-
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Jan 2023Endometriosis is a common chronic gynecological disease defined as the presence of endometrial glands and stroma tissue outside the uterus. Gestrinone is an effective... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Endometriosis is a common chronic gynecological disease defined as the presence of endometrial glands and stroma tissue outside the uterus. Gestrinone is an effective antiestrogen that induces endometrial atrophy and/or amenorrhea. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide an evaluation of safety and effectiveness of gestrinone for the treatment of endometriosis.
METHODS
We performed a search in six electronic databases: PubMed, MEDLINE (ovid), Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL (clinical trials), Web of Science and Scopus. Our selected primary outcomes were the changes in dysmenorrhea, pain relief including pelvic pain and dyspareunia. The secondary outcomes embrace hormones parameters, pregnancy rate and adverse events.
RESULTS
Of 3269 references screened, 16 studies were included involving 1286 women. All studies compared gestrinone with other drugs treatments (placebo, Danazol, Mifepristone tablets, Leuprolide acetate, Quyu Jiedu Recipe) during 6 months. When compared with other drugs treatments, gestrinone relieved dysmenorrhea, pelvic pain, and morphologic response in the ovary. There was an increase on the pregnancy rate. Regarding the side effects observed, gestrinone showed the same adverse events and increased the risk of acne and seborrhea when compared to other treatments. Even if there was any difference in efficacy between gestrinone, danazol, leuprolide acetate, or Quyu Jiedu Recipe Chinese Medicine, it remains unclear due to insufficient data.
CONCLUSION
Based limited evidence available suggests that gestrinone appeared to be safe and may have some efficacy advantages over danazol, as well as other therapeutic interventions for treating endometriosis. However, this conclusion should be interpreted with caution, due the quality of the evidence provided is generally very low or unclear.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
CRD42021284148.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Endometriosis; Gestrinone; Danazol; Leuprolide; Dysmenorrhea; Pelvic Pain
PubMed: 36434439
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-022-06846-0 -
Medicine Dec 2021Ectopic pregnancy (EP) is a common cause of acute abdominal pain in the field of gynecology. Because the majority of women with EP are hemodynamically stable,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ectopic pregnancy (EP) is a common cause of acute abdominal pain in the field of gynecology. Because the majority of women with EP are hemodynamically stable, non-surgical therapy is a viable option. The goal of this study was to determine the most effective non-surgical therapy for hemodynamically stable EP.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, LILACS, SciELO, CINAHL, Embase, and the Cochrane library in May 2020, with no starting date restrictions.Studies were restricted to randomized controlled trials, which were included if the target population contained women with tubal EP and the intervention was non-surgical management. The primary outcome measure was treatment success defined by a decrease in serum hCG to a level ranging from five mIU/mL to 50 mIU/mL. Secondary outcome measures were side effects, time needed to treat, number of injections and operative rate.
RESULTS
We conducted a meta-analysis of 15 studies that included 1573 women who were diagnosed with EP and managed non-surgically. There was no significant difference in treatment success in the matched groups; however, single-dose MTX was associated with fewer side effects than multiple-dose (relative risk 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.28-0.80, P = .006) and two-dose therapies (relative risk 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.55-1.00, P = .05).
