-
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Apr 2024Short-acting progestin-only injectables containing depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) are a safe method of contraception. Although DMPA has been available for... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Short-acting progestin-only injectables containing depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) are a safe method of contraception. Although DMPA has been available for several decades, there is little data on its influence on the risk of breast cancer. Hence, the aim of this paper was to provide an overview of the existing studies and create clarity regarding a possible association with breast cancer.
METHODS
Literature searches were executed in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP. Search terms were related to DMPA and breast cancer. After elimination of duplicates, 3'850 studies were identified and assessed according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Finally, ten studies were selected and included in this review.
RESULTS
All the selected papers were case-control-studies, except for one pooled analysis and one study comparing observed and expected number of cancer cases. Most of the included studies found no overall elevated breast cancer incidence in DMPA users, only one study found a slightly increased risk and two studies concluded with a significant increase for the overall breast cancer risk.
CONCLUSION
There is little evidence that DMPA may increase the overall risk for breast cancer. However, the incidence of breast cancer is possibly increased in current and more recent users, especially in women younger than 35 years. Long-term use did not result in any risk increase. Nevertheless, further studies will be necessary to confirm these findings and weigh up the individual risks and benefits of this contraceptive method.
Topics: Female; Humans; Medroxyprogesterone Acetate; Delayed-Action Preparations; Breast Neoplasms; Contraceptive Agents, Female; Progestins
PubMed: 37966517
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-023-07265-5 -
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology Jul 2023To examine the effectiveness of progestin re-treatment for recurrent endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN), atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AH) and endometrial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To examine the effectiveness of progestin re-treatment for recurrent endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN), atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AH) and endometrial cancer (EC) following initial fertility-sparing treatment.
METHODS
A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted by an Expert Panel of the Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology Endometrial Cancer Committee. Multiple search engines, including PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database, were searched in December 2021 using the keywords "Endometrial neoplasms," "Endometrial hyperplasia," "Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia," "Fertility preservation," "Progestins," AND "Recurrence." Cases describing progestin re-treatment for recurrent EIN, AH and EC were compared with cases that underwent conventional hysterectomy. The primary outcomes were survival and disease recurrence, and the secondary outcome was pregnancy.
RESULTS
After screening 238 studies, 32 with results for recurrent treatment were identified. These studies included 365 patients (270 received progestin re-treatment and 95 underwent hysterectomy). Most progestin re-treatment involved medroxyprogesterone acetate or megestrol acetate (94.5%). Complete remission (CR) following progestin re-treatment was achieved in 219 (81.1%) cases, with 3-, 6- and 9-month cumulative CR rates of 22.8%, 51.7% and 82.6%, respectively. Progestin re-treatment was associated with higher risk of disease recurrence than conventional hysterectomy was (odds ratio [OR]=6.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.99-23.10), and one patient (0.4%) died of disease. Fifty-one (14.0%) women became pregnant after recurrence, and progestin re-treatment demonstrated a possibility of pregnancy (OR=2.48; 95% CI=0.94-6.58).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis suggests that repeat progestin therapy is an effective option for women with recurrent EIN, AH and EC, who wish to retain their fertility.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Male; Endometrial Hyperplasia; Progestins; Retrospective Studies; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Endometrial Neoplasms; Fertility Preservation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36929578
DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2023.34.e49 -
Contraception May 2024To summarize and update information regarding drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between antiretrovirals (ARVs) and hormonal contraceptives (HCs). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To summarize and update information regarding drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between antiretrovirals (ARVs) and hormonal contraceptives (HCs).
DESIGN
Systematic review METHODS: We searched seven databases for peer-reviewed publications from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2023, including studies of women using ARVs and HCs concurrently with outcomes including therapeutic effectiveness or toxicity, pharmacokinetics (PK), or pharmacodynamics. We summarized findings and used checklists to assess evidence quality.
RESULTS
We included 49 articles, with clinical, ARV or HC PK outcomes reported by 39, 25, and 30 articles, respectively, with some articles reporting outcomes in two or more categories. Fifteen of 18 articles assessing DDIs between efavirenz and progestin implants, emergency contraception, or combined hormonal intravaginal rings found higher pregnancy rates, luteal progesterone levels suggesting ovulation, or reduced progestin PK values. Five studies documented that CYP2B6 single nucleotide polymorphisms exacerbated this DDI. One cohort detected doubled bone density loss with concomitant depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)-containing ART use versus TDF alone. No other studies described DDIs impacting clinical outcomes. Few adverse events were attributed to ARV-HC use with none exceeding Grade 2. Evidence quality was generally moderate, with dis-similar treatment and control groups, identifying and controlling for confounding, and minimizing attrition bias in the study design being the most frequent limitations.
CONCLUSION
Most ARVs and HCs may be used safely and effectively together. TDF-DMPA DDIs warrant longer-term study on bone health and consideration of alternate combinations. For efavirenz-based ART, client counselling on relative risks, including both potential increase in pregnancy rate with concomitant efavirenz and implant use and lower pregnancy rates compared to other HCs even with concomitant efavirenz use, should continue to allow users comprehensive method choice.
PubMed: 38762199
DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2024.110490