-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2019. Catamenial epilepsy describes worsening seizures in relation to the menstrual cycle and may... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2019. Catamenial epilepsy describes worsening seizures in relation to the menstrual cycle and may affect around 40% of women with epilepsy. Vulnerable days of the menstrual cycle for seizures are perimenstrually (C1 pattern), at ovulation (C2 pattern), and during the luteal phase (C3 pattern). A reduction in progesterone levels premenstrually and reduced secretion during the luteal phase is implicated in catamenial C1 and C3 patterns. A reduction in progesterone has been demonstrated to reduce sensitivity to the inhibitory neurotransmitter in preclinical studies, hence increasing risk of seizures. A pre-ovulatory surge in oestrogen has been implicated in the C2 pattern of seizure exacerbation, although the exact mechanism by which this surge increases risk is uncertain. Current treatment practices include the use of pulsed hormonal (e.g. progesterone) and non-hormonal treatments (e.g. clobazam or acetazolamide) in women with regular menses, and complete cessation of menstruation using synthetic hormones (e.g. medroxyprogesterone (Depo-Provera) or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues (triptorelin and goserelin)) in women with irregular menses. Catamenial epilepsy and seizure exacerbation is common in women with epilepsy. Women may not receive appropriate treatment for their seizures because of uncertainty regarding which treatment works best and when in the menstrual cycle treatment should be taken, as well as the possible impact on fertility, the menstrual cycle, bone health, and cardiovascular health. This review aims to address these issues to inform clinical practice and future research.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of hormonal and non-hormonal treatments for seizures exacerbated by the menstrual cycle in women with regular or irregular menses. We synthesised the evidence from randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of hormonal and non-hormonal treatments in women with catamenial epilepsy of any pattern.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 20 July 2021 for the latest update: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 July 2021). CRS Web includes randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy. We used no language restrictions. We checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs of blinded or open-label design that randomised participants individually (i.e. cluster-randomised trials were excluded). We included cross-over trials if each treatment period was at least 12 weeks in length and the trial had a suitable wash-out period. We included the following types of interventions: women with any pattern of catamenial epilepsy who received a hormonal or non-hormonal drug intervention in addition to an existing antiepileptic drug regimen for a minimum treatment duration of 12 weeks.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data on study design factors and participant demographics for the included studies. The primary outcomes of interest were: proportion seizure-free, proportion of responders (at least 50% decrease in seizure frequency from baseline), and change in seizure frequency. Secondary outcomes included: number of withdrawals, number of women experiencing adverse events of interest (seizure exacerbation, cardiac events, thromboembolic events, osteoporosis and bone health, mood disorders, sedation, menstrual cycle disorders, and fertility issues), and quality of life outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
Following title, abstract, and full-text screening, we included eight full-text articles reporting on four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs. We included two cross-over RCTs of pulsed norethisterone, and two parallel RCTs of pulsed progesterone recruiting a total of 192 women aged between 13 and 45 years with catamenial epilepsy. We found no RCTs for non-hormonal treatments of catamenial epilepsy or for women with irregular menses. Meta-analysis was not possible for the primary outcomes, therefore we undertook a narrative synthesis. For the two RCTs evaluating norethisterone versus placebo (24 participants), there were no reported treatment differences for change in seizure frequency. Outcomes for the proportion seizure-free and 50% responders were not reported. For the two RCTs evaluating progesterone versus placebo (168 participants), the studies reported conflicting results for the primary outcomes. One progesterone RCT reported no significant difference between progesterone 600 mg/day taken on day 14 to 28 and placebo with respect to 50% responders, seizure freedom rates, and change in seizure frequency for any seizure type. The other progesterone RCT reported a decrease in seizure frequency from baseline in the progesterone group that was significantly higher than the decrease in seizure frequency