-
Neurosurgical Review Mar 2024This systematic review aims to summarize the findings from all clinical randomized trials assessing the efficacy of potential neuroprotective agents in influencing the... (Review)
Review
This systematic review aims to summarize the findings from all clinical randomized trials assessing the efficacy of potential neuroprotective agents in influencing the outcomes of acute spinal cord injuries (SCI). Following the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted comprehensive searches in four electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) up to September 5th, 2023. Our analysis included a total of 30 studies. We examined the effects of 15 substances/drugs: methylprednisolone, tirilazad mesylate, erythropoietin, nimodipine, naloxone, Sygen, Rho protein antagonist, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, autologous macrophages, autologous bone marrow cells, vitamin D, progesterone, riluzole, minocycline, and blood alcohol concentration. Notable improvements in neurological outcomes were observed with progesterone plus vitamin D and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. In contrast, results for methylprednisolone, erythropoietin, Sygen, Rho Protein, and Riluzole were inconclusive, primarily due to insufficient sample size or outdated evidence. No significant differences were found in the remaining evaluated drugs. Progesterone plus vitamin D, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, methylprednisolone, Sygen, Rho Protein, and Riluzole may enhance neurological outcomes in acute SCI cases. It is worth noting that different endpoints or additional subgroup analyses may potentially alter the conclusions of individual trials. Therefore, certain SCI grades may benefit more from these treatments than others, while the overall results may remain inconclusive.
Topics: Humans; Neuroprotective Agents; Riluzole; Blood Alcohol Content; Progesterone; Spinal Cord Injuries; Methylprednisolone; Erythropoietin; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Vitamin D
PubMed: 38546884
DOI: 10.1007/s10143-024-02372-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Endometriosis is defined as the presence of endometrial tissue (glands and stroma) outside the uterine cavity. This condition is oestrogen-dependent and thus is seen... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Endometriosis is defined as the presence of endometrial tissue (glands and stroma) outside the uterine cavity. This condition is oestrogen-dependent and thus is seen primarily during the reproductive years. Owing to their antiproliferative effects in the endometrium, progesterone receptor modulators (PRMs) have been advocated for treatment of endometriosis.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of PRMs primarily in terms of pain relief as compared with other treatments or placebo or no treatment in women of reproductive age with endometriosis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases, trial registers, and websites: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, the Central Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, clinicaltrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) platform, from inception to 28 November 2016. We handsearched reference lists of articles retrieved by the search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in all languages that examined effects of PRMs for treatment of symptomatic endometriosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. Primary outcomes included measures of pain and side effects.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 960 women. Two RCTs compared mifepristone versus placebo or versus a different dose of mifepristone, one RCT compared asoprisnil versus placebo, one compared ulipristal versus leuprolide acetate, and four compared gestrinone versus danazol, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues, or a different dose of gestrinone. The quality of evidence ranged from high to very low. The main limitations were serious risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods and high or unclear rates of attrition in most studies), very serious imprecision (associated with low event rates and wide confidence intervals), and indirectness (outcome assessed in a select subgroup of participants). Mifepristone versus placebo One study made this comparison and reported rates of painful symptoms among women who reported symptoms at baseline.At three months, the mifepristone group had lower rates of dysmenorrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.17; one RCT, n =352; moderate-quality evidence), suggesting that if 40% of women taking placebo experience dysmenorrhoea, then between 3% and 10% of women taking mifepristone will do so. The mifepristone group also had lower rates of dyspareunia (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.51; one RCT, n = 223; low-quality evidence). However, the mifepristone group had higher rates of side effects: Nearly 90% had amenorrhoea and 24% had hot flushes, although the placebo group reported only one event of each (1%) (high-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show differences in rates of nausea, vomiting, or fatigue, if present. Mifepristone dose comparisons Two studies compared doses of mifepristone and found insufficient evidence to show differences between different doses in terms of effectiveness or safety, if present. However, subgroup analysis of comparisons between mifepristone and placebo suggest that the 2.5 mg dose may be less effective than 5 mg or 