-
Human Reproduction Update Mar 2023Increasing numbers of BReast CAncer (BRCA) 1 or 2 pathogenic variant (PV) carriers, who have an inherited predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer, are being... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Increasing numbers of BReast CAncer (BRCA) 1 or 2 pathogenic variant (PV) carriers, who have an inherited predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer, are being identified. Among these women, data regarding the effects of contraception on cancer risks are unclear and various guidelines provide various recommendations.
OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE
We aim to optimize counselling regarding contraception for BRCA1/2-PV carriers. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We investigated the risk ratio for developing breast cancer or ovarian cancer in BRCA1/2-PV carriers who have used any form of contraception versus non-users. Second, we analysed breast and ovarian cancer risk among BRCA1/2-PV carriers as influenced by the duration of contraceptive use and by the time since last use. In addition, we provide an overview of all relevant international guidelines regarding contraceptive use for BRCA1/2-PV carriers.
SEARCH METHODS
A systematic search in the Medline database and Cochrane library identified studies describing breast and/or ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1/2-PV carriers as modified by contraception until June 2021. The search included medical subject headings, keywords and synonyms related to BRCA and contraceptives (any kind). PRISMA guidance was followed. Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations assessments were performed. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to estimate pooled effects for breast and ovarian cancer risk separately. Subgroup analyses were conducted for BRCA1 versus BRCA2 and for the various contraceptive methods.
OUTCOMES
Results of the breast cancer risk with oral contraceptive pill (OCP) analysis depended on the outcome measure. Meta-analyses of seven studies with 7525 women revealed a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.55 (95% CI: 1.36-1.76) and of four studies including 9106 women resulted in an odds ratio (OR) of 1.06 (95% CI: 0.90-1.25), heterogeneity (I2) 0% and 52%, respectively. Breast cancer risk was still increased in ever-users compared with never-users >10 years after last OCP use. In contrast, ovarian cancer risk was decreased among OCP users: HR 0.62 (95% CI: 0.52-0.74) based on two studies including 10 981 women (I2: 0%), and OR 0.49 (95% CI: 0.38-0.63) based on eight studies including 10 390 women (I2: 64%). The protective effect vanished after cessation of use. Tubal ligation also protects against ovarian cancer: one study including 3319 women (I2: 0%): HR: 0.44 (95% CI: 0.26-0.74) and three studies with 7691 women (I2: 44%): OR: 0.74 (95% CI: 0.53-1.03). Data regarding other contraceptives were unavailable. No differences were observed between BRCA1 and BRCA2-PV carriers. The quality of evidence was either low or very low.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS
The OCP potentially increases breast cancer risk, while ovarian cancer risk decreases with either the OCP and tubal ligation in BRCA1/2-PV carriers. Counselling of BRCA1/2-PV carriers should be personalized; the genetic and non-genetic factors (like prior risk-reducing surgeries, prior breast cancer and age) and patients' preferences (reversibility, ease of use, reliability and effect on menstrual cycle) should be balanced. To further optimize counselling for high-risk women, future research should focus on other (commonly used) contraceptive methods and cancer risks in this specific population, and on the potential impact of changing formulations over time.
Topics: Female; Humans; BRCA1 Protein; Breast Neoplasms; Contraceptive Agents; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Mutation; Ovarian Neoplasms; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 36383189
DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmac038 -
Sleep Medicine Reviews Aug 2023Environmental exposures may influence sleep; however, the contributions of environmental chemical pollutants to sleep health have not been systematically investigated.... (Review)
Review
Environmental exposures may influence sleep; however, the contributions of environmental chemical pollutants to sleep health have not been systematically investigated. We conducted a systematic review to identify, evaluate, summarize, and synthesize the existing evidence between chemical pollutants (air pollution, exposures related to the Gulf War and other conflicts, endocrine disruptors, metals, pesticides, solvents) and dimensions of sleep health (architecture, duration, quality, timing) and disorders (sleeping pill use, insomnia, sleep-disordered breathing)). Of the 204 included studies, results were mixed; however, the synthesized evidence suggested associations between particulate matter, exposures related to the Gulf War, dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, and pesticide exposure with worse sleep quality; exposures related to the Gulf War, aluminum, and mercury with insomnia and impaired sleep maintenance; and associations between tobacco smoke exposure with insomnia and sleep-disordered breathing, particularly in pediatric populations. Possible mechanisms relate to cholinergic signaling, neurotransmission, and inflammation. Chemical pollutants are likely key determinants of sleep health and disorders. Future studies should aim to evaluate environmental exposures on sleep across the lifespan, with a particular focus on developmental windows and biological mechanisms, as well as in historically marginalized or excluded populations.