CONCLUSIONS
We highly recommend that single-dose MTX without mifepristone be used first-line in patients who require conservative therapy due to the inherent negative effects of mifepristone. An EP woman with a low -hCG level that is falling or plateauing should receive expectant treatment to reduce adverse effects.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Methotrexate; Mifepristone; Pregnancy; Pregnancy, Ectopic; Pregnancy, Tubal; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34918633
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000027851 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021Evidence is limited regarding the most effective pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression: monotherapy with an antidepressant, monotherapy with an... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Evidence is limited regarding the most effective pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression: monotherapy with an antidepressant, monotherapy with an antipsychotic, another treatment (e.g. mifepristone), or combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic. This is an update of a review first published in 2005 and last updated in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
1. To compare the clinical efficacy of pharmacological treatments for patients with an acute psychotic depression: antidepressant monotherapy, antipsychotic monotherapy, mifepristone monotherapy, and the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic versus placebo and/or each other. 2. To assess whether differences in response to treatment in the current episode are related to non-response to prior treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
A search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR); Ovid MEDLINE (1950-); Embase (1974-); and PsycINFO (1960-) was conducted on 21 February 2020. Reference lists of all included studies and related reviews were screened and key study authors contacted.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included participants with acute major depression with psychotic features, as well as RCTs consisting of participants with acute major depression with or without psychotic features, that reported separately on the subgroup of participants with psychotic features.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies, according to criteria from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data were entered into RevMan 5.1. We used intention-to-treat data. Primary outcomes were clinical response for efficacy and overall dropout rate for harm/tolerance. Secondary outcome were remission of depression, change from baseline severity score, quality of life, and dropout rate due to adverse effects. For dichotomous efficacy outcomes (i.e. response and overall dropout), risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Regarding the primary outcome of harm, only overall dropout rates were available for all studies. If the study did not report any of the response criteria as defined above, remission as defined here could be used as an alternative. For continuously distributed outcomes, it was not possible to extract data from the RCTs. MAIN RESULTS: The search identified 3947 abstracts, but only 12 RCTs with a total of 929 participants could be included in the review. Because of clinical heterogeneity, few meta-analyses were possible. The main outcome was reduction in severity (response) of depression, not of psychosis. For depression response, we found no evidence of a difference between antidepressant and placebo (RR 8.40, 95% CI 0.50 to 142.27; participants = 27, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) or between antipsychotic and placebo (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.73; participants = 201, studies = 2; very low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, we found no evidence of a difference in overall dropouts with antidepressant (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.51; participants = 27, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) or antipsychotic monotherapy (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.08; participants = 201, studies = 2; very low-certainty evidence). No evidence suggests a difference in depression response (RR 2.09, 95% CI 0.64 to 6.82; participants = 36, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) or overall dropouts (RR 1.79, 95% CI 0.18 to 18.02; participants = 36, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) between antidepressant and antipsychotic. For depression response, low- to very low-certainty evidence suggests that the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic may be more effective than antipsychotic monotherapy (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.38; participants = 447, studies = 4), more effective than antidepressant monotherapy (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.80; participants = 245, studies = 5), and more effective than placebo (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.82; participants = 148, studies = 2). Very low-certainty evidence suggests no difference in overall dropouts between the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic versus antipsychotic monotherapy (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.01; participants = 447, studies = 4), antidepressant monotherapy (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.50; participants = 245, studies = 5), or placebo alone (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.18; participants = 148, studies = 2). No study measured change in depression severity from baseline, quality of life, or dropouts due to adverse events. We found no RCTs with mifepristone that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Risk of bias is considerable: we noted differences between studies with regards to diagnosis, uncertainties around randomisation and allocation concealment, treatment interventions (pharmacological differences between various antidepressants and antipsychotics), and outcome criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Psychotic depression is heavily under-studied, limiting confidence in the conclusions drawn. Some evidence indicates that combination therapy with an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic is more effective than either treatment alone or placebo. Evidence is limited for treatment with an antidepressant alone or with an antipsychotic alone. Evidence for efficacy of mifepristone is lacking.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Psychotic Disorders; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 34875106
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004044.pub5 -
Cureus Nov 2023Mifepristone and misoprostol are globally used medications that have become disparaged through the stigmatization of reproductive healthcare. Patients are hindered from... (Review)
Review
Mifepristone and misoprostol are globally used medications that have become disparaged through the stigmatization of reproductive healthcare. Patients are hindered from receiving prompt treatment in clinical scenarios where misoprostol and mifepristone are the drugs of choice. It is no exaggeration to emphasize that in cases where reproductive healthcare is concerned. The aim of this paper is to discuss the different indications of mifepristone and to delineate where the discrepancy in accessibility arises. For this systematic review, we included publications citing clinical trials involving the use and efficacy of mifepristone published in English within the date range of 2000 to 2023. Five databases were searched to identify relevant sources. These databases are Google Scholar, MEDLINE with full text through EBSCO, and three National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) databases (NCBI Bookshelf, PubMed, and PubMed Central). Twenty-three records were ultimately included in this review. Mifepristone has been shown to have therapeutic effects in the treatment of psychiatric disorders, such as major depressive disorder and psychotic depression. There was a significant decrease in depression and psychiatric rating symptoms for patients taking mifepristone versus placebo with no adverse events. Mifepristone has also been shown to improve treatment course in patients with Cushing's disease (CD) who failed or are unable to undergo surgical treatment. In addition, mifepristone has been shown to be a successful treatment option for adenomyosis and leiomyomas. Patients had a statistically significant decrease in uterine volumes following mifepristone treatment, which aided in the alleviation of other symptoms, such as blood loss and pelvic discomfort. Mifepristone is a synthetic steroid that has immense potential to provide symptomatic relief in patients suffering from a wide array of complicated diseases. Historically, mifepristone has been proven to have an incredible safety profile. While further research is certainly needed, the politicization of its medical use for only one of its many indications has unfortunately led to the willful ignorance of its potential despite its evidence-based safety profile and efficacy.
