-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2013This is an updated version of a previously published review in The Cochrane Library (2005, Issue 2) on 'Megestrol acetate for the treatment of anorexia-cachexia... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of a previously published review in The Cochrane Library (2005, Issue 2) on 'Megestrol acetate for the treatment of anorexia-cachexia syndrome'. Megestrol acetate (MA) is currently used to improve appetite and to increase weight in cancer-associated anorexia. In 1993, MA was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of anorexia, cachexia or unexplained weight loss in patients with AIDS. The mechanism by which MA increases appetite is unknown and its effectiveness for anorexia and cachexia in neoplastic and AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) patients is under investigation.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of MA in palliating anorexia-cachexia syndrome in patients with cancer, AIDS and other underlying pathologies.
SEARCH METHODS
We sought studies through an extensive search of electronic databases, journals, reference lists, contact with investigators and other search strategies outlined in the methods. The most recent search for this update was carried out in May 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies were included in the review if they assessed MA compared to placebo or other drug treatments in randomised controlled trials of patients with a clinical diagnosis of anorexia-cachexia syndrome related to cancer, AIDS or any other underlying pathology.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two independent review authors conducted data extraction and evaluated methodological quality. We performed quantitative analyses using appetite and quality of life as a dichotomous variable, and analysed weight gain as continuous and dichotomous variables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 35 trials in this update, the same number but not the same trials as in the previous version of the review. The trials comprised 3963 patients for effectiveness and 3180 for safety. Sixteen trials compared MA at different doses with placebo, seven trials compared different doses of MA with other drug treatments and 10 trials compared different doses of MA. Meta-analysis showed a benefit of MA compared with placebo, particularly with regard to appetite improvement and weight gain in cancer, AIDS and other underlying conditions, and lack of benefit in the same patients when MA was compared to other drugs. There was insufficient information to define the optimal dose of MA, but higher doses were more related to weight improvement than lower doses. Quality of life improvement in patients was seen only when comparing MA versus placebo but not other drugs in both subcategories: cancer and AIDS. Oedema, thromboembolic phenomena and deaths were more frequent in the patients treated with MA. More than 40 side effects were studied.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review shows that MA improves appetite and is associated with slight weight gain in cancer, AIDS and in patients with other underlying pathology. Despite the fact that these patients are receiving palliative care they should be informed of the risks involved in taking MA.
Topics: Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome; Anorexia; Appetite Stimulants; Cachexia; Humans; Megestrol Acetate; Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Syndrome
PubMed: 23543530
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004310.pub3 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jun 2022Cancer-related anorexia/cachexia is known to be associated with worsened quality of life and survival; however, limited treatment options exist. Although megestrol... (Review)
Review
Cancer-related anorexia/cachexia is known to be associated with worsened quality of life and survival; however, limited treatment options exist. Although megestrol acetate (MA) is often used off-label to stimulate appetite and improve anorexia/cachexia in patients with advanced cancers, the benefits are controversial. The present meta-analysis aimed to better elucidate the clinical benefits of MA in patients with cancer-related anorexia/cachexia. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, OVID Medline, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar databases found 23 clinical trials examining the use of MA in cancer-related anorexia. The available randomized, controlled trials were appraised using Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2) and they had moderate-to-high risk of bias. A total of eight studies provided sufficient data on weight change for meta-analysis. The studies were divided into high-dose treatment (>320 mg/day) and low-dose treatment (≤320 mg/day). The overall pooled mean change in weight among cancer patients treated with MA, regardless of dosage was 0.75 kg (95% CI = −1.64 to 3.15, τ2 = 9.35, I2 = 96%). Patients who received high-dose MA tended to have weight loss rather than weight gain. There were insufficient studies to perform a meta-analysis for the change in tricep skinfold, midarm circumference, or quality of life measures. MA was generally well-tolerated, except for a clear thromboembolic risk, especially with higher doses. On balance, MA did not appear to be effective in providing the symptomatic improvement of anorexia/cachexia in patients with advanced cancer.
PubMed: 35807039
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11133756 -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Jun 2022To report the pregnancy outcomes of women with prior endometrial cancer and endometrial hyperplasia managed with fertility-sparing treatments. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To report the pregnancy outcomes of women with prior endometrial cancer and endometrial hyperplasia managed with fertility-sparing treatments.
