BACKGROUND: Uterine fibroids cause menorrhagia and adversely affect quality of life. Ulipristal acetate (UPA) can improve fibroid symptoms.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of UPA in women with symptomatic uterine fibroids.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINHAL on December 31, 2018, using relevant search terms. Clinical trials registries were searched for ongoing trials and there were no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing UPA with placebo/no treatment/any pharmacological intervention for symptomatic uterine fibroids.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in included studies. We used risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, plus their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS: We identified six RCTs (1121 participants). Five studies (882 participants) compared UPA with placebo. UPA significantly achieved amenorrhea (RR 24.54; 95% CI,10.82-55.64), reduced blood loss, and improved quality of life with insufficient evidence from RCTs for adverse events. There was insufficient evidence for improved outcomes when UPA was compared with leuprolide acetate.
CONCLUSION: Compared with placebo, oral UPA significantly induces amenorrhea, reduces heavy menses, and improves quality-of-life in women with uterine fibroids. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
The aim of the present article was to evaluate endometrial safety of the ulipristal acetate (UPA) treatment for uterine symptomatic fibroids by reviewing the relevant studies and to provide confidence in SPRM (Selective Progesterone Receptor Modulators) clinical use. We designed a review protocol according to PRISMA guidelines and electronic databases search. The databases searched were PubMed, Embase and Cochrane for terms "ulipristal acetate", "endometrium" and "fibroid" or synonyms. After screening, 41 full-text studies were retained, with 9 included selected: 7 randomized controlled, one prospective observational case control and one off label including 1997 patients treated with UPA. Dosage, interval and endometrial aspects at biopsy were described. UPA-induced non-physiological histological changes of the endometrium were reported by 5 studies. The overall quality of the studies was good. No premalignant or malignant endometrial changes were reported. Evidences provided by the study are consistent-UPA can be prescribed for conservative or pre-surgical treatment of fibroids without concern on possible endometrial malignancies.
OBJECTIVE: To determine pregnancy and fetal outcomes following treatment with ulipristal acetate (UPA) for symptomatic uterine fibroids.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and case series. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Register from inception to February 2017. From January 2014 to July 2017, we carried out a multi-centre retrospective chart review. All human studies that reported at least one pregnancy following UPA treatment were included. The case series included patients who conceived during/following UPA treatment. Titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility by two independent reviewers, and full texts were evaluated for inclusion and study quality. Data from the systematic review and case series were synthesized and reported separately.
RESULTS: Seven studies were included (six case reports, one retrospective series) and contributed 24 post-UPA pregnancies (19 live births, six spontaneous abortions [SA]). The case series contributed 47 post-UPA pregnancies (31 live births, 13 SA, 1 fetal death, 2 terminations, 1 ongoing). In total, 71 pregnancies were evaluated (44 underwent myomectomy post-UPA; 27 without interval surgery). Five pregnancies occurred during UPA use (10-36 days of exposure) and resulted in three live births, one SA, and one termination. Five women who did not undergo interval myomectomy experienced delivery complications related to their fibroid.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic review and largest reported case series evaluating pregnancy outcomes following UPA treatment for uterine fibroids. UPA alone, or in conjunction with surgery, can permit conception and favorable pregnancy outcomes.
Ulipristal acetate is increasingly used for several clinical indications, like emergency contraception and pre-treatment of uterine fibroids. It has mixed progesterone agonist and antagonist effects in the myometrium and endometrium. Due to its progesterone antagonistic effect, an unopposed estrogen effect could occur which could cause (pre-)malignant lesions in the endometrium. Several studies have been performed to evaluate this possible increased risk for endometrial malignancies when using ulipristal acetate. The specific spectrum of morphological changes due to ulipristal acetate, named progesterone receptor modulator associated endometrial changes (PAEC), occurs to be reversible after discontinuing ulipristal acetate. In this systematic review we provide a detailed overview of the literature on histopathological endometrial changes and imaging characteristics of the endometrium in ulipristal acetate users. We performed an extensive search in Embase.com, Wiley/Cochrane Library and PubMed in accordance with the prisma guidelines. All studies published as full papers in peer reviewed journals using ulipristal acetate reporting on endometrial changes were included, independent of clinical indication, dosage taken and duration of therapy. No language restrictions were applied. Ten studies with a total of 1450 participants were included. Seven were randomized clinical trials and three prospective cohort studies. A quality assessment of all included studies was performed. In only five of ten studies an endometrial biopsy was performed during treatment. All of these studies described specific histological non-physiological endometrial changes (PAEC) due to ulipristal acetate, varying from 41 to 78.8% of all patients. Three of these studies also performed follow-up biopsies after discontinuing ulipristal acetate. The percentage of PAEC decreased from 62% to 0%, 78.8% to 0% and from 59% to 6-7% after the treatment period. In six of 1450 women (0.4%) endometrial hyperplasia was reported during or after ulipristal acetate use. Five were simple hyperplasia, one biopsy showed simple atypical endometrial hyperplasia that resolved into benign secretory endometrium by the end of the treatment. One case of endometrial adenocarcinoma was reported, however this does not seem to be related to ulipristal acetate use, since it was already present at the baseline biopsy. In eight of ten studies a transvaginal ultrasound or MRI was performed at any moment to assess the endometrial thickness before, during and after treatment. Most studies showed a transient increase of endometrial thickness during treatment, which returned to normal within a few weeks after discontinuing ulipristal acetate. Based on the literature found in this systematic review, follow-up after a maximum of four courses of ulipristal acetate did not report any non-reversible (pre-)malignant lesions of the endometrium. Most studies focused on short term use of ulipristal acetate and their follow-up period was limited. Therefore, we believe more information concerning long term (intermittent) use is needed before it can be concluded that its use is completely safe.
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 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.
Ulipristal acetate (UA), a selective progesterone modulator, has been approved for short-term therapy for symptomatic fibroids. We decided to undertake a systematic review of the best available evidence and draw a more definitive conclusion regarding the efficacy of UA for the management of uterine fibroids. The outcomes included symptomatic relief, quality of life-related parameters, reduction in fibroid size, side effects and recurrence rate. We included four randomised controlled trials which consisted of three trials which compared UA with placebo, and one trial compared it with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues for symptomatic relief. The three trials comparing UA with placebo reported significant improvement in symptoms related to excessive uterine bleeding as evidenced by the attainment of amenorrhea or reduction in pictorial blood assessment chart. However, due to the heterogeneity of the available data, a meta-analysis was possible only for one the outcomes - attainment of amenorrhea which indicated improvement in symptoms [57.88 (19.81-169.16); p < 0.00001]. The improved quality of life parameters and reduction in fibroid size was noted in the UA group. With regards to adverse events, even though the three included studies reported increased non-physiological endometrial-related changes following UA, these changes reverted back to normal within 6 months. Short-term use of UA seems to be an effective and safe method of treating uterine fibroids.
