-
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2007Breast pain may be cyclical (worse before a period) or non-cyclical, originating from the breast or the chest wall, and occurs at some time in 70% of women. Cyclical... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Breast pain may be cyclical (worse before a period) or non-cyclical, originating from the breast or the chest wall, and occurs at some time in 70% of women. Cyclical breast pain resolves spontaneously in 20-30% of women, but tends to recur in 60% of women. Non-cyclical pain responds poorly to treatment but tends to resolve spontaneously in half of women.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for breast pain? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to January 2006 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 22 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: a low-fat diet, antibiotics, bromocriptine, danazol, diuretics, evening primrose oil, gestrinone, gonadorelin analogues, hormone replacement therapy, lisuride, progestogens, pyridoxine, tamoxifen, tibolone, topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, toremifene, and vitamin E.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Breast; Breast Diseases; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Mastodynia; Pain; Pain Measurement; Toremifene
PubMed: 19454068
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2007Ectopic endometrial tissue is found in up to 20% of asymptomatic women, up to 60% of those with dysmenorrhoea, and up to 30% of women with subfertility, with a peak... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Ectopic endometrial tissue is found in up to 20% of asymptomatic women, up to 60% of those with dysmenorrhoea, and up to 30% of women with subfertility, with a peak incidence at around 40 years of age. However, symptoms may not correlate with laparoscopic findings.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of hormonal treatments given at diagnosis of endometriosis? What are the effects of hormonal treatments before surgery for endometriosis? What are the effects of non-hormonal medical treatments for endometriosis? What are the effects of surgical treatments for endometriosis? What are the effects of hormonal treatment after conservative surgery for endometriosis? What are the effects of hormonal treatment after oophorectomy (with or without hysterectomy) for endometriosis? What are the effects of treatments for ovarian endometrioma? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to April 2006 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 32 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: combined oral contraceptives; danazol; dydrogesterone; gestrinone; gonadorelin analogues; hormonal treatment before surgery; hormonal treatment; laparoscopic cystectomy; laparoscopic removal of endometriotic deposits (alone or with uterine nerve ablation); laparoscopic removal plus presacral neurectomy; laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; presacral neurectomy alone; and progestogens other than dydrogesterone.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Contraceptives, Oral; Danazol; Dysmenorrhea; Endometriosis; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Progestins
PubMed: 19454060
DOI: No ID Found -
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy Sep 2004To systematically review the literature regarding the efficacy and safety of nonestrogen treatments for menopause-associated vasomotor symptoms not due to cancer or... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the literature regarding the efficacy and safety of nonestrogen treatments for menopause-associated vasomotor symptoms not due to cancer or chemotherapy.
DATA SOURCES
Pertinent literature and clinical studies were identified by searching MEDLINE (1966-February 2004) and EMBASE (1959-February 2004) using the key search terms vasomotor symptoms, hot flashes, and menopause. Bibliographies of relevant articles were reviewed for additional references.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION
English-language articles reporting efficacy and safety of nonestrogen treatment modalities for perimenopausal and postmenopausal vasomotor symptoms were evaluated. All articles identified from the data sources were evaluated, and all information deemed relevant was included. Emphasis was placed on randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials, as these provide the best efficacy and safety data. Studies evaluating treatment of vasomotor symptoms from other causes, such as cancer or chemotherapy, were excluded.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Prescription medications reviewed for efficacy and safety in postmenopausal vasomotor symptoms include clonidine hydrochloride, danazol, gabapentin, methyldopa, mirtazapine, progestins, propranolol hydrochloride, selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and venlafaxine. Nonprescription therapies reviewed include black cohosh, dong quai, evening primrose oil, physical activity, phytoestrogens, and red clover.
CONCLUSIONS
According to this systematic literature review, postmenopausal vasomotor treatments that have been shown to be safe and effective in short-term use include black cohosh, exercise, gabapentin, medroxyprogesterone acetate, SSRIs (ie, paroxetine hydrochloride), and soy protein. Initial, small reports are suggestive for efficacy in menopausal vasomotor symptoms with megestrol acetate and venlafaxine.
Topics: Exercise Therapy; Female; Hot Flashes; Humans; Menopause; Nonprescription Drugs; Postmenopause; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vasomotor System
PubMed: 15292498
DOI: 10.1345/aph.1D610 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2004In emergency contraception a drug or IUD is used to prevent pregnancy shortly after unprotected intercourse. Except for some Western-European countries and China,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In emergency contraception a drug or IUD is used to prevent pregnancy shortly after unprotected intercourse. Except for some Western-European countries and China, emergency contraception is largely under-utilised worldwide. In many developing countries lack of access to emergency contraception may subject women to unsafe abortions, which contribute significantly to maternal mortality and morbidity. Currently, several interventions (IUD, the Yuzpe regimen, levonorgestrel, mifepristone, danazol and some combination regimens) are available for emergency contraception. Information on the comparative efficacy, safety and convenience of these methods is crucial for reproductive health care providers and the women they serve.
