-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2019. Catamenial epilepsy describes worsening seizures in relation to the menstrual cycle and may... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2019. Catamenial epilepsy describes worsening seizures in relation to the menstrual cycle and may affect around 40% of women with epilepsy. Vulnerable days of the menstrual cycle for seizures are perimenstrually (C1 pattern), at ovulation (C2 pattern), and during the luteal phase (C3 pattern). A reduction in progesterone levels premenstrually and reduced secretion during the luteal phase is implicated in catamenial C1 and C3 patterns. A reduction in progesterone has been demonstrated to reduce sensitivity to the inhibitory neurotransmitter in preclinical studies, hence increasing risk of seizures. A pre-ovulatory surge in oestrogen has been implicated in the C2 pattern of seizure exacerbation, although the exact mechanism by which this surge increases risk is uncertain. Current treatment practices include the use of pulsed hormonal (e.g. progesterone) and non-hormonal treatments (e.g. clobazam or acetazolamide) in women with regular menses, and complete cessation of menstruation using synthetic hormones (e.g. medroxyprogesterone (Depo-Provera) or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues (triptorelin and goserelin)) in women with irregular menses. Catamenial epilepsy and seizure exacerbation is common in women with epilepsy. Women may not receive appropriate treatment for their seizures because of uncertainty regarding which treatment works best and when in the menstrual cycle treatment should be taken, as well as the possible impact on fertility, the menstrual cycle, bone health, and cardiovascular health. This review aims to address these issues to inform clinical practice and future research.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of hormonal and non-hormonal treatments for seizures exacerbated by the menstrual cycle in women with regular or irregular menses. We synthesised the evidence from randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of hormonal and non-hormonal treatments in women with catamenial epilepsy of any pattern.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 20 July 2021 for the latest update: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 July 2021). CRS Web includes randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy. We used no language restrictions. We checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs of blinded or open-label design that randomised participants individually (i.e. cluster-randomised trials were excluded). We included cross-over trials if each treatment period was at least 12 weeks in length and the trial had a suitable wash-out period. We included the following types of interventions: women with any pattern of catamenial epilepsy who received a hormonal or non-hormonal drug intervention in addition to an existing antiepileptic drug regimen for a minimum treatment duration of 12 weeks.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data on study design factors and participant demographics for the included studies. The primary outcomes of interest were: proportion seizure-free, proportion of responders (at least 50% decrease in seizure frequency from baseline), and change in seizure frequency. Secondary outcomes included: number of withdrawals, number of women experiencing adverse events of interest (seizure exacerbation, cardiac events, thromboembolic events, osteoporosis and bone health, mood disorders, sedation, menstrual cycle disorders, and fertility issues), and quality of life outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
Following title, abstract, and full-text screening, we included eight full-text articles reporting on four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs. We included two cross-over RCTs of pulsed norethisterone, and two parallel RCTs of pulsed progesterone recruiting a total of 192 women aged between 13 and 45 years with catamenial epilepsy. We found no RCTs for non-hormonal treatments of catamenial epilepsy or for women with irregular menses. Meta-analysis was not possible for the primary outcomes, therefore we undertook a narrative synthesis. For the two RCTs evaluating norethisterone versus placebo (24 participants), there were no reported treatment differences for change in seizure frequency. Outcomes for the proportion seizure-free and 50% responders were not reported. For the two RCTs evaluating progesterone versus placebo (168 participants), the studies reported conflicting results for the primary outcomes. One progesterone RCT reported no significant difference between progesterone 600 mg/day taken on day 14 to 28 and placebo with respect to 50% responders, seizure freedom rates, and change in seizure frequency for any seizure type. The other progesterone RCT reported a decrease in seizure frequency from baseline in the progesterone group that was significantly higher than the decrease in seizure frequency from baseline in the placebo group. The results of secondary efficacy outcomes showed no significant difference between groups in the pooled progesterone RCTs in terms of treatment withdrawal for any reason (pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 3.00, P = 0.18, I = 0%) or treatment withdrawals due to adverse events (pooled RR 2.91, 95% CI 0.53 to 16.17, P = 0.22, I = 0%). No treatment withdrawals were reported from the norethisterone RCTs. The RCTs reported limited information on adverse events, although one progesterone RCT reported no significant difference in the number of women experiencing adverse