10 mg for treating dysmenorrhoea or dyspareunia. Gestrinone comparisons Ons study compared gestrinone with danazol, and another study compared gestrinone with leuprolin.Evidence was insufficient to show differences, if present, between gestrinone and danazol in rate of pain relief (those reporting no or mild pelvic pain) (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.56; two RCTs, n = 230; very low-quality evidence), dysmenorrhoea (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.33; two RCTs, n = 214; very low-quality evidence), or dyspareunia (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.86; two RCTs, n = 222; very low-quality evidence). The gestrinone group had a higher rate of hirsutism (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.60 to 4.32; two RCTs, n = 302; very low-quality evidence) and a lower rate of decreased breast size (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.98; two RCTs, n = 302; low-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show differences between groups, if present, in rate of hot flushes (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.26; two RCTs, n = 302; very low-quality evidence) or acne (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.33; two RCTs, n = 302; low-quality evidence).When researchers compared gestrinone versus leuprolin through measurements on the 1 to 3 verbal rating scale (lower score denotes benefit), the mean dysmenorrhoea score was higher in the gestrinone group (MD 0.35 points, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.58; one RCT, n = 55; low-quality evidence), but the mean dyspareunia score was lower in this group (MD 0.33 points, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.04; low-quality evidence). The gestrinone group had lower rates of amenorrhoea (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.38; one RCT, n = 49; low-quality evidence) and hot flushes (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.63; one study, n = 55; low quality evidence) but higher rates of spotting or bleeding (OR 22.92, 95% CI 2.64 to 198.66; one RCT, n = 49; low-quality evidence).Evidence was insufficient to show differences in effectiveness or safety between different doses of gestrinone, if present. Asoprisnil versus placebo One study (n = 130) made this comparison but did not report data suitable for analysis. Ulipristal versus leuprolide acetate One study (n = 38) made this comparison but did not report data suitable for analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Among women with endometriosis, moderate-quality evidence shows that mifepristone relieves dysmenorrhoea, and low-quality evidence suggests that this agent relieves dyspareunia, although amenorrhoea and hot flushes are common side effects. Data on dosage were inconclusive, although they suggest that the 2.5 mg dose of mifepristone may be less effective than higher doses. We found insufficient evidence to permit firm conclusions about the safety and effectiveness of other progesterone receptor modulators.
Topics: Danazol; Dysmenorrhea; Dyspareunia; Endometriosis; Estrenes; Female; Gestrinone; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Hormone Antagonists; Humans; Leuprolide; Mifepristone; Norpregnadienes; Oximes; Prevalence; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Progesterone
PubMed: 28742263
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009881.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2000Although the etiology of endometriosis is unknown, several theories exist, the most popular of which is retrograde menstruation. As endometriosis can only be diagnosed... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Although the etiology of endometriosis is unknown, several theories exist, the most popular of which is retrograde menstruation. As endometriosis can only be diagnosed by laparoscopy, neither the incidence (annual occurrence) nor the prevalence (proportion of the population affected) of endometriosis is known. The association between endometriosis and infertility isn't clear in Stage I (minimal) and Stage II (mild) endometriosis. Endometriosis appears to be an estrogen dependent condition. At the time of menopause, most endometriosis becomes quiescent. This hormonal dependency prompted researchers to seek agents which would suppress ovarian activity.
OBJECTIVES
To determine effectiveness of a) ovulation suppression with danazol, medroxy progesterone acetate, gestrinone, combined oral contraceptive pills and GnRH analogues versus placebo or no treatment and b) any of the above agents versus danazol, for the treatment of endometriosis explained infertility in terms of clinical pregnancy rate.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The Cochrane Subfertility Review Group specialised register of controlled trials was searched.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Four RCTs with five treatment arms compared an ovulation suppression agent with placebo or no treatment. Eight trials were identified comparing a suppressive agent with danazol.
DATA EXTRACTION
A diverse search strategy was employed, including hand-search of 43 core journals from 1966 to the present, bibliographies of relevant trials, MEDLINE database, abstracts from North American and European meetings and contact with authors of relevant papers. Relevant data were extracted independently by two reviewers using the standardised data extraction sheet. Validity was assessed in terms of method of randomisation, completeness of follow-up, presence or absence of crossover and co-intervention.
