-
Efficacy of progesterone and progestogens in management of premenstrual syndrome: systematic review.BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Oct 2001To evaluate the efficacy of progesterone and progestogens in the management of premenstrual syndrome. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy of progesterone and progestogens in the management of premenstrual syndrome.
DESIGN
Systematic review of published randomised, placebo controlled trials.
STUDIES REVIEWED
10 trials of progesterone therapy (531 women) and four trials of progestogen therapy (378 women).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Proportion of women whose symptoms showed improvement with progesterone preparations (suppositories and oral micronised). Proportion of women whose symptoms showed improvement with progestogens. Secondary analysis of efficacy of progesterone and progestogens in managing physical and behavioural symptoms.
RESULTS
Overall standardised mean difference for all trials that assessed efficacy of progesterone (by both routes of administration) was -0.028 (95% confidence interval -0.017 to -0.040). The odds ratio was 1.05 (1.03 to 1.08) in favour of progesterone, indicating no clinically important difference between progesterone and placebo. For progestogens the overall standardised mean was -0.036 (-0.014 to -0.060), which corresponds to an odds ratio of 1.07 (1.03 to 1.11) showing a statistically, but not clinically, significant improvement for women taking progestogens.
CONCLUSION
The evidence from these meta-analyses does not support the use of progesterone or progestogens in the management of premenstrual syndrome.
Topics: Female; Humans; Odds Ratio; Premenstrual Syndrome; Progesterone; Progestins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 11588078
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.323.7316.776 -
Cancer Jul 2020Associations between fiber intake and breast cancer risk have been evaluated in prospective studies, but overall, the evidence is inconsistent. The authors performed a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Associations between fiber intake and breast cancer risk have been evaluated in prospective studies, but overall, the evidence is inconsistent. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies to investigate the relation between intake of total and types of fiber with breast cancer incidence.
METHODS
The MEDLINE and Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE) databases were searched through July 2019 for prospective studies that reported on the association between fiber consumption and incident breast cancer. The pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated comparing the highest versus the lowest category of total and types of fiber consumption, using a random-effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS
The authors identified 17 cohort studies, 2 nested case-control studies, and 1 clinical trial study. Total fiber consumption was associated with an 8% lower risk of breast cancer (comparing the highest versus the lowest category, pooled RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.95 [I = 12.6%]). Soluble fiber was found to be significantly inversely associated with risk of breast cancer (pooled RR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.84-0.96; I = 12.6%]) and insoluble fiber was found to be suggestively inversely associated with risk of breast cancer (pooled RR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.86-1.00; I = 33.4%]). Higher total fiber intake was associated with a lower risk of both premenopausal and postmenopausal breast cancers (pooled RR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.67-0.99; I = 35.2%] and pooled RR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.88-0.95; I = 0.0%], respectively). Furthermore, the authors observed a nonsignificant inverse association between intake of total fiber and risk of both estrogen and progesterone receptor-positive and estrogen and progesterone receptor-negative breast cancers.
CONCLUSIONS
A random-effects meta-analysis of prospective observational studies demonstrated that high total fiber consumption was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer. This finding was consistent for soluble fiber as well as for women with premenopausal and postmenopausal breast cancer.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Breast Neoplasms; Cohort Studies; Dietary Fiber; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Premenopause; Prospective Studies; Risk Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 32249416
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.32816 -
PloS One 2015To evaluate the efficacy and safety of progesterone administrated in patients with acute traumatic brain injury (TBI). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of progesterone administrated in patients with acute traumatic brain injury (TBI).
METHODS
PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Clinicaltrials.gov, ISRCTN registry and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing progesterone and placebo administrated in acute TBI patients. The primary outcome was mortality and the secondary outcomes were unfavorable outcomes and adverse events. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of progesterone administrated in patients with acute TBI.
