-
BMC Women's Health Oct 2021Subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate is an easy-to-use injectable contraceptive. A trained person can administer it, including women through self-injection.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate is an easy-to-use injectable contraceptive. A trained person can administer it, including women through self-injection. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effectiveness and safety of self-injection versus provider-administered subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate for improving continuation of contraceptive use.
METHODS
We searched for randomized controlled trials on November 1, 2020 in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Open Grey, clinical trials registries, and reference lists of relevant studies. We did not impose any search restrictions. We included randomized trials comparing self- versus provider-administered subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate. Two authors independently screened trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We used risk ratio and 95% confidence intervals for dichotomous outcomes.
RESULTS
We identified 3 randomized trials (9 reports; 1264 participants). The risk of bias in the included studies was low except for performance bias and detection bias of participant-reported outcomes in unmasked trials. Self-administration, compared to provider-administration, increased continuation of contraceptive use (risk ratio 1.35; 95% confidence intervals 1.10-1.66); moderate-certainty evidence). Self-injection appears to be making more of an impact on continuation for younger women compared to women 25 years and older and on women living in low and middle income compared to high income countries. There was no subgroup difference by the type of care provider (community health worker vs. clinic-based provider).
CONCLUSIONS
Self-injection of subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate probably improves continuation of contraceptive use. The effects on other outcomes remain uncertain because of the very low certainty of evidence.
Topics: Community Health Workers; Contraceptive Agents, Female; Female; Humans; Injections; Medroxyprogesterone Acetate; Self Administration
PubMed: 34627229
DOI: 10.1186/s12905-021-01495-y -
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 -
Contraception May 2021Immediate contraceptive initiation, including start of a method before abortion completion, is a convenient option for women seeking abortion care. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Immediate contraceptive initiation, including start of a method before abortion completion, is a convenient option for women seeking abortion care.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effect of systemic hormonal contraception initiation on medical abortion effectiveness and the safety of hormonal contraceptive methods following abortion.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Popline, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Studies that assessed medical abortion effectiveness after systemic hormonal contraception initiation and the safety of hormonal contraception initiation after abortion.
PARTICIPANTS
Pregnant persons undergoing or who had recently undergone an abortion.
INTERVENTIONS
Initiation of systemic hormonal contraception post abortion or on the day of the first pill of the medical abortion.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
We assessed study quality using the US Preventive Services Task Force evidence grading system. We created narrative summaries and calculated pooled relative risks when appropriate.
RESULTS
We identified 16 studies for inclusion, 7 randomized controlled trials, and 9 cohorts. Nine studies assessed medical abortion effectiveness with hormonal contraception initiation and generally found no decreased risk of abortion success or increased risk of additional treatment. One fair-quality study reported a small increase in ongoing pregnancy rate with immediate depot medroxyprogesterone (DMPA) compared with delayed DMPA initiation (3.6% vs 0.9%, risk difference 2.7%, 90% confidence interval 0.4-5.6). We identified no bleeding-related safety concerns following hormonal contraception initiation after medical or surgical abortion. Pooled results were too imprecise to draw firm conclusions.
LIMITATIONS
Included studies were poor or fair quality and primarily in high-income or upper-middle-income settings.
CONCLUSIONS
Abortion effectiveness did not differ between immediate vs delayed initiation of most systemic hormonal contraceptive methods after a first trimester medical abortion. However, immediate DMPA initiation did show increased ongoing pregnancy. Bleeding effects with hormonal contraception initiation postabortion appeared minimal.
IMPLICATIONS
Initiating a hormonal contraceptive method after an abortion and as early as the same day as the first pill of the medical abortion is an option if contraception is desired. The slight increase in ongoing pregnancy with immediate DMPA initiation highlights the importance of information provision during contraceptive counseling.
Topics: Abortion, Induced; Contraception; Family Planning Services; Female; Hormonal Contraception; Humans; Pregnancy
PubMed: 33548267
DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2021.01.017 -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Mar 2021Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) is a new ovarian stimulation protocol that has been used over the last decade to enhance reproductive function. The purpose... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) is a new ovarian stimulation protocol that has been used over the last decade to enhance reproductive function. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether PPOS is as effective as conventional protocols (without GnRHa downregulation).
