-
Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology Dec 2014A systematic review to compare the effectiveness of contraceptives to treat heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). PubMed was searched for studies using hormonal contraceptive... (Review)
Review
A systematic review to compare the effectiveness of contraceptives to treat heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). PubMed was searched for studies using hormonal contraceptive methods to treat HMB. Two reviewers screened 734 citations and extracted eligible trials based on rigid inclusion and exclusion criteria. Fourteen articles met inclusion criteria. The evidence was good to poor quality and suggested that all contraceptives tested were effective in the treatment of HMB, but the levonorgestrel intrauterine system was the most effective method. Hormonal contraceptives effectively treat HMB. The levonorgestel intrauterine system is the superior method.
Topics: Contraceptive Agents; Contraceptives, Oral, Hormonal; Female; Humans; Intrauterine Devices, Medicated; Levonorgestrel; Medroxyprogesterone Acetate; Menorrhagia
PubMed: 25314086
DOI: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000061 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015Postpartum contraception improves the health of mothers and children by lengthening birth intervals. For lactating women, contraception choices are limited by concerns... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postpartum contraception improves the health of mothers and children by lengthening birth intervals. For lactating women, contraception choices are limited by concerns about hormonal effects on milk quality and quantity and passage of hormones to the infant. Ideally, the contraceptive chosen should not interfere with lactation or infant growth. Timing of contraception initiation is also important. Immediately postpartum, most women have contact with a health professional, but many do not return for follow-up contraceptive counseling. However, immediate initiation of hormonal methods may disrupt the onset of milk production.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of hormonal contraceptives on lactation and infant growth
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for eligible trials until 2 March 2015. Sources included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, POPLINE, Web of Science, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP. We also examined review articles and contacted investigators.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought randomized controlled trials in any language that compared hormonal contraception versus another form of hormonal contraception, nonhormonal contraception, or placebo during lactation. Hormonal contraception includes combined or progestin-only oral contraceptives, injectable contraceptives, implants, and intrauterine devices.Trials had to have one of our primary outcomes: breast milk quantity or biochemical composition; lactation initiation, maintenance, or duration; infant growth; or timing of contraception initiation and effect on lactation. Secondary outcomes included contraceptive efficacy while breastfeeding and birth interval.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For continuous variables, we calculated the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). For dichotomous outcomes, we computed the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI. Due to differing interventions and outcome measures, we did not aggregate the data in a meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
In 2014, we added seven trials for a new total of 11. Five reports were published before 1985 and six from 2005 to 2014. They included 1482 women. Four trials examined combined oral contraceptives (COCs), and three studied a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS). We found two trials of progestin-only pills (POPs) and two of the etonogestrel-releasing implant. Older studies often lacked quantified results. Most trials did not report significant differences between the study arms in breastfeeding duration, breast milk composition, or infant growth. Exceptions were seen mainly in older studies with limited information.For breastfeeding duration, two of eight trials indicated a negative effect on lactation. A COC study reported a negative effect on lactation duration compared to placebo but did not quantify results. Another trial showed a lower percentage of the LNG-IUS group breastfeeding at 75 days versus the nonhormonal IUD group (reported P < 0.05) but no significant difference at one year.For breast milk volume, two older studies indicated lower volume for the COC group versus the placebo group. One trial did not quantify results. The other showed lower means (mL) for the COC group, e.g. at 16 weeks (MD -24.00, 95% CI -34.53 to -13.47) and at 24 weeks (MD -24.90, 95% CI -36.01 to -13.79). Another four trials did not report any significant difference between the study groups in milk volume or composition with two POPs, a COC, or the etonogestrel implant.Seven trials studied infant growth; one showed greater weight gain (grams) for the etonogestrel implant versus no method for six weeks (MD 426.00, 95% CI 58.94 to 793.06) but less compared with depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) from 6 to 12 weeks (MD -271.00, 95% CI -355.10 to -186.90). The others studied POPs, COCs versus POPs, or an LNG-IUS.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Results were not consistent across the 11 trials. The evidence was limited for any particular hormonal method. The quality of evidence was moderate overall and low for three of four placebo-controlled trials of COCs or POPs. The sensitivity analysis included six trials with moderate quality evidence and sufficient outcome data. Five trials indicated no significant difference between groups in breastfeeding duration (etonogestrel implant insertion times, COC versus POP, and LNG-IUS). For breast milk volume or composition, a COC study showed a negative effect, while an implant trial showed no significant difference. Of four trials that assessed infant growth, three indicated no significant difference between groups. One showed greater weight gain in the etonogestrel implant group versus no method but less versus DMPA.