from baseline in the placebo group. The results of secondary efficacy outcomes showed no significant difference between groups in the pooled progesterone RCTs in terms of treatment withdrawal for any reason (pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 3.00, P = 0.18, I = 0%) or treatment withdrawals due to adverse events (pooled RR 2.91, 95% CI 0.53 to 16.17, P = 0.22, I = 0%). No treatment withdrawals were reported from the norethisterone RCTs. The RCTs reported limited information on adverse events, although one progesterone RCT reported no significant difference in the number of women experiencing adverse events (diarrhoea, dyspepsia, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, nasopharyngitis, dizziness, headache, and depression). No studies reported on quality of life. We judged the evidence for outcomes related to the included progesterone RCTs to be of low to moderate certainty due to risk of bias, and for outcomes related to the included norethisterone RCTs to be of very low certainty due to serious imprecision and risk of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review provides very low-certainty evidence of no treatment difference between norethisterone and placebo, and moderate- to low-certainty evidence of no treatment difference between progesterone and placebo for catamenial epilepsy. However, as all the included studies were underpowered, important clinical effects cannot be ruled out. Our review highlights an overall deficiency in the literature base on the effectiveness of a wide range of other hormonal and non-hormonal interventions currently being used in practice, particularly for those women who do not have regular menses. Further clinical trials are needed in this area.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anticonvulsants; Epilepsy; Fatigue; Female; Humans; Menstruation; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Young Adult
PubMed: 34528245
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013225.pub3 -
Journal of Education and Health... 2021Recent studies have reported inconclusive results regarding the therapeutic effects of Rosa damascena on the outcomes of primary dysmenorrhea (PD) and premenstrual... (Review)
Review
Recent studies have reported inconclusive results regarding the therapeutic effects of Rosa damascena on the outcomes of primary dysmenorrhea (PD) and premenstrual syndrome (PMS). Hence, this study is aimed to summarize the findings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the effects of this treatment on menstruation-related pain as the primary outcome and menstruation-related headache, fatigue, anxiety, and bloating as the secondary outcomes. This study evaluated parallel-group and cross-over RCTs on aromatherapy, topical treatment, or oral intake of R. damascena products for the treatment groups versus placebo, nontreated, or conventional treatment groups. Seven electronic databases (Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, SID, and MagIran) and one search engine (PubMed) were searched from inception to January 15, 2021. Of 1468 trials found in the initial search, 983 potentially relevant articles were screened by title and abstract. After examining the full-text of 13 studies for compliance with the inclusion criteria, seven studies were considered eligible for this review. A random-effects model was used to pool the data; otherwise, a narrative summary was presented. The retrieved studies were conducted on females with PD or PMS, aged 18-35 years. The total sample size of the intervention and comparator arms was 276 and 272. The results showed that R. damascena had a nonsignificant alleviating effect on the menstruation-related pain (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.25, 0.31; = 0.234). Such findings were also found for menstruation-related anxiety (WMD: -0.40; 95% CI: -0.91, 0.11; = 0.125). However, the treatment significantly reduced the menstruation-related headache (WMD: -0.42; 95% CI: -0.74, -0.11; = 0.008), fatigue (WMD: -0.48; 95% CI: -0.87, -0.09; = 0.015), and bloating (WMD: -0.72; 95% CI: -1.21, -0.22; = 0.005). Since R. damascena had no significant effects on menstruation-related pain and anxiety, further studies with improved methodological quality are suggested to evaluate the effects of the treatment on these symptoms, using different dosages and durations.
PubMed: 34485569
DOI: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_18_21 -
Annals of Medicine Dec 2021There are no robust national prevalence of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes in Nigerian women despite the high burden of cervical cancer morbidity and mortality.
BACKGROUND
There are no robust national prevalence of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes in Nigerian women despite the high burden of cervical cancer morbidity and mortality.
THE OBJECTIVE OF STUDY
This study aims to determine the pooled prevalence and risk factors of genital HPV infection in Nigeria through a systemic review protocol.