METHOD
Search terms included "medroxyprogesterone", "dydrogesterone", "progestin-primed ovarian stimulation", "PPOS", "oocyte retrieval", "in vitro fertilization", "IVF", "ICSI", "ART", and "reproductive". The selection criteria were nonrandomized studies and randomized controlled studies. For data collection and analysis, the Review Manager software, Newcastle-Ottowa Quality Assessment Scale and GRADE approach were used.
RESULTS
The clinical pregnancy rates were not significantly different in either RCTs or NRCTs [RR 0.96, 95% CI (0.69-1.33), I = 71%, P = 0.81]; [RR 0.99, 95% CI (0.83-1.17), I = 38%, P = 0.88]. The live birth rates of RCTs and NRCTs did not differ [RCT: RR 1.08, 95% CI (0.74, 1.57), I = 66%, P = 0.69; NRCT: OR 1.03 95% CI 0.84-1.26), I = 50%, P = 0.79]. The PPOS protocol had a lower rate of OHSS [RR 0.52, 95% CI (0.36-0.75), I = 0%, P = 0.0006]. The secondary results showed that compared to the control protocol, the endometrium was thicker [95% CI (0.00-0.78), I = 0%, P = 0.05], the number of obtained embryos was higher [95% CI (0.04-0.65), I = 17%, P = 0.03] and more hMG was needed [in NRCT: 95% CI (307.44, 572.73), I = 0%, P < 0.00001] with the PPOS protocol.
CONCLUSION
The PPOS protocol produces more obtained embryos and a thicker endometrium than the control protocol, with a lower rate of OHSS and an equal live birth rate. The PPOS protocol could be a safe option as a personalized protocol for infertile patients.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Registration at PROSPERO: CRD42020176577.
Topics: Dydrogesterone; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Oocyte Retrieval; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Progesterone; Progestins; Reproduction
PubMed: 33433705
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-020-05939-y -
Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and... Sep 2021To systematically evaluate the effect of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) in in vitro fertilization (IVF)/oocyte intracytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To systematically evaluate the effect of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) in in vitro fertilization (IVF)/oocyte intracytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo transfer (ICSI-ET) in patients with poor ovarian response and to find an optimal ovulation induction protocol for such patients.
METHOD
A literature search of PubMed, Medline, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, Vip.com, CNKI, and the Wanfang database was conducted to find case-control studies of PPOS with medroxyprogesterone acetate and other traditional stimulation regimens for ovulation induction in patients with poor ovarian response. The period of time searched was from the database establishment to August 2020. Patients in the experimental group underwent PPOS and those in the control group underwent another program (e.g., the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol). RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of sixteen case-control studies (one of them is randomized controlled trial), with 4422 induction cycles, were included. All the included patients met the 2011 Bologna diagnostic criteria for poor ovarian response. The numbers of mature eggs, available embryos, optimal embryos, and the rate of cumulative pregnancies in the PPOS group were all better than those in the control group (P<0.05). There was a lower Serum luteinizing hormone on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) injection and a lower rate of cycle cancellation in the PPOS group (P<0.05). No other differences between PPOS and other treatments were statistically significant.
CONCLUSION
PPOS can reduce the need for cycle cancellation, improve the follicles and embryos, and improve the pregnancy rate and thus, can present an effective choice for IVF/ICSI-ET in patients with poor ovarian response.