events (diarrhoea, dyspepsia, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, nasopharyngitis, dizziness, headache, and depression). No studies reported on quality of life. We judged the evidence for outcomes related to the included progesterone RCTs to be of low to moderate certainty due to risk of bias, and for outcomes related to the included norethisterone RCTs to be of very low certainty due to serious imprecision and risk of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review provides very low-certainty evidence of no treatment difference between norethisterone and placebo, and moderate- to low-certainty evidence of no treatment difference between progesterone and placebo for catamenial epilepsy. However, as all the included studies were underpowered, important clinical effects cannot be ruled out. Our review highlights an overall deficiency in the literature base on the effectiveness of a wide range of other hormonal and non-hormonal interventions currently being used in practice, particularly for those women who do not have regular menses. Further clinical trials are needed in this area.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anticonvulsants; Epilepsy; Fatigue; Female; Humans; Menstruation; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Young Adult
PubMed: 34528245
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013225.pub3 -
Journal of Education and Health... 2021Recent studies have reported inconclusive results regarding the therapeutic effects of Rosa damascena on the outcomes of primary dysmenorrhea (PD) and premenstrual... (Review)
Review
Recent studies have reported inconclusive results regarding the therapeutic effects of Rosa damascena on the outcomes of primary dysmenorrhea (PD) and premenstrual syndrome (PMS). Hence, this study is aimed to summarize the findings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the effects of this treatment on menstruation-related pain as the primary outcome and menstruation-related headache, fatigue, anxiety, and bloating as the secondary outcomes. This study evaluated parallel-group and cross-over RCTs on aromatherapy, topical treatment, or oral intake of R. damascena products for the treatment groups versus placebo, nontreated, or conventional treatment groups. Seven electronic databases (Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, SID, and MagIran) and one search engine (PubMed) were searched from inception to January 15, 2021. Of 1468 trials found in the initial search, 983 potentially relevant articles were screened by title and abstract. After examining the full-text of 13 studies for compliance with the inclusion criteria, seven studies were considered eligible for this review. A random-effects model was used to pool the data; otherwise, a narrative summary was presented. The retrieved studies were conducted on females with PD or PMS, aged 18-35 years. The total sample size of the intervention and comparator arms was 276 and 272. The results showed that R. damascena had a nonsignificant alleviating effect on the menstruation-related pain (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.25, 0.31; = 0.234). Such findings were also found for menstruation-related anxiety (WMD: -0.40; 95% CI: -0.91, 0.11; = 0.125). However, the treatment significantly reduced the menstruation-related headache (WMD: -0.42; 95% CI: -0.74, -0.11; = 0.008), fatigue (WMD: -0.48; 95% CI: -0.87, -0.09; = 0.015), and bloating (WMD: -0.72; 95% CI: -1.21, -0.22; = 0.005). Since R. damascena had no significant effects on menstruation-related pain and anxiety, further studies with improved methodological quality are suggested to evaluate the effects of the treatment on these symptoms, using different dosages and durations.
PubMed: 34485569
DOI: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_18_21 -
Annals of Medicine Dec 2021There are no robust national prevalence of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes in Nigerian women despite the high burden of cervical cancer morbidity and mortality.
BACKGROUND
There are no robust national prevalence of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes in Nigerian women despite the high burden of cervical cancer morbidity and mortality.
THE OBJECTIVE OF STUDY
This study aims to determine the pooled prevalence and risk factors of genital HPV infection in Nigeria through a systemic review protocol.
METHODS
Databases including PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar and AJOL were searched between 10 April to 28 July 2020. HPV studies on Nigerian females and published from April 1999 to March 2019 were included. GRADE was used to assess the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
The pooled prevalence of cervical HPV was 20.65% (95%CI: 19.7-21.7). Genotypes 31 (70.8%), 35 (69.9%) and 16 (52.9%) were the most predominant HPV in circulation. Of the six geopolitical zones in Nigeria, northeast had the highest pooled prevalence of HPV infection (48.1%), while the least was in the north-west (6.8%). After multivariate logistic regression, duration (years) of sexual exposure (OR = 3.24, 95%CI: 1.78-9.23]), history of other malignancies (OR = 1.93, 95%CI: 1.03-2.97]), history of sexually transmitted infection (OR = 2.45, 95% CI: 1.31-3.55]), coital frequency per week (OR = 5.11, 95%CI: 3.86-14.29), the status of circumcision of the sexual partner (OR = 2.71, 95%CI: 1.62-9.05), and marital status (OR = 1.72, 95%CI: 1.16-4.72), were significant risk factors of HPV infection ( < 0.05). Irregular menstruation, post-coital bleeding and abdominal vaginal discharge were significantly associated with HPV infection ( < 0.05).