METHODS
Databases including PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar and AJOL were searched between 10 April to 28 July 2020. HPV studies on Nigerian females and published from April 1999 to March 2019 were included. GRADE was used to assess the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
The pooled prevalence of cervical HPV was 20.65% (95%CI: 19.7-21.7). Genotypes 31 (70.8%), 35 (69.9%) and 16 (52.9%) were the most predominant HPV in circulation. Of the six geopolitical zones in Nigeria, northeast had the highest pooled prevalence of HPV infection (48.1%), while the least was in the north-west (6.8%). After multivariate logistic regression, duration (years) of sexual exposure (OR = 3.24, 95%CI: 1.78-9.23]), history of other malignancies (OR = 1.93, 95%CI: 1.03-2.97]), history of sexually transmitted infection (OR = 2.45, 95% CI: 1.31-3.55]), coital frequency per week (OR = 5.11, 95%CI: 3.86-14.29), the status of circumcision of the sexual partner (OR = 2.71, 95%CI: 1.62-9.05), and marital status (OR = 1.72, 95%CI: 1.16-4.72), were significant risk factors of HPV infection ( < 0.05). Irregular menstruation, post-coital bleeding and abdominal vaginal discharge were significantly associated with HPV infection ( < 0.05).
CONCLUSION
HPV prevalence is high in Nigeria and was significantly associated with several associated risk factors. Rapid screening for high-risk HPV genotypes is recommended and multivalent HPV vaccines should be considered for women.
Topics: Female; Genotype; Humans; Nigeria; Papillomaviridae; Papillomavirus Infections; Prevalence; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 34124973
DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2021.1938201 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019Catamenial epilepsy describes a worsening of seizures in relation to the menstrual cycle and may affect around 40% of women with epilepsy. Vulnerable days of the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Catamenial epilepsy describes a worsening of seizures in relation to the menstrual cycle and may affect around 40% of women with epilepsy. Vulnerable days of the menstrual cycle for seizures are perimenstrually (C1 pattern), at ovulation (C2 pattern), and during the luteal phase (C3 pattern). A reduction in progesterone levels premenstrually and reduced secretion during the luteal phase is implicated in catamenial C1 and C3 patterns. A reduction in progesterone has been demonstrated to reduce sensitivity to the inhibitory neurotransmitter in preclinical studies, hence increasing risk of seizures. A pre-ovulatory surge in oestrogen has been implicated in the C2 pattern of seizure exacerbation, although the exact mechanism by which this surge increases risk is uncertain. Current treatment practices include the use of pulsed hormonal (e.g. progesterone) and non-hormonal treatments (e.g. clobazam or acetazolamide) in women with regular menses, and complete cessation of menstruation using synthetic hormones (e.g. medroxyprogesterone (Depo-Provera) or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues (triptorelin and goserelin)) in women with irregular menses.Catamenial epilepsy and seizure exacerbation is common in women with epilepsy, and may have a significant negative impact on quality of life. Women may not be receiving appropriate treatment for their seizures because of uncertainty regarding which treatment works best and when in the menstrual cycle treatment should be taken, as well as the possible impact on fertility, the menstrual cycle, bone health, and cardiovascular health. This review aimed to address these issues in order to inform clinical practice and future research.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of hormonal and non-hormonal treatments for seizures exacerbated by the menstrual cycle in women with regular or irregular menses. We synthesised the evidence from randomised controlled trials of hormonal and non-hormonal treatments in women with catamenial epilepsy of any pattern.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases to 10 January 2019: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web; includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)), MEDLINE (Ovid: 1946 to 9 January 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We used no language restrictions. We checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of blinded or opeṉlabel design that randomised participants individually (i.e. cluster-randomised trials were excluded). We included cross-over trials if each treatment period was at least 12 weeks in length and the trial had a suitable wash-out period. Types of interventions included: women with any pattern of catamenial epilepsy who received a hormonal or non-hormonal drug intervention in addition to an existing antiepileptic drug regimen for a minimum treatment duration of 12 weeks.