recorded, including how many eggs were successfully fertilised, how many embryos were transferred, how many embryos successfully implanted in the womb, and how many participants had a positive pregnancy test or an ultrasound-confirmed pregnancy. The reported data shows that for the main outcome — live birth rate — 20 out of 53 participants (roughly 38%) in the GnRH antagonist group and 22 out of 50 participants (roughly 44%) in the placebo/standard care group had a live birth. For the secondary outcomes, the fertilisation figures were based on 194 eggs in the treatment group and 291 eggs in the comparison group (noting that the comparison group had more eggs collected overall). The reported data shows an average of 1.1 embryos transferred per person in the treatment group and 1.0 in the comparison group. The implantation rate — the percentage of transferred embryos that resulted in a visible pregnancy sac on ultrasound — was reported as 22% for the treatment group and 23% for the comparison group. A positive pregnancy test was recorded for 26% of participants in the treatment group and 29% in the comparison group, while an ultrasound-confirmed pregnancy was seen in 22% and 24% respectively. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT03216330 · results posted 8 April 2026
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03216330) involved 56 participants in total — 37 in the "Case" group and 19 in the "Control" group. Of those, 36 Case participants and all 19 Control participants completed the study. The trial was measuring self-reported pain scores across three areas: pain felt deep during sexual intercourse, pain felt at the point of entry during sexual intercourse, and general pelvic pain experienced day-to-day. Participants rated their pain on a scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable), and the scores were averaged over a six-week period. The reported data shows that outcome numbers were only published for the Case group. For deep pain during intercourse, the average score reported was 3.08 out of 10. For pain at the point of entry during intercourse, the average score reported was 2.34 out of 10. For ongoing pelvic pain, the average score reported was 2.68 out of 10. No outcome score figures were reported for the Control group, so a comparison between the two groups cannot be drawn from the available data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT05622955 · results posted 6 March 2026
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 35 participants, all of whom took part in something called "Endometriosis Group Care" — a group-based care programme for people with endometriosis. The trial ran over 8 weeks and was measuring changes in several areas including pain, physical function, sexual function, quality of life, anxiety, and depression. Of the 35 who started, 32 completed the programme and 3 did not finish. The reported data shows changes in scores from the start of the programme to its end at 8 weeks. For the main measure — how much pain interfered with daily life — the average score fell by 1.62 points (on a scale where a lower score means less interference). For the secondary measures, the average physical function score rose by 1.12 points (higher means better function); the sexual function score rose by 1.51 points (on a scale of 2 to 36, where higher means better); the endometriosis-specific quality of life score fell by 12.58 points (on a scale of 0 to 100, where lower means better health); the anxiety score fell by 1.84 points (lower means less anxiety); and the depression score fell by 2.48 points (lower means fewer symptoms). All of these scores use standardised survey tools and represent average changes across the group, not results for any one individual. The reported data does not include information about whether these changes were considered statistically meaningful beyond the mixed-effects modelling used, and there was no comparison group, so the numbers reflect changes within the one group over time only. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT06352840 · results posted 13 February 2026
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 69 participants in total — 24 in a group called "Monitoring Progress Plus Usual Care" and 45 in a group called "My Pelvic Plan Plus Usual Care." The trial measured three things using standardised questionnaires: how much pain interfered with daily life, how intense the pain was, and how confident participants felt in managing their own symptoms. These were measured at two time points. It is worth noting that a significant number of participants did not complete the trial — 16 from the first group and 18 from the second did not finish. The reported data shows results using something called a "t-score," where a score of 50 represents the average for the general population. For pain interference at the primary time point, the Monitoring Progress group scored 59.2 and the My Pelvic Plan group scored 63.4 — both above 50, meaning both groups reported pain interfering with daily life more than the general population average. For pain intensity, the scores reported were 5.08 and 6.26 respectively — again both above 50. For confidence in managing symptoms, both groups scored below 50 (42.5 and 39.7), meaning both groups reported feeling less confident than the general population average. At the secondary (later) time point, the reported figures were similar: pain interference scores of 59.5 and 60.7, pain intensity scores of 5.88 and 6.38, and confidence scores of 42.4 and 41.7 across the two groups. The reported data shows that both groups had scores in a broadly similar range across all three measures at both time points, though the trial does not appear to have reported the statistical comparison needed to draw conclusions about differences between the groups. No information about side effects or harms was included in the submitted results data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT05229653 · results posted 28 March 2025
