-
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 -
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Jan 2020To update a 2016 systematic review on hormonal contraception use and HIV acquisition.
OBJECTIVE
To update a 2016 systematic review on hormonal contraception use and HIV acquisition.
METHODS
We searched Pubmed and Embase between 15 January 2016 and 26 June 2019 for longitudinal studies comparing incident HIV infection among women using a hormonal contraceptive method and either non-users or users of another specific hormonal contraceptive method. We extracted information from newly identified studies, assessed study quality, and updated forest plots and meta-analyses.
RESULTS
In addition to 31 previously included studies, five more were identified; three provided higher quality evidence. A randomised clinical trial (RCT) found no statistically significant differences in HIV risk among users of intramuscular depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-IM), levonorgestrel implant (LNG implant) or the copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD). An observational study found no statistically significant differences in HIV risk among women using DMPA, norethisterone enanthate (NET-EN), implants (type not specified) or Cu-IUD. Updated results from a previously included observational study continued to find a statistically significant increased HIV risk with oral contraceptives and DMPA compared with no contraceptive use, and found no association between LNG implant and HIV risk.
CONCLUSIONS
High-quality RCT data comparing use of DMPA, LNG implant and Cu-IUD does not support previous concerns from observational studies that DMPA-IM use increases the risk of HIV acquisition. Use of other hormonal contraceptive methods (oral contraceptives, NET-EN and implants) is not associated with an increased risk of HIV acquisition.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Female; HIV Infections; Hormonal Contraception; Humans
PubMed: 31919239
DOI: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2019-200509 -
BioMed Research International 2023This systematic review was conducted to provide up-to-date evidence on the safety and effectiveness of task sharing in the delivery of modern contraceptives. . The... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review was conducted to provide up-to-date evidence on the safety and effectiveness of task sharing in the delivery of modern contraceptives. . The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar for peer-reviewed studies that reported on effectiveness and/or safety outcomes of task sharing of any modern contraceptive method. Only Cochrane Effective Practice of Organizations of Care (EPOC) study designs were eligible, and quality assessment of the evidence was performed using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tools. Meta-analyses, where possible, were carried out using Stata, and certainty of the evidence for outcomes was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool (GRADE).
RESULTS
Six studies met the inclusion criteria: five reported on self-injection of subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-SC) compared to administered by trained health providers; and one assessed tubal ligation performed by associate clinicians compared to advanced-level associate clinicians. Self-injection improved contraceptive continuation, with no increase in unintended pregnancy and no difference in side effects compared to provider administered. In tubal ligation, the rate of adverse events, time to complete procedure, and participant satisfaction were similar among associate clinicians and advanced clinicians.
CONCLUSION
The evidence suggests that self-injection of DMPA-SC and tubal ligation performed by associate clinicians are safe and effective. These findings should be complemented with the evidence on the feasibility and acceptability of task sharing of these methods. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO CRD42021283336.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Family Planning Services; Contraception; Contraceptive Agents, Female; Subcutaneous Tissue; Research Design
PubMed: 36817856
DOI: 10.1155/2023/8735563 -
Menopause (New York, N.Y.) May 2022Long-term sleep disturbances in menopausal women are closely related to cardiovascular disorders, metabolic disorders, and cognitive impairment. At present, hormone... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Long-term sleep disturbances in menopausal women are closely related to cardiovascular disorders, metabolic disorders, and cognitive impairment. At present, hormone therapy (HT) is a standard treatment for menopausal symptoms. However, it remains unclear whether HT can improve sleep quality.
OBJECTIVE
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of different HT regimens on menopausal sleep quality.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials of menopausal HT on sleep disturbances up to June 14,2021. Information about ongoing and unpublished trials was collected by searching WHOICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. Our primary outcome was sleep quality with objective measurements. We estimated the standardized mean difference (SMD) using random-effects models.
