-
The Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology... Dec 2017Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), which is common in many communities, is associated with structural factors, eating habits, and the use of certain drugs. The use... (Review)
Review
Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), which is common in many communities, is associated with structural factors, eating habits, and the use of certain drugs. The use of such drugs can lead to the emergence of GERD and can also exacerbate existing reflux symptoms. These drugs can contribute to GERD by directly causing mucosal damage, by reducing lower esophageal sphincter pressure (LESP), or by affecting esophagogastric motility. In this article, we report our investigation of the relationships between GERD and medications within the scope of the "Turkish GERD Consensus Group." For the medication groups for which sufficient data were obtained (Figure 1), a systematic literature review in English was conducted using the keywords "gastroesophageal reflux" [MeSH Terms] and "anti-inflammatory agents, non-steroidal" [MeSH Terms], "gastroesophageal reflux" [MeSH Terms] and "acetylsalicylic acid" [MeSH Terms], "gastroesophageal reflux" [All Fields] and "estrogenic agents" [All Fields], "gastroesophageal reflux" [All Fields] and "progesterones" [All Fields], "gastroesophageal reflux" [All Fields] and "hormone replacement therapy" [All Fields], "gastroesophageal reflux" [MeSH Terms] and "diphosphonates" [MeSH Terms] OR "diphosphonates" [All Fields], "calcium channel blockers" [MeSH Terms] and "gastroesophageal reflux" [MeSH Terms], "gastroesophageal reflux" [MeSH Terms] and "nitrates" [MeSH Terms], "gastroesophageal reflux" [MeSH Terms] and "antidepressive agents" [MeSH Terms], "gastroesophageal reflux" [MeSH Terms] and "benzodiazepines" [MeSH Terms] and "hypnotic drugs" [MeSH Terms], "gastroesophageal reflux" [MeSH Terms] and "cholinergic antagonists" [MeSH Terms], "gastroesophageal reflux" [MeSH Terms] and "theophylline" [MeSH Terms], and "gastroesophageal reflux [MeSH Terms] AND "anti-asthmatic agents" [MeSH Terms]. The studies were analyzed and the results are presented here.
Topics: Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Esophagus; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Risk Factors
PubMed: 29199166
DOI: 10.5152/tjg.2017.11 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2021Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) is a new ovarian stimulation protocol that can block the luteinizing hormone (LH) surge through progesterone instead of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) is a new ovarian stimulation protocol that can block the luteinizing hormone (LH) surge through progesterone instead of traditional down regulating or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, and in order to achieve multi-follicle recruitment. This paper aims to investigate the effectiveness of PPOS and its suitability for infertile patients with different ovarian reserve functions.
METHODS
We searched published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about PPOS on Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. The search period spanned from January 1, 2015 to November 16, 2020. The data were extracted, and the meta-analysis was performed on ovarian stimulation as well as embryological and clinical outcomes. The outcomes were pooled by a random effects model, and the risk of heterogeneity was evaluated. Subgroup analysis was performed for different ovarian reserve patients.
RESULTS
The clinical pregnancy rates and live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates with the PPOS protocol were not different from those with the control group. In the diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) subgroup, the PPOS protocol had a lower rate of premature LH surge [RR = 0.03, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.13, < 0.001]. The PPOS protocol had a lower rate of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) [RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.36 to 0.76, < 0.001, = 0.00%]. The secondary outcomes showed that the number of oocytes retrieved, MII oocytes, and viable embryos was higher than that of the control protocol in DOR patients [(MD = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.36, < 0.001), (MD = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.33, < 0.001), (MD = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.18 to 0.24, < 0.001)] and normal ovarian reserve (NOR) patients [(MD = 1.41, 95% CI = 0.03 to 2.78, < 0.001), (MD = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.04 to 2.35, < 0.001), (MD = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.21 to 1.81, = 0.01)].
