-
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2022Progesterone plays a key role in implantation. Several studies reported that lower luteal progesterone levels might be related to decreased chances of pregnancy. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
UNLABELLED
Progesterone plays a key role in implantation. Several studies reported that lower luteal progesterone levels might be related to decreased chances of pregnancy. This systematic review was conducted using appropriate key words, on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, from 1990 up to March 2021 to assess if luteal serum progesterone levels are associated with ongoing pregnancy (OP) and live birth (LB) rates (primary outcomes) and miscarriage rate (secondary outcome), according to the number of corpora lutea (CLs). Overall 2,632 non-duplicate records were identified, of which 32 relevant studies were available for quantitative analysis. In artificial cycles with no CL, OP and LB rates were significantly decreased when the luteal progesterone level falls below a certain threshold (risk ratio [RR] 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.84 and 0.73; 95% CI 0.59-0.90, respectively), while the miscarriage rate was increased (RR 1.48; 95% CI 1.17-1.86). In stimulated cycles with several CLs, the mean luteal progesterone level in the no OP and no LB groups was significantly lower than in the OP and LB groups [difference in means 68.8 (95% CI 45.6-92.0) and 272.4 (95% CI 10.8-533.9), ng/ml, respectively]. Monitoring luteal serum progesterone levels could help in individualizing progesterone administration to enhance OP and LB rates, especially in cycles without corpus luteum.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=139019, identifier 139019.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Birth Rate; Corpus Luteum; Female; Humans; Luteal Phase; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Progesterone
PubMed: 35757393
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.892753 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is excessive menstrual blood loss that interferes with women's quality of life, regardless of the absolute amount of bleeding. It is a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is excessive menstrual blood loss that interferes with women's quality of life, regardless of the absolute amount of bleeding. It is a very common condition in women of reproductive age, affecting 2 to 5 of every 10 women. Diverse treatments, either medical (hormonal or non-hormonal) or surgical, are currently available for HMB, with different effectiveness, acceptability, costs and side effects. The best treatment will depend on the woman's age, her intention to become pregnant, the presence of other symptoms, and her personal views and preferences.
OBJECTIVES
To identify, systematically assess and summarise all evidence from studies included in Cochrane Reviews on treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), using reviews with comparable participants and outcomes; and to present a ranking of the first- and second-line treatments for HMB.
METHODS
We searched for published Cochrane Reviews of HMB interventions in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The primary outcomes were menstrual bleeding and satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, adverse events and the requirement of further treatment. Two review authors independently selected the systematic reviews, extracted data and assessed quality, resolving disagreements by discussion. We assessed review quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool and evaluated the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods. We grouped the interventions into first- and second-line treatments, considering participant characteristics (desire for future pregnancy, failure of previous treatment, candidacy for surgery). First-line treatments included medical interventions, and second-line treatments included both the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and surgical treatments; thus the LNG-IUS is included in both groups. We developed different networks for first- and second-line treatments. We performed network meta-analyses of all outcomes, except for quality of life, where we performed pairwise meta-analyses. We reported the mean rank, the network estimates for mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the certainty of evidence (moderate, low or very low certainty). We also analysed different endometrial ablation and resection techniques separately from the main network: transcervical endometrial resection (TCRE) with or without rollerball, other resectoscopic endometrial ablation (REA), microwave non-resectoscopic endometrial ablation (NREA), hydrothermal ablation NREA, bipolar NREA, balloon NREA and other NREA.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library up to July 2021. We updated the reviews that were over two years old. In July 2020, we started the overview with no new reviews about the topic. The included medical interventions were: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antifibrinolytics (tranexamic acid), combined oral contraceptives (COC), combined vaginal ring (CVR), long-cycle and luteal oral progestogens, LNG-IUS, ethamsylate and danazol (included to provide indirect evidence), which were compared to placebo. Surgical interventions were: open (abdominal), minimally invasive (vaginal or laparoscopic) and unspecified (or surgeon's choice of route of) hysterectomy, REA, NREA, unspecified endometrial ablation (EA) and LNG-IUS. We grouped the interventions as follows. First-line treatments Evidence from 26 studies with 1770 participants suggests that LNG-IUS results in a large reduction of menstrual blood loss (MBL; mean rank 2.4, MD -105.71 mL/cycle, 95% CI -201.10 to -10.33; low certainty evidence); antifibrinolytics