-
Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 2021Promoting sexual health is a World Health Organization (WHO) priority. Lubricants are widely available and used to improve sexual pleasure and reduce pain during... (Review)
Review
Promoting sexual health is a World Health Organization (WHO) priority. Lubricants are widely available and used to improve sexual pleasure and reduce pain during intercourse. To inform WHO's self-care interventions guideline, we conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature to answer the question: does use of lubricants during or prior to sex result in improved sexual health and well-being. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, LILACS and EMBASE on 8 July 2020 for effectiveness, values and preferences, and cost data related to commercially available vaginal and anal lubricants. Data were systematically extracted and qualitatively synthesised. Effectiveness evidence was summarised in GRADE evidence profiles. Seven studies met the effectiveness review criteria. Two randomised trials found lubricant use led to improved female sexual well-being and had no impact on incidence of human papillomavirus (moderate certainty evidence). One observational study with gay and bisexual men showed lubricants were associated with increased reports of pain during receptive intercourse and no difference in pain during insertive intercourse, but a reduced degree of pain in both types of intercourse (low/very low certainty evidence). One observational study with female breast cancer survivors found better outcomes of vaginal dryness and dyspareunia with lubricant use (very low certainty evidence). Twenty-one values and preferences studies from diverse populations globally found that most individuals supported lubricant use for reasons of comfort/reduced pain and sexual pleasure. No cost studies were identified. Although evidence is limited, lubricants appear to offer an acceptable approach to improving sexual health and well-being.
Topics: Bisexuality; Coitus; Female; Humans; Lubricants; Male; Observational Studies as Topic; Sexual Behavior; Sexual Health
PubMed: 35315312
DOI: 10.1080/26410397.2022.2044198 -
Zhejiang Da Xue Xue Bao. Yi Xue Ban =... May 2020To evaluate the efficacy of black cohosh extracts (BCE) in improving the low estrogen status induced by postoperative gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) in...
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy of black cohosh extracts (BCE) in improving the low estrogen status induced by postoperative gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) in patients with endometriosis.
METHODS
Randomized clinical controlled trial about the improvement of low estrogen status caused by GnRHa with the treatment of BCE in patients with endometriosis after laparoscopic surgery were retrieved from Medline (Ovid), PubMed, Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBMdisc, Wanfang and VIP databases before January 2020, and meta-analysis of included studies was performed by Revman 5.3 software.
RESULTS
Seven randomized controlled trials involving 745 patients were included in this study. Meta-analysis results showed that the addition of BCE did not alter hormone levels of patients, including serum estradiol levels [ =1.24, 95% (-4.58, 7.08), >0.05] and luteinizing hormone levels [ =-0.02, 95% (-0.15, 0.11), >0.05]. BCE effectively improved the perimenopausal symptoms induced by low estrogen status:improving hectic fever and sweating [ =0.1, 95% (0.02, 0.47), < 0.01], reducing the occurrence of insomnia symptoms [ =0.23, 95% (0.13, 0.39), < 0.01], improving fatigue [ =0.09, 95% (0.04, 0.20), < 0.01], reducing the occurrence of vaginal dryness [ =0.04, 95% (0.01, 0.30), < 0.01]. BCE affected Kupperman's menopausal index (KMI) score 12 weeks after the surgery [ =-11.50, 95% (-20.09, -2.90), < 0.01] and KMI score 24 weeks after the surgery [ =-23.68, 95% (-39.66, -7.69), < 0.01].
CONCLUSIONS
The limited evidence so far indicates that BCE could efficiently improve perimenopausal symptoms cause by low estrogen status of the patients recieved GnRHa treatment after surgery for endometriosis, but does not alter hormone levels of patients.
Topics: Cimicifuga; Endometriosis; Estrogens; Female; Humans; Plant Extracts
PubMed: 32762163
DOI: 10.3785/j.issn.1008-9292.2020.06.06 -
Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters Dec 2020Contraception is essential to preventing unintended pregnancy. While contraceptive use has increased significantly over the past decade, discontinuation and gaps in use...
