-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in premenopausal women. Although surgery is often used as a treatment, a range of medical therapies...
BACKGROUND
Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in premenopausal women. Although surgery is often used as a treatment, a range of medical therapies are also available. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduce prostaglandin levels, which are elevated in women with excessive menstrual bleeding and also may have a beneficial effect on dysmenorrhoea.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of NSAIDs in achieving a reduction in menstrual blood loss (MBL) in women of reproductive years with HMB.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched, in April 2019, the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility specialised register, Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online (CENTRAL CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the clinical trial registries and reference lists of articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
The inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of individual NSAIDs or combined with other medical therapy with each other, placebo or other medical treatments in women with regular heavy periods measured either objectively or subjectively and with no pathological or iatrogenic (treatment-induced) causes for their HMB.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We identified 19 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (759 women) that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review and two review authors independently extracted data. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes from the data of nine trials. We described in data tables the results of the remaining seven cross-over trials with data unsuitable for pooling, one trial with skewed data, and one trial with missing variances. One trial had no data available for analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
As a group, NSAIDs were more effective than placebo at reducing HMB but less effective than tranexamic acid, danazol or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG IUS). Treatment with danazol caused a shorter duration of menstruation and more adverse events than NSAIDs, but this did not appear to affect the acceptability of treatment, based on trials from 1980 to 1990. However, currently danazol is not a usual or recommended treatment for HMB. There was no clear evidence of difference between NSAIDs and the other treatments (oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, an older progesterone-releasing intrauterine system and the oral contraceptive pill (OCP), but most studies were underpowered. There was no evidence of a difference between the individual NSAIDs (naproxen and mefenamic acid) in reducing HMB. The evidence quality ranged from low to moderate, the main limitations being risk of bias and imprecision.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
NSAIDs reduce HMB when compared with placebo, but are less effective than tranexamic acid, danazol or LNG IUS. However, adverse events are more severe with danazol therapy. In the limited number of small studies suitable for evaluation, there was no clear evidence of a difference in efficacy between NSAIDs and other medical treatments such as oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, OCP or the older progesterone-releasing intrauterine system.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Contraceptives, Oral, Combined; Dysmenorrhea; Female; Humans; Menorrhagia; Naproxen; Progesterone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31535715
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000400.pub4 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Motherwort injection (MI) is a modern patented injection extracted from motherwort (Leonurus japonicus Hoult). Empirical studies and systematic reviews have shown the...
Motherwort injection (MI) is a modern patented injection extracted from motherwort (Leonurus japonicus Hoult). Empirical studies and systematic reviews have shown the benefits of motherwort injection for preventing postpartum hemorrhage after vaginal delivery and cesarean section. This study was conducted to explore the efficacy and safety of motherwort injection for women with the prevention of post-abortion uterine hemorrhage. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify RCTs regarding the effect of the use of motherwort injection in women after abortion. Data from trials were pooled by meta-analysis and a random-effects model was used to calculate the summarized relative risks (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to access the quality of the evidence. Nine trials with a total of 1,675 participants were identified. Overall, motherwort injection combined with oxytocin compared to oxytocin had a significantly lower blood loss within 2 hours (MD = -50.00, 95% CI -62.92 to -37.08, very low quality); lower blood loss within 24 h (MD = -50.00, 95% CI -62.92 to -37.08, very low quality); however, there was no significant difference between motherwort injection and oxytocin (24 h: MD: 0.72, 95% CI -7.76 to 9.20; 48 h: MD: -0.01, 95% CI -11.35 to 11.33; 72 h: MD: -1.12, 95% CI -14.39 to 12.15, very low quality). Compared with oxytocin or no intervention, both motherwort injection and motherwort injection combined with oxytocin had a significantly decreased duration of blood loss (MI vs. O: MD -2.59, 95% CI -4.59 to -0.60, very low quality; MI + O vs. O: MD -2.62, 95% CI -3.02 to -2.22, very low quality; MI + O vs. No intervention: MD: -1.80, 95% CI -2.28 to -1.33, low quality). Seven of nine included trials reported adverse event outcomes. Three cases were found in the motherwort injection group, and five induced abortion syndromes were found in the motherwort injection plus oxytocin group. 29 adverse events were reported in the oxytocin group instead. The recovery time of normal menstruation after abortion was significantly earlier in the group using motherwort injection compared with oxytocin (MDs -3.77, 95% CI -6.29 to -1.25, very low quality), and the endometrial thickness in the motherwort injection group was significantly different from that in the oxytocin group (MD: 2.24, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.90, very low quality). The results of this meta-analysis indicate prophylactic use of motherwort injection may reduce the risk of uterine hemorrhage in women after abortion, and more high-quality research is needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of motherwort injection in preventing uterine hemorrhage after abortion. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=274153, identifier CRD42021274153.
