-
European Journal of Endocrinology Sep 2023Anorexia nervosa is a primary psychiatric disorder characterized by self-induced negative energy balance. A number of hormonal responses and adaptations occur in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Anorexia nervosa is a primary psychiatric disorder characterized by self-induced negative energy balance. A number of hormonal responses and adaptations occur in response to starvation and low body weight including changes in adrenocortical hormones. Our objective was to systematically review adrenocortical hormone levels in anorexia nervosa.
DESIGN/METHODS
We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies that reported at least one adrenocortical hormone, including dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), DHEA-sulphate (DHEA-S), progesterone, 17-hydroxyprogesterone, pregnenolone, cortisol (serum, urine, cerebrospinal fluid, and hair sample), aldosterone, androstenedione, and testosterone in patients with anorexia nervosa and normal-weight healthy controls from inception until October 2021. Means and standard deviations for each hormone were extracted from the studies to calculate a mean difference (MD). A pooled MD was then calculated by combining MDs of each study using the random-effects model.
RESULTS
We included a total of 101 studies with over 2500 females with anorexia nervosa. Mean cortisol levels were significantly higher in anorexia nervosa as compared to normal-weight controls for multiple forms of measurement, including morning cortisol, 12-hour and 24-hour pooled serum cortisol, 24-hour urine cortisol, and after an overnight dexamethasone suppression test. In contrast, mean serum total testosterone and DHEA-S levels were significantly lower among patients with anorexia nervosa.
CONCLUSIONS
Women with anorexia nervosa have higher cortisol levels and lower DHEA-S and testosterone levels compared to women without anorexia nervosa. This finding is important to consider when evaluating low-weight women for disorders involving the adrenal axis, especially Cushing's syndrome.
Topics: Humans; Female; Anorexia Nervosa; Hydrocortisone; Aldosterone; Progesterone; Dehydroepiandrosterone Sulfate
PubMed: 37669399
DOI: 10.1093/ejendo/lvad123 -
Progestogens for endometrial protection in combined menopausal hormone therapy: A systematic review.Best Practice & Research. Clinical... Jan 2024Menopausal women with an intact uterus choosing estrogens for menopausal symptom relief require a progestogen for endometrial protection. The aim of this systematic... (Review)
Review
Menopausal women with an intact uterus choosing estrogens for menopausal symptom relief require a progestogen for endometrial protection. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the risks of endometrial hyperplasia resp. malignancy with different progestogens used in combined MHT. Overall, 84 RCTs were included. We found that 1) most studies were done with NETA, followed by MPA, MP and DYD and LNG, 2) most progestogens were only available as oral formulations, 3) the most frequently studied progestogens (oral MP, DYD, MPA, oral and transdermal NETA, transdermal LNG) were assessed in continuously as well as in sequentially combined MHT regimens, 4) FDA endometrial safety criteria were only fulfilled for some progestogen formulations, 5) most studies demonstrated endometrial protection for the progestogen dose and time period examined. However, 6) study quality varied which should be taken into account, when choosing a combined MHT, especially if off-label-use is chosen.
Topics: Female; Humans; Progestins; Endometrium; Hormone Replacement Therapy; Endometrial Hyperplasia; Menopause; Estrogen Replacement Therapy
PubMed: 37634998
DOI: 10.1016/j.beem.2023.101815 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2023The perimenopausal and postmenopausal periods are associated with many symptoms, including sexual complaints. This review is an update of a review first published in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The perimenopausal and postmenopausal periods are associated with many symptoms, including sexual complaints. This review is an update of a review first published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to assess the effect of hormone therapy on sexual function in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.
