-
BMJ Clinical Evidence Oct 2014Dysmenorrhoea may begin soon after the menarche, after which it often improves with age; or it may originate later in life, after the onset of an underlying causative... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Dysmenorrhoea may begin soon after the menarche, after which it often improves with age; or it may originate later in life, after the onset of an underlying causative condition. Dysmenorrhoea is common, and in up to 20% of women it may be severe enough to interfere with daily activities.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of pharmacological treatments for primary dysmenorrhoea? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to December 2013 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found eight studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: contraceptives (combined oral), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), progestogens (intrauterine), and simple analgesics (aspirin, paracetamol) .
Topics: Analgesics; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Contraceptive Agents; Dysmenorrhea; Female; Humans; Progestins; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25338194
DOI: No ID Found -
Human Reproduction Update Jan 2021Although surgery for endometriosis can improve pain and fertility, the risk of disease recurrence is high. There is little consensus regarding the benefit of medical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Although surgery for endometriosis can improve pain and fertility, the risk of disease recurrence is high. There is little consensus regarding the benefit of medical therapy in preventing recurrence of endometriosis following surgery.
OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE
We performed a review of prospective observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the risk of endometriosis recurrence in patients undergoing post-operative hormonal suppression, compared to placebo/expectant management.
SEARCH METHODS
The following databases were searched from inception to March 2020 for RCTs and prospective observational cohort studies: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and Web of Science. We included English language full-text articles of pre-menopausal women undergoing conservative surgery (conserving at least one ovary) and initiating hormonal suppression within 6 weeks post-operatively with either combined hormonal contraceptives (CHC), progestins, androgens, levonorgesterel-releasing intra-uterine system (LNG-IUS) or GnRH agonist or antagonist. We excluded from the final analysis studies with <12 months of follow-up, interventions of diagnostic laparoscopy, experimental/non-hormonal treatments or combined hormonal therapy. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies.
OUTCOMES
We included 17 studies (13 RCTs and 4 cohort studies), with 2137 patients (1189 receiving post-operative suppression and 948 controls), which evaluated various agents: CHC (6 studies, n = 869), progestin (3 studies, n = 183), LNG-IUS (2 studies, n = 94) and GnRH agonist (9 studies, n = 1237). The primary outcome was post-operative endometriosis recurrence, determined by imaging or recurrence of symptoms, at least 12 months post-operatively. The secondary outcome was change in endometriosis-related pain. Mean follow up of included studies ranged from 12 to 36 months, and outcomes were assessed at a median of 18 months. There was a significantly decreased risk of endometriosis recurrence in patients receiving post-operative hormonal suppression compared to expectant management/placebo (relative risk (RR) 0.41, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.65), 14 studies, 1766 patients, I2 = 68%, random effects model). Subgroup analysis on patients treated with CHC and LNG-IUS as well as sensitivity analyses limited to RCTs and high-quality studies showed a consistent decreased risk of endometriosis recurrence. Additionally, the patients receiving post-operative hormonal suppression had significantly lower pain scores compared to controls (SMD -0.49, 95% CI: -0.91 to -0.07, 7 studies, 652 patients, I2 = 68%).
WIDER IMPLICATIONS
Hormonal suppression should be considered for patients not seeking pregnancy immediately after endometriosis surgery in order to reduce disease recurrence and pain. Various hormonal agents have been shown to be effective, and the exact treatment choice should be individualised according to each woman's needs.
Topics: Endometriosis; Female; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Pregnancy; Progestins; Recurrence
PubMed: 33020832
DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmaa033 -
Contraception Jan 2017The objective was to determine the association between use of intrauterine devices (IUDs) by young women and risk of adverse outcomes. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The objective was to determine the association between use of intrauterine devices (IUDs) by young women and risk of adverse outcomes.
METHODS
We searched Pubmed, CINAHL, Embase, Popline and the Cochrane Library for articles from inception of database through December 2015. For outcomes specific to IUD use (IUD expulsion and perforation), we examined effect measures for IUD users generally aged 25 years or younger compared with older IUD users. For outcomes of pregnancy, infection, pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), and heavy bleeding or anemia, we examined young IUD users compared with young users of other contraceptive methods or no method.
