BACKGROUND: Uterine fibroids are smooth muscle tumours arising from the uterus. These tumours, although benign, are commonly associated with abnormal uterine bleeding, bulk symptoms and reproductive dysfunction. The importance of progesterone in fibroid pathogenesis supports selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRMs) as effective treatment. Both biochemical and clinical evidence suggests that SPRMs may reduce fibroid growth and ameliorate symptoms. SPRMs can cause unique histological changes to the endometrium that are not related to cancer, are not precancerous and have been found to be benign and reversible. This review summarises randomised trials conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of SPRMs as a class of medication for treatment of individuals with fibroids.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of SPRMs for treatment of premenopausal women with uterine fibroids.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and clinical trials registries from database inception to May 2016. We handsearched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted experts in the field to request additional data.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Included studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of premenopausal women with fibroids who were treated for at least three months with a SPRM.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed all eligible studies identified by the search. We extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently using standard forms. We analysed data using mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous data and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data. We performed meta-analyses using the random-effects model. Our primary outcome was change in fibroid-related symptoms.
MAIN RESULTS: We included in the review 14 RCTs with a total of 1215 study participants. We could not extract complete data from three studies. We included in the meta-analysis 11 studies involving 1021 study participants: 685 received SPRMs and 336 were given a control intervention (placebo or leuprolide). Investigators evaluated three SPRMs: mifepristone (five studies), ulipristal acetate (four studies) and asoprisnil (two studies). The primary outcome was change in fibroid-related symptoms (symptom severity, health-related quality of life, abnormal uterine bleeding, pelvic pain). Adverse event reporting in the included studies was limited to SPRM-associated endometrial changes. More than half (8/14) of these studies were at low risk of bias in all domains. The most common limitation of the other studies was poor reporting of methods. The main limitation for the overall quality of evidence was potential publication bias. SPRM versus placeboSPRM treatment resulted in improvements in fibroid symptom severity (MD -20.04 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -26.63 to -13.46; four RCTs, 171 women, I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) and health-related quality of life (MD 22.52 points, 95% CI 12.87 to 32.17; four RCTs, 200 women, I2 = 63%; moderate-quality evidence) on the Uterine Fibroid Symptom Quality of Life Scale (UFS-QoL, scale 0 to 100). Women treated with an SPRM showed reduced menstrual blood loss on patient-reported bleeding scales, although this effect was small (SMD -1.11, 95% CI -1.38 to -0.83; three RCTs, 310 women, I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), along with higher rates of amenorrhoea (29 per 1000 in the placebo group vs 237 to 961 per 1000 in the SPRM group; OR 82.50, 95% CI 37.01 to 183.90; seven RCTs, 590 women, I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), compared with those given placebo. We could draw no conclusions regarding changes in pelvic pain owing to variability in the estimates. With respect to adverse effects, SPRM-associated endometrial changes were more common after SPRM therapy than after placebo (OR 15.12, 95% CI 6.45 to 35.47; five RCTs, 405 women, I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). SPRM versus leuprolide acetateIn comparing SPRM versus other treatments, two RCTs evaluated SPRM versus leuprolide acetate. One RCT reported primary outcomes. No evidence suggested a difference between SPRM and leuprolide groups for improvement in quality of life, as measured by UFS-QoL fibroid symptom severity scores (MD -3.70 points, 95% CI -9.85 to 2.45; one RCT, 281 women; moderate-quality evidence) and health-related quality of life scores (MD 1.06 points, 95% CI -5.73 to 7.85; one RCT, 281 women; moderate-quality evidence). It was unclear whether results showed a difference between SPRM and leuprolide groups for reduction in menstrual blood loss based on the pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBAC), as confidence intervals were wide (MD 6 points, 95% CI -40.95 to 50.95; one RCT, 281 women; low-quality evidence), or for rates of amenorrhoea (804 per 1000 in the placebo group vs 732 to 933 per 1000 in the SPRM group; OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.16; one RCT, 280 women; moderate-quality evidence). No evidence revealed differences between groups in pelvic pain scores based on the McGill Pain Questionnaire (scale 0 to 45) (MD -0.01 points, 95% CI -2.14 to 2.12; 281 women; moderate-quality evidence). With respect to adverse effects, SPRM-associated endometrial changes were more common after SPRM therapy than after leuprolide treatment (OR 10.45, 95% CI 5.38 to 20.33; 301 women; moderate-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Short-term use of SPRMs resulted in improved quality of life, reduced menstrual bleeding and higher rates of amenorrhoea than were seen with placebo. Thus, SPRMs may provide effective treatment for women with symptomatic fibroids. Evidence derived from one RCT showed no difference between leuprolide acetate and SPRM with respect to improved quality of life and bleeding symptoms. Evidence was insufficient to show whether effectiveness was different between SPRMs and leuprolide. Investigators more frequently observed SPRM-associated endometrial changes in women treated with SPRMs than in those treated with placebo or leuprolide acetate. As noted above, SPRM-associated endometrial changes are benign, are not related to cancer and are not precancerous. Reporting bias may impact the conclusion of this meta-analysis. Well-designed RCTs comparing SPRMs versus other treatments are needed.