SEARCH METHODS
On 19 December 2022 we searched the Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, ISI Web of Science, two trials registries, and OpenGrey, together with reference checking and contact with experts in the field for any additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials that compared hormone therapy to either placebo or no intervention (control) using any validated assessment tool to evaluate sexual function. We considered hormone therapy: estrogen alone; estrogen in combination with progestogens; synthetic steroids, for example, tibolone; selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), for example, raloxifene, bazedoxifene; and SERMs in combination with estrogen.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We analyzed data using mean differences (MDs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs). The primary outcome was the sexual function score. Secondary outcomes were the domains of sexual response: desire; arousal; lubrication; orgasm; satisfaction; and pain. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 36 studies (23,299 women; 12,225 intervention group; 11,074 control group), of which 35 evaluated postmenopausal women; only one study evaluated perimenopausal women. The 'symptomatic or early postmenopausal women' subgroup included 10 studies, which included women experiencing menopausal symptoms (symptoms such as hot flushes, night sweats, sleep disturbance, vaginal atrophy, and dyspareunia) or early postmenopausal women (within five years after menopause). The 'unselected postmenopausal women' subgroup included 26 studies, which included women regardless of menopausal symptoms and women whose last menstrual period was more than five years earlier. No study included only women with sexual dysfunction and only seven studies evaluated sexual function as a primary outcome. We deemed 20 studies at high risk of bias, two studies at low risk, and the other 14 studies at unclear risk of bias. Nineteen studies received commercial funding. Estrogen alone versus control probably slightly improves the sexual function composite score in symptomatic or early postmenopausal women (SMD 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.04 to 0.96; I² = 88%; 3 studies, 699 women; moderate-quality evidence), and probably makes little or no difference to the sexual function composite score in unselected postmenopausal women (SMD 0.64, 95% CI -0.12 to 1.41; I² = 94%; 6 studies, 608 women; moderate-quality evidence). The pooled result suggests that estrogen alone versus placebo or no intervention probably slightly improves sexual function composite score (SMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.04; I² = 92%; 9 studies, 1307 women, moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of estrogen combined with progestogens versus placebo or no intervention on the sexual function composite score in unselected postmenopausal women (MD 0.08 95% CI -1.52 to 1.68; 1 study, 104 women; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of synthetic steroids versus control on the sexual function composite score in symptomatic or early postmenopausal women (SMD 1.32, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.47; 1 study, 883 women; very low-quality evidence) and of their effect in unselected postmenopausal women (SMD 0.46, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.85; 1 study, 105 women; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of SERMs versus control on the sexual function composite score in symptomatic or early postmenopausal women (MD -1.00, 95% CI -2.00 to -0.00; 1 study, 215 women; very low-quality evidence) and of their effect in unselected postmenopausal women (MD 2.24, 95% 1.37 to 3.11 2 studies, 1525 women, I² = 1%, low-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of SERMs combined with estrogen versus control on the sexual function composite score in symptomatic or early postmenopausal women (SMD 0.22, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.43; 1 study, 542 women; very low-quality evidence) and of their effect in unselected postmenopausal women (SMD 2.79, 95% CI 2.41 to 3.18; 1 study, 272 women; very low-quality evidence). The observed heterogeneity in many analyses may be caused by variations in the interventions and doses used, and by different tools used for assessment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Hormone therapy treatment with estrogen alone probably slightly improves the sexual function composite score in women with menopausal symptoms or in early postmenopause (within five years of amenorrhoea), and in unselected postmenopausal women, especially in the lubrication, pain, and satisfaction domains. We are uncertain whether estrogen combined with progestogens improves the sexual function composite score in unselected postmenopausal women. Evidence regarding other hormone therapies (synthetic steroids and SERMs) is of very low quality and we are uncertain of their effect on sexual function. The current evidence does not suggest the beneficial effects of synthetic steroids (for example tibolone) or SERMs alone or combined with estrogen on sexual function. More studies that evaluate the effect of estrogen combined with progestogens, synthetic steroids, SERMs, and SERMs combined with estrogen would improve the quality of the evidence for the effect of these treatments on sexual function in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.
Topics: Female; Humans; Estrogens; Perimenopause; Postmenopause; Progestins; Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators
PubMed: 37619252
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009672.pub3 -
Medicine Aug 2023Endometriosis (EMT) is a benign and common estrogen-dependent disease. Hormonal therapy improves pain symptoms in most women with EMT. However, in many cases,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Endometriosis (EMT) is a benign and common estrogen-dependent disease. Hormonal therapy improves pain symptoms in most women with EMT. However, in many cases, laparoscopic fertility preservation surgery is considered a common treatment for EMT. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dienogest, leuprolide, danazol, gestrinone, mifepristone and levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in relieving symptoms and delaying the recurrence of EMT cysts after fertility protection surgery.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Database, China Biology Medicine disc, WanFang Data databases to collect randomized controlled trials (RCT) related to dienogest, leuprolide, danazol, gestrinone, mifepristone and LNG-IUS as a follow-up treatment after fertility preserving surgery for EMT. After literature screening, data extraction and quality evaluation, effective rate, recurrence rate, pregnancy rate and adverse reaction rate were used as outcome indicators to evaluate the efficacy and safety of drugs. Evidence networks included in the study were drawn and publication bias was assessed. The drugs most likely to be the best postoperative treatment were explored through mixed comparison of different drugs and efficacy ranking.