CONCLUSION
HPV prevalence is high in Nigeria and was significantly associated with several associated risk factors. Rapid screening for high-risk HPV genotypes is recommended and multivalent HPV vaccines should be considered for women.
Topics: Female; Genotype; Humans; Nigeria; Papillomaviridae; Papillomavirus Infections; Prevalence; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 34124973
DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2021.1938201 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019Catamenial epilepsy describes a worsening of seizures in relation to the menstrual cycle and may affect around 40% of women with epilepsy. Vulnerable days of the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Catamenial epilepsy describes a worsening of seizures in relation to the menstrual cycle and may affect around 40% of women with epilepsy. Vulnerable days of the menstrual cycle for seizures are perimenstrually (C1 pattern), at ovulation (C2 pattern), and during the luteal phase (C3 pattern). A reduction in progesterone levels premenstrually and reduced secretion during the luteal phase is implicated in catamenial C1 and C3 patterns. A reduction in progesterone has been demonstrated to reduce sensitivity to the inhibitory neurotransmitter in preclinical studies, hence increasing risk of seizures. A pre-ovulatory surge in oestrogen has been implicated in the C2 pattern of seizure exacerbation, although the exact mechanism by which this surge increases risk is uncertain. Current treatment practices include the use of pulsed hormonal (e.g. progesterone) and non-hormonal treatments (e.g. clobazam or acetazolamide) in women with regular menses, and complete cessation of menstruation using synthetic hormones (e.g. medroxyprogesterone (Depo-Provera) or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues (triptorelin and goserelin)) in women with irregular menses.Catamenial epilepsy and seizure exacerbation is common in women with epilepsy, and may have a significant negative impact on quality of life. Women may not be receiving appropriate treatment for their seizures because of uncertainty regarding which treatment works best and when in the menstrual cycle treatment should be taken, as well as the possible impact on fertility, the menstrual cycle, bone health, and cardiovascular health. This review aimed to address these issues in order to inform clinical practice and future research.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of hormonal and non-hormonal treatments for seizures exacerbated by the menstrual cycle in women with regular or irregular menses. We synthesised the evidence from randomised controlled trials of hormonal and non-hormonal treatments in women with catamenial epilepsy of any pattern.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases to 10 January 2019: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web; includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)), MEDLINE (Ovid: 1946 to 9 January 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We used no language restrictions. We checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of blinded or opeṉlabel design that randomised participants individually (i.e. cluster-randomised trials were excluded). We included cross-over trials if each treatment period was at least 12 weeks in length and the trial had a suitable wash-out period. Types of interventions included: women with any pattern of catamenial epilepsy who received a hormonal or non-hormonal drug intervention in addition to an existing antiepileptic drug regimen for a minimum treatment duration of 12 weeks.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data on study design factors and participant demographics for the included studies. The primary outcomes of interest were: proportion seizure-free, proportion of responders (at least 50% decrease in seizure frequency from baseline), and mean change in seizure frequency. Secondary outcomes included: number of withdrawals, number of women experiencing adverse events of interest (seizure exacerbation, cardiac events, thromboembolic events, osteoporosis and bone health, mood disorders, sedation, menstrual cycle disorders, and fertility issues), and quality of life outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 62 records from the databases and search strategies. Following title, abstract, and full-text screening, we included eight full-text articles reporting on four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs. We included two cross-over RCTs of pulsed norethisterone and two parallel RCTs of pulsed progesterone recruiting a total of 192 women aged between 13 and 45 years with catamenial epilepsy. We found no RCTs for non-hormonal treatments of catamenial epilepsy or for women with irregular menses.Meta-analysis was not possible for the primary outcomes, therefore we undertook a narrative synthesis. For the two RCTs evaluating norethisterone versus placebo (24 participants), there were no reported treatment differences for mean change in seizure frequency. Outcomes for the proportion seizure-free and 50% responders were not reported. For the RCTs evaluating progesterone versus placebo (168 participants), the studies reported conflicting results on the primary outcomes. One progesterone RCT reported no significant difference between progesterone 600 mg/day taken on day 14 to 28 and placebo with respect to 50% responders, seizure freedom rates, and change in seizure frequency for any seizure type. The other progesterone RCT reported that the decrease in seizure frequency from baseline in the progesterone group was significantly higher than the decrease in seizure frequency from baseline in the placebo group.Results of secondary efficacy outcomes