-
BMC Women's Health Jun 2024The sex steroid hormones fluctuate during the menstrual cycle, which affects the strength and postural stability of females and leads to injuries and risk of falls.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The sex steroid hormones fluctuate during the menstrual cycle, which affects the strength and postural stability of females and leads to injuries and risk of falls. These hormones may be modulated by exercise to impact the overall health of females.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the effects of exercise on sex steroid hormones in eumenorrheic females.
METHODS
This review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses(PRISMA) guidelines in Lahore, Pakistan. The full-length articles were searched using these databases/search engines (PubMed, Web of Science and Google Scholar, Sci-Hub). Randomized controlled trials along with single group experimental studies were also included. All types of exercises were compared with no exercise in the control group. The Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool assessed and screened the articles. The data were then analyzed. The primary outcomes were the levels of estrogen, progesterone and testosterone.
RESULTS
Eleven studies were included (5 randomized controlled trials and 6 quasi-experimental studies). The effects of exercise on free estradiol concentration and serum progesterone level were not significant [p = 0.37 (SMD = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.14 to 0.74, I = 0%) and p = 0.84 (S.D= -0.65, C.I= -6.92 to 5.62, I = 94%)] respectively, whereas, the effects on testosterone levels were significant [p value < 0.00001 (M.D = 0.89, 95% C.I= -2.16 to 3.95, I = 94%)].
CONCLUSION
A blinded randomized controlled trial should be conducted in which a structured approach should be followed by women along with warm-ups, cool down and rest intervals.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
The systematic review was registered prospectively on PROSPERO with registration number CRD42023473767.
Topics: Humans; Female; Progesterone; Exercise; Testosterone; Estrogens; Gonadal Steroid Hormones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Estradiol
PubMed: 38890710
DOI: 10.1186/s12905-024-03203-y -
Frontiers in Oncology 2024The objective of this network meta-analysis is to systematically compare the efficacy of diverse progestin-based combination regimens in treating patients diagnosed with...
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this network meta-analysis is to systematically compare the efficacy of diverse progestin-based combination regimens in treating patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer or atypical endometrial hyperplasia. The primary goal is to discern the optimal combination treatment regimen through a comprehensive examination of their respective effectiveness.
METHODS
We systematically searched four prominent databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, for randomized controlled trials addressing the efficacy of progestins or progestin combinations in the treatment of patients with endometrial cancer or atypical endometrial hyperplasia. The search spanned from the inception of these databases to December 2023. Key outcome indicators encompassed survival indices, criteria for assessing efficacy, as well as pregnancy and relapse rate. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024496311).
RESULTS
From the 1,558 articles initially retrieved, we included 27 studies involving a total of 5,323 subjects in our analysis. The results of the network meta-analysis revealed that the mTOR inhibitor+megestrol acetate (MA)+tamoxifen regimen secured the top rank in maintaining stable disease (SD) (SUCRA=73.4%) and extending progression-free survival (PFS) (SUCRA=72.4%). Additionally, the progestin combined with tamoxifen regimen claimed the leading position in enhancing the partial response (PR) (SUCRA=75.2%) and prolonging overall survival (OS) (SUCRA=80%). The LNG-IUS-based dual progestin regimen emerged as the frontrunner in improving the complete response (CR) (SUCRA=98.7%), objective response rate (ORR) (SUCRA=99.1%), pregnancy rate (SUCRA=83.7%), and mitigating progression (SUCRA=8.0%) and relapse rate (SUCRA=47.4%). In terms of safety, The LNG-IUS-based dual progestin regimen had the lowest likelihood of adverse events (SUCRA=4.2%), while the mTOR inhibitor regimen (SUCRA=89.2%) and mTOR inbitor+MA+tamoxifen regimen (SUCRA=88.4%) had the highest likelihood of adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer or atypical endometrial hyperplasia exhibited the most favorable prognosis when undergoing progestin combination therapy that included tamoxifen, mTOR inhibitor, or LNG-IUS. Notably, among these options, the LNG-IUS-based dual progestin regimen emerged as particularly promising for potential application.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42024496311.
PubMed: 38764577
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1391546 -
Contraception May 2024To summarize and update information regarding drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between antiretrovirals (ARVs) and hormonal contraceptives (HCs). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To summarize and update information regarding drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between antiretrovirals (ARVs) and hormonal contraceptives (HCs).