Topics: Adult; Case-Control Studies; Contraceptive Agents, Hormonal; Female; Humans; Medroxyprogesterone Acetate; Ovary; Ovulation Induction; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33387677
DOI: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.102049 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Uterine fibroids can cause heavy menstrual bleeding. Medical treatments are considered to preserve fertility. It is unclear whether progestogens or progestogen-releasing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Uterine fibroids can cause heavy menstrual bleeding. Medical treatments are considered to preserve fertility. It is unclear whether progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems can reduce fibroid-related symptoms. This is the first update of a Cochrane Review published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems in treating premenopausal women with uterine fibroids.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases to July 2020. We also searched trials registers for ongoing and registered trials, and checked references of relevant trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All identified published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems in treating premenopausal women with uterine fibroids.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
This updated review included four studies with 221 women with uterine fibroids. The evidence was very low quality, downgraded for serious risk of bias, due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUS) versus hysterectomy There was no information on the outcomes of interest, including adverse events. LNG-IUS versus low dose combined oral contraceptive (COC) At 12 months, we are uncertain whether LNG-IUS reduced the percentage of abnormal uterine bleeding, measured with the alkaline hematin test (mean difference (MD) 77.50%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 70.44 to 84.56; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence), or the pictorial blood assessment chart (PBAC; MD 34.50%, 95% CI 11.59 to 57.41; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence); increased haemoglobin levels (MD 1.50 g/dL, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.15; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence), or reduced fibroid size more than COC (MD 1.90%, 95% CI -12.24 to 16.04; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not measure adverse events. LNG-IUS versus oral progestogen (norethisterone acetate (NETA)) Compared to NETA, we are uncertain whether LNG-IUS reduced abnormal uterine bleeding more from baseline to six months (visual bleeding score; MD 23.75 points, 95% CI 1.26 to 46.24; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence); increased the percentage of change in haemoglobin from baseline to three months (MD 4.53%, 95% CI 1.46 to 7.60; 1 RCT, 48 women; very low-quality evidence), or from baseline to six months (MD 10.14%, 95% CI 5.57 to 14.71; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not measure fibroid size. Spotting (adverse event) was more likely to be reported by women with the LNG-IUS (64.3%) than by those taking NETA (30%; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence). Oral progestogen (dienogest, desogestrel) versus goserelin acetate Compared to goserelin acetate, we are uncertain whether abnormal uterine bleeding was reduced at 12 weeks with dienogest (PBAC; MD 216.00 points, 95% CI 149.35 to 282.65; 1 RCT, 14 women; very low-quality evidence) or desogestrel (PBAC; MD 78.00 points, 95% CI 28.94 to 127.06; 1 RCT, 16 women; very low-quality evidence). Vasomotor symptoms (adverse events, e.g. hot flashes) are only associated with goserelin acetate (55%), not with dienogest (1 RCT, 14 women; very low-quality evidence) or with desogestrel (1 RCT, 16 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not report fibroid size.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Because of very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain whether the LNG-IUS reduces abnormal uterine bleeding or increases haemoglobin levels in premenopausal women with uterine fibroids, compared to COC or norethisterone acetate. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the LNG-IUS reduces the size of uterine fibroids compared to COC. We are uncertain whether oral progestogens reduce abnormal uterine bleeding as effectively as goserelin acetate, but women reported fewer adverse events, such as hot flashes.
Topics: Adult; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Bias; Contraceptives, Oral; Desogestrel; Female; Goserelin; Humans; Intrauterine Devices, Medicated; Leiomyoma; Leuprolide; Levonorgestrel; Lynestrenol; Medroxyprogesterone Acetate; Menstruation; Middle Aged; Nandrolone; Norethindrone Acetate; Premenopause; Progestins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tumor Burden; Uterine Neoplasms
PubMed: 33226133
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008994.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Within the context of heavy menstrual bleeding, pandemics impact upon women's assessment and treatment by healthcare providers.
BACKGROUND
Within the context of heavy menstrual bleeding, pandemics impact upon women's assessment and treatment by healthcare providers.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews evaluating interventions for heavy menstrual bleeding that are commonly available during pandemics.
METHODS
We sought published Cochrane Reviews, evaluating interventions that can continue during pandemics for women with heavy menstrual bleeding with no known underlying cause. We identified Cochrane Reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in June 2020. The primary outcome was menstrual bleeding. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, patient satisfaction, side effects, and serious adverse events. We undertook the selection of systematic reviews, data extraction, and quality assessment in duplicate. We resolved any disagreements by discussion. We assessed review quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool, and the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four Cochrane Reviews, with 11 comparisons, data from 44 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and 3196 women. We assessed all the reviews to be high quality. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) NSAIDs may be more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding than placebo (mean difference (MD) -124 mL per cycle, 95% confidence interval (CI) -186 to -62 mL per cycle; 1 RCT, 11 women; low-certainty evidence). Mefenamic acid may be similar to naproxen (MD 21 mL per cycle, 95% CI -6 to 48 mL per cycle; 2 RCTs, 61 women; low-certainty evidence), and NSAIDs may be similar to combined hormonal contraceptives for heavy menstrual bleeding (MD 25 mL per cycle, 95% CI -22 to 73 mL per cycle; 1 RCT, 26 women; low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs may be be less effective in reducing menstrual bleeding than antifibrinolytics (relative risk (RR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85; 2 RCTs, 161 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAIDs reduce menstrual blood loss more than short-cycle progestogens (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.32; 1 RCT 32 women; very low-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics Antifibrinolytics appear to be more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding than placebo (MD -53 mL per cycle, 95% CI -63 to -44 mL per cycle; 4 RCTs, 565 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may be similar to placebo on the incidence of side effects (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18; 1 RCT, 297 women; low-certainty evidence), and they are probably similar on the incidence of serious adverse events (thrombotic events; RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.00 to 2.46; 2 RCT, 468 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may be more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding than short-cycle progestogen (MD -111 mL per cycle, 95% CI -178 mL to -44 mL per cycle; 1 RCT, 46 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics are similar to short-cycle progestogens on quality of life (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.76 to 3.64; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-certainty evidence), patient satisfaction (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.39; 1 RCT, 42 women; very low-certainty evidence), or side effects (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; 3 RCTs, 211 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics are more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding when compared with long-cycle progestogen (MD -9 points per cycle, 95% CI -30 to 12 points per cycle; 2 RCTs, 184 women; low-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may increase self-reported improvement in menstrual bleeding when compared with long-cycle medroxyprogesterone acetate (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.61; 1 RCT, 94 women; low-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may be similar to long-cycle progestogens on quality of life (MD 5, 95% CI -2.49 to 12.49; 1 RCT, 90 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics are similar to long-cycle progestogens on side effects (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.00; 2 RCTs, 184 women; very low-certainty evidence). There were no trials comparing antifibrinolytics to combined hormonal contraceptives. Combined hormonal contraceptives Combined hormonal contraceptives appear to be more effective for heavy menstrual bleeding than placebo or no treatment (RR 13.25, 95% CI 2.94 to 59.64; 2 RCTs, 363 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Combined hormonal contraceptives are probably similar to placebo on the incidence of side effects (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.60; 2 RCTs, 411 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Progestogens There were no trials comparing progestogens to placebo. Limitations in the evidence included risk of bias in the primary RCTs, inconsistency between the primary RCTs, and imprecision in effect estimates.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-certainty evidence that antifibrinolytics and combined hormonal contraceptives reduce heavy menstrual bleeding compared with placebo. There is low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs reduce heavy menstrual bleeding compared with placebo. There is low-certainty evidence that antifibrinolytics are more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding when compared with NSAIDs and short-cycle progestogens, but we are unable to draw conclusions about the effects of antifibrinolytics compared to long-cycle progestogens, on low-certainty evidence.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antifibrinolytic Agents; Contraceptives, Oral, Hormonal; Female; Humans; Mefenamic Acid; Menorrhagia; Pandemics; Placebos; Progestins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 32700364
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013651.pub2 -
Medicine Jun 2020Atypical polypoid adenomyoma (APA) is a rare uterine tumor typically found in fertile age and associated with infertility. Among young nullipara women, conservative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Atypical polypoid adenomyoma (APA) is a rare uterine tumor typically found in fertile age and associated with infertility. Among young nullipara women, conservative treatment is proposed despite the high recurrence rate and the association with endometrial cancer.Our aim was to assess the risk of recurrence with different conservative treatments in fertile ages and the prevalence of malignant or pre-malignant associated lesions to better address an adequate patient counselling when treatment modalities are discussed.
METHODS
This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of case reports and case series about APA management and follow-up. A literature search was carried from Medline and Scopus for studies published from January 1, 1980 to December 31, 2018.
RESULTS
We included 46 observational studies and 296 cases in fertile women. The prevalence of APA relapse was 44% (CI.95 33-57%) and was lower in cases treated with operative hysteroscopy (22%; CI.95 11-39%) than in cases treated with blind curettage and polypectomy (38%; CI.95 15-67%). The prevalence of the concomitant or during the follow-up diagnosis of endometrial carcinoma was 16% (CI.95 9-29%). The risk of cancer development during follow-up was significantly less in cases treated with histeroscopy (10.56% new cumulative diagnosis at 5 years follow up; CI.95 0-23.7%) than blind curettage and polypectomy (35.5% new cumulative diagnosis at 5 years; CI.95 11.65-52.92%; P < .05). Medical treatment with medroxyprogesterone acetate after surgery does not reduce APA recurrence. Pregnancy was observed in 79% cases in which the desire was expressed.
CONCLUSION
This review suggests that conservative treatment performed by operative hysteroscopy is the optimal choice because it lowers the risk of recurrence, improves the accuracy of concomitant carcinoma or hyperplasia diagnosis, and leaves the possibility of future pregnancies.