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05229653) was set up to compare a low-dose ketamine treatment group against a control group. The trial was measuring pelvic pain — using a standard 0-to-10 pain rating scale called a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), where 0 means no pain and 10 means the worst pain imaginable — as well as anxiety levels, using a 7-question anxiety questionnaire called the GAD-7 (scored 0–21, where higher scores indicate more severe anxiety). In total, only 1 participant was recorded as having started the trial, in the low-dose ketamine group, and no participants in either group were recorded as having completed it. The reported data shows that no numerical results were submitted for any of the outcome measures — neither the pelvic pain scores nor the anxiety scores. This means that, for both the primary outcomes (pelvic pain measured at multiple time points) and the secondary outcome (anxiety), the actual measurement data was not reported on ClinicalTrials.gov. Given that only one participant started and no participants completed the trial, it is likely the study was unable to generate meaningful results data. Because no outcome numbers were reported, it is not possible to draw any conclusions from this trial about the measures it set out to study. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT04039204 · results posted 26 July 2024
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04039204) involved a total of 10 participants, split evenly into two groups of 5 — one group received a medication called Elagolix, and the other received an oral contraceptive pill called Ortho Cyclen. All 5 participants in the Elagolix group completed the study, while 3 out of 5 completed it in the oral contraceptive group (2 did not finish). The trial was measuring outcomes related to pregnancy, including live births, miscarriages, and viable pregnancies (pregnancies that continued and appeared to be progressing). The reported data shows that in the Elagolix group, 3 out of 5 participants had a live birth, 2 experienced a miscarriage (a pregnancy loss in the first trimester), and 5 participants had a viable pregnancy at some point during the study. In the oral contraceptive group, 1 out of 5 participants had a live birth, 1 experienced a miscarriage, and 2 had a viable pregnancy. The trial also planned to measure inflammation markers in the body using a laboratory method, but no numerical results for that measure were included in the reported data. It is important to note that this was a very small study with only 5 people in each group, so the numbers represent only a handful of individuals. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT03992846 · results posted 29 May 2024
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03992846) enrolled 484 people across three groups to study treatments for endometriosis-associated pain. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a lower dose of a medicine called LGX at 75 mg (160 people), a higher dose of LGX at 200 mg combined with another medicine called ABT (162 people), or a placebo — a dummy treatment with no active ingredient (162 people). The trial ran for six months and focused on two main types of pain linked to endometriosis: period pain (called dysmenorrhea) and pelvic pain that occurs outside of periods (called non-menstrual pelvic pain). By the end of the study, 140, 143, and 137 people completed the trial in each group respectively. The reported data shows the results as the proportion of people in each group who experienced a meaningful reduction in pain alongside stable or reduced use of pain-relief medicines by the three-month mark. For period pain, the reported figures were 44.0% of people in the LGX 75 mg group, 72.9% in the LGX 200 mg+ABT group, and 23.5% in the placebo group meeting that measure. For pelvic pain occurring outside of periods, the reported figures were 38.9% in the LGX 75 mg group, 47.3% in the LGX 200 mg+ABT group, and 30.9% in the placebo group. No additional outcome data beyond these two primary measures was included in the structured results submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so further figures are not available to report here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT03654274 · results posted 20 July 2023