CONCLUSION
The findings suggest that PPOS is an effective ovarian stimulation protocol and is beneficial for patients with different ovarian reserve functions, which needs to be validated in more RCTs with larger samples.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Fertilization in Vitro; Infertility, Female; Live Birth; Ovarian Reserve; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy Rate; Progestins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34531825
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2021.702558 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2011Preterm birth occurs in about 5% to 10% of all births in resource-rich countries, but in recent years the incidence seems to have increased in some countries,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Preterm birth occurs in about 5% to 10% of all births in resource-rich countries, but in recent years the incidence seems to have increased in some countries, particularly in the USA. We found little reliable evidence for incidence in resource-poor countries. The rate in northwestern Ethiopia has been reported to vary from 11% to 22%, depending on the age group of mothers studied, and is highest in teenage mothers.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of preventive interventions in women at high risk of preterm delivery? What are the effects of interventions to improve neonatal outcome after preterm rupture of membranes? What are the effects of treatments to stop contractions in preterm labour? What are the effects of elective compared with selective caesarean delivery for women in preterm labour? What are the effects of interventions to improve neonatal outcome in preterm delivery? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 58 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: amnioinfusion for preterm rupture of membranes, antenatal corticosteroids, antibiotic treatment, bed rest, beta-mimetics, calcium channel blockers, elective caesarean, enhanced antenatal care programmes, magnesium sulphate, oxytocin receptor antagonists (atosiban), progesterone, prophylactic cervical cerclage, prostaglandin inhibitors (e.g., indometacin), selective caesarean, and thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH) (plus corticosteroids).
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenergic beta-Agonists; Cerclage, Cervical; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Obstetric Labor, Premature; Premature Birth; Progesterone; Thyrotropin-Releasing Hormone
PubMed: 21463540
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020A frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycle is when one or more embryos (frozen during a previous treatment cycle) are thawed and transferred to the uterus. Some women undergo... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycle is when one or more embryos (frozen during a previous treatment cycle) are thawed and transferred to the uterus. Some women undergo fresh embryo transfer (ET) cycles with embryos derived from donated oocytes. In both situations, the endometrium is primed with oestrogen and progestogen in different doses and routes of administration.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the most effective endometrial preparation for women undergoing transfer with frozen embryos or embryos from donor oocytes with regard to the subsequent live birth rate (LBR).
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, trials registers and abstracts of reproductive societies' meetings were searched in June 2020 together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating endometrial preparation in women undergoing fresh donor cycles and frozen embryo transfers.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We analysed all available interventions versus placebo, no treatment, or between each other. The primary review outcome was live birth rate. Secondary outcomes were clinical and multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, cycle cancellation, endometrial thickness and adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-one RCTs (5426 women) were included. Evidence was moderate to very low-quality: the main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods, and serious imprecision. Stimulated versus programmed cycle We are uncertain whether a letrozole-stimulated cycle compared to a programmed cycle, for endometrial preparation, improves LBR (odds ratio (OR) 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 3.26; 100 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). Stimulating with follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), letrozole or clomiphene citrate may improve clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.38; 656 participants; five studies; I = 11%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if they reduce miscarriage rate (MR) (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.71; 355 participants; three studies; I = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Endometrial thickness (ET) may be reduced with clomiphene citrate (mean difference(MD) -1.04, 95% CI -1.59 to -0.49; 92 participants; one study; low-quality evidence). Other outcomes were not reported. Natural versus programmed cycle We are uncertain of the effect from a natural versus programmed cycle for LBR (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.28; 1285 participants; four studies; I = 0%; very low-quality evidence) and CPR (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.01; 1249 participants; five studies; I = 60%; very low-quality evidence), while a natural cycle probably reduces the cycle cancellation rate (CCR) (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.82; 734 participants; one study; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on MR and ET. No study reported other outcomes. Transdermal versus oral oestrogens From low-quality evidence we are uncertain of the effect transdermal compared to oral oestrogens has on CPR (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.25; 504 participants; three studies; I = 58%) or MR (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.09; 414 participants; two studies; I = 0%). Other outcomes were not reported. Day of starting administration of progestogen When doing a fresh ET using donated oocytes in a synchronised cycle starting progestogen on the day of oocyte pick-up (OPU) or the day after OPU, in comparison with recipients that start progestogen the day prior to OPU, probably increases the CPR (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.08; 282 participants; one study, moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) or MR. It probably reduces the CCR (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.74; 282 participants; one study; moderate-quality evidence). No study reported other outcomes. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist versus control A cycle with GnRH agonist compared to without may improve LBR (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.19 to 5.78; 234 participants; one study; low-quality evidence). From low-quality evidence we are uncertain of the effect on CPR (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.43; 1289 participants; eight studies; I = 20%), MR (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.00; 828 participants; four studies; I = 0%), CCR (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.17; 530 participants; two studies; I = 0%) and ET (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.16; 697 participants; four studies; I = 4%). No study reported other outcomes. Among different GnRH agonists From very low-quality evidence we are uncertain if cycles among different GnRH agonists improves CPR or MR. No study reported other outcomes. GnRH agonists versus GnRH antagonists GnRH antagonists compared to agonists probably improves CPR (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.90; 473 participants; one study; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on MR and MPR. No study reported other outcomes. Aspirin versus control From very low-quality evidence we are uncertain whether a cycle with aspirin versus without improves LBR, CPR, or ET. Steroids versus control From very low-quality evidence we are uncertain whether a cycle with steroids compared to without improves LBR, CPR or MR. No study reported other outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence on the use of any particular intervention for endometrial preparation in women undergoing fresh donor cycles and frozen embryo transfers. In frozen embryo transfers, low-quality evidence showed that clinical pregnancy rates may be improved in a stimulated cycle compared to a programmed one, and we are uncertain of the effect when comparing a programmed cycle to a natural cycle. Cycle cancellation rates are probably reduced in a natural cycle. Although administering a GnRH agonist, compared to without, may improve live birth rates, clinical pregnancy rates will probably be improved in a GnRH antagonist cycle over an agonist cycle. In fresh synchronised oocyte donor cycles, the clinical pregnancy rate is probably improved and cycle cancellation rates are probably reduced when starting progestogen the day of or day after donor oocyte retrieval. Adequately powered studies are needed to evaluate each treatment more accurately.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Bias; Clomiphene; Cryopreservation; Drug Administration Schedule; Embryo Implantation; Embryo Transfer; Embryo, Mammalian; Endometrium; Female; Follicle Stimulating Hormone; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Letrozole; Live Birth; Oocyte Donation; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Progesterone; Progestins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33112418
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006359.pub3 -
Annals of Oncology : Official Journal... Sep 2012Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a distinct subset of breast cancer (BC) defined by the lack of immunohistochemical expression of the estrogen and progesterone... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a distinct subset of breast cancer (BC) defined by the lack of immunohistochemical expression of the estrogen and progesterone receptors and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2. It is highly heterogeneous and displays overlapping characteristics with both basal-like and BC susceptibility gene 1 and 2 mutant BCs. This review evaluates the activity of emerging targeted agents in TNBC.
DESIGN
A systematic review of PubMed and conference databases was carried out to identify randomised clinical trials reporting outcomes in women with TNBC treated with targeted and platinum-based therapies.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Our review identified TNBC studies of agents with different mechanisms of action, including induction of synthetic lethality and inhibition of angiogenesis, growth, and survival pathways. Combining targeted agents with chemotherapy in TNBC produced only modest gains in progression-free survival, and had little impact on survival. Six TNBC subgroups have been identified and found to differentially respond to specific targeted agents. The use of biological preselection to guide therapy will improve therapeutic indices in target-bearing populations.
CONCLUSION
Ongoing clinical trials of targeted agents in unselected TNBC populations have yet to produce substantial improvements in outcomes, and advancements will depend on their development in target-selected populations.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Breast Neoplasms; ErbB Receptors; Female; Humans; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Poly (ADP-Ribose) Polymerase-1; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerases; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptor, ErbB-2; Receptors, Estrogen; Receptors, Progesterone; TOR Serine-Threonine Kinases; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 22517820
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mds067 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2009The steroid hormone, progesterone, inhibits contractions of the pregnant uterus at all gestations. Antiprogestins (including mifepristone) have been developed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The steroid hormone, progesterone, inhibits contractions of the pregnant uterus at all gestations. Antiprogestins (including mifepristone) have been developed to antagonise the action of progesterone, and have a recognised role in medical termination of early or mid-trimester pregnancy. Animal studies have suggested that mifepristone may also have a role in inducing labour in late pregnancy.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of mifepristone for third trimester cervical ripening or induction of labour.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register and reference lists of relevant papers (May 2009).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Clinical trials comparing mifepristone used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with placebo/no treatment or other labour induction methods.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
A strategy was developed to deal with the large volume and complexity of trial data relating to labour induction. This involved a two-stage method of data extraction. For this update, two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
Ten trials (1108 women) are included. Compared to placebo, mifepristone treated women were more likely to be in labour or to have a favourable cervix at 48 hours (risk ratio (RR) 2.41, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.70 to 3.42) and this effect persisted at 96 hours (RR 3.40, 95% CI 1.96 to 5.92). They were less likely to need augmentation with oxytocin (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97). Mifepristone treated women were less likely to undergo caesarean section (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.92) but more likely to have an instrumental delivery (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.96). Women receiving mifepristone were less likely to undergo a caesarean section as a result of failure to induce labour (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.80). There is insufficient evidence to support a particular dose but a single dose of 200 mg mifepristone appears to be the lowest effective dose for cervical ripening (increased likelihood of cervical ripening at 72 hours (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.15 to 3.97). Abnormal fetal heart rate patterns were more common after mifepristone treatment (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.93), but there was no evidence of differences in other neonatal outcomes. There is insufficient information on the occurrence of uterine rupture/dehiscence in the reviewed studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient information available from clinical trials to support the use of mifepristone to induce labour. However, the studies suggest that mifepristone is better than placebo in reducing the likelihood of caesarean sections being performed for failed induction of labour; therefore, this may justify future trials comparing mifepristone with the routine cervical ripening agents currently in use. There is little information on effects on the baby.