probably reduce MBL (mean rank 3.7, MD -80.32 mL/cycle, 95% CI -127.67 to -32.98; moderate certainty evidence); long-cycle progestogen reduces MBL (mean rank 4.1, MD -76.93 mL/cycle, 95% CI -153.82 to -0.05; low certainty evidence), and NSAIDs slightly reduce MBL (mean rank 6.4, MD -40.67 mL/cycle, -84.61 to 3.27; low certainty evidence; reference comparator mean rank 8.9). We are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining interventions and the sensitivity analysis for reduction of MBL, as the evidence was rated as very low certainty. We are uncertain of the true effect of any intervention (very low certainty evidence) on the perception of improvement and satisfaction. Second-line treatments Bleeding reduction is related to the type of hysterectomy (total or supracervical/subtotal), not the route, so we combined all routes of hysterectomy for bleeding outcomes. We assessed the reduction of MBL without imputed data (11 trials, 1790 participants) and with imputed data (15 trials, 2241 participants). Evidence without imputed data suggests that hysterectomy (mean rank 1.2, OR 25.71, 95% CI 1.50 to 439.96; low certainty evidence) and REA (mean rank 2.8, OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.29 to 5.66; low certainty evidence) result in a large reduction of MBL, and NREA probably results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 2.0, OR 3.32, 95% CI 1.53 to 7.23; moderate certainty evidence). Evidence with imputed data suggests hysterectomy results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 1.0, OR 14.31, 95% CI 2.99 to 68.56; low certainty evidence), and NREA probably results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 2.2, OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.29 to 6.05; moderate certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the true effect for REA (very low certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on amenorrhoea (very low certainty evidence). Evidence from 27 trials with 4284 participants suggests that minimally invasive hysterectomy results in a large increase in satisfaction (mean rank 1.3, OR 7.96, 95% CI 3.33 to 19.03; low certainty evidence), and NREA also increases satisfaction (mean rank 3.6, OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.33; low certainty evidence), but we are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining interventions (very low certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests LNG-IUS is the best first-line treatment for reducing menstrual blood loss (MBL); antifibrinolytics are probably the second best, and long-cycle progestogens are likely the third best. We cannot make conclusions about the effect of first-line treatments on perception of improvement and satisfaction, as evidence was rated as very low certainty. For second-line treatments, evidence suggests hysterectomy is the best treatment for reducing bleeding, followed by REA and NREA. We are uncertain of the effect on amenorrhoea, as evidence was rated as very low certainty. Minimally invasive hysterectomy may result in a large increase in satisfaction, and NREA also increases satisfaction, but we are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining second-line interventions, as evidence was rated as very low certainty.
Topics: Amenorrhea; Antifibrinolytic Agents; Child, Preschool; Female; Humans; Menorrhagia; Network Meta-Analysis; Progestins; Quality of Life; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 35638592
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013180.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Contraceptive implants are one of the most effective contraceptive methods, providing a long duration of pregnancy protection and a high safety profile. Hence this... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Contraceptive implants are one of the most effective contraceptive methods, providing a long duration of pregnancy protection and a high safety profile. Hence this method is suitable for optimizing the interpregnancy interval, especially for women undergoing abortion. Women who have had abortions are at high risk of rapid repeat pregnancies. Provision of effective contraception at the time of an abortion visit can be a key strategy to increase access and uptake of contraception. A review of the evidence was needed to evaluate progestin-releasing implants for immediate use at the time of abortion, including whether immediate placement impacts the effectiveness of medical abortion, which relies on antiprogestogens.
OBJECTIVES
To compare contraceptive implant initiation rates, contraceptive effectiveness, and adverse outcomes associated with immediate versus delayed insertion of contraceptive implants following abortion.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for all relevant studies regardless of language or publication status up to September 2019, with an update search in March 2021. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Ovid EBM Reviews), MEDLINE ALL (Ovid), Embase.com, CINAHL (EBSCOhost) (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Global Health (Ovid), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database), Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP. We examined the reference lists of pertinent articles to identify other studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate versus delayed insertion of contraceptive implant for contraception following abortion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed the standard procedures recommended by Cochrane. To identify potentially relevant studies, two review authors (JS, LS) independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts of the search results, assessed trials for risk of bias, and extracted data. We computed the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs for continuous variables.