Topics: Breast Feeding; Child Development; Contraception; Contraceptives, Oral, Combined; Contraceptives, Oral, Hormonal; Desogestrel; Female; Humans; Infant; Lactation; Levonorgestrel; Milk, Human; Progestins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25793657
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003988.pub2 -
Fertility and Sterility Feb 2017To investigate whether treatment with progestogens in the first trimester of pregnancy would decrease the incidence of miscarriage in women with a history of unexplained... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Supplementation with progestogens in the first trimester of pregnancy to prevent miscarriage in women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate whether treatment with progestogens in the first trimester of pregnancy would decrease the incidence of miscarriage in women with a history of unexplained recurrent miscarriage.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
Not applicable.
PATIENT(S)
Women with a history of unexplained recurrent miscarriage.
INTERVENTION(S)
Randomized, controlled trials were identified by searching electronic databases. We included randomized, controlled trials comparing supplementation with progestogens (i.e., intervention group) in the first trimester of pregnancy with control (either placebo or no treatment) in women with a history of recurrent miscarriage. All types of progestogens, including natural P and synthetic progestins, were analyzed.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)
The primary outcome was the incidence of miscarriage. The summary measures were reported as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULT(S)
Ten trials including 1,586 women with recurrent miscarriage were analyzed. Eight studies used placebo as control and were double-blind. Regarding the intervention, two RCTs used natural P, whereas the other eight studies used progestins: medroxyprogesterone, cyclopentylenol ether of progesterone, dydrogesterone, or 17-hydroxyprogesterone caproate. Pooled data from the 10 trials showed that women with a history of unexplained recurrent miscarriage who were randomized to the progestogens group in the first trimester and before 16 weeks had a lower risk of recurrent miscarriage (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53-0.97) and higher live birth rate (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.15) compared with those who did not. No statistically significant differences were found in the other secondary outcomes, including preterm birth (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.71-1.66), neonatal mortality (RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.44-7.34), and fetal genital abnormalities (RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.22-12.62).
CONCLUSION(S)
Our findings provide evidence that supplementation with progestogens may reduce the incidence of recurrent miscarriages and seem to be safe for the fetuses. Synthetic progestogens, including weekly IM 17-hydroxyprogesterone caproate, but not natural P, were associated with a lower risk of recurrent miscarriage. Given the limitations of the studies included in our meta-analysis, it is difficult to recommend route and dose of progestogen therapy. Further head-to-head trials of P types, dosing, and route of administration are required.
Topics: Abortion, Habitual; Chi-Square Distribution; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Humans; Odds Ratio; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Progestins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27887710
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.10.031 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2016Obesity has reached epidemic proportions around the world. Effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives may be related to metabolic changes in obesity or to greater body... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Obesity has reached epidemic proportions around the world. Effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives may be related to metabolic changes in obesity or to greater body mass or body fat. Hormonal contraceptives include oral contraceptives (OCs), injectables, implants, hormonal intrauterine contraception (IUC), the transdermal patch, and the vaginal ring. Given the prevalence of overweight and obesity, the public health impact of any effect on contraceptive efficacy could be substantial.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives in preventing pregnancy among women who are overweight or obese versus women with a lower body mass index (BMI) or weight.
