-
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Jun 2022To report the pregnancy outcomes of women with prior endometrial cancer and endometrial hyperplasia managed with fertility-sparing treatments. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To report the pregnancy outcomes of women with prior endometrial cancer and endometrial hyperplasia managed with fertility-sparing treatments.
METHODS
Medline and Embase databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were studies reporting the pregnancy outcomes of women who had undergone fertility-sparing treatments for endometrial hyperplasia or early endometrioid endometrial cancer. Outcomes explored were pregnancy, miscarriage and livebirth rates according to the type of progestin treatment used. Subgroup analyses according to the type of diagnostic follow-up were also performed. Meta-analyses of proportions using a random effects model were used to combine data.
RESULTS
Twenty-nine studies (1036 women) were included, and 82.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 72.3-91.2] of women achieved complete remission. Pregnancy rates were 56.3% (95% CI 41.6-70.5) with megestrol (MA) or medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), 63.1% (95% CI 37.0-85.6) with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD), 57.9% (95% CI 37.7-76.8) with MA or MPA and metformin, 59.8% (95% CI 48.3-70.7) with MPA and LNG-IUD, 15.4% (95% CI 4.3-42.2) with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue (GnRHa) combined with LNG-IUD or letrozole, and 40.7% (95% CI 24.5-59.3) with LNG-IUD and GnRHa. Miscarriage rates were 17.4% (95% CI 12.2-23.4), 14.3% (95% CI 6.4-24.7), 57.9% (95% CI 37.7-76.8), 26.9% (95% CI 14.6-39.3), 100% (95% CI 34.0-100) and 18.2% (95% CI 5.1-47.7), respectively, and livebirth rates were 68.8% (95% CI 56.0-80.3), 80.8% (95% CI 69.5-90.0), 69.9% (95% CI 56.1-82.0), 25.97 (95% CI 14.6-39.3), 0% (95% CI 0-66.0) and 81.8% (95% CI 52.3-94.8), respectively. Finally, stratifying the analysis considering the endometrial sampling method alone, the pregnancy rate was 68.6% (95% CI 51.2-83.6; 10 studies, I = 83.5%) in women who underwent hysteroscopy and 60.5% (95% CI 53.4-67.5; 13 studies, I = 39.8%) in women managed with dilatation and curettage biopsy; the miscarriage and livebirth rates were 13.2% (95% CI 8.0-19.5; I = 0%) and 81.2% (95% CI 67.4-91.8; I = 67.3%), respectively, for hysteroscopy, and 25.2% (95% CI 17.8-33.3; I = 15.5%) and 67.5% (95% CI 58.8-75.5; I = 0%), respectively, for dilatation and curettage biopsy.
CONCLUSION
Fertility-sparing treatment in women with endometrial cancer or hyperplasia is associated with an overall good response to therapy, good chance of achieving pregnancy and a good livebirth rate. Diagnostic follow-up with hysteroscopy was associated with a higher pregnancy rate, although this requires confirmation in adequately powered randomized trials.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Endometrial Hyperplasia; Endometrial Neoplasms; Female; Fertility Preservation; Humans; Hyperplasia; Intrauterine Devices, Medicated; Levonorgestrel; Medroxyprogesterone Acetate; Precancerous Conditions; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome
PubMed: 35526471
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.04.019 -
Menopause (New York, N.Y.) May 2022Long-term sleep disturbances in menopausal women are closely related to cardiovascular disorders, metabolic disorders, and cognitive impairment. At present, hormone... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Long-term sleep disturbances in menopausal women are closely related to cardiovascular disorders, metabolic disorders, and cognitive impairment. At present, hormone therapy (HT) is a standard treatment for menopausal symptoms. However, it remains unclear whether HT can improve sleep quality.
OBJECTIVE
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of different HT regimens on menopausal sleep quality.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials of menopausal HT on sleep disturbances up to June 14,2021. Information about ongoing and unpublished trials was collected by searching WHOICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. Our primary outcome was sleep quality with objective measurements. We estimated the standardized mean difference (SMD) using random-effects models.