FINDINGS
We identified a total of 3,059 studies and finally included 15 studies in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, HT improved self-reported sleep outcomes (SMD = -0.13; 95% CI, -0.18 to -0.08, P < 0.00001 and I2 = 41%), but not sleep parameters measured by polysomnography. Subgroup analyses according to the regimen of HT showed that 17β-estradiol (17β-E2) (SMD = -0.34; 95% CI, -0.51 to -0.17, P < 0.0001, and I2 = 0%) and conjugated equine estrogens (SMD = -0.10; 95% CI, -0.12 to -0.07, P < 0.00001, and I2 = 0%) improved sleep quality. Moreover, transdermal administration (SMD = -0.35; 95% CI, -0.64 to -0.06, and P = 0.02) was more beneficial than oral (SMD = -0.10; 95% CI, -0.14 to -0.07, and P < 0.00001). In addition, the combination of estrogen and progesterone had a positive effect on sleep disturbance (SMD = -0.10; 95% CI, -0.13 to -0.07, P < 0.00001, and I2 = 0%), while estrogen monotherapy did not. The results showed that estrogen/micronized progesterone (SMD = -0.22; 95% CI, -0.37 to -0.06, P = 0.007, and I2 = 0%) and estrogen/medroxyprogesterone acetate (SMD = -0.10; 95% CI, -0.13 to -0.07, P < 0.00001, and I2 = 0%) could alleviate sleep disturbance.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
HT has a beneficial effect on sleep disturbance to some extent, and the formulations and routes of administration of hormonal agents influence the effect size.
Topics: Estrogens; Female; Hormone Replacement Therapy; Humans; Menopause; Progesterone; Sleep Quality
PubMed: 35102100
DOI: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001945 -
BioMed Research International 2022Endometrial cancer (EC) is one of the most common gynecologic malignancy, mostly in postmenopausal women. The gold standard treatment for EC is surgery, but in the early... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Endometrial cancer (EC) is one of the most common gynecologic malignancy, mostly in postmenopausal women. The gold standard treatment for EC is surgery, but in the early stages, it is possible to opt for conservative treatment. In the last decade, different clinical and pathological markers have been studied to identify women who respond to conservative treatment. A lot of immunohistochemical markers have been evaluated to predict response to progestin treatment, even if their usefulness is still unclear; the prognosis of this neoplasm depends on tumor stage, and a specific therapeutic protocol is set according to the stage of the disease.
OBJECTIVE
(1) To provide an overview of the conservative management of Stage 1A Grade (G) 2 endometrioid EC (FIGO) and the oncological and reproductive outcomes related; (2) to describe the molecular alterations before and after progestin therapy in patients undergoing conservative treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic computerized search of the literature was performed in the main electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane Library), from 2010 to September 2021, in order to evaluate the oncological and reproductive outcomes in patients with G2 stage IA EC who ask for fertility-sparing treatment. The expression of several immunohistochemical markers was evaluated in pretreatment phase and during the follow-up in relation to response to hormonal therapy. Only scientific publications in English were included. The risk of bias assessment was performed. Review authors' judgments were categorized as "low risk," "high risk," or "unclear risk" of bias.
RESULTS
Twelve articles were included in the study: 7 observational studies and 5 case series/reports. Eighty-four patients who took progestins (megestrol acetate, medroxyprogesterone acetate, and/or levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices) were analyzed. The publication bias analysis turned out to be "low." 54/84 patients had a complete response, 23/84 patients underwent radical surgery, and 20/84 had a relapse after conservative treatment. Twenty-two patients had a pregnancy. The length of follow-up was variable, from 6 to 142 months according to the different studies analyzed. Several clinical and pathological markers have been studied to identify women who do not respond to conservative treatment: PR and ER were the most studied predictive markers, in particular PR appeared as the most promising; MMR, SPAG9, Ki67, and Nrf2-survivin pathway provided good results with a significant association with a good response to progestin therapy. However, no reliable predictive markers are currently available to be used in clinical practice.
CONCLUSIONS
The conservative treatment may be an option for patients with stage IA G2 EEC who desire to preserve their fertility. The immunohistochemical markers evaluation looks promising in predicting response to conservative treatment. Further large series and randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these results.
Topics: Adaptor Proteins, Signal Transducing; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Carcinoma, Endometrioid; Endometrial Neoplasms; Female; Fertility Preservation; Humans; Ki-67 Antigen; Levonorgestrel; Medroxyprogesterone Acetate; Megestrol Acetate; NF-E2-Related Factor 2; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Pregnancy; Progestins; Survivin
PubMed: 36203482
DOI: 10.1155/2022/4070368 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2019Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a menstrual blood loss perceived by women as excessive that affects the health of women of reproductive age, interfering with their...