RESULTS
We identified 3169 articles of which 16 articles from 14 studies met our inclusion criteria. Six studies (Level II-2, good to poor) reported increased risk of expulsion among younger age groups compared with older age groups using copper-bearing (Cu-) IUDs. Two studies (Level II-2, fair) examined risks of expulsion among younger compared with older women using levonorgestrel-releasing (LNG-) IUDs; one reported no difference in expulsion, while the other reported increased odds for younger women. Four studies (Level II-2, good to poor) examined risk of expulsion among Cu- and LNG-IUD users combined and reported no significant differences between younger and older women. For perforation, four studies (Level II-2, fair to poor) found very low perforation rates (range, 0%-0.1%), with no significant differences between younger and older women. Pregnancies were generally rare among young IUD users in nine studies (Level I to II-2, fair to poor), and no differences were reported for young IUD users compared with young combined oral contraceptive (COC) or etonogestrel (ENG) implant users. PID was rare among young IUD users; one study reported no cases among COC or IUD users, and one reported no difference in PID among LNG-IUD users compared with ENG implant users from nationwide insurance claims data (Level I to II-2, fair). One study reported decreased odds of bleeding with LNG-IUD compared with COC use among young women, while one study of young women reported decreased odds of removal for bleeding with LNG-IUD compared with ENG implant (Level I to II-2, fair).
CONCLUSION
Overall evidence suggests that the risk of adverse outcomes related to pregnancy, perforation, infection, heavy bleeding or removals for bleeding among young IUD users is low and may not be clinically meaningful. However, the risk of expulsion, especially for Cu-IUDs, is higher for younger women compared with older women. If IUD expulsion occurs, a young woman is exposed to an increased risk of unintended pregnancy if replacement contraception is not initiated. IUDs are safe for young women and provide highly effective reversible contraception.
Topics: Adolescent; Contraception; Contraceptive Agents, Female; Contraceptives, Oral, Combined; Desogestrel; Female; Humans; Intrauterine Device Expulsion; Intrauterine Devices, Copper; Levonorgestrel; Pregnancy; Pregnancy, Unplanned; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Young Adult
PubMed: 27771475
DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.10.006 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is excessive menstrual blood loss that interferes with women's quality of life, regardless of the absolute amount of bleeding. It is a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is excessive menstrual blood loss that interferes with women's quality of life, regardless of the absolute amount of bleeding. It is a very common condition in women of reproductive age, affecting 2 to 5 of every 10 women. Diverse treatments, either medical (hormonal or non-hormonal) or surgical, are currently available for HMB, with different effectiveness, acceptability, costs and side effects. The best treatment will depend on the woman's age, her intention to become pregnant, the presence of other symptoms, and her personal views and preferences.
OBJECTIVES
To identify, systematically assess and summarise all evidence from studies included in Cochrane Reviews on treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), using reviews with comparable participants and outcomes; and to present a ranking of the first- and second-line treatments for HMB.
METHODS
We searched for published Cochrane Reviews of HMB interventions in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The primary outcomes were menstrual bleeding and satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, adverse events and the requirement of further treatment. Two review authors independently selected the systematic reviews, extracted data and assessed quality, resolving disagreements by discussion. We assessed review quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool and evaluated the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods. We grouped the interventions into first- and second-line treatments, considering participant characteristics (desire for future pregnancy, failure of previous treatment, candidacy for surgery). First-line treatments included medical interventions, and second-line treatments included both the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and surgical treatments; thus the LNG-IUS is included in both groups. We developed different networks for first- and second-line treatments. We performed network meta-analyses of all outcomes, except for quality of life, where we performed pairwise meta-analyses. We reported the mean rank, the network estimates for mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the certainty of evidence (moderate, low or very low certainty). We also analysed different endometrial ablation and resection techniques separately from the main network: transcervical endometrial resection (TCRE) with or without rollerball, other resectoscopic endometrial ablation (REA), microwave non-resectoscopic endometrial ablation (NREA), hydrothermal ablation NREA, bipolar NREA, balloon NREA and other NREA.