Topics: Child; Humans; Environmental Pollutants; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Dioxins; Sleep; Sleep Apnea Syndromes
PubMed: 37392613
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2023.101805 -
Presse Medicale (Paris, France : 1983) Nov 2019Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. Because of the high frequency of hormonal contraceptives use, assessing their side effects is an...
Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. Because of the high frequency of hormonal contraceptives use, assessing their side effects is an important public health issue. In this perspective, we conducted a review of the risk of hypertension associated with the use of hormonal contraceptives, either combined estrogen-progestin or only progestin. The use of combined hormonal contraceptives, regardless of its type and route of administration, is associated with a slight increase in blood pressure, both systolic and diastolic blood pressures. The frequency of onset of hypertension in women who use combined hormonal contraception is between 0.6% and 8.5%. Progestin-only contraception seems safe with respect to the risk of hypertension. It is therefore important to remember that the use of combined hormonal contraception is contra-indicated in hypertensive women, even well controlled. Finally, we propose a prescription assistance algorithm according to the recommendations of an expert panel. It should be remembered that taking blood pressure at each contraceptive consultation (initial and follow-up) is essential.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Blood Pressure; Blood Pressure Determination; Contraception; Contraceptives, Oral, Combined; Contraceptives, Oral, Hormonal; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Middle Aged; Progestins; Risk Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 31757732
DOI: 10.1016/j.lpm.2019.07.033 -
BJGP Open Sep 2022Tablet splitting can provide dose flexibility and cost savings; however, pharmaceutical representatives typically discourage the practice.
BACKGROUND
Tablet splitting can provide dose flexibility and cost savings; however, pharmaceutical representatives typically discourage the practice.
AIM
To identify and summarise all published concerns related to tablet splitting and to present the experimental evidence that investigates those concerns.
DESIGN & SETTING
Systematic review and qualitative synthesis of tablet-splitting concerns and evidence.
METHOD
Medline and EMBASE databases were searched over all years of publication for articles in English discussing the splitting of tablets. Eligible articles included original research, narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and expert opinion.
RESULTS
After removing duplicates, 1837 potentially relevant articles underwent dual review, whereupon 1612 articles were excluded based on title and abstract. After examination of 225 full texts, 138 articles were included (one systematic review, four narrative reviews, 101 original research articles, and 32 opinion articles). The described concerns included difficulty breaking tablets, loss of mass, weight variability, chemical instability, overly rapid dosing if sustained-release medications are split, non-compliance, and patient confusion resulting in medication errors. No substantive evidence was found to support concerns regarding loss of mass, weight variability, chemical instability, or non-compliance. Evidence does support some older adults struggling to split tablets without tablet splitters, and the inappropriateness of splitting sustained-release preparations, given the potential for alteration of the rate of drug release for some products.
CONCLUSION
With the exception of sustained-release tablets, which should not be split, and excepting those older people who may struggle to split tablets based on physical limitations, there is little evidence to support tablet-splitting concerns.
PubMed: 35193886
DOI: 10.3399/BJGPO.2022.0001 -
Irish Journal of Medical Science Aug 2023Molnupiravir is an oral antiviral drug that received Emergency Use Authorization in three countries for the treatment of mild COVID-19. The aim of this systematic review... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Molnupiravir is an oral antiviral drug that received Emergency Use Authorization in three countries for the treatment of mild COVID-19. The aim of this systematic review was to find out the safety and efficacy of Molnupiravir in SARS-COV-2 infections.
METHODS
The electronic databases such as PubMed, MedRxiv, BioRxiv, FDA, ClinicalTrials.Gov, ctri.nic.in and Google Scholar were searched for articles from January 2021 to March 2022 using the keywords such as "Molnupiravir", "COVID-19", "Oral antiviral pill", "MK-4482", "EIDD-280", "Efficacy" and "Safety". Details of published, unpublished with interim reports and ongoing studies of Molnupiravir in COVID-19 were retrieved, and a systematic review was performed.