Contraception is essential to preventing unintended pregnancy. While contraceptive use has increased significantly over the past decade, discontinuation and gaps in use remain common. Although women cite side effects as the reason for discontinuing or stopping methods, little is known about the specific ways in which contraception affects women's sexual experiences. This systematic scoping review aimed to understand how contraceptive-induced side effects relating to women's sexual experiences have been measured, classified, and explored in the literature, specifically in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were peer-reviewed, English-language articles published between 2003 and 2018 that examined women's sexual experiences related to their use of modern contraception, including sexual satisfaction, arousal, sexual dysfunction, discomfort, vaginal dryness, sexual frequency, and relationship or partner dynamics. Study populations were restricted to women of reproductive age in LMICs. Twenty-two studies were deemed eligible for inclusion, comprising a range of methods and geographies. Emergent sexual experience themes included: menstrual issues impacting sexual experience; libido; lubrication; sexual pleasure; dyspareunia; and female sexual function. Results highlight the variability in measures used, lack of a women-centred perspective, and void in research outside of high-income countries to study the influence of contraception on women's sexual experiences. Very few studies focused on women's sexual experiences as the primary outcome or predictor. Providers should adopt woman-centred contraceptive counselling that considers women's relationships. Further research is needed to disentangle the nuanced effects of contraception on women's sex lives, contraceptive decision-making, and method continuation.
Topics: Contraception; Contraception Behavior; Developing Countries; Female; Humans; Menstruation; Sexual Behavior
PubMed: 32530748
DOI: 10.1080/26410397.2020.1763652 -
Journal of Menopausal Medicine Dec 2019Menopause is associated with the onset of climacteric symptoms due to low estradiol levels, which may cause insufficient maturation of the vaginal mucosa. Vitamin D may... (Review)
Review
Menopause is associated with the onset of climacteric symptoms due to low estradiol levels, which may cause insufficient maturation of the vaginal mucosa. Vitamin D may regulate the growth and differentiation of cells that are adversely affected due to low estradiol levels, thereby restoring vaginal health. The objective of this systematic review, the first on this subject, was to investigate the effect of vitamin D on the vaginal health of menopausal women. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases and reference lists of hand-searched articles were searched for published studies from February 2000 to November 2018. The selection criteria were as follows: randomized or quasi-randomized trials that compared the effects of vitamin D or related compounds, alone or with calcium, on vaginal health (growth and differentiation of epithelial cells, dryness, acidity [pH]) outcomes in menopausal women. The methodological quality of these studies was examined using the Cochrane tool checklist by two independent investigators, following which the data were extracted. Of six examined studies, two showed that vitamin D administration improved the growth and differentiation of vaginal epithelial cells, improved vaginal pH, and decreased vaginal dryness in menopausal women. Although the level of evidence for the effects of vitamin D on vaginal health is low in our study, we concluded that vitamin D may improve the vaginal health of women, especially during menopause.
PubMed: 32307935
DOI: 10.6118/jmm.19194 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Approximately 80% of breast cancers amongst premenopausal women are hormone receptor-positive. Adjuvant endocrine therapy is an integral component of care for hormone... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Approximately 80% of breast cancers amongst premenopausal women are hormone receptor-positive. Adjuvant endocrine therapy is an integral component of care for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer and in premenopausal women includes oestrogen receptor blockade with tamoxifen, temporary suppression of ovarian oestrogen synthesis by luteinising hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists, and permanent interruption of ovarian oestrogen synthesis with oophorectomy or radiotherapy. Recent international consensus statements recommend single-agent tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors with ovarian function suppression (OFS) as the current standard adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal women (often preceded by chemotherapy). This review examined the role of adding OFS to another treatment (i.e. chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, or both) or comparing OFS to no further adjuvant treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess effects of OFS for treatment of premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
For this review update, we searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 8), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov on 26 September 2019. We screened the reference lists of related articles, contacted trial authors, and applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised trials assessing any method of OFS, that is, oophorectomy, radiation-induced ovarian ablation, or LHRH agonists, as adjuvant treatment for premenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. We included studies that compared (1) OFS versus observation, (2) OFS + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy, (3) OFS + tamoxifen versus tamoxifen, and (4) OFS + chemotherapy + tamoxifen versus chemotherapy + tamoxifen.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Hazard ratios (HRs) were derived for time-to-event outcomes, and meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effect model. The primary outcome measures were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Toxicity, contralateral breast cancer, and second malignancy were represented as risk ratios (RRs), and quality of life data were extracted when provided.