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: I fibromi uterini sono i tumori benigni più comuni uterine presenti nelle donne in età riproduttiva. Mifepristone (RU-486) si lega ed inibisce competitivamente i recettori del progesterone. Studi hanno suggerito che la crescita fibroma dipende dalle steroidi sessuali. Mifepristone ha dimostrato di ridurre le dimensioni del fibroma. Questa revisione riassume gli effetti del trattamento mifepristone sui fibromi e gli effetti indesiderati associati come descritto in studi randomizzati controllati.
OBIETTIVI: Per determinare l'efficacia e la sicurezza del mifepristone per la gestione dei fibromi uterini in pre-menopausa.
Metodi di ricerca: Abbiamo cercato il registro specializzato dei disturbi mestruali e infertilità Cochrane (Cochrane disturbi mestruali e recensione del Gruppo subfertilità), il Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO , e CINAHL (a novembre 2011). Abbiamo handsearched un certo numero di riviste e cercato liste di riferimento, basi di dati di processi in corso e di Internet. Non ci sono state restrizioni di linguaggio.
Criteri di selezione: solo gli studi randomizzati controllati veramente di forme mifepristone rispetto a altre forme di terapia medica o placebo in pre-menopausa le donne con fibromi uterini confermati sono stati inclusi.
Raccolta dati e analisi: quattro autori in modo indipendente hanno estratto i dati e valutato la qualità degli studi. I dati sono stati analizzati utilizzando gli odds ratio Peto (OR) per i dati dicotomici e le differenze medio ponderato per i dati in continuo, con intervalli di confidenza al 95% (CI). Le meta-analisi sono state effettuate utilizzando il modello a effetti fissi.
Risultati principali: tre studi condotti su 112 partecipanti sono stati inclusi. Interventi di confronto inclusi diversi dosaggi di mifepristone, placebo e compresse vitamina B. Ci sono prove che il trattamento con mifepristone rilievi pesanti sanguinamento mestruale rispetto al placebo (Peto OR 17,84, IC 95% 6,72-47,38, 2 studi, 77 donne, I2 = 0%). Tre studi (Bagaria 2009; Engman 2009; Fiscella 2006) sono stati inclusi nella meta-analisi di questo confronto. Non c'è stata evidenza di un effetto del mifepristone sul volume del fibroma (differenza media standardizzata (SMD) -0,02, 95% CI -0,38 a 0,41, 99 donne).Due studi (Bagaria 2009; Fiscella 2006) sono stati inclusi nella meta-analisi di questo confronto. Non c'è stata evidenza di un effetto del mifepristone sul volume uterino (differenza media (MD) -77,24, 95% CI da -240,62 86,14; 72 donne). I dati raccolti suggeriscono un evento avverso maggiore (anomala istologia endometriale) nel gruppo mifepristone rispetto al placebo (OR 31,65, IC 95% 4,83-207,35, 2 studi, 54 donne, I2 = 0%). Solo uno studio (Bagaria 2009) riportarono iperplasia endometriale al termine della terapia (12/19 donne nel gruppo di mifepristone rispetto a 0/16 nel gruppo placebo, 55,0, 95% CI 2,86-105,67). Engman 2009 ha rilevato un tasso significativamente più alto di dilatazione cistica ghiandolare nelle donne del gruppo mifepristone (5/8 donne sottoposte a biopsia) rispetto al gruppo placebo (1/11 donne biopsie) (OR 16,67, IC 95% 1,36-204,03).Uno studio (Fiscella 2006) ha suggerito miglioramenti significativi (p <0.001) per la specifica qualità dei risultati di vita.
Conclusioni degli autori: Mifepristone ridotto pesanti sanguinamento mestruale e migliorare fibroma specifico per la qualità della vita. Tuttavia, non è stato trovato per ridurre il volume del fibroma. Ulteriori ben progettato, RCT adeguatamente alimentati sono necessari prima che una raccomandazione può essere fatta sull'uso del mifepristone per il trattamento di fibroidi uterini.
Uterine fibroids are smooth muscle tumours arising from the uterus. These tumours, although benign, are commonly associated with abnormal uterine bleeding, bulk symptoms and reproductive dysfunction. The importance of progesterone in fibroid pathogenesis supports selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRMs) as effective treatment. Both biochemical and clinical evidence suggests that SPRMs may reduce fibroid growth and ameliorate symptoms. SPRMs can cause unique histological changes to the endometrium that are not related to cancer, are not precancerous and have been found to be benign and reversible. This review summarises randomised trials conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of SPRMs as a class of medication for treatment of individuals with fibroids.