FINDINGS
We identified a total of 3,059 studies and finally included 15 studies in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, HT improved self-reported sleep outcomes (SMD = -0.13; 95% CI, -0.18 to -0.08, P < 0.00001 and I2 = 41%), but not sleep parameters measured by polysomnography. Subgroup analyses according to the regimen of HT showed that 17β-estradiol (17β-E2) (SMD = -0.34; 95% CI, -0.51 to -0.17, P < 0.0001, and I2 = 0%) and conjugated equine estrogens (SMD = -0.10; 95% CI, -0.12 to -0.07, P < 0.00001, and I2 = 0%) improved sleep quality. Moreover, transdermal administration (SMD = -0.35; 95% CI, -0.64 to -0.06, and P = 0.02) was more beneficial than oral (SMD = -0.10; 95% CI, -0.14 to -0.07, and P < 0.00001). In addition, the combination of estrogen and progesterone had a positive effect on sleep disturbance (SMD = -0.10; 95% CI, -0.13 to -0.07, P < 0.00001, and I2 = 0%), while estrogen monotherapy did not. The results showed that estrogen/micronized progesterone (SMD = -0.22; 95% CI, -0.37 to -0.06, P = 0.007, and I2 = 0%) and estrogen/medroxyprogesterone acetate (SMD = -0.10; 95% CI, -0.13 to -0.07, P < 0.00001, and I2 = 0%) could alleviate sleep disturbance.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
HT has a beneficial effect on sleep disturbance to some extent, and the formulations and routes of administration of hormonal agents influence the effect size.
Topics: Estrogens; Female; Hormone Replacement Therapy; Humans; Menopause; Progesterone; Sleep Quality
PubMed: 35102100
DOI: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001945 -
Current Medical Research and Opinion Mar 2022The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the evidence for the use of progestin subdermal implants for the treatment of endometriosis-related pain symptoms...
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the evidence for the use of progestin subdermal implants for the treatment of endometriosis-related pain symptoms and quality of life.
METHODS
A literature search of PubMed, Ovid (MEDLINE and EMBASE), and Web of Science was performed from inception to December 2020. In addition, a targeted search of cited references was also performed. Our search identified 330 articles of which 17 were deemed eligible for full-text review. Eligible studies included randomized control trials, observational studies, and case series with at least 5 cases, investigating the effect of progestin subdermal implants on endometriosis-related pain scores in women of reproductive age with a clinical, radiologic, or surgical diagnosis of endometriosis. Six articles were excluded after the full-text screen.
RESULTS
Eleven articles describing a total of 335 patients were eligible for inclusion. Across all studies, etonogestrel- and segesterone-releasing progestin subdermal implants improved VAS pain scores for cyclic pelvic pain/dysmenorrhea (VAS at baseline ranged from 6.1 to 7.5 cm and after treatment from 1.7 to 4.9 cm, = 121), non-cyclic pelvic pain (baseline VAS 7.2-7.6 cm and after treatment 2.0-3.7 cm, = 96) and dyspareunia (baseline VAS 1.61-8.3 cm and after treatment 1.0-7.1 cm, = 87). Symptom improvement with the progestin subdermal implant was equivalent to treatment with depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA; average baseline VAS 6.5 and after DMPA treatment 3.0, compared to 2.0 after treatment with the implant) or the 52 mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS; baseline cyclic and non-cyclic pain scores 7.3 and 7.4 respectively decreased to 1.9 and 1.9 after LNG-IUS treatment). Improvements were also demonstrated in quality-of-life scores (average improvement of 36% in all domains of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 and significant improvements in social functioning, general health, bodily pain, vitality and mental health domains on the Short Form-36 questionnaire) and sexual function (total sexual function score improved from 24 to 25.35 and 26.25 at 6 and 12 months).
CONCLUSION
Etonogestrel- and segesterone-releasing progestin subdermal implants appear to improve endometriosis-related pain symptoms and quality of life and may provide an additional component in the management of endometriosis. However, this systematic review is limited by the small sample size and heterogeneity in the data. As such, larger prospective randomized trials are needed to guide further management.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42021225665.
Topics: Endometriosis; Female; Humans; Intrauterine Devices, Medicated; Levonorgestrel; Pelvic Pain; Progestins; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35048754
DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2022.2031144 -
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection... 2021Exogenous sex steroids within hormonal contraception and menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) have been used for family planning and management of menopausal symptoms,...