MAIN RESULTS
This review update included 15 studies involving 11,538 premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer; these studies were conducted from 1978 to 2014. Some of these treatments are not current standard of care, and early studies did not assess HER2 receptor status. Studies tested OFS versus observation (one study), OFS plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (six studies), OFS plus tamoxifen versus tamoxifen (six studies), and OFS plus chemotherapy and tamoxifen versus chemotherapy and tamoxifen (two studies). Of those studies that reported the chemotherapy regimen, an estimated 72% of women received an anthracycline. The results described below relate to the overall comparison of OFS versus no OFS. High-certainty evidence shows that adding OFS to treatment resulted in a reduction in mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.94; 11 studies; 10,374 women; 1933 reported events). This treatment effect was seen when OFS was added to observation, to tamoxifen, or to chemotherapy and tamoxifen. The effect on mortality was not observed when OFS was added to chemotherapy without tamoxifen therapy (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.09; 5 studies; 3087 women; median follow-up: range 7.7 to 12.1 years). The addition of OFS resulted in improved DFS (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.90; 10 studies; 8899 women; 2757 reported events; high-certainty evidence). The DFS treatment effect persisted when OFS was added to observation, to tamoxifen, and to chemotherapy and tamoxifen. The effect on DFS was reduced when OFS was added to chemotherapy without tamoxifen therapy (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.01; 5 studies; 2450 women). Heterogeneity was low to moderate across studies for DFS and OS (respectively). Evidence suggests that adding OFS slightly increases the incidence of hot flushes (grade 3/4 or any grade; risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% CI 1.41 to 1.82; 6 studies; 5581 women; low-certainty evidence, as this may have been under-reported in these studies). Two other studies that could not be included in the meta-analysis reported a higher number of hot flushes in the OFS group than in the no-OFS group. Seven studies involving 5354 women collected information related to mood; however this information was reported as grade 3 or 4 depression, anxiety, or neuropsychiatric symptoms, or symptoms were reported without the grade. Two studies reported an increase in depression, anxiety, and neuropsychiatric symptoms in the OFS group compared to the no-OFS group, and five studies indicated an increase in anxiety in both treatment groups (but no difference between groups) or no difference overall in symptoms over time or between treatment groups. A single study reported bone health as osteoporosis (defined as T score < -2.5); this limited evidence suggests that OFS increases the risk of osteoporosis compared to no-OFS at median follow-up of 5.6 years (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.10 to 28.82; 2011 women; low-certainty evidence). Adding OFS to treatment likely reduces the risk of contralateral breast cancer (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.97; 9 studies; 9138 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life was assessed in five studies; four studies used validated tools, and the fifth study provided no information on how data were collected. Two studies reported worse quality of life indicators (i.e. vaginal dryness, day and night sweats) for women receiving OFS compared to those in the no-OFS group. The other two studies indicated worsening of symptoms (e.g. vasomotor, gynaecological, vaginal dryness, decline in sexual interest, bone and joint pain, weight gain); however these side effects were reported in both OFS and no-OFS groups. The study that did not use a validated quality of life tool described no considerable differences between groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review found evidence that supports adding OFS for premenopausal women with early, hormone receptor-positive breast cancers. The benefit of OFS persisted when compared to observation, and when added to endocrine therapy (tamoxifen) or chemotherapy and endocrine therapy (tamoxifen). The decision to use OFS may depend on the overall risk assessment based on tumour and patient characteristics, and may follow consideration of all side effects that occur with the addition of OFS.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Breast Neoplasms; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Female; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Premenopause; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Analysis; Tamoxifen; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32141074
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013538 -
Clinical Breast Cancer Aug 2019Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) is caused by hypo-estrogenism, resulting in vaginal dryness, pain, dyspareunia, and urinary tract infection. It is more severe... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) is caused by hypo-estrogenism, resulting in vaginal dryness, pain, dyspareunia, and urinary tract infection. It is more severe and common in breast cancer (BC) survivors owing to the severity of induced menopause following treatment (ie, chemotherapy, GnRH agonists/anti-estrogen therapy). It has a detrimental effect on quality of life. The gold standard therapy is topical estrogen, which is highly effective; however, it is contraindicated in patients with BC owing to concerns with recurrence. Recently, vaginal laser therapy has been used to restore vaginal mucosal thickness, lubrication, and elasticity with good effect in menopausal women with GSM. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of vaginal laser therapy on BC-associated GSM.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 48 papers were identified, revealing 10 observational studies of GSM symptoms before and after vaginal laser therapy with no randomized trials. Vaginal laser was effective in treating GSM in BC survivors with improvement in the Vaginal Health Index and the Visual Analogue Scale score for dyspareunia and vaginal dryness, sexual function, and overall satisfaction in the short term with minimal adverse events.