RESULTS
A total of 6 studies met inclusion criteria, involving 2,476 patients. The risk of bias was considered to be low in 4 studies but high in the other 2 studies. The results of meta-analysis indicated progesterone did not reduce the mortality (RR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.57-1.20) or unfavorable outcomes (RR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.78-1.02) of acute TBI patients in comparison with placebo. Sensitivity analysis yielded consistent results. Progesterone was basically safe and well tolerated in TBI patients with the exception of increased risk of phlebitis or thrombophlebitis (RR = 3.03, 95% CI = 1.96-4.66).
CONCLUSIONS
Despite some modest bias, present evidence demonstrated that progesterone was well tolerated but did not reduce the mortality or unfavorable outcomes of adult patients with acute TBI.
Topics: Brain Injuries; Female; Humans; Male; Progesterone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26473361
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140624 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2013Historically, oestrogen and progesterone were each commonly used to save threatened pregnancies. In the 1940s it was postulated that their combined use would be... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Historically, oestrogen and progesterone were each commonly used to save threatened pregnancies. In the 1940s it was postulated that their combined use would be synergistic and thereby led to the rationale of combined therapy for women who risked miscarriage.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of combined oestrogen and progesterone therapy to prevent miscarriage.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (23 June 2013) CENTRAL (OVID) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 6 of 12), MEDLINE (OVID) (1946 to June Week 2 2013), OLDMEDLINE (1946 to 1965), Embase (1974 to Week 25 2013), Embase Classic (1947 to 1973), CINAHL (1994 to 23 June 2013) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of combined oestrogen and progesterone for preventing miscarriage. We included one stratified randomised trial and one quasi-randomised trials. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. We excluded studies published only as abstracts.We included studies that compared oestrogen and progesterone versus placebo or no intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed trial quality. Two review authors extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
Two trials (281 pregnancies and 282 fetuses) met our inclusion criteria. However, the two trials had significant clinical and methodological heterogeneity such that a meta-analysis combining trial data was considered inappropriate.One trial (involving 161 pregnancies) was based on women with a history of diabetes. It showed no statistically significant difference between using combined oestrogen and progestogen and using placebo for all our proposed primary outcomes, namely, miscarriage (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32 to 2.80), perinatal death (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.69) and preterm birth (less than 34 weeks of gestation) (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.04). In terms of this review's secondary outcomes, use of combined oestrogen and progestogen was associated with an increased risk of maternal cancer in the reproductive system (RR 6.65, 95% CI 1.56 to 28.29). However, for the outcome of cancer other than that of the reproductive system in mothers, there was no difference between groups. Similarly, there were no differences between the combined oestrogen and progestogen group versus placebo for other secondary outcomes reported: low birthweight of less than 2500 g, genital abnormalities in the offspring, abnormalities other than genital tract in the offspring, cancer in the reproductive system in the offspring, or cancer other than of the reproductive system in the offspring.The second study was based on pregnant women who had undergone in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). This study showed no difference in the rate of miscarriage between the combined oestrogen and progesterone group and the no treatment group (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.85). The study did not report on this review's other primary outcomes (perinatal death or rates of preterm birth), nor on any of our proposed secondary outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is an insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to assess the use of combined oestrogen and progesterone for preventing miscarriages. We strongly recommend further research in this area.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Diethylstilbestrol; Drug Combinations; Estrogens; Ethisterone; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Pregnancy; Progesterone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 24068368
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009278.pub2 -
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica... Aug 2019Progestins are used as conservative treatment of endometrial hyperplasia (EH) and early endometrial cancer (EEC). We aimed to assess whether immunohistochemical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Should progesterone and estrogen receptors be assessed for predicting the response to conservative treatment of endometrial hyperplasia and cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Progestins are used as conservative treatment of endometrial hyperplasia (EH) and early endometrial cancer (EEC). We aimed to assess whether immunohistochemical expression of estrogens and progesterone receptors (ER and PR) predicts the treatment response.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Electronic databases were searched for studies assessing ER and PR expression in EH and EEC treated with progestins. Relative risk for poor response, sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR and LR ) and area under the curve (AUC) on summary receiver operating characteristic curve were calculated. Subgroup analyses were based on administration route (oral progestin or levonorgestrel-intrauterine device) and on histological diagnosis (atypical EH/EEC or non-atypical EH). Only high accuracy (AUC > 0.9; LR >10; LR <0.1) was considered determining for the clinical practice.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies with 635 patients were included in the systematic review. Studies at high risk of bias were excluded from the meta-analysis. Negative ER expression did not significantly predict poor response (P = 0.16), with low predictive accuracy (AUC = 0.637). Negative PR significantly predicted poor response (P = 0.01), with moderate accuracy (AUC = .806). In the oral progestin subgroup, neither ER (P = 0.55) nor PR (P = 0.18) had significant predictive value. In the levonorgestrel-intrauterine device subgroup, both ER (P < 0.0001) and PR (P = 0.02) were significantly predictive of good response, although the accuracy was suboptimal (LR 6.02 and 2.48, respectively; LR 0.59 and 0.55, respectively). The atypical EH/EEC subgroup showed non-significant results. Data about non-atypical EH were not extractable.