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03654274) enrolled 802 participants across three groups: one group received relugolix combined with oestradiol and norethindrone acetate (E2/NETA) from the start (Group A, 278 people); a second group received relugolix with E2/NETA added in after a delay (Group B, 247 people); and a third group received a placebo, meaning a dummy pill with no active ingredient (Group C, 277 people). The trial measured two types of pelvic pain common in endometriosis — period pain (called dysmenorrhea) and non-menstrual pelvic pain (NMPP) — using a self-reported pain scale from 0 to 10. Participants were tracked over roughly two years (up to Week 104). The reported data shows that, at Week 52, the percentage of participants whose period pain score dropped by a meaningful amount (at least 2.8 points on the scale) without needing more pain relief was 84.8% in Group A, 82.2% in Group B, and 75.6% in Group C. For non-menstrual pelvic pain at Week 52 (requiring a drop of at least 2.1 points), the reported figures were 73.6% in Group A, 70.4% in Group B, and 68.0% in Group C. At Week 104, the reported responder rates for period pain were 84.8% (Group A), 83.0% (Group B), and 80.4% (Group C); and for non-menstrual pelvic pain, 75.8% (Group A), 71.7% (Group B), and 73.1% (Group C). The reported data also shows changes in a quality-of-life pain questionnaire (scored 0–100, where higher scores mean greater impact of pain on daily life). At Week 52, average scores decreased by 37.7 points in Group A, 36.1 points in Group B, and 35.1 points in Group C. By Week 104, the reported decreases were 41.3 points (Group A), 38.9 points (Group B), and 37.7 points (Group C), indicating that reported pain impact on daily activities went down across all groups over time. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT02214550 · results posted 18 June 2023
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled a total of 353 participants across nine groups. Most participants were not given any treatment and served as comparison groups — including healthy volunteers, people with chronic pain, and people with painful bladder conditions. The groups who received an intervention were women with period pain and bladder sensitivity (a condition the trial called "dysmenorrhea with cross-organ sensitisation"), who were given either no oral contraceptive pill, a cyclic (on-and-off) version of a pill called Microgestin 1/20, or a continuous (no break) version of that pill. A separate group with a painful bladder condition (PBS/interstitial cystitis) also received the continuous pill. The trial was primarily measuring changes in bladder pain sensitivity, and also looked at physical pressure sensitivity in the pelvic area and resting brain activity recorded by an EEG (a test that measures electrical signals in the brain). The reported data shows that for the primary measure — bladder pain scored on a 0–100 scale where higher means more pain — baseline scores for the intervention groups ranged from about 37 to 48, compared with roughly 2 to 4 for healthy volunteers and about 33 to 49 for the various comparison groups. For the three treatment groups where a second time-point was reported, scores shifted to approximately 45 (no pill), 32 (cyclic pill), and 19 (continuous pill). For the secondary pressure-sensitivity measure, lower numbers in newtons indicate greater sensitivity; baseline readings across groups ranged from about 6 to 14 newtons, and follow-up readings for the three treatment groups were approximately 5, 14, and 12 newtons respectively. For the EEG brain-activity measure, readings across all groups at baseline were clustered closely around 10 hertz, and the reported follow-up figures for the treatment groups were similarly around 10 hertz. It is important to note that the data as submitted does not clearly label which time points (baseline, 6-month, or 12-month) each set of numbers belongs to for the treatment groups, so direct before-and-after comparisons cannot be fully drawn from what was reported. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT03956082 · results posted 17 November 2022
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this was a small single-group study — meaning there was no comparison group — that enrolled 15 people. Nine participants completed the study, and six did not complete it. The trial was looking at a laparoscopic (keyhole) surgical procedure, specifically examining whether surgeons could maintain a consistent level of gas pressure inside the abdomen (called intra-abdominal pressure) throughout the operation without needing to increase it, and how clearly surgeons could see the operating area during the procedure. The reported data shows that all 9 participants who completed the study had their procedure finished without any need to increase the abdominal gas pressure beyond the set level. For the quality of the surgeon's view during the procedure, the reported average score was 100 out of 100 on the rating scale used, where 0 meant poor and 100 meant excellent. Regarding how satisfied patients were with the appearance of their surgical site afterwards (scored on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is very unsatisfied and 7 is very satisfied), the reported data shows scores of 1, 2, and 6 for individual participants, though the full breakdown across all completers was not clearly detailed. For shoulder pain in the days after surgery (rated 0 to 10, where 0 is no pain and 10 is the worst imaginable), the reported average scores started at around 3.1 on day one and fell to 0 by day seven. The reported data also shows that 5 participants took opioid-containing pain medicines on day one after surgery, dropping to 3 on day two, and reaching zero by days three through six, with 1 participant recorded on day seven. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT03970330 · results posted 3 November 2022
