BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) impacts the quality of life of otherwise healthy women. The perception of HMB is subjective and management depends upon, among other factors, the severity of the symptoms, a woman's age, her wish to get pregnant, and the presence of other pathologies. Heavy menstrual bleeding was classically defined as greater than or equal to 80 mL of blood loss per menstrual cycle. Currently the definition is based on the woman's perception of excessive bleeding which is affecting her quality of life. The intrauterine device was originally developed as a contraceptive but the addition of progestogens to these devices resulted in a large reduction in menstrual blood loss: users of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) reported reductions of up to 90%. Insertion may, however, be regarded as invasive by some women, which affects its acceptability.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL (from inception to June 2019); and we searched grey literature and for unpublished trials in trial registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in women of reproductive age treated with LNG-IUS devices versus no treatment, placebo, or other medical or surgical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and conducted GRADE assessments of the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 RCTs (2511 women). Limitations in the evidence included risk of attrition bias and low numbers of participants. The studies compared the following interventions. LNG-IUS versus other medical therapy The other medical therapies were norethisterone acetate, medroxyprogesterone acetate, oral contraceptive pill, mefenamic acid, tranexamic acid or usual medical treatment (where participants could choose the oral treatment that was most suitable). The LNG-IUS may improve HMB, lowering menstrual blood loss according to the alkaline haematin method (mean difference (MD) 66.91 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) 42.61 to 91.20; 2 studies, 170 women; low-certainty evidence); and the Pictorial Bleeding Assessment Chart (MD 55.05, 95% CI 27.83 to 82.28; 3 studies, 335 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether the LNG-IUS may have any effect on women's satisfaction up to one year (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.63; 3 studies, 141 women; I² = 0%, very low-certainty evidence). The LNG-IUS probably leads to slightly higher quality of life measured with the SF-36 compared with other medical therapy if (MD 2.90, 95% CI 0.06 to 5.74; 1 study: 571 women; moderate-certainty evidence) or with the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MD 13.40, 95% CI 9.89 to 16.91; 1 trial, 571 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The LNG-IUS and other medical therapies probably give rise to similar numbers of women with serious adverse events (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 1 study, 571 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Women using other medical therapy are probably more likely to withdraw from treatment for any reason (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.60; 1 study, 571 women, moderate-certainty evidence) and to experience treatment failure than women with LNG-IUS (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.44; 6 studies, 535 women; moderate-certainty evidence). LNG-IUS versus endometrial resection or ablation (EA) Bleeding outcome results are inconsistent. We are uncertain of the effect of the LNG-IUS compared to EA on rates of amenorrhoea (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.72; 8 studies, 431 women; I² = 21%; low-certainty evidence) and hypomenorrhoea (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.33; 4 studies, 200 women; low-certainty evidence) and eumenorrhoea (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.00; 3 studies, 160 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether both treatments may have similar rates of satisfaction with treatment at 12 months (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07; 5 studies, 317 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if the LNG-IUS compared to EA has any effect on quality of life, measured with SF-36 (MD -14.40, 95% CI -22.63 to -6.17; 1 study, 33 women; very low-certainty evidence). Women with the LNG-IUS compared with EA are probably more likely to have any adverse event (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.94; 3 studies, 201 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Women with the LNG-IUS may experience more treatment failure compared to EA at one year follow up (persistent HMB or requirement of additional treatment) (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.90; 5 studies, 320 women; low-certainty evidence); or requirement of hysterectomy may be higher at one year follow up (RR 2.56, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.42; 3 studies, 400 women; low-certainty evidence). LNG-IUS versus hysterectomy We are uncertain whether the LNG-IUS has any effect on HMB compared with hysterectomy (RR for amenorrhoea 0.52, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.70; 1 study, 75 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether there is difference between LNG-IUS and hysterectomy in satisfaction at five years (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; 1 study, 232 women; low-certainty evidence) and quality of life (SF-36 MD 2.20, 95% CI -2.93 to 7.33; 1 study, 221 women; low-certainty evidence). Women in the LNG-IUS group may be more likely to have treatment failure requiring hysterectomy for HMB at 1-year follow-up compared to the hysterectomy group (RR 48.18, 95% CI 2.96 to 783.22; 1 study, 236 women; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported cost data suitable for meta-analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The LNG-IUS may improve HMB and quality of life compared to other medical therapy; the LNG-IUS is probably similar for HMB compared to endometrial destruction techniques; and we are uncertain if it is better or worse than hysterectomy. The LNG-IUS probably has similar serious adverse events to other medical therapy and it is more likely to have any adverse events than EA.