CONCLUSION
Vaginal laser may be effective in treating GSM in BC survivors in the short term, but there are no long-term data on safety and efficacy. More research is needed looking at longer term follow-up, health economic costs, and sub-group analysis as well as the complex interplay between GSM and the other negative impacts of BC therapy on intimate relationships.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Cancer Survivors; Female; Female Urogenital Diseases; Humans; Laser Therapy; Menopause; Prognosis; Syndrome
PubMed: 31227415
DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2019.04.007 -
Oral progesterone for the prevention of recurrent preterm birth: systematic review and metaanalysis.American Journal of Obstetrics &... Mar 2019The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials on oral progesterone compared with placebo or other... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE DATA
The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials on oral progesterone compared with placebo or other interventions for preterm birth prevention in singleton pregnancies with previous spontaneous preterm birth. The primary outcome was preterm birth at <37 weeks gestation; the secondary outcomes included preterm birth rate at <34 weeks gestation, neonatal morbidity/death, and maternal side-effects.
STUDY
Searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, PROSPERO, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Register with the use of a combination of words related to "preterm birth," "preterm delivery," "progesterone," "progestogens," and "oral" from inception of each database to April 2018. Additionally, systematic reviews on progesterone for preterm birth prevention that were identified in our search were also reviewed for additional studies. We included all randomized trials of asymptomatic singleton gestations with previous spontaneous singleton preterm birth that had been randomized to prophylactic treatment with oral progesterone vs placebo, no treatment, or other preterm birth intervention. Exclusion criteria included quasirandomized trials, trials that involved women with preterm labor/membrane rupture at the time of randomization or multiple gestations.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
The risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed for each study. All analyses were done with an intention-to-treat approach. The primary outcome was incidence of preterm birth at <37 weeks gestation; the secondary outcomes included preterm birth at <34 and <28 weeks gestation, maternal adverse events, maternal serum progesterone level, and neonatal morbidity and death. Summary measures were reported as relative risk or mean difference. I >30% was used to identify heterogeneity.
RESULTS
The search strategy identified 79 distinct studies. Three trials on oral progesterone vs placebo (involved 386 patients: 196 in oral progesterone and 190 in placebo) met the inclusion criteria; there were no studies on oral progesterone vs other intervention that met inclusion criteria. Metaanalysis demonstrated a significantly decreased risk of preterm birth at <37 weeks gestation (42% vs 63%; =.0005; relative risk, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.84), preterm birth at <34 weeks gestation (29% vs 53%; <.00001; relative risk, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.71), and increased gestational age of delivery (mean difference, 1.71 weeks; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-2.30) with oral progesterone compared with placebo. There was a significantly lower rate of perinatal death (5% vs 17%; =.001; relative risk 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.63), neonatal intensive care admission (relative risk, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.61), respiratory distress syndrome (relative risk, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.93), and higher birthweight (mean difference, 435.06 g; 95% confidence interval, 324.59-545.52) with oral progesterone. There was a higher rate of maternal adverse effects with oral progesterone that included dizziness (relative risk, 2.95; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-5.90), somnolence (relative risk, 2.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-3.30), and vaginal dryness (relative risk, 2.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-5.11); no serious adverse effects were noted.
CONCLUSION
Oral progesterone appears to be effective for the prevention of recurrent preterm birth and a reduction in perinatal morbidity and mortality rates in asymptomatic singleton gestations with a history of previous spontaneous preterm birth compared with placebo. There were also increased adverse effects with oral progesterone therapy compared with placebo, although none were serious. Further randomized study on oral progesterone compared with other established therapies for the prevention of recurrent preterm birth are warranted.