METHODS
Medline and Embase databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were studies reporting the pregnancy outcomes of women who had undergone fertility-sparing treatments for endometrial hyperplasia or early endometrioid endometrial cancer. Outcomes explored were pregnancy, miscarriage and livebirth rates according to the type of progestin treatment used. Subgroup analyses according to the type of diagnostic follow-up were also performed. Meta-analyses of proportions using a random effects model were used to combine data.
RESULTS
Twenty-nine studies (1036 women) were included, and 82.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 72.3-91.2] of women achieved complete remission. Pregnancy rates were 56.3% (95% CI 41.6-70.5) with megestrol (MA) or medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), 63.1% (95% CI 37.0-85.6) with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD), 57.9% (95% CI 37.7-76.8) with MA or MPA and metformin, 59.8% (95% CI 48.3-70.7) with MPA and LNG-IUD, 15.4% (95% CI 4.3-42.2) with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue (GnRHa) combined with LNG-IUD or letrozole, and 40.7% (95% CI 24.5-59.3) with LNG-IUD and GnRHa. Miscarriage rates were 17.4% (95% CI 12.2-23.4), 14.3% (95% CI 6.4-24.7), 57.9% (95% CI 37.7-76.8), 26.9% (95% CI 14.6-39.3), 100% (95% CI 34.0-100) and 18.2% (95% CI 5.1-47.7), respectively, and livebirth rates were 68.8% (95% CI 56.0-80.3), 80.8% (95% CI 69.5-90.0), 69.9% (95% CI 56.1-82.0), 25.97 (95% CI 14.6-39.3), 0% (95% CI 0-66.0) and 81.8% (95% CI 52.3-94.8), respectively. Finally, stratifying the analysis considering the endometrial sampling method alone, the pregnancy rate was 68.6% (95% CI 51.2-83.6; 10 studies, I = 83.5%) in women who underwent hysteroscopy and 60.5% (95% CI 53.4-67.5; 13 studies, I = 39.8%) in women managed with dilatation and curettage biopsy; the miscarriage and livebirth rates were 13.2% (95% CI 8.0-19.5; I = 0%) and 81.2% (95% CI 67.4-91.8; I = 67.3%), respectively, for hysteroscopy, and 25.2% (95% CI 17.8-33.3; I = 15.5%) and 67.5% (95% CI 58.8-75.5; I = 0%), respectively, for dilatation and curettage biopsy.
CONCLUSION
Fertility-sparing treatment in women with endometrial cancer or hyperplasia is associated with an overall good response to therapy, good chance of achieving pregnancy and a good livebirth rate. Diagnostic follow-up with hysteroscopy was associated with a higher pregnancy rate, although this requires confirmation in adequately powered randomized trials.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Endometrial Hyperplasia; Endometrial Neoplasms; Female; Fertility Preservation; Humans; Hyperplasia; Intrauterine Devices, Medicated; Levonorgestrel; Medroxyprogesterone Acetate; Precancerous Conditions; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome
PubMed: 35526471
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.04.019 -
Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and... Jun 2018In 1993, megestrol acetate (MA) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of anorexia, cachexia, or unexplained weight loss in patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
In 1993, megestrol acetate (MA) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of anorexia, cachexia, or unexplained weight loss in patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. The mechanism by which MA increases appetite is unknown, and its effectiveness for anorexia and cachexia in neoplastic, elderly, and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome patients is under investigation. This is an updated version of a Cochrane systematic review first published in 2005 and later updated in 2013 entitled 'Megestrol acetate for the treatment of anorexia-cachexia syndrome'. MA vs. placebo: in studies where MA was compared with placebo, the overall results showed that MA patients gained weight (mean difference, MD 2.25 kg, 95% CI [1.19, 3.3]) but did not gain quality of life (QOL) (standarized mean difference, SMD 0.5, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.13]), with more adverse events (relative risk, RR 1.46, 95% CI [1.05, 2.04]), but no difference in deaths (RR 1.26, 95% CI [0.70, 2.27]). MA vs. no treatment: MA patients gained weight (MD 1.45 kg, 95% CI [0.15, 2.75]) but did not gain QOL (standardized mean difference 3.89 95% CI [-14, 6.28]). There was no increase in adverse events (RR 0.90, 95% CI [0.39, 2.08]) or deaths (RR 1.01, 95% CI [0.42, 2.45]). MA vs. active drugs: MA patients gained weight (MD 2.5 kg, 95% CI [0.37, 4.64]) but did not gain QOL (MD 0.20 95% CI [-0.02, 0.43]) and did not report an increase in adverse events (RR 1.05 95% CI [0.95, 1.16]) or in deaths (RR 1.53, 95% CI [1.02, 2.29]) Different doses of MA: in studies where lower doses of MA were compared with higher doses of MA, we did not find differences either in weight gain (MD -0.94 kg, 95% CI [-3.33, 1.45]), QOL (MD 0.31 95% CI [-0.19, 0.81]), or adverse events (RR 1.34, 95% CI [0.65, 2.76]). Thus, we cannot reach a conclusion for an optimal dose of MA.