BACKGROUND: Menorrhagia or heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an excessive blood loss that impairs a woman's quality of life, either physical, emotional, social or material. It is benign and not associated with pregnancy or any other gynaecological or systemic disease. Medical treatments used to reduce excessive menstrual blood loss (MBL) include prostaglandin synthetase inhibitors, antifibrinolytics, oral contraceptive pills, and other hormones. The combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) is claimed to have a variety of beneficial effects, inducing a regular shedding of a thinner endometrium and inhibiting ovulation, thus having the effect of both treating HMB and providing contraception. More recently, a contraceptive vaginal ring (CVR) has been trialled to investigate whether this treatment can provide similar benefits to COCP while lessening hormonal systemic exposure. This review is an update of a review which originally focused on COCP alone. The scope of the review has been widened to consider other types of delivery of combined hormonal contraceptives for reduction of MBL.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of combined hormonal contraceptives (pills, vaginal ring or patch) compared with other medical therapies, placebo, or no therapy in the treatment of HMB. A secondary objective was to compare the COCP with the CVR.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Gynecology and Fertility Group trials register, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL and PsycINFO (search dates: Oct 1996, May 2002, June 2004, April 2006, June 2009, July 2017 and September 2018) for all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of COCP and CVR for the treatment of HMB. We also searched trial registers and the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of COCP or CVR compared with no treatment, placebo, or other medical therapies for women with HMB and regular menstrual cycles.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All assessments of trial quality and data extraction were performed unblinded by at least two review authors. Our primary review outcomes were treatment success, menstrual bleeding (assessed objectively, semi-objectively or subjectively), and participant satisfaction with treatment. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, quality of life, and haemoglobin level.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight RCTs involving 805 participants. Two trials comparing COCP with placebo were considered to be moderate quality and the remaining studies were low to very low quality, mainly because of serious risk of bias from lack of blinding and concerns over precision.COCP versus placeboCOCP, with a step-down oestrogen and step-up progestogen regimen, improved response to treatment (return to menstrual 'normality') (OR 22.12, 95% CI 4.40 to 111.12; 2 trials; 363 participants; I2 = 50%; moderate-quality evidence), and lowered MBL (OR 5.15, 95% CI 3.16 to 8.40; 2 trials; 339 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) when compared to placebo. The results suggested that, if the chance of 'successful' treatment was 3% in women taking placebo, then COCP increased this chance from 12% to 77% in women with unacceptable HMB. Minor adverse events, in particular breast pain, were more common with COCP. No study in this comparison reported semi-objectively assessed MBL or participant satisfaction with treatment.COCP versus other medical treatmentsNon-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the COCP reduced MBL when compared to NSAIDs (mefenamic acid and naproxen). No study in this comparison reported semi-objectively assessed MBL, subjectively assessed MBL, participant satisfaction with treatment or adverse events.Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG IUS)The LNG IUS was more effective than COCP in reducing MBL (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.48; 2 trials; 151 participants; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) but it was not clear whether satisfaction with treatment or adverse effects varied according to which treatment was used. No study in this comparison reported semi-objectively assessed MBL or subjectively assessed MBL.Contraceptive vaginal ring (CVR) versus other medical treatmentsCOCP COCP was compared with CVR in two trials. There were discrepancies between some of the findings and there was no evidence of a benefit for one treatment compared to the other for response to treatment, MBL or participant satisfaction with treatment. There was a greater likelihood of nausea with COCP. No study in this comparison reported objectively assessed MBL or subjectively assessed MBL.ProgestogensCVR was compared to long course progestogens in one trial. It is possible that CVR increased the odds of satisfaction; but we are uncertain whether CVR improved MBL. The evidence was based on small numbers of participants and was very low quality, so definitive conclusions could not be reached. No study in this comparison reported objectively assessed MBL, subjectively assessed MBL, or adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence suggests that the combined oral contraceptive pill over six months reduces HMB in women with unacceptable HMB from 12% to 77% (compared to 3% in women taking placebo). When compared with other medical options for HMB, COCP was less effective than the LNG IUS. Limited evidence suggested that COCP and CVR had similar effects. There was insufficient evidence to determine comparative efficacy of combined hormonal contraceptives with NSAIDs, or long course progestogens.
BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a menstrual blood loss perceived by women as excessive that affects the health of women of reproductive age, interfering with their physical, emotional, social and material quality of life. Whilst abnormal menstrual bleeding may be associated with underlying pathology, in the present context, HMB is defined as excessive menstrual bleeding in the absence of other systemic or gynaecological disease. The first-line therapy is usually medical, avoiding possibly unnecessary surgery. Of the wide variety of medications used to reduce HMB, oral progestogens were originally the most commonly prescribed agents. This review assesses the effectiveness of two different types and regimens of oral progestogens in reducing ovulatory HMB.This is the update of a Cochrane review last updated in 2007, and originally named "Effectiveness of cyclical progestagen therapy in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding" (1998).