MAIN RESULTS
We found three RCTs including a total of 1162 women. Our GRADE assessment of the overall certainty of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low, downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. Utilization rate at six months may be slightly higher for immediate compared with delayed insertion (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.15; 3 RCTs; 1103 women; I = 62%; low certainty evidence). Unintended pregnancy within six months after abortion was probably lower with immediate insertion compared with delayed insertion (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.77; 3 RCTs; 1029 women; I = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Immediate insertion of contraceptive implants probably improves the initiation rate compared to delayed insertion following medical abortion (RR 1.26 for medical abortion, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.32; 2 RCTs; 1014 women; I = 89%; moderate certainty evidence) and may also improve initiation following surgical abortion (RR 2.32 for surgical abortion, 95% CI 1.79 to 3.01; 1 RCT; 148 women; I = not applicable; low certainty evidence). We did not pool results for the implant initiation outcome over both abortion types because of very high statistical heterogeneity. For medical termination of pregnancy, we found there is probably little or no difference between immediate and delayed insertion in overall failure of medical abortion (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.40; 2 RCTs; 1001 women; I = 68%;moderate certainty evidence). There may be no difference between immediate and delayed insertion on rates of abnormal bleeding at one month after abortion (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.14; 1 RCT; 462 women; I = not applicable; low certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Provision of progestin-releasing implants concurrently with abortifacient agents likely has little or no negative impact on overall failure rate of medical abortion. Immediate insertion probably improves the initiation rate of contraceptive implant, as well as unintended pregnancy rate within six months after abortion, compared to delayed insertion. There may be no difference between immediate and delayed insertion approaches in bleeding adverse effects at one month after abortion.
Topics: Abortifacient Agents; Abortion, Induced; Abortion, Spontaneous; Contraceptive Agents; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Progestins
PubMed: 35583092
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013565.pub2 -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Sep 2022To assess the efficacy and safety of vaginal progesterone to prevent recurrent preterm birth and adverse perinatal outcomes in singleton gestations with a history of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Does vaginal progesterone prevent recurrent preterm birth in women with a singleton gestation and a history of spontaneous preterm birth? Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy and safety of vaginal progesterone to prevent recurrent preterm birth and adverse perinatal outcomes in singleton gestations with a history of spontaneous preterm birth.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and CINAHL (from their inception to February 28, 2022), Cochrane databases, Google Scholar, bibliographies, and conference proceedings.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials that compared vaginal progesterone to placebo or no treatment in asymptomatic women with a singleton gestation and a history of spontaneous preterm birth.
METHODS
The primary outcomes were preterm birth <37 and <34 weeks of gestation. The secondary outcomes included adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. Pooled relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. We assessed the risk of bias in the included studies, heterogeneity (I test), small-study effects, publication bias, and quality of evidence; performed subgroup and sensitivity analyses; and calculated 95% prediction intervals and adjusted relative risks.
RESULTS
Ten studies (2958 women) met the inclusion criteria: 7 with a sample size <150 (small studies) and 3 with a sample size >600 (large studies). Among the 7 small studies, 4 were at high risk of bias, 2 were at some concerns of bias, and only 1 was at low risk of bias. All the large studies were at low risk of bias. Vaginal progesterone significantly decreased the risk of preterm birth <37 weeks (relative risk, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.81; I=75%; 95% prediction interval, 0.31-1.32; very low-quality evidence) and <34 weeks (relative risk, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.92; I=66%; 95% prediction interval, 0.23-1.68; very low-quality evidence), and the risk of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (relative risk, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.85; I=67%; 95% prediction interval, 0.16-1.79; low-quality evidence). There were no significant differences between the vaginal progesterone and the placebo or no treatment groups in other adverse perinatal and maternal outcomes. Subgroup analyses revealed that vaginal progesterone decreased the risk of preterm birth <37 weeks (relative risk, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.55; I=0%) and <34 weeks (relative risk, 0.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.49; I=0%) in the small but not in the large studies (relative risk, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.09; I=0% for preterm birth <37 weeks; and relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.13; I=0% for preterm birth <34 weeks). Sensitivity analyses restricted to studies at low risk of bias indicated that vaginal progesterone did not reduce the risk of preterm birth <37 weeks (relative risk, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.09) and <34 weeks (relative risk, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.15). There was clear evidence of substantial small-study effects in the meta-analyses of preterm birth <37 and <34 weeks of gestation because of funnel plot asymmetry and the marked differences in the pooled relative risks obtained from fixed-effect and random-effects models. The adjustment for small-study effects resulted in a markedly reduced and nonsignificant effect of vaginal progesterone on preterm birth <37 weeks (relative risk, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.10) and <34 weeks (relative risk, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-1.42).
