-
Menopause (New York, N.Y.) May 2022Long-term sleep disturbances in menopausal women are closely related to cardiovascular disorders, metabolic disorders, and cognitive impairment. At present, hormone... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Long-term sleep disturbances in menopausal women are closely related to cardiovascular disorders, metabolic disorders, and cognitive impairment. At present, hormone therapy (HT) is a standard treatment for menopausal symptoms. However, it remains unclear whether HT can improve sleep quality.
OBJECTIVE
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of different HT regimens on menopausal sleep quality.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials of menopausal HT on sleep disturbances up to June 14,2021. Information about ongoing and unpublished trials was collected by searching WHOICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. Our primary outcome was sleep quality with objective measurements. We estimated the standardized mean difference (SMD) using random-effects models.
FINDINGS
We identified a total of 3,059 studies and finally included 15 studies in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, HT improved self-reported sleep outcomes (SMD = -0.13; 95% CI, -0.18 to -0.08, P < 0.00001 and I2 = 41%), but not sleep parameters measured by polysomnography. Subgroup analyses according to the regimen of HT showed that 17β-estradiol (17β-E2) (SMD = -0.34; 95% CI, -0.51 to -0.17, P < 0.0001, and I2 = 0%) and conjugated equine estrogens (SMD = -0.10; 95% CI, -0.12 to -0.07, P < 0.00001, and I2 = 0%) improved sleep quality. Moreover, transdermal administration (SMD = -0.35; 95% CI, -0.64 to -0.06, and P = 0.02) was more beneficial than oral (SMD = -0.10; 95% CI, -0.14 to -0.07, and P < 0.00001). In addition, the combination of estrogen and progesterone had a positive effect on sleep disturbance (SMD = -0.10; 95% CI, -0.13 to -0.07, P < 0.00001, and I2 = 0%), while estrogen monotherapy did not. The results showed that estrogen/micronized progesterone (SMD = -0.22; 95% CI, -0.37 to -0.06, P = 0.007, and I2 = 0%) and estrogen/medroxyprogesterone acetate (SMD = -0.10; 95% CI, -0.13 to -0.07, P < 0.00001, and I2 = 0%) could alleviate sleep disturbance.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
HT has a beneficial effect on sleep disturbance to some extent, and the formulations and routes of administration of hormonal agents influence the effect size.
Topics: Estrogens; Female; Hormone Replacement Therapy; Humans; Menopause; Progesterone; Sleep Quality
PubMed: 35102100
DOI: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001945 -
BioMed Research International 2022Endometrial cancer (EC) is one of the most common gynecologic malignancy, mostly in postmenopausal women. The gold standard treatment for EC is surgery, but in the early... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Endometrial cancer (EC) is one of the most common gynecologic malignancy, mostly in postmenopausal women. The gold standard treatment for EC is surgery, but in the early stages, it is possible to opt for conservative treatment. In the last decade, different clinical and pathological markers have been studied to identify women who respond to conservative treatment. A lot of immunohistochemical markers have been evaluated to predict response to progestin treatment, even if their usefulness is still unclear; the prognosis of this neoplasm depends on tumor stage, and a specific therapeutic protocol is set according to the stage of the disease.
OBJECTIVE
(1) To provide an overview of the conservative management of Stage 1A Grade (G) 2 endometrioid EC (FIGO) and the oncological and reproductive outcomes related; (2) to describe the molecular alterations before and after progestin therapy in patients undergoing conservative treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic computerized search of the literature was performed in the main electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane Library), from 2010 to September 2021, in order to evaluate the oncological and reproductive outcomes in patients with G2 stage IA EC who ask for fertility-sparing treatment. The expression of several immunohistochemical markers was evaluated in pretreatment phase and during the follow-up in relation to response to hormonal therapy. Only scientific publications in English were included. The risk of bias assessment was performed. Review authors' judgments were categorized as "low risk," "high risk," or "unclear risk" of bias.
RESULTS
Twelve articles were included in the study: 7 observational studies and 5 case series/reports. Eighty-four patients who took progestins (megestrol acetate, medroxyprogesterone acetate, and/or levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices) were analyzed. The publication bias analysis turned out to be "low." 54/84 patients had a complete response, 23/84 patients underwent radical surgery, and 20/84 had a relapse after conservative treatment. Twenty-two patients had a pregnancy. The length of follow-up was variable, from 6 to 142 months according to the different studies analyzed. Several clinical and pathological markers have been studied to identify women who do not respond to conservative treatment: PR and ER were the most studied predictive markers, in particular PR appeared as the most promising; MMR, SPAG9, Ki67, and Nrf2-survivin pathway provided good results with a significant association with a good response to progestin therapy. However, no reliable predictive markers are currently available to be used in clinical practice.
CONCLUSIONS
The conservative treatment may be an option for patients with stage IA G2 EEC who desire to preserve their fertility. The immunohistochemical markers evaluation looks promising in predicting response to conservative treatment. Further large series and randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these results.