BACKGROUND
Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a menstrual blood loss perceived by women as excessive that affects the health of women of reproductive age, interfering with their physical, emotional, social and material quality of life. Whilst abnormal menstrual bleeding may be associated with underlying pathology, in the present context, HMB is defined as excessive menstrual bleeding in the absence of other systemic or gynaecological disease. The first-line therapy is usually medical, avoiding possibly unnecessary surgery. Of the wide variety of medications used to reduce HMB, oral progestogens were originally the most commonly prescribed agents. This review assesses the effectiveness of two different types and regimens of oral progestogens in reducing ovulatory HMB.This is the update of a Cochrane review last updated in 2007, and originally named "Effectiveness of cyclical progestagen therapy in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding" (1998).
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of oral progestogen therapy taken either during the luteal phase (short cycle) or for a longer course of 21 days per cycle (long cycle), in achieving a reduction in menstrual blood loss in women of reproductive age with HMB.
SEARCH METHODS
In January 2019 we searched Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility's specialized register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycInfo. We also searched trials registers, other sources of unpublished or grey literature and reference lists of retrieved trials. We also checked citation lists of review articles to identify trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different treatments for HMB that included cyclical oral progestogens were eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trials for risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted trial authors for clarification of methods or additional data when necessary. We only assessed adverse events if they were separately measured in the included trials. We compared cyclical oral progestogen in different regimens and placebo or other treatments. Our primary outcomes were menstrual blood loss and satisfaction with treatment; the secondary outcomes were number of days of bleeding, quality of life, compliance and acceptability of treatment, adverse events and costs.
MAIN RESULTS
This review identified 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 1071 women in total. Most of the women knew which treatment they were receiving, which may have influenced their judgements about menstrual blood loss and satisfaction. Other aspects of trial quality varied among trials.We did not identify any RCTs comparing progestogen treatment with placebo. We assessed comparisons between oral progestogens and other medical therapies separately according to different regimens.Short-cycle progestogen therapy during the luteal phase (medroxyprogesterone acetate or norethisterone for 7 to 10 days, from day 15 to 19) was inferior to other medical therapy, including tranexamic acid, danazol and the progestogen-releasing intrauterine system (Pg-IUS (off of the market since 2001)), releasing 60 mcg of progesterone daily, with respect to reduction of menstrual blood loss (mean difference (MD) 37.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 17.67 to 56.91; I = 50%; 6 trials, 145 women). The rate of satisfaction and the quality of life with treatment was similar in both groups. The number of bleeding days was greater on the short cycle progestogen group compared to other medical treatments. Adverse events (such as gastrointestinal symptoms and weight gain) were more likely with danazol when compared with progestogen treatment. We note that danazol is no longer in general use for treating HMB.Long-cycle progestogen therapy (medroxyprogesterone acetate or norethisterone), from day 5 to day 26 of the menstrual cycle, is also inferior to the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS), releasing tranexamic acid and ormeloxifene, but may be similar to the combined vaginal ring with respect to reduction of menstrual blood loss (MD 16.88, 95% CI 10.93 to 22.84; I = 87%; 4 trials, 355 women). A higher proportion of women taking norethisterone found their treatment unacceptable compared to women having Pg-IUS (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.12, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.40; 1 trial, 40 women). However, the adverse effects of breast tenderness and intermenstrual bleeding were more likely in women with the LNG-IUS. No trials reported on days of bleeding or quality of life for this comparison.The evidence supporting these findings was limited by low or very low gradings of quality; thus, we are uncertain about the findings and there is a potential that they may change if we identify other trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low- or very low-quality evidence suggests that short-course progestogen was inferior to other medical therapy, including tranexamic acid, danazol and the Pg-IUS with respect to reduction of menstrual blood loss. Long cycle progestogen therapy (medroxyprogesterone acetate or norethisterone) was also inferior to the LNG-IUS, tranexamic acid and ormeloxifene, but may be similar to the combined vaginal ring with respect to reduction of menstrual blood loss.