Topics: Anorexia; Appetite Stimulants; Cachexia; Humans; Megestrol Acetate; Prognosis; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Syndrome; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29542279
DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.12292 -
Polskie Archiwum Medycyny Wewnetrznej Nov 2008Anorexia-cachexia syndrome (ACS) often occurs in patients with advanced cancer. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Anorexia-cachexia syndrome (ACS) often occurs in patients with advanced cancer.
OBJECTIVES
To review the effect of megestrol acetate (MA) in patients with ACS.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
To identify eligible studies, systematic review by Lopez et al. (2004) was used, electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL) were searched and reference lists of included studies were reviewed. The studies were included in the review if they were randomized, enrolled patients with non-hormone-sensitive cancer and ACS and assessed the effects of MA compared with placebo, other drugs or different doses of MA.
RESULTS
The study population is characterized by high mortality and progressive weight loss irrespective of the treatment. Compared to placebo, the effect of MA on survival is similar, but MA increases appetite (number needed to treat [NNT]: 3) and leads to weight gain (NNT: 8) in more patients. The data on other aspects of the quality of life are limited. The comparison of MA and glucocorticosteroids showed no statistical difference in their effect on appetite and weight.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared to placebo, MA reduces the symptoms of ACS, with no effect on survival. The beneficial effect of MA on the overall quality of life has not been confirmed. In identified studies the effect of MA and glucocorticosteroids on anorexia and cachexia is similar. The estimation of the treatment utility in ACS depends on the weight attributed to discomfort caused by symptoms, adverse effects of the drugs and the treatment cost. Because of the low quality of the included studies a new randomized controlled trial is needed for valid assessment of the effects of MA.
Topics: Anorexia; Appetite; Appetite Stimulants; Body Weight; Cachexia; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Megestrol Acetate; Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Syndrome; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 19140567
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Renal Nutrition : the... May 2016To assess the efficacy and safety of oral megestrol acetate (MA) in the management of protein-energy wasting in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy and safety of oral megestrol acetate (MA) in the management of protein-energy wasting in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).
DESIGN
A systematic review of English published literature from 1970 until April 1, 2014.
SUBJECTS
All adult patients with CKD including both dialysis and non-dialysis-dependent.
INTERVENTION
Oral MA.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE
Efficacy outcomes included changes in body weight, serum albumin, and appetite. Safety outcomes examined included adverse events (AEs) and deaths.
RESULTS
A total of 9 studies met the inclusion criteria. No data on MA in non-dialysis CKD patients were available. Statistically significant increases in body weight (range 1.5-5 kg) were reported in 6 trials. Statistically significant increases in albumin (range of 0.22 g/dL-0.52 g/dL) were observed in 5 trials. Improved appetite was observed in 7 trials. All trials were limited by small sample sizes (range 9-32 subjects), short duration (range 8-24 weeks), a high degree of bias, and absence of clinical outcomes such as quality of life or hospitalizations. Forty-seven AEs were reported and included overhydration/excessive fluid gain, diarrhea, hyperglycemia, excessive weight gain, suppressed cortisol levels, thrombophlebitis, nausea/vomiting, confusion/hallucinations, vaginal bleeding, headache/dizziness, and elevated lactate dehydrogenase. There were 26 discontinuations due to death.
