-
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport Dec 2020To systematically review the current body of research that has investigated changes in strength-related variables during different phases of the menstrual cycle in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the current body of research that has investigated changes in strength-related variables during different phases of the menstrual cycle in eumenorrheic women.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted in Pubmed, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science using search terms related to the menstrual cycle and strength-related measures. Two reviewers reached consensus that 21 studies met the criteria for inclusion. Methodological rigour was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Random effects meta-analyses were used to compare the early-follicular, ovulatory and mid-luteal phases for maximal voluntary contraction, isokinetic peak torque, and explosive strength.
RESULTS
The assessment of study quality showed that a high level of bias exists in specific areas of study design. Non-significant and small or trivial effect sizes (p≥0.26, Hedges g≤0.35) were identified for all strength-related variables in each comparison between phases. 95% confidence intervals for each comparison suggested the uncertainty associated with each estimate extends to a small effect on strength performance with unclear direction (-0.42≤g≤0.48). The heterogeneity for each comparison was also small (p≥0.83, I=0%).
CONCLUSIONS
Strength-related measures appear to be minimally altered (g≤0.35) by the fluctuations in ovarian sex hormones that occur during the menstrual cycle. This finding should be interpreted with caution due to the methodological shortcomings identified by the quality assessment.
Topics: Athletic Performance; Estrogens; Female; Humans; Menstrual Cycle; Muscle Strength; Progesterone; Research Design
PubMed: 32456980
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsams.2020.04.022 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2016Progestin-only contraceptives (POCs) are appropriate for many women who cannot or should not take estrogen. POCs include injectables, intrauterine contraception,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Progestin-only contraceptives (POCs) are appropriate for many women who cannot or should not take estrogen. POCs include injectables, intrauterine contraception, implants, and oral contraceptives. Many POCs are long-acting, cost-effective methods of preventing pregnancy. However, concern about weight gain can deter the initiation of contraceptives and cause early discontinuation among users.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective was to evaluate the association between progestin-only contraceptive use and changes in body weight.
SEARCH METHODS
Until 4 August 2016, we searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, POPLINE, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP. For the initial review, we contacted investigators to identify other trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered comparative studies that examined a POC versus another contraceptive method or no contraceptive. The primary outcome was mean change in body weight or mean change in body composition. We also considered the dichotomous outcome of loss or gain of a specified amount of weight.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors extracted the data. Non-randomized studies (NRS) need to control for confounding factors. We used adjusted measures for the primary effects in NRS or the results of matched analysis from paired samples. If the report did not provide adjusted measures for the primary analysis, we used unadjusted outcomes. For RCTs and NRS without adjusted measures, we computed the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous variables. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
We found 22 eligible studies that included a total of 11,450 women. With 6 NRS added to this update, the review includes 17 NRS and 5 RCTs. By contraceptive method, the review has 16 studies of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), 4 of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine contraception (LNG-IUC), 5 for implants, and 2 for progestin-only pills.Comparison groups did not differ significantly for weight change or other body composition measure in 15 studies. Five studies with moderate or low quality evidence showed differences between study arms. Two studies of a six-rod implant also indicated some differences, but the evidence was low quality.Three studies showed differences for DMPA users compared with women not using a hormonal method. In a retrospective study, weight gain (kg) was greater for DMPA versus copper (Cu) IUC in years one (MD 2.28, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.77), two (MD 2.71, 95% CI 2.12 to 3.30), and three (MD 3.17, 95% CI 2.51 to 3.83). A prospective study showed adolescents using DMPA had a greater increase in body fat (%) compared with a group not using a hormonal method (MD 11.00, 95% CI 2.64 to 19.36). The DMPA group also had a greater decrease in lean body mass (%) (MD -4.00, 95% CI -6.93 to -1.07). A more recent retrospective study reported greater mean increases with use of DMPA versus Cu IUC for weight (kg) at years 1 (1.3 vs 0.2), 4 (3.5 vs 1.9), and 10 (6.6 vs 4.9).Two studies reported a greater mean increase in body fat mass (%) for POC users versus women not using a hormonal method. The method was LNG-IUC in two studies (reported means 2.5 versus -1.3; P = 0.029); (MD 1.60, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.75). One also studied a desogestrel-containing pill (MD 3.30, 95% CI 2.08 to 4.52). Both studies showed a greater decrease in lean body mass among POC users.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We considered the overall quality of evidence to be low; more than half of the studies had low quality evidence. The main reasons for downgrading were lack of randomizations (NRS) and high loss to follow-up or early discontinuation.These 22 studies showed limited evidence of change in weight or body composition with use of POCs. Mean weight gain at 6 or 12 months was less than 2 kg (4.4 lb) for most studies. Those with multiyear data showed mean weight change was approximately twice as much at two to four years than at one year, but generally the study groups did not differ significantly. Appropriate counseling about typical weight gain may help reduce discontinuation of contraceptives due to perceptions of weight gain.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Body Composition; Body Weight; Contraceptives, Oral, Hormonal; Drug Implants; Female; Humans; Intrauterine Devices, Medicated; Levonorgestrel; Medroxyprogesterone Acetate; Progestins; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Weight Gain
PubMed: 27567593
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008815.pub4 -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Mar 2021Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) is a new ovarian stimulation protocol that has been used over the last decade to enhance reproductive function. The purpose... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) is a new ovarian stimulation protocol that has been used over the last decade to enhance reproductive function. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether PPOS is as effective as conventional protocols (without GnRHa downregulation).
METHOD
Search terms included "medroxyprogesterone", "dydrogesterone", "progestin-primed ovarian stimulation", "PPOS", "oocyte retrieval", "in vitro fertilization", "IVF", "ICSI", "ART", and "reproductive". The selection criteria were nonrandomized studies and randomized controlled studies. For data collection and analysis, the Review Manager software, Newcastle-Ottowa Quality Assessment Scale and GRADE approach were used.
RESULTS
The clinical pregnancy rates were not significantly different in either RCTs or NRCTs [RR 0.96, 95% CI (0.69-1.33), I = 71%, P = 0.81]; [RR 0.99, 95% CI (0.83-1.17), I = 38%, P = 0.88]. The live birth rates of RCTs and NRCTs did not differ [RCT: RR 1.08, 95% CI (0.74, 1.57), I = 66%, P = 0.69; NRCT: OR 1.03 95% CI 0.84-1.26), I = 50%, P = 0.79]. The PPOS protocol had a lower rate of OHSS [RR 0.52, 95% CI (0.36-0.75), I = 0%, P = 0.0006]. The secondary results showed that compared to the control protocol, the endometrium was thicker [95% CI (0.00-0.78), I = 0%, P = 0.05], the number of obtained embryos was higher [95% CI (0.04-0.65), I = 17%, P = 0.03] and more hMG was needed [in NRCT: 95% CI (307.44, 572.73), I = 0%, P < 0.00001] with the PPOS protocol.
CONCLUSION
The PPOS protocol produces more obtained embryos and a thicker endometrium than the control protocol, with a lower rate of OHSS and an equal live birth rate. The PPOS protocol could be a safe option as a personalized protocol for infertile patients.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Registration at PROSPERO: CRD42020176577.
Topics: Dydrogesterone; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Oocyte Retrieval; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Progesterone; Progestins; Reproduction
PubMed: 33433705
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-020-05939-y -
BJOG : An International Journal of... Jan 2019There is no international consensus on how to manage women with a pregnancy of unknown location (PUL). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There is no international consensus on how to manage women with a pregnancy of unknown location (PUL).
OBJECTIVES
To present a systematic quantitative review summarising the evidence related to management protocols for PUL.