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data on study design factors and participant demographics for the included studies. The primary outcomes of interest were: proportion seizure-free, proportion of responders (at least 50% decrease in seizure frequency from baseline), and mean change in seizure frequency. Secondary outcomes included: number of withdrawals, number of women experiencing adverse events of interest (seizure exacerbation, cardiac events, thromboembolic events, osteoporosis and bone health, mood disorders, sedation, menstrual cycle disorders, and fertility issues), and quality of life outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 62 records from the databases and search strategies. Following title, abstract, and full-text screening, we included eight full-text articles reporting on four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs. We included two cross-over RCTs of pulsed norethisterone and two parallel RCTs of pulsed progesterone recruiting a total of 192 women aged between 13 and 45 years with catamenial epilepsy. We found no RCTs for non-hormonal treatments of catamenial epilepsy or for women with irregular menses.Meta-analysis was not possible for the primary outcomes, therefore we undertook a narrative synthesis. For the two RCTs evaluating norethisterone versus placebo (24 participants), there were no reported treatment differences for mean change in seizure frequency. Outcomes for the proportion seizure-free and 50% responders were not reported. For the RCTs evaluating progesterone versus placebo (168 participants), the studies reported conflicting results on the primary outcomes. One progesterone RCT reported no significant difference between progesterone 600 mg/day taken on day 14 to 28 and placebo with respect to 50% responders, seizure freedom rates, and change in seizure frequency for any seizure type. The other progesterone RCT reported that the decrease in seizure frequency from baseline in the progesterone group was significantly higher than the decrease in seizure frequency from baseline in the placebo group.Results of secondary efficacy outcomes showed no significant difference in terms of treatment withdrawal for any reason in the pooled progesterone RCTs when compared to placebo (pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 3.00, P = 0.18, I = 0%) or for treatment withdrawals due to adverse events (pooled RR 2.91, 95% CI 0.53 to 16.17, P = 0.22, I = 0%). No treatment withdrawals from the norethisterone RCTs were reported. The RCTs reported limited information on adverse events, although one progesterone RCT reported no significant difference in the number of women experiencing adverse events (diarrhoea, dyspepsia, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, nasopharyngitis, dizziness, headache, and depression). No studies reported on quality of life.We judged the evidence from the included progesterone RCTs to be of low to moderate certainty due to risk of bias and from the included norethisterone RCTs to be of very low certainty due to serious imprecision and risk of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review provides very low-certainty evidence of no treatment difference between norethisterone and placebo, and moderate- to low-certainty evidence of no treatment difference between progesterone and placebo for catamenial epilepsy. However, as all the included studies were underpowered, important clinical effects cannot be ruled out.Our review highlighted an overall deficiency in the literature base on the effectiveness of a wide range of other hormonal and non-hormonal interventions currently being used in practice, particularly for those patients who do not have regular menses. Further clinical trials are needed in this area.
PubMed: 31608992
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013225.pub2 -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... May 2020Changes in menstrual bleeding concern many users of the 52 mg Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System. Prescribing information for Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System devices... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Changes in menstrual bleeding concern many users of the 52 mg Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System. Prescribing information for Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System devices describe an overall decrease in bleeding and spotting days over time; however, estimates derived from a variety of existing clinical data are currently unavailable.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of the study was to systematically calculate the mean days of bleeding-only, spotting-only, and bleeding and/or spotting experienced by a population of reproductive-aged Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System users with normal regular menses prior to insertion during the first year of use.
