-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021Misoprostol given orally is a commonly used labour induction method. Our Cochrane Review is restricted to studies with low-dose misoprostol (initially ≤ 50 µg), as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Misoprostol given orally is a commonly used labour induction method. Our Cochrane Review is restricted to studies with low-dose misoprostol (initially ≤ 50 µg), as higher doses pose unacceptably high risks of uterine hyperstimulation.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of low-dose oral misoprostol for labour induction in women with a viable fetus in the third trimester of pregnancy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (14 February 2021) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials comparing low-dose oral misoprostol (initial dose ≤ 50 µg) versus placebo, vaginal dinoprostone, vaginal misoprostol, oxytocin, or mechanical methods; or comparing oral misoprostol protocols (one- to two-hourly versus four- to six-hourly; 20 µg to 25 µg versus 50 µg; or 20 µg hourly titrated versus 25 µg two-hourly static).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Using Covidence, two review authors independently screened reports, extracted trial data, and performed quality assessments. Our primary outcomes were vaginal birth within 24 hours, caesarean section, and hyperstimulation with foetal heart changes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 61 trials involving 20,026 women. GRADE assessments ranged from moderate- to very low-certainty evidence, with downgrading decisions based on imprecision, inconsistency, and study limitations. Oral misoprostol versus placebo/no treatment (four trials; 594 women) Oral misoprostol may make little to no difference in the rate of caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.11; 4 trials; 594 women; moderate-certainty evidence), while its effect on uterine hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes is uncertain (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.25 to 105.31; 3 trials; 495 women; very low-certainty evidence). Vaginal births within 24 hours was not reported. In all trials, oxytocin could be commenced after 12 to 24 hours and all women had pre-labour ruptured membranes. Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone (13 trials; 9676 women) Oral misoprostol probably results in fewer caesarean sections (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.90; 13 trials, 9676 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis indicated that 10 µg to 25 µg (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.87; 9 trials; 8652 women) may differ from 50 µg (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.34; 4 trials; 1024 women) for caesarean section. Oral misoprostol may decrease vaginal births within 24 hours (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.00; 10 trials; 8983 women; low-certainty evidence) and hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.59; 11 trials; 9084 women; low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol versus vaginal misoprostol (33 trials; 6110 women) Oral use may result in fewer vaginal births within 24 hours (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95; 16 trials, 3451 women; low-certainty evidence), and less hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.92, 25 trials, 4857 women, low-certainty evidence), with subgroup analysis suggesting that 10 µg to 25 µg orally (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.57; 6 trials, 957 women) may be superior to 50 µg orally (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.11; 19 trials; 3900 women). Oral misoprostol probably does not increase caesarean sections overall (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; 32 trials; 5914 women; low-certainty evidence) but likely results in fewer caesareans for foetal distress (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.99; 24 trials, 4775 women). Oral misoprostol versus intravenous oxytocin (6 trials; 737 women, 200 with ruptured membranes) Misoprostol may make little or no difference to vaginal births within 24 hours (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.33; 3 trials; 466 women; low-certainty evidence), but probably results in fewer caesarean sections (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; 6 trials; 737 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect on hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes is uncertain (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.26; 3 trials, 331 women; very low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol versus mechanical methods (6 trials; 2993 women) Six trials compared oral misoprostol to transcervical Foley catheter. Misoprostol may increase vaginal birth within 24 hours (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.79; 4 trials; 1044 women; low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the risk of caesarean section (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95; 6 trials; 2993 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.21; 4 trials; 2828 women; low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol one- to two-hourly versus four- to six-hourly (1 trial; 64 women) The evidence on hourly titration was very uncertain due to the low numbers reported. Oral misoprostol 20 µg hourly titrated versus 25 µg two-hourly static (2 trials; 296 women) The difference in regimen may have little or no effect on the rate of vaginal births in 24 hours (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.16; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is of very low certainty for all other reported outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-dose oral misoprostol is probably associated with fewer caesarean sections (and therefore more vaginal births) than vaginal dinoprostone, and lower rates of hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes. However, time to birth may be increased, as seen by a reduced number of vaginal births within 24 hours. Compared to transcervical Foley catheter, low-dose oral misoprostol is associated with fewer caesarean sections, but equivalent rates of hyperstimulation. Low-dose misoprostol given orally rather than vaginally is probably associated with similar rates of vaginal birth, although rates may be lower within the first 24 hours. However, there is likely less hyperstimulation with foetal heart changes, and fewer caesarean sections performed due to foetal distress. The best available evidence suggests that low-dose oral misoprostol probably has many benefits over other methods for labour induction. This review supports the use of low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour, and demonstrates the lower risks of hyperstimulation than when misoprostol is given vaginally. More trials are needed to establish the optimum oral misoprostol regimen, but these findings suggest that a starting dose of 25 µg may offer a good balance of efficacy and safety.