RESULTS
A total of 6 articles and 18 ongoing trials data were collected. Out of these, data from 4 published and 2 unpublished with interim reports were extracted. After review of these studies, it was observed that the daily dose of 1600 mg Molnupiravir for 5 days was safe and tolerable with nausea, diarrhea and headache as the common adverse effects. The results also showed significant decrease in time to viral clearance with 800 mg twice daily in mild patients and reduction in the risk of hospitalization or death by 50% in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
CONCLUSION
Evidence from clinical studies showed that Molnupiravir caused significant reduction in the risk of hospitalization or death in high-risk mild COVID-19 patients. Molnupiravir was also found to be well tolerated and safe without any major adverse events on short-term use. For confirmative use of this drug in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 disease, further studies are required in vaccinated COVID-19 patients and against emerging variants.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Databases, Factual; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
PubMed: 36087236
DOI: 10.1007/s11845-022-03139-y -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is a common problem. Premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) is a severe form of premenstrual syndrome. Combined oral contraceptives (COC),... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is a common problem. Premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) is a severe form of premenstrual syndrome. Combined oral contraceptives (COC), which provide both progestin and oestrogen, have been examined for their ability to relieve premenstrual symptoms. A combined oral contraceptive containing drospirenone and a low oestrogen dose has been approved for treating PMDD in women who choose combined oral contraceptives for contraception.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of COCs containing drospirenone in women with PMS.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trial register, CENTRAL (now containing output from two trials registers and CINAHL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, Google Scholar, and Epistemonikos on 29 June 2022. We checked included studies' reference lists and contacted study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared COCs containing drospirenone with placebo or with another COC for treatment of women with PMS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were effects on premenstrual symptoms that were prospectively recorded, and withdrawal due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes included effects on mood, adverse events, and response rate to study medications.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five RCTs (858 women analysed, most diagnosed with PMDD). The evidence was very low to moderate quality; the main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious inconsistency and imprecision. COCs containing drospirenone and ethinylestradiol (EE) versus placebo COCs containing drospirenone and EE may improve overall premenstrual symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.59 to -0.24; 2 RCTs, N = 514; I = 64%; low-quality evidence); and functional impairment due to premenstrual symptoms in terms of productivity (mean difference (MD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.08; 2 RCTs, N = 432; I = 47%; low-quality evidence), social activities (MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.04; 2 RCTs, N = 432; I = 53%; low-quality evidence), and relationships (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.06; 2 RCTs, N = 432; I = 45%; low-quality evidence). The effects from COCs containing drospirenone may be small to moderate. COCs containing drospirenone and EE may increase withdrawal from trials due to adverse effects (odds ratio (OR) 3.41, 95% CI 2.01 to 5.78; 4 RCT, N = 776; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if you assume the risk of withdrawal due to adverse effects from placebo is 3%, the risk from drospirenone plus EE will be between 6% and 16%. We are uncertain of the effect of drospirenone plus EE on premenstrual mood symptoms, when measured by validated tools that were not developed to assess premenstrual symptoms. COCs containing drospirenone may lead to more adverse effects in total (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.71 to 3.11; 3 RCT, N = 739; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if you assume the risk of having adverse effects from placebo is 28%, the risk from drospirenone plus EE will be between 40% and 54%. It probably leads to more breast pain, and may lead to more nausea, intermenstrual bleeding, and menstrual disorder. Its effect on nervousness, headache, asthenia, and pain is uncertain. There was no report of any rare but serious adverse effects, such as venous thromboembolism in any of the included studies. COCs containing drospirenone may improve response rate (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.40; 1 RCT, N = 449; I not applicable; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if you assume the response rate from placebo is 36%, the risk from drospirenone plus EE will be between 39% and 58%. We did not identify any studies that compared COCs containing drospirenone with other COCs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
COCs containing drospirenone and EE may improve premenstrual symptoms that result in functional impairments in women with PMDD. The placebo also had a significant effect. COCs containing drospirenone and EE may lead to more adverse effects compared to placebo. We do not know whether it works after three cycles, helps women with less severe symptoms, or is better than other combined oral contraceptives that contain a different progestogen.
Topics: Female; Humans; Contraceptives, Oral, Combined; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Estrogens; Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder; Premenstrual Syndrome; Progestins
PubMed: 37365881
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006586.pub5 -
Trauma, Violence & Abuse Apr 2024In recent years, the concept of "misogynistic extremism" has emerged as a subject of interest among scholars, governments, law enforcement personnel, and the media. Yet...