CONCLUSIONS
ER and PR expressions are significantly predictive of response in EH and EEC treated with a levonorgestrel-intrauterine device but not with oral progestins. However, their accuracy is insufficient to be determining in the clinical practice.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Conservative Treatment; Endometrial Hyperplasia; Endometrial Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Immunohistochemistry; Intrauterine Devices, Medicated; Levonorgestrel; Progestins; Receptors, Estrogen; Receptors, Progesterone
PubMed: 30779338
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13586 -
Climacteric : the Journal of the... Aug 2016Postmenopausal women with an intact uterus using estrogen therapy should receive a progestogen for endometrial protection. International guidelines on menopausal hormone... (Review)
Review
Postmenopausal women with an intact uterus using estrogen therapy should receive a progestogen for endometrial protection. International guidelines on menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) do not specify on progestogen type, dosage, route of application and duration of safe use. At the same time, the debate on bioidentical hormones including micronized progesterone increases. Based on a systematic literature review on micronized progesterone for endometrial protection, an international expert panel's recommendations on MHT containing micronized progesterone are as follows: (1) oral micronized progesterone provides endometrial protection if applied sequentially for 12-14 days/month at 200 mg/day for up to 5 years; (2) vaginal micronized progesterone may provide endometrial protection if applied sequentially for at least 10 days/month at 4% (45 mg/day) or every other day at 100 mg/day for up to 3-5 years (off-label use); (3) transdermal micronized progesterone does not provide endometrial protection.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Administration, Intravaginal; Administration, Oral; Endometrium; Estrogen Replacement Therapy; Female; Humans; Menopause; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Progesterone; Progestins; Uterus; Vagina
PubMed: 27277331
DOI: 10.1080/13697137.2016.1187123 -
Toxics Aug 2023Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) such as dichlorodimethyltrichloroethane (DDT) are present and ubiquitous in the environment due to their resilient nature. DDT is a... (Review)
Review
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) such as dichlorodimethyltrichloroethane (DDT) are present and ubiquitous in the environment due to their resilient nature. DDT is a prevalent endocrine disruptor still found in detectable amounts in organisms and the environment even after its use was banned in the 1970s. Medline and Google Scholar were systematically searched to detect all relevant animal and human studies published in the last 20 years (January 2003 to February 2023) in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. In total, 38 studies were included for qualitative synthesis. This systematic search and review indicated that exposure to DDT is associated with female reproductive health issues, such as reduced fecundability; increased risk of preterm/premature deliveries; increased periods of gestation; alterations in the synthesis of crucial reproductive hormones (Progesterone and Oxytocin) through ion imbalances and changes in prostaglandin synthesis, myometrial and stromal hypertrophy, and edema; and variations in uterine contractions through increased uterine wet weight. There was also limited evidence indicating DDT as a carcinogen sufficient to instigate reproductive cancers. However, this review only takes into account the in vitro studies that have established a possible pathway to understand how DDT impacts female infertility and leads to reproductive cancers. Links between the pathways described in various studies have been developed in this review to produce a summarized picture of how one event might lead to another. Additionally, epidemiological studies that specifically targeted the exposure to DDT of females belonging to various ethnicities have been reviewed to develop an overall picture of prevailing female reproductive health concerns in different nations.