PubMed: 38060710
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.48372 -
Obstetrics and Gynecology Jun 2013To examine the effect of the interval between mifepristone and misoprostol administration on induction time (first misoprostol dose to abortion), total procedure time... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To examine the effect of the interval between mifepristone and misoprostol administration on induction time (first misoprostol dose to abortion), total procedure time (mifepristone administration to abortion), and safety and efficacy in second-trimester induction abortion (13-24 weeks).
DATA SOURCES
We searched MEDLINE (1966-2012), ClinicalTrials.gov, POPLINE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register using search terms for second trimester, abortion, misoprostol, and mifepristone and reviewed reference lists of published reports.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
Our search revealed 138 articles of which 29 met inclusion criteria: 20 randomized controlled trials and nine observational studies. Studies were included if, in any study arm, mifepristone and misoprostol were used for medical abortion in the second trimester.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
Two authors independently reviewed the articles and abstracted the data using standardized data abstraction templates to summarize data. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Three studies directly compared a 1-day to 2-day mifepristone-misoprostol interval; they showed small differences in median induction times (weighted average 7.3 hours, range 7-8.5 for a 1-day interval; weighted average 6.8 hours, range 6.3-7.2 for a 2-day interval) and no significant difference in percent expelled by 12 hours or 24 hours. When all randomized studies using mifepristone and misoprostol were pooled by comparable mifepristone-misoprostol interval and misoprostol dose, induction times (first misoprostol dose to expulsion) were only 1-2 hours longer for a 12- to 24-hour interval compared with a 36-48-hour interval, whereas total abortion times (mifepristone to expulsion) were at least 18 hours longer in the 36- to 48-hour group. Induction times varied by misoprostol dosing, with 400-microgram misoprostol protocols resulting in shorter induction times than 200-microgram protocols.
CONCLUSION
Shortening the mifepristone-misoprostol interval, thereby reducing total abortion time, does not compromise the safety or efficacy of second-trimester medication abortion and may be used to accommodate patient or health care provider preference.
Topics: Abortifacient Agents, Steroidal; Abortion, Induced; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Humans; Mifepristone; Misoprostol; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, Second
PubMed: 23812471
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182932f37 -
Contraception Sep 2015We conducted a systematic review of the literature on the effectiveness of medical abortion "reversal" treatment. Since the usual care for women seeking to continue... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a systematic review of the literature on the effectiveness of medical abortion "reversal" treatment. Since the usual care for women seeking to continue pregnancies after ingesting mifepristone is expectant management with fetal surveillance, we also performed a systematic review of continuing pregnancy after mifepristone alone.
STUDY DESIGN
We searched PubMed, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Scopus and the Cochrane Library for articles published through March 2015 reporting the proportion of pregnancies continuing after treatment with either mifepristone alone or after an additional treatment following mifepristone aimed at reversing its effect.