PubMed: 35935833
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.916665 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2017Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is a psychological and somatic disorder of unknown aetiology, with symptoms typically including irritability, depression, mood swings,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is a psychological and somatic disorder of unknown aetiology, with symptoms typically including irritability, depression, mood swings, bloating, breast tenderness and sleep disturbances. About 3% to 10% of women who experience these symptoms may also meet criteria for premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD). PMS symptoms recur during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle and reduce by the end of menstruation. PMS results from ovulation and may be due to ovarian steroid interactions relating to neurotransmitter dysfunction. Premenstrual disorders have a devastating effect on women, their families and their work.Several treatment options have been suggested for PMS, including pharmacological and surgical interventions. The treatments thought to be most effective tend to fall into one of two categories: suppressing ovulation or correcting a speculated neuroendocrine anomaly.Transdermal oestradiol by patch, gel or implant effectively stops ovulation and the cyclical hormonal changes which produce the cyclical symptoms. These preparations are normally used for hormone therapy and contain lower doses of oestrogen than found in oral contraceptive pills. A shortened seven-day course of a progestogen is required each month for endometrial protection but can reproduce premenstrual syndrome-type symptoms in these women.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of non-contraceptive oestrogen-containing preparations in the management of PMS.
SEARCH METHODS
On 14 March 2016, we searched the following databases: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGF) Specialised Register; Cochrane Central Register of Studies (CRSO); MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; ClinicalTrials.gov; metaRegister of Controlled trials (mRCT); and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal. In addition, we checked the reference lists of articles retrieved.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included published and unpublished randomized placebo or active controlled trials on the efficacy of the use of non-contraceptive oestrogen-containing preparations in the management of premenstrual syndrome in women of reproductive age with PMS diagnosed by at least two prospective cycles without current psychiatric disorder.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data on premenstrual symptoms and adverse effects and entered data into Review Manager 5 software. Where possible, intention-to-treat or modified intention-to-treat analysis was used. Studies were pooled using a fixed-effect model, analysing cross-over trials as parallel trials. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for premenstrual symptom scores. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE working group methods.
MAIN RESULTS
The search resulted in 524 potentially relevant articles. Five eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified (305 women). Trials using oral tablets, transdermal patches and implants were identified. No trial used gels.One small cross-over trial (11 women, effective sample size 22 women considering cross-over trials) compared oral luteal-phase oestrogen versus placebo. Data were very low quality and unsuitable for analysis, but study authors reported that the intervention was ineffective and might aggravate the symptoms of PMS. They also reported that there were no adverse events.Three studies compared continuous oestrogen with progestogen versus placebo (with or without progestogen). These trials were of reasonable quality, although with a high risk of attrition bias and an unclear risk of bias due to potential carry-over effects in two cross-over trials. Continuous oestrogen had a small to moderate positive effect on global symptom scores (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.10, P = 0.005, 3 RCTs, 158 women, effective sample size 267 women, I² = 63%, very low quality evidence). The evidence was too imprecise to determine if the groups differed in withdrawal rates due to adverse effects (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.58, P = 0.33, 3 RCTs, 196 women, effective sample size 284 women, I² = 0%, very low quality evidence). Similarly, the evidence was very imprecise in measures of specific adverse events, with large uncertainties around the true value of the relative risk. None of the studies reported on long-term risks such as endometrial cancer or breast cancer.One study compared patch dosage (100 vs 200 µg oestrogen, with progestogen in both arms) and had a high risk of performance bias, detection bias and attrition bias. The study did not find evidence that dosage affects global symptoms but there was much uncertainty around the effect estimate (SMD -1.55, 95% CI -8.88 to 5.78, P = 0.68, 1 RCT, 98 women, very low quality evidence). The evidence on rates of withdrawal for adverse events was too imprecise to draw any conclusions (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.46, P = 0.34, 1 RCT, 107 women, low-quality evidence). However, it appeared that the 100 µg dose might be associated with a lower overall risk of adverse events attributed to oestrogen (RR 0.51, 95% Cl 0.26 to 0.99, P = 0.05, 1 RCT, 107 women, very low quality evidence) with a large uncertainty around the effect estimate.The overall quality of the evidence for all comparisons was very low, mainly due to risk of bias (specifically attrition), imprecision, and statistical and clinical heterogeneity.