Topics: Administration, Intravaginal; Administration, Oral; Apgar Score; Cesarean Section; Dinoprostone; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Heart Rate, Fetal; Humans; Intensive Care, Neonatal; Labor, Induced; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Oxytocin; Parturition; Placebos; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Uterus
PubMed: 34155622
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014484 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), defined as a blood loss of 500 mL or more after birth, is the leading cause of maternal death worldwide. The World Health Organization... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), defined as a blood loss of 500 mL or more after birth, is the leading cause of maternal death worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that all women giving birth should receive a prophylactic uterotonic agent. Despite the routine administration of a uterotonic agent for prevention, PPH remains a common complication causing one-quarter of all maternal deaths globally. When prevention fails and PPH occurs, further administration of uterotonic agents as 'first-line' treatment is recommended. However, there is uncertainty about which uterotonic agent is best for the 'first-line' treatment of PPH.
OBJECTIVES
To identify the most effective uterotonic agent(s) with the least side-effects for PPH treatment, and generate a meaningful ranking among all available agents according to their relative effectiveness and side-effect profile.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (5 May 2020), and the reference lists of all retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised trials comparing the effectiveness and safety of uterotonic agents with other uterotonic agents for the treatment of PPH were eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed all trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed each trial for risk of bias. Our primary outcomes were additional blood loss of 500 mL or more after recruitment to the trial until cessation of active bleeding and the composite outcome of maternal death or severe morbidity. Secondary outcomes included blood loss-related outcomes, morbidity outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes. We performed pairwise meta-analyses and indirect comparisons, where possible, but due to the limited number of included studies, we were unable to conduct the planned network meta-analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
Seven trials, involving 3738 women in 10 countries, were included in this review. All trials were conducted in hospital settings. Randomised women gave birth vaginally, except in one small trial, where women gave birth either vaginally or by caesarean section. Across the seven trials (14 trial arms) the following agents were used: six trial arms used oxytocin alone; four trial arms used misoprostol plus oxytocin; three trial arms used misoprostol; one trial arm used Syntometrine® (oxytocin and ergometrine fixed-dose combination) plus oxytocin infusion. Pairwise meta-analysis of two trials (1787 participants), suggests that misoprostol, as first-line treatment uterotonic agent, probably increases the risk of blood transfusion (risk ratio (RR) 1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 2.14, moderate-certainty) compared with oxytocin. Low-certainty evidence suggests that misoprostol administration may increase the incidence of additional blood loss of 1000 mL or more (RR 2.57, 95% CI 1.00 to 6.64). The data comparing misoprostol with oxytocin is imprecise, with a wide range of treatment effects for the additional blood loss of 500 mL or more (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.69 to 4.02, low-certainty), maternal death or severe morbidity (RR 1.98, 95% CI 0.36 to 10.72, low-certainty, based on one study n = 809 participants, as the second study had zero events), and the use of additional uterotonics (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.94, low-certainty). The risk of side-effects may be increased with the use of misoprostol compared with oxytocin: vomiting (2 trials, 1787 participants, RR 2.47, 95% CI 1.37 to 4.47, high-certainty) and fever (2 trials, 1787 participants, RR 3.43, 95% CI 0.65 to 18.18, low-certainty). According to pairwise meta-analysis of four trials (1881 participants) generating high-certainty evidence, misoprostol plus oxytocin makes little or no difference to the use of additional uterotonics (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.05) and to blood transfusion (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.17) compared with oxytocin. We cannot rule out an important benefit of using the misoprostol plus oxytocin combination over oxytocin alone, for additional blood loss of 500 mL or more (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.06, moderate-certainty). We also cannot rule out important benefits or harms for additional blood loss of 1000 mL or more (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.34, moderate-certainty, 3 trials, 1814 participants, one study reported zero events), and maternal mortality or severe morbidity (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.39, moderate-certainty). Misoprostol plus oxytocin increases the incidence of fever (4 trials, 1866 participants, RR 3.07, 95% CI 2.62 to 3.61, high-certainty), and vomiting (2 trials, 1482 participants, RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.95, high-certainty) compared with oxytocin alone. For all outcomes of interest, the available evidence on the misoprostol versus Syntometrine® plus oxytocin combination was of very low-certainty and these effects remain unclear. Although network meta-analysis was not performed, we were able to compare the misoprostol plus oxytocin combination with misoprostol alone through the common comparator of oxytocin. This indirect comparison suggests that the misoprostol plus oxytocin combination probably reduces the risk of blood transfusion (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.99, moderate-certainty) and may reduce the risk of additional blood loss of 1000 mL or more (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.89, low-certainty) compared with misoprostol alone. The combination makes little or no difference to vomiting (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.59, high-certainty) compared with misoprostol alone. Misoprostol plus oxytocin compared to misoprostol alone are compatible with a wide range of treatment effects for additional blood loss of 500 mL or more (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.26, low-certainty), maternal mortality or severe morbidity (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 4.24, low-certainty), use of additional uterotonics (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.73, low-certainty), and fever (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.17 to 4.77, low-certainty).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence suggests that oxytocin used as first-line treatment of PPH probably is more effective than misoprostol with less side-effects. Adding misoprostol to the conventional treatment of oxytocin probably makes little or no difference to effectiveness outcomes, and is also associated with more side-effects. The evidence for most uterotonic agents used as first-line treatment of PPH is limited, with no evidence found for commonly used agents, such as injectable prostaglandins, ergometrine, and Syntometrine®.
Topics: Bias; Blood Transfusion; Confidence Intervals; Drug Therapy, Combination; Ergonovine; Female; Humans; Misoprostol; Network Meta-Analysis; Oxytocics; Oxytocin; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33232518
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012754.pub2 -
Developmental Medicine and Child... Nov 2022We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to obtain comparative effectiveness estimates and rankings of non-surgical interventions used to treat... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to obtain comparative effectiveness estimates and rankings of non-surgical interventions used to treat infantile spasms.
METHOD
All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including children 2 months to 3 years of age with infantile spasms (with hypsarrhythmia or hypsarrhythmia variants on electroencephalography) receiving appropriate first-line medical treatment were included. Electroclinical and clinical remissions within 1 month of starting treatment were analyzed.
RESULTS
Twenty-two RCTs comparing first-line treatments for infantile spasms were reviewed; of these, 17 were included in the NMA. Both frequentist and Bayesian network rankings for electroclinical remission showed that high dose adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), methylprednisolone, low dose ACTH and magnesium sulfate (MgSO ) combination, low dose ACTH, and high dose prednisolone were most likely to be the 'best' interventions, although these were not significantly different from each other. For clinical remission, low dose ACTH/MgSO combination, high dose ACTH (with/without vitamin B ), high dose prednisolone, and low dose ACTH were 'best'.
INTERPRETATION
Treatments including ACTH and high dose prednisolone are more effective in achieving electroclinical and clinical remissions for infantile spasms.
WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS
Adrenocorticotropic hormone and high dose prednisolone are more effective than other medications for infantile spasms. Symptomatic etiology decreases the likelihood of remission even after adjusting for treatment lag.