PubMed: 37755736
DOI: 10.3390/toxics11090725 -
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology :... Mar 2017Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have recently compared intramuscular 17α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC) with vaginal progesterone for reducing the risk of... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Vaginal progesterone vs intramuscular 17α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate for prevention of recurrent spontaneous preterm birth in singleton gestations: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
OBJECTIVE
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have recently compared intramuscular 17α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC) with vaginal progesterone for reducing the risk of spontaneous preterm birth (SPTB) in singleton gestations with prior SPTB. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of vaginal progesterone compared with 17-OHPC in prevention of SPTB in singleton gestations with prior SPTB.
METHODS
Searches of electronic databases were performed to identify all RCTs of asymptomatic singleton gestations with prior SPTB that were randomized to prophylactic treatment with either vaginal progesterone (intervention group) or intramuscular 17-OHPC (comparison group). No restrictions for language or geographic location were applied. The primary outcome was SPTB < 34 weeks. Secondary outcomes were SPTB < 37 weeks, < 32 weeks, < 28 weeks and < 24 weeks, maternal adverse drug reaction and neonatal outcomes. The summary measures were reported as relative risk (RR) with 95% CI. Risk of bias for each included study was assessed.
RESULTS
Three RCTs (680 women) were included. The mean gestational age at randomization was about 16 weeks. Women were given progesterone until 36 weeks or delivery. Regarding vaginal progesterone, one study used 90 mg gel daily, one used 100 mg suppository daily and one used 200 mg suppository daily. All included RCTs used 250 mg intramuscular 17-OHPC weekly in the comparison group. Women who received vaginal progesterone had significantly lower rates of SPTB < 34 weeks (17.5% vs 25.0%; RR, 0.71 (95% CI, 0.53-0.95); low quality of evidence) and < 32 weeks (8.9% vs 14.5%; RR, 0.62 (95% CI, 0.40-0.94); low quality of evidence) compared with women who received 17-OHPC. There were no significant differences in the rates of SPTB < 37 weeks, < 28 weeks and < 24 weeks. The rate of women who reported adverse drug reactions was significantly lower in the vaginal progesterone group compared with the 17-OHPC group (7.1% vs 13.2%; RR, 0.53 (95% CI, 0.31-0.91); very low quality of evidence). Regarding neonatal outcomes, vaginal progesterone was associated with a lower rate of neonatal intensive care unit admission compared with 17-OHPC (18.7% vs 23.5%; RR, 0.63 (95% CI, 0.47-0.83); low quality of evidence). For the comparison of 17-OHPC vs vaginal progesterone, the quality of evidence was downgraded for all outcomes by at least one degree due to imprecision (the optimal information size was not reached) and by at least one degree due to indirectness (different interventions).