Topics: Adaptor Proteins, Signal Transducing; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Carcinoma, Endometrioid; Endometrial Neoplasms; Female; Fertility Preservation; Humans; Ki-67 Antigen; Levonorgestrel; Medroxyprogesterone Acetate; Megestrol Acetate; NF-E2-Related Factor 2; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Pregnancy; Progestins; Survivin
PubMed: 36203482
DOI: 10.1155/2022/4070368 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2023Currently, gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues are used to prevent premature ovulation in ART cycles. However, their costs remain high, the route of... (Review)
Review
Progestogens for prevention of luteinising hormone (LH) surge in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation as part of an assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycle.
BACKGROUND
Currently, gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues are used to prevent premature ovulation in ART cycles. However, their costs remain high, the route of administration is invasive and has some adverse effects. Oral progestogens could be cheaper and effective to prevent a premature LH surge.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of using progestogens to avoid spontaneous ovulation in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO in Dec 2021. We contacted study authors and experts to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included progestogens for ovulation inhibition in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane, including the risk of bias (RoB) assessment. The primary review outcomes were live birth rate (LBR) and oocyte pick-up cancellation rate (OPCR). Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), cumulative pregnancy, miscarriage rate (MR), multiple pregnancies, LH surge, total and MII oocytes, days of stimulation, dose of gonadotropins, and moderate/severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate. The primary analyses were restricted to studies at overall low and some concerns RoB, and sensitivity analysis included all studies. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 RCTs (2643 subfertile women undergoing ART, 47 women used oocyte freezing for fertility preservation and 534 oocyte donors). Progestogens versus GnRH antagonists We are very uncertain of the effect of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) 10 mg compared with cetrorelix on the LBR in poor responders (odds ratio (OR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 2.13, one RCT, N = 340, very-low-certainty evidence), suggesting that if the chance of live birth following GnRH antagonists is assumed to be 18%, the chance following MPA would be 14% to 32%. There may be little or no difference in OPCR between progestogens and GnRH antagonists, but due to wide Cs (CIs), we are uncertain (OR 0.92, 95%CI 0.42 to 2.01, 3 RCTs, N = 648, I² = 0%, low-certainty evidence), changing the chance of OPCR from 4% with progestogens to 2% to 8%. Given the imprecision found, no conclusions can be retrieved on CPR and MR. Low-quality evidence suggested that using micronised progesterone in normo-responders may increase by 2 to 6 the MII oocytes in comparison to GnRH antagonists. There may be little or no differences in gonadotropin doses. Progestogens versus GnRH agonists Results were uncertain for all outcomes comparing progestogens with GnRH agonists. One progestogen versus another progestogen The analyses comparing one progestogen versus another progestogen for LBR did not meet our criteria for primary analyses. The OPCR was probably lower in the MPA 10 mg in comparison to MPA 4 mg (OR 2.27, 95%CI 0.90 to 5.74, one RCT, N = 300, moderate-certainty evidence), and MPA 4 mg may be lower than micronised progesterone 100 mg, but due to wide CI, we are uncertain of the effect (OR 0.81, 95%CI 0.43 to 1.53, one RCT, N = 300, low-certainty evidence), changing the chance of OPCR from 5% with MPA 4 mg to 5% to22%, and from 17% with micronised progesterone 100 mg to 8% to 24%. When comparing dydrogesterone 20 mg to MPA, the OPCR is probably lower in the dydrogesterone group in comparison to MPA 10 mg (OR 1.49, 95%CI 0.80 to 2.80, one RCT, N = 520, moderate-certainty evidence), and it may be lower in dydrogesterone group in comparison to MPA 4 mg but due to wide confidence interval, we are uncertain of the effect (OR 1.19, 95%CI 0.61 to 2.34, one RCT, N = 300, low-certainty evidence), changing the chance of OPCR from 7% with dydrogesterone 20 to 6-17%, and in MPA 4 mg from 12% to 8% to 24%. When comparing dydrogesterone 20 mg to micronised progesterone 100 mg, the OPCR is probably lower in the dydrogesterone group (OR 1.54, 95%CI 0.94 to 2.52, two RCTs, N=550, I² = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence), changing OPCR from 11% with dydrogesterone to 10% to 24%. We are very uncertain of the effect in normo-responders of micronised progesterone 100 mg compared with micronised progesterone 200 mg on the OPCR (OR 0.35, 95%CI 0.09 to 1.37, one RCT, N = 150, very-low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in CPR and MR between MPA 10 mg and dydrogesterone 20 mg. There may be little or no differences in MII oocytes and gonadotropins doses. No cases of moderate/severe OHSS were reported in most of the groups in any of the comparisons.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Little or no differences in LBR may exist when comparing MPA 4 mg with GnRH agonists in normo-responders. OPCR may be slightly increased in the MPA 4 mg group, but MPA 4 mg reduces the doses of gonadotropins in comparison to GnRH agonists. Little or no differences in OPCR may exist between progestogens and GnRH antagonists in normo-responders and donors. However, micronised progesterone could improve by 2 to 6 MII oocytes. When comparing one progestogen to another, dydrogesterone suggested slightly lower OPCR than MPA and micronised progesterone, and MPA suggested slightly lower OPCR than the micronised progesterone 100 mg. Finally, MPA 10 mg suggests a lower OPCR than MPA 4 mg. There is uncertainty regarding the rest of the outcomes due to imprecision and no solid conclusions can be drawn.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Abortion, Spontaneous; Dydrogesterone; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Gonadotropins; Live Birth; Luteinizing Hormone; Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy Rate; Progesterone; Progestins; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted
PubMed: 38032057
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013827.pub2 -
Sexually Transmitted Diseases May 2019Evidence suggests that some forms of hormonal contraception (HC) increase women's risk of non-human immunodeficiency virus sexually transmitted infections (STIs), yet... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
BACKGROUND
Evidence suggests that some forms of hormonal contraception (HC) increase women's risk of non-human immunodeficiency virus sexually transmitted infections (STIs), yet evidence has not been reviewed since 2008. We conducted an updated systematic review to incorporate studies published between January 2009 and June 2017 to examine the relationship between HCs and incident or recurrent STIs.