SEARCH METHODS
Until 4 August 2016, we searched for studies in PubMed (MEDLINE), CENTRAL, POPLINE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP. We examined reference lists of pertinent articles to identify other studies. For the initial review, we wrote to investigators to find additional published or unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All study designs were eligible. The study could have examined any type of hormonal contraceptive. Reports had to contain information on the specific contraceptive methods used. The primary outcome was pregnancy. Overweight or obese women must have been identified by an analysis cutoff for weight or BMI (kg/m(2)).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted the data. One entered the data into RevMan and a second verified accuracy. The main comparisons were between overweight or obese women and women of lower weight or BMI. We examined the quality of evidence using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Where available, we included life-table rates. We also used unadjusted pregnancy rates, relative risk (RR), or rate ratio when those were the only results provided. For dichotomous variables, we computed an odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
With 8 studies added in this update, 17 met our inclusion criteria and had a total of 63,813 women. We focus here on 12 studies that provided high, moderate, or low quality evidence. Most did not show a higher pregnancy risk among overweight or obese women. Of five COC studies, two found BMI to be associated with pregnancy but in different directions. With an OC containing norethindrone acetate and ethinyl estradiol (EE), pregnancy risk was higher for overweight women, i.e. with BMI ≥ 25 versus those with BMI < 25 (reported relative risk 2.49, 95% CI 1.01 to 6.13). In contrast, a trial using an OC with levonorgestrel and EE reported a Pearl Index of 0 for obese women (BMI ≥ 30) versus 5.59 for nonobese women (BMI < 30). The same trial tested a transdermal patch containing levonorgestrel and EE. Within the patch group, obese women in the "treatment-compliant" subgroup had a higher reported Pearl Index than nonobese women (4.63 versus 2.15). Of five implant studies, two that examined the six-capsule levonorgestrel implant showed differences in pregnancy by weight. One study showed higher weight was associated with higher pregnancy rate in years 6 and 7 combined (reported P < 0.05). In the other, pregnancy rates differed in year 5 among the lower weight groups only (reported P < 0.01) and did not involve women weighing 70 kg or more.Analysis of data from other contraceptive methods indicated no association of pregnancy with overweight or obesity. These included depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (subcutaneous), levonorgestrel IUC, the two-rod levonorgestrel implant, and the etonogestrel implant.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence generally did not indicate an association between higher BMI or weight and effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives. However, we found few studies for most contraceptive methods. Studies using BMI, rather than weight alone, can provide information about whether body composition is related to contraceptive effectiveness. The contraceptive methods examined here are among the most effective when used according to the recommended regimen.We considered the overall quality of evidence to be low for the objectives of this review. More recent reports provided evidence of varying quality, while the quality was generally low for older studies. For many trials the quality would be higher for their original purpose rather than the non-randomized comparisons here. Investigators should consider adjusting for potential confounding related to BMI or contraceptive effectiveness. Newer studies included a greater proportion of overweight or obese women, which helps in examining effectiveness and side effects of hormonal contraceptives within those groups.
Topics: Body Mass Index; Body Weight; Contraception; Contraceptive Agents, Female; Female; Humans; Obesity; Overweight; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Pregnancy, Unplanned; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27537097
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008452.pub4 -
BMJ Global Health 2019Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate subcutaneous injectable contraception (DMPA-SC) may facilitate self-administration and expand contraceptive access. To inform WHO...
INTRODUCTION
Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate subcutaneous injectable contraception (DMPA-SC) may facilitate self-administration and expand contraceptive access. To inform WHO guidelines on self-care interventions, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing self-administration versus provider administration of injectable contraception on outcomes of pregnancy, side effects/adverse events, contraceptive uptake, contraceptive continuation, self-efficacy/empowerment and social harms.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, LILACS and EMBASE in September 2018 for peer-reviewed studies comparing women who received injectable contraception with the option of self-administration with women who received provider-administered injectable contraception on at least one outcome of interest. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the Evidence Project tool for non-randomised studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models to generate pooled estimates of relative risk (RR).
RESULTS
Six studies with 3851 total participants met the inclusion criteria: three RCTs and three controlled cohort studies. All studies examined self-injection of DMPA-SC; comparison groups were either provider-administered DMPA-SC or provider-administered intramuscular DMPA. All studies followed women through 12 months of contraceptive coverage and measured (dis)continuation of injectable contraception. Meta-analysis found higher rates of continuation with self-administration compared with provider administration in three RCTs (RR: 1.27, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.39) and three controlled cohort studies (RR: 1.18, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.26). Four studies reported pregnancies; all showed no difference across study arms. Four studies reported side effects/adverse events; while two controlled cohort studies showed increased injection site reactions with self-administration, no other side effects increased with self-administration. One study found no difference in social harms. No studies reported measuring uptake or self-efficacy/empowerment.