CONCLUSION
The current evidence for treatment with MA in patients receiving dialysis is sparse with few high-quality trials. The safety of using MA beyond 24 weeks is unknown, and use of MA is associated with significant AEs. At this time, oral MA should be used with significant caution, and only when other treatment options are unavailable.
Topics: Appetite; Appetite Stimulants; Body Weight; Humans; Megestrol Acetate; Nutritional Status; Quality of Life; Renal Dialysis; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Serum Albumin; Treatment Outcome; Wasting Syndrome; Weight Gain
PubMed: 26776251
DOI: 10.1053/j.jrn.2015.11.002 -
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management Apr 2004This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of megestrol acetate (MA) in anorexia-cachexia syndrome (ACS). Literature and relevant databases were searched for... (Review)
Review
This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of megestrol acetate (MA) in anorexia-cachexia syndrome (ACS). Literature and relevant databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of MA to treat ACS in patients with cancer, AIDS, or other pathologies. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers, and meta-analyses were performed where possible. Twenty-six studies were included (n=3,887). Compared to placebo, MA increased appetite in oncology patients [RR=2.31 (95% CI 1.52-3.59)], led to weight gain [RR=1.88 (95% CI 1.43-2.47)] and improved HRQOL [RR=1.52 (95% CI 1.00-2.30)]. In AIDS patients, it increased weight [RR=2.16 (95% CI 1.45-3.21)]. MA showed significant benefits over dronabinol in improving appetite, but no statistically significant advantages over other drugs for treating ACS were observed. There were no appreciable differences between lower (<800 mg/day) and higher (>800 mg/day) doses of MA. Few serious adverse events were recorded. MA is an effective and safe treatment for ACS in cancer and AIDS patients, particularly in terms of improvement in appetite and weight gain.
Topics: Anorexia; Cachexia; Humans; Megestrol Acetate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Syndrome; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 15050664
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2003.09.007 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2024Endometrial cancer is one of the most common gynaecological cancers in the world. Rates of endometrial cancer are rising, in part because of rising obesity rates.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Endometrial cancer is one of the most common gynaecological cancers in the world. Rates of endometrial cancer are rising, in part because of rising obesity rates. Endometrial hyperplasia is a precancerous condition in women that can lead to endometrial cancer if left untreated. Endometrial hyperplasia occurs more commonly than endometrial cancer. Progesterone tablets that are currently used to treat women with endometrial hyperplasia are associated with adverse effects in up to 84% of women. A levonorgestrel intrauterine device may improve compliance, but it is invasive, is not acceptable to all women, and is associated with irregular vaginal bleeding in 82% of cases. Therefore, an alternative treatment for women with endometrial hyperplasia is needed. Metformin, a drug that is often used to treat people with diabetes, has been shown, in some human studies, to reverse endometrial hyperplasia. However, the effectiveness and safety of metformin for treatment of endometrial hyperplasia remain uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of metformin in treating women with endometrial hyperplasia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, OpenGrey, LILACS, and two trials registers from inception to 5 September 2022. We searched the bibliographies of all relevant studies, and contacted experts in the field for any additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials comparing metformin (used alone or in combination with other medical therapies) versus placebo, no treatment, any conventional medical treatment, or any other active intervention for women with histologically confirmed endometrial hyperplasia of any type.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data from included studies, assessed the risk of bias in the included studies, and assessed the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. We resolved disagreements by discussion or by deferring to a third review author. When study details were missing, review authors contacted the study authors. The primary outcome of this review was regression of endometrial hyperplasia histology (with or without atypia) towards normal histology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven RCTs, in which a total of 387 women took part. In the comparison, Metformin plus megestrol versus megestrol alone, we rated the certainty of the evidence as low for the outcome, regression of endometrial hyperplasia. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low for the rest of the outcomes, in all three comparisons. Although there was a low risk of selection bias, there was a high risk of bias in the blinding of personnel and outcome assessment (performance bias and detection bias) in many studies. This update identified four new RCTs and six ongoing RCTs. Metformin versus megestrol We are uncertain whether metformin increases the regression of endometrial hyperplasia towards normal histology over megestrol (odds ratio (OR) 4.