DATA SYNTHESIS
2x2 tables were generated for all relevant outcomes. Odds ratios were generated using the Peto modified Mantel-Haenszel technique. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using x2.
MAIN RESULTS
The common odds ratio for pregnancy following ovulation suppression versus placebo or no treatment was 0.83 (95% CI 0.5-1.39). These data were statistically homogeneous although clinical heterogeneity was present. Their consistency in showing no treatment benefit suggests that this group of interventions is ineffective. Common odds ratio for pregnancy following all agents versus danazol was 1.20 (95% CI 0. 85-1.68). Again these data were homogeneous and suggest no significant treatment benefit in terms of pregnancy rate.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
Given the significant period of amenorrhea associated with ovulation suppression, the lack of treatment benefit demonstrated and the adverse effects commonly associated with these treatments, ovulation suppression cannot be recommended as a standard therapy for endometriosis-associated infertility.
Topics: Danazol; Endometriosis; Estrogen Antagonists; Female; Fertility Agents, Female; Humans; Infertility, Female; Ovulation
PubMed: 10796697
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000155 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2017Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles is a treatment-induced disease that has an estimated prevalence of 20% to 33%... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles is a treatment-induced disease that has an estimated prevalence of 20% to 33% in its mild form and 3% to 8% in its moderate or severe form. These numbers might even be higher for high-risk women such as those with polycystic ovaries or a high oocyte yield from ovum pickup.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this overview is to identify and summarise all evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on interventions for prevention or treatment of moderate, severe and overall OHSS in couples with subfertility who are undergoing ART cycles.
METHODS
Published Cochrane systematic reviews reporting on moderate, severe or overall OHSS as an outcome in ART cycles were eligible for inclusion in this overview. We also identified Cochrane submitted protocols and title registrations for future inclusion in the overview. The evidence is current to 12 December 2016. We identified reviews, protocols and titles by searching the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Database of Systematic Reviews and Archie (the Cochrane information management system) in July 2016 on the effectiveness of interventions for outcomes of moderate, severe and overall OHSS. We undertook in duplicate selection of systematic reviews, data extraction and quality assessment. We used the AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool to assess the quality of included reviews, and we used GRADE methods to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome. We summarised the characteristics of included reviews in the text and in additional tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 27 reviews in this overview. The reviews were generally of high quality according to AMSTAR ratings, and included studies provided evidence that ranged from very low to high in quality. Ten reviews had not been updated in the past three years. Seven reviews described interventions that provided a beneficial effect in reducing OHSS rates, and we categorised one additional review as 'promising'. Of the effective interventions, all except one had no detrimental effect on pregnancy outcomes. Evidence of at least moderate quality indicates that clinicians should consider the following interventions in ART cycles to reduce OHSS rates.• Metformin treatment before and during an ART cycle for women with PCOS (moderate-quality evidence).• Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol in ART cycles (moderate-quality evidence).• GnRH agonist (GnRHa) trigger in donor oocyte or 'freeze-all' programmes (moderate-quality evidence). Evidence of low or very low quality suggests that clinicians should consider the following interventions in ART cycles to reduce OHSS rates.• Clomiphene citrate for controlled ovarian stimulation in ART cycles (low-quality evidence).• Cabergoline around the time of human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) administration or oocyte pickup in ART cycles (low-quality evidence).• Intravenous fluids (plasma expanders) around the time of hCG administration or oocyte pickup in ART cycles (very low-quality evidence).• Progesterone for luteal phase support in ART cycles (low-quality evidence).• Coasting (withholding gonadotrophins) - a promising intervention that needs to be researched further for reduction of OHSS.On the basis of this overview, we must conclude that evidence is currently insufficient to support the widespread practice of embryo cryopreservation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently, 27 reviews in the Cochrane Library were conducted to report on or to try to report on OHSS in ART cycles. We identified four review protocols but no new registered titles that can potentially be included in this overview in the future. This overview provides the most up-to-date evidence on prevention of OHSS in ART cycles from all currently published Cochrane reviews on ART. Clinicians can use the evidence summarised in this overview to choose the best treatment regimen for individual patients - a regimen that not only reduces the chance of developing OHSS but does not compromise other outcomes such as pregnancy or live birth rate. Review results, however, are limited by the lack of recent primary studies or updated reviews. Furthermore, this overview can be used by policymakers in developing local and regional protocols or guidelines and can reveal knowledge gaps for future research.