OBJECTIVES
To determine which emergency contraceptive method following unprotected intercourse is the most effective, safe and convenient to prevent pregnancy.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The search included the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Popline, MEDLINE, Chinese biomedical databases and UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme on Human Reproduction (HRP) emergency contraception database (July 2003). Content experts and pharmaceutical companies were contacted.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials including women attending services for emergency contraception following a single act of unprotected intercourse were eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data on outcomes and trial characteristics were extracted in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. Quality assessment was also done by two reviewers independently. Meta-analysis results are expressed as relative risk (RR) using a fixed-effects model with 95% confidence interval (CI). In the presence of significant heterogeneity a random-effect model was applied.
MAIN RESULTS
Forty-eight trials with 33110 women were included. Most trials were conducted in China (37/48). Levonorgestrel is more effective than the Yuzpe regimen in preventing pregnancy (2 trials, RR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.83). Single dose (1.5 mg) administration seems to have similar effectiveness as the standard 12 hours apart split-dose (0.75 mg twice) of levonorgestrel (2 trials, RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.30). Levonorgestrel has similar effectiveness to mid-dose (8 trials, RR: 1.64; 95% CI: 0.82 to 3.25) or low-dose (7 trials, RR: 1.38; 95% CI: 0.93 to 2.05) mifepristone. Low-dose (=< 10 mg) mifepristone is similarly effective as mid doses (25-50 mg) when only high quality trials are considered. Delay in the onset of subsequent menses is the main unwanted effect of mifepristone and seems to be dose-related. The Yuzpe regimen can be used when levonorgestrel and mifepristone are not available. Half-dose Yuzpe with single administration is associated with fewer side-effects but it is not clear whether it is as effective as the standard Yuzpe regimen (RR: 1.41; 95% CI: 0.76 to 2.61).
REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS
Levonorgestrel 1.5 mg (two split doses or a single dose) and low and mid-doses (25-50 mg) of mifepristone offer high efficacy with an acceptable side-effect profile. Single dose simplifies the use of levonorgestrel for emergency contraception without an increase in side-effects. However, mifepristone might delay the following menstruation, which could increase anxiety, particularly in higher doses. The Yuzpe regimen could be used if levonorgestrel or mifepristone are not available. The intrauterine device (IUD) is another effective emergency contraceptive, and can be kept for ongoing contraception.
Topics: Contraception, Postcoital; Contraceptives, Oral, Combined; Contraceptives, Postcoital; Female; Humans; Levonorgestrel; Mifepristone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 15266446
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001324.pub2 -
IDrugs : the Investigational Drugs... May 2004Endometriosis is an important clinical problem in routine practice. Besides the problems of dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia and chronic abdominal pain, women with... (Review)
Review
Endometriosis is an important clinical problem in routine practice. Besides the problems of dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia and chronic abdominal pain, women with endometriosis are often infertile. We performed a systematic literature review on two issues: firstly, we clarified which medical treatment options have been investigated in prospective, randomized studies. Secondly, potential future treatments, still being preclinically investigated, were examined. A meta-analysis was not possible as the studies varied too much in their protocols and inclusion and exclusion criteria, as well as in the drugs and doses administered. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, progestins and oral contraceptives all appear to offer certain advantages for endometriosis patients. GnRH agonists appear to be the most effective but they are expensive and long-term treatment is not possible because of loss of bone mineral density. Estrogen add-back may offer some benefit for the clinical complaints of patients, but it may reduce the efficacy of GnRH agonists. Progestins have the best clinical profile and a good cost-effectiveness balance; however, most studies found that they were not as effective as GnRH agonists. Oral contraceptives are only effective during treatment and have a high relapse rate after therapy is completed. Future options may include the use of GnRH agonists, selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) and anti-estrogens, as well as immunomodulators.