METHODS
We searched PubMed and EMBASE to identify prospective studies comparing risk of Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, human papillomavirus (HPV), herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2), Treponema pallidum, or Trichomonas vaginalis, between women using HC versus nonhormonal methods or no methods. We summarize results by type of STI and HC and study quality using an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale.
RESULTS
Thirty articles met the inclusion criteria. Depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) reduces the risk of trichomoniasis (consistent evidence) and may increase the risk of HSV-2 (strong effect, few studies); inconclusive evidence exists for HPV, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis. Data on oral contraceptive pills (OCPs; generally not differentiated whether combined or progestin-only pills) suggest that use is associated with a reduced risk of trichomoniasis with inconclusive findings for HSV-2, HPV, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis. Very few studies included norethisterone enanthate (Net-En) injectable, implants or the levonorgestrel intrauterine device.
CONCLUSIONS
Depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate and OCPs reduce the risk of trichomoniasis and DMPA may increase the risk of HSV-2. However, the potential for confounding cannot be ruled out. Future studies should specify the type of injectable or OCP used to increase understanding of biological pathways; more research is needed on implants and hormonal intrauterine devices.
Topics: Contraceptives, Oral, Hormonal; Female; Herpes Genitalis; Humans; Medroxyprogesterone Acetate; Prospective Studies; Risk; Risk Assessment; Sexually Transmitted Diseases; Trichomonas Infections
PubMed: 30628946
DOI: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000975 -
Contraception Dec 2016Women with depressive or bipolar disorders are at an increased risk for unintended pregnancy. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Women with depressive or bipolar disorders are at an increased risk for unintended pregnancy.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the safety of hormonal contraception among women with depressive and bipolar disorders.
METHODS
We searched for articles published through January 2016 on the safety of using any hormonal contraceptive method among women with depressive or bipolar disorders, including those who had been diagnosed clinically or scored above threshold levels on a validated screening instrument. Outcomes included changes in symptoms, hospitalization, suicide and modifications in medication regimens such as increase or decrease in dosage or changes in type of drug.
RESULTS
Of 2376 articles, 6 met the inclusion criteria. Of three studies that examined women clinically diagnosed with depressive or bipolar disorder, one found that oral contraceptives (OCs) did not significantly change mood across the menstrual cycle among women with bipolar disorder, whereas mood did significantly change across the menstrual cycle among women not using OCs; one found no significant differences in the frequency of psychiatric hospitalizations among women with bipolar disorder who used depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), intrauterine devices (IUDs) or sterilization; and one found no increase in depression scale scores among women with depression using and not using OCs, for both those treated with fluoxetine and those receiving placebo. Of three studies that examined women who met a threshold for depression on a screening instrument, one found that adolescent girls using combined OCs (COCs) had significantly improved depression scores after 3 months compared with placebo, one found that OC users had similar odds of no longer being depressed at follow-up compared with nonusers, and one found that COC users were less frequently classified as depressed over 11 months than IUD users.
CONCLUSIONS
Limited evidence from six studies found that OC, levonorgestrel-releasing IUD and DMPA use among women with depressive or bipolar disorders was not associated with worse clinical course of disease compared with no hormonal method use.
Topics: Bipolar Disorder; Contraceptives, Oral; Depressive Disorder; Equipment Safety; Female; Humans; Intrauterine Devices, Copper; Levonorgestrel; Medroxyprogesterone Acetate; Pregnancy; Pregnancy, Unplanned; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 27364100
DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.06.012 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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