RESULTS
From 1115 articles retrieved, 1 study met inclusion criteria for abortion reversal, and 13 studies met criteria for continuing pregnancy after mifepristone alone. The one report of abortion reversal was a case series of 7 patients receiving varying doses of progesterone in oil intramuscularly or micronized progesterone orally or vaginally; 1 patient was lost to follow-up. The study was of poor quality and lacked clear information on patient selection. Four of six women continued the pregnancy to term [67%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 30-90%]. Assuming the lost patient aborted resulted in a continuing pregnancy proportion of 57% (95% CI 25-84%). The proportion of pregnancies continuing 1-2 weeks after mifepristone alone varied from 8% (95% CI 3-22%) to 46% (95% CI 37-56%). Continuing pregnancy was more common with lower mifepristone doses and advanced gestational age.
CONCLUSIONS
In the rare case that a woman changes her mind after starting medical abortion, evidence is insufficient to determine whether treatment with progesterone after mifepristone results in a higher proportion of continuing pregnancies compared to expectant management.
IMPLICATIONS
Legislation requiring physicians to inform patients about abortion reversal transforms an unproven therapy into law and represents legislative interference in the patient-physician relationship.
Topics: Abortifacient Agents, Steroidal; Abortion, Induced; Administration, Intravaginal; Female; Gestational Age; Humans; Mifepristone; Patient Preference; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Progesterone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26057457
DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2015.06.001 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021Miscarriage, defined as the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks' gestation, is common with approximately 25% of women experiencing a miscarriage in their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Miscarriage, defined as the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks' gestation, is common with approximately 25% of women experiencing a miscarriage in their lifetime. An estimated 15% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Miscarriage can lead to serious morbidity, including haemorrhage, infection, and even death, particularly in settings without adequate healthcare provision. Early miscarriages occur during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, and can be managed expectantly, medically or surgically. However, there is uncertainty about the relative effectiveness and risks of each option.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the relative effectiveness and safety profiles for the different management methods for early miscarriage, and to provide rankings of the available methods according to their effectiveness, safety, and side-effect profile using a network meta-analysis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 February 2021), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (12 February 2021), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness or safety of methods for miscarriage management. Early miscarriage was defined as less than or equal to 14 weeks of gestation, and included missed and incomplete miscarriage. Management of late miscarriages after 14 weeks of gestation (often referred to as intrauterine fetal deaths) was not eligible for inclusion in the review. Cluster- and quasi-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Randomised trials published only as abstracts were eligible if sufficient information could be retrieved. We excluded non-randomised trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least three review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We estimated the relative effects and rankings for the primary outcomes of complete miscarriage and composite outcome of death or serious complications. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Relative effects for the primary outcomes are reported subgrouped by the type of miscarriage (incomplete and missed miscarriage). We also performed pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available methods.
MAIN RESULTS
Our network meta-analysis included 78 randomised trials involving 17,795 women from 37 countries. Most trials (71/78) were conducted in hospital settings and included women with missed or incomplete miscarriage. Across 158 trial arms, the following methods were used: 51 trial arms (33%) used misoprostol; 50 (32%) used suction aspiration; 26 (16%) used expectant management or placebo; 17 (11%) used dilatation and curettage; 11 (6%) used mifepristone plus misoprostol; and three (2%) used suction aspiration plus cervical preparation. Of these 78 studies, 71 (90%) contributed data in a usable form for meta-analysis. Complete miscarriage Based on the relative effects from the network meta-analysis of 59 trials (12,591 women), we found that five methods may be more effective than expectant management or placebo for achieving a complete miscarriage: · suction aspiration after cervical preparation (risk ratio (RR) 2.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 3.20, low-certainty evidence), · dilatation and curettage (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.75, low-certainty evidence), · suction aspiration (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.62, low-certainty evidence), · mifepristone plus misoprostol (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.66, moderate-certainty evidence), · misoprostol (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.46, low-certainty evidence). The highest ranked surgical method was suction aspiration after cervical preparation. The highest ranked non-surgical treatment was mifepristone plus misoprostol. All surgical methods were ranked higher than medical methods, which in turn ranked above expectant management or placebo. Composite outcome of death and serious complications Based on the relative effects from the network meta-analysis of 35 trials (8161 women), we found that four methods with