CONCLUSION
A growing evidence base suggests that self-administration of DMPA-SC can equal or improve contraceptive continuation rates compared with provider administration. This benefit comes without notable increases in pregnancy or safety concerns. Self-injection of DMPA-SC is a promising approach to increasing contraceptive use.
PubMed: 31179026
DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001350 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2015Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in women and it accounts for 12% of all gynaecology referrals in the UK. Heavy menstrual bleeding is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in women and it accounts for 12% of all gynaecology referrals in the UK. Heavy menstrual bleeding is clinically defined as greater than or equal to 80 mL of blood loss per menstrual cycle. However, women may complain of excessive bleeding when their blood loss is less than 80 mL. Hysterectomy is often used to treat women with this complaint but medical therapy may be a successful alternative.The intrauterine device was originally developed as a contraceptive but the addition of progestogens to these devices resulted in a large reduction in menstrual blood loss. Case studies of two types of progesterone or progestogen-releasing systems, Progestasert and Mirena, reported reductions of up to 90% and improvements in dysmenorrhoea (pain or cramps during menstruation). Insertion, however, may be regarded as invasive by some women, which affects its acceptability as a treatment. Frequent intermenstrual bleeding and spotting is also likely during the first few months after commencing treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of progesterone or progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices in achieving a reduction in heavy menstrual bleeding.
SEARCH METHODS
All randomised controlled trials of progesterone or progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding were obtained by electronic searches of The Cochrane Library, the specialised register of MDSG, MEDLINE (1966 to January 2015), EMBASE (1980 to January 2015), CINAHL (inception to December 2014) and PsycINFO (inception to January 2015). Additional searches were undertaken for grey literature and for unpublished trials in trial registers. Companies producing progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices and experts in the field were contacted for information on published and unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials in women of reproductive age treated with progesterone or progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices versus no treatment, placebo, or other medical or surgical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding within primary care, family planning or specialist clinic settings were eligible for inclusion. Women with postmenopausal bleeding, intermenstrual or irregular bleeding, or pathological causes of heavy menstrual bleeding were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Potential trials were independently assessed by at least two review authors. The review authors extracted the data independently and data were pooled where appropriate. Risk ratios (RRs) were estimated from the data for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. The primary outcomes were reduction in menstrual blood loss and satisfaction; in addition, rate of adverse effects, changes in quality of life, failure of treatment and withdrawal from treatment were also assessed.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 RCTs (2082 women). The included trials mostly assessed the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG IUS) (no conclusions could be reached from one small study assessing Progestasert which was discontinued in 2001) and so conclusions are based only on LNG IUS. Comparisons were made with placebo, oral medical treatment, endometrial destruction techniques and hysterectomy. Ratings for the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison ranged from very low to high. Limitations in the evidence included inadequate reporting of study methods and inconsistency.Seven studies compared the LNG IUS with oral medical therapy: either norethisterone acetate (NET) administered over most of the menstrual cycle, medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) (administered for 10 days), the oral contraceptive pill, mefenamic acid or usual medical treatment where participants could choose the oral treatment that was most suitable. The LNG IUS was more effective at reducing HMB as measured by the alkaline haematin method (MD 66.91 mL, 95% CI 42.61 to 91.20; two studies, 170 women; I(2) = 81%, low quality evidence) or by Pictorial Bleeding Assessment Chart (PBAC) scores (MD 55.05, 95% CI 27.83 to 82.28; three studies, 335 women; I(2) = 79%, low quality evidence), improving quality of life and a greater number of women continued with their treatment at two years when compared with oral treatment. Although substantial heterogeneity was identified for the bleeding outcomes, the direction of effect consistently favoured the LNG IUS. There was insufficient evidence to reach conclusions on satisfaction. Minor adverse effects (such as pelvic pain, breast tenderness and ovarian cysts) were more common with the LNG IUS.Ten studies compared the LNG IUS with endometrial destruction techniques: three with transcervical resection, one with rollerball ablation and six with thermal balloon ablation. Evidence was inconsistent and very low quality with respect to reduction in bleeding outcomes and satisfaction was comparable between treatments (low and moderate quality evidence). Improvements in quality of life were experienced with both types of treatment. Minor adverse events were more common with the LNG IUS overall, but it appeared more cost effective compared to thermal ablation within a two-year time frame in one study.Three studies compared the LNG IUS with hysterectomy. The LNG IUS was not as successful at reducing HMB as hysterectomy (high quality evidence). The women in these studies reported improved quality of life, regardless of treatment. In spite of the high rate of surgical treatment in those having LNG IUS within 10 years, the LNG IUS was more cost effective than hysterectomy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG IUS) is more effective than oral medication as a treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). It is associated with a greater reduction in HMB, improved quality of life and appears to be more acceptable long term but is associated with more minor adverse effects than oral therapy.When compared to endometrial ablation, it is not clear whether the LNG IUS offers any benefits with regard to reduced HMB and satisfaction rates and quality of life measures were similar. Some minor adverse effects were more common with the LNG IUS but it appeared to be more cost effective than endometrial ablation techniques.The LNG IUS was less effective than hysterectomy in reducing HMB. Both treatments improved quality of life but the LNG IUS appeared more cost effective than hysterectomy for up to 10 years after treatment.