Topics: Danazol; Endometriosis; Estrogen Antagonists; Female; Gestrinone; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Infertility, Female; Progesterone Congeners; Progestins; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 15154107
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2003Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) are generally well tolerated, and are effective in relieving the symptoms of endometriosis (Prentice 2003).... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) are generally well tolerated, and are effective in relieving the symptoms of endometriosis (Prentice 2003). Unfortunately the low oestrogen state that they induce is associated with adverse effects including an acceleration in bone mineral density (BMD) loss.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effect of treatment with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) on the bone mineral density of women with endometriosis, compared to placebo, no treatment, or other treatments for endometriosis, including GnRHas with add-back therapy.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's specialised register of controlled trials (23rd October 2002) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library, issue 4, 2002). We also carried out electronic searches of MEDLINE (1966 - March Week 2 2003) and EMBASE (1980 - March Week 2 2003). We also searched the reference lists of articles and contacted researchers in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Prospective, randomised controlled studies of the use of GnRHas for the treatment of women with endometriosis were considered, where bone density measurements were an end point. The control arm of the studies was either placebo, no treatment, another medical therapy for endometriosis, or GnRHas with add-back therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers (JF and MS) independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty studies involving 2,391 women were included, however only 15, involving 910 women, could be included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that danazol and progesterone + oestrogen add-back are protective of BMD at the lumbar spine both during treatment and for up to six and twelve months after treatment, respectively. Between the groups receiving GnRHa and the groups receiving danazol/gestrinone, there was a significant difference in percentage change of BMD after six months of treatment, the GnRH analogue producing a reduction in BMD from baseline and danazol producing an increase in BMD (SMD -3.43, 95 % CI -3.91 to -2.95). Progesterone only add-back is not protective; after six months of treatment absolute value BMD measurements of the lumbar spine did not differ significantly from the group receiving GnRH analogues (SMD 0.15, 95 % CI -0.21 to 0.52). In the comparison of GnRHa versus GnRHa + HRT add-back, that is oestrogen + progesterone or oestrogen only, there was a significantly bigger BMD loss in the GnRHa only group (SMD -0.49, 95 % CI -0.77 to -0.21). These numbers reflect the absolute value measurements at the lumbar spine after six months of treatment. Due to the small number of studies in the comparison we are unable to conclude whether calcium-regulating agents are protective. No difference was found between low and high dose add-back regimes but again only one study was identified for this comparison. Only one study comparing GnRH analogues with placebo was identified, but the study gave no data. No studies comparing GnRH with the oral contraceptive pill (OCP) or progestagens were identified.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
Both danazol and progesterone + oestrogen add-back have been shown to be protective of BMD, while on treatment and up to six and 12 months later, respectively. However, by 24 months of follow-up there was no difference in BMD in those women who had HRT add-back. Studies of danazol versus GnRHa did not report long-term follow-up. The significant side effects associated with danazol limit its use.
Topics: Bone Density; Danazol; Endometriosis; Estrogen Antagonists; Female; Femur Neck; Gestrinone; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Lumbar Vertebrae; Manipulation, Spinal; Progesterone
PubMed: 14583930
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001297 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2003Endometriosis is the finding of endometrial glands or stroma in sites other than the uterine cavity. Endometriosis appears to be an estrogen dependent condition. This... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Endometriosis is the finding of endometrial glands or stroma in sites other than the uterine cavity. Endometriosis appears to be an estrogen dependent condition. This hormonal dependency has prompted the therapeutic use of ovulation suppression agents, in an effort to improve subsequent fertility.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of a) ovulation suppression with danazol, medroxy progesterone acetate, gestrinone, combined oral contraceptive pills and GnRH analogues versus placebo or no treatment and b) any of the above agents versus danazol, for the treatment of endometriosis-associated subfertility.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trial register (searched 30 April 2002), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2002), MEDLINE (January 1966 to December 1998), EMBASE (January 1985 to December 1997) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Trials comparing the interventions described above, were included if allocation to treatment was based on a random process. Six RCTs with seven treatment arms compared an ovulation suppression agent with placebo or no treatment. Ten trials were identified comparing a suppressive agent with danazol.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Relevant data were extracted independently by two reviewers using the standardised data extraction sheet. Validity was assessed in terms of method of randomisation, completeness of follow-up, presence or absence of crossover and co-intervention. 2 x 2 tables were generated for all relevant outcomes. Odds ratios were generated using the Peto modified Mantel-Haenszel technique. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using Breslow-Day X2.
MAIN RESULTS
The odds ratio for pregnancy following ovulation suppression versus placebo or no treatment was 0.74 (95%CI 0.48 to 1.15). These data were statistically homogeneous, despite the use of a variety of suppression agents. They suggest no statistically significant benefit from treatment. The odds ratio for pregnancy following all agents versus danazol, the most commonly used agent prior to the advent of gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa), was 1.3 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.76). When GnRHa and danazol were directly compared, the odds ratio for pregnancy across six trials, was similar to the summary statistic for all ten studies: 1.29 (95% CI 0.9 to 1.85). Again, this suggests no statistically significant difference between these interventions.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
These results rule out a benefit of more than a 15% increase in odds, and do not justify the risk of side effects when used as therapy for endometriosis-associated subfertility.