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03970330) enrolled a total of 9 people — 5 in the low-dose naltrexone group and 4 in the placebo (dummy treatment) group. All 9 participants completed the trial. The study was looking at pain levels in people with endometriosis over 12 weeks, measuring daily pain on a 0–100 scale and combining those daily scores into a single total figure (called an "area under the curve," which is simply a way of adding up all the daily pain scores over the whole study period). The study also tracked quality of life, patients' own sense of whether their symptoms had changed, and how much ibuprofen they used. The reported data shows that for the main pain measure over 12 weeks, the low-dose naltrexone group had a combined score of 2,461 units, while the placebo group had a combined score of 1,338 units (where a higher number indicates more total pain reported across the period). For quality of life (scored 0–100, where higher means worse health), the reported data shows multiple time-point scores across both groups, ranging from around 35–57 in the low-dose naltrexone group and 16–29 in the placebo group. For patients' own rating of change in painful periods, pelvic pain, and pain during sex (on a 1–7 scale, where 7 means "much better"), the reported scores across the study's time points generally ranged from 4.0 in the low-dose naltrexone group to 4.5–6.5 in the placebo group. The reported data also shows that the low-dose naltrexone group used an average of 5.5 ibuprofen tablets (200 mg) per week, compared with 1.2 tablets per week in the placebo group. It is important to note that with only 9 participants in total, this was a very small trial — likely a preliminary study to test whether a larger trial is feasible — and the reported numbers on their own cannot be used to draw broad conclusions. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT02921763 · results posted 13 June 2022
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 60 women who were all given a medication called dydrogesterone. The trial was measuring changes in ovarian chocolate cysts (fluid-filled growths on the ovaries linked to endometriosis) as well as changes in period pain over time. Of the 60 women who started, 42 completed the trial and 18 did not finish. The reported data shows that when looking at cyst size after treatment, of the 26 participants with measurable cyst data at the end of the study, 13 were recorded as having a decreased cyst volume, 13 as unchanged, and none as increased (where "unchanged" was defined as a change of within 15% either way). The average total cyst volume was recorded as approximately 45.76 cm³ at the start, 51.97 cm³ at an earlier check-in point, and 60.27 cm³ at a later check-in point. When the researchers calculated individual changes from the starting point, the average change in cyst volume was reported as nearly zero (+0.04 cm³) at one stage and +8.48 cm³ at another stage, with percentage changes of approximately +4% and −6% respectively. For period pain, the trial used two scoring tools. On a combined pain and painkiller-use score (ranging from 0 to 6), the reported average started at 2.30 before treatment and was recorded at 1.05 by the final check-in point. On a separate pain scale (0–10 cm), the average reported score started at 4.33 cm and was recorded at 2.01 cm by the end of the observation period. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT03654326 · results posted 7 July 2021
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03654326) enrolled 187 participants — 94 in the gefapixant group and 93 in the placebo group (a placebo is a dummy treatment with no active ingredient, used for comparison). The trial was measuring changes in daily pelvic pain scores in people with endometriosis-related pelvic pain, using a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 meant no pain and 10 meant extremely severe pain. It also tracked how many participants experienced an unwanted medical event (called an adverse event) during the study, and how many stopped taking the study drug because of one. Most participants completed the study — 88 in the gefapixant group and 87 in the placebo group. The reported data shows that, for the main pain measure (average daily pelvic pain combining period-related and non-period-related pain, assessed roughly between weeks 4 and 8), scores in the gefapixant group decreased by an average of 2.2 points from their starting level, while scores in the placebo group decreased by an average of 1.7 points. For period-related pain alone, the reported decreases were 2.0 points (gefapixant) and 1.3 points (placebo). For pain not related to periods, the reported decreases were 2.3 points (gefapixant) and 1.8 points (placebo). In all cases, both groups showed a decrease from their starting scores. The reported data also shows that 53.2% of participants in the gefapixant group and 35.5% in the placebo group experienced at least one adverse event during the study period. Additionally, 3.2% of those in the gefapixant group stopped taking the study drug because of an adverse event, compared with 0.0% in the placebo group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT00784693 · results posted 30 April 2021