Topics: Endometrium; Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Intrauterine Devices, Medicated; Levonorgestrel; Medroxyprogesterone; Menorrhagia; Norethindrone; Progesterone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25924648
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002126.pub3 -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Dec 2015Hydrosalpinx is a rare cause of abdominal pain in paediatric patients, though cases are documented in the literature. Its aetiology differs considerably from traditional... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hydrosalpinx is a rare cause of abdominal pain in paediatric patients, though cases are documented in the literature. Its aetiology differs considerably from traditional hydrosalpinx due to ascending sexually transmitted infection. Hydrosalpinx can present mimicking an acute abdomen or can be asymptomatic. Management of paediatric hydrosalpinx varies, but often involves surgical removal of the affected tube.
METHODS
In June 2015, a literature search using relevant keywords was completed on MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to determine best management of paediatric hydrosalpinx.
RESULTS
We found 66 cases from 38 articles. Surgical intervention took place in 74% of cases (n=49). The most common surgical intervention was salpingectomy. In 3% of cases (n=2), nonsurgical medical management with hormonal therapy was utilized, with post-operative improvement in symptomology. In 23% of cases (n=15), conservative management was utilized: 2 of these cases torted, 4 cases persisted and 9 cases resolved.
CONCLUSION
Overall, the results of this review demonstrate that there are comparable outcomes between surgical, medical and conservative management. However, medical and conservative management was not often offered, and more research is needed on the subject.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Contraceptive Agents, Female; Contraceptives, Oral, Sequential; Disease Management; Fallopian Tube Diseases; Female; Humans; Medroxyprogesterone Acetate; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Salpingectomy; Salpingostomy; Torsion Abnormality
PubMed: 26476798
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.09.042 -
Human Reproduction Update Jan 2021Progestins are capable of suppressing endogenous LH secretion from the pituitary. Progestins can be used orally and are less expensive than GnRH analogues. However,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Progestins are capable of suppressing endogenous LH secretion from the pituitary. Progestins can be used orally and are less expensive than GnRH analogues. However, early endometrial exposure to progestin precludes a fresh embryo transfer (ET), but the advent of vitrification and increasing number of oocyte cryopreservation cycles allow more opportunities for using progestins for pituitary suppression.
OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE
This review summarizes: the mechanism of pituitary suppression by progestins; the effectiveness of progestins when compared with GnRH analogues and with each other; the effect of progestins on oocyte and embryo developmental potential and euploidy status; and the cost-effectiveness aspects of progestin primed stimulation. Future research priorities are also identified.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via PubMed, the Web of Science and Scopus were screened with a combination of keywords related to ART, progesterone, GnRH analogue and ovarian stimulation, in various combinations. The search period was from the date of inception of each database until 1 April 2020. Only full text papers published in English were included.