Topics: Danazol; Endometriosis; Estrogen Antagonists; Female; Fertility Agents, Female; Humans; Infertility, Female; Ovulation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 12917884
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000155 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2002Menorrhagia is one of the most common reasons for pre-menopausal women to be referred to a gynaecologist. Although medical therapy is generally the first approach, many... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Menorrhagia is one of the most common reasons for pre-menopausal women to be referred to a gynaecologist. Although medical therapy is generally the first approach, many women will eventually require or request a hysterectomy. Hysterectomy is associated with a significant in-patient hospital stay and a period of convalescence that makes it an unattractive and unnecessarily invasive option for many women. Hysteroscopic endometrial ablation or resection, and more recently "second generation" devices such as balloon or microwave ablation offer a day-case surgical alternative to hysterectomy for these women. They are also cheaper procedures than hysterectomy. Complete endometrial removal or destruction is one of the most important determinants of treatment success. Therefore surgery will be most effective if undertaken when endometrial thickness is less than four mm, in the immediate post-menstrual phase, however there are often difficulties in reliably arranging surgery for this time. The other option is the use of hormonal agents which induce endometrial thinning or atrophy prior to surgery. The most commonly evaluated agents have been goserelin (a GnRH analogue) and danazol. Progestogens and other GnRH analogues have also been studied although less data are available. It has been suggested that the use of these agents, particularly GnRH analogues, will reduce operating time, improve the intra-uterine operating environment, and reduce distension medium absorption (this is the fluid used to distend the uterine cavity during surgery). They may also result in a greater improvement in long term outcomes such as menstrual loss and dysmenorrhoea.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the effectiveness of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues, danazol, and progestogens, when used for endometrial thinning prior to endometrial destruction for menorrhagia, in improving the intra-uterine operating environment and treatment outcome after surgery.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group search strategy (see Review Group details) was used to identify randomised trials that had compared the use of these drugs with either each other, or placebo, or no pre-operative treatment. An updated search was performed in 2001-2002 to identify new trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Trials were included if they compared the effects of these agents with each other, or with placebo or no treatment on relevant intra-operative and post-operative treatment outcomes. Only randomised studies were included in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Five studies compared goserelin (a GnRH analogue) with no treatment or placebo and one study compared decapeptyl (a GnRH analogue) with no treatment. Three studies compared goserelin with danazol. Two studies compared progestogens, danazol and triptorelin or nasal spray nafarelin (both GnRH analogues) with no treatment. Only one study comparing triptorelin with no treatment assessed outcomes after balloon ablation and no studies assessing endometrial thinning agents prior to other second generation ablation techniques were identified. One study assessed the effects of progestogens compared to no treatment. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. A third reviewer checked data extraction for accuracy and wrote to authors where relevant data was missing or unclear. Intra-operative parameters included endometrial thickness, duration of surgery, ease of surgery, distension medium absorption and complication rate. Post-operative outcomes included the proportion of women with amenorrhoea, post-operative menstrual loss and dysmenorrhoea, and the need for further surgery. Data on side-effects were also recorded.
MAIN RESULTS
When compared with no treatment, GnRH analogues are associated with a shorter duration of surgery, greater ease of surgery and a higher rate of post-operative amenorrhoea at 12 months with hysteroscopic resection or ablation. Post-operative dysmenorrhoea also appears to be reduced. The use of GnRH analogues has no effect on intra-operative complication rates and patient satisfaction with this surgery is high irrespective of the use of any pre-operative endometrial thinning agent. GnRH analogues produce more consistent endometrial atrophy than danazol. For other intra-operative and post-operative outcomes, any differences are minimal and there were no benefits of GnRHa pre-treatment in the one small study where women had balloon (second generation ablation). Both GnRH analogues and danazol produce side-effects in a significant proportion of women, though few studies have reported these in detail. Few randomised data are available to assess the effectiveness of progestogens as endometrial thinning agents. The effect of any thinning agent on longer-term results is less certain but where reported the effect of endometrial thinning agents on benefits such as post-operative amenorrhoea appears to reduce with time.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
Endometrial thinning prior to hysteroscopic surgery in the early proliferative phase of the menstrual cycle for menorrhagia improves both the operating conditions for the surgeon and short term post-operative outcome. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues produce slightly more consistent endometrial thinning than danazol, though both agents produce satisfactory results. The effect of these agents on longer term post-operative outcomes such as amenorrhoea and the need for further surgical intervention reduces with time.