CONCLUSIONS
Daily vaginal progesterone (either suppository or gel) started at about 16 weeks' gestation is a reasonable, if not better, alternative to weekly 17-OHPC injection for prevention of SPTB in women with singleton gestations and prior SPTB. However, the quality level of the summary estimates was low or very low as assessed by GRADE, indicating that the true effect may be, or is likely to be, substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. COMPARACIÓN ENTRE LA PROGESTERONA VAGINAL Y EL 17Α-HIDROXIPROGESTERONA CAPROATO INTRAMUSCULAR PARA LA PREVENCIÓN DEL PARTO PRETÉRMINO ESPONTÁNEO RECURRENTE EN EMBARAZOS CON FETO ÚNICO: REVISIÓN SISTEMÁTICA Y METAANÁLISIS DE ENSAYOS CONTROLADOS ALEATORIOS: RESUMEN OBJETIVO: Recientemente se han realizado varios ensayos controlados aleatorios (ECA) que comparaban el caproato de 17α-hidroxiprogesterona (17-OHPC, por sus siglas en inglés) por vía intramuscular con la progesterona por vía vaginal para la reducción del riesgo de parto pretérmino espontáneo (PPTE) en embarazos con feto único de gestantes con historial de PPTE. El objetivo de esta revisión sistemática y metaanálisis fue evaluar la eficacia de la progesterona vaginal en comparación con la 17-OHPC en la prevención de embarazos con feto único de gestantes con historial de PPTE. MÉTODOS: Se realizaron búsquedas en bases de datos electrónicas para identificar todos los ECA con embarazos de feto único asintomáticos con historial de PPTE antes de ser asignados al azar a un tratamiento profiláctico, ya fuera con progesterona vaginal (grupo de intervención) o con 17-OHPC intramuscular (grupo de control). No se aplicaron restricciones respecto al idioma o la ubicación geográfica. El resultado primario fue PPTE < 34 semanas. Los resultados secundarios fueron PPTE <37 semanas, < 32 semanas, < 28 semanas y < 24 semanas, la reacción materna adversa al fármaco y los resultados neonatales. Las medidas del resumen se reportaron como riesgo relativo (RR) con IC del 95%. Para cada estudio incluido se evaluó el riesgo de sesgo.
RESULTADOS
Se incluyeron tres ECA (680 mujeres). La media de la edad gestacional en el momento de la aleatorización fue de 16 semanas. A las mujeres se les administró progesterona hasta la semana 36 o hasta el parto. Con respecto a la progesterona vaginal, un estudio utilizó gel de 90 mg diariamente, otro utilizó un supositorio diario de 100 mg y el otro utilizó un supositorio diario de 200 mg. Todos los ECA incluidos en el grupo de comparación utilizaron 250 mg semanales de 17-OHPC por vía intramuscular. Las mujeres que recibieron progesterona vaginal tuvieron tasas significativamente más bajas de PPTE < 34 semanas (17,5% vs. 25,0%; RR 0,71 (IC 95%, 0,53-0,95); calidad de la evidencia baja) y < 32 semanas (8,9% vs. 14,5%; RR 0,62 (IC 95%, 0,40-0,94); calidad de evidencia baja), en comparación con las mujeres que recibieron 17-OHPC. No hubo diferencias significativas en las tasas de PPTE < 37 semanas, < 28 semanas y < 24 semanas. La tasa de mujeres que reportaron reacciones adversas a los medicamentos fue significativamente menor en el grupo de progesterona vaginal en comparación con el grupo de 17-OHPC (7,1% vs. 13,2%; RR 0,53 (IC 95%, 0,31-0,91); calidad de la evidencia muy baja). En cuanto a los resultados neonatales, la progesterona vaginal se asoció a una menor tasa de admisiones en la unidad neonatal de cuidados intensivos en comparación con la 17-OHPC (18,7% vs. 23,5%; RR 0,63 (IC 95%, 0,47-0,83); calidad de evidencia baja). Para la comparación del 17-OHPC con la progesterona vaginal se rebajó la calidad de las pruebas para todos los resultados en al menos un grado debido a imprecisiones (no se alcanzó el tamaño óptimo de la información) y en al menos un grado debido al carácter indirecto de los estudios (diferentes intervenciones).
CONCLUSIONES
La progesterona vaginal administrada diariamente (ya fuera como supositorio o como gel) desde la semana 16 de gestación es una alternativa razonable, si no mejor, a una inyección semanal de 17-OHPC para la prevención de PPTE en mujeres con embarazos de feto único e historial de PPTE. Sin embargo, el nivel de calidad de las estimaciones del resumen fue bajo o muy bajo según lo evaluado por GRADE, lo que indica que el verdadero efecto puede ser, o es probable que sea, sustancialmente diferente de la estimación del efecto. 17Α-:META: : (randomized controlled trials,RCTs)(spontaneous preterm birth,SPTB)17α-(intramuscular 17α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate,17-OHPC)SPTB。metaSPTB17-OHPCSPTB。 : ,SPTBRCTs,RCTs()17-OHPC()。。34SPTB。37、32、2824SPTB,。(relative risk,RR)95%CI。。 : 3RCTs(680)。16。,36。,90 mg,100 mg,200 mg。,RCTs250 mg 17-OHPC。17-OHPC,34 [17.5%25.0%;RR,0.71(95% CI,0.53 ~ 0.95);]32[8.9%14.5%;RR,0.62(95% CI,0.40 ~ 0.94);]SPTB。37、2824SPTB。17-OHPC,[7.1%13.2%;RR,0.53(95% CI,0.31 ~ 0.91);]。,17-OHPC,[18.7%23.5%;RR,0.63(95% CI,0.47 ~ 0.83);]。17-OHPC,(),()。 : SPTBSPTB,16()17-OHPC,。,GRADE,,。.