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found very low quality evidence to support the effectiveness of continuous oestrogen (transdermal patches or subcutaneous implants) plus progestogen, with a small to moderate effect size. We found very low quality evidence from a study based on 11 women to suggest that luteal-phase oral unopposed oestrogen is probably ineffective and possibly detrimental for controlling the symptoms of PMS. A comparison between 200 µg and 100 µg doses of continuous oestrogen was inconclusive with regard to effectiveness, but suggested that the lower dose was less likely to cause side effects. Uncertainty remains regarding safety, as the identified studies were too small to provide definite answers. Moreover, no included trial addressed adverse effects that might occur beyond the typical trial duration of 2-8 months. This suggests the choice of oestrogen dose and mode of administration could be based on an individual woman's preference and modified according to the effectiveness and tolerability of the chosen regimen.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Drug Implants; Drug Therapy, Combination; Estrogens; Female; Humans; Luteal Phase; Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder; Premenstrual Syndrome; Progestins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Transdermal Patch
PubMed: 28257559
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010503.pub2 -
Human Reproduction (Oxford, England) May 2024Does endometriosis prevalence differ in patients with obstructive Müllerian anomalies (OMA) versus those with nonobstructive Müllerian anomalies (NOMA), and in...
Müllerian anomalies and endometriosis as potential explanatory models for the retrograde menstruation/implantation and the embryonic remnants/celomic metaplasia pathogenic theories: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
STUDY QUESTION
Does endometriosis prevalence differ in patients with obstructive Müllerian anomalies (OMA) versus those with nonobstructive Müllerian anomalies (NOMA), and in patients with NOMA versus those without Müllerian anomalies?
SUMMARY ANSWER
The quantitative synthesis of published data demonstrates a substantially increased prevalence of endometriosis in patients with OMA compared with those with NOMA, and a similar prevalence in patients with NOMA and those without Müllerian anomalies.
WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY
The pathogenesis of endometriosis has not been definitively clarified yet. A higher prevalence of endometriosis in patients with OMA than in those with NOMA would support the retrograde menstruation (RM)/implantation theory, whereas a higher prevalence of endometriosis in the NOMA group than in the group without Müllerian anomalies would support the embryonic remnants/celomic metaplasia hypothesis.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION
This systematic review with meta-analysis was restricted to full-length, English-language articles published in peer-reviewed journals between 1980 and 2023. The PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched using the keyword 'endometriosis' in combination with 'Müllerian anomalies', 'obstructive Müllerian anomalies', 'female genital malformations', 'retrograde menstruation', 'infertility', 'pelvic pain', and 'classification'. References from relevant publications were screened, and PubMed's 'similar articles' and 'cited by' functions were used.
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS
Studies were selected if they reported the prevalence of surgically confirmed endometriosis in either individuals with OMA compared to those with NOMA, or patients with NOMA compared to those without Müllerian anomalies. Cohort and case-control studies and case series were deemed eligible for inclusion. Noncomparative studies, studies not reporting both the number of individuals with endometriosis and the total number of those with Müllerian anomalies or with other gynecological conditions, those including exclusively data on patients with absent or uncertain menstrual function (e.g. complete Müllerian agenesis category), or with imperforate hymen were excluded. Two reviewers independently abstracted data. The risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Exposures tool. The overall certainty of the evidence was graded according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines.
MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE
Seven retrospective studies were included. The overall mean estimate of endometriosis prevalence was 47% (95% CI, 36-58%) in patients with OMA, and 19% (95% CI, 15-24%) in patients with NOMA, with a common odds ratio (OR) of 4.72 (95% CI, 2.54-8.77). The overall mean estimate of endometriosis prevalence in patients with NOMA was 23% (95% CI, 20-27%), and that in patients without Müllerian anomalies was 21% (95% CI, 20-22%), with a common OR of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.57-1.58). The overall certainty of the evidence according to GRADE guidelines was judged as low for both comparisons.
LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION
Some NOMA subtypes may create a partial obstacle to menstrual efflux and/or generate dysfunctional myometrial contractions that favor transtubal reflux, thus increasing the risk of endometriosis and limiting the difference between OMA and NOMA. As infertility and pelvic pain are strongly associated with endometriosis, women with these symptoms are inappropriate controls. Confounding by indication could explain the lack of difference in endometriosis prevalence between patients with NOMA and those without Müllerian anomalies.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS
The results of this meta-analysis support the validity of the RM theory but do not definitively rule out alternative hypotheses. Thus, RM may be considered the initiator for the development of endometriotic lesions, while not excluding the contribution of both inheritable and tissue-specific genetic and epigenetic modifications as disease-promoting factors.
STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)
No funding was received for this review. P.Ve. is a member of the Editorial Board of Human Reproduction Open, the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, and the International Editorial Board of Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica; has received royalties from Wolters Kluwer for chapters on endometriosis management in the clinical decision support resource UpToDate; and maintains both a public and private gynecological practice. E.S. discloses payments from Ferring for research grants and honoraria from Merck-Serono for lectures. All other authors declare they have no conflict of interest.
REGISTRATION NUMBER
N/A.
PubMed: 38733102
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deae086 -
Health Science Reports Nov 2022The menstrual cycle in women is the main indicator of their reproductive health which is affected by the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This...
BACKGROUND
The menstrual cycle in women is the main indicator of their reproductive health which is affected by the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This review aims to summarize the effects of the COVID-19 infection and the global pandemic on the menstrual health of women.
METHODS
The literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar using keywords "COVID-19," "Menstrual Cycle," "Menstrual Cycle Irregularities," "Amenorrhea," "Polymenorrhea," and "Dysmenorrhea." The articles were selected according to the following inclusion criteria: (i) cross-sectional studies, (ii) cohort studies, (iii) surveys, and (iv) other observational studies observing the effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 pandemic on menstrual health of women. Exclusion criteria included: case reports, gray literature, and website articles regarding menstrual health.
RESULTS
A total of 30,510 articles were shortlisted after a comprehensive search. Sixteen articles were included out of which 13 studies investigated the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the menstrual cycle while 3 evaluated the possible effects of COVID-19 infection on the menstrual health of women. Menstrual disorders or irregularities were a more common finding during the pandemic as compared to before ( = 0.008). Women affected by pandemic-related stress were more prone to changes in the duration of their menses ( = 0.0008), reported heavier bleeding ( = 0.028), and increased incidence of painful periods ( < 0.0001). COVID-19 infected women also reported changes in their menstrual cycle including irregular menstruation, increased symptoms of premenstrual syndrome, and infrequent menstruation.
CONCLUSIONS
Women suffering from COVID-19 infection or pandemic-associated stress and anxiety were more likely to experience irregular menstruation, dysmenorrhea, amenorrhea, and other menstrual abnormalities compared to those who were less exposed.
PubMed: 36248348
DOI: 10.1002/hsr2.881 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2019This is an update of the original review published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 11, and updated in 2015, Issue 4.Chemotherapy has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This is an update of the original review published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 11, and updated in 2015, Issue 4.Chemotherapy has significantly improved prognosis for women with malignant and some non-malignant conditions. This treatment, however, is associated with ovarian toxicity. The use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues, both agonists and antagonists, may have a protective effect on the ovaries. The primary mechanism of action of GnRH analogues is to suppress the gonadotropin levels to simulate pre-pubertal hormonal milieu and subsequently prevent primordial follicles from maturation and therefore decrease the number of follicles that are more vulnerable to chemotherapy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of GnRH analogues given before or in parallel to chemotherapy to prevent chemotherapy-related ovarian damage in premenopausal women with malignant or non-malignant conditions.