OUTCOMES
Overall, the duration of stimulation, gonadotrophin consumption and oocyte yield were similar with progestins and GnRH analogues. However, sensitivity analyses suggested that progestins were associated with significantly lower gonadotrophin consumption than the long GnRH agonist protocol (mean difference (MD) = -648, 95% CI = -746 to -550 IU) and significantly higher gonadotrophin consumption than the short GnRH agonist protocol (MD = 433, 95% CI = 311 to 555 IU). Overall, live birth, ongoing and clinical pregnancy rates per ET were similar with progestins and GnRH analogues. However, when progestins were compared with GnRH agonists, sensitivity analyses including women with polycystic ovary syndrome (risk ratio (RR) = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.53) and short GnRH agonist protocols (RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.28) showed significantly higher clinical pregnancy rates with progestins. However, the quality of evidence is low. Studies comparing medroxyprogesterone acetate, dydrogesterone and micronized progesterone suggested similar ovarian response and pregnancy outcomes. The euploidy status of embryos from progestin primed cycles was similar to that of embryos from conventional stimulation cycles. Available information is reassuring regarding obstetric and neonatal outcomes with the use of progestins. Despite the lower cost of progestins than GnRH analogues, the mandatory cryopreservation of all embryos followed by a deferred transfer may increase cost per live birth with progestins as compared to an ART cycle culminating in a fresh ET.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS
Progestins can present an effective option for women who do not contemplate a fresh ET, e.g. fertility preservation, anticipated hyper responders, preimplantation genetic testing, oocyte donors, double stimulation cycles.
Topics: Female; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Progestins; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted
PubMed: 33016316
DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmaa040 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015Uterine fibroids (also known as leiomyomas) are the most common benign pelvic tumours among women. They may be asymptomatic, or may be associated with pelvic symptoms... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Uterine fibroids (also known as leiomyomas) are the most common benign pelvic tumours among women. They may be asymptomatic, or may be associated with pelvic symptoms such as bleeding and pain. Medical treatment of this condition is limited and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues are the most effective agents. Long-term treatment with such agents, however, is restricted due to their adverse effects. The addition of other medications during treatment with GnRH analogues, a strategy known as add-back therapy, may limit these side effects. There is concern, however, that add-back therapy may also limit the efficacy of the GnRH analogues and that it may not be able to completely prevent their adverse effects.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the short-term (within 12 months) effectiveness and safety of add-back therapy for women using GnRH analogues for uterine fibroids associated with excessive uterine bleeding, pelvic pain, or urinary symptoms.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched electronic databases including the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL, PsycINFO; and electronic registries of ongoing trials including ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. All searches were from database inception to 16 June 2014.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included women with uterine fibroids experiencing irregular or intense uterine bleeding, cyclic or non-cyclic pelvic pain, or urinary symptoms, and that compared treatment with a GnRH analogue plus add-back therapy versus a GnRH analogue alone or combined with placebo were eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently reviewed the identified titles and abstracts for potentially eligible records. Two review authors reviewed eligible studies and independently extracted data. Two authors independently assessed the studies' risk of bias. They assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
Fourteen RCTs were included in the review. Data were extracted from 12 studies (622 women). The primary outcome was quality of life (QoL).Add-back therapy with medroxyprogesterone (MPA): no studies reported QoL or uterine bleeding. There was no evidence of effect in relation to bone mass (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.62 to 1.38, 1 study, 16 women, P = 0.45, low quality evidence) and MPA was associated with a larger uterine volume (mean difference (MD) 342.19 cm(3), 95% CI 77.58 to 606.80, 2 studies, 32 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence).Tibolone: this was associated with a higher QoL but the estimate was imprecise and the effect could be clinically insignificant, small or large (SMD 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.85, 1 study, 110 women, P = 0.02, low quality evidence). It was also associated with a decreased loss of bone mass, which could be insignificant, small or moderate (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.7, 3 studies, 160 women, I(2) = 7%, moderate quality evidence). Tibolone may, however, have been associated with larger uterine volumes (MD 23.89 cm(3), 95% CI= 8.13 to 39.66, 6 studies, 365 women, I(2) = 0%, moderate quality evidence) and more uterine