DESIGN
Systematic review METHODS: We searched seven databases for peer-reviewed publications from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2023, including studies of women using ARVs and HCs concurrently with outcomes including therapeutic effectiveness or toxicity, pharmacokinetics (PK), or pharmacodynamics. We summarized findings and used checklists to assess evidence quality.
RESULTS
We included 49 articles, with clinical, ARV or HC PK outcomes reported by 39, 25, and 30 articles, respectively, with some articles reporting outcomes in two or more categories. Fifteen of 18 articles assessing DDIs between efavirenz and progestin implants, emergency contraception, or combined hormonal intravaginal rings found higher pregnancy rates, luteal progesterone levels suggesting ovulation, or reduced progestin PK values. Five studies documented that CYP2B6 single nucleotide polymorphisms exacerbated this DDI. One cohort detected doubled bone density loss with concomitant depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)-containing ART use versus TDF alone. No other studies described DDIs impacting clinical outcomes. Few adverse events were attributed to ARV-HC use with none exceeding Grade 2. Evidence quality was generally moderate, with dis-similar treatment and control groups, identifying and controlling for confounding, and minimizing attrition bias in the study design being the most frequent limitations.
CONCLUSION
Most ARVs and HCs may be used safely and effectively together. TDF-DMPA DDIs warrant longer-term study on bone health and consideration of alternate combinations. For efavirenz-based ART, client counselling on relative risks, including both potential increase in pregnancy rate with concomitant efavirenz and implant use and lower pregnancy rates compared to other HCs even with concomitant efavirenz use, should continue to allow users comprehensive method choice.
PubMed: 38762199
DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2024.110490 -
Neurology Jun 2024This practice guideline provides updated evidence-based conclusions and recommendations regarding the effects of antiseizure medications (ASMs) and folic acid...
This practice guideline provides updated evidence-based conclusions and recommendations regarding the effects of antiseizure medications (ASMs) and folic acid supplementation on the prevalence of major congenital malformations (MCMs), adverse perinatal outcomes, and neurodevelopmental outcomes in children born to people with epilepsy of childbearing potential (PWECP). A multidisciplinary panel conducted a systematic review and developed practice recommendations following the process outlined in the 2017 edition of the American Academy of Neurology Clinical Practice Guideline Process Manual. The systematic review includes studies through August 2022. Recommendations are supported by structured rationales that integrate evidence from the systematic review, related evidence, principles of care, and inferences from evidence. The following are some of the major recommendations. When treating PWECP, clinicians should recommend ASMs and doses that optimize both seizure control and fetal outcomes should pregnancy occur, at the earliest possible opportunity preconceptionally. Clinicians must minimize the occurrence of convulsive seizures in PWECP during pregnancy to minimize potential risks to the birth parent and to the fetus. Once a PWECP is already pregnant, clinicians should exercise caution in attempting to remove or replace an ASM that is effective in controlling generalized tonic-clonic or focal-to-bilateral tonic-clonic seizures. Clinicians must consider using lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or oxcarbazepine in PWECP when appropriate based on the patient's epilepsy syndrome, likelihood of achieving seizure control, and comorbidities, to minimize the risk of MCMs. Clinicians must avoid the use of valproic acid in PWECP to minimize the risk of MCMs or neural tube defects (NTDs), if clinically feasible. Clinicians should avoid the use of valproic acid or topiramate in PWECP to minimize the risk of offspring being born small for gestational age, if clinically feasible. To reduce the risk of poor neurodevelopmental outcomes, including autism spectrum disorder and lower IQ, in children born to PWECP, clinicians must avoid the use of valproic acid in PWECP, if clinically feasible. Clinicians should prescribe at least 0.4 mg of folic acid supplementation daily preconceptionally and during pregnancy to any PWECP treated with an ASM to decrease the risk of NTDs and possibly improve neurodevelopmental outcomes in the offspring.