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library up to July 2021. We updated the reviews that were over two years old. In July 2020, we started the overview with no new reviews about the topic. The included medical interventions were: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antifibrinolytics (tranexamic acid), combined oral contraceptives (COC), combined vaginal ring (CVR), long-cycle and luteal oral progestogens, LNG-IUS, ethamsylate and danazol (included to provide indirect evidence), which were compared to placebo. Surgical interventions were: open (abdominal), minimally invasive (vaginal or laparoscopic) and unspecified (or surgeon's choice of route of) hysterectomy, REA, NREA, unspecified endometrial ablation (EA) and LNG-IUS. We grouped the interventions as follows. First-line treatments Evidence from 26 studies with 1770 participants suggests that LNG-IUS results in a large reduction of menstrual blood loss (MBL; mean rank 2.4, MD -105.71 mL/cycle, 95% CI -201.10 to -10.33; low certainty evidence); antifibrinolytics probably reduce MBL (mean rank 3.7, MD -80.32 mL/cycle, 95% CI -127.67 to -32.98; moderate certainty evidence); long-cycle progestogen reduces MBL (mean rank 4.1, MD -76.93 mL/cycle, 95% CI -153.82 to -0.05; low certainty evidence), and NSAIDs slightly reduce MBL (mean rank 6.4, MD -40.67 mL/cycle, -84.61 to 3.27; low certainty evidence; reference comparator mean rank 8.9). We are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining interventions and the sensitivity analysis for reduction of MBL, as the evidence was rated as very low certainty. We are uncertain of the true effect of any intervention (very low certainty evidence) on the perception of improvement and satisfaction. Second-line treatments Bleeding reduction is related to the type of hysterectomy (total or supracervical/subtotal), not the route, so we combined all routes of hysterectomy for bleeding outcomes. We assessed the reduction of MBL without imputed data (11 trials, 1790 participants) and with imputed data (15 trials, 2241 participants). Evidence without imputed data suggests that hysterectomy (mean rank 1.2, OR 25.71, 95% CI 1.50 to 439.96; low certainty evidence) and REA (mean rank 2.8, OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.29 to 5.66; low certainty evidence) result in a large reduction of MBL, and NREA probably results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 2.0, OR 3.32, 95% CI 1.53 to 7.23; moderate certainty evidence). Evidence with imputed data suggests hysterectomy results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 1.0, OR 14.31, 95% CI 2.99 to 68.56; low certainty evidence), and NREA probably results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 2.2, OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.29 to 6.05; moderate certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the true effect for REA (very low certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on amenorrhoea (very low certainty evidence). Evidence from 27 trials with 4284 participants suggests that minimally invasive hysterectomy results in a large increase in satisfaction (mean rank 1.3, OR 7.96, 95% CI 3.33 to 19.03; low certainty evidence), and NREA also increases satisfaction (mean rank 3.6, OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.33; low certainty evidence), but we are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining interventions (very low certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests LNG-IUS is the best first-line treatment for reducing menstrual blood loss (MBL); antifibrinolytics are probably the second best, and long-cycle progestogens are likely the third best. We cannot make conclusions about the effect of first-line treatments on perception of improvement and satisfaction, as evidence was rated as very low certainty. For second-line treatments, evidence suggests hysterectomy is the best treatment for reducing bleeding, followed by REA and NREA. We are uncertain of the effect on amenorrhoea, as evidence was rated as very low certainty. Minimally invasive hysterectomy may result in a large increase in satisfaction, and NREA also increases satisfaction, but we are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining second-line interventions, as evidence was rated as very low certainty.
Topics: Amenorrhea; Antifibrinolytic Agents; Child, Preschool; Female; Humans; Menorrhagia; Network Meta-Analysis; Progestins; Quality of Life; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 35638592
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013180.pub2 -
Contraception Mar 2022Studies on the effect of long-term use of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) on cervical dysplasia and/or cancer risk have been inconsistent. Less is known about the...
OBJECTIVE
Studies on the effect of long-term use of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) on cervical dysplasia and/or cancer risk have been inconsistent. Less is known about the effects of other forms of hormonal contraception (HC). We examine whether HC use increases the risk of incident cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2, 3 and/or cancer after accounting for preexisting human papillomavirus (HPV) infection.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review of prospective studies on HC use as risk factor for cervical dysplasia with HPV infection documented prior to outcome assessment including PubMed and EMBASE records between January 2000 and February 2020 (Prospero #CRD42019130725).
RESULTS
Among nine eligible studies, seven described recency and type of HC use and therefore comprise the primary analysis; two studies limit comparisons to ever versus never use and are summarized separately. All seven studies explored the relationship between oral contraceptive (OC) use and cervical dysplasia/cancer incidence: two found increased risk (adjusted odds ratio, aOR = 1.5-2.7), one found no association but decreased risk when restricted to women with persistent HPV (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.5), and four found no association. None of the seven studies differentiated between COC and progestin-only pills (POPs) by use recency or duration. The only study that included injectable progestin-only contraception (DMPA) found increased CIN3 incidence among current versus never users (aOR = 1.6). The one study that included Norplant found no association. Two studies included intrauterine device (IUD) use, but did not differentiate between hormonal and copper IUDs, and found no association.