Topics: Adrenocorticotropic Hormone; Anticonvulsants; Child; Humans; Infant; Magnesium Sulfate; Methylprednisolone; Network Meta-Analysis; Spasms, Infantile; Treatment Outcome; Vitamins
PubMed: 35765990
DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.15330 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020A frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycle is when one or more embryos (frozen during a previous treatment cycle) are thawed and transferred to the uterus. Some women undergo... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycle is when one or more embryos (frozen during a previous treatment cycle) are thawed and transferred to the uterus. Some women undergo fresh embryo transfer (ET) cycles with embryos derived from donated oocytes. In both situations, the endometrium is primed with oestrogen and progestogen in different doses and routes of administration.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the most effective endometrial preparation for women undergoing transfer with frozen embryos or embryos from donor oocytes with regard to the subsequent live birth rate (LBR).
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, trials registers and abstracts of reproductive societies' meetings were searched in June 2020 together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating endometrial preparation in women undergoing fresh donor cycles and frozen embryo transfers.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We analysed all available interventions versus placebo, no treatment, or between each other. The primary review outcome was live birth rate. Secondary outcomes were clinical and multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, cycle cancellation, endometrial thickness and adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-one RCTs (5426 women) were included. Evidence was moderate to very low-quality: the main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods, and serious imprecision. Stimulated versus programmed cycle We are uncertain whether a letrozole-stimulated cycle compared to a programmed cycle, for endometrial preparation, improves LBR (odds ratio (OR) 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 3.26; 100 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). Stimulating with follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), letrozole or clomiphene citrate may improve clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.38; 656 participants; five studies; I = 11%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if they reduce miscarriage rate (MR) (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.71; 355 participants; three studies; I = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Endometrial thickness (ET) may be reduced with clomiphene citrate (mean difference(MD) -1.04, 95% CI -1.59 to -0.49; 92 participants; one study; low-quality evidence). Other outcomes were not reported. Natural versus programmed cycle We are uncertain of the effect from a natural versus programmed cycle for LBR (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.28; 1285 participants; four studies; I = 0%; very low-quality evidence) and CPR (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.01; 1249 participants; five studies; I = 60%; very low-quality evidence), while a natural cycle probably reduces the cycle cancellation rate (CCR) (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.82; 734 participants; one study; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on MR and ET. No study reported other outcomes. Transdermal versus oral oestrogens From low-quality evidence we are uncertain of the effect transdermal compared to oral oestrogens has on CPR (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.25; 504 participants; three studies; I = 58%) or MR (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.09; 414 participants; two studies; I = 0%). Other outcomes were not reported. Day of starting administration of progestogen When doing a fresh ET using donated oocytes in a synchronised cycle starting progestogen on the day of oocyte pick-up (OPU) or the day after OPU, in comparison with recipients that start progestogen the day prior to OPU, probably increases the CPR (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.08; 282 participants; one study, moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) or MR. It probably reduces the CCR (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.74; 282 participants; one study; moderate-quality evidence). No study reported other outcomes. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist versus control A cycle with GnRH agonist compared to without may improve LBR (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.19 to 5.78; 234 participants; one study; low-quality evidence). From low-quality evidence we are uncertain of the effect on CPR (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.43; 1289 participants; eight studies; I = 20%), MR (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.00; 828 participants; four studies; I = 0%), CCR (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.17; 530 participants; two studies; I = 0%) and ET (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.16; 697 participants; four studies; I = 4%). No study reported other outcomes. Among different GnRH agonists From very low-quality evidence we are uncertain if cycles among different GnRH agonists improves CPR or MR. No study reported other outcomes. GnRH agonists versus GnRH antagonists GnRH antagonists compared to agonists probably improves CPR (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.90; 