Topics: Female; Humans; Labor Stage, First; Labor, Induced; Mifepristone; Oxytocics; Pregnancy; Progesterone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 19588336
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002865.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2012Uterine fibroids are the most common benign uterine tumours present in women of reproductive age. Mifepristone (RU-486) competitively binds and inhibits progesterone... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Uterine fibroids are the most common benign uterine tumours present in women of reproductive age. Mifepristone (RU-486) competitively binds and inhibits progesterone receptors. Studies have suggested that fibroid growth depends on the sexual steroids. Mifepristone has been shown to decrease fibroid size. This review summarises the effects of mifepristone treatment on fibroids and the associated adverse effects as described in randomised controlled trials.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of mifepristone for the management of uterine fibroids in pre-menopausal women.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the specialised register of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility (Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and subfertility Review Group), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL (to November 2011). We handsearched a number of journals, and searched reference lists, databases of ongoing trials and the Internet. There were no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Only truly randomised controlled trials of mifepristone versus other forms of medical therapy or placebo in pre-menopausal women with confirmed uterine fibroids were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Four authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Data were analysed using the Peto odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous data and the weighted mean differences for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Meta-analyses were performed using the fixed-effect model.
MAIN RESULTS
Three studies involving 112 participants were included. Comparison interventions included different dosages of mifepristone, placebo and vitamin B tablets. There is evidence that treatment with mifepristone relieves heavy menstrual bleeding compared with placebo (Peto OR 17.84; 95% CI 6.72 to 47.38; 2 RCTs, 77 women, I(2) = 0%). Three studies (Bagaria 2009; Engman 2009; Fiscella 2006) were included in the meta-analysis of this comparison. There was no evidence of an effect of mifepristone on the fibroid volume (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.02; 95% CI -0.38 to 0.41; 99 women). Two studies (Bagaria 2009; Fiscella 2006) were included in the meta-analysis of this comparison. There was no evidence of an effect of mifepristone on uterine volume (mean difference (MD) -77.24; 95% CI -240.62 to 86.14; 72 women). The pooled data suggest an increased adverse event (abnormal endometrial histology) in the mifepristone group compared to placebo (OR 31.65; 95% CI 4.83 to 207.35; 2 RCTs; 54 women; I(2) = 0%). Only one study (Bagaria 2009) reported endometrial hyperplasia at the end of the therapy (12/19 women in the mifepristone group versus 0/16 in the placebo group; OR 55.0; 95% CI 2.86 to 105.67). Engman 2009 found a significantly higher rate of cystic glandular dilatation in women in the mifepristone group (5/8 women biopsied) compared with the placebo group (1/11 women biopsied) (OR 16.67; 95% CI 1.36 to 204.03). One study (Fiscella 2006) suggested significant improvements (P < 0.001) for specific quality of life outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Mifepristone reduced heavy menstrual bleeding and improved fibroid-specific quality of life. However, it was not found to reduce fibroid volume. Further well-designed, adequately powered RCTs are needed before a recommendation can be made on the use of mifepristone for the treatment of uterine fibroids.
Topics: Female; Humans; Leiomyoma; Menorrhagia; Mifepristone; Premenopause; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Progesterone; Tumor Burden; Uterine Neoplasms
PubMed: 22895965
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007687.pub2 -
Fertility and Sterility Aug 2014To assess the impact of elevated early follicular progesterone (P) levels in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist cycles on clinical outcome using... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess the impact of elevated early follicular progesterone (P) levels in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist cycles on clinical outcome using prospective data in combination with a systematic review and meta-analysis.