Topics: 17 alpha-Hydroxyprogesterone Caproate; Administration, Intravaginal; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Humans; Hydroxyprogesterones; Injections, Intramuscular; Intensive Care Units; Patient Admission; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Progesterone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27546354
DOI: 10.1002/uog.17245 -
BMC Medicine Oct 2022Hormonal changes during the menstrual cycle play a key role in shaping immunity in the cervicovaginal tract. Cervicovaginal fluid contains cytokines, chemokines,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Hormonal changes during the menstrual cycle play a key role in shaping immunity in the cervicovaginal tract. Cervicovaginal fluid contains cytokines, chemokines, immunoglobulins, and other immune mediators. Many studies have shown that the concentrations of these immune mediators change throughout the menstrual cycle, but the studies have often shown inconsistent results. Our understanding of immunological correlates of the menstrual cycle remains limited and could be improved by meta-analysis of the available evidence.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of cervicovaginal immune mediator concentrations throughout the menstrual cycle using individual participant data. Study eligibility included strict definitions of the cycle phase (by progesterone or days since the last menstrual period) and no use of hormonal contraception or intrauterine devices. We performed random-effects meta-analyses using inverse-variance pooling to estimate concentration differences between the follicular and luteal phases. In addition, we performed a new laboratory study, measuring select immune mediators in cervicovaginal lavage samples.
RESULTS
We screened 1570 abstracts and identified 71 eligible studies. We analyzed data from 31 studies, encompassing 39,589 concentration measurements of 77 immune mediators made on 2112 samples from 871 participants. Meta-analyses were performed on 53 immune mediators. Antibodies, CC-type chemokines, MMPs, IL-6, IL-16, IL-1RA, G-CSF, GNLY, and ICAM1 were lower in the luteal phase than the follicular phase. Only IL-1α, HBD-2, and HBD-3 were elevated in the luteal phase. There was minimal change between the phases for CXCL8, 9, and 10, interferons, TNF, SLPI, elafin, lysozyme, lactoferrin, and interleukins 1β, 2, 10, 12, 13, and 17A. The GRADE strength of evidence was moderate to high for all immune mediators listed here.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the variability of cervicovaginal immune mediator measurements, our meta-analyses show clear and consistent changes during the menstrual cycle. Many immune mediators were lower in the luteal phase, including chemokines, antibodies, matrix metalloproteinases, and several interleukins. Only interleukin-1α and beta-defensins were higher in the luteal phase. These cyclical differences may have consequences for immunity, susceptibility to infection, and fertility. Our study emphasizes the need to control for the effect of the menstrual cycle on immune mediators in future studies.