Topics: Female; Gestational Age; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Pregnancy, Multiple; Premature Birth; Progesterone; Progestins
PubMed: 31172132
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2019.03.001 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2019This is an update of the original review published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 11, and updated in 2015, Issue 4.Chemotherapy has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This is an update of the original review published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 11, and updated in 2015, Issue 4.Chemotherapy has significantly improved prognosis for women with malignant and some non-malignant conditions. This treatment, however, is associated with ovarian toxicity. The use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues, both agonists and antagonists, may have a protective effect on the ovaries. The primary mechanism of action of GnRH analogues is to suppress the gonadotropin levels to simulate pre-pubertal hormonal milieu and subsequently prevent primordial follicles from maturation and therefore decrease the number of follicles that are more vulnerable to chemotherapy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of GnRH analogues given before or in parallel to chemotherapy to prevent chemotherapy-related ovarian damage in premenopausal women with malignant or non-malignant conditions.
SEARCH METHODS
The search was run for the original review in July 2011, and for the first update in July 2014. For this update we searched the following databases in November 2018: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and the Chinese Biomedicine Database (CBM).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), in all languages, which examined the effect of GnRH analogues for chemotherapy-induced ovarian failure in premenopausal women, were eligible for inclusion in the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We analysed binary data using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and for continuous data, we used the standardized mean difference (SMD) to combine trials. We applied the random-effects model in our analyses. We used the GRADE approach to produce a 'Summary of findings' table for our main outcomes of interest.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 12 RCTs involving 1369 women between the ages of 12 and 51.1 years. Participants were diagnosed with breast malignancy, ovarian malignancy, or Hodgkin's lymphoma, and most of them received alkylating, or platinum complexes, based chemotherapy. The included studies were funded by a university (n = 1), research centres (n = 4), and pharmaceutical companies (n = 1). Trials were at high or unclear risk of bias.Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy aloneThe incidence of menstruation recovery or maintenance was 178 of 239 (74.5%) in the GnRH agonist group and 110 of 221 (50.0%) in the control group during a follow-up period no longer than 12 months (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.24; 5 studies, 460 participants; I = 79%; low-certainty evidence), with an overall effect favouring treatment with GnRH agonist (P = 0.006). However, we observed no difference during a follow-up period longer than 12 months between these two groups (P = 0.24). In the GnRH agonist group, 326 of 447 participants had menstruation recovery or maintenance (72.9%) in comparison to the control group, in which 276 of 422 participants had menstruation recovery or maintenance (65.4%) during a follow-up period longer than 12 months (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.22; 8 studies, 869 participants; I = 56%; low-certainty evidence).The incidence of premature ovarian failure was 43 of 401 (10.7%) in the GnRH agonist group and 96 of 379 (25.3%) in the control group (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.61; 4 studies, 780 participants; I = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence), with an overall effect favouring treatment with GnRH agonist (P < 0.00001).The incidence of pregnancy was 32 of 356 (9.0%) in the GnRH agonist group and 22 of 347 (6.3%) in the control group (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.70; 7 studies, 703 participants; I = 0%; low-certainty evidence), with no difference between groups (P = 0.09). However, we are cautious about this conclusion because there were insufficient data about whether the participants intended to become pregnant.The incidence of ovulation was 29 of 47 (61.7%) in the GnRH agonist group and 12 of 48 (25.0%) in the control group (RR 2.47, 95% CI 1.43 to 4.26; 2 studies, 95 participants; I = 0%; low-certainty evidence) with an overall effect favouring treatment with GnRH (P = 0.001).The most common adverse effects of GnRH analogues included hot flushes, vaginal dryness, urogenital symptoms, and mood swings. The pooled analysis of safety data showed no difference in adverse effects between GnRH agonist group and control group.Comparison 2: GnRH agonist-antagonist cotreatment plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy aloneOnly one RCT discussed GnRH agonist-antagonist cotreatment. The limited evidence showed the incidence of menstruation recovery or maintenance was 20 of 25 (80%) in both cotreatment group and control group during a 12-month follow-up period (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.32; 50 participants; very low-certainty evidence), with no difference between groups (P = 1.00). In the cotreatment group, 13 of 25 participants had menstruation recovery or maintenance (52.0%) in comparison to the control group, in which 14 of 25 participants had menstruation recovery or maintenance (56.0%) during a follow-up period longer than 12 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.55; 50 participants; very low-certainty evidence), with no difference between groups (P = 0.78). The incidence of pregnancy was 1 of 25 (4.0%) in the cotreatment group and 0 of 25 (0%) in the control group (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 70.30; 50 participants; very low-certainty evidence), with no difference between groups (P = 0.49).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
GnRH agonist appears to be effective in protecting the ovaries during chemotherapy, in terms of maintenance and resumption of menstruation, treatment-related premature ovarian failure and ovulation. Evidence for protection of fertility was insufficient and needs further investigation. Evidence was also insufficient to assess the effect of GnRH agonist and GnRH antagonist cotreatment on ovarian protection against chemotherapy. The included studies differed in some important aspects of design, and most of these studies had no age-determined subgroup analysis. Large and well-designed RCTs with longer follow-up duration should be conducted to clarify the effects of GnRH analogues in preventing chemotherapy-induced ovarian failure, especially on different age groups or different chemotherapy regimens. Furthermore, studies should address the effects on pregnancy rates and anti-tumour therapy.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Adolescent; Adult; Antineoplastic Agents; Child; Female; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Injections, Intramuscular; Injections, Subcutaneous; Menstruation; Middle Aged; Ovulation; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Premenopause; Primary Ovarian Insufficiency; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recovery of Function; Young Adult
PubMed: 30827035
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008018.pub3 -
Journal of Menopausal Medicine Apr 2018Atrophic vaginitis (AV), which is common in postmenopausal women, is characterized by vaginal dryness, dyspareunia, and discomfort. There are a variety of therapeutic...