DESIGN
Nested study within a multicenter randomized controlled trial and a systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
Reproductive medicine center in an university hospital.
PATIENT(S)
158 in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF-ICSI) patients.
INTERVENTION(S)
Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) (150-225 IU) administered daily from cycle day 2 onward; GnRH antagonist treatment randomly started on cycle day 2 or 6; assignment into two groups according to P level on cycle day 2: normal or elevated (>4.77 nmol/L or >1.5 ng/mL, respectively).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)
Ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) per started cycle.
RESULT(S)
The incidence of elevated P was 13.3%. A non-statistically-significant difference in OPR was present between the normal and elevated P groups (27.0% vs. 19.0%). No differential impact of early or late GnRH antagonist initiation on the effect of elevated or normal P on OPR was observed. A systematic search of Medline and EMBASE from 1972-2013 was performed to identify studies analyzing elevated early P levels in GnRH antagonists. The meta-analysis (n=1,052) demonstrated that elevated P levels statistically significantly decreased the OPR with 15% (95% CI -23, -7 %). Heterogeneity across the studies, presumably based on varying protocols, may have modulated the effect of elevated P.
CONCLUSION(S)
From the present meta-analysis it appears that early elevated P levels are associated with a lower OPR in GnRH antagonists. The incidence of such a condition, however, is low.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
NCT00866034.
Topics: Adult; Biomarkers; Female; Fertility Agents, Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Follicle Stimulating Hormone; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Hormone Antagonists; Humans; Infertility; Netherlands; Ovarian Follicle; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Progesterone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recombinant Proteins; Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Up-Regulation
PubMed: 24929258
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.05.002 -
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... Jul 2007Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in pre menopausal women. Medical therapy, with the avoidance of possibly unnecessary surgery is an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in pre menopausal women. Medical therapy, with the avoidance of possibly unnecessary surgery is an attractive treatment option, but there is considerable variation in practice and uncertainty about the most effective therapy. Danazol is a synthetic steroid with anti-oestrogenic and anti progestogenic activity, and weak androgenic properties. Danazol suppresses oestrogen and progesterone receptors in the endometrium, leading to endometrial atrophy (thinning of the lining of the uterus) and reduced menstrual loss and to amenorrhoea in some women.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and tolerability of Danazol when used for heavy menstrual bleeding in women of reproductive years.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's Specialised Register (April 2007). We also searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2007), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2007), EMBASE (1980 to April 2007, CINAHL (1982 to April 2007). Attempts were also made to identify trials from citation lists of included trials and relevant review articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of Danazol versus placebo, any other medical (non-surgical) therapy or Danazol in different dosages for heavy menstrual bleeding in women of reproductive age with regular HMB measured either subjectively or objectively. Trials that included women with post menopausal bleeding, intermenstrual bleeding and pathological causes of heavy menstrual bleeding were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Nine RCTs, with 353 women, were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The main outcomes were menstrual blood loss, the number of women experiencing adverse effects, weight gain, withdrawals due to adverse effects and dysmenorrhoea. If data could not be extracted in a form suitable for meta-analysis, they were presented in a descriptive format.
MAIN RESULTS
Most data were not in a form suitable for meta analysis, and the results are based on a small number of trials, all of which are under-powered. Danazol appears to be more effective than placebo, progestogens, NSAIDs and the OCP at reducing MBL, but confidence intervals were wide. Treatment with Danazol caused more adverse events than NSAIDs (OR 7.0; 95% CI 1.7 to 28.2) and progestogens (OR 4.05, 95% CI 1.6 to10.2). Danazol was shown to significantly lower the duration of menses when compared with NSAIDs (WMD -1.0; 95% CI -1.8 to -0.3) and a progesterone releasing IUD (WMD -6.0; 95% CI -7.3 to -4.8). There were no randomised trials comparing Danazol with tranexamic acid or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Danazol appears to be an effective treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding compared to other medical treatments. The use of Danazol may be limited by its side effect profile, its acceptability to women and the need for continuing treatment. The small number of trials, and the small sample sizes of the included trials limit the recommendations for clinical care. Further studies are unlikely in the future and this review will not be updated unless further studies are identified.
Topics: Danazol; Estrogen Antagonists; Female; Humans; Menorrhagia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 17636649
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001017.pub2