BACKGROUND: Uterine fibroids can cause heavy menstrual bleeding. Medical treatments are considered to preserve fertility. It is unclear whether progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems can reduce fibroid-related symptoms. This is the first update of a Cochrane Review published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems in treating premenopausal women with uterine fibroids.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases to July 2020. We also searched trials registers for ongoing and registered trials, and checked references of relevant trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All identified published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems in treating premenopausal women with uterine fibroids.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: This updated review included four studies with 221 women with uterine fibroids. The evidence was very low quality, downgraded for serious risk of bias, due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUS) versus hysterectomy There was no information on the outcomes of interest, including adverse events. LNG-IUS versus low dose combined oral contraceptive (COC) At 12 months, we are uncertain whether LNG-IUS reduced the percentage of abnormal uterine bleeding, measured with the alkaline hematin test (mean difference (MD) 77.50%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 70.44 to 84.56; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence), or the pictorial blood assessment chart (PBAC; MD 34.50%, 95% CI 11.59 to 57.41; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence); increased haemoglobin levels (MD 1.50 g/dL, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.15; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence), or reduced fibroid size more than COC (MD 1.90%, 95% CI -12.24 to 16.04; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not measure adverse events. LNG-IUS versus oral progestogen (norethisterone acetate (NETA)) Compared to NETA, we are uncertain whether LNG-IUS reduced abnormal uterine bleeding more from baseline to six months (visual bleeding score; MD 23.75 points, 95% CI 1.26 to 46.24; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence); increased the percentage of change in haemoglobin from baseline to three months (MD 4.53%, 95% CI 1.46 to 7.60; 1 RCT, 48 women; very low-quality evidence), or from baseline to six months (MD 10.14%, 95% CI 5.57 to 14.71; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not measure fibroid size. Spotting (adverse event) was more likely to be reported by women with the LNG-IUS (64.3%) than by those taking NETA (30%; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence). Oral progestogen (dienogest, desogestrel) versus goserelin acetate Compared to goserelin acetate, we are uncertain whether abnormal uterine bleeding was reduced at 12 weeks with dienogest (PBAC; MD 216.00 points, 95% CI 149.35 to 282.65; 1 RCT, 14 women; very low-quality evidence) or desogestrel (PBAC; MD 78.00 points, 95% CI 28.94 to 127.06; 1 RCT, 16 women; very low-quality evidence). Vasomotor symptoms (adverse events, e.g. hot flashes) are only associated with goserelin acetate (55%), not with dienogest (1 RCT, 14 women; very low-quality evidence) or with desogestrel (1 RCT, 16 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not report fibroid size.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Because of very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain whether the LNG-IUS reduces abnormal uterine bleeding or increases haemoglobin levels in premenopausal women with uterine fibroids, compared to COC or norethisterone acetate. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the LNG-IUS reduces the size of uterine fibroids compared to COC. We are uncertain whether oral progestogens reduce abnormal uterine bleeding as effectively as goserelin acetate, but women reported fewer adverse events, such as hot flashes.
BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in premenopausal women. Although surgery is often used as a treatment, a range of medical therapies are also available. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduce prostaglandin levels, which are elevated in women with excessive menstrual bleeding and also may have a beneficial effect on dysmenorrhoea.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of NSAIDs in achieving a reduction in menstrual blood loss (MBL) in women of reproductive years with HMB.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched, in April 2019, the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility specialised register, Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online (CENTRAL CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the clinical trial registries and reference lists of articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA: The inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of individual NSAIDs or combined with other medical therapy with each other, placebo or other medical treatments in women with regular heavy periods measured either objectively or subjectively and with no pathological or iatrogenic (treatment-induced) causes for their HMB.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified 19 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (759 women) that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review and two review authors independently extracted data. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes from the data of nine trials. We described in data tables the results of the remaining seven cross-over trials with data unsuitable for pooling, one trial with skewed data, and one trial with missing variances. One trial had no data available for analysis.