Topics: Cabergoline; Ergolines; Female; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Metformin; Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome; Pregnancy; Progesterone; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 28111738
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012103.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2002Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in pre menopausal women. Medical therapy, with the avoidance of possibly unnecessary surgery is an... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in pre menopausal women. Medical therapy, with the avoidance of possibly unnecessary surgery is an attractive treatment option, but there is considerable variation in practice and uncertainty about the most effective therapy. Danazol is a synthetic steroid with anti-oestrogenic and anti progestogenic activity, and weak androgenic properties. Danazol suppresses oestrogen and progesterone receptors in the endometrium, leading to endometrial atrophy (thinning of the lining of the uterus) and reduced menstrual loss and to amenorrhoea in some women.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and tolerability of danazol when used for heavy menstrual bleeding in women of reproductive years.
SEARCH STRATEGY
All studies which might describe randomised controlled trials of danazol for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding were obtained by electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, CINAHL, National Research Register and the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's Specialist Register of controlled trials (on 6 November 2001). Attempts were also made to identify trials from citation lists of included trials and relevant review articles. In most cases the first author of each included trial was contacted for unpublished additional information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of danazol versus placebo, any other medical (non-surgical) therapy or danazol in different dosages for heavy menstrual bleeding in women of reproductive age with regular HMB measured either subjectively or objectively. Trials that included women with post menopausal bleeding, intermenstrual bleeding and pathological causes of heavy menstrual bleeding were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Nine RCTs, with 353 women, were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The main outcomes were menstrual blood loss, the number of women experiencing adverse effects, weight gain, withdrawals due to adverse effects and dysmenorrhoea. If data could not be extracted in a form suitable for meta-analysis, they were presented in a descriptive format.
MAIN RESULTS
Most data were not in a form suitable for meta analysis, and the results are based on a small number of trials, all of which are under-powered. Danazol appears to be more effective than placebo, progestogens, NSAIDs and the OCP at reducing MBL, but confidence intervals were wide. Treatment with danazol caused more adverse events than NSAIDs (OR 7.0; 95% CI 1.7, 28.2) and progestogens (OR 4.05, 95% CI 1.6, 10.2), but this did not appear to affect adherence to treatment. Danazol was shown to significantly lower the duration of menses when compared with NSAIDs (WMD -1.0; 95% CI -1.8, -0.3) and a progesterone releasing IUD (WMD -6.0; 95% CI -7.3, -4.8). There were no randomised trials comparing danazol with tranexamic acid or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
Danazol appears to be an effective treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding compared to other medical treatments, though it is uncertain whether it is acceptable to women. The use of danazol may be limited by its side effect profile, its acceptability to women and the need for continuing treatment. Overall no strong recommendations can be made due to the small number of trials, and the small sample sizes of the included trials.
Topics: Danazol; Estrogen Antagonists; Female; Humans; Menorrhagia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 12076401
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001017 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2003Endometriosis is the finding of endometrial glands or stroma in sites other than the uterine cavity. Endometriosis appears to be an estrogen dependent condition. This... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Endometriosis is the finding of endometrial glands or stroma in sites other than the uterine cavity. Endometriosis appears to be an estrogen dependent condition. This hormonal dependency has prompted the therapeutic use of ovulation suppression agents, in an effort to improve subsequent fertility.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of a) ovulation suppression with danazol, medroxy progesterone acetate, gestrinone, combined oral contraceptive pills and GnRH analogues versus placebo or no treatment and b) any of the above agents versus danazol, for the treatment of endometriosis-associated subfertility.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trial register (searched 30 April 2002), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2002), MEDLINE (January 1966 to December 1998), EMBASE (January 1985 to December 1997) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Trials comparing the interventions described above, were included if allocation to treatment was based on a random process. Six RCTs with seven treatment arms compared an ovulation suppression agent with placebo or no treatment. Ten trials were identified comparing a suppressive agent with danazol.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Relevant data were extracted independently by two reviewers using the standardised data extraction sheet. Validity was assessed in terms of method of randomisation, completeness of follow-up, presence or absence of crossover and co-intervention. 2 x 2 tables were generated for all relevant outcomes. Odds ratios were generated using the Peto modified Mantel-Haenszel technique. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using Breslow-Day X2.