In recent years, the concept of "misogynistic extremism" has emerged as a subject of interest among scholars, governments, law enforcement personnel, and the media. Yet a consistent understanding of how misogynistic extremism is defined and conceptualized has not yet emerged. Varying epistemological orientations may contribute to the current conceptual muddle of this topic, reflecting long-standing and on-going challenges with the conceptualization of its individual components. To address the potential impact of misogynistic extremism (i.e., violent attacks), a more precise understanding of what this phenomenon entails is needed. To summarize the existing knowledge base on the nature of misogynistic extremism, this scoping review analyzed publications within English-language peer-reviewed and gray literature sources. Seven electronic databases and citation indexes were systematically searched using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist and charted using the 2020 PRISMA flow diagram. Inclusion criteria included English peer-reviewed articles and relevant gray literature publications, which contained the term "misogynistic extremism" and other closely related terms. No date restrictions were imposed. The search strategy initially yielded 475 publications. After exclusion of ineligible articles, 40 publications remained for synthesis. We found that misogynistic extremism is most frequently conceptualized in the context of misogynistic incels, male supremacism, far-right extremism, terrorism, and the black pill ideology. Policy recommendations include increased education among law enforcement and Countering and Preventing Violent Extremism experts on male supremacist violence and encouraging legal and educational mechanisms to bolster gender equality. Violence stemming from misogynistic worldviews must be addressed by directly acknowledging and challenging socially embedded systems of oppression such as white supremacy and cisheteropatriarchy.
Topics: Humans; Male; Aggression; Terrorism; Violence; Gender-Based Violence; Sexism; Female
PubMed: 37272372
DOI: 10.1177/15248380231176062 -
Journal of Healthcare Informatics... Jun 2024As medication adherence represents a critical challenge in healthcare, pill and medication dispensers have gained increasing attention as potential solutions to promote...
As medication adherence represents a critical challenge in healthcare, pill and medication dispensers have gained increasing attention as potential solutions to promote adherence and improve patient outcomes. Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology, we carried out a systematic literature review on papers indexed in Scopus and PubMed, which present solutions for pill or medication dispensers. Given the importance of user acceptance for these solutions, the research questions of the survey are driven by a human-centered perspective. We first provide an overview of the different solutions, classifying them according to their stage of development. We then analyze each solution considering its hardware/software architecture. Finally, we review the characteristics of user interfaces designed for interacting with pill and medication dispensers and analyze the involvement of different types of users in dispenser management. On the basis of this analysis, we draw findings and indications for future research that are aimed to provide insights to healthcare professionals, researchers, and designers who are interested in developing and using pill and medication dispensers.
PubMed: 38681758
DOI: 10.1007/s41666-024-00161-w -
Gynecological Endocrinology : the... Dec 2023In recent years, new combined oral contraceptives (COCs) have become available, representing an advance in terms of individualization and compliance by users. To... (Review)
Review
In recent years, new combined oral contraceptives (COCs) have become available, representing an advance in terms of individualization and compliance by users. To provide recommendations regarding COCs: formulations, use, efficacy, benefits and safety. For these recommendations, we have used the modified Delphi methodology and carried out a systematic review of studies found in the literature and reviews performed in humans, published in English and Spanish in Pubmed, Medline and advanced medicine and computer networks until the year 2021, using the combination of terms: 'oral contraceptives', 'estroprogestins' and 'combined oral contraceptives'. Regarding the estrogen component, initially switching from mestranol (the pro-drug of ethinylestradiol) to ethinylestradiol (EE) and then reducing the EE dose helped reduce side effects and associated adverse events. Natural estradiol and estradiol valerate are already available and represent a valid alternative to EE. The use of more potent 19-nortestosterone-derived progestins, in order to lower the dose and then the appearance of non-androgenic progestins with different endocrine and metabolic characteristics, has made it possible to individualize the prescription of COC according to the profile of each woman. Advances in the provision of new COCs have improved the risk/benefit ratio by increasing benefits and reducing risks. Currently, the challenge is to tailor contraceptives to individual needs in terms of safety, efficacy, and protection of female reproductive health.