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a medicine called tanezumab compared to a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient) in people with endometriosis-related pain. A total of 23 people were assigned to tanezumab and 25 to placebo, with 22 and 25 respectively actually receiving treatment. By the end of the study, 20 people in the tanezumab group and 19 in the placebo group had completed it. The main thing being measured was the change in participants' self-rated daily endometriosis pain over eight weeks, using a scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst imaginable pain). The reported data shows that at the start of the study, average daily pain scores were similar in both groups — around 5.45 for the tanezumab group and 5.50 for the placebo group. By week 8, both groups reported lower scores: the tanezumab group's average score dropped by about 2.88 points, while the placebo group's dropped by about 3.51 points. The reported data also shows pain scores at other time points across weeks 4, 12, and 16, as well as during menstruation and on non-menstrual days. In general, scores in both groups were lower than at the start across all these time points, with the numbers for both groups following a broadly similar pattern throughout the follow-up period. For the secondary measures — including pain during menstruation, pain on non-period days, and "worst pain" scores — the reported data shows that both groups recorded reductions from their starting scores at most time points measured. For example, worst pain during menstruation started at around 6.98 (tanezumab) and 7.67 (placebo), and by week 12 had fallen to around 3.58 and 2.34 respectively, before rising somewhat by week 16. The reported figures were broadly comparable between the two groups across these measures. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT03573336 · results posted 22 January 2021
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03573336) enrolled a very small number of participants — 2 people in the vilaprisan 2 mg group, 4 people in the vilaprisan 4 mg group, and 2 people in the placebo group (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). Notably, none of the participants completed the study; all 8 withdrew before finishing. The trial was measuring pelvic pain related to endometriosis using an 11-point scale (where 0 means no pain and 10 means the worst imaginable pain), as well as how much pain relief medication participants used. The reported data shows that at the start of the study, average worst pelvic pain scores across all three groups were similar, sitting between 5.6 and 6.0 out of 10. By a later study period, the scores reported were 3.0 for the 2 mg group, 3.8 for the 4 mg group, and 5.0 for the placebo group — however, the trial's own records note that no formal statistical analysis was carried out on these numbers, meaning no conclusions about differences between groups were drawn. The reported data also shows that the average daily number of ibuprofen tablets taken appeared to change across the study periods in all groups, and tramadol (a stronger pain reliever) use was very low across the board. Regarding unintended medical events that occurred during treatment, 2 out of 2 participants in the 2 mg group, 3 out of 4 in the 4 mg group, and 2 out of 2 in the placebo group experienced at least one such event. No participants in any group were reported to have abnormal findings on examination of the uterine lining. It is important to note that with only 8 participants total and no one completing the study, the reported numbers are based on an extremely small group and the trial itself did not draw any conclusions from them. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT00621179 · results posted 5 October 2020
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 37 people across four groups (12 in Group 1, 8 in Group 2, 7 in Group 3, and 10 in Group 4). The trial was looking at how people responded to a process called controlled ovarian hyperstimulation — a procedure used as part of fertility treatment where the ovaries are stimulated to produce eggs. The main thing being measured was whether an embryo successfully implanted in the womb, which was confirmed by an ultrasound at around six and a half weeks. Most participants completed the trial, with one person in Group 3 and one in Group 4 not finishing. The reported data shows that, out of each group, the number of participants whose embryo implanted was as follows: 7 out of 12 in Group 1, 5 out of 8 in Group 2, 3 out of 6 who completed in Group 3, and 5 out of 9 who completed in Group 4. No secondary outcome measures were included in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so no further results are available to describe. It is worth noting that this was a relatively small trial across all four groups combined, and only one outcome measure was reported. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT01553201 · results posted 8 July 2020