DATA SOURCES
We identified clinical trials, including randomized controlled trials and randomized comparative trials, as well as cohort studies published in English between January 1970 and November 2018 through searching 12 biomedical and scientific literature databases including MEDLINE and ClinicalTrials.gov.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We considered studies that reported data on Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System devices releasing 20 μg of levonorgestrel per day, collected daily menstrual bleeding data for at least 90 consecutive days, defined bleeding and spotting per World Health Organization standards and evaluated participants with normal regular menses prior to insertion.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
We assessed study quality using established guidelines. Two reviewers independently conducted all review stages and rated the quality of evidence for each article; any disagreements were resolved by a third. Where possible, we pooled data using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Among 3403 potentially relevant studies, we included 7 in our meta-analysis. We calculated the mean days of bleeding-only, spotting-only, and bleeding and/or spotting for the first four 90 day intervals after Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System insertion. Combined menstrual bleeding and/or spotting days gradually decreased throughout the first year, from 35.6 days (95% confidence interval, 32.2-39.1) during the first 90 day interval to 19.1 (95% confidence interval, 16.6-21.5), 14.2 (95% confidence interval, 11.7-16.8), and 11.7 days (95% confidence interval, 9.7-13.7) in the second, third, and fourth intervals. Measures for bleeding-only and spotting-only days similarly decreased throughout the first year, with the greatest decreases occurring between the first and second intervals.
CONCLUSION
Our study provides 90 day reference period measures that characterize menstrual patterns for Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System users with normal regular menses prior to insertion during the first year of use. Our findings provide broader generalizability and more detail than patterns described in the prescribing information. These findings quantify an overall decrease in menstrual bleeding days with longer duration of use, with the greatest decrease occurring between months 3 and 6. Accurately establishing expectations with the Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System may improve informed selection and decrease discontinuation.
Topics: Adult; Contraceptive Agents, Female; Female; Humans; Intrauterine Devices, Medicated; Levonorgestrel; Menstruation; Metrorrhagia; Time Factors
PubMed: 31589865
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.09.044 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in premenopausal women. Although surgery is often used as a treatment, a range of medical therapies...
BACKGROUND
Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in premenopausal women. Although surgery is often used as a treatment, a range of medical therapies are also available. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduce prostaglandin levels, which are elevated in women with excessive menstrual bleeding and also may have a beneficial effect on dysmenorrhoea.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of NSAIDs in achieving a reduction in menstrual blood loss (MBL) in women of reproductive years with HMB.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched, in April 2019, the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility specialised register, Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online (CENTRAL CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the clinical trial registries and reference lists of articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
The inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of individual NSAIDs or combined with other medical therapy with each other, placebo or other medical treatments in women with regular heavy periods measured either objectively or subjectively and with no pathological or iatrogenic (treatment-induced) causes for their HMB.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We identified 19 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (759 women) that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review and two review authors independently extracted data. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes from the data of nine trials. We described in data tables the results of the remaining seven cross-over trials with data unsuitable for pooling, one trial with skewed data, and one trial with missing variances. One trial had no data available for analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
As a group, NSAIDs were more effective than placebo at reducing HMB but less effective than tranexamic acid, danazol or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG IUS). Treatment with danazol caused a shorter duration of menstruation and more adverse events than NSAIDs, but this did not appear to affect the acceptability of treatment, based on trials from 1980 to 1990. However, currently danazol is not a usual or recommended treatment for HMB. There was no clear evidence of difference between NSAIDs and the other treatments (oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, an older progesterone-releasing intrauterine system and the oral contraceptive pill (OCP), but most studies were underpowered. There was no evidence of a difference between the individual NSAIDs (naproxen and mefenamic acid) in reducing HMB. The evidence quality ranged from low to moderate, the main limitations being risk of bias and imprecision.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
NSAIDs reduce HMB when compared with placebo, but are less effective than tranexamic acid, danazol or LNG IUS. However, adverse events are more severe with danazol therapy. In the limited number of small studies suitable for evaluation, there was no clear evidence of a difference in efficacy between NSAIDs and other medical treatments such as oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, OCP or the older progesterone-releasing intrauterine system.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Contraceptives, Oral, Combined; Dysmenorrhea; Female; Humans; Menorrhagia; Naproxen; Progesterone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31535715
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000400.pub4