Topics: Danazol; Endometrium; Estrogen Antagonists; Female; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Goserelin; Humans; Hysteroscopy; Menorrhagia; Progestins
PubMed: 12137619
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001124 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2002Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in pre menopausal women. Medical therapy, with the avoidance of possibly unnecessary surgery is an... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in pre menopausal women. Medical therapy, with the avoidance of possibly unnecessary surgery is an attractive treatment option, but there is considerable variation in practice and uncertainty about the most effective therapy. Danazol is a synthetic steroid with anti-oestrogenic and anti progestogenic activity, and weak androgenic properties. Danazol suppresses oestrogen and progesterone receptors in the endometrium, leading to endometrial atrophy (thinning of the lining of the uterus) and reduced menstrual loss and to amenorrhoea in some women.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and tolerability of danazol when used for heavy menstrual bleeding in women of reproductive years.
SEARCH STRATEGY
All studies which might describe randomised controlled trials of danazol for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding were obtained by electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, CINAHL, National Research Register and the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's Specialist Register of controlled trials (on 6 November 2001). Attempts were also made to identify trials from citation lists of included trials and relevant review articles. In most cases the first author of each included trial was contacted for unpublished additional information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of danazol versus placebo, any other medical (non-surgical) therapy or danazol in different dosages for heavy menstrual bleeding in women of reproductive age with regular HMB measured either subjectively or objectively. Trials that included women with post menopausal bleeding, intermenstrual bleeding and pathological causes of heavy menstrual bleeding were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Nine RCTs, with 353 women, were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The main outcomes were menstrual blood loss, the number of women experiencing adverse effects, weight gain, withdrawals due to adverse effects and dysmenorrhoea. If data could not be extracted in a form suitable for meta-analysis, they were presented in a descriptive format.
MAIN RESULTS
Most data were not in a form suitable for meta analysis, and the results are based on a small number of trials, all of which are under-powered. Danazol appears to be more effective than placebo, progestogens, NSAIDs and the OCP at reducing MBL, but confidence intervals were wide. Treatment with danazol caused more adverse events than NSAIDs (OR 7.0; 95% CI 1.7, 28.2) and progestogens (OR 4.05, 95% CI 1.6, 10.2), but this did not appear to affect adherence to treatment. Danazol was shown to significantly lower the duration of menses when compared with NSAIDs (WMD -1.0; 95% CI -1.8, -0.3) and a progesterone releasing IUD (WMD -6.0; 95% CI -7.3, -4.8). There were no randomised trials comparing danazol with tranexamic acid or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
Danazol appears to be an effective treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding compared to other medical treatments, though it is uncertain whether it is acceptable to women. The use of danazol may be limited by its side effect profile, its acceptability to women and the need for continuing treatment. Overall no strong recommendations can be made due to the small number of trials, and the small sample sizes of the included trials.
Topics: Danazol; Estrogen Antagonists; Female; Humans; Menorrhagia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 12076401
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001017 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2002Heavy 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... (Review)
Review
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. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduce prostaglandin levels which are elevated in women with excessive menstrual bleeding and also may have a beneficial effect on dysmenorrhoea.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of this review was to investigate the effectiveness of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in achieving a reduction in menstrual blood loss in women of reproductive years HMB.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Electronic searches for relevant randomised controlled trials of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, the Cochrane Library and CINAHL were performed. Attempts were also made to identify trials from citation lists of review articles and drug companies were approached for unpublished data. In most cases, the first author of each included trial was contacted for additional information. An updated search was performed in September and October 2001 but no new eligible trials were identified.
SELECTION CRITERIA
The inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of individual NSAIDs with either 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 heavy menstrual blood loss.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Sixteen RCTs were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review and data were extracted independently. Odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes were estimated from the data of nine trials. The results of the remaining seven crossover trials with data unsuitable for pooling were described in the Other Data section.
MAIN RESULTS
As a group, NSAIDs were more effective than placebo at reducing heavy menstrual bleeding but less effective than either tranexamic acid or danazol. 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. There were no statistically significant differences between NSAIDs and the other treatments (oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, progesterone releasing intra-uterine system (IUS), oral contraceptive pill (OCC)) but most studies were underpowered. There was no evidence of a difference between the individual NSAIDs (naproxen and mefenamic acid) in reducing HMB.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
NSAIDs reduce HMB when compared with placebo but are less effective than either tranexamic acid or danazol. However, adverse events are more severe with danazol therapy. In the limited number of small studies suitable for evaluation, no significant difference in efficacy was demonstrated between NSAIDs and other medical treatments such as oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, OCC or IUS.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Dysmenorrhea; Female; Humans; Menorrhagia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 11869575
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000400