SEARCH STRATEGY
MEDLINE, COCHRANE and DARE databases were searched from 1 January 1984 to 31 January 2017. The primary outcome was accurate risk prediction of women initially diagnosed with a PUL having an ectopic pregnancy (high risk) as opposed to either a failed PUL or intrauterine pregnancy (low risk).
SELECTION CRITERIA
All studies written in the English language, which were not case reports or series that assessed women classified as having a PUL at initial ultrasound.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Forty-three studies were included. QUADAS-2 criteria were used to assess the risk of bias. We used a novel, linear mixed-effects model and constructed summary receiver operating characteristic curves for the thresholds of interest.
MAIN RESULTS
There was a high risk of differential verification bias in most studies. Meta-analyses of accuracy were performed on (i) single human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) cut-off levels, (ii) hCG ratio (hCG at 48 hours/initial hCG), (iii) single progesterone cut-off levels and (iv) the 'M4 model' (a logistic regression model based on the initial hCG and hCG ratio). For predicting an ectopic pregnancy, the areas under the curves (95% CI) for these four management protocols were as follows: (i) 0.42 (0.00-0.99), (ii) 0.69 (0.57-0.78), (iii) 0.69 (0.54-0.81) and (iv) 0.87 (0.83-0.91), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The M4 model was the best available method for predicting a final outcome of ectopic pregnancy. Developing and validating risk prediction models may optimise the management of PUL.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT
Pregnancy of unknown location meta-analysis: M4 model has best test performance to predict ectopic pregnancy.
Topics: Chorionic Gonadotropin; Decision Support Techniques; Female; Humans; Logistic Models; Pregnancy; Pregnancy, Ectopic; Progesterone; ROC Curve; Risk Assessment; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 30129999
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.15442 -
American Family Physician Dec 2016The results of large clinical trials have led physicians and patients to question the safety of hormone therapy for menopause. In the past, physicians prescribed hormone... (Review)
Review
The results of large clinical trials have led physicians and patients to question the safety of hormone therapy for menopause. In the past, physicians prescribed hormone therapy to improve overall health and prevent cardiac disease, as well as for symptoms of menopause. Combined estrogen/progestogen therapy, but not estrogen alone, increases the risk of breast cancer when used for more than three to five years. Therefore, in women with a uterus, it is recommended that physicians prescribe combination therapy only to treat menopausal symptoms such as vasomotor symptoms (hot flashes) and vaginal atrophy, using the smallest effective dosage for the shortest possible duration. Although estrogen is the most effective treatment for hot flashes, nonhormonal alternatives such as low-dose paroxetine, venlafaxine, and gabapentin are effective alternatives. Women with a uterus who are using estrogen should also take a progestogen to reduce the risk of endometrial cancer. Women who cannot tolerate adverse effects of progestogens may benefit from a combined formulation of estrogen and the selective estrogen receptor modulator bazedoxifene. There is no highquality, consistent evidence that yoga, paced respiration, acupuncture, exercise, stress reduction, relaxation therapy, and alternative therapies such as black cohosh, botanical products, omega-3 fatty acid supplements, and dietary Chinese herbs benefit patients more than placebo. One systematic review suggests modest improvement in hot flashes and vaginal dryness with soy products, and small studies suggest that clinical hypnosis significantly reduces hot flashes. Patients with genitourinary syndrome of menopause may benefit from vaginal estrogen, nonhormonal vaginal moisturizers, or ospemifene (the only nonhormonal treatment approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for dyspareunia due to menopausal atrophy). The decision to use hormone therapy depends on clinical presentation, a thorough evaluation of the risks and benefits, and an informed discussion with the patient.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Administration, Intravaginal; Amines; Antidepressive Agents; Atrophy; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Dietary Supplements; Drug Therapy, Combination; Dyspareunia; Estrogen Replacement Therapy; Estrogens; Exercise Therapy; Female; Gabapentin; Hot Flashes; Humans; Hypnosis; Indoles; Menopause; Paroxetine; Progestins; Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators; Tamoxifen; Vagina; Vaginal Diseases; Vasomotor System; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 27929271
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 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, and 15% to 20% of pregnancies ending in a miscarriage. Progesterone has an important role in maintaining a pregnancy, and supplementation with different progestogens in early pregnancy has been attempted to rescue a pregnancy in women with early pregnancy bleeding (threatened miscarriage), and to prevent miscarriages in asymptomatic women who have a history of three or more previous miscarriages (recurrent miscarriage).