SEARCH METHODS
The search was run for the original review in July 2011, and for the first update in July 2014. For this update we searched the following databases in November 2018: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and the Chinese Biomedicine Database (CBM).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), in all languages, which examined the effect of GnRH analogues for chemotherapy-induced ovarian failure in premenopausal women, were eligible for inclusion in the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We analysed binary data using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and for continuous data, we used the standardized mean difference (SMD) to combine trials. We applied the random-effects model in our analyses. We used the GRADE approach to produce a 'Summary of findings' table for our main outcomes of interest.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 12 RCTs involving 1369 women between the ages of 12 and 51.1 years. Participants were diagnosed with breast malignancy, ovarian malignancy, or Hodgkin's lymphoma, and most of them received alkylating, or platinum complexes, based chemotherapy. The included studies were funded by a university (n = 1), research centres (n = 4), and pharmaceutical companies (n = 1). Trials were at high or unclear risk of bias.Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy aloneThe incidence of menstruation recovery or maintenance was 178 of 239 (74.5%) in the GnRH agonist group and 110 of 221 (50.0%) in the control group during a follow-up period no longer than 12 months (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.24; 5 studies, 460 participants; I = 79%; low-certainty evidence), with an overall effect favouring treatment with GnRH agonist (P = 0.006). However, we observed no difference during a follow-up period longer than 12 months between these two groups (P = 0.24). In the GnRH agonist group, 326 of 447 participants had menstruation recovery or maintenance (72.9%) in comparison to the control group, in which 276 of 422 participants had menstruation recovery or maintenance (65.4%) during a follow-up period longer than 12 months (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.22; 8 studies, 869 participants; I = 56%; low-certainty evidence).The incidence of premature ovarian failure was 43 of 401 (10.7%) in the GnRH agonist group and 96 of 379 (25.3%) in the control group (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.61; 4 studies, 780 participants; I = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence), with an overall effect favouring treatment with GnRH agonist (P < 0.00001).The incidence of pregnancy was 32 of 356 (9.0%) in the GnRH agonist group and 22 of 347 (6.3%) in the control group (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.70; 7 studies, 703 participants; I = 0%; low-certainty evidence), with no difference between groups (P = 0.09). However, we are cautious about this conclusion because there were insufficient data about whether the participants intended to become pregnant.The incidence of ovulation was 29 of 47 (61.7%) in the GnRH agonist group and 12 of 48 (25.0%) in the control group (RR 2.47, 95% CI 1.43 to 4.26; 2 studies, 95 participants; I = 0%; low-certainty evidence) with an overall effect favouring treatment with GnRH (P = 0.001).The most common adverse effects of GnRH analogues included hot flushes, vaginal dryness, urogenital symptoms, and mood swings. The pooled analysis of safety data showed no difference in adverse effects between GnRH agonist group and control group.Comparison 2: GnRH agonist-antagonist cotreatment plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy aloneOnly one RCT discussed GnRH agonist-antagonist cotreatment. The limited evidence showed the incidence of menstruation recovery or maintenance was 20 of 25 (80%) in both cotreatment group and control group during a 12-month follow-up period (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.32; 50 participants; very low-certainty evidence), with no difference between groups (P = 1.00). In the cotreatment group, 13 of 25 participants had menstruation recovery or maintenance (52.0%) in comparison to the control group, in which 14 of 25 participants had menstruation recovery or maintenance (56.0%) during a follow-up period longer than 12 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.55; 50 participants; very low-certainty evidence), with no difference between groups (P = 0.78). The incidence of pregnancy was 1 of 25 (4.0%) in the cotreatment group and 0 of 25 (0%) in the control group (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 70.30; 50 participants; very low-certainty evidence), with no difference between groups (P = 0.49).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
GnRH agonist appears to be effective in protecting the ovaries during chemotherapy, in terms of maintenance and resumption of menstruation, treatment-related premature ovarian failure and ovulation. Evidence for protection of fertility was insufficient and needs further investigation. Evidence was also insufficient to assess the effect of GnRH agonist and GnRH antagonist cotreatment on ovarian protection against chemotherapy. The included studies differed in some important aspects of design, and most of these studies had no age-determined subgroup analysis. Large and well-designed RCTs with longer follow-up duration should be conducted to clarify the effects of GnRH analogues in preventing chemotherapy-induced ovarian failure, especially on different age groups or different chemotherapy regimens. Furthermore, studies should address the effects on pregnancy rates and anti-tumour therapy.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Adolescent; Adult; Antineoplastic Agents; Child; Female; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Injections, Intramuscular; Injections, Subcutaneous; Menstruation; Middle Aged; Ovulation; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Premenopause; Primary Ovarian Insufficiency; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recovery of Function; Young Adult
PubMed: 30827035
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008018.pub3 -
Annals of Medicine Dec 2021There are no robust national prevalence of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes in Nigerian women despite the high burden of cervical cancer morbidity and mortality.