RESULT
Effective rate: dienogest, leprerelin, gestrinone and LNG-IUS were better than placebo after EMT fertility preservation surgery; dienogest was superior to mifepristone and danazol. LNG-IUS is superior to danazol. LNG-IUS has the highest potential for improving the effectiveness of EMT symptoms. Recurrence rate: the application of dienogest, leuprolide, gestrinone, mifepristone and LNG-IUS after EMT fertility preservation surgery was lower than that of placebo; dienogest and LNG-IUS were lower than danazol. The recurrence rate of dinorgestrel was the last place with the highest performance. Pregnancy rate: in the cases with fertility requirements, dienogest and,leuprolide were better than placebo after EMT fertility preservation surgery; dienogest was superior to danazol, gestrinone and mifepristone. Leuprolide is superior to danazol and gestrinone. The first rank of dienogest pregnancy rate was the highest. Adverse reaction rate: the application of dienogest, leuprolide, danazol, gestrinone, mifepristone and LNG-IUS after EMT fertility preservation surgery was higher than that of placebo. After placebo, LNG-IUS had the highest adverse reaction rate.
CONCLUSION
For patients after fertility preserving surgery for EMT, the recurrence rate of dienogest was the last place with highest preference. The first rank of dienogest pregnancy was the highest.
Topics: Female; Humans; Endometriosis; Danazol; Gestrinone; Leuprolide; Mifepristone; Network Meta-Analysis; Levonorgestrel
PubMed: 37543781
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034496 -
Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology Oct 2023Substance use disorder (SUD) is a chronic condition characterized by pathological drug-taking and seeking behaviors. Remarkably different between males and females,... (Review)
Review
Substance use disorder (SUD) is a chronic condition characterized by pathological drug-taking and seeking behaviors. Remarkably different between males and females, suggesting that drug addiction is a sexually differentiated disorder. The neurobiological bases of sex differences in SUD include sex-specific reward system activation, influenced by interactions between gonadal hormone level changes, dopaminergic reward circuits, and epigenetic modifications of key reward system genes. This systematic review, adhering to PICOS and PRISMA-P 2015 guidelines, highlights the sex-dependent roles of estrogens, progesterone, and testosterone in SUD. In particular, estradiol elevates and progesterone reduces dopaminergic activity in SUD females, whilst testosterone and progesterone augment SUD behavior in males. Finally, SUD is associated with a sex-specific increase in the rate of opioid and monoaminergic gene methylation. The study reveals the need for detailed research on gonadal hormone levels, dopaminergic or reward system activity, and epigenetic landscapes in both sexes for efficient SUD therapy development.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Dopamine; Epigenesis, Genetic; Gonadal Steroid Hormones; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Progesterone; Sex Characteristics; Substance-Related Disorders; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Testosterone
PubMed: 37543184
DOI: 10.1016/j.yfrne.2023.101085 -
Heliyon Jun 2023To systematically review and summarize the existing evidence related to the influence of the menstrual cycle (MC) and hormonal contraceptive (HC) use on O in physically...
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review and summarize the existing evidence related to the influence of the menstrual cycle (MC) and hormonal contraceptive (HC) use on O in physically active women.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis conforms to the PRISMA statement guidelines. Four (sub-)meta-analyses were performed. Two focused on longitudinal studies examining the same women several times to compare the O during the different menstrual phases or oral contraceptive (OC) use and withdrawal. Two meta-analyses examined if there is a difference in O between OC users and normally menstruating women by analyzing cross-sectional studies assigning physically active women to one of these two groups as well as intervention-based studies (cross-over studies, randomized controlled trials considering only the data of the intervention group) comparing women intra-individually with and without OCs.