MAIN RESULTS
The odds ratio for pregnancy following ovulation suppression versus placebo or no treatment was 0.74 (95%CI 0.48 to 1.15). These data were statistically homogeneous, despite the use of a variety of suppression agents. They suggest no statistically significant benefit from treatment. The odds ratio for pregnancy following all agents versus danazol, the most commonly used agent prior to the advent of gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa), was 1.3 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.76). When GnRHa and danazol were directly compared, the odds ratio for pregnancy across six trials, was similar to the summary statistic for all ten studies: 1.29 (95% CI 0.9 to 1.85). Again, this suggests no statistically significant difference between these interventions.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
These results rule out a benefit of more than a 15% increase in odds, and do not justify the risk of side effects when used as therapy for endometriosis-associated subfertility.
Topics: Danazol; Endometriosis; Estrogen Antagonists; Female; Fertility Agents, Female; Humans; Infertility, Female; Ovulation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 12917884
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000155 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2023Currently, gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues are used to prevent premature ovulation in ART cycles. However, their costs remain high, the route of... (Review)
Review
Progestogens for prevention of luteinising hormone (LH) surge in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation as part of an assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycle.
BACKGROUND
Currently, gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues are used to prevent premature ovulation in ART cycles. However, their costs remain high, the route of administration is invasive and has some adverse effects. Oral progestogens could be cheaper and effective to prevent a premature LH surge.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of using progestogens to avoid spontaneous ovulation in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO in Dec 2021. We contacted study authors and experts to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included progestogens for ovulation inhibition in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane, including the risk of bias (RoB) assessment. The primary review outcomes were live birth rate (LBR) and oocyte pick-up cancellation rate (OPCR). Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), cumulative pregnancy, miscarriage rate (MR), multiple pregnancies, LH surge, total and MII oocytes, days of stimulation, dose of gonadotropins, and moderate/severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate. The primary analyses were restricted to studies at overall low and some concerns RoB, and sensitivity analysis included all studies. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 RCTs (2643 subfertile women undergoing ART, 47 women used oocyte freezing for fertility preservation and 534 oocyte donors). Progestogens versus GnRH antagonists We are very uncertain of the effect of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) 10 mg compared with cetrorelix on the LBR in poor responders (odds ratio (OR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 2.13, one RCT, N = 340, very-low-certainty evidence), suggesting that if the chance of live birth following GnRH antagonists is assumed to be 18%, the chance following MPA would be 14% to 32%. There may be little or no difference in OPCR between progestogens and GnRH antagonists, but due to wide Cs (CIs), we are uncertain (OR 0.92, 95%CI 0.42 to 2.01, 3 RCTs, N = 648, I² = 0%, low-certainty evidence), changing the chance of OPCR from 4% with progestogens to 2% to 8%. Given the imprecision found, no conclusions can be retrieved on CPR and MR. Low-quality evidence suggested that using micronised progesterone in normo-responders may increase by 2 to 6 the MII oocytes in comparison to GnRH antagonists. There may be little or no differences in gonadotropin doses. Progestogens versus GnRH agonists Results were uncertain for all outcomes comparing progestogens with GnRH agonists. One progestogen versus another progestogen The analyses comparing one progestogen versus another progestogen for LBR did not meet our criteria for primary analyses. The OPCR was probably lower in the MPA 10 mg in comparison to MPA 4 mg (OR 2.27, 95%CI 0.90 to 5.74, one RCT, N = 300, moderate-certainty evidence), and MPA 4 mg may be lower than micronised progesterone 100 mg, but due to wide CI, we are uncertain of the effect (OR 0.81, 95%CI 0.43 to 1.53, one RCT, N = 300, low-certainty evidence), changing the chance of OPCR from 5% with MPA 4 mg to 5% to22%, and from 17% with micronised progesterone 100 mg to 8% to 24%. When comparing dydrogesterone 20 mg to MPA, the OPCR is probably lower in the dydrogesterone group in comparison to MPA 10 mg (OR 1.49, 95%CI 0.80 to 2.80, one RCT, N = 520, moderate-certainty evidence), and it may be lower in dydrogesterone group in comparison to MPA 4 mg but due to wide confidence interval, we are uncertain of the effect (OR 1.19, 95%CI 0.61 to 2.34, one RCT, N = 300, low-certainty evidence), changing the chance of OPCR from 7% with dydrogesterone 20 to 6-17%, and in MPA 4 mg from 12% to 8% to 24%. When comparing dydrogesterone 20 mg to micronised progesterone 100 mg, the OPCR is probably lower in the dydrogesterone group (OR 1.54, 95%CI 0.94 to 2.52, two RCTs, N=550, I² = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence), changing OPCR from 11% with dydrogesterone to 10% to 24%. We are very uncertain of the effect in normo-responders of micronised progesterone 100 mg compared with micronised progesterone 200 mg on the OPCR (OR 0.35, 95%CI 0.09 to 1.37, one RCT, N = 150, very-low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in CPR and MR between MPA 10 mg and dydrogesterone 20 mg. There may be little or no differences in MII oocytes and gonadotropins doses. No cases of moderate/severe OHSS were reported in most of the groups in any of the comparisons.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Little or no differences in LBR may exist when comparing MPA 4 mg with GnRH agonists in normo-responders. OPCR may be slightly increased in the MPA 4 mg group, but MPA 4 mg reduces the doses of gonadotropins in comparison to GnRH agonists. Little or no differences in OPCR may exist between progestogens and GnRH antagonists in normo-responders and donors. However, micronised progesterone could improve by 2 to 6 MII oocytes. When comparing one progestogen to another, dydrogesterone suggested slightly lower OPCR than MPA and micronised progesterone, and MPA suggested slightly lower OPCR than the micronised progesterone 100 mg. Finally, MPA 10 mg suggests a lower OPCR than MPA 4 mg. There is uncertainty regarding the rest of the outcomes due to imprecision and no solid conclusions can be drawn.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Abortion, Spontaneous; Dydrogesterone; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Gonadotropins; Live Birth; Luteinizing Hormone; Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy Rate; Progesterone; Progestins; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted
PubMed: 38032057
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013827.pub2 -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Nov 2019Maintenance tocolysis, mostly defined as the continuation of tocolytic treatment beyond 48 h, remains a matter of debate. There is no sufficient evidence from...
INTRODUCTION
Maintenance tocolysis, mostly defined as the continuation of tocolytic treatment beyond 48 h, remains a matter of debate. There is no sufficient evidence from randomized controlled trials, that maintenance tocolysis is able to prolong pregnancy significantly and to reduce severe neonatal morbidity and mortality. Hence, it is not recommended in current guidelines. On the contrary, maintenance tocolysis is commonly used in clinical practice and subject of current clinical-scientific investigations.
TOCOLYTICS FOR MAINTENANCE TREATMENT
None of the conventional tocolytics (beta-sympathomimetics, calcium-channel blockers, magnesium, cyclooxygenase inhibitors, and oxytocin receptor antagonists) have proven to be appropriate for maintenance treatment. Progesterone and 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate have shown promising results in low-quality randomized trials, but not in high-quality studies.
DISCUSSION
Basically, the value of studies regarding maintenance tocolysis is limited by a considerable heterogeneity, its mostly low quality, significant differences in methodology as well as the inadequate statistical power due to the small number of women studied. So far, maintenance tocolysis is a case-by-case decision outweighing the benefits and harms of tocolytic treatment.
Topics: Female; Humans; Obstetric Labor, Premature; Pregnancy; Progesterone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tocolysis; Tocolytic Agents
PubMed: 31576452
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-019-05313-7 -
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory... Apr 2018Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) serves as a co-target for dual/pan-EGFR-inhibitors in breast cancer. Findings suggest that EGFR and EGFR-ligands are involved in...
Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) serves as a co-target for dual/pan-EGFR-inhibitors in breast cancer. Findings suggest that EGFR and EGFR-ligands are involved in resistance towards certain breast cancer treatments. The aim is to explore the validity of EGFR and EGFR-ligands in blood as prognostic and predictive biomarkers in breast cancer. The systematic review was conducted in accordance to the PRISMA guidelines. Literature searches were conducted to identify publications exploring correlations between EGFR/EGFR-ligands in serum/plasma of breast cancer patients and prognostic/predictive outcome measures. Sixteen publications were eligible for inclusion. Twelve studies evaluated EGFR, whereas five studies evaluated one or more of the EGFR-ligands. Current evidence indicates associations between low baseline serum-EGFR and shorter survival or reduced response to treatment in patients with advanced breast cancer, especially in patients with estrogen and/or progesterone receptor positive tumors. The prognostic and predictive value of EGFR and EGFR-ligands in blood has only been investigated in highly selected subsets of breast cancer patients and most studies were small. This is the first systematic review evaluating the utility of EGFR and EGFR-ligands as predictive and prognostic biomarkers in blood in breast cancer. Further exploration in large well-designed studies is needed.
Topics: Biomarkers, Tumor; Breast Neoplasms; ErbB Receptors; Female; Humans; Ligands; Predictive Value of Tests; Prognosis
PubMed: 29194036
DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2017-0592 -
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica... Feb 2019The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether there are additional benefits of 17-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC) supplementation in preventing recurrent... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether there are additional benefits of 17-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC) supplementation in preventing recurrent spontaneous preterm birth in women with a prophylactic cerclage.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, PROSPERO, EMBASE, Scielo and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for studies published before June 2018. Keywords included "preterm birth", "prophylactic cerclage", "history-indicated cerclage", "pregnancy" and "17-hydroxyprogesterone caproate". Studies comparing history-indicated cerclage alone with cerclage+17-OHPC were included. The primary outcome measure was preterm birth at <24 weeks of gestation. Secondary outcome measures include preterm birth at <28 weeks, <32 weeks and <37 weeks of gestation, respiratory distress syndrome, necrotizing enterocolitis, fetal birthweight, neonatal intensive care unit stay, mean gestational age at delivery, fetal/neonatal death, neurological morbidity (intraventricular hemorrhage plus periventricular leukomalacia), neonatal sepsis and a composite of severe neonatal morbidity. Severe neonatal morbidity was defined as a composite measure of periventricular leukomalacia, intraventricular hemorrhage (grades III and IV), necrotizing enterocolitis or respiratory distress syndrome. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model of DerSimonian and Laird. Risk of bias and quality assessment were performed using the ROBINS-I and GRADE tools, respectively. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42018094559.
RESULTS
Five studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. Of the 546 women, 357 (75%) received history-indicated cerclage alone and 189 (35%) received adjuvant 17-OHPC. The composite endpoint, severe neonatal morbidity, was present in 84 of 1515 neonates. Though there was a trend toward a reduced risk of preterm birth, the summary estimate of effect was not statistically significant when comparing cerclage alone with cerclage+17-OHPC at <24 weeks (relative risk [RR] .86, 95% confidence interval [CI] .45-1.65). Similarly, we found no differences in preterm birth at <37 weeks (RR .90, 95% CI .70-1.17) and <28 weeks (RR .85, 95% CI .54-1.32) when comparing cerclage alone with cerclage+17-OHPC. There were no differences in fetal birthweight, respiratory distress syndrome or necrotizing enterocolitis comparing cerclage alone with cerclage+17-OHPC.
CONCLUSIONS
Intramuscular 17-OHPC in combination with prophylactic cerclage in women with prior preterm birth had no synergistic effect in reducing spontaneous recurrent preterm birth or improving perinatal outcomes.
Topics: 17 alpha-Hydroxyprogesterone Caproate; Cerclage, Cervical; Combined Modality Therapy; Estrogen Antagonists; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 30339274
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13488