473 participants; one study; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on MR and MPR. No study reported other outcomes. Aspirin versus control From very low-quality evidence we are uncertain whether a cycle with aspirin versus without improves LBR, CPR, or ET. Steroids versus control From very low-quality evidence we are uncertain whether a cycle with steroids compared to without improves LBR, CPR or MR. No study reported other outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence on the use of any particular intervention for endometrial preparation in women undergoing fresh donor cycles and frozen embryo transfers. In frozen embryo transfers, low-quality evidence showed that clinical pregnancy rates may be improved in a stimulated cycle compared to a programmed one, and we are uncertain of the effect when comparing a programmed cycle to a natural cycle. Cycle cancellation rates are probably reduced in a natural cycle. Although administering a GnRH agonist, compared to without, may improve live birth rates, clinical pregnancy rates will probably be improved in a GnRH antagonist cycle over an agonist cycle. In fresh synchronised oocyte donor cycles, the clinical pregnancy rate is probably improved and cycle cancellation rates are probably reduced when starting progestogen the day of or day after donor oocyte retrieval. Adequately powered studies are needed to evaluate each treatment more accurately.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Bias; Clomiphene; Cryopreservation; Drug Administration Schedule; Embryo Implantation; Embryo Transfer; Embryo, Mammalian; Endometrium; Female; Follicle Stimulating Hormone; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Letrozole; Live Birth; Oocyte Donation; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Progesterone; Progestins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33112418
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006359.pub3 -
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) Jun 2023Growth-hormone (GH)- and prolactin (PRL)-secreting PitNETs (pituitary neuroendocrine tumors) are divided into multiple histological subtypes, which determine their... (Review)
Review
Growth-hormone (GH)- and prolactin (PRL)-secreting PitNETs (pituitary neuroendocrine tumors) are divided into multiple histological subtypes, which determine their clinical and biological variable behavior. Proliferation markers alone have a questionable degree of prediction, so we try to identify validated prognostic models as accurately as possible. (1) Background: The data available so far show that the use of staging and clinical-pathological classification of PitNETs, along with imaging, are useful in predicting the evolution of these tumors. So far, there is no consensus for certain markers that could predict tumor evolution. The application of the WHO (World Health Organisation) classification in practice needs to be further evaluated and validated. (2) Methods: We performed the CRD42023401959 protocol in Prospero with a systematic literature search in PubMed and Web of Science databases and included original full-text articles (randomized control trials and clinical trials) from the last 10 years, published in English, and the search used the following keywords: (i) pituitary adenoma AND (prognosis OR outcome OR prediction), (ii) growth hormone pituitary adenoma AND (prognosis OR outcome OR prediction), (iii) prolactin pituitary adenoma AND (prognosis OR outcome OR prediction); (iv) mammosomatotroph adenoma AND (prognosis OR outcome OR prediction). (3) Results: Two researchers extracted the articles of interest and if any disagreements occurred in the selection process, these were settled by a third reviewer. The articles were then assessed using the ROBIS bias assessment and 75 articles were included. (4) Conclusions: the clinical-pathological classification along with factors such as GH, IGF-1, prolactin levels both preoperatively and postoperatively offer valuable information.
PubMed: 37371013
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13122118 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2023Due to its high heterogenicity and unclear etiology, there is currently no specific treatment for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Metformin, as an insulin sensitizer,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
Due to its high heterogenicity and unclear etiology, there is currently no specific treatment for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Metformin, as an insulin sensitizer, combined with spironolactone, an antiandrogen medication, may exert complementary effects on PCOS. We therefore performed a meta-analysis of trials in which metformin combined with spironolactone was applied to treat PCOS to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination therapy.
METHODS
We retrieved the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, Wangfang, and VIP databases for literatures published from their inception to December 16, 2022 on the effects of metformin combined with spironolactone in the treatment of PCOS. Inclusion criteria according to P.I.C.O.S criteria were: PCOS patients, metformin combined with spironolactone interventions, metformin alone control group, and randomized controlled trials with the following outcome data: body mass index (BMI), hirsutism score, luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), total testosterone (TT), fasting blood glucose (FBG), Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR), and side effects including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and drug withdrawal.