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the relative effectiveness and safety profiles for the different progestogen treatments for threatened and recurrent miscarriage, and provide rankings of the available treatments according to their effectiveness, safety, and side-effect profile.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 15 December 2020: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE(R), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness or safety of progestogen treatment for the prevention of miscarriage. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Randomised trials published only as abstracts were eligible if sufficient information could be retrieved. We excluded quasi- and non-randomised trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We performed pairwise meta-analyses and indirect comparisons, where possible, to determine the relative effects of all available treatments, but due to the limited number of included studies only direct or indirect comparisons were possible. We estimated the relative effects for the primary outcome of live birth and the secondary outcomes including miscarriage (< 24 weeks of gestation), preterm birth (< 37 weeks of gestation), stillbirth, ectopic pregnancy, congenital abnormalities, and adverse drug events. Relative effects for all outcomes are reported separately by the type of miscarriage (threatened and recurrent miscarriage). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
Our meta-analysis included seven randomised trials involving 5,682 women, and all provided data for meta-analysis. All trials were conducted in hospital settings. Across seven trials (14 treatment arms), the following treatments were used: three arms (21%) used vaginal micronized progesterone; three arms (21%) used dydrogesterone; one arm (7%) used oral micronized progesterone; one arm (7%) used 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone, and six arms (43%) used placebo. Women with threatened miscarriage Based on the relative effects from the pairwise meta-analysis, vaginal micronized progesterone (two trials, 4090 women, risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.07, high-certainty evidence), and dydrogesterone (one trial, 406 women, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.07, moderate-certainty evidence) probably make little or no difference to the live birth rate when compared with placebo for women with threatened miscarriage. No data are available to assess the effectiveness of 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone or oral micronized progesterone for the outcome of live birth in women with threatened miscarriage. The pre-specified subgroup analysis by number of previous miscarriages is only possible for vaginal micronized progesterone in women with threatened miscarriage. In women with no previous miscarriages and early pregnancy bleeding, there is probably little or no improvement in the live birth rate (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.04, high-certainty evidence) when treated with vaginal micronized progesterone compared to placebo. However, for women with one or more previous miscarriages and early pregnancy bleeding, vaginal micronized progesterone increases the live birth rate compared to placebo (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.15, high-certainty evidence). Women with recurrent miscarriage Based on the results from one trial (826 women) vaginal micronized progesterone (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.15, high-certainty evidence) probably makes little or no difference to the live birth rate when compared with placebo for women with recurrent miscarriage. The evidence for dydrogesterone compared with placebo for women with recurrent miscarriage is of very low-certainty evidence, therefore the effects remain unclear. No data are available to assess the effectiveness of 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone or oral micronized progesterone for the outcome of live birth in women with recurrent miscarriage. Additional outcomes All progestogen treatments have a wide range of effects on the other pre-specified outcomes (miscarriage (< 24 weeks of gestation), preterm birth (< 37 weeks of gestation), stillbirth, ectopic pregnancy) in comparison to placebo for both threatened and recurrent miscarriage. Moderate- and low-certainty evidence with a wide range of effects suggests that there is probably no difference in congenital abnormalities and adverse drug events with vaginal micronized progesterone for threatened (congenital abnormalities RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.46, moderate-certainty evidence; adverse drug events RR 1.07 95% CI 0.81 to 1.39, moderate-certainty evidence) or recurrent miscarriage (congenital abnormalities 0.75, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.85, low-certainty evidence; adverse drug events RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.29, moderate-certainty evidence) compared with placebo. There are limited data and very low-certainty evidence on congenital abnormalities and adverse drug events for the other progestogens.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The overall available evidence suggests that progestogens probably make little or no difference to live birth rate for women with threatened or recurrent miscarriage. However, vaginal micronized progesterone may increase the live birth rate for women with a history of one or more previous miscarriages and early pregnancy bleeding, with likely no difference in adverse events. There is still uncertainty over the effectiveness and safety of alternative progestogen treatments for threatened and recurrent miscarriage.