Topics: Danazol; Female; Humans; Intrauterine Devices, Medicated; Medroxyprogesterone Acetate; Menorrhagia; Progesterone; Progestins; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tranexamic Acid
PubMed: 31425626
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001016.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2020Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) impacts the quality of life of otherwise healthy women. The perception of HMB is subjective and management depends upon, among other... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) impacts the quality of life of otherwise healthy women. The perception of HMB is subjective and management depends upon, among other factors, the severity of the symptoms, a woman's age, her wish to get pregnant, and the presence of other pathologies. Heavy menstrual bleeding was classically defined as greater than or equal to 80 mL of blood loss per menstrual cycle. Currently the definition is based on the woman's perception of excessive bleeding which is affecting her quality of life. The intrauterine device was originally developed as a contraceptive but the addition of progestogens to these devices resulted in a large reduction in menstrual blood loss: users of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) reported reductions of up to 90%. Insertion may, however, be regarded as invasive by some women, which affects its acceptability.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL (from inception to June 2019); and we searched grey literature and for unpublished trials in trial registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in women of reproductive age treated with LNG-IUS devices versus no treatment, placebo, or other medical or surgical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and conducted GRADE assessments of the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 25 RCTs (2511 women). Limitations in the evidence included risk of attrition bias and low numbers of participants. The studies compared the following interventions. LNG-IUS versus other medical therapy The other medical therapies were norethisterone acetate, medroxyprogesterone acetate, oral contraceptive pill, mefenamic acid, tranexamic acid or usual medical treatment (where participants could choose the oral treatment that was most suitable). The LNG-IUS may improve HMB, lowering menstrual blood loss according to the alkaline haematin method (mean difference (MD) 66.91 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) 42.61 to 91.20; 2 studies, 170 women; low-certainty evidence); and the Pictorial Bleeding Assessment Chart (MD 55.05, 95% CI 27.83 to 82.28; 3 studies, 335 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether the LNG-IUS may have any effect on women's satisfaction up to one year (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.63; 3 studies, 141 women; I² = 0%, very low-certainty evidence). The LNG-IUS probably leads to slightly higher quality of life measured with the SF-36 compared with other medical therapy if (MD 2.90, 95% CI 0.06 to 5.74; 1 study: 571 women; moderate-certainty evidence) or with the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MD 13.40, 95% CI 9.89 to 16.91; 1 trial, 571 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The LNG-IUS and other medical therapies probably give rise to similar numbers of women with serious adverse events (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 1 study, 571 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Women using other medical therapy are probably more likely to withdraw from treatment for any reason (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.60; 1 study, 571 women, moderate-certainty evidence) and to experience treatment failure than women with LNG-IUS (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.44; 6 studies, 535 women; moderate-certainty evidence). LNG-IUS versus endometrial resection or ablation (EA) Bleeding outcome results are inconsistent. We are uncertain of the effect of the LNG-IUS compared to EA on rates of amenorrhoea (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.72; 8 studies, 431 women; I² = 21%; low-certainty evidence) and hypomenorrhoea (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.33; 4 studies, 200 women; low-certainty evidence) and eumenorrhoea (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.00; 3 studies, 160 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether both treatments may have similar rates of satisfaction with treatment at 12 months (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07; 5 studies, 317 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if the LNG-IUS compared to EA has any effect on quality of life, measured with SF-36 (MD -14.40, 95% CI -22.63 to -6.17; 1 study, 33 women; very low-certainty evidence). Women with the LNG-IUS compared with EA are probably more likely to have any adverse event (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.94; 3 studies, 201 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Women with the LNG-IUS may experience more treatment failure compared to EA at one year follow up (persistent HMB or requirement of additional treatment) (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.90; 5 studies, 320 women; low-certainty evidence); or requirement of hysterectomy may be higher at one year follow up (RR 2.56, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.42; 3 studies, 400 women; low-certainty evidence). LNG-IUS versus hysterectomy We are uncertain whether the LNG-IUS has any effect on HMB compared with hysterectomy (RR for amenorrhoea 0.52, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.70; 1 study, 75 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether there is difference between LNG-IUS and hysterectomy in satisfaction at five years (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; 1 study, 232 women; low-certainty evidence) and quality of life (SF-36 MD 2.20, 95% CI -2.93 to 7.33; 1 study, 221 women; low-certainty evidence). Women in the LNG-IUS group may be more likely to have treatment failure requiring hysterectomy for HMB at 1-year follow-up compared to the hysterectomy group (RR 48.18, 95% CI 2.96 to 783.22; 1 study, 236 women; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported cost data suitable for meta-analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The LNG-IUS may improve HMB and quality of life compared to other medical therapy; the LNG-IUS is probably similar for HMB compared to endometrial destruction techniques; and we are uncertain if it is better or worse than hysterectomy. The LNG-IUS probably has similar serious adverse events to other medical therapy and it is more likely to have any adverse events than EA.