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01553201) involved 30 people in total, split into two equal groups of 15. One group received Botulinum Toxin (BoNT, commonly known as Botox), and the other received a placebo (an inactive substance). All 30 participants completed the trial with no drop-outs. The main thing the trial was measuring was whether participants reported an improvement in their pain symptoms — this was recorded simply as a yes or no answer for each person. The reported data shows that, out of the 15 people in the Botulinum Toxin group, 11 reported an improvement in pain. In the placebo group, 4 out of 15 people reported an improvement in pain. No other outcome measures were included in the submitted results data, so no further figures are available to describe. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT01464775 · results posted 20 April 2020
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01464775) looked at two different methods of viewing the inside of the body during surgery for suspected endometriosis — a technique called Narrow Band Imaging (NBI), which uses a special light to highlight tissue, and standard White Light imaging. A total of 167 people were enrolled across both groups: 123 in the NBI group and 44 in the White Light group. By the end of the study, 112 people in the NBI group and 38 in the White Light group had completed the trial. The reported data shows two main things were measured. The first was "diagnostic yield" — meaning how many participants in each group were found to have endometriosis based on tissue samples taken during surgery. According to the results, 81 participants in the NBI group and 25 participants in the White Light group received a confirmed diagnosis this way. The second measure was "sensitivity" — essentially, out of all the tissue spots that were biopsied (sampled), how many turned out to actually be endometriosis. The reported data shows 256 lesions in the NBI group and 202 lesions in the White Light group were confirmed as endometriotic through pathology (laboratory testing of tissue). It is important to note that these are raw counts, and the data as submitted does not include percentage breakdowns or further statistical detail for these figures. For the secondary outcome — self-reported pain measured at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after surgery using questionnaires — no results data was reported on ClinicalTrials.gov for this measure. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT01728454 · results posted 23 July 2019
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a drug called telapristone acetate in two doses (6 mg and 12 mg) compared to a placebo (a dummy pill with no active ingredient) in people with endometriosis-related pain. A total of 60 participants were enrolled across three groups — 17 in the placebo group, 20 in the 6 mg group, and 23 in the 12 mg group — across the first two stages of the trial. A smaller follow-on stage involved 22 of those participants. The trial measured changes in three types of pain — period pain (dysmenorrhea), pain during sex (dyspareunia), and ongoing pelvic pain outside of periods — using a scoring tool called the Biberoglu Behrman Symptom Severity Scale (BBSS), where scores run from 0 (no symptoms) to 3 (severe), and a lower score means less pain. It also tracked how many painkiller tablets participants took. The reported data shows the following changes in pain scores during the on-treatment period, compared to where each group started (a negative number means scores went down, which on this scale indicates less pain). For period pain, the placebo group's score changed by −3.95, the 6 mg group by −8.46, and the 12 mg group by −6.46. For pain during sex, the reported changes were −21.50 (placebo), −14.75 (6 mg), and −9.83 (12 mg). For ongoing pelvic pain, the changes were −6.06 (placebo), −10.01 (6 mg), and −2.96 (12 mg). The reported data also shows changes in painkiller use per 28-day period during treatment: prescription painkiller use fell by about 6.74 pills in the placebo group, 7.20 pills in the 6 mg group, and 5.87 pills in the 12 mg group. For over-the-counter painkillers, the placebo group's use rose slightly (+1.78 pills), while the 6 mg group fell by 12.79 pills and the 12 mg group fell by 6.81 pills. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT00958412 · results posted 12 February 2019
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT00958412) enrolled 18 participants, all of whom received a treatment called Proellex (also written as Proellex®), taken once daily. The trial was set up to track any unwanted or unexpected health events (called adverse events) that participants experienced while taking the treatment, as a way of examining its safety profile. The reported data shows that none of the 18 participants completed the trial — all 18 did not finish. In terms of the main outcome being measured, the reported data shows that 16 out of the 18 participants experienced at least one adverse event during the study. No secondary outcome measure data appears to have been reported in the structured results submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so those figures are not available here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT01620528 · results posted 18 September 2018