MAIN RESULTS: As a group, NSAIDs were more effective than placebo at reducing HMB but less effective than tranexamic acid, danazol or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG IUS). Treatment with danazol caused a shorter duration of menstruation and more adverse events than NSAIDs, but this did not appear to affect the acceptability of treatment, based on trials from 1980 to 1990. However, currently danazol is not a usual or recommended treatment for HMB. There was no clear evidence of difference between NSAIDs and the other treatments (oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, an older progesterone-releasing intrauterine system and the oral contraceptive pill (OCP), but most studies were underpowered. There was no evidence of a difference between the individual NSAIDs (naproxen and mefenamic acid) in reducing HMB. The evidence quality ranged from low to moderate, the main limitations being risk of bias and imprecision.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: NSAIDs reduce HMB when compared with placebo, but are less effective than tranexamic acid, danazol or LNG IUS. However, adverse events are more severe with danazol therapy. In the limited number of small studies suitable for evaluation, there was no clear evidence of a difference in efficacy between NSAIDs and other medical treatments such as oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, OCP or the older progesterone-releasing intrauterine system.
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.
IMPORTANCE: Follow-up of participants in randomized trials may be limited by logistic and financial factors. Some important randomized trials have been extended well beyond their original follow-up period by linkage of individual participant information to routinely collected data held in administrative records and registries.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a scoping review of randomized clinical trials extended by record linkage to characterize this literature and explore any additional insights into treatment effectiveness provided by long-term follow-up using record linkage.
DATA SOURCES: A literature search in Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials was performed for the period January 1, 1945, through November 25, 2016.
STUDY SELECTION: Various combinations of search terms were used, as there is no accepted terminology. Determination of study eligibility and extraction of information about trial characteristics and outcomes, for both original and extended trial reports, were performed in duplicate.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Assessment of study eligibility and data extraction were performed independently by 2 reviewers. All analyses were descriptive.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes in the pairs of original and extended trials were categorized according to whether any benefits or harms from interventions were sustained, were lost, or emerged during long-term follow-up.
RESULTS: A total of 113 extended trials were included in the study. Linkage to administrative and registry data extended follow-up by between 1 and 55 years. The most common interventions were pharmaceuticals (47 [41.6%]), surgery (19 [16.8%]), and disease screening (19 [16.8%]). End points most frequently studied through record linkage included mortality (88 [77.9%]), cancer (41 [36.3%]), and cardiovascular events (37 [32.7%]). One hundred four trial extensions (92.0%) were analyzed according to the original trial randomization. The reports provided details of 155 analyses of study outcomes. Seventy-four analyses (47.7%) identified statistically significant benefits in the trial extension phase. In 21 of these (28.4%), benefits were significant only in this period. Null results in both the original and extended trials were seen in 34 of the analyses (21.9%). Loss of significant benefits of an intervention were seen in 12 analyses (7.7%). Statistically significant harms were seen in 16 trial extension analyses (10.3%), and in 14 of these (87.5%), the harms were significant only in the trial extension phase.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Trial extension by linkage to routinely collected data is a versatile underused approach that may add critical insights beyond those of the original trial. Some beneficial and harmful outcomes of interventions are captured only in the extension phase of randomized trials.
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: Heavy menstrual bleeding significantly impairs the quality of life of many otherwise healthy women. Perception of heavy menstrual bleeding is subjective and management usually depends upon what symptoms are acceptable to the individual. Surgical options include conservative surgery (uterine resection or ablation) and hysterectomy. Medical treatment options include oral medication and a hormone-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUS).