CONCLUSION
There is no convincing evidence supporting the use of vaginal progesterone to prevent recurrent preterm birth or to improve perinatal outcomes in singleton gestations with a history of spontaneous preterm birth.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Intensive Care Units, Neonatal; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Progesterone; Vagina
PubMed: 35460628
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.04.023 -
Reproductive Sciences (Thousand Oaks,... Jan 2023This study was to assess the effectiveness of cervical pessary combined with vaginal progesterone for the prevention of preterm birth (PTB). Ten studies about singleton... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This study was to assess the effectiveness of cervical pessary combined with vaginal progesterone for the prevention of preterm birth (PTB). Ten studies about singleton [five randomized controlled trials (RCTs), vs vaginal progesterone; four cohorts, vs vaginal progesterone; two cohorts, vs cervical cerclage + vaginal progesterone] and two cohort studies about multiple pregnancies (vs vaginal progesterone) were included after searching electronic databases. For singleton pregnancies, the meta-analysis of three non-RCTs [relative risk (RR) = 0.41, p = 0.001] or total trials in non-Asian country (RR = 0.56, p = 0.03) revealed that compared with vaginal progesterone alone, cervical pessary + vaginal progesterone treatment had significant effectiveness on preventing PTB < 34 weeks, but not for five RCTs; meta-analysis of two trials showed that cervical pessary + vaginal progesterone had no significant prevention effects of PTB compared with cervical cerclage + vaginal progesterone. For multiple pregnancies, meta-analysis of two trials showed that compared with vaginal progesterone, cervical pessary + vaginal progesterone treatment increased neonatal birth weight (standardized mean difference = 0.50, p = 0.01). Trial sequential analysis implied additional studies were required. Four studies vs other controls (pessary, three-combined, tocolysis, conservative or no treatment; one study, each) were selected for systematic review. In conclusion, cervical pessary combined with vaginal progesterone may be safe and effective to prevent PTB in singleton pregnancies and increase neonatal birth weight in the multiple pregnancies compared with vaginal progesterone alone.
Topics: Pregnancy; Infant, Newborn; Female; Humans; Progesterone; Premature Birth; Pessaries; Birth Weight; Cervix Uteri; Administration, Intravaginal
PubMed: 35352330
DOI: 10.1007/s43032-022-00926-x -
Life Sciences Apr 2022Plastic particles (PP) pollution is a global environmental concern. Although the reproductive toxicity of PP is primarily understood for invertebrates, the evidence for... (Review)
Review
AIMS
Plastic particles (PP) pollution is a global environmental concern. Although the reproductive toxicity of PP is primarily understood for invertebrates, the evidence for mammals is still fragmented. We used a systematic review framework to investigate the reproductive impact of microplastics and nanoplastics (MNP) on mammals.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Research records were screened from Embase, Medline, Scopus and Web of Science. Twelve original papers were identified and reviewed. Immunological, oxidative and morphofunctional outcomes, and the risk of bias in all studies reviewed were analyzed.
KEY FINDINGS
These studies indicated that PP can accumulate in the gonads, triggering seminiferous degeneration, Sertoli cells death, blood-testis barrier disruption, sperm degeneration, malformation, reduced number and mobility, ovarian cysts, reduced follicular growth and granulosa cells death. Gonadal damage was associated with upregulation of prooxidant mediators (oxygen reactive species, lipid and DNA oxidation), cell death, proinflammatory molecular pathways and cytokines, as well as inhibition of enzymatic and non-enzymatic antioxidant defense mechanisms. Spermatogenesis, folliculogenesis, testosterone, progesterone and estrogen levels were also impaired in PP-treated animals, which were potentially associated with down-regulation of molecules involved in germ cells microstructural organization (occludin, N-cadherin, β-catenin and connexin 43) and steroidogenesis, such as hydroxysteroid dehydrogenases, steroidogenic acute regulatory proteins, follicle stimulating and luteinizing hormones. Selection, performance and detection bias were the main limitations identified.