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a medicine called elagolix in women with endometriosis-associated pain. A total of 872 women took part — 374 received a dummy pill (placebo), 249 received a lower dose of elagolix (150 mg once a day), and 249 received a higher dose (200 mg twice a day). The trial measured two main types of pain: period pain (called dysmenorrhea) and pelvic pain between periods (called non-menstrual pelvic pain), as well as overall pain scores and painkiller use. The reported data shows that, for period pain at three months, 19.6% of women in the placebo group met the threshold to be counted as a "responder" (meaning their pain improved enough to meet a pre-set target, also taking painkiller use into account), compared with 46.4% in the lower-dose group and 75.8% in the higher-dose group. For pelvic pain between periods at three months, the reported responder rates were 36.5% (placebo), 50.4% (lower dose), and 54.5% (higher dose). On a separate 0–10 overall pain scale, the reported average change from the starting score at three months was a reduction of 1.09 points for placebo, 1.74 for the lower dose, and 2.39 for the higher dose. Changes in pain scores were also measured at six months, with the higher dose group showing the largest reported reductions across both pain types. Average painkiller use (measured in pills) showed small reductions across all three groups, with the largest reported reduction in the higher-dose group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT01931670 · results posted 7 September 2018
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a medicine called elagolix in women with endometriosis-related pain. A total of 815 women took part across three groups: 360 received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient), 226 received a lower dose of elagolix (150 mg once a day), and 229 received a higher dose (200 mg twice a day). The trial mainly measured two types of pain over three months — period pain (called dysmenorrhea) and pelvic pain that occurs outside of periods (called non-menstrual pelvic pain) — using a diary scale of 0 (no pain) to 3 (severe pain). It also tracked whether women used more or less pain relief medication. The reported data shows that, for period pain at three months, 22.7% of women in the placebo group were classed as "responders" (meaning their pain score dropped by a meaningful amount without needing more pain relief medication), compared with 43.4% in the lower-dose elagolix group and 72.4% in the higher-dose group. For pelvic pain outside of periods at three months, the reported responder rates were 36.5% (placebo), 49.8% (lower dose), and 57.8% (higher dose). The reported data also shows that overall pain scores on a 0–10 scale dropped by 1.33 points in the placebo group, 1.90 points in the lower-dose group, and 2.55 points in the higher-dose group by month three. At six months, period pain scores fell by 0.52 points (placebo), 1.06 points (lower dose), and 1.65 points (higher dose), and pelvic pain outside periods fell by 0.48, 0.63, and 0.80 points respectively. The average number of pain relief tablets taken per day also decreased slightly across all three groups, with reductions of 0.31 (placebo), 0.36 (lower dose), and 0.49 (higher dose) pills reported. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT00619866 · results posted 7 September 2018
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved women with endometriosis and tested two doses of a medicine called elagolix — 150 mg and 250 mg — against a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). A total of 155 women started the first 12-week phase: 52 received placebo, 51 received elagolix 150 mg, and 52 received elagolix 250 mg. After week 12, women who had been on placebo were switched to one of the two elagolix doses for a further 12 weeks. The main thing being measured was how much participants' daily endometriosis pain scores changed over the first 12 weeks, using an 11-point scale where 0 meant "no pain" and 10 meant "worst pain ever." The reported data shows that at week 12, the average pain score (on that 0–10 scale) had fallen by 0.88 points in the placebo group, by 1.19 points in the elagolix 150 mg group, and by 1.25 points in the elagolix 250 mg group — all measured from each group's starting point. The reported data also shows changes across several other pain measures tracked over the full 24 weeks, including period pain (dysmenorrhea) and pelvic pain unrelated to periods, each rated on a 0–3 scale. For period pain at 24 weeks, the reported average change from starting scores was −0.24 for placebo, −0.68 for elagolix 150 mg, and −0.76 for elagolix 250 mg. For pelvic pain unrelated to periods at 24 weeks, the reported changes were −0.22, −0.27, and −0.25 respectively. All groups showed some reduction across the measured pain scores over the course of the trial. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT02203331 · results posted 4 January 2018