Topics: Abortion, Habitual; Abortion, Spontaneous; Bias; Birth Rate; Dydrogesterone; Female; Humans; Hydroxyprogesterones; Live Birth; Network Meta-Analysis; Placebos; Pregnancy; Progesterone; Progestins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stillbirth
PubMed: 33872382
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013792.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Among subfertile couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART), pregnancy rates following frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) treatment cycles have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Among subfertile couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART), pregnancy rates following frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) treatment cycles have historically been found to be lower than following embryo transfer undertaken two to five days following oocyte retrieval. Nevertheless, FET increases the cumulative pregnancy rate, reduces cost, is relatively simple to undertake and can be accomplished in a shorter time period than repeated in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles with fresh embryo transfer. FET is performed using different cycle regimens: spontaneous ovulatory (natural) cycles; cycles in which the endometrium is artificially prepared by oestrogen and progesterone hormones, commonly known as hormone therapy (HT) FET cycles; and cycles in which ovulation is induced by drugs (ovulation induction FET cycles). HT can be used with or without a gonadotrophin releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa). This is an update of a Cochrane review; the first version was published in 2008.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness and safety of natural cycle FET, HT cycle FET and ovulation induction cycle FET, and compare subtypes of these regimens.
SEARCH METHODS
On 13 December 2016 we searched databases including Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL. Other search sources were trials registers and reference lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the various cycle regimens and different methods used to prepare the endometrium during FET.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were live birth rates and miscarriage.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 RCTs comparing different cycle regimens for FET in 3815 women. The quality of the evidence was low or very low. The main limitations were failure to report important clinical outcomes, poor reporting of study methods and imprecision due to low event rates. We found no data specific to non-ovulatory women. 1. Natural cycle FET comparisons Natural cycle FET versus HT FETNo study reported live birth rates, miscarriage or ongoing pregnancy.There was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rates between women in natural cycles and those in HT FET cycle (odds ratio (OR) 2.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 68.14, 1 RCT, n = 21, very low-quality evidence). Natural cycle FET versus HT plus GnRHa suppressionThere was no evidence of a difference in rates of live birth (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.53, 1 RCT, n = 159, low-quality evidence) or multiple pregnancy (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.50, 1 RCT, n = 159, low-quality evidence) between women who had natural cycle FET and those who had HT FET cycles with GnRHa suppression. No study reported miscarriage or ongoing pregnancy. Natural cycle FET versus modified natural cycle FET (human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) trigger)There was no evidence of a difference in rates of live birth (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.93, 1 RCT, n = 60, very low-quality evidence) or miscarriage (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.13, 1 RCT, n = 168, very low-quality evidence) between women in natural cycles and women in natural cycles with HCG trigger. However, very low-quality evidence suggested that women in natural cycles (without HCG trigger) may have higher ongoing pregnancy rates (OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.03 to 5.76, 1 RCT, n = 168). There were no data on multiple pregnancy. 2. Modified natural cycle FET comparisons Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) versus HT FETThere was no evidence of a difference in rates of live birth (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.05, 1 RCT, n = 959, low-quality evidence) or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.83, 1 RCT, n = 959, low-quality evidence) between women in modified natural cycles and those who received HT. There were no data on miscarriage or multiple pregnancy. Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) versus HT plus GnRHa suppressionThere was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in rates of live birth (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.87, 1 RCT, n = 236, low-quality evidence) or miscarriage (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.19, 1 RCT, n = 236, low-quality evidence) rates. There were no data on ongoing pregnancy or multiple pregnancy. 