RESULTS
Our results revealed that metformin combined with spironolactone significantly reduced BMI and TT, but that it exerted no significant effects on hirsutism score, or on FSH or LH concentrations. Combined treatment also resulted in a significant diminution in FBG and insulin resistance using the HOMA-IR when the interventional time was greater than 6 months. In addition, the combination did not have a higher occurrence of adverse reactions than metformin alone.
CONCLUSION
Compared with metformin alone, metformin combined with spironolactone therapy may be more effective in reducing BMI and serum androgen levels, but the combination showed no significant effect on the hirsutism score or gonadotropin hormone levels, and was not associated with an elevation in side-effects. Moreover, when the treatment course was greater than 6 months, combination therapy reduced FBG and improved insulin resistance more effectively than metformin alone. However, more research is needed to determine the most effective course of treatment.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022355515.
Topics: Female; Humans; Hirsutism; Insulin Resistance; Polycystic Ovary Syndrome; Spironolactone; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Follicle Stimulating Hormone, Human; Luteinizing Hormone
PubMed: 37635987
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1223768 -
Cancers Oct 2021To describe and evaluate outcomes of Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GK) for the treatment of pituitary tumors over the past twenty years, a systematic review and... (Review)
Review
To describe and evaluate outcomes of Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GK) for the treatment of pituitary tumors over the past twenty years, a systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA statement was performed. Articles counting more than 30 patients were included. A weighted random effects models was used to calculate pooled outcome estimates. From 459 abstract reviews, 52 retrospective studies were included. Among them, 18 reported on non-functioning pituitary adenomas (NFPA), 13 on growth hormone (GH)-secreting adenomas, six on adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)-secreting adenomas, four on prolactin hormone (PRL)-secreting adenomas, and 11 on craniopharyngiomas. Overall tumor control and five-year progression free survival (PFS) estimate after one GK procedure for NFPA was 93% (95% CI 89-97%) and 95% (95% CI 91-99%), respectively. In case of secreting pituitary adenomas, overall remission (cure without need for medication) estimates were 45% (95% CI 35-54%) for GH-secreting adenomas, 64% (95% CI 0.52-0.75%) for ACTH-secreting adenomas and 34% (95% CI: 19-48%) for PRL-secreting adenomas. The pooled analysis for overall tumor control and five-year PFS estimate after GK for craniopharyngioma was 74% (95% CI 67-81%) and 70% (95% CI: 64-76%), respectively. This meta-analysis confirms and quantifies safety and effectiveness of GK for pituitary tumors.
PubMed: 34638482
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13194998 -
Current Problems in Cardiology Feb 2023Heart failure (HF) is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality and morbidity in the United States. Peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM) constitutes up to 70% of all... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Heart failure (HF) is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality and morbidity in the United States. Peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM) constitutes up to 70% of all HF in pregnancy. Cardiac angiogenic imbalance caused by cleaved 16kDa prolactin has been hypothesized to contribute to the development of PPCM, fueling investigation of prolactin inhibitors for the management of PPCM. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of prolactin inhibition on left ventricular (LV) function and mortality in patients with PPCM. We included English language articles from PubMed and EMBASE published upto March 2022. We pooled the mean difference (MD) for left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at follow-up, odds ratio (OR) for LV recovery and risk ratio (RR) for all-cause mortality using random-effects meta-analysis. Among 548 studies screened, 10 studies (3 randomized control trials (RCTs), 2 retrospective and 5 prospective cohorts) were included in the systematic review. Patients in the Bromocriptine + standard guideline directed medical therapy (GDMT) group had higher LVEF% (pMD 12.56 (95% CI 5.84-19.28, I2=0%) from two cohorts and pMD 14.25 (95% CI 0.61-27.89, I2=88%) from two RCTs) at follow-up compared to standard GDMT alone group. Bromocriptine group also had higher odds of LV recovery (pOR 3.55 (95% CI 1.39-9.1, I2=62)). We did not find any difference in all-cause mortality between the groups. Our analysis demonstrates that the addition of Bromocriptine to standard GDMT was associated with a significant improvement in LVEF% and greater odds of LV recovery, without significant reduction in all-cause mortality.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Bromocriptine; Prolactin; Peripartum Period; Cardiomyopathies; Ventricular Function, Left; Heart Failure; Stroke Volume; Pregnancy Complications, Cardiovascular