Topics: Humans; Anticonvulsants; Pregnancy; Female; Epilepsy; Pregnancy Complications; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects; Neurodevelopmental Disorders; Abnormalities, Drug-Induced; Teratogenesis; Infant, Newborn
PubMed: 38748979
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000209279 -
The use of dienogest in treatment of symptomatic adenomyosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and... May 2024Adenomyosis is a gynaecological problem that impacts women's quality of life by causing dysmenorrhea, chronic pelvic pain, and menorrhagia. The search continues for the... (Review)
Review
Adenomyosis is a gynaecological problem that impacts women's quality of life by causing dysmenorrhea, chronic pelvic pain, and menorrhagia. The search continues for the best medical treatment for symptomatic adenomyosis. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the role of dienogest, an oral progestin, in reducing pain and bleeding associated with adenomyosis. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched in January 2024. The primary outcome was pain scores for dysmenorrhea, whereas secondary outcomes were chronic pelvic pain (CPP), uterine volume (UV), and menorrhagia. One comparison was performed comparing outcomes in symptomatic adenomyosis before and after treatment with dienogest. Pooled analysis of included studies reported a statistically significant reduction of dysmenorrhea pain score after dienogest treatment (mean difference -5.86 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale, 95 % CI -7.20 to -4.53, I2 = 97 %). Regarding chronic pelvic pain, a meta-analysis of included studies showed a significant decline in pain after treatment (standardized mean difference -2.37, 95 % CI -2.89 to -1.86, I2 = 60 %). However, uterine volume did not differ significantly after treatment (mean difference -4.65 cm, 95 % CI -43.22 to 33.91). Menorrhagia was improved significantly after treatment (Peto odds ratio 0.07, 95 % CI 0.03 to 0.18). In conclusion, dienogest seems to be effective in controlling painful symptoms and uterine bleeding in women with adenomyosis at short and long-term therapy.
PubMed: 38729430
DOI: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2024.102795 -
The European Journal of Contraception &... Jun 2024Migration is a rare but serious complication of the etonogestrel contraceptive implant, and little is known about its extent. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Migration is a rare but serious complication of the etonogestrel contraceptive implant, and little is known about its extent.
PURPOSE
To document and characterise cases of etonogestrel contraceptive implant migration in the scientific literature.
METHODS
A systematic review of Medline, Embase and Global Health databases was carried out between January 2000 and January 2023 to identify articles presenting implant migrations. Narrative reviews, conference abstracts and articles not written in English or French were excluded.
RESULTS
Forty-five articles, mostly published since 2016, were identified (eight case series and 37 case reports), for a total of 148 independent cases of migration: in pulmonary blood vessels ( = 74), in non-pulmonary blood vessels ( = 16) and extravascular ( = 58). Many patients are asymptomatic and migration is often an incidental finding. A non-palpable implant and symptoms related to implant location (intra- or extra-vascular) may be indicative of migration. Inadequate insertion and normal or underweight appear to increase the risk of migration. Scientific societies and authors offer practical strategies to deal with implant migration.
CONCLUSION
Professionals who insert and remove contraceptive implants must be adequately trained. They need to be on the lookout for implant migration, and promptly refer patients to appropriate care if migration is suspected.
Topics: Humans; Desogestrel; Foreign-Body Migration; Female; Drug Implants; Contraceptive Agents, Female; Device Removal; Contraceptive Agents, Hormonal
PubMed: 38712717
DOI: 10.1080/13625187.2024.2342919 -
Menopause (New York, N.Y.) Jun 2024Menopausal hormone therapy (HT) includes a wide variety of hormonal compounds, and its effect on blood pressure is still uncertain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
IMPORTANCE
Menopausal hormone therapy (HT) includes a wide variety of hormonal compounds, and its effect on blood pressure is still uncertain.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to assess evidence regarding the effect of HT on blood pressure in postmenopausal women and its association with arterial hypertension.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
This systematic review and meta-analysis included randomized clinical trials and prospective observational studies. Systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and the incidence of hypertension were assessed. All stages were independently performed by two reviewers. For blood pressure outcome, standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated as effect measures. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. The results are presented based on the HT type. The incidence of hypertension was compared using descriptive analyses.