3. HT FET comparisons HT FET versus HT plus GnRHa suppressionHT alone was associated with a lower live birth rate than HT with GnRHa suppression (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.30, 1 RCT, n = 75, low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in either miscarriage (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.12, 6 RCTs, n = 991, I = 0%, low-quality evidence) or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.85, 1 RCT, n = 106, very low-quality evidence).There were no data on multiple pregnancy. 4. Comparison of subtypes of ovulation induction FET Human menopausal gonadotrophin(HMG) versus clomiphene plus HMG HMG alone was associated with a higher live birth rate than clomiphene combined with HMG (OR 2.49, 95% CI 1.07 to 5.80, 1 RCT, n = 209, very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in either miscarriage (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.35 to 5.09,1 RCT, n = 209, very low-quality evidence) or multiple pregnancy (OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.31 to 6.48, 1 RCT, n = 209, very low-quality evidence).There were no data on ongoing pregnancy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review did not find sufficient evidence to support the use of one cycle regimen in preference to another in preparation for FET in subfertile women with regular ovulatory cycles. The most common modalities for FET are natural cycle with or without HCG trigger or endometrial preparation with HT, with or without GnRHa suppression. We identified only four direct comparisons of these two modalities and there was insufficient evidence to support the use of either one in preference to the other.
Topics: Clomiphene; Cryopreservation; Embryo Transfer; Endometrium; Estrogens; Female; Fertility Agents, Female; Follicular Phase; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Progesterone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28675921
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003414.pub3 -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Feb 2018The efficacy of vaginal progesterone for preventing preterm birth and adverse perinatal outcomes in singleton gestations with a short cervix has been questioned after... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The efficacy of vaginal progesterone for preventing preterm birth and adverse perinatal outcomes in singleton gestations with a short cervix has been questioned after publication of the OPPTIMUM study.
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether vaginal progesterone prevents preterm birth and improves perinatal outcomes in asymptomatic women with a singleton gestation and a midtrimester sonographic short cervix.
STUDY DESIGN
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CINAHL (from their inception to September 2017); Cochrane databases; bibliographies; and conference proceedings for randomized controlled trials comparing vaginal progesterone vs placebo/no treatment in women with a singleton gestation and a midtrimester sonographic cervical length ≤25 mm. This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. The primary outcome was preterm birth <33 weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes included adverse perinatal outcomes and neurodevelopmental and health outcomes at 2 years of age. Individual patient data were analyzed using a 2-stage approach. Pooled relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE methodology.
RESULTS
Data were available from 974 women (498 allocated to vaginal progesterone, 476 allocated to placebo) with a cervical length ≤25 mm participating in 5 high-quality trials. Vaginal progesterone was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of preterm birth <33 weeks of gestation (relative risk, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.81; P = .0006; high-quality evidence). Moreover, vaginal progesterone significantly decreased the risk of preterm birth <36, <35, <34, <32, <30, and <28 weeks of gestation; spontaneous preterm birth <33 and <34 weeks of gestation; respiratory distress syndrome; composite neonatal morbidity and mortality; birthweight <1500 and <2500 g; and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (relative risks from 0.47-0.82; high-quality evidence for all). There were 7 (1.4%) neonatal deaths in the vaginal progesterone group and 15 (3.2%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-1.07; P = .07; low-quality evidence). Maternal adverse events, congenital anomalies, and adverse neurodevelopmental and health outcomes at 2 years of age did not differ between groups.
CONCLUSION
Vaginal progesterone decreases the risk of preterm birth and improves perinatal outcomes in singleton gestations with a midtrimester sonographic short cervix, without any demonstrable deleterious effects on childhood neurodevelopment.
Topics: Administration, Intravaginal; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth; Progesterone; Progestins; Risk; Treatment Outcome; Uterine Cervical Diseases
PubMed: 29157866
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.11.576 -
BJOG : An International Journal of... Jan 2023Fifteen percent of patients with endometrial cancer (EC) have advanced stage disease or develop a recurrence. Progestins have been applied as systemic treatment for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fifteen percent of patients with endometrial cancer (EC) have advanced stage disease or develop a recurrence. Progestins have been applied as systemic treatment for decades, but there is limited evidence on response prediction with biomarkers and toxicity.
OBJECTIVES
To review the response and toxicity of progestin therapy and stratify response to progesterone receptor (PR) expression and tumour grade.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We used the search terms 'Endometrial cancer', 'Progestins', 'Disease progression', 'Recurrence' and related terms in Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies on patients with advanced stage or recurrent EC treated with progestin monotherapy were included. Studies on adjuvant therapy, with fewer than ten cases and with sarcoma histology were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Evaluation for bias was performed with the Revised Cochrane RoB2 tool for randomised studies and the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised studies. A random effects meta-analysis was performed with the overall response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate and toxicity as primary outcome measures.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-six studies (1639 patients) were included. The ORR of progestin therapy was 30% (95% CI 25-36), the clinical benefit rate was 52% (95% CI 42-61). In PR-positive EC, the ORR was 55%, compared with 12% in PR-negative disease (risk difference 43%, 95% CI 15-71). Severe toxicity occurred in 6.5%.
CONCLUSIONS
Progestin therapy is a viable treatment option in patients with advanced stage and recurrent EC with low toxicity and high ORR in PR-positive disease. The role of PR expression in relation to progression-free survival and overall survival is unclear.
Topics: Female; Humans; Progestins; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Endometrial Neoplasms
PubMed: 36264251
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.17331 -
The European Journal of Contraception &... Feb 2019A systematic review was carried out of studies of women with endometriosis, to examine the evidence for efficacy of the use of hormonal contraception to improve...
OBJECTIVE
A systematic review was carried out of studies of women with endometriosis, to examine the evidence for efficacy of the use of hormonal contraception to improve disease-related pain and decrease postoperative risk of disease recurrence.
METHODS
A search of the Medline/PubMed and Embase databases was performed to identify all published English language studies on hormonal contraceptive therapies (combined hormonal contraceptives [CHCs], combined oral contraceptives [COCs], progestin-only pills [POPs] and progestin-only contraceptives [POCs]) in women with a validated endometriosis diagnosis, in comparison with placebo, comparator therapies or other hormonal therapies. Main outcome measures were endometriosis-related pain (dysmenorrhoea, pelvic pain and dyspareunia), quality of life (QoL) and postoperative rate of disease recurrence during treatment.
RESULTS
CHC and POC treatments were associated with clinically significant reductions in dysmenorrhoea, often accompanied by reductions in non-cyclical pelvic pain and dyspareunia and an improvement in QoL. Only two COC preparations (ethinylestradiol [EE]/norethisterone acetate [NETA] and a flexible EE/drospirenone regimen) demonstrated significantly increased efficacy compared with placebo. Only three studies found that the postoperative use of COCs (EE/NETA, EE/desogestrel and EE/gestodene) reduced the risk of disease recurrence. There was no evidence that POCs reduced the risk of disease recurrence.
CONCLUSIONS
CHCs and POCs are effective for the relief of endometriosis-related dysmenorrhoea, pelvic pain and dyspareunia, and improve QoL. Some COCs decreased the risk of disease recurrence after conservative surgery, but POCs did not. There is insufficient evidence, however, to reach definitive conclusions about the overall superiority of any particular hormonal contraceptive.
Topics: Adult; Androstenes; Contraception; Contraceptives, Oral, Combined; Contraceptives, Oral, Hormonal; Desogestrel; Drug Combinations; Endometriosis; Ethinyl Estradiol; Female; Humans; Norethindrone; Pelvic Pain; Progestins; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30664383
DOI: 10.1080/13625187.2018.1550576