showed no significant difference in terms of treatment withdrawal for any reason in the pooled progesterone RCTs when compared to placebo (pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 3.00, P = 0.18, I = 0%) or for treatment withdrawals due to adverse events (pooled RR 2.91, 95% CI 0.53 to 16.17, P = 0.22, I = 0%). No treatment withdrawals from the norethisterone RCTs were reported. The RCTs reported limited information on adverse events, although one progesterone RCT reported no significant difference in the number of women experiencing adverse events (diarrhoea, dyspepsia, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, nasopharyngitis, dizziness, headache, and depression). No studies reported on quality of life.We judged the evidence from the included progesterone RCTs to be of low to moderate certainty due to risk of bias and from the included norethisterone RCTs to be of very low certainty due to serious imprecision and risk of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review provides very low-certainty evidence of no treatment difference between norethisterone and placebo, and moderate- to low-certainty evidence of no treatment difference between progesterone and placebo for catamenial epilepsy. However, as all the included studies were underpowered, important clinical effects cannot be ruled out.Our review highlighted an overall deficiency in the literature base on the effectiveness of a wide range of other hormonal and non-hormonal interventions currently being used in practice, particularly for those patients who do not have regular menses. Further clinical trials are needed in this area.
PubMed: 31608992
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013225.pub2 -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... May 2020Changes in menstrual bleeding concern many users of the 52 mg Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System. Prescribing information for Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System devices... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Changes in menstrual bleeding concern many users of the 52 mg Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System. Prescribing information for Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System devices describe an overall decrease in bleeding and spotting days over time; however, estimates derived from a variety of existing clinical data are currently unavailable.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of the study was to systematically calculate the mean days of bleeding-only, spotting-only, and bleeding and/or spotting experienced by a population of reproductive-aged Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System users with normal regular menses prior to insertion during the first year of use.
DATA SOURCES
We identified clinical trials, including randomized controlled trials and randomized comparative trials, as well as cohort studies published in English between January 1970 and November 2018 through searching 12 biomedical and scientific literature databases including MEDLINE and ClinicalTrials.gov.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We considered studies that reported data on Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System devices releasing 20 μg of levonorgestrel per day, collected daily menstrual bleeding data for at least 90 consecutive days, defined bleeding and spotting per World Health Organization standards and evaluated participants with normal regular menses prior to insertion.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
We assessed study quality using established guidelines. Two reviewers independently conducted all review stages and rated the quality of evidence for each article; any disagreements were resolved by a third. Where possible, we pooled data using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Among 3403 potentially relevant studies, we included 7 in our meta-analysis. We calculated the mean days of bleeding-only, spotting-only, and bleeding and/or spotting for the first four 90 day intervals after Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System insertion. Combined menstrual bleeding and/or spotting days gradually decreased throughout the first year, from 35.6 days (95% confidence interval, 32.2-39.1) during the first 90 day interval to 19.1 (95% confidence interval, 16.6-21.5), 14.2 (95% confidence interval, 11.7-16.8), and 11.7 days (95% confidence interval, 9.7-13.7) in the second, third, and fourth intervals. Measures for bleeding-only and spotting-only days similarly decreased throughout the first year, with the greatest decreases occurring between the first and second intervals.
CONCLUSION
Our study provides 90 day reference period measures that characterize menstrual patterns for Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System users with normal regular menses prior to insertion during the first year of use. Our findings provide broader generalizability and more detail than patterns described in the prescribing information. These findings quantify an overall decrease in menstrual bleeding days with longer duration of use, with the greatest decrease occurring between months 3 and 6. Accurately establishing expectations with the Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System may improve informed selection and decrease discontinuation.
Topics: Adult; Contraceptive Agents, Female; Female; Humans; Intrauterine Devices, Medicated; Levonorgestrel; Menstruation; Metrorrhagia; Time Factors
PubMed: 31589865
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.09.044 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in premenopausal women. Although surgery is often used as a treatment, a range of medical therapies...