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from inception to January 2016: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and clinical trials registers (clinical trials.gov and ICTRP). We also searched the reference lists of retrieved articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing conservative surgery or hysterectomy versus medical therapy (oral or intrauterine) for heavy menstrual bleeding.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the studies, assessed their risk of bias and extracted the data. Our primary outcomes were menstrual bleeding, satisfaction rate and adverse events. Where appropriate we pooled the data to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using a fixed-effect model. We assessed heterogeneity with the I(2) statistic and evaluated the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 parallel-group RCTs (1289 women). Surgical interventions included hysterectomy and endometrial resection or ablation. Medical interventions included oral medication and the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUS). The overall quality of the evidence for different comparisons ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were lack of blinding, attrition and imprecision. Moreover, it was difficult to interpret long-term study findings as many women randomised to medical interventions subsequently underwent surgery. Surgery versus oral medicationSurgery (endometrial resection) was more effective in controlling bleeding at four months (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.94 to 3.64, one RCT, 186 women, moderate quality evidence) and also at two years (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.57, one RCT, 173 women, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups at five years (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34, one RCT, 140 women, very low quality evidence).Satisfaction with treatment was higher in the surgical group at two years (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.74, one RCT, 173 women, moderate quality evidence), but there was no evidence of a difference between the groups at five years (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.37, one RCT, 114 women, very low quality evidence). There were fewer adverse events in the surgical group at four months (RR 0.26, 95 CI 0.15 to 0.46, one RCT, 186 women). These findings require cautious interpretation, as 59% of women randomised to the oral medication group had had surgery within two years and 77% within five years. Surgery versus LNG-IUSWhen hysterectomy was compared with LNG-IUS, the hysterectomy group were more likely to have objective control of bleeding at one year (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.19, one RCT, 223 women, moderate quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life between the groups at five or 10 years, but by 10 years 46% of women originally assigned to LNG-IUS had undergone hysterectomy. Adverse effects associated with hysterectomy included surgical complications such as bladder or bowel perforation and vesicovaginal fistula. Adverse effects associated with LNG-IUS were ongoing bleeding and hormonal symptoms.When conservative surgery was compared with LNG-IUS, at one year the surgical group were more likely to have subjective control of bleeding (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.32, five RCTs, 281 women, low quality evidence, I(2) = 15%). Satisfaction rates were higher in the surgical group at one year (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04, to 1.28, six RCTs, 442 women, I(2) = 27%), but this finding was sensitive to the choice of statistical model and use of a random-effects model showed no conclusive evidence of a difference between the groups. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in satisfaction rates at two years (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08, two RCTs, 117 women, I(2) = 1%).At one year there were fewer adverse events (such as bleeding and spotting) in the surgical group (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.82, three RCTs, moderate quality evidence). It was unclear what proportion of women assigned to LNG-IUS underwent surgery over long-term follow-up, as there were few data beyond one year.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Surgery, especially hysterectomy, reduces menstrual bleeding more than medical treatment at one year. There is no conclusive evidence of a difference in satisfaction rates between surgery and LNG-IUS, though adverse effects such as bleeding and spotting are more likely to occur with LNG-IUS. Oral medication suits a minority of women in the long term, and the LNG-IUS device provides a better alternative to surgery in most cases. Although hysterectomy is a definitive treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding, it can cause serious complications for a minority of women. Most women may be well advised to try a less radical treatment as first-line therapy. Both LNG-IUS and conservative surgery appear to be safe, acceptable and effective.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Hormonal contraceptive use is common practice worldwide. Although the effects of hormone treatments in the pelvic region are well established, there is no clear evidence regarding their effects on incontinence, bladder, bowel, vaginal and sexual symptoms in premenopausal women. We hypothesized that hormonal contraceptives affect pelvic floor function. We therefore performed a comprehensive systematic review of published studies to determine the influence of hormonal contraception on pelvic floor functions.
METHODS: Electronic literature databases were searched from database inception to March 2015. Keywords and medical subject headings searched for included terms and word variations for 'contraception', and 'bowel', 'vaginal', 'sexual' and 'urinary' symptoms. Studies were eligible if they looked at these symptoms in women taking hormonal contraception. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion, and extracted data on study characteristics, quality and results. Data were combined where possible.