PubMed: 36261102
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2022.101461 -
European Review For Medical and... Jun 2023The aim of the study was to systematically review and meta-analyze the available data on changes in the hormonal profile of postmenopausal women treated with hormone... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the study was to systematically review and meta-analyze the available data on changes in the hormonal profile of postmenopausal women treated with hormone replacement therapy (HRT).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Full-text articles published up to April 30, 2021, were searched through PUBMED, EMBASE, the Cochrane library and Web of Science (WOS) databases and were screened strictly according to inclusion criteria. Randomized clinical trials and case control studies were enrolled. Studies not reporting steroid serum levels or not providing a control group were excluded from the analysis. Studies enrolling women with genetic defects or severe chronic systemic diseases were excluded. Data are expressed as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Random effect models were used for the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
HRT administration increases estradiol (E2) and reduces follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) serum levels compared with pre-treatment. Their changes are evident when oral and transdermal HRT are administered, while vaginal HRT not. No significant effect on E2 and FSH was found between 6 and 12 months, as well as between 12 and 24 months. No significant effect on E2 and FSH was shown between different regimes. No difference was observed between different HRT regarding their effect on lipid profiles, breast pain and vaginal bleeding, but oral estrogen combined synthetic progestin caused a reduction in sex hormone-binding globulin (SHGB).
CONCLUSIONS
The review suggested oral and transdermal HRT could lead to a rise in E2 serum levels and a decrease in FSH. The types and doses of HRT did not seem to modify the E2 and FSH level. Also, oral estrogen combined synthetic progestin could cause a reduction in SHGB. This might be crucial when choosing the best possible treatment for each patient individually taking into consideration if potential benefits outweigh the risks.
Topics: Female; Humans; Estrogen Replacement Therapy; Postmenopause; Gonadal Steroid Hormones; Hormone Replacement Therapy; Estradiol; Estrogens; Follicle Stimulating Hormone
PubMed: 37318501
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202306_32646 -
International Immunopharmacology Jul 2022Currently, whether Hashimoto's thyroiditis decreases ovarian reserve is not clearly known, given the conflicting findings from previous studies. This study was conducted... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Currently, whether Hashimoto's thyroiditis decreases ovarian reserve is not clearly known, given the conflicting findings from previous studies. This study was conducted to systematically review and summarize the association of Hashimoto's thyroiditis (HT) with ovarian reserve.
METHODS
Studies investigating ovarian reserve in women with HT and the incidence of HT in women with premature ovarian aging (POA) were searched in major electronic databases. Pre-specified subgroup analyses were performed in terms of agedistribution and thyroidfunction.
RESULT (S)
A total of 935 studies were retrieved from which 30 were included in the meta-analysis and 5 were finallyselectedfor detailed review. Overall, no statistically significant difference in ovarian reserve parameters (AMH, AFC, FSH, E2) between females with HT and the controls. In subgroup meta-analyses, reproductive aged women with HT had a statistically significant reduction in AMH (SMD -0.35; 95% CI: -0.51, -0.19; P<0.0001; I = 52%), AFC (MD -0.43; 95% CI: -0.56, -0.30; P<0.00001; I = 62%), and increase in basal FSH (SMD 0.1; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.19; I = 19%; P = 0.04) compared with age matched controls. Furthermore, POA inreproductive aged women wasassociatedwith higher frequency ofpositiveTPOAb (OR 2.26, 95% CI: 1.31-3.92, p = 0.004) but not positive TgAb(OR 3.17, 95% CI: 0.89-11.38, p = 0.08).
CONCLUSION(S)
These bidirectional associations suggested that reproductive aged women with HT have a significantly higher risk of diminished ovarian reserve.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Mullerian Hormone; Female; Follicle Stimulating Hormone; Hashimoto Disease; Humans; Ovarian Reserve; Ovary
PubMed: 35364430
DOI: 10.1016/j.intimp.2022.108670