OBJECTIVES:
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of SPRMs for treatment of premenopausal women with uterine fibroids.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and clinical trials registries from database inception to May 2016. We handsearched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted experts in the field to request additional data.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
Included studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of premenopausal women with fibroids who were treated for at least three months with a SPRM.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Two review authors independently reviewed all eligible studies identified by the search. We extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently using standard forms. We analysed data using mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous data and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data. We performed meta-analyses using the random-effects model. Our primary outcome was change in fibroid-related symptoms.
MAIN RESULTS:
We included in the review 14 RCTs with a total of 1215 study participants. We could not extract complete data from three studies. We included in the meta-analysis 11 studies involving 1021 study participants: 685 received SPRMs and 336 were given a control intervention (placebo or leuprolide). Investigators evaluated three SPRMs: mifepristone (five studies), ulipristal acetate (four studies) and asoprisnil (two studies). The primary outcome was change in fibroid-related symptoms (symptom severity, health-related quality of life, abnormal uterine bleeding, pelvic pain). Adverse event reporting in the included studies was limited to SPRM-associated endometrial changes. More than half (8/14) of these studies were at low risk of bias in all domains. The most common limitation of the other studies was poor reporting of methods. The main limitation for the overall quality of evidence was potential publication bias. SPRM versus placeboSPRM treatment resulted in improvements in fibroid symptom severity (MD -20.04 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -26.63 to -13.46; four RCTs, 171 women, I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) and health-related quality of life (MD 22.52 points, 95% CI 12.87 to 32.17; four RCTs, 200 women, I2 = 63%; moderate-quality evidence) on the Uterine Fibroid Symptom Quality of Life Scale (UFS-QoL, scale 0 to 100). Women treated with an SPRM showed reduced menstrual blood loss on patient-reported bleeding scales, although this effect was small (SMD -1.11, 95% CI -1.38 to -0.83; three RCTs, 310 women, I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), along with higher rates of amenorrhoea (29 per 1000 in the placebo group vs 237 to 961 per 1000 in the SPRM group; OR 82.50, 95% CI 37.01 to 183.90; seven RCTs, 590 women, I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), compared with those given placebo. We could draw no conclusions regarding changes in pelvic pain owing to variability in the estimates. With respect to adverse effects, SPRM-associated endometrial changes were more common after SPRM therapy than after placebo (OR 15.12, 95% CI 6.45 to 35.47; five RCTs, 405 women, I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). SPRM versus leuprolide acetateIn comparing SPRM versus other treatments, two RCTs evaluated SPRM versus leuprolide acetate. One RCT reported primary outcomes. No evidence suggested a difference between SPRM and leuprolide groups for improvement in quality of life, as measured by UFS-QoL fibroid symptom severity scores (MD -3.70 points, 95% CI -9.85 to 2.45; one RCT, 281 women; moderate-quality evidence) and health-related quality of life scores (MD 1.06 points, 95% CI -5.73 to 7.85; one RCT, 281 women; moderate-quality evidence). It was unclear whether results showed a difference between SPRM and leuprolide groups for reduction in menstrual blood loss based on the pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBAC), as confidence intervals were wide (MD 6 points, 95% CI -40.95 to 50.95; one RCT, 281 women; low-quality evidence), or for rates of amenorrhoea (804 per 1000 in the placebo group vs 732 to 933 per 1000 in the SPRM group; OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.16; one RCT, 280 women; moderate-quality evidence). No evidence revealed differences between groups in pelvic pain scores based on the McGill Pain Questionnaire (scale 0 to 45) (MD -0.01 points, 95% CI -2.14 to 2.12; 281 women; moderate-quality evidence). With respect to adverse effects, SPRM-associated endometrial changes were more common after SPRM therapy than after leuprolide treatment (OR 10.45, 95% CI 5.38 to 20.33; 301 women; moderate-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Short-term use of SPRMs resulted in improved quality of life, reduced menstrual bleeding and higher rates of amenorrhoea than were seen with placebo. Thus, SPRMs may provide effective treatment for women with symptomatic fibroids. Evidence derived from one RCT showed no difference between leuprolide acetate and SPRM with respect to improved quality of life and bleeding symptoms. Evidence was insufficient to show whether effectiveness was different between SPRMs and leuprolide. Investigators more frequently observed SPRM-associated endometrial changes in women treated with SPRMs than in those treated with placebo or leuprolide acetate. As noted above, SPRM-associated endometrial changes are benign, are not related to cancer and are not precancerous. Reporting bias may impact the conclusion of this meta-analysis. Well-designed RCTs comparing SPRMs versus other treatments are needed.