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02203331) enrolled 319 participants across six groups. Each group received a different combination of a vaginal ring (IVR) and an injection — some containing active ingredients at varying doses, and some containing placebos (inactive treatments used for comparison). The trial was measuring changes in period-related pelvic pain (endometriosis-associated pelvic pain, or EAPP) over roughly 84 days (three 28-day cycles). Pain was rated by participants daily on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 meant no pain and 10 meant the worst imaginable pain. Between 272 and 305 participants received treatment, and between 39 and 50 in each group completed the full study period. The reported data shows that the primary outcome — the change in average pain scores on the worst 7 days within the final 28-day treatment period compared to before treatment began — showed a reduction across all six groups. The group receiving the lowest active dose (ATZ 300 mcg/LNG) had a reported reduction of approximately 1.6 points on the 0–10 scale, while the group receiving the highest active dose (ATZ 1050 mcg/LNG) had a reduction of approximately 2.3 points. The group using the leuprorelin injection with a placebo ring reported the largest reduction, at approximately 3.8 points, and the double-placebo group (no active treatment) reported a reduction of approximately 2.3 points. For secondary outcomes, the reported data shows that the percentage of days where participants rated their pain at 7 or above also fell across all groups over the course of the three cycles, with reductions ranging from roughly 13 to 36 percentage points by the end of the study. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT01190475 · results posted 14 December 2017
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a drug called BGS649 in a very small number of participants — just six people in total. Two people received a higher dose of BGS649, two received a lower dose, and two received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). Five of the six participants completed the study; one person in the placebo group did not finish. The trial was primarily measuring whether participants developed two or more egg follicles (small fluid-filled sacs in the ovaries where eggs develop) that reached a certain size — at least 16 millimetres in diameter — which can be a sign of ovarian stimulation. The reported data shows that both participants in the high-dose group and both participants in the low-dose group met this follicle size target, while neither participant in the placebo group did. The trial also tracked how the drug moved through the body (sometimes called pharmacokinetics). The reported data shows that at the first measured dose, the total amount of drug detected in the bloodstream over time was 2,557 ng·hr/mL for the high-dose group and 443.8 ng·hr/mL for the low-dose group; by the second measured dose these figures were 3,283 and 639.6 respectively. The highest level of drug recorded in the blood (the "peak concentration") was 9.04 ng/mL (high dose) and 2.72 ng/mL (low dose) at the first dose, rising to 15.25 and 3.41 ng/mL at the second dose. In both groups and at both time points, this peak level was reached within one hour of taking the dose. It is important to note that this was an extremely small trial — only six participants — so the numbers above reflect a very limited snapshot and should be interpreted with great caution. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT01294371 · results posted 22 July 2013
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 391 participants, all of whom received a hormone treatment called leuprorelin (390 were actually treated). The trial was looking at how often women taking leuprorelin for six months were also given "add-back therapy" — that is, additional hormones or other medicines sometimes used alongside leuprorelin to ease side effects related to lower oestrogen levels. By the end of the study, 357 participants had completed it, and 34 did not finish. The reported data shows that 46.5% of participants overall received some form of add-back therapy during the six-month treatment period — with 21.7% receiving hormone-based add-back therapy and 26.9% receiving non-hormone add-back therapy. In terms of how consistently participants took leuprorelin as prescribed, the reported compliance rate was 96.15%, meaning on average participants received close to all of their scheduled doses. The trial also tracked oestrogen deficiency symptoms — such as hot flushes, headaches, heart palpitations, trouble sleeping, and mood changes. The reported data shows that out of 303 participants assessed, 139 experienced hot flushes, 100 experienced headaches, and 190 experienced at least one of the listed symptoms. These figures were also broken down between those who did and did not receive add-back therapy, though the data as reported does not specify the exact timepoints at which all measurements were taken. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
See the full Endometriosis page · What changed recently
Not medical advice. These are results as reported by the trial sponsor to a public registry, summarised in plain English. They describe what a trial recorded, not whether a treatment is suitable for any person. Verify anything important against the original registry record and discuss what it means for you with your doctor.