SIGNIFICANCE
Current evidence indicates that PP can induce dose-dependent microstructural and functional gonadal damage, which is orchestrated by pro-oxidant and pro-inflammatory mechanisms that disrupt genes, molecular effectors, and hormones that control spermatogenesis and folliculogenesis.
Topics: Animals; Estrogens; Female; Genitalia; Germ Cells; Granulosa Cells; Inflammation; Intestinal Mucosa; Luteinizing Hormone; Male; Mammals; Microplastics; Ovarian Follicle; Ovary; Oxidative Stress; Plastics; Progesterone; Reproduction; Sertoli Cells; Spermatogenesis; Testis; Testosterone
PubMed: 35176278
DOI: 10.1016/j.lfs.2022.120404 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Feb 2022To compare the efficacy of bed rest, cervical cerclage (McDonald, Shirodkar, or unspecified type of cerclage), cervical pessary, fish oils or omega fatty acids,... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy of bed rest, cervical cerclage (McDonald, Shirodkar, or unspecified type of cerclage), cervical pessary, fish oils or omega fatty acids, nutritional supplements (zinc), progesterone (intramuscular, oral, or vaginal), prophylactic antibiotics, prophylactic tocolytics, combinations of interventions, placebo or no treatment (control) to prevent spontaneous preterm birth in women with a singleton pregnancy and a history of spontaneous preterm birth or short cervical length.
DESIGN
Systematic review with bayesian network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Database of Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, relevant journals, conference proceedings, and registries of ongoing trials.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Randomised controlled trials of pregnant women who are at high risk of spontaneous preterm birth because of a history of spontaneous preterm birth or short cervical length. No language or date restrictions were applied.
OUTCOMES
Seven maternal outcomes and 11 fetal outcomes were analysed in line with published core outcomes for preterm birth research. Relative treatment effects (odds ratios and 95% credible intervals) and certainty of evidence are presented for outcomes of preterm birth <34 weeks and perinatal death.
RESULTS
Sixty one trials (17 273 pregnant women) contributed data for the analysis of at least one outcome. For preterm birth <34 weeks (40 trials, 13 310 pregnant women) and with placebo or no treatment as the comparator, vaginal progesterone was associated with fewer women with preterm birth <34 weeks (odds ratio 0.50, 95% credible interval 0.34 to 0.70, high certainty of evidence). Shirodkar cerclage showed the largest effect size (0.06, 0.00 to 0.84), but the certainty of evidence was low. 17OHPC (17α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate; 0.68, 0.43 to 1.02, moderate certainty), vaginal pessary (0.65, 0.39 to 1.08, moderate certainty), and fish oil or omega 3 (0.30, 0.06 to 1.23, moderate certainty) might also reduce preterm birth <34 weeks compared with placebo or no treatment. For the fetal outcome of perinatal death (30 trials, 12 119 pregnant women) and with placebo or no treatment as the comparator, vaginal progesterone was the only treatment that showed clear evidence of benefit for this outcome (0.66, 0.44 to 0.97, moderate certainty). 17OHPC (0.78, 0.50 to 1.21, moderate certainty), McDonald cerclage (0.59, 0.33 to 1.03, moderate certainty), and unspecified cerclage (0.77, 0.53 to 1.11, moderate certainty) might reduce perinatal death rates, but credible intervals could not exclude the possibility of harm. Only progesterone treatments are associated with reduction in neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, neonatal sepsis, necrotising enterocolitis, and admission to neonatal intensive care unit compared with controls.
CONCLUSION
Vaginal progesterone should be considered the preventative treatment of choice for women with singleton pregnancy identified to be at risk of spontaneous preterm birth because of a history of spontaneous preterm birth or short cervical length. Future randomised controlled trials should use vaginal progesterone as a comparator to identify better treatments or combination treatments.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42020169006.