Topics: Antifibrinolytic Agents; Contraceptives, Oral; Endometrium; Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Intrauterine Devices, Medicated; Levonorgestrel; Mefenamic Acid; Menorrhagia; Norethindrone; Progesterone; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tranexamic Acid; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32529637
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002126.pub4 -
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Jan 2020To review systematically copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) use and HIV acquisition in women.
OBJECTIVES
To review systematically copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) use and HIV acquisition in women.
METHODS
We searched Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library between database inception and 26 June 2019 for longitudinal studies comparing incident HIV infection among women using an unspecified IUD or Cu-IUD compared with non-hormonal or no contraceptive users, or hormonal contraceptive users. We extracted information from included studies, assessed study quality, and summarised study findings.
RESULTS
From 2494 publications identified, seven met our inclusion criteria. One randomised controlled trial (RCT), judged "informative with few limitations", found no statistically significant differences in HIV risk between users of the Cu-IUD and either intramuscular depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-IM) or levonorgestrel implant. One observational study, deemed "informative but with important limitations", found no statistically significant difference in HIV incidence among IUD users compared with women who had tubal ligation or who were not using any contraception. Another "informative but with important limitations" observational study found no difference in HIV incidence between Cu-IUD users and DMPA or norethisterone enanthate injectable, or implant users. An RCT considered "unlikely to inform the primary question" also found no difference in HIV risk between Cu-IUD and progestogen-only injectable users. Findings from the other three "unlikely to inform the primary question" cohort studies were consistent with the more robust studies suggesting no increased risk of HIV acquisition among Cu-IUD users.
CONCLUSION
The collective evidence, including that from a large high-quality RCT, does not indicate an increased risk of HIV acquisition among users of Cu-IUDs.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Contraception Behavior; Female; HIV Infections; Humans; Incidence; Intrauterine Devices, Copper
PubMed: 31919240
DOI: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2019-200512 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Women who have undergone surgical treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) may develop menopausal symptoms due to immediate loss of ovarian function following... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Women who have undergone surgical treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) may develop menopausal symptoms due to immediate loss of ovarian function following surgery and chemotherapy. Women may experience vasomotor symptoms, sleep disturbance, difficulty concentrating, sexual dysfunction, vaginal symptoms and accelerated osteoporosis. Although hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is the most effective treatment to relieve these symptoms, its safety has been questioned for women with EOC.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the safety and efficacy of HRT for menopausal symptoms in women surgically treated for EOC.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 6), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 12 June 2019) and Embase via Ovid (1980 to 2019, week 23). We also handsearched conference reports and trial registries. There was no language restriction.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with participants of any age and menopausal status who had undergone surgery for EOC and, after diagnosis and treatment, used any regimen and duration of HRT compared with placebo or no hormone therapy. We also included trials comparing different regimens or duration of administration of HRT.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified studies that met the inclusion criteria. They used Covidence to extract study characteristics, outcome data and to assess methodological quality of the included studies.