CONCLUSION
We found no consistent evidence that OC use is associated with increased risk for cervical dysplasia/cancer after controlling for HPV infection. There were too few studies of progestin-only injectables, implants or IUDs to assess their effect on cervical dysplasia/cancer risk.
IMPLICATIONS
Use of single self-reported HC measures and insufficient distinction by hormonal constituent cloud our understanding of whether some HCs increase risk for cervical cancer. Methodologically rigorous studies with distinct HCs measured as time-varying exposures are needed to inform cervical cancer prevention efforts and improve our understanding of cervical cancer etiology.
Topics: Contraceptives, Oral, Hormonal; Female; Hormonal Contraception; Humans; Papillomavirus Infections; Progestins; Prospective Studies; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Uterine Cervical Dysplasia
PubMed: 34752778
DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2021.10.018 -
Fertility and Sterility Apr 2023The necessity of progesterone supplementation for luteal phase support (LPS) in natural cycle frozen embryo transfer (NC-FET) cycles warrants further confirmation. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The effect of progesterone supplementation for luteal phase support in natural cycle frozen embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.
IMPORTANCE
The necessity of progesterone supplementation for luteal phase support (LPS) in natural cycle frozen embryo transfer (NC-FET) cycles warrants further confirmation.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the effect of progesterone supplementation for LPS on the reproductive outcomes of patients undergoing NC-FET cycles.
DATA SOURCES
The PubMed, Ovid-Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and CBM were electronically searched. The search time frame was from inception up to September 2022.
STUDY SELECTION AND SYNTHESIS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that used progesterone for LPS in NC-FET cycles, including true NC-FET cycles (tNC-FET) and modified NC-FET cycles (mNC-FET), were included. The counted data were analyzed using relative risk (RR) as the effect-size statistic, and each effect size was assigned its 95% confidence interval (CI).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
The primary outcomes were the live birth rate (LBR) and the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), and the secondary outcome was the miscarriage rate.
RESULTS
Four RCTs were included, which involved 1116 participants. The results of the meta-analysis showed that progesterone supplementation was associated with increased LBR (RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.15-1.75; I = 0%, moderate-quality evidence) and CPR (RR, 1.30, 95% CI, 1.07-1.57; I = 0%, moderate-quality evidence) in patients undergoing NC-FET cycles. Subgroup analysis showed that progesterone supplementation was associated with higher LBR and CPR in tNC-FET cycles. However, no association was found between increased LBR and CPR in mNC-FET cycles. In addition, only one RCT reported that oral dydrogesterone had similar CPR and miscarriage rate compared with vaginal progesterone in mNC-FET cycles.
CONCLUSION(S)
Overall, moderate-quality evidence suggested that progesterone supplementation for LPS was associated with increased LBR and CPR in NC-FET cycles. Progesterone supplementation was associated with a higher LBR and CPR in tNC-FET cycles. However, the effectiveness of progesterone supplementation in mNC-FET cycles should be further verified by larger RCTs. Low to very low-quality evidence indicated that oral dydrogesterone and vaginal progesterone have similar reproductive outcomes in mNC-FET cycles, which requires further study, especially in tNC-FET cycles.
REGISTRATION NUMBER
PROSPERO CRD42022355550 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=355550) was registered on September 3, 2022.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Progesterone; Luteal Phase; Abortion, Spontaneous; Dydrogesterone; Pregnancy Rate; Lipopolysaccharides; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Embryo Transfer; Dietary Supplements
PubMed: 36574915
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.12.035 -
Reproductive Health Jan 2021Unintended pregnancies (UIP) have a significant impact on health of women and the health budget of countries. Contraception is an effective way to prevent UIPs. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Unintended pregnancies (UIP) have a significant impact on health of women and the health budget of countries. Contraception is an effective way to prevent UIPs. The study objective was to collate evidence on clinical effectiveness of etonogestrel subdermal implant (ESI), continuation rate and side effect profile among eligible women of reproductive age group, as compared to levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS), copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) and depot medroxy progesterone acetate injections; other types of contraceptive implants were excluded as comparators.