available data were compatible with a wide range of treatment effects compared with expectant management or placebo: · dilatation and curettage (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.06, low-certainty evidence), · suction aspiration (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.32, low-certainty evidence), · misoprostol (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.15, low-certainty evidence), · mifepristone plus misoprostol (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.84, low-certainty evidence). Importantly, no deaths were reported in these studies, thus this composite outcome was entirely composed of serious complications, including blood transfusions, uterine perforations, hysterectomies, and intensive care unit admissions. Expectant management and placebo ranked the lowest when compared with alternative treatment interventions. Subgroup analyses by type of miscarriage (missed or incomplete) agreed with the overall analysis in that surgical methods were the most effective treatment, followed by medical methods and then expectant management or placebo, but there are possible subgroup differences in the effectiveness of the available methods. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on relative effects from the network meta-analysis, all surgical and medical methods for managing a miscarriage may be more effective than expectant management or placebo. Surgical methods were ranked highest for managing a miscarriage, followed by medical methods, which in turn ranked above expectant management or placebo. Expectant management or placebo had the highest chance of serious complications, including the need for unplanned or emergency surgery. A subgroup analysis showed that surgical and medical methods may be more beneficial in women with missed miscarriage compared to women with incomplete miscarriage. Since type of miscarriage (missed and incomplete) appears to be a source of inconsistency and heterogeneity within these data, we acknowledge that the main network meta-analysis may be unreliable. However, we plan to explore this further in future updates and consider the primary analysis as separate networks for missed and incomplete miscarriage.
Topics: Abortion, Incomplete; Abortion, Missed; Abortion, Spontaneous; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Mifepristone; Misoprostol; Network Meta-Analysis; Oxytocics; Placebos; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Suction; Vacuum Curettage; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 34061352
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012602.pub2 -
BioMed Research International 2015We performed a systematic literature review to analyze the clinical application and the safety of mifepristone, a prominent antiprogesterone agent, in meningioma... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
We performed a systematic literature review to analyze the clinical application and the safety of mifepristone, a prominent antiprogesterone agent, in meningioma patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic search was performed through Medline, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov databases from 1960 to 2014. Study Selection. Studies were selected through a PICO approach. Population was meningioma patients, meningioma cells cultures, and animal models. Intervention was mifepristone administration. Control was placebo administration or any other drug tested. Outcomes were clinical and radiological responsiveness, safety profile, and cell growth inhibition.
RESULTS
A total of 7 preclinical and 6 clinical studies and one abstract were included. Encouraging results were found in preclinical studies. Concerning clinical studies, the response rate to mifepristone in terms of radiological regression and symptomatic improvement/stability in patients with inoperable meningioma was low. In meningiomatosis, favorable preliminary results were recorded. The safety profile was good. Limitations were as follows. The tumoral expression of progesterone receptors was not analyzed systematically in every study considered.
CONCLUSIONS
No clear evidence exists to recommend mifepristone in inoperable meningiomas. Preliminary encouraging results were found in diffuse meningiomatosis. Mifepristone is a well-tolerated treatment. Patients' selection and hormonal profile analysis in meningiomas are fundamental for a better understanding of its benefit. Multicenter placebo-controlled trials are required.
Topics: Animals; Disease Management; Humans; Meningioma; Mifepristone; Progesterone; Receptors, Progesterone
PubMed: 26146614
DOI: 10.1155/2015/267831 -
Medicine Aug 2023Endometriosis (EMT) is a benign and common estrogen-dependent disease. Hormonal therapy improves pain symptoms in most women with EMT. However, in many cases,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Endometriosis (EMT) is a benign and common estrogen-dependent disease. Hormonal therapy improves pain symptoms in most women with EMT. However, in many cases, laparoscopic fertility preservation surgery is considered a common treatment for EMT. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dienogest, leuprolide, danazol, gestrinone, mifepristone and levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in relieving symptoms and delaying the recurrence of EMT cysts after fertility protection surgery.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Database, China Biology Medicine disc, WanFang Data databases to collect randomized controlled trials (RCT) related to dienogest, leuprolide, danazol, gestrinone, mifepristone and LNG-IUS as a follow-up treatment after fertility preserving surgery for EMT. After literature screening, data extraction and quality evaluation, effective rate, recurrence rate, pregnancy rate and adverse reaction rate were used as outcome indicators to evaluate the efficacy and safety of drugs. Evidence networks included in the study were drawn and publication bias was assessed. The drugs most likely to be the best postoperative treatment were explored through mixed comparison of different drugs and efficacy ranking.