MAIN RESULTS
Our search strategy identified 2617 titles, of which 2614 titles were excluded. Three studies, involving 350 women, met our inclusion criteria. Two of the studies included pre and postmenopausal women, and the third only included premenopausal women. The overall age range of those women included in the studies was 20 to 89.6 years old, with a median follow-up ranging from 31.4 months to 19.1 years. The geographical distribution of participants included Europe, South Africa and China. All stages and histological subtypes were included in two of the studies, but stage IV disease had been excluded in the third. The three included studies used a variety of HRT regimens (conjugated oestrogen with or without medroxyprogesterone and with or without nylestriol) and HRT administrations (oral, patch and implant), In all studies, the comparisons were made versus women who had not received HRT. The studies were at low or unclear risk of selection and reporting bias, and at high risk of performance, detection and attrition bias. The certainty of the evidence was low for overall survival and progression-free survival, and very low for quality-of-life assessment, incidence of breast cancer, transient ischaemic attack (TIA), cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and myocardial infarction (MI). Meta-analysis of these studies showed that HRT may improve overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.93; 350 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). Quality-of-life assessment by use of the EORTC-C30 questionnaire was performed only in one study. We are uncertain whether HRT improves or reduces quality of life as the certainty of the evidence was assessed as very low (mean difference (MD) 13.67 points higher, 95% CI 9.26 higher to 18.08 higher; 1 study; 75 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Likewise, HRT may make little or no difference to progression-free survival (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.01; 275 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether HRT improves or reduces the incidence of breast cancer (risk ratio (RR) 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.59; 225 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence); TIA (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.24 to 102.42; 150 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); CVA (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.88; 150 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); and MI (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.10; 150 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The incidence of gallstones was not reported in the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Hormone replacement therapy may slightly improve overall survival in women who have undergone surgical treatment for EOC, but the certainty of the evidence is low. HRT may make little or no difference to quality of life, incidence of breast cancer, TIA, CVA and MI as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low. There may be little or no effect of HRT use on progression-free survival. The evidence in this review is limited by imprecision and incompleteness of reported relevant outcomes and therefore the results should be interpreted with caution. Future well-designed RCTs are required as this is an important area to women experiencing menopausal symptoms following surgical treatment for ovarian cancer, especially as doctors are often reluctant to prescribe HRT in this scenario. The evidence in this review is too limited to support or refute that HRT is very harmful in this population.
Topics: Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Female; Hormone Replacement Therapy; Humans; Menopause, Premature; Ovarian Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31989588
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012559.pub2 -
Human Resources For Health Sep 2022Injectable contraceptives are the most popular method of contraception in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), but their availability in clinical settings has been severely...
BACKGROUND
Injectable contraceptives are the most popular method of contraception in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), but their availability in clinical settings has been severely limited, despite the scarcity of health care providers and limited access to health facilities. WHO and USAID have endorsed the community-based distribution of injectable contraceptives as a promising option for improving access to family planning services and expanding the method mix for women who want to limit the number of births. Studies have shown that community health workers (CHWs) can provide women with injectable contraceptives that meet acceptable quality standards. The goal of this study is to identify, evaluate and synthesize evidence supporting the use of community-based administration of injectable contraceptives in SSA.
METHODS
This review's guidance was based on a previously developed protocol. Nine international electronic databases and the websites of organizations known to support community-based reproductive health initiatives in SSA were searched systemically. Experts in this area were also contacted for the identification of unpublished literature and ongoing studies. The reference lists of eligible studies were reviewed. The Effective Public Practice Project tool was used to assess the quality and risk of bias in eligible studies. Data were extracted and analysed using a custom data extraction form and a narrative synthesis.
RESULTS
The search strategy identified a total of 1358 studies with 12 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. One unpublished study was provided by an expert making a total of 13 studies. The results showed that irrespective of the study designs, well-trained CHWs can competently administer injectable contraceptives safely and community-based delivery of injectable contraceptives is acceptable in SSA. Also, the use of community health workers in the provision of depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate expanded access to inhabitants of hard-to-reach areas and led to an overall uptake of injectable contraceptives as well as family planning. Studies that compared CHWs to clinic-based providers revealed equivalent or higher levels of performance in favour of CHWs.
CONCLUSIONS
The CHWs can competently provide injectable contraceptives within SSA communities if appropriately trained and supervised. Hence, SSA policymakers should give this initiative due consideration as a way of improving access to family planning services.
Topics: Africa South of the Sahara; Community Health Workers; Contraceptive Agents, Female; Delivery of Health Care; Family Planning Services; Female; Humans
PubMed: 36064408
DOI: 10.1186/s12960-022-00763-8