Topics: Adenomyoma; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Conservative Treatment; Curettage; Endometrial Hyperplasia; Endometrial Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Hysteroscopy; Medroxyprogesterone Acetate; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neoplasms, Multiple Primary; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Uterine Neoplasms
PubMed: 32590732
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000020491 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2020Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) impacts the quality of life of otherwise healthy women. The perception of HMB is subjective and management depends upon, among other... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) impacts the quality of life of otherwise healthy women. The perception of HMB is subjective and management depends upon, among other factors, the severity of the symptoms, a woman's age, her wish to get pregnant, and the presence of other pathologies. Heavy menstrual bleeding was classically defined as greater than or equal to 80 mL of blood loss per menstrual cycle. Currently the definition is based on the woman's perception of excessive bleeding which is affecting her quality of life. The intrauterine device was originally developed as a contraceptive but the addition of progestogens to these devices resulted in a large reduction in menstrual blood loss: users of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) reported reductions of up to 90%. Insertion may, however, be regarded as invasive by some women, which affects its acceptability.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL (from inception to June 2019); and we searched grey literature and for unpublished trials in trial registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in women of reproductive age treated with LNG-IUS devices versus no treatment, placebo, or other medical or surgical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and conducted GRADE assessments of the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 25 RCTs (2511 women). Limitations in the evidence included risk of attrition bias and low numbers of participants. The studies compared the following interventions. LNG-IUS versus other medical therapy The other medical therapies were norethisterone acetate, medroxyprogesterone acetate, oral contraceptive pill, mefenamic acid, tranexamic acid or usual medical treatment (where participants could choose the oral treatment that was most suitable). The LNG-IUS may improve HMB, lowering menstrual blood loss according to the alkaline haematin method (mean difference (MD) 66.91 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) 42.61 to 91.20; 2 studies, 170 women; low-certainty evidence); and the Pictorial Bleeding Assessment Chart (MD 55.05, 95% CI 27.83 to 82.28; 3 studies, 335 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether the LNG-IUS may have any effect on women's satisfaction up to one year (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.63; 3 studies, 141 women; I² = 0%, very low-certainty evidence). The LNG-IUS probably leads to slightly higher quality of life measured with the SF-36 compared with other medical therapy if (MD 2.90, 95% CI 0.06 to 5.74; 1 study: 571 women; moderate-certainty evidence) or with the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MD 13.40, 95% CI 9.89 to 16.91; 1 trial, 571 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The LNG-IUS and other medical therapies probably give rise to similar numbers of women with serious adverse events (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 1 study, 571 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Women using other medical therapy are probably more likely to withdraw from treatment for any reason (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.60; 1 study, 571 women, moderate-certainty evidence) and to experience treatment failure than women with LNG-IUS (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.44; 6 studies, 535 women; moderate-certainty evidence). LNG-IUS versus endometrial resection or ablation (EA) Bleeding outcome results are inconsistent. We are uncertain of the effect of the LNG-IUS compared to EA on rates of amenorrhoea (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.72; 8 studies, 431 women; I² = 21%; low-certainty evidence) and hypomenorrhoea (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.33; 4 studies, 200 women; low-certainty evidence) and eumenorrhoea (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.00; 3 studies, 160 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether both treatments may have similar rates of satisfaction with treatment at 12 months (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07; 5 studies, 317 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if the LNG-IUS compared to EA has any effect on quality of life, measured with SF-36 (MD -14.40, 95% CI -22.63 to -6.17; 1 study, 33 women; very low-certainty evidence). Women with the LNG-IUS compared with EA are probably more likely to have any adverse event (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.94; 3 studies, 201 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Women with the LNG-IUS may experience more treatment failure compared to EA at one year follow up (persistent HMB or requirement of additional treatment) (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.90; 5 studies, 320 women; low-certainty evidence); or requirement of hysterectomy may be higher at one year follow up (RR 2.56, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.42; 3 studies, 400 women; low-certainty evidence). LNG-IUS versus hysterectomy We are uncertain whether the LNG-IUS has any effect on HMB compared with hysterectomy (RR for amenorrhoea 0.52, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.70; 1 study, 75 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether there is difference between LNG-IUS and hysterectomy in satisfaction at five years (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; 1 study, 232 women; low-certainty evidence) and quality of life (SF-36 MD 2.20, 95% CI -2.93 to 7.33; 1 study, 221 women; low-certainty evidence). Women in the LNG-IUS group may be more likely to have treatment failure requiring hysterectomy for HMB at 1-year follow-up compared to the hysterectomy group (RR 48.18, 95% CI 2.96 to 783.22; 1 study, 236 women; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported cost data suitable for meta-analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The LNG-IUS may improve HMB and quality of life compared to other medical therapy; the LNG-IUS is probably similar for HMB compared to endometrial destruction techniques; and we are uncertain if it is better or worse than hysterectomy. The LNG-IUS probably has similar serious adverse events to other medical therapy and it is more likely to have any adverse events than EA.