Topics: Elafin; Female; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Humans; Immunoglobulins; Immunologic Factors; Interferons; Interleukin 1 Receptor Antagonist Protein; Interleukin-16; Interleukin-1alpha; Interleukin-6; Interleukins; Lactoferrin; Menstrual Cycle; Muramidase; Progesterone; beta-Defensins
PubMed: 36195867
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-022-02532-9 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2017Endometrial cancer is one of the most common gynaecological cancers in the world. Rates of endometrial cancer are rising, in part because of rising obesity rates.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Endometrial cancer is one of the most common gynaecological cancers in the world. Rates of endometrial cancer are rising, in part because of rising obesity rates. Endometrial hyperplasia is a precancerous condition in women that can lead to endometrial cancer if left untreated. Endometrial hyperplasia occurs more commonly than endometrial cancer. Progesterone tablets currently used to treat women with endometrial hyperplasia are associated with adverse effects in up to 84% of women. The levonorgestrel intrauterine device (Mirena Coil, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Whippany, NJ, USA) may improve compliance, but it is invasive, is not acceptable to all women, and is associated with irregular vaginal bleeding in 82% of cases. Therefore, an alternative treatment for women with endometrial hyperplasia is needed. Metformin, a drug that is often used to treat people with diabetes, has been shown in some human studies to reverse endometrial hyperplasia. However, the effectiveness and safety of metformin for treatment of endometrial hyperplasia remain uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of metformin in treating women with endometrial hyperplasia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PubMed, Google Scholar, OpenGrey, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), and two trials registers from inception to 10 January 2017. We searched the bibliographies of all included studies and reviews on this topic. We also handsearched the conference abstracts of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) 2015 and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials comparing metformin (used alone or in combination with other medical therapies) versus placebo or no treatment, any conventional medical treatment, or any other active intervention for women with histologically confirmed endometrial hyperplasia of any type.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data from included studies, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We resolved disagreements by discussion or by deferment to a third review author. When study details were missing, review authors contacted study authors. The primary outcome of this review was regression of endometrial hyperplasia histology (with or without atypia) towards normal histology. Secondary outcome measures included recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia, progression of endometrial hyperplasia to endometrial cancer, hysterectomy rate, abnormal uterine bleeding, health-related quality of life, and adverse effects during treatment.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three RCTs in which a total of 77 women took part. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low for all outcomes owing to very serious risk of bias (associated with poor reporting, attrition, and limitations in study design) and imprecision.We performed a meta-analysis of two trials with 59 participants. When metformin was compared with megestrol acetate in women with endometrial hyperplasia, we found insufficient evidence to determine whether there were differences between groups for the following outcomes: regression of endometrial hyperplasia histology towards normal histology (odds ratio (OR) 3.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 11.57, two RCTs, n = 59, very low-quality evidence), hysterectomy rates (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.52, two RCTs, n = 59, very low-quality evidence), and rates of abnormal uterine bleeding (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.52, two RCTs, n = 44 , very low-quality evidence). We found no data for recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia or health-related quality of life. Both studies (n = 59) provided data on progression of endometrial hyperplasia to endometrial cancer as well as one (n = 16) reporting some adverse effects in the metformin arm, notably nausea, thrombosis, lactic acidosis, abnormal liver and renal function among others.Another trial including 16 participants compared metformin plus megestrol acetate versus megestrol acetate alone in women with endometrial hyperplasia. We found insufficient evidence to determine whether there were differences between groups for the following outcomes: regression of endometrial hyperplasia histology towards normal histology (OR 9.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 86.52, one RCT, n = 16, very low-quality evidence), recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia among women who achieve regression (OR not estimable, no events recorded, one RCT, n = 8, very low-quality evidence), progression of endometrial hyperplasia to endometrial cancer (OR not estimable, no events recorded, one RCT, n = 13, very low-quality evidence), or hysterectomy rates (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.37, one RCT, n = 16, very low-quality evidence). Investigators provided no data on abnormal uterine bleeding or health-related quality of life. In terms of adverse effects, three of eight participants (37.5%) in the metformin plus megestrol acetate study arm reported nausea.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
At present, evidence is insufficient to support or refute the use of metformin alone or in combination with standard therapy - specifically, megestrol acetate - versus megestrol acetate alone, for treatment of endometrial hyperplasia. Robustly designed and adequately powered randomised controlled trials yielding long-term outcome data are needed to address this clinical question.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Disease Progression; Endometrial Hyperplasia; Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Megestrol Acetate; Metformin; Middle Aged; Precancerous Conditions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Uterine Hemorrhage; Uterine Neoplasms
PubMed: 29077194
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012214.pub2