RESULTS
Nine of the included studies (107 women) evaluated the influence of the MC, five studies (69 women) the impact of OCs on O, and six studies investigated both topics (88 women). A mean difference of O -0.03 ml/kg/min (95%CI -1.06 to 1.01) between the early follicular and luteal menstrual phase was observed. Between the active and inactive phases of OCs, a mean difference of -0.11 ml/kg/min (95%CI -2.32 to 2.10) was found. The inter-individual comparison of naturally menstruating women and OC users showed a mean difference in O of 0.23 ml/kg/min (95% CI -2.33 to 2.79) in favor of OC use. The intra-individual comparison of the same women showed a mean decrease in O of -0.84 ml/kg/min (95% CI -2.38 to 0.70) after a new start with OCs.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analyses showed no effects of the MC or the OCs on O. More high-quality studies are needed determining the MC phases more precisely, including OCs with the current standard formulations and comparing the influence of different progestins.
PubMed: 37484400
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17049 -
European Journal of Endocrinology Jul 2023To compare between different combined oral contraceptive pills (COCPs) as part of the update of the International Evidence-Based Guidelines on the Assessment and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To compare between different combined oral contraceptive pills (COCPs) as part of the update of the International Evidence-Based Guidelines on the Assessment and Management of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).
DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed, Prospero CRD42022345640.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, All EBM, CINAHL, and PsycINFO was searched on July, 8, 2022, for studies including women with PCOS, comparing 2 different COCPs in randomized controlled trials.
RESULTS
A total of 1660 studies were identified, and 19 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included.Fourth-generation COCP resulted in lower body mass index (BMI) (mean difference [MD] 1.17 kg/m2 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.33; 2.02]) and testosterone (MD 0.60 nmol/L [95% CI 0.13; 1.07]) compared with third-generation agents, but no difference was seen in hirsutism.Ethinyl estradiol (EE)/cyproterone acetate (CPA) was better in reducing hirsutism as well as biochemical hyperandrogenism (testosterone [MD 0.38 nmol/L {95% CI 0.33-0.43}]) and BMI (MD 0.62 kg/m2 [95% CI 0.05-1.20]) compared with conventional COCPs.There was no difference in hirsutism between high and low EE doses. No evidence regarding natural estrogens in COCP was identified.
CONCLUSION
With current evidence, combined regimens containing an antiandrogen (EE/CPA) may be better compared with conventional COCPs in reducing hyperandrogenism, but EE/CPA will not be recommended as a first-line COCP treatment by the pending PCOS guideline update, due to higher venous thrombotic events (VTE) risk in the general population. Later-generation progestins offer theoretical benefits, but better evidence on clinical outcomes is needed in women with PCOS.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The protocol for the systematic review was registered prospectively in Prospero, CRD42022345640.
Topics: Female; Humans; Polycystic Ovary Syndrome; Hirsutism; Hyperandrogenism; Contraceptives, Oral, Combined; Ethinyl Estradiol; Cyproterone Acetate; Testosterone
PubMed: 37440702
DOI: 10.1093/ejendo/lvad082 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is a common problem. Premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) is a severe form of premenstrual syndrome. Combined oral contraceptives (COC),... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is a common problem. Premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) is a severe form of premenstrual syndrome. Combined oral contraceptives (COC), which provide both progestin and oestrogen, have been examined for their ability to relieve premenstrual symptoms. A combined oral contraceptive containing drospirenone and a low oestrogen dose has been approved for treating PMDD in women who choose combined oral contraceptives for contraception.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of COCs containing drospirenone in women with PMS.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trial register, CENTRAL (now containing output from two trials registers and CINAHL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, Google Scholar, and Epistemonikos on 29 June 2022. We checked included studies' reference lists and contacted study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared COCs containing drospirenone with placebo or with another COC for treatment of women with PMS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were effects on premenstrual symptoms that were prospectively recorded, and withdrawal due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes included effects on mood, adverse events, and response rate to study medications.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five RCTs (858 women analysed, most diagnosed with PMDD). The evidence was very low to moderate quality; the main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious inconsistency and imprecision. COCs containing drospirenone and ethinylestradiol (EE) versus placebo COCs containing drospirenone and EE may improve overall premenstrual symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.59 to -0.24; 2 RCTs, N = 514; I = 64%; low-quality evidence); and functional impairment due to premenstrual symptoms in terms of productivity (mean difference (MD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.08; 2 RCTs, N = 432; I = 47%; low-quality evidence), social activities (MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.04; 2 RCTs, N = 432; I = 53%; low-quality evidence), and relationships (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.06; 2 RCTs, N = 432; I = 45%; low-quality evidence). The effects from COCs containing drospirenone may be small to moderate. COCs containing drospirenone and EE may increase withdrawal from trials due to adverse effects (odds ratio (OR) 3.41, 95% CI 2.01 to 5.78; 4 RCT, N = 776; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if you assume the risk of withdrawal due to adverse effects from placebo is 3%, the risk from drospirenone plus EE will be between 6% and 16%. We are uncertain of the effect of drospirenone plus EE on premenstrual mood symptoms, when measured by validated tools that were not developed to assess premenstrual symptoms. COCs containing drospirenone may lead to more adverse effects in total (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.71 to 3.11; 3 RCT, N = 739; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if you assume the risk of having adverse effects from placebo is 28%, the risk from drospirenone plus EE will be between 40% and 54%. It probably leads to more breast pain, and may lead to more nausea, intermenstrual bleeding, and menstrual disorder. Its effect on nervousness, headache, asthenia, and pain is uncertain. There was no report of any rare but serious adverse effects, such as venous thromboembolism in any of the included studies. COCs containing drospirenone may improve response rate (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.40; 1 RCT, N = 449; I not applicable; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if you assume the response rate from placebo is 36%, the risk from drospirenone plus EE will be between 39% and 58%. We did not identify any studies that compared COCs containing drospirenone with other COCs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
COCs containing drospirenone and EE may improve premenstrual symptoms that result in functional impairments in women with PMDD. The placebo also had a significant effect. COCs containing drospirenone and EE may lead to more adverse effects compared to placebo. We do not know whether it works after three cycles, helps women with less severe symptoms, or is better than other combined oral contraceptives that contain a different progestogen.
Topics: Female; Humans; Contraceptives, Oral, Combined; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Estrogens; Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder; Premenstrual Syndrome; Progestins
PubMed: 37365881
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006586.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition affecting 6 to 11% of reproductive-age women and may cause dyspareunia, dysmenorrhoea, and infertility. One treatment... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition affecting 6 to 11% of reproductive-age women and may cause dyspareunia, dysmenorrhoea, and infertility. One treatment strategy is medical therapy with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) to reduce pain due to endometriosis. One of the adverse effects of GnRHas is a decreased bone mineral density. In addition to assessing the effect on pain, quality of life, most troublesome symptom and patients' satisfaction, the current review also evaluated the effect on bone mineral density and risk of adverse effects in women with endometriosis who use GnRHas versus other treatment options.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of GnRH analogues (GnRHas) in the treatment of painful symptoms associated with endometriosis and to determine the effects of GnRHas on bone mineral density of women with endometriosis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the trial registries in May 2022 together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared GnRHas with other hormonal treatment options, including analgesics, danazol, intra-uterine progestogens, oral or injectable progestogens, gestrinone and also GnRHas compared with no treatment or placebo. Trials comparing GnRHas versus GnRHas in conjunction with add-back therapy (hormonal or non-hormonal) or calcium-regulation agents were also included in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodology as recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes are relief of overall pain and the objective measurement of bone mineral density. Secondary outcomes include adverse effects, quality of life, improvement in the most troublesome symptoms and patient satisfaction. Due to high risk of bias associated with some of the studies, primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at low risk of selection bias. Sensitivity analysis including all studies was then performed.