bleeding (results were not combined but three studies demonstrated greater bleeding with tibolone while two other studies demonstrated no bleeding in either group). Four studies (268 women; not pooled owing to extreme heterogeneity) reported a large benefit on vasomotor symptoms in the tibolone group.Raloxifene: there was no evidence of an effect on QoL (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.34, 1 study, 74 women, P = 0.62, low quality evidence), while there was a beneficial impact on bone mass (SMD 1.01, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.45, 1 study, 91 women, P < 0.00001, low quality evidence). There was no clear evidence of effect on uterine volume (MD 27.1 cm(3), 95% CI -17.94 to 72.14, 1 study, 91 women, P = 0.24, low quality evidence), uterine bleeding or severity of vasomotor symptoms (MD 0.2 hot flushes/day, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.74, 1 study, 91 women, P = 0.46, low quality evidence).Estriol: no studies reported QoL, uterine size, uterine bleeding or vasomotor symptoms. Add-back with estriol may have led to decreased loss of bone mass, from results of a single study (SMD 3.93, 95% CI 1.7 to 6.16, 1 study, 12 women, P = 0.0005, low quality evidence).Ipriflavone: no studies reported QoL, uterine size or uterine bleeding. Iproflavone was associated with decreased loss of bone mass in a single study (SMD 2.71, 95% CI 2.14 to 3.27, 1 study, 95 women, P < 0.00001, low quality evidence); there was no evidence of an effect on the rate of vasomotor symptoms (RR 0.67, 95% Cl 0.44 to 1.02, 1 study, 95 women, P = 0.06, low quality evidence).Conjugated estrogens: no studies reported QoL, uterine size, uterine bleeding or vasomotor symptoms. One study suggested that adding conjugated estrogens to GnRH analogues resulted in a larger decrease in uterine volume in the placebo group (MD 105.2 cm(3), 95% CI 27.65 to 182.75, 1 study, 27 women, P = 0.008, very low quality evidence).Nine of 12 studies were at high risk of bias in at least one domain, most commonly lack of blinding. All studies followed participants for a maximum of six months. This short-term follow-up is usually insufficient to observe any significant effect of the treatment on bone health (such as the occurrence of fractures), limiting the findings.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was low or moderate quality evidence that tibolone, raloxifene, estriol and ipriflavone help to preserve bone density and that MPA and tibolone may reduce vasomotor symptoms. Larger uterine volume was an adverse effect associated with some add-back therapies (MPA, tibolone and conjugated estrogens). For other comparisons, outcomes of interest were not reported or study findings were inconclusive.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Estriol; Female; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Isoflavones; Leiomyoma; Medroxyprogesterone; Norpregnenes; Quality of Life; Raloxifene Hydrochloride; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Uterine Hemorrhage; Uterine Neoplasms
PubMed: 25793972
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010854.pub2 -
Medical Science Monitor : International... Sep 2014The aim of this study was to compare the effects of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) with conventional medical treatment in reducing heavy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to compare the effects of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) with conventional medical treatment in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Relevant studies were identified by a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and clinical trials registries (from inception to April 2014). Randomized controlled trials comparing the LNG-IUS with conventional medical treatment (mefenamic acid, tranexamic acid, norethindrone, medroxyprogesterone acetate injection, or combined oral contraceptive pills) in patients with menorrhagia were included.
RESULTS
Eight randomized controlled trials that included 1170 women (LNG-IUS, n=562; conventional medical treatment, n=608) met inclusion criteria. The LNG-IUS was superior to conventional medical treatment in reducing menstrual blood loss (as measured by the alkaline hematin method or estimated by pictorial bleeding assessment chart scores). More women were satisfied with the LNG-IUS than with the use of conventional medical treatment (odds ratio [OR] 5.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.73-9.86). Compared with conventional medical treatment, the LNG-IUS was associated with a lower rate of discontinuation (14.6% vs. 28.9%, OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.20-0.74) and fewer treatment failures (9.2% vs. 31.0%, OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.10-0.34). Furthermore, quality of life assessment favored LNG-IUS over conventional medical treatment, although use of various measurements limited our ability to pool the data for more powerful evidence. Serious adverse events were statistically comparable between treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
The LNG-IUS was the more effective first choice for management of menorrhagia compared with conventional medical treatment. Long-term, randomized trials are required to further investigate patient-based outcomes and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the LNG-IUS and other medical treatments.
Topics: Contraceptive Agents, Female; Drug Administration Routes; Female; Humans; Levonorgestrel; Menorrhagia; Uterus
PubMed: 25245843
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.892126