METHODS
The protocol of the systematic review was registered in Prospero (registration number: CRD42018116580). MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane library and web of science were the electronic databases searched. A search strategy was formulated and studies from 1998 to 2019 were included. Clinical trial registries and grey literature search was done. Critical assessment of included studies was done using appropriate tools. A qualitative synthesis of included studies was done and a meta-analysis was conducted in RevMan software for continuation rates of ESI as compared to other long acting reversible contraceptives (LARC) e.g. LNG IUS and Cu-IUD.
RESULTS
The search yielded 23,545 studies. After excluding 467 duplicates, 23,078 titles were screened and 51 studies were included for the review. Eight of the 15 studies reporting clinical effectiveness reported 100% effectiveness and overall pearl index ranged from 0 to 1.4. One-year continuation rates ranged from 57-97%; 44-95% at the end of second year and 25-78% by 3 years of use. Abnormal menstruation was the most commonly reported side effect. There was no significant difference in bone mineral density at 1 year follow-up. The meta-analyses showed that odds ratio (OR) of 1-year continuation rate was 1.55 (1.36, 1.76) for LNG-IUS vs. ESI and 1.34 (1.13, 1.58) for copper-IUD vs. ESI; showing that continuation rates at the end of one-year were higher in LNG-IUS and copper-IUD as compared to ESI.
CONCLUSION
ESI is clinically effective and safe contraceptive method to use, yet 1-year continuation rates are lower as compared to LNG-IUS and copper-IUD, mostly attributed to the disturbances in the menstruation.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Contraception Behavior; Contraceptive Agents, Female; Contraceptive Agents, Hormonal; Desogestrel; Female; Humans; Intrauterine Devices, Copper; Pregnancy; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 33407632
DOI: 10.1186/s12978-020-01054-y -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Jul 2018An indirect comparison meta-analysis published in 2013 reported that both vaginal progesterone and cerclage are equally efficacious for preventing preterm birth and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Vaginal progesterone is as effective as cervical cerclage to prevent preterm birth in women with a singleton gestation, previous spontaneous preterm birth, and a short cervix: updated indirect comparison meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
An indirect comparison meta-analysis published in 2013 reported that both vaginal progesterone and cerclage are equally efficacious for preventing preterm birth and adverse perinatal outcomes in women with a singleton gestation, previous spontaneous preterm birth, and a sonographic short cervix. The efficacy of vaginal progesterone has been challenged after publication of the OPPTIMUM study. However, this has been resolved by an individual patient-data meta-analysis (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218:161-180).
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy of vaginal progesterone and cerclage in preventing preterm birth and adverse perinatal outcomes in women with a singleton gestation, previous spontaneous preterm birth, and a midtrimester sonographic short cervix.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CINAHL (from their inception to March 2018); Cochrane databases, bibliographies, and conference proceedings.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials comparing vaginal progesterone to placebo/no treatment or cerclage to no cerclage in women with a singleton gestation, previous spontaneous preterm birth, and a sonographic cervical length <25 mm.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
Updated systematic review and adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis of vaginal progesterone vs cerclage using placebo/no cerclage as the common comparator. The primary outcomes were preterm birth <35 weeks of gestation and perinatal mortality. Pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.
RESULTS
Five trials comparing vaginal progesterone vs placebo (265 women) and 5 comparing cerclage vs no cerclage (504 women) were included. Vaginal progesterone, compared to placebo, significantly reduced the risk of preterm birth <35 and <32 weeks of gestation, composite perinatal morbidity/mortality, neonatal sepsis, composite neonatal morbidity, and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (RRs from 0.29 to 0.68). Cerclage, compared to no cerclage, significantly decreased the risk of preterm birth <37, <35, <32, and <28 weeks of gestation, composite perinatal morbidity/mortality, and birthweight <1500 g (RRs from 0.64 to 0.70). Adjusted indirect comparison meta-analyses did not show statistically significant differences between vaginal progesterone and cerclage in the reduction of preterm birth or adverse perinatal outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Vaginal progesterone and cerclage are equally effective for preventing preterm birth and improving perinatal outcomes in women with a singleton gestation, previous spontaneous preterm birth, and a midtrimester sonographic short cervix. The choice of treatment will depend on adverse events and cost-effectiveness of interventions and patient/physician's preferences.