BACKGROUND
Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in premenopausal women. Although surgery is often used as a treatment, a range of medical therapies are also available. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduce prostaglandin levels, which are elevated in women with excessive menstrual bleeding and also may have a beneficial effect on dysmenorrhoea.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of NSAIDs in achieving a reduction in menstrual blood loss (MBL) in women of reproductive years with HMB.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched, in April 2019, the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility specialised register, Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online (CENTRAL CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the clinical trial registries and reference lists of articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
The inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of individual NSAIDs or combined with other medical therapy with each other, placebo or other medical treatments in women with regular heavy periods measured either objectively or subjectively and with no pathological or iatrogenic (treatment-induced) causes for their HMB.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We identified 19 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (759 women) that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review and two review authors independently extracted data. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes from the data of nine trials. We described in data tables the results of the remaining seven cross-over trials with data unsuitable for pooling, one trial with skewed data, and one trial with missing variances. One trial had no data available for analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
As a group, NSAIDs were more effective than placebo at reducing HMB but less effective than tranexamic acid, danazol or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG IUS). Treatment with danazol caused a shorter duration of menstruation and more adverse events than NSAIDs, but this did not appear to affect the acceptability of treatment, based on trials from 1980 to 1990. However, currently danazol is not a usual or recommended treatment for HMB. There was no clear evidence of difference between NSAIDs and the other treatments (oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, an older progesterone-releasing intrauterine system and the oral contraceptive pill (OCP), but most studies were underpowered. There was no evidence of a difference between the individual NSAIDs (naproxen and mefenamic acid) in reducing HMB. The evidence quality ranged from low to moderate, the main limitations being risk of bias and imprecision.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
NSAIDs reduce HMB when compared with placebo, but are less effective than tranexamic acid, danazol or LNG IUS. However, adverse events are more severe with danazol therapy. In the limited number of small studies suitable for evaluation, there was no clear evidence of a difference in efficacy between NSAIDs and other medical treatments such as oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, OCP or the older progesterone-releasing intrauterine system.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Contraceptives, Oral, Combined; Dysmenorrhea; Female; Humans; Menorrhagia; Naproxen; Progesterone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31535715
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000400.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2019This is an update of the original review published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 11, and updated in 2015, Issue 4.Chemotherapy has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This is an update of the original review published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 11, and updated in 2015, Issue 4.Chemotherapy has significantly improved prognosis for women with malignant and some non-malignant conditions. This treatment, however, is associated with ovarian toxicity. The use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues, both agonists and antagonists, may have a protective effect on the ovaries. The primary mechanism of action of GnRH analogues is to suppress the gonadotropin levels to simulate pre-pubertal hormonal milieu and subsequently prevent primordial follicles from maturation and therefore decrease the number of follicles that are more vulnerable to chemotherapy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of GnRH analogues given before or in parallel to chemotherapy to prevent chemotherapy-related ovarian damage in premenopausal women with malignant or non-malignant conditions.
SEARCH METHODS
The search was run for the original review in July 2011, and for the first update in July 2014. For this update we searched the following databases in November 2018: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and the Chinese Biomedicine Database (CBM).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), in all languages, which examined the effect of GnRH analogues for chemotherapy-induced ovarian failure in premenopausal women, were eligible for inclusion in the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We analysed binary data using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and for continuous data, we used the standardized mean difference (SMD) to combine trials. We applied the random-effects model in our analyses. We used the GRADE approach to produce a 'Summary of findings' table for our main outcomes of interest.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 12 RCTs involving 1369 women between the ages of 12 and 51.1 years. Participants were diagnosed with breast malignancy, ovarian malignancy, or Hodgkin's lymphoma, and most of them received alkylating, or platinum complexes, based chemotherapy. The included studies were funded by a university (n = 1), research centres (n = 4), and pharmaceutical companies (n = 1). Trials were at high or unclear risk of bias.Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy aloneThe incidence of menstruation recovery or maintenance was 178 of 239 (74.5%) in the GnRH agonist group and 110 of 221 (50.0%) in the control group during a follow-up period no longer than 12 months (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.24; 5 studies, 460 participants; I = 79%; low-certainty evidence), with an overall effect favouring treatment with GnRH agonist (P = 0.006). However, we observed no difference during a follow-up period longer than 12 months between these two groups (P = 0.24). In the GnRH agonist group, 326 of 447 participants had menstruation recovery or maintenance (72.9%) in comparison to the control group, in which 276 of 422 participants had menstruation recovery or maintenance (65.4%) during a follow-up period longer than 12 months (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.22; 8 studies, 869 participants; I = 56%; low-certainty evidence).The incidence of premature ovarian failure was 43 of 401 (10.7%) in the GnRH agonist group and 96 of 379 (25.3%) in the control group (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.61; 4 studies, 780 participants; I = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence), with an overall effect favouring treatment with GnRH agonist (P < 0.00001).The incidence of pregnancy was 32 of 356 (9.0%) in the GnRH agonist group and 22 of 347 (6.3%) in the control group (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.70; 7 studies, 703 participants; I = 0%; low-certainty evidence), with no difference between groups (P = 0.09). However, we are cautious about this conclusion because there were insufficient data about whether the participants intended to become pregnant.The incidence of ovulation was 29 of 47 (61.7%) in the GnRH agonist group and 12 of 48 (25.0%) in the control group (RR 2.47, 95% CI 1.43 to 4.26; 2 studies, 95 participants; I = 0%; low-certainty evidence) with an overall effect favouring treatment with GnRH (P = 0.001).The most common adverse effects of GnRH analogues included hot flushes, vaginal dryness, urogenital symptoms, and mood swings. The pooled analysis of safety data showed no difference in adverse effects between GnRH agonist group and control group.Comparison 2: GnRH agonist-antagonist cotreatment plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy aloneOnly one RCT discussed GnRH agonist-antagonist cotreatment. The limited evidence showed the incidence of menstruation recovery or maintenance was 20 of 25 (80%) in both cotreatment group and control group during a 12-month follow-up period (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.32; 50 participants; very low-certainty evidence), with no difference between groups (P = 1.00). In the cotreatment group, 13 of 25 participants had menstruation recovery or maintenance (52.0%) in comparison to the control group, in which 14 of 25 participants had menstruation recovery or maintenance (56.0%) during a follow-up period longer than 12 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.55; 50 participants; very low-certainty evidence), with no difference between groups (P = 0.78). The incidence of pregnancy was 1 of 25 (4.0%) in the cotreatment group and 0 of 25 (0%) in the control group (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 70.30; 50 participants; very low-certainty evidence), with no difference between groups (P = 0.49).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
GnRH agonist appears to be effective in protecting the ovaries during chemotherapy, in terms of maintenance and resumption of menstruation, treatment-related premature ovarian failure and ovulation. Evidence for protection of fertility was insufficient and needs further investigation. Evidence was also insufficient to assess the effect of GnRH agonist and GnRH antagonist cotreatment on ovarian protection against chemotherapy. The included studies differed in some important aspects of design, and most of these studies had no age-determined subgroup analysis. Large and well-designed RCTs with longer follow-up duration should be conducted to clarify the effects of GnRH analogues in preventing chemotherapy-induced ovarian failure, especially on different age groups or different chemotherapy regimens. Furthermore, studies should address the effects on pregnancy rates and anti-tumour therapy.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Adolescent; Adult; Antineoplastic Agents; Child; Female; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Injections, Intramuscular; Injections, Subcutaneous; Menstruation; Middle Aged; Ovulation; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Premenopause; Primary Ovarian Insufficiency; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recovery of Function; Young Adult
PubMed: 30827035
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008018.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2017Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is a psychological and somatic disorder of unknown aetiology, with symptoms typically including irritability, depression, mood swings,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is a psychological and somatic disorder of unknown aetiology, with symptoms typically including irritability, depression, mood swings, bloating, breast tenderness and sleep disturbances. About 3% to 10% of women who experience these symptoms may also meet criteria for premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD). PMS symptoms recur during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle and reduce by the end of menstruation. PMS results from ovulation and may be due to ovarian steroid interactions relating to neurotransmitter dysfunction. Premenstrual disorders have a devastating effect on women, their families and their work.Several treatment options have been suggested for PMS, including pharmacological and surgical interventions. The treatments thought to be most effective tend to fall into one of two categories: suppressing ovulation or correcting a speculated neuroendocrine anomaly.Transdermal oestradiol by patch, gel or implant effectively stops ovulation and the cyclical hormonal changes which produce the cyclical symptoms. These preparations are normally used for hormone therapy and contain lower doses of oestrogen than found in oral contraceptive pills. A shortened seven-day course of a progestogen is required each month for endometrial protection but can reproduce premenstrual syndrome-type symptoms in these women.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of non-contraceptive oestrogen-containing preparations in the management of PMS.