RESULTS: Of the 429 citations identified, 13 studies were included in the review. Data were meta-analysed where possible and presented as prevalence. The results indicate statistically significant links between interstitial cystitis and oral contraceptive use at any point (ever) (OR 2.31, 95 % CI 1.03 - 5.16; p = 0.04) and vulvar vestibulitis and current oral contraceptive use (OR 2.10, 95 % CI 1.26 - 3.49; p = 0.004). The evidence is unclear in other areas.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that oral contraceptives may have an effect on pelvic floor function. They could increase the risk of painful bladder and vulvar vestibulitis, but their effect on dyspareunia is inconsistent. However, robustly collected prospective data to establish causal associations 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
L'isterectomia è una delle più comuni procedure operative nel mondo sviluppato, per lo più si verificano tra le donne in pre-menopausa, con risultati contraddittori riguardo post-operatorio benessere psicologico. La revisione mira a informare pratica esaminando se isterectomia predicts depressione o ansia i risultati. Abbiamo cercato PubMed, EMBASE e PsycINFO banche dati elettroniche per articoli pubblicati prima del novembre 2012. Liste di riferimento di articoli rilevanti erano mano cercato, e sono state cercate perizie. Studies referee indagano un'associazione tra isterectomia per benigne (non cancerose) condizioni e sintomi post-operatorie di depressione o ansia sono stati scelti per questa recensione. Due autori astratte autonomamente i dati da articoli originali. Gli autori di studi rilevanti sono stati contattati per i dati che non possono essere estratti dagli articoli pubblicati. Review Manager 5.1 è stato utilizzato in tutto il meta-analisi per calcolare i rischi relativi (RR) di sintesi, e la differenza ponderata standardizzata media (WstdMD), ei corrispondenti intervalli di confidenza al 95% (CI). Un modello a effetti casuali è stato utilizzato in analisi dei dati e verificato utilizzando un modello effetti fissi. Nel complesso, l'isterectomia è stato associato ad una diminuzione del rischio di depressione clinicamente rilevante (RR = 1.69, 95% CI 1,19-2,38). Inoltre, isterectomia è stato associato ad una diminuzione della depressione risultati standardizzati (differenza media standardizzata (SMD) 0,38 (95% CI ,27-0,49)). Al contrario, non vi era alcuna associazione significativa tra isterectomia e il rischio di ansia clinicamente rilevante (RR = 1.41, 95% CI 0,72-2,75). In conclusione, i dati prima e dopo gli studi suggeriscono che l'isterectomia per disturbi ginecologici benigne non è negativamente associata con l'ansia e può essere positivamente, piuttosto che negativamente associata alla depressione.
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.
Uterine fibroids can cause heavy menstrual bleeding. Medical treatments are considered to preserve fertility. It is unclear whether progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems can reduce fibroid-related symptoms. This is the first update of a Cochrane Review published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES:
To determine the effectiveness of progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems in treating premenopausal women with uterine fibroids.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases to July 2020. We also searched trials registers for ongoing and registered trials, and checked references of relevant trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
All identified published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems in treating premenopausal women with uterine fibroids.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS:
This updated review included four studies with 221 women with uterine fibroids. The evidence was very low quality, downgraded for serious risk of bias, due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUS) versus hysterectomy There was no information on the outcomes of interest, including adverse events. LNG-IUS versus low dose combined oral contraceptive (COC) At 12 months, we are uncertain whether LNG-IUS reduced the percentage of abnormal uterine bleeding, measured with the alkaline hematin test (mean difference (MD) 77.50%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 70.44 to 84.56; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence), or the pictorial blood assessment chart (PBAC; MD 34.50%, 95% CI 11.59 to 57.41; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence); increased haemoglobin levels (MD 1.50 g/dL, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.15; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence), or reduced fibroid size more than COC (MD 1.90%, 95% CI -12.24 to 16.04; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not measure adverse events. LNG-IUS versus oral progestogen (norethisterone acetate (NETA)) Compared to NETA, we are uncertain whether LNG-IUS reduced abnormal uterine bleeding more from baseline to six months (visual bleeding score; MD 23.75 points, 95% CI 1.