Topics: Female; Humans; Contraceptives, Oral, Combined; Progestins; Latin America; Ethinyl Estradiol; Estrogens; Women's Health
PubMed: 37857350
DOI: 10.1080/09513590.2023.2271072 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2023Dysmenorrhoea (painful menstrual cramps) is common and a major cause of pain in women. Combined oral contraceptives (OCPs) are often used in the management of primary... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dysmenorrhoea (painful menstrual cramps) is common and a major cause of pain in women. Combined oral contraceptives (OCPs) are often used in the management of primary dysmenorrhoea, but there is a need for reporting the benefits and harms. Primary dysmenorrhoea is defined as painful menstrual cramps without pelvic pathology.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of combined oral contraceptive pills for the management of primary dysmenorrhoea.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date 28 March 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing all combined OCPs with other combined OCPs, placebo, or management with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Participants had to have primary dysmenorrhoea, diagnosed by ruling out pelvic pathology through pelvic examination or ultrasound.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were pain score after treatment, improvement in pain, and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 RCTs (3723 women). Eleven RCTs compared combined OCP with placebo, eight compared different dosages of combined OCP, one compared two OCP regimens with placebo, and one compared OCP with NSAIDs. OCP versus placebo or no treatment OCPs reduce pain in women with dysmenorrhoea more effectively than placebo. Six studies reported treatment effects on different scales; the result can be interpreted as a moderate reduction in pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.74 to -0.41; I² = 28%; 6 RCTs, 588 women; high-quality evidence). Six studies also reported pain improvement as a dichotomous outcome (risk ratio (RR) 1.65, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.10; I² = 69%; 6 RCTs, 717 women; low-quality evidence). The data suggest that in women with a 28% chance of improvement in pain with placebo or no treatment, the improvement in women using combined OCP will be between 37% and 60%. Compared to placebo or no treatment, OCPs probably increase the risk of any adverse events (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.43; I² = 79%; 7 RCTs, 1025 women; moderate-quality evidence), and may also increase the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.77, 95% CI 0.49 to 6.43; I² = 22%; 4 RCTs, 512 women; low-quality evidence). Women who received OCPs had an increased risk of irregular bleeding compared to women who received placebo or no treatment (RR 2.63, 95% CI 2.11 to 3.28; I² = 29%; 7 RCTs, 1025 women; high-quality evidence). In women with a risk of irregular bleeding of 18% if using placebo or no treatment, the risk would be between 39% and 60% if using combined OCP. OCPs probably increase the risk of headaches (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.04; I² = 44%; 5 RCTs, 656 women; moderate-quality evidence), and nausea (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.30; I² = 39%; 8 RCTs, 948 women; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of OCP on weight gain (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.75 to 4.45; 1 RCT, 76 women; low-quality evidence). OCPs may slightly reduce requirements for additional medication (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.98; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 163 women; low-quality evidence), and absence from work (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.97; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 148 women; low-quality evidence). One OCP versus another OCP Continuous use of OCPs (no pause or inactive tablets after the usual 21 days of hormone pills) may reduce pain in women with dysmenorrhoea more effectively than the standard regimen (SMD -0.73, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.34; 2 RCTs, 106 women; low-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine if there was a difference in pain improvement between ethinylestradiol 20 μg and ethinylestradiol 30 μg OCPs (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.74; 1 RCT, 326 women; moderate-quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference between third- and fourth-generation and first- and second-generation OCPs (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; 1 RCT, 178 women; moderate-quality evidence). The standard regimen of OCPs may slightly increase the risk of any adverse events over the continuous regimen (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.22; I² = 76%; 3 RCTs, 602 women; low-quality evidence), and probably increases the risk of irregular bleeding (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.69; 2 RCTs, 379 women; moderate-quality evidence). Due to lack of studies, it is uncertain if there is a difference between continuous and standard regimen OCPs in serious adverse events (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.24; 1 RCT, 212 women), headaches (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.76; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 435 women), or nausea (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.30; I² = 23%; 2 RCTs, 435 women) (all very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if one type of OCP reduces absence from work more than the other (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.99; 1 RCT, 445 women; very low-quality evidence). OCPs versus NSAIDs There were insufficient data to determine whether OCPs were more effective than NSAIDs for pain (mean difference -0.30, 95% CI -5.43 to 4.83; 1 RCT, 91 women; low-quality evidence). The study did not report on adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
OCPs are effective for treating dysmenorrhoea, but they cause irregular bleeding, and probably headache and nausea. Long-term effects were not covered in this review. Continuous use of OCPs was probably more effective than the standard regimen but safety should be ensured with long-term data. Due to lack of data, we are uncertain whether NSAIDs are better than OCPs for treating dysmenorrhoea.
Topics: Female; Humans; Dysmenorrhea; Contraceptives, Oral, Combined; Muscle Cramp; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Headache
PubMed: 37523477
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002120.pub4