MAIN RESULTS
Seventy-two studies involving 7355 patients were included. The evidence was very low to low quality: the main limitations of all studies were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision. Trials comparing GnRHas versus no treatment We did not identify any studies. Trials comparing GnRHas versus placebo There may be a decrease in overall pain, reported as pelvic pain scores (RR 2.14; 95% CI 1.41 to 3.24, 1 RCT, n = 87, low-certainty evidence), dysmenorrhoea scores (RR 2.25; 95% CI 1.59 to 3.16, 1 RCT, n = 85, low-certainty evidence), dyspareunia scores (RR 2.21; 95% CI 1.39 to 3.54, 1 RCT, n = 59, low-certainty evidence), and pelvic tenderness scores (RR 2.28; 95% CI 1.48 to 3.50, 1 RCT, n = 85, low-certainty evidence) after three months of treatment. We are uncertain of the effect for pelvic induration, based on the results found after three months of treatment (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.79, 1 RCT, n = 81, low-certainty evidence). Besides, treatment with GnRHas may be associated with a greater incidence of hot flushes at three months of treatment (RR 3.08; 95% CI 1.89 to 5.01, 1 RCT, n = 100, low-certainty evidence). Trials comparing GnRHas versus danazol For overall pain, for women treated with either GnRHas or danazol, a subdivision was made between pelvic tenderness, partly resolved and completely resolved. We are uncertain about the effect on relief of overall pain, when a subdivision was made for overall pain (MD -0.30; 95% CI -1.66 to 1.06, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), pelvic pain (MD 0.20; 95% CI -0.26 to 0.66, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), dysmenorrhoea (MD 0.10; 95% CI -0.49 to 0.69, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), dyspareunia (MD -0.20; 95% CI -0.77 to 0.37, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), pelvic induration (MD -0.10; 95% CI -0.59 to 0.39, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), and pelvic tenderness (MD -0.20; 95% CI -0.78 to 0.38, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) after three months of treatment. For pelvic pain (MD 0.50; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.90, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) and pelvic induration (MD 0.70; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), the complaints may decrease slightly after treatment with GnRHas, compared to danazol, for six months of treatment. Trials comparing GnRHas versus analgesics We did not identify any studies. Trials comparing GnRHas versus intra-uterine progestogens We did not identify any low risk of bias studies. Trials comparing GnRHas versus GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents There may be a slight decrease in bone mineral density (BMD) after 12 months treatment with GnRHas, compared to GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents for anterior-posterior spine (MD -7.00; 95% CI -7.53 to -6.47, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) and lateral spine (MD -12.40; 95% CI -13.31 to -11.49, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For relief of overall pain, there may be a slight decrease in favour of treatment with GnRHas compared to placebo or oral or injectable progestogens. We are uncertain about the effect when comparing GnRHas with danazol, intra-uterine progestogens or gestrinone. For BMD, there may be a slight decrease when women are treated with GnRHas, compared to gestrinone. There was a bigger decrease of BMD in favour of GnRHas, compared to GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents. However, there may be a slight increase in adverse effects when women are treated with GnRHas, compared to placebo or gestrinone. Due to a very low to low certainty of the evidence, a wide range of outcome measures and a wide range of outcome measurement instruments, the results should be interpreted with caution.
Topics: Female; Humans; Endometriosis; Danazol; Progestins; Gestrinone; Dysmenorrhea; Calcium; Dyspareunia; Pelvic Pain; Calcium, Dietary; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone
PubMed: 37341141
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014788.pub2 -
European Review For Medical and... Jun 2023The aim of the study was to systematically review and meta-analyze the available data on changes in the hormonal profile of postmenopausal women treated with hormone... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the study was to systematically review and meta-analyze the available data on changes in the hormonal profile of postmenopausal women treated with hormone replacement therapy (HRT).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Full-text articles published up to April 30, 2021, were searched through PUBMED, EMBASE, the Cochrane library and Web of Science (WOS) databases and were screened strictly according to inclusion criteria. Randomized clinical trials and case control studies were enrolled. Studies not reporting steroid serum levels or not providing a control group were excluded from the analysis. Studies enrolling women with genetic defects or severe chronic systemic diseases were excluded. Data are expressed as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Random effect models were used for the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
HRT administration increases estradiol (E2) and reduces follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) serum levels compared with pre-treatment. Their changes are evident when oral and transdermal HRT are administered, while vaginal HRT not. No significant effect on E2 and FSH was found between 6 and 12 months, as well as between 12 and 24 months. No significant effect on E2 and FSH was shown between different regimes. No difference was observed between different HRT regarding their effect on lipid profiles, breast pain and vaginal bleeding, but oral estrogen combined synthetic progestin caused a reduction in sex hormone-binding globulin (SHGB).
CONCLUSIONS
The review suggested oral and transdermal HRT could lead to a rise in E2 serum levels and a decrease in FSH. The types and doses of HRT did not seem to modify the E2 and FSH level. Also, oral estrogen combined synthetic progestin could cause a reduction in SHGB. This might be crucial when choosing the best possible treatment for each patient individually taking into consideration if potential benefits outweigh the risks.
Topics: Female; Humans; Estrogen Replacement Therapy; Postmenopause; Gonadal Steroid Hormones; Hormone Replacement Therapy; Estradiol; Estrogens; Follicle Stimulating Hormone
PubMed: 37318501
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202306_32646