SEARCH METHODS
On 14 March 2016, we searched the following databases: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGF) Specialised Register; Cochrane Central Register of Studies (CRSO); MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; ClinicalTrials.gov; metaRegister of Controlled trials (mRCT); and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal. In addition, we checked the reference lists of articles retrieved.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included published and unpublished randomized placebo or active controlled trials on the efficacy of the use of non-contraceptive oestrogen-containing preparations in the management of premenstrual syndrome in women of reproductive age with PMS diagnosed by at least two prospective cycles without current psychiatric disorder.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data on premenstrual symptoms and adverse effects and entered data into Review Manager 5 software. Where possible, intention-to-treat or modified intention-to-treat analysis was used. Studies were pooled using a fixed-effect model, analysing cross-over trials as parallel trials. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for premenstrual symptom scores. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE working group methods.
MAIN RESULTS
The search resulted in 524 potentially relevant articles. Five eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified (305 women). Trials using oral tablets, transdermal patches and implants were identified. No trial used gels.One small cross-over trial (11 women, effective sample size 22 women considering cross-over trials) compared oral luteal-phase oestrogen versus placebo. Data were very low quality and unsuitable for analysis, but study authors reported that the intervention was ineffective and might aggravate the symptoms of PMS. They also reported that there were no adverse events.Three studies compared continuous oestrogen with progestogen versus placebo (with or without progestogen). These trials were of reasonable quality, although with a high risk of attrition bias and an unclear risk of bias due to potential carry-over effects in two cross-over trials. Continuous oestrogen had a small to moderate positive effect on global symptom scores (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.10, P = 0.005, 3 RCTs, 158 women, effective sample size 267 women, I² = 63%, very low quality evidence). The evidence was too imprecise to determine if the groups differed in withdrawal rates due to adverse effects (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.58, P = 0.33, 3 RCTs, 196 women, effective sample size 284 women, I² = 0%, very low quality evidence). Similarly, the evidence was very imprecise in measures of specific adverse events, with large uncertainties around the true value of the relative risk. None of the studies reported on long-term risks such as endometrial cancer or breast cancer.One study compared patch dosage (100 vs 200 µg oestrogen, with progestogen in both arms) and had a high risk of performance bias, detection bias and attrition bias. The study did not find evidence that dosage affects global symptoms but there was much uncertainty around the effect estimate (SMD -1.55, 95% CI -8.88 to 5.78, P = 0.68, 1 RCT, 98 women, very low quality evidence). The evidence on rates of withdrawal for adverse events was too imprecise to draw any conclusions (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.46, P = 0.34, 1 RCT, 107 women, low-quality evidence). However, it appeared that the 100 µg dose might be associated with a lower overall risk of adverse events attributed to oestrogen (RR 0.51, 95% Cl 0.26 to 0.99, P = 0.05, 1 RCT, 107 women, very low quality evidence) with a large uncertainty around the effect estimate.The overall quality of the evidence for all comparisons was very low, mainly due to risk of bias (specifically attrition), imprecision, and statistical and clinical heterogeneity.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found very low quality evidence to support the effectiveness of continuous oestrogen (transdermal patches or subcutaneous implants) plus progestogen, with a small to moderate effect size. We found very low quality evidence from a study based on 11 women to suggest that luteal-phase oral unopposed oestrogen is probably ineffective and possibly detrimental for controlling the symptoms of PMS. A comparison between 200 µg and 100 µg doses of continuous oestrogen was inconclusive with regard to effectiveness, but suggested that the lower dose was less likely to cause side effects. Uncertainty remains regarding safety, as the identified studies were too small to provide definite answers. Moreover, no included trial addressed adverse effects that might occur beyond the typical trial duration of 2-8 months. This suggests the choice of oestrogen dose and mode of administration could be based on an individual woman's preference and modified according to the effectiveness and tolerability of the chosen regimen.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Drug Implants; Drug Therapy, Combination; Estrogens; Female; Humans; Luteal Phase; Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder; Premenstrual Syndrome; Progestins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Transdermal Patch
PubMed: 28257559
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010503.pub2