FINDINGS
Eleven studies were included with 81,041 women evaluated, of which 29,812 used HT. The meta-analysis, conducted with 8 studies and 1,718 women, showed an increase in SBP with the use of oral conjugated equine estrogens plus progestogen (SMD = 0.60 mm Hg, 95% CI = 0.19 to 1.01). However, oral or transdermal use of estradiol plus progestogen (SMD = -2.00 mm Hg, 95% CI = -7.26 to 3.27), estradiol alone, and tibolone did not show any significant effect. No significant effect on DBP was observed for any formulation. Women who used oral estrogen plus progestogen had a higher risk of incident hypertension than those who never used it.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The effect of HT on blood pressure is influenced by the formulation used, especially the type of estrogen. The combined formulations of conjugated equine estrogens plus progestogen increased SBP and the risk of hypertension, which was not observed among estradiol plus progestogen, estradiol alone, and tibolone users.
Topics: Humans; Female; Hypertension; Postmenopause; Blood Pressure; Estrogen Replacement Therapy; Progestins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Estrogens, Conjugated (USP); Middle Aged; Estradiol; Norpregnenes; Estrogens
PubMed: 38688468
DOI: 10.1097/GME.0000000000002359 -
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 -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Jun 2024To assess metformin's effectiveness in adding it to progestin-based hormone therapy for treating atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) and early endometrial cancer... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To assess metformin's effectiveness in adding it to progestin-based hormone therapy for treating atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) and early endometrial cancer (EEC).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines (registration number CRD42023399094). We searched databases for studies up to March 2023, including randomized and non-randomized clinical trials in English.
RESULTS
Out of 280 studies, 9 studies (1104 patients) were eligible. A total of 408 patients were allocated to receive metformin, and 696 patients entered the control group. Primary analysis focused on evaluating the CR showed a significant difference in patients with AEH treated with metformin (RR = 1.10, 95% CI 1.02-1.20, p = 0.02). Relapse rate (RR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.33-1.17, p = 0.14) was also evaluated. Secondary analysis indicated higher pregnancy rates (RR = 1.28, 95% CI 1.04-1.57, p = 0.02) with no significant difference in live birth rates (RR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.29-1.10, p = 0.09).
CONCLUSION
Combined therapy is effective. Metformin shows superiority to the standard regimen in achieving better CR rate in patients with AEH and benefits pregnancy rates but not recurrence or live birth rates. Therefore, the ideal fertility-sparing treatment for EC has not yet been determined and further clinical trials are needed.
Topics: Humans; Metformin; Female; Endometrial Hyperplasia; Endometrial Neoplasms; Progestins; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Drug Therapy, Combination; Hypoglycemic Agents
PubMed: 38503850
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-024-07416-2 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2024Despite evidence from preclinical studies suggesting estrogen's neuroprotective effects, the use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) to support cognitive function... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Despite evidence from preclinical studies suggesting estrogen's neuroprotective effects, the use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) to support cognitive function remains controversial.
METHODS
We used random-effect meta-analysis and multi-level meta-regression to derive pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (C.I.) from 34 randomized controlled trials, including 14,914 treated and 12,679 placebo participants.
RESULTS
Associations between MHT and cognitive function in some domains and tests of interest varied by formulation and treatment timing. While MHT had no overall effects on cognitive domain scores, treatment for surgical menopause, mostly estrogen-only therapy, improved global cognition (SMD=1.575, 95% CI 0.228, 2.921; =0.043) compared to placebo. When initiated specifically in midlife or close to menopause onset, estrogen therapy was associated with improved verbal memory (SMD=0.394, 95% CI 0.014, 0.774; =0.046), while late-life initiation had no effects. Overall, estrogen-progestogen therapy for spontaneous menopause was associated with a decline in Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE) scores as compared to placebo, with most studies administering treatment in a late-life population (SMD=-1.853, 95% CI -2.974, -0.733; = 0.030). In analysis of timing of initiation, estrogen-progestogen therapy had no significant effects in midlife but was associated with improved verbal memory in late-life ( = 0.049). Duration of treatment >1 year was associated with worsening in visual memory as compared to shorter duration. Analysis of individual cognitive tests yielded more variable results of positive and negative effects associated with MHT.
DISCUSSION
These findings suggest time-dependent effects of MHT on certain aspects of cognition, with variations based on formulation and timing of initiation, underscoring the need for further research with larger samples and more homogeneous study designs.
Topics: Female; Humans; Cognition; Estrogen Replacement Therapy; Estrogens; Hormone Replacement Therapy; Progestins
PubMed: 38501109
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1350318