BACKGROUND
Exogenous sex steroids within hormonal contraception and menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) have been used for family planning and management of menopausal symptoms, without consideration of their effects on the vaginal microbiota. This is largely because their use predates our understanding of the importance of the vaginal microbiome on human health. We conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42018107730) to determine the influence of exogenous sex steroids, stratified by oestrogen-containing or progestin-only types of contraception, and MHT on the vaginal microbiome, as measured by molecular methods.
METHODS
Embase, PubMed and Medline were searched for relevant literature published through to December 1st 2020. Eligible studies reported on the effect of specific exogenous sex steroids on the vaginal microbiome using a molecular method. Data regarding the 'positive', 'negative' or 'neutral' effect of each type of contraceptive or MHT on the vaginal microbiome was extracted and summarised. A positive effect reflected sex steroid exposure that was associated with increased abundance of lactobacilli, a change to, or maintenance of, an optimal vaginal microbiota composition, or a decrease in bacterial diversity (specifically reflecting a low-diversity optimal microbiota state), relative to the control group. An exogenous sex steroid was designated as having a negative effect on the vaginal microbiome if it resulted in opposing effects (i.e. loss of lactobacilli, a non-optimal microbiota state). When no significant change was found, this was considered neutral/inconclusive.
RESULTS
We identified 29 manuscripts reporting on the effect of exogenous sex steroids on the vaginal microbiome; 25 investigating hormonal contraceptives, and 4 investigating MHT. Oestrogen-containing contraception, particularly reflecting the combined oestrogen and progestin-containing contraceptive pill, had a positive effect on the composition of the vaginal microbiota. Progestin-only contraception, particularly reflecting depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate, had mixed effects on the microbiota. Among post-menopausal women using MHT, exogenous oestrogen applied topically was associated with increased prevalence of lactobacilli.
CONCLUSION
Our findings suggest that oestrogen-containing compounds may promote an optimal vaginal microbiota, which could have clinical applications. The impact of progestin-only contraceptives on the vaginal microbiota is less clear; more data is needed to determine how progestin-only contraceptives contribute to adverse reproductive and sexual health outcomes.
Topics: Female; Humans; Lactobacillus; Microbiota; Vagina
PubMed: 34869054
DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2021.732423 -
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 -
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Mar 2021Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated benefits of pharmacological interventions for cachexia in improving weight and appetite. However, comparative efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated benefits of pharmacological interventions for cachexia in improving weight and appetite. However, comparative efficacy and safety are not available. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for cachexia.
METHODS
PubMed, EmBase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for RCTs until October 2019. Key outcomes were total body weight (TBW) improvement, appetite (APP) score and serious adverse events. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. NMA was performed to estimate weight gain and APP score increase at 8 weeks, presented as mean difference (MD) or standardised MD with 95% CI.
RESULTS
80 RCTs (10 579 patients) with 12 treatments were included. Majority is patients with cancer (7220). Compared with placebo, corticosteroids, high-dose megestrol acetate combination (Megace_H_Com) (400 mg/day), medroxyprogesterone, high-dose megestrol acetate (Megace_H) (400 mg/day), ghrelin mimetic and androgen analogues (Androgen) were significantly associated with MD of TBW of 6.45 (95% CI 2.45 to 10.45), 4.29 (95% CI 2.23 to 6.35), 3.18 (95% CI 0.94 to 5.41), 2.66 (95% CI 1.47 to 3.85), 1.73 (95% CI 0.27 to 3.20) and 1.50 (95% CI 0.56 to 2.44) kg. For appetite improvement, Megace_H_Com, Megace_H and Androgen significantly improved standardised APP score, compared with placebo. There is no significant difference in serious adverse events from all interventions compared with placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that several pharmacological interventions have potential to offer benefits in treatment of cachexia especially Megace_H and short-term use corticosteroids. Nonetheless, high-quality comparative studies to compare safety and efficacy are warranted for better management of cachexia.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Androgens; Appetite; Appetite Stimulants; Cachexia; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Drug Therapy, Combination; Gastrointestinal Agents; Ghrelin; Humans; Medroxyprogesterone; Megestrol Acetate; Minimal Clinically Important Difference; Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Terminal Care; Weight Gain
PubMed: 33246937
DOI: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2020-002601