BACKGROUND
There are no robust national prevalence of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes in Nigerian women despite the high burden of cervical cancer morbidity and mortality.
THE OBJECTIVE OF STUDY
This study aims to determine the pooled prevalence and risk factors of genital HPV infection in Nigeria through a systemic review protocol.
METHODS
Databases including PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar and AJOL were searched between 10 April to 28 July 2020. HPV studies on Nigerian females and published from April 1999 to March 2019 were included. GRADE was used to assess the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
The pooled prevalence of cervical HPV was 20.65% (95%CI: 19.7-21.7). Genotypes 31 (70.8%), 35 (69.9%) and 16 (52.9%) were the most predominant HPV in circulation. Of the six geopolitical zones in Nigeria, northeast had the highest pooled prevalence of HPV infection (48.1%), while the least was in the north-west (6.8%). After multivariate logistic regression, duration (years) of sexual exposure (OR = 3.24, 95%CI: 1.78-9.23]), history of other malignancies (OR = 1.93, 95%CI: 1.03-2.97]), history of sexually transmitted infection (OR = 2.45, 95% CI: 1.31-3.55]), coital frequency per week (OR = 5.11, 95%CI: 3.86-14.29), the status of circumcision of the sexual partner (OR = 2.71, 95%CI: 1.62-9.05), and marital status (OR = 1.72, 95%CI: 1.16-4.72), were significant risk factors of HPV infection ( < 0.05). Irregular menstruation, post-coital bleeding and abdominal vaginal discharge were significantly associated with HPV infection ( < 0.05).
CONCLUSION
HPV prevalence is high in Nigeria and was significantly associated with several associated risk factors. Rapid screening for high-risk HPV genotypes is recommended and multivalent HPV vaccines should be considered for women.
Topics: Female; Genotype; Humans; Nigeria; Papillomaviridae; Papillomavirus Infections; Prevalence; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 34124973
DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2021.1938201 -
Research and Practice in Thrombosis and... Jan 2024The effects of antiplatelet therapy on menstrual bleeding have not been well characterized.
BACKGROUND
The effects of antiplatelet therapy on menstrual bleeding have not been well characterized.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the effects of antiplatelet therapy on menstrual bleeding.
METHODS
A literature search was performed for studies of reproductive-aged women who received antiplatelet therapy. Characteristics of menstrual bleeding both before and after initiation of antiplatelet therapy and from comparison groups were collected. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias in individual studies.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies with a total of 611 women who received antiplatelet therapy were included. Types of antiplatelet drugs used were aspirin ( = 8), aspirin and/or clopidogrel ( = 2), prasugrel ( = 1), and not specified ( = 2). Risk of bias was assessed at moderate ( = 1), serious ( = 8), critical ( = 2), and no information ( = 2). Three studies reported changes in menstrual blood loss volume. One of these showed no increase during antiplatelet therapy; the other 2 studies suggested that aspirin may increase menstrual blood loss volume. In 3 studies that assessed the duration of menstrual bleeding, up to 13% of women reported an increased duration of menstruation. In 5 studies that reported the intensity of menstrual flow, 13% to 38% of women experienced an increase in the intensity of flow. Five studies reported the prevalence of heavy menstrual bleeding in women who received antiplatelet therapy, with estimates ranging from 7% to 38%.
CONCLUSION
There is lack of high-quality data on the effects of antiplatelet therapy on menstrual bleeding. Aspirin may increase menstrual blood loss, at least in a minority of women, whereas the effects of P2Y12 inhibitors are unknown.
PubMed: 38268520
DOI: 10.1016/j.rpth.2023.102295