Topics: Antifibrinolytic Agents; Contraceptives, Oral; Endometrium; Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Intrauterine Devices, Medicated; Levonorgestrel; Mefenamic Acid; Menorrhagia; Norethindrone; Progesterone; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tranexamic Acid; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32529637
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002126.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Women who have undergone surgical treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) may develop menopausal symptoms due to immediate loss of ovarian function following... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Women who have undergone surgical treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) may develop menopausal symptoms due to immediate loss of ovarian function following surgery and chemotherapy. Women may experience vasomotor symptoms, sleep disturbance, difficulty concentrating, sexual dysfunction, vaginal symptoms and accelerated osteoporosis. Although hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is the most effective treatment to relieve these symptoms, its safety has been questioned for women with EOC.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the safety and efficacy of HRT for menopausal symptoms in women surgically treated for EOC.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 6), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 12 June 2019) and Embase via Ovid (1980 to 2019, week 23). We also handsearched conference reports and trial registries. There was no language restriction.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with participants of any age and menopausal status who had undergone surgery for EOC and, after diagnosis and treatment, used any regimen and duration of HRT compared with placebo or no hormone therapy. We also included trials comparing different regimens or duration of administration of HRT.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified studies that met the inclusion criteria. They used Covidence to extract study characteristics, outcome data and to assess methodological quality of the included studies.
MAIN RESULTS
Our search strategy identified 2617 titles, of which 2614 titles were excluded. Three studies, involving 350 women, met our inclusion criteria. Two of the studies included pre and postmenopausal women, and the third only included premenopausal women. The overall age range of those women included in the studies was 20 to 89.6 years old, with a median follow-up ranging from 31.4 months to 19.1 years. The geographical distribution of participants included Europe, South Africa and China. All stages and histological subtypes were included in two of the studies, but stage IV disease had been excluded in the third. The three included studies used a variety of HRT regimens (conjugated oestrogen with or without medroxyprogesterone and with or without nylestriol) and HRT administrations (oral, patch and implant), In all studies, the comparisons were made versus women who had not received HRT. The studies were at low or unclear risk of selection and reporting bias, and at high risk of performance, detection and attrition bias. The certainty of the evidence was low for overall survival and progression-free survival, and very low for quality-of-life assessment, incidence of breast cancer, transient ischaemic attack (TIA), cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and myocardial infarction (MI). Meta-analysis of these studies showed that HRT may improve overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.93; 350 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). Quality-of-life assessment by use of the EORTC-C30 questionnaire was performed only in one study. We are uncertain whether HRT improves or reduces quality of life as the certainty of the evidence was assessed as very low (mean difference (MD) 13.67 points higher, 95% CI 9.26 higher to 18.08 higher; 1 study; 75 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Likewise, HRT may make little or no difference to progression-free survival (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.01; 275 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether HRT improves or reduces the incidence of breast cancer (risk ratio (RR) 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.59; 225 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence); TIA (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.24 to 102.42; 150 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); CVA (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.88; 150 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); and MI (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.10; 150 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The incidence of gallstones was not reported in the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Hormone replacement therapy may slightly improve overall survival in women who have undergone surgical treatment for EOC, but the certainty of the evidence is low. HRT may make little or no difference to quality of life, incidence of breast cancer, TIA, CVA and MI as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low. There may be little or no effect of HRT use on progression-free survival. The evidence in this review is limited by imprecision and incompleteness of reported relevant outcomes and therefore the results should be interpreted with caution. Future well-designed RCTs are required as this is an important area to women experiencing menopausal symptoms following surgical treatment for ovarian cancer, especially as doctors are often reluctant to prescribe HRT in this scenario. The evidence in this review is too limited to support or refute that HRT is very harmful in this population.
Topics: Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Female; Hormone Replacement Therapy; Humans; Menopause, Premature; Ovarian Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31989588
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012559.pub2