Topics: Administration, Intravaginal; Cerclage, Cervical; Cervical Length Measurement; Female; Humans; Infant, Extremely Premature; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Infant, Very Low Birth Weight; Intensive Care Units, Neonatal; Neonatal Sepsis; Perinatal Mortality; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, Second; Pregnancy Trimester, Third; Premature Birth; Progesterone; Progestins; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 29630885
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.03.028 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2021Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) is a new ovarian stimulation protocol that can block the luteinizing hormone (LH) surge through progesterone instead of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) is a new ovarian stimulation protocol that can block the luteinizing hormone (LH) surge through progesterone instead of traditional down regulating or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, and in order to achieve multi-follicle recruitment. This paper aims to investigate the effectiveness of PPOS and its suitability for infertile patients with different ovarian reserve functions.
METHODS
We searched published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about PPOS on Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. The search period spanned from January 1, 2015 to November 16, 2020. The data were extracted, and the meta-analysis was performed on ovarian stimulation as well as embryological and clinical outcomes. The outcomes were pooled by a random effects model, and the risk of heterogeneity was evaluated. Subgroup analysis was performed for different ovarian reserve patients.
RESULTS
The clinical pregnancy rates and live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates with the PPOS protocol were not different from those with the control group. In the diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) subgroup, the PPOS protocol had a lower rate of premature LH surge [RR = 0.03, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.13, < 0.001]. The PPOS protocol had a lower rate of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) [RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.36 to 0.76, < 0.001, = 0.00%]. The secondary outcomes showed that the number of oocytes retrieved, MII oocytes, and viable embryos was higher than that of the control protocol in DOR patients [(MD = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.36, < 0.001), (MD = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.33, < 0.001), (MD = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.18 to 0.24, < 0.001)] and normal ovarian reserve (NOR) patients [(MD = 1.41, 95% CI = 0.03 to 2.78, < 0.001), (MD = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.04 to 2.35, < 0.001), (MD = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.21 to 1.81, = 0.01)].
CONCLUSION
The findings suggest that PPOS is an effective ovarian stimulation protocol and is beneficial for patients with different ovarian reserve functions, which needs to be validated in more RCTs with larger samples.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Fertilization in Vitro; Infertility, Female; Live Birth; Ovarian Reserve; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy Rate; Progestins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34531825
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2021.702558 -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Mar 2021Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) is a new ovarian stimulation protocol that has been used over the last decade to enhance reproductive function. The purpose... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) is a new ovarian stimulation protocol that has been used over the last decade to enhance reproductive function. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether PPOS is as effective as conventional protocols (without GnRHa downregulation).
METHOD
Search terms included "medroxyprogesterone", "dydrogesterone", "progestin-primed ovarian stimulation", "PPOS", "oocyte retrieval", "in vitro fertilization", "IVF", "ICSI", "ART", and "reproductive". The selection criteria were nonrandomized studies and randomized controlled studies. For data collection and analysis, the Review Manager software, Newcastle-Ottowa Quality Assessment Scale and GRADE approach were used.
RESULTS
The clinical pregnancy rates were not significantly different in either RCTs or NRCTs [RR 0.96, 95% CI (0.69-1.33), I = 71%, P = 0.81]; [RR 0.99, 95% CI (0.83-1.17), I = 38%, P = 0.88]. The live birth rates of RCTs and NRCTs did not differ [RCT: RR 1.08, 95% CI (0.74, 1.57), I = 66%, P = 0.69; NRCT: OR 1.03 95% CI 0.84-1.26), I = 50%, P = 0.79]. The PPOS protocol had a lower rate of OHSS [RR 0.52, 95% CI (0.36-0.75), I = 0%, P = 0.0006]. The secondary results showed that compared to the control protocol, the endometrium was thicker [95% CI (0.00-0.78), I = 0%, P = 0.05], the number of obtained embryos was higher [95% CI (0.04-0.65), I = 17%, P = 0.03] and more hMG was needed [in NRCT: 95% CI (307.44, 572.73), I = 0%, P < 0.00001] with the PPOS protocol.
CONCLUSION
The PPOS protocol produces more obtained embryos and a thicker endometrium than the control protocol, with a lower rate of OHSS and an equal live birth rate. The PPOS protocol could be a safe option as a personalized protocol for infertile patients.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Registration at PROSPERO: CRD42020176577.
Topics: Dydrogesterone; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Oocyte Retrieval; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Progesterone; Progestins; Reproduction
PubMed: 33433705
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-020-05939-y