RESULT
Effective rate: dienogest, leprerelin, gestrinone and LNG-IUS were better than placebo after EMT fertility preservation surgery; dienogest was superior to mifepristone and danazol. LNG-IUS is superior to danazol. LNG-IUS has the highest potential for improving the effectiveness of EMT symptoms. Recurrence rate: the application of dienogest, leuprolide, gestrinone, mifepristone and LNG-IUS after EMT fertility preservation surgery was lower than that of placebo; dienogest and LNG-IUS were lower than danazol. The recurrence rate of dinorgestrel was the last place with the highest performance. Pregnancy rate: in the cases with fertility requirements, dienogest and,leuprolide were better than placebo after EMT fertility preservation surgery; dienogest was superior to danazol, gestrinone and mifepristone. Leuprolide is superior to danazol and gestrinone. The first rank of dienogest pregnancy rate was the highest. Adverse reaction rate: the application of dienogest, leuprolide, danazol, gestrinone, mifepristone and LNG-IUS after EMT fertility preservation surgery was higher than that of placebo. After placebo, LNG-IUS had the highest adverse reaction rate.
CONCLUSION
For patients after fertility preserving surgery for EMT, the recurrence rate of dienogest was the last place with highest preference. The first rank of dienogest pregnancy was the highest.
Topics: Female; Humans; Endometriosis; Danazol; Gestrinone; Leuprolide; Mifepristone; Network Meta-Analysis; Levonorgestrel
PubMed: 37543781
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034496 -
Contraception Jan 2013The dose of mifepristone approved by most government agencies for medical abortion is 600 mg. Our aim was to summarize extant data on the effectiveness and safety of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The dose of mifepristone approved by most government agencies for medical abortion is 600 mg. Our aim was to summarize extant data on the effectiveness and safety of regimens using the widely recommended lower mifepristone dose, 200 mg, followed by misoprostol in early pregnancy and to explore potential correlates of abortion failure.
STUDY DESIGN
To identify eligible reports, we searched Medline, reviewed reference lists of published reports, and contacted experts to identify all prospective trials of any design of medical abortion using 200 mg mifepristone followed by misoprostol in women with viable pregnancies up to 63 days' gestation. Two authors independently extracted data from each study. We used logistic regression models to explore associations between 15 characteristics of the trial groups and, separately, the rates of medical abortion failure and of ongoing pregnancy.
RESULTS
We identified 87 trials that collectively included 120 groups of women treated with a regimen of interest. Of the 47,283 treated subjects in these groups, abortion outcome data were reported for 45,528 (96%). Treatment failure occurred in 2,192 (4.8%) of these evaluable subjects. Ongoing pregnancy was reported in 1.1% (499/45,150) of the evaluable subjects in the 117 trial groups reporting this outcome. The risk of medical abortion failure was higher among trial groups in which at least 25% of subjects had gestational age >8 weeks, the specified interval between mifepristone and misoprostol was less than 24 h, the total misoprostol dose was 400 mcg (rather than higher), or the misoprostol was administered by the oral route (rather than by vaginal, buccal, or sublingual routes). Across all trials, 119 evaluable subjects (0.3%) were hospitalized, and 45 (0.1%) received blood transfusions.
CONCLUSIONS
Early medical abortion with mifepristone 200 mg followed by misoprostol is highly effective and safe.
Topics: Abortifacient Agents; Abortion, Induced; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Gestational Age; Humans; Mifepristone; Misoprostol; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 22898359
DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.06.011