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of oral progestogen therapy taken either during the luteal phase (short cycle) or for a longer course of 21 days per cycle (long cycle), in achieving a reduction in menstrual blood loss in women of reproductive age with HMB.
SEARCH METHODS: In January 2019 we searched Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility's specialized register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycInfo. We also searched trials registers, other sources of unpublished or grey literature and reference lists of retrieved trials. We also checked citation lists of review articles to identify trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different treatments for HMB that included cyclical oral progestogens were eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trials for risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted trial authors for clarification of methods or additional data when necessary. We only assessed adverse events if they were separately measured in the included trials. We compared cyclical oral progestogen in different regimens and placebo or other treatments. Our primary outcomes were menstrual blood loss and satisfaction with treatment; the secondary outcomes were number of days of bleeding, quality of life, compliance and acceptability of treatment, adverse events and costs.
MAIN RESULTS: This review identified 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 1071 women in total. Most of the women knew which treatment they were receiving, which may have influenced their judgements about menstrual blood loss and satisfaction. Other aspects of trial quality varied among trials.We did not identify any RCTs comparing progestogen treatment with placebo. We assessed comparisons between oral progestogens and other medical therapies separately according to different regimens.Short-cycle progestogen therapy during the luteal phase (medroxyprogesterone acetate or norethisterone for 7 to 10 days, from day 15 to 19) was inferior to other medical therapy, including tranexamic acid, danazol and the progestogen-releasing intrauterine system (Pg-IUS (off of the market since 2001)), releasing 60 mcg of progesterone daily, with respect to reduction of menstrual blood loss (mean difference (MD) 37.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 17.67 to 56.91; I2 = 50%; 6 trials, 145 women). The rate of satisfaction and the quality of life with treatment was similar in both groups. The number of bleeding days was greater on the short cycle progestogen group compared to other medical treatments. Adverse events (such as gastrointestinal symptoms and weight gain) were more likely with danazol when compared with progestogen treatment. We note that danazol is no longer in general use for treating HMB.Long-cycle progestogen therapy (medroxyprogesterone acetate or norethisterone), from day 5 to day 26 of the menstrual cycle, is also inferior to the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS), releasing tranexamic acid and ormeloxifene, but may be similar to the combined vaginal ring with respect to reduction of menstrual blood loss (MD 16.88, 95% CI 10.93 to 22.84; I2 = 87%; 4 trials, 355 women). A higher proportion of women taking norethisterone found their treatment unacceptable compared to women having Pg-IUS (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.12, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.40; 1 trial, 40 women). However, the adverse effects of breast tenderness and intermenstrual bleeding were more likely in women with the LNG-IUS. No trials reported on days of bleeding or quality of life for this comparison.The evidence supporting these findings was limited by low or very low gradings of quality; thus, we are uncertain about the findings and there is a potential that they may change if we identify other trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low- or very low-quality evidence suggests that short-course progestogen was inferior to other medical therapy, including tranexamic acid, danazol and the Pg-IUS with respect to reduction of menstrual blood loss. Long cycle progestogen therapy (medroxyprogesterone acetate or norethisterone) was also inferior to the LNG-IUS, tranexamic acid and ormeloxifene, but may be similar to the combined vaginal ring with respect to reduction of menstrual blood loss.
BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important physical and social problem for women. Oral treatment for HMB includes antifibrinolytic drugs, which are designed to reduce bleeding by inhibiting clot-dissolving enzymes in the endometrium.Historically, there has been some concern that using the antifibrinolytic tranexamic acid (TXA) for HMB may increase the risk of venous thromboembolic disease. This is an umbrella term for deep venous thrombosis (blood clots in the blood vessels in the legs) and pulmonary emboli (blood clots in the blood vessels in the lungs).
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of antifibrinolytic medications as a treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and two trials registers in November 2017, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antifibrinolytic agents versus placebo, no treatment or other medical treatment in women of reproductive age with HMB. Twelve studies utilised TXA and one utilised a prodrug of TXA (Kabi).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were menstrual blood loss (MBL), improvement in HMB, and thromboembolic events.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs (1312 participants analysed). The evidence was very low to moderate quality: the main limitations were risk of bias (associated with lack of blinding, and poor reporting of study methods), imprecision and inconsistency.Antifibrinolytics (TXA or Kabi) versus no treatment or placeboWhen compared with a placebo, antifibrinolytics were associated with reduced mean blood loss (MD -53.20 mL per cycle, 95% CI -62.70 to -43.70; I² = 8%; 4 RCTs, participants = 565; moderate-quality evidence) and higher rates of improvement (RR 3.34, 95% CI 1.84 to 6.09; 3 RCTS, participants = 271; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 11% of women improve without treatment, 43% to 63% of women taking antifibrinolytics will do so. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups in adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18; 1 RCT, participants = 297; low-quality evidence). Only one thromboembolic event occurred in the two studies that reported this outcome.TXA versus progestogensThere was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups in mean blood loss measured using the Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart (PBAC) (MD -12.22 points per cycle, 95% CI -30.8 to 6.36; I² = 0%; 3 RCTs, participants = 312; very low quality evidence), but TXA was associated with a higher likelihood of improvement (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.80; I² = 32%; 5 RCTs, participants = 422; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 46% of women improve with progestogens, 61% to 83% of women will do so with TXA.Adverse events were less common in the TXA group (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.94; I² = 28%; 4 RCTs, participants = 349; low-quality evidence). No thromboembolic events were reported in any group.TXA versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)TXA was associated with reduced mean blood loss (MD -73.00 mL per cycle, 95% CI -123.35 to -22.65; 1 RCT, participants = 49; low-quality evidence) and higher likelihood of improvement (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.74; 1
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antifibrinolytic treatment (such as TXA) appears effective for treating HMB compared to placebo, NSAIDs, oral luteal progestogens, ethamsylate, or herbal remedies, but may be less effective than LIUS. There were too few data for most comparisons to determine whether antifibrinolytics were associated with increased risk of adverse events, and most studies did not specifically include thromboembolism as an outcome.
BACKGROUND: Dysmenorrhoea is a common gynaecological problem consisting of painful cramps accompanying menstruation, which in the absence of any underlying abnormality is known as primary dysmenorrhoea. Research has shown that women with dysmenorrhoea have high levels of prostaglandins, hormones known to cause cramping abdominal pain. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are drugs that act by blocking prostaglandin production. They inhibit the action of cyclooxygenase (COX), an enzyme responsible for the formation of prostaglandins. The COX enzyme exists in two forms, COX-1 and COX-2. Traditional NSAIDs are considered 'non-selective' because they inhibit both COX-1 and COX-2 enzymes. More selective NSAIDs that solely target COX-2 enzymes (COX-2-specific inhibitors) were launched in 1999 with the aim of reducing side effects commonly reported in association with NSAIDs, such as indigestion, headaches and drowsiness.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of NSAIDs in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases in January 2015: Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, November 2014 issue), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science. We also searched clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP). We checked the abstracts of major scientific meetings and the reference lists of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparisons of NSAIDs versus placebo, other NSAIDs or paracetamol, when used to treat primary dysmenorrhoea.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the studies, assessed their risk of bias and extracted data, calculating odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used inverse variance methods to combine data. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 80 randomised controlled trials (5820 women). They compared 20 different NSAIDs (18 non-selective and two COX-2-specific) versus placebo, paracetamol or each other. NSAIDs versus placeboAmong women with primary dysmenorrhoea, NSAIDs were more effective for pain relief than placebo (OR 4.37, 95% CI 3.76 to 5.09; 35 RCTs, I(2) = 53%, low quality evidence). This suggests that if 18% of women taking placebo achieve moderate or excellent pain relief, between 45% and 53% taking NSAIDs will do so.However, NSAIDs were associated with more adverse effects (overall adverse effects: OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.51, 25 RCTs, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence; gastrointestinal adverse effects: OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.23, 14 RCTs, I(2) = 30%; neurological adverse effects: OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.66 to 4.53, seven RCTs, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if 10% of women taking placebo experience side effects, between 11% and 14% of women taking NSAIDs will do so. NSAIDs versus other NSAIDsWhen NSAIDs were compared with each other there was little evidence of the superiority of any individual NSAID for either pain relief or safety. However, the available evidence had little power to detect such differences, as most individual comparisons were based on very few small trials. Non-selective NSAIDs versus COX-2-specific selectorsOnly two of the included studies utilised COX-2-specific inhibitors (etoricoxib and celecoxib). There was no evidence that COX-2-specific inhibitors were more effective or tolerable for the treatment of dysmenorrhoea than traditional NSAIDs; however data were very scanty. NSAIDs versus paracetamolNSAIDs appeared to be more effective for pain relief than paracetamol (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.43, three RCTs, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference with regard to adverse effects, though data were very scanty.Most of the studies were commercially funded (59%); a further 31% failed to state their source of funding.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: NSAIDs appear to be a very effective treatment for dysmenorrhoea, though women using them need to be aware of the substantial risk of adverse effects. There is insufficient evidence to determine which (if any) individual NSAID is the safest and most effective for the treatment of dysmenorrhoea. We rated the quality of the evidence as low for most comparisons, mainly due to poor reporting of study methods.
BACKGROUND: Lo scopo di questo studio è stato quello di confrontare gli effetti del sistema intrauterino a rilascio di levonorgestrel (LNG-IUS) con il trattamento medico convenzionale nella riduzione pesante sanguinamento mestruale.
MATERIALI E METODI: Studi rilevanti sono stati identificati da una ricerca di MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, e studi clinici registri (da inizio ad aprile 2014). Studi controllati randomizzati di confronto tra il LNG-IUS con trattamento convenzionale medico (acido mefenamico, acido tranexamico, norethindrone, iniezione medrossiprogesterone acetato, o contraccettivi orali combinati) in pazienti con menorragia sono stati inclusi.
RISULTATI: Otto studi randomizzati e controllati che hanno incluso 1.170 donne (LNG-IUS, n = 562; cure mediche convenzionali, n = 608) soddisfacevano i criteri di inclusione. Il LNG-IUS era superiore alla terapia medica convenzionale nella riduzione della perdita di sangue mestruale (misurata con il metodo ematina alcalino o stimato dagli pittoriche punteggi grafico valutazione sanguinamento). Più donne sono soddisfatti della LNG-IUS che con l'uso di un trattamento medico convenzionale (odds ratio [OR] 5.19, 95% intervallo di confidenza [CI] 2,73-9,86). Rispetto alla terapia medica convenzionale, il LNG-IUS è stato associato ad un tasso più basso di interruzione (14,6% vs 28,9%, OR 0.39, 95% CI 0,20-0,74) e un minor numero di fallimenti del trattamento (9,2% vs. 31,0%, o 0,18 , 95% CI 0,10-0,34). Inoltre, la qualità della valutazione di vita favorito LNG-IUS rispetto al trattamento medico convenzionale, anche se l'uso di varie misure limita la nostra capacità di mettere in comune i dati per le prove più potente. Eventi avversi gravi sono risultati statisticamente comparabili tra i trattamenti.
In conclusione, l'LNG-IUS è stata la prima scelta più efficace per la gestione della menorragia rispetto al trattamento medico convenzionale. A lungo termine, studi randomizzati sono necessari per approfondire i risultati basati su pazienti e valutare il rapporto costo-efficacia del LNG-IUS e altri trattamenti medici.
OBIETTIVO: Per confrontare l'efficacia di trattamenti non chirurgici abnormal sanguinamento uterino per sanguinamento controllo, la qualità della vita (QOL), il dolore, la salute sessuale, la soddisfazione del paziente, i trattamenti aggiuntivi necessari, e gli eventi avversi.
FONTI DI DATI: MEDLINE, database Cochrane, e Clinicaltrials.gov state perquisite da inizio a maggio 2012. Sono stati inclusi studi randomizzati controllati di trattamenti non chirurgici per sanguinamento uterino anomalo presunti secondaria a disfunzione endometriale e sanguinamento uterino anomalo presume secondaria a disfunzione ovulatoria. Gli interventi inclusi il sistema intrauterino di levonorgestrel, contraccettivi orali combinati (OCP), progestinici, farmaci anti-infiammatori non steroidei (FANS), e antifibrinolitici. Gonadotropina-agonisti dell'ormone rilasciante, danazolo, e placebo sono stati autorizzati come comparatori.
MODALITA 'DI SELEZIONE DEGLI STUDI: Due revisori proiettati independently 5848 citazioni ed estratti prove ammissibili. Gli studi sono stati valutati per la qualità e la forza delle prove.
Tabulazione, INTEGRAZIONE, E RISULTATI: Ventisei articoli incontrato i criteri di inclusione. Per la riduzione del sanguinamento mestruale nelle donne con sanguinamento uterino anomalo presume secondaria a disfunzione endometriale, il sistema intrauterino di levonorgestrel (71-95% di riduzione), OCP combinati (35-69% di riduzione), estesa progestinici orali ciclabili (87% di riduzione), tranexamico acido (26-54% di riduzione), e FANS (10-52% di riduzione) sono stati tutti i trattamenti efficaci. Il sistema intrauterino di levonorgestrel, OCP combinati, e antifibrinolitici erano tutti superiori ai progestinici luteale-fase (20% di aumento di sanguinamento riduzione del 67%). Il sistema intrauterino di levonorgestrel è stata superiore a OCP combinati e FANS. Antifibrinolytics erano superiori ai FANS per la riduzione del sanguinamento mestruale. I dati sono stati limitati su altri risultati importanti come la qualità di vita per le donne con sanguinamento uterino anomalo presume secondaria a disfunzione endometriale e per tutti gli esiti per le donne con sanguinamento uterino anomalo presume secondaria a disfunzione ovulatoria.
CONCLUSIONE: Per la riduzione della perdita ematica media nelle donne con sanguinamento mestruale pesante presume secondario al sanguinamento uterino anomalo presume secondaria a disfunzione endometriale, si consiglia l'utilizzo del sistema intrauterino di levonorgestrel oltre OCP, progestinici fase luteale, e FANS. Per gli altri risultati (QOL, il dolore, la salute sessuale, la soddisfazione del paziente, i trattamenti aggiuntivi necessari, e gli eventi avversi) e per il trattamento di sanguinamento uterino anomalo presume secondaria a disfunzione ovulatoria, siamo stati in grado di formulare raccomandazioni sulla base dei limitati dati disponibili.
BACKGROUND: Una varietà di trattamenti farmacologici e chirurgici sono stati sviluppati per sanguinamento mestruale pesante (HMB), che possono avere conseguenze negative fisiche, sociali, psicologici ed economici. Abbiamo condotto una revisione sistematica della letteratura e-trattamento-confronto misto (MTC) meta-analisi dei dati disponibili di studi clinici controllati randomizzati (RCT) di ricavare stime di efficacia per 8 classi di trattamenti per l'HMB, per informare l'analisi salute-economica e studi futuri .
METODI: Una revisione sistematica ha identificato studi randomizzati che hanno fornito dati sulla perdita di sangue mestruale (MBL) al basale e una o più volte di follow-up. Sono state considerate otto classi di trattamento: COC, danazolo, ablazione endometriale, LNG-IUS, placebo, progestinici dato per meno di 2 settimane di 4 durante il ciclo mestruale, progestinici dato per quasi tre settimane di 4, e TXA. La misura primaria di efficacia era la percentuale di donne che hanno raggiunto MBL <80 ml per ciclo (al mese), misurata con il metodo ematina alcalino. Un punteggio inferiore a 100 su un grafico pittorico valutazione di sangue perdita consolidata (PBAC) era considerato un sostituto accettabile per MBL <80 mL. Stime di efficacia per classe di trattamento e il tempo sono stati ottenuti da un modello bayesiano MTC. Il modello include anche gli effetti per classe di trattamento, lo studio, e la combinazione di classe di trattamento e di studio e di un adeguamento per valore basale medio di MBL. Diverse sfide metodologiche complicato l'analisi. Alcuni studi hanno riportato varie statistiche riassuntive per MBL o PBAC, che richiede la stima (con minore precisione) del% MBL <80 ml o% PBAC <100. Inoltre, ha riferito il follow-up volte variavano notevolmente.
RISULTATI: La rete prove coinvolti 34 studi randomizzati, con follow-up tempi di 1-36 mesi. Efficacia a 3 mesi di follow-up (stimato come la mediana posteriore) variava dal 87,5% per il sistema intrauterino a rilascio di levonorgestrel (LNG-IUS), al 14,2% per i progestinici somministrati per meno di 2 settimane su 4 a ciclo mestruale. Gli intervalli credibili al 95% per la maggior parte delle stime erano piuttosto ampia, soprattutto a causa della limitata evidenza per molte combinazioni di classe trattamento e follow-up tempo e l'incertezza di fare previsioni% MBL <80 ml o% PBAC <100 da statistiche riassuntive.
CONCLUSIONI: LNG-IUS e ablazione endometriale sono molto efficaci nel trattamento di HMB. Lo studio ha dato indicazioni utili sull'utilizzo di MTC in reti di prove sparse. La diversità delle misure di risultato e dei tempi di follow-up in letteratura HMB presentato notevoli sfide. Gli intervalli credibili bayesiani riflettono le varie fonti di incertezza.
OBIETTIVO: Per valutare l'efficacia di acido tranexamico nel trattamento della idiopatica e non funzionali sanguinamento mestruale pesante.
DESIGN: revisione sistematica.
POPOLAZIONE: Le donne con una diagnosi di idiopatica e non funzionali sanguinamento mestruale pesante trattata con acido tranexamico.
METODI: sono state condotte ricerche elettroniche nelle banche dati della letteratura fino al febbraio 2011 da due revisori indipendenti. Sono stati inclusi tutti gli studi riguardanti l'efficacia di acido tranexamico per il trattamento di pesante sanguinamento uterino. Pazienti in stato di gravidanza, post-menopausa e cancro sono stati esclusi.
MISURE PRINCIPALI DEL RISULTATO: Effetto del trattamento con acido tranexamico obiettivo sulla riduzione del sanguinamento mestruale e miglioramento della qualità della vita dei pazienti.
Risultati: un totale di 10 studi hanno soddisfatto i nostri criteri di inclusione. Prove disponibili indicano che la terapia con acido tranexamico in donne con menorragia idiopatica portato nel 34-54% di riduzione in perdita di sangue mestruale. Dopo il trattamento con acido tranexamico, paziente sua qualità della vita parameters migliorato 46-83%, rispetto al 15-45% per il trattamento noretisterone. Quando confrontato con placebo, l'uso di acido tranexamico significativamente ridotto la perdita di sangue del 70% nelle donne con menorragia secondaria ad un dispositivo intrauterino (p <0,001). Prove limitate indicano i benefici potenziali nei pazienti con fibroma menorragia. Nessun evento tromboembolico è stata riportata in tutti gli studi analizzati.
CONCLUSIONI: prove disponibili indicano che il trattamento con acido tranexamico è efficace e sicuro, e potrebbe potenzialmente migliorare la qualità della vita dei pazienti affetti da idiopatica e non funzionali sanguinamento mestruale pesante. I dati sulla efficacia terapeutica di acido tranexamico nei pazienti con fibromi sintomatici sono limitate e ulteriori studi sono dunque necessari.
BACKGROUND: Heavy sanguinamento mestruale (HMB) è un'importante causa di malattia in donne in pre menopausa. La terapia medica, con l'evitamento di un intervento chirurgico forse non necessaria, è un'opzione di trattamento attraente, ma vi è una notevole variazione nella pratica e incertezza circa la terapia più efficace. Danazol è uno steroide sintetico con anti-estrogenica e anti attività progestinica e deboli proprietà androgeni. Danazol sopprime recettori per gli estrogeni e progesterone nella mucosa uterina, con conseguente atrofia endometriale (assottigliamento del rivestimento dell'utero) e ridotta la perdita mestruale e amenorrea in alcune donne.
OBIETTIVI: Per determinare l'efficacia e la tollerabilità di Danazol quando viene utilizzato per i veicoli pesanti sanguinamento mestruale nelle donne in età riproduttiva.
STRATEGIA DI RICERCA: Abbiamo cercato i disturbi mestruali e del Gruppo Subfertility specializzata Register (aprile 2007). Abbiamo anche cercato il Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2007), MEDLINE (dal 1966 a aprile 2007), EMBASE (dal 1980 a aprile 2007, CINAHL (dal 1982 ad aprile 2007). I tentativi sono stati effettuati anche per identificare gli studi dalle liste citazione degli studi inclusi e articoli riesame.
CRITERI DI SELEZIONE: studi clinici controllati randomizzati di danazolo rispetto al placebo, qualsiasi altra terapia medica (non chirurgica) o Danazol in dosaggi diversi per i veicoli pesanti sanguinamento mestruale nelle donne in età riproduttiva con HMB regolare, misurata sia soggettivamente o oggettivamente. Le prove che includevano le donne con sanguinamento dopo la menopausa, emorragie intermestruali e le cause patologiche di ciclo mestruale abbondante sono stati esclusi.
RACCOLTA DATI E ANALISI: nove studi randomizzati, con 353 donne, sono stati individuati i criteri di inclusione. Valutazione della qualità e l'estrazione dei dati sono state eseguite indipendentemente da due revisori. I risultati principali sono stati la perdita di sangue mestruale, il numero delle donne che subiscono gli effetti negativi, aumento di peso, i ritiri dovuti agli effetti nocivi e dismenorrea. Se dati non può essere estratta in una forma adatta alla meta-analisi, sono stati presentati in un formato descrittivo.
Risultati principali: La maggior parte dei dati non erano in una forma adatta per l'analisi meta, ed i risultati sono basati su un piccolo numero di studi, che sono tutti alimentati sotto. Danazol sembra essere più efficace del placebo, progestinici, i FANS e l'OCP alla riduzione MBL, ma gli intervalli di confidenza erano ampi. Il trattamento con Danazol causato più reazioni avverse di FANS (OR 7,0, IC 95% 1,7-28,2) e progestinici (OR 4,05, 95% CI 1,6 to10.2). Danazol ha mostrato di ridurre in modo significativo la durata delle mestruazioni, quando rispetto ai FANS (WMD -1,0, 95% CI da -1.8 a -0.3) e un rilascio di progesterone IUD (WMD -6,0, 95% CI -7,3 a -4,8). Non c'erano studi randomizzati hanno confrontato Danazol con acido tranexamico o il levonorgestrel sistema intrauterino a rilascio.
Conclusioni degli autori: Danazol sembra essere un trattamento efficace per lo spurgo mestruale pesante rispetto ad altri trattamenti medici. L'uso di danazolo può essere limitata dal suo profilo di effetti collaterali, la sua accettabilità per donne e la necessità di continuare il trattamento. Il piccolo numero di prove, e le piccole dimensioni dei campioni degli studi inclusi limitare le raccomandazioni per la cura clinica. Ulteriori studi sono improbabile nel futuro e questa recensione non verrà aggiornato a meno che ulteriori studi sono identificati.
Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) impacts the quality of life of otherwise healthy women. The perception of HMB is subjective and management depends upon, among other factors, the severity of the symptoms, a woman's age, her wish to get pregnant, and the presence of other pathologies. Heavy menstrual bleeding was classically defined as greater than or equal to 80 mL of blood loss per menstrual cycle. Currently the definition is based on the woman's perception of excessive bleeding which is affecting her quality of life. The intrauterine device was originally developed as a contraceptive but the addition of progestogens to these devices resulted in a large reduction in menstrual blood loss: users of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) reported reductions of up to 90%. Insertion may, however, be regarded as invasive by some women, which affects its acceptability.
OBJECTIVES:
To determine the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL (from inception to June 2019); and we searched grey literature and for unpublished trials in trial registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in women of reproductive age treated with LNG-IUS devices versus no treatment, placebo, or other medical or surgical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and conducted GRADE assessments of the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS:
We included 25 RCTs (2511 women). Limitations in the evidence included risk of attrition bias and low numbers of participants. The studies compared the following interventions. LNG-IUS versus other medical therapy The other medical therapies were norethisterone acetate, medroxyprogesterone acetate, oral contraceptive pill, mefenamic acid, tranexamic acid or usual medical treatment (where participants could choose the oral treatment that was most suitable). The LNG-IUS may improve HMB, lowering menstrual blood loss according to the alkaline haematin method (mean difference (MD) 66.91 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) 42.61 to 91.20; 2 studies, 170 women; low-certainty evidence); and the Pictorial Bleeding Assessment Chart (MD 55.05, 95% CI 27.83 to 82.28; 3 studies, 335 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether the LNG-IUS may have any effect on women's satisfaction up to one year (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.63; 3 studies, 141 women; I² = 0%, very low-certainty evidence). The LNG-IUS probably leads to slightly higher quality of life measured with the SF-36 compared with other medical therapy if (MD 2.90, 95% CI 0.06 to 5.74; 1 study: 571 women; moderate-certainty evidence) or with the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MD 13.40, 95% CI 9.89 to 16.91; 1 trial, 571 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The LNG-IUS and other medical therapies probably give rise to similar numbers of women with serious adverse events (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 1 study, 571 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Women using other medical therapy are probably more likely to withdraw from treatment for any reason (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.60; 1 study, 571 women, moderate-certainty evidence) and to experience treatment failure than women with LNG-IUS (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.44; 6 studies, 535 women; moderate-certainty evidence). LNG-IUS versus endometrial resection or ablation (EA) Bleeding outcome results are inconsistent. We are uncertain of the effect of the LNG-IUS compared to EA on rates of amenorrhoea (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.72; 8 studies, 431 women; I² = 21%; low-certainty evidence) and hypomenorrhoea (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.33; 4 studies, 200 women; low-certainty evidence) and eumenorrhoea (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.00; 3 studies, 160 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether both treatments may have similar rates of satisfaction with treatment at 12 months (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07; 5 studies, 317 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if the LNG-IUS compared to EA has any effect on quality of life, measured with SF-36 (MD -14.40, 95% CI -22.63 to -6.17; 1 study, 33 women; very low-certainty evidence). Women with the LNG-IUS compared with EA are probably more likely to have any adverse event (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.94; 3 studies, 201 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Women with the LNG-IUS may experience more treatment failure compared to EA at one year follow up (persistent HMB or requirement of additional treatment) (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.90; 5 studies, 320 women; low-certainty evidence); or requirement of hysterectomy may be higher at one year follow up (RR 2.56, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.42; 3 studies, 400 women; low-certainty evidence). LNG-IUS versus hysterectomy We are uncertain whether the LNG-IUS has any effect on HMB compared with hysterectomy (RR for amenorrhoea 0.52, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.70; 1 study, 75 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether there is difference between LNG-IUS and hysterectomy in satisfaction at five years (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; 1 study, 232 women; low-certainty evidence) and quality of life (SF-36 MD 2.20, 95% CI -2.93 to 7.33; 1 study, 221 women; low-certainty evidence). Women in the LNG-IUS group may be more likely to have treatment failure requiring hysterectomy for HMB at 1-year follow-up compared to the hysterectomy group (RR 48.18, 95% CI 2.96 to 783.22; 1 study, 236 women; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported cost data suitable for meta-analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
The LNG-IUS may improve HMB and quality of life compared to other medical therapy; the LNG-IUS is probably similar for HMB compared to endometrial destruction techniques; and we are uncertain if it is better or worse than hysterectomy. The LNG-IUS probably has similar serious adverse events to other medical therapy and it is more likely to have any adverse events than EA.