OBJECTIVES
Atrophic vaginitis (AV), which is common in postmenopausal women, is characterized by vaginal dryness, dyspareunia, and discomfort. There are a variety of therapeutic agents for the treatment of AV, besides hormone replacement therapy. We performed this systematic review to compare the effectiveness of various therapies for symptom improvement in AV patients.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and other literature (Google Scholar, Web of Science, and hand search) for studies published between January 2010 and March 2015. AV was evaluated by the following outcomes: vaginal pH, dyspareunia, vaginal dryness, or cytological change (endometrial thickness, percentages of superficial cells and parabasal cells). They measured treatment efficacy with various outcomes pertaining to AV symptoms.
RESULTS
Meta-analysis suggested that ospemifene was effective against dyspareunia, vaginal dryness, endometrial thickness, and percentage changes in superficial and parabasal cells. Vaginal pH was most affected by soy isoflavone vaginal gel. Ospemifene was effective for AV symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review compared the effects of several therapeutic agents on symptoms of AV through a network meta-analysis. This study provides objective evidence for clinical treatment and efficacy management in AV.
PubMed: 29765921
DOI: 10.6118/jmm.2018.24.1.1 -
International Urogynecology Journal Apr 2018Pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) negatively affect quality of life in the general population, and their prevalence in gynecologic cancer survivors has not been... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS
Pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) negatively affect quality of life in the general population, and their prevalence in gynecologic cancer survivors has not been systematically described. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of PFDs in cancer survivors. We hypothesized that the prevalence of PFDs in the gynecologic cancer population would be higher than in the general female population.
METHODS
We searched PubMed (1809 to present), EMBASE (1974 to present), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) through May 2017. The search combined subject headings, title, and abstract words for gynecologic cancer, PFDs, and prevalence. Any studies evaluating the prevalence of PFDs in gynecologic malignancies were included.
RESULTS
A total of 550 articles met the designated search criteria and 31 articles were included in this review. In cervical cancer survivors, before treatment the prevalences of stress urinary incontinence (SUI), urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) and fecal incontinence (FI) were 24-29%, 8-18% and 6%, respectively, and after treatment the prevalences of SUI, UUI, urinary retention, FI, fecal urge, dyspareunia and vaginal dryness were 4-76%, 4-59%, 0.4-39%, 2-34%, 3-49%, 12-58% and 15-47%, respectively. In uterine cancer survivors, before treatment the prevalences of SUI, UUI and FI were 29-36%, 15-25% and 3%, respectively, and after treatment the prevalences of urinary incontinence (UI) and dyspareunia were 2-44% and 7-39%, respectively. In vulvar cancer survivors, after treatment the prevalences of UI, SUI and FI were 4-32%, 6-20% and 1-20%, respectively. In ovarian cancer survivors, the prevalences of SUI, UUI, prolapse and sexual dysfunction were 32-42%, 15-39%, 17% and 62-75%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
PFDs are prevalent in gynecologic cancer survivors and this is an important area of clinical concern and future research.
Topics: Cancer Survivors; Female; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Humans; Pelvic Floor Disorders; Prevalence
PubMed: 28929201
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-017-3467-4