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56 to 15.32; P = 0.006; 2 RCTs, 83 participants; I² = 7%; very low-certainty evidence). This evidence suggests that if the rate of regression with megestrol is 61%, the rate of regression with metformin would be between 71% and 96%. It is unresolved whether metformin results in different rates of abnormal uterine bleeding or hysterectomy compared to megestrol. No study in this comparison reported progression of hyperplasia to endometrial cancer, recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia, health-related quality of life, or adverse effects during treatment. Metformin plus megestrol versus megestrol monotherapy The combination of metformin and megestrol may enhance the regression of endometrial hyperplasia towards normal histology more than megestrol alone (OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.65 to 6.51; P = 0.0007; 4 RCTs, 258 participants; I² = 0%, low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the rate of regression with megestrol monotherapy is 54%, the rate of regression with the addition of metformin would be between 66% and 84%. In one study, 3/8 (37.5%) of participants who took metformin had nausea that settled without further treatment. It is unresolved whether the combination of metformin and megestrol results in different rates of recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia, progression of endometrial hyperplasia to endometrial cancer, or hysterectomy compared to megestrol monotherapy. No study in this comparison reported abnormal uterine bleeding, or health-related quality of life. Metformin plus levonorgestrel (intrauterine system) versus levonorgestrel (intrauterine system) monotherapy We are uncertain whether there is a difference between groups in the regression of endometrial hyperplasia towards normal histology (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.56; 1 RCT, 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This evidence suggests that if the rate of regression with levonorgestrel monotherapy is 96%, the rate of regression with the addition of metformin would be between 73% and 100%. It is unresolved whether the combination of metformin and levonorgestrel results in different rates of abnormal uterine bleeding, hysterectomy, or the development of adverse effects during treatment compared to levonorgestrel monotherapy. No study in this comparison reported recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia, progression of hyperplasia to endometrial cancer, or health-related quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Review authors found insufficient evidence to either support or refute the use of metformin, specifically megestrol acetate, given alone or in combination with standard therapy, for the treatment of women with endometrial hyperplasia. Robustly designed and adequately powered randomised controlled trials, yielding long-term outcome data are still needed to address this clinical question.
Topics: Female; Humans; Endometrial Hyperplasia; Hypoglycemic Agents; Metformin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38695827
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012214.pub3 -
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Mar 2021Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated benefits of pharmacological interventions for cachexia in improving weight and appetite. However, comparative efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated benefits of pharmacological interventions for cachexia in improving weight and appetite. However, comparative efficacy and safety are not available. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for cachexia.
METHODS
PubMed, EmBase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for RCTs until October 2019. Key outcomes were total body weight (TBW) improvement, appetite (APP) score and serious adverse events. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. NMA was performed to estimate weight gain and APP score increase at 8 weeks, presented as mean difference (MD) or standardised MD with 95% CI.
RESULTS
80 RCTs (10 579 patients) with 12 treatments were included. Majority is patients with cancer (7220). Compared with placebo, corticosteroids, high-dose megestrol acetate combination (Megace_H_Com) (400 mg/day), medroxyprogesterone, high-dose megestrol acetate (Megace_H) (400 mg/day), ghrelin mimetic and androgen analogues (Androgen) were significantly associated with MD of TBW of 6.45 (95% CI 2.45 to 10.45), 4.29 (95% CI 2.23 to 6.35), 3.18 (95% CI 0.94 to 5.41), 2.66 (95% CI 1.47 to 3.85), 1.73 (95% CI 0.27 to 3.20) and 1.50 (95% CI 0.56 to 2.44) kg. For appetite improvement, Megace_H_Com, Megace_H and Androgen significantly improved standardised APP score, compared with placebo. There is no significant difference in serious adverse events from all interventions compared with placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that several pharmacological interventions have potential to offer benefits in treatment of cachexia especially Megace_H and short-term use corticosteroids. Nonetheless, high-quality comparative studies to compare safety and efficacy are warranted for better management of cachexia.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Androgens; Appetite; Appetite Stimulants; Cachexia; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Drug Therapy, Combination; Gastrointestinal Agents; Ghrelin; Humans; Medroxyprogesterone; Megestrol Acetate; Minimal Clinically Important Difference; Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Terminal Care; Weight Gain
PubMed: 33246937
DOI: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2020-002601 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2017Endometrial cancer is one of the most common gynaecological cancers in the world. Rates of endometrial cancer are rising, in part because of rising obesity rates.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Endometrial cancer is one of the most common gynaecological cancers in the world. Rates of endometrial cancer are rising, in part because of rising obesity rates. Endometrial hyperplasia is a precancerous condition in women that can lead to endometrial cancer if left untreated. Endometrial hyperplasia occurs more commonly than endometrial cancer. Progesterone tablets currently used to treat women with endometrial hyperplasia are associated with adverse effects in up to 84% of women. The levonorgestrel intrauterine device (Mirena Coil, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Whippany, NJ, USA) may improve compliance, but it is invasive, is not acceptable to all women, and is associated with irregular vaginal bleeding in 82% of cases. Therefore, an alternative treatment for women with endometrial hyperplasia is needed. Metformin, a drug that is often used to treat people with diabetes, has been shown in some human studies to reverse endometrial hyperplasia. However, the effectiveness and safety of metformin for treatment of endometrial hyperplasia remain uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of metformin in treating women with endometrial hyperplasia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PubMed, Google Scholar, OpenGrey, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), and two trials registers from inception to 10 January 2017. We searched the bibliographies of all included studies and reviews on this topic. We also handsearched the conference abstracts of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) 2015 and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials comparing metformin (used alone or in combination with other medical therapies) versus placebo or no treatment, any conventional medical treatment, or any other active intervention for women with histologically confirmed endometrial hyperplasia of any type.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data from included studies, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We resolved disagreements by discussion or by deferment to a third review author. When study details were missing, review authors contacted study authors. The primary outcome of this review was regression of endometrial hyperplasia histology (with or without atypia) towards normal histology. Secondary outcome measures included recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia, progression of endometrial hyperplasia to endometrial cancer, hysterectomy rate, abnormal uterine bleeding, health-related quality of life, and adverse effects during treatment.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three RCTs in which a total of 77 women took part. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low for all outcomes owing to very serious risk of bias (associated with poor reporting, attrition, and limitations in study design) and imprecision.We performed a meta-analysis of two trials with 59 participants. When metformin was compared with megestrol acetate in women with endometrial hyperplasia, we found insufficient evidence to determine whether there were differences between groups for the following outcomes: regression of endometrial hyperplasia histology towards normal histology (odds ratio (OR) 3.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 11.57, two RCTs, n = 59, very low-quality evidence), hysterectomy rates (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.52, two RCTs, n = 59, very low-quality evidence), and rates of abnormal uterine bleeding (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.52, two RCTs, n = 44 , very low-quality evidence). We found no data for recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia or health-related quality of life. Both studies (n = 59) provided data on progression of endometrial hyperplasia to endometrial cancer as well as one (n = 16) reporting some adverse effects in the metformin arm, notably nausea, thrombosis, lactic acidosis, abnormal liver and renal function among others.Another trial including 16 participants compared metformin plus megestrol acetate versus megestrol acetate alone in women with endometrial hyperplasia. We found insufficient evidence to determine whether there were differences between groups for the following outcomes: regression of endometrial hyperplasia histology towards normal histology (OR 9.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 86.52, one RCT, n = 16, very low-quality evidence), recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia among women who achieve regression (OR not estimable, no events recorded, one RCT, n = 8, very low-quality evidence), progression of endometrial hyperplasia to endometrial cancer (OR not estimable, no events recorded, one RCT, n = 13, very low-quality evidence), or hysterectomy rates (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.37, one RCT, n = 16, very low-quality evidence). Investigators provided no data on abnormal uterine bleeding or health-related quality of life. In terms of adverse effects, three of eight participants (37.5%) in the metformin plus megestrol acetate study arm reported nausea.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
At present, evidence is insufficient to support or refute the use of metformin alone or in combination with standard therapy - specifically, megestrol acetate - versus megestrol acetate alone, for treatment of endometrial hyperplasia. Robustly designed and adequately powered randomised controlled trials yielding long-term outcome data are needed to address this clinical question.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Disease Progression; Endometrial Hyperplasia; Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Megestrol Acetate; Metformin; Middle Aged; Precancerous Conditions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Uterine Hemorrhage; Uterine Neoplasms
PubMed: 29077194
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012214.pub2