Topics: Administration, Intravaginal; Bayes Theorem; Female; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Progesterone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35168930
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-064547 -
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 -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aug 2022Endometrial hyperplasia (EH) is the precursor lesion for endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the endometrium (EC), which represents the most common malignancy of the female... (Review)
Review
Endometrial hyperplasia (EH) is the precursor lesion for endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the endometrium (EC), which represents the most common malignancy of the female reproductive tract in industrialized countries. The most important risk factor for the development of EH is chronic exposure to unopposed estrogen. Histopathologically, EH can be classified into EH without atypia (benign EH) and atypical EH/endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN). Clinical management ranges from surveillance or progestin therapy through to hysterectomy, depending on the risk of progression to or concomitant EC and the patient´s desire to preserve fertility. Multiple studies support the efficacy of progestins in treating both benign and atypical EH. This review summarizes the evidence base regarding risk factors and management of EH. Additionally, we performed a systematic literature search of the databases PubMed and Cochrane Controlled Trials register for studies analyzing the efficacy of progestin treatment in women with EH.
Topics: Endometrial Hyperplasia; Endometrial Neoplasms; Endometrium; Female; Humans; Progestins; Risk Factors
PubMed: 35001185
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-021-06380-5 -
Human Reproduction Update Feb 2022Endometrial cancer is common and usually occurs after menopause, but the number of women diagnosed during reproductive age is increasing. The standard treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Endometrial cancer is common and usually occurs after menopause, but the number of women diagnosed during reproductive age is increasing. The standard treatment including hysterectomy is effective but causes absolute uterine factor infertility. In order to avoid or postpone surgery, conservative management of endometrial cancer (CMEC) has been proposed for younger women who want to retain their fertility.
OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE
The main objective of this study was to estimate the chances of pregnancy and live birth for women with early-stage endometrial cancer (EEC) who are managed conservatively for fertility preservation.
SEARCH METHODS
The PRISMA recommendations for systematic reviews and meta-analyses were followed. Structured searches were performed in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library, from inception until 13 June 2021. Inclusion was based on the following criteria: group or subgroup of women with Clinical Stage IA, well-differentiated, endometrioid endometrial cancer (from now on, EEC); CMEC for fertility preservation; and reported frequencies of women achieving pregnancy and/or live birth after CMEC. The following exclusion criteria applied: impossibility to isolate/extract outcome data of interest; second-line CMEC for persistent/recurrent disease; CMEC in the presence of synchronous tumours; case reports; non-original or duplicated data; and articles not in English. Qualitative synthesis was performed by means of tabulation and narrative review of the study characteristics. Study quality was assessed with an ad hoc instrument and several moderator and sensitivity analyses were performed.
OUTCOMES
Out of 1275 unique records, 133 were assessed in full-text and 46 studies were included in the review. Data from 861 women with EEC undergoing CMEC were available. Progestin-based treatment was reported in all but three studies (93.5%; 836 women). Complete response to treatment was achieved in 79.7% of women, with 35.3% of them having a disease recurrence during follow-up. Of 286 pregnancies obtained after CMEC; 69.4% led to live birth (9% of them multiple births) and 66.7% were achieved through fertility treatment. Based on random-effects meta-analyses, women treated with progestin-based CMEC have a 26.7% chance of achieving pregnancy (95% CI 21.3-32.3; I2 = 53.7%; 42 studies, 826 women) and a 20.5% chance to achieve a live birth (95% CI 15.7-25.8; I2 = 40.2%; 39 studies, 650 women). Sample size, average age, publication year, study design and quality score were not associated with the outcomes of progestin-based CMEC in moderator analyses with meta-regression. However, mean follow-up length (in months) was positively associated with the chances of pregnancy (regression coefficient [B] = 0.003; 95% CI 0.001-0.005; P = 0.006) and live birth (B = 0.005; 95% CI 0.003-0.007; P < 0.001). In sensitivity analyses, the highest chances of live birth were estimated in subsets of studies including only women of age 35 or younger (30.7%), the combination of progestins with hysteroscopic resection (30.7%), or at least 3 years of follow-up (42.4%).
WIDER IMPLICATIONS
Progestin-based CMEC is viable for women with well-differentiated, Clinical Stage 1A, endometrioid endometrial cancer who want to preserve their fertility, but there is room for improvement as only one-fifth of them are estimated to achieve live birth according to this meta-analysis. Further investigations on prognosis-driven selection, hysteroscopic resection and long-term surveillance are arguably needed to improve the reproductive outcomes of CMEC.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Conservative Treatment; Endometrial Neoplasms; Live Birth; Pregnancy Rate; Progestins; Young Adult
PubMed: 34935045
DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmab041