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CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL (from inception to June 2019); and we searched grey literature and for unpublished trials in trial registers.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: Uterine fibroids occur in up to 40% of women aged over 35 years. Some are asymptomatic, but up to 50% cause symptoms that warrant therapy. Symptoms include anaemia caused by heavy menstrual bleeding, pelvic pain, dysmenorrhoea, infertility and low quality of life. Surgery is the first choice of treatment. In recent years, medical therapies have been used before surgery to improve intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. However, such therapies tend to be expensive.Fibroid growth is stimulated by oestrogen. Gonadotropin-hormone releasing analogues (GnRHa) induce a state of hypo-oestrogenism that shrinks fibroids , but has unacceptable side effects if used long-term. Other potential hormonal treatments, include progestins and selective progesterone-receptor modulators (SPRMs).This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2000 and 2001; the scope has been broadened to include all preoperative medical treatments.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of medical treatments prior to surgery for uterine fibroids.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL in June 2017. We also searched trials registers (ClinicalTrials.com; WHO ICTRP), theses and dissertations and the grey literature, handsearched reference lists of retrieved articles and contacted pharmaceutical companies for additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised comparisons of medical therapy versus placebo, no treatment, or other medical therapy before surgery, myomectomy, hysterectomy or endometrial resection, for uterine fibroids.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 38 RCTs (3623 women); 19 studies compared GnRHa to no pretreatment (n = 19), placebo (n = 8), other medical pretreatments (progestin, SPRMs, selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), dopamine agonists, oestrogen receptor antagonists) (n = 7), and four compared SPRMs with placebo. Most results provided low-quality evidence due to limitations in study design (poor reporting of randomisation procedures, lack of blinding), imprecision and inconsistency. GnRHa versus no treatment or placeboGnRHa treatments were associated with reductions in both uterine (MD -175 mL, 95% CI -219.0 to -131.7; 13 studies; 858 participants; I² = 67%; low-quality evidence) and fibroid volume (heterogeneous studies, MD 5.7 mL to 155.4 mL), and increased preoperative haemoglobin (MD 0.88 g/dL, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.1; 10 studies; 834 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), at the expense of a greater likelihood of adverse events, particularly hot flushes (OR 7.68, 95% CI 4.6 to 13.0; 6 studies; 877 participants; I² = 46%; moderate-quality evidence).Duration of hysterectomy surgery was reduced among women who received GnRHa treatment (-9.59 minutes, 95% CI 15.9 to -3.28; 6 studies; 617 participants; I² = 57%; low-quality evidence) and there was less blood loss (heterogeneous studies, MD 25 mL to 148 mL), fewer blood transfusions (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.3 to 1.0; 6 studies; 601 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), and fewer postoperative complications (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.9; 7 studies; 772 participants; I² = 28%; low-quality evidence).GnRHa appeared to reduce intraoperative blood loss during myomectomy (MD 22 mL to 157 mL). There was no clear evidence of a difference among groups for other primary outcomes after myomectomy: duration of surgery (studies too heterogeneous for pooling), blood transfusions (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.3 to 2.8; 4 studies; 121 participants; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence) or postoperative complications (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.64; I² = 0%; 5 studies; 190 participants; low-quality evidence). No suitable data were available for analysis of preoperative bleeding. GnRHa versus other medical therapiesGnRHa was associated with a greater reduction in uterine volume (-47% with GnRHa compared to -20% and -22% with 5 mg and 10 mg ulipristal acetate) but was more likely to cause hot flushes (OR 12.3, 95% CI 4.04 to 37.48; 5 studies; 183 participants; I² = 61%; low-quality evidence) compared with ulipristal acetate. There was no clear evidence of a difference in bleeding reduction (ulipristal acetate 5 mg: OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.3 to 1.7; 1 study; 199 participants; moderate-quality evidence; ulipristal acetate 10 mg: OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.1 to 1.1; 1 study; 203 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or haemoglobin levels (MD -0.2, 95% CI -0.6 to 0.2; 188 participants; moderate-quality evidence).There was no clear evidence of a difference in fibroid volume between GnRHa and cabergoline (MD 12.71 mL, 95% CI -5.9 to 31.3; 2 studies; 110 participants; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).The included studies did not report usable data for any other primary outcomes. SPRMs versus placeboSPRMs (mifepristone, CDB-2914, ulipristal acetate and asoprisnil) were associated with greater reductions in uterine or fibroid volume than placebo (studies too heterogeneous to pool) and increased preoperative haemoglobin levels (MD 0.93 g/dL, 0.5 to 1.4; 2 studies; 173 participants; I² = 0%; high-quality evidence). Ulipristal acetate and asoprisnil were also associated with greater reductions in bleeding before surgery (ulipristal acetate 5 mg: OR 41.41, 95% CI 15.3 to 112.4; 1 study; 143 participants; low-quality evidence; ulipristal acetate 10 mg: OR 78.83, 95% CI 24.0 to 258.7; 1 study; 146 participants; low-quality evidence; asoprisnil: MD -166.9 mL; 95% CI -277.6 to -56.2; 1 study; 22 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of differences in preoperative complications. No other primary outcomes were measured.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A rationale for the use of preoperative medical therapy before surgery for fibroids is to make surgery easier. There is clear evidence that preoperative GnRHa reduces uterine and fibroid volume, and increases preoperative haemoglobin levels, although GnRHa increases the incidence of hot flushes. During hysterectomy, blood loss, operation time and complication rates were also reduced. Evidence suggests that ulipristal acetate may offer similar advantages (reduced fibroid volume and fibroid-related bleeding and increased haemoglobin levels) although replication of these studies is advised before firm conclusions can be made. Future research should focus on cost-effectiveness and distinguish between groups of women with fibroids who would most benefit.
BACKGROUND: Uterine fibroids are common, often symptomatic and a third of women need repeated time off work. Consequently 25% to 50% of women with fibroids receive surgical treatment, namely myomectomy or hysterectomy. Hysterectomy is the definitive treatment as fibroids are hormone dependent and frequently recurrent. Medical treatment aims to control symptoms in order to replace or delay surgery. This may improve the outcome of surgery and prevent recurrence.
PURPOSE: To determine whether any medical treatment can be recommended in the treatment of women with fibroids about to undergo surgery and in those for whom surgery is not planned based on currently available evidence.
STUDY SELECTION: Two authors independently identified randomised controlled trials (RCT) of all pharmacological treatments aimed at the treatment of fibroids from a list of references obtained by formal search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Science Citation Index, and ClinicalTrials.gov until December 2013.
DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently extracted data from identified studies.
DATA SYNTHESIS: A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed following the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-Decision Support Unit guidelines. Odds ratios, rate ratios, or mean differences with 95% credible intervals (CrI) were calculated.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 75 RCT met the inclusion criteria, 47 of which were included in the network meta-analysis. The overall quality of evidence was very low. The network meta-analysis showed differing results for different outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend any medical treatment in the management of fibroids. Certain treatments have future promise however further, well designed RCTs are needed.
Background / Obiettivi: Abbiamo puntato a valutare l'efficacia dei contraccettivi orali combinati (COC) nel trattamento di donne con leiomiomi uterini e pesanti sanguinamento mestruale (HMB), così come il loro effetto sulla qualità della vita (QoL), dimensioni del tumore, e la concentrazione di emoglobina . Metodi: Abbiamo cercato varie banche dati elettroniche e liste di riferimento di tutti gli studi inclusi. Randomizzati e sono stati selezionati gli studi clinici non randomizzati controllati, e due studi sono stati considerati ammissibili - uno randomizzati e uno nullpseudo'-randomizzati. Risultati: COC eseguite meno bene rispetto ai sistemi intrauterini a rilascio di levonorgestrel (LNG-IUSS) nel controllare HMB, migliorando QoL, e migliorare la concentrazione di emoglobina, mentre la stima non era sufficientemente precisa per definire se COC sono stati migliori, uguale, o peggio di LNG-IUSS nel ridurre le dimensioni del tumore. Va sottolineato che questi risultati si basano su prove di bassa qualità, derivante da un singolo trial. Inoltre, COC sono stati più efficace del placebo nel ridurre le dimensioni del tumore, un'altra conclusione sulla base di un altro studio singolo, considerato come a un alto rischio di bias e giudicati molto evidenze di bassa qualità. Conclusione: La prova per quanto riguarda l'uso di contraccettivi orali combinati come trattamento per le donne con fibromi sintomatici è molto scarso e di bassa qualità, e noi siamo molto incerti circa la reale efficacia di tale trattamento. (Copyright) 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
Una revisione sistematica è fatto per determinare l'efficacia e la sicurezza dei sistemi intrauterini a rilascio di levonorgestrel come trattamento utilizzando nelle donne in premenopausa con leiomioma uterino sintomatico. Abbiamo cercato il database ICTRP Medline, centrale e per tutti gli articoli pubblicati dal lancio al luglio 2013 che ha esaminato i seguenti risultati: volume uterino, uterino volumi leiomioma, spessore endometriale, quindi la perdita di sangue mestruale, di emoglobina nel sangue, livelli di ferritina e dell'ematocrito, trattamento tasso di fallimento , tasso di espulsione dispositivo, gli effetti dei tassi e laterali isterectomia. Da 645 studi, per un totale di 11 studi ha incontrato i criteri di inclusione con campioni di dimensioni che vanno 10-104. La prova suggerisce che i sistemi intrauterini a rilascio di levonorgestrel potrebbero diminuire il volume uterino e lo spessore endometriale, ridurre significativamente la perdita di sangue mestruale, e aumentare l'emoglobina del sangue, ferritina e livelli di ematocrito. Non c'erano prove per diminuire il volume uterino leiomioma. Non ci sono stati effetti negativi sulla funzione ovarica, tranne per le cisti ovariche. Tassi di espulsione del dispositivo erano bassi, che associato a dimensioni leiomioma (più grandi di 3 cm), ma non con la posizione leiomioma. Irregolare sanguinamento / avvistamento è stato osservato all'inizio del periodo di follow-up e poi diminuire progressivamente. I risultati di questa revisione sistematica indicano che i sistemi intrauterini a rilascio di levonorgestrel possono essere un trattamento efficace e sicuro per leiomioma uterino sintomatica in donne in premenopausa.
Sistemi intrauterini a rilascio di Levonorgestrel (LNG-IUS) sono stati originariamente sviluppati come metodo di contraccezione a metà degli anni 1970. L'unica LNG-IUS approvato per l'uso pubblico è il Mirena LNG-IUS, che rilascia 20 mcg di levonorgestrel al giorno direttamente nella cavità uterina. Tuttavia, la nuova dose più bassa (10 e 14 mcg al giorno) e di dimensioni più ridotte LNG-IUS (MLS, FibroPlant-LNG) sono attualmente in fase di sviluppo clinico e di indagine. La ricerca sugli usi non-contraccettivi di LNG-IUS è in rapida espansione. Nel Regno Unito, LNG-IUS è concesso in licenza per l'utilizzo in menorragia e per fornire protezione endometriale di donne in perimenopausa e postmenopausa in terapia estrogenica sostitutiva. Vi è una limitata evidenza per suggerire che LNG-IUS può anche essere utile nelle donne con endometriosi, adenomiosi, fibromi, iperplasia endometriale e carcinoma dell'endometrio in fase iniziale (in cui il paziente viene ritenuto inadatto per la terapia chirurgica primaria). La richiesta e panoramica sistematica valuta la qualità delle prove relative alle non-contraccettivi usi terapeutici di LNG-IUS in ginecologia.
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.
