HORMONAL THERAPIES FOR ENDOMETRIOSIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMISED HEAD-TO-HEAD TRIALS

Background: Endometriosis is a chronic pain condition in which hormonal therapies form the cornerstone of long-term management. Treatment tolerability is critical for adherence and therapeutic success, but most comparative studies and reviews have focused on their ability to reduce menstrual pain, while their impact on non-menstrual pelvic pain (NMPP), bleeding patterns, adverse events (AEs), treatment discontinuation and quality of life (QoL) remain poorly characterised. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate these outcomes across currently available hormonal therapies, providing practical evidence for clinical decision-making. Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase were searched up to November 2025 for randomised controlled trials comparing at least two active first- or second-line hormonal treatments for endometriosis. Studies without confirmed endometriosis, treatment duration less than three months and comparing therapies to placebo only were excluded. Data were extracted by two reviewers from reports. Pain outcomes were pooled as mean differences (MD, 95% CI), with bleeding patterns, AEs, and discontinuations as proportions. Analyses were performed in R. PROSPERO: CRD420251137785. Findings: Of 1892 records screened, 48 trials (5583 women) met our inclusion criteria. Overall pelvic pain (0-10 scale) was significantly reduced across all treatment categories (p<0.001): combined oral contraceptives (COCs) (MD 3.17), oral and long-acting progestogens (MD 3.83; MD 4.29), and GnRH-analogues (MD 3.81). Sensitivity analyses restricted to studies reporting NMPP yielded comparable results. GnRH-agonists showed the most favourable bleeding profile, followed by continuous COCs. However, all regimens reported class-specific AEs, including mood changes, nausea, headache, weight gain, and decreased libido (pooled proportions >10%). Overall discontinuation due to AEs was 7.7%, and vaginal bleeding was the leading cause. Heterogeneity across meta-analyses was high. Risk of bias (RoB2) was moderate to high. Interpretation: Given similar reductions in overall pelvic pain across hormonal therapies, treatment decisions should prioritise differences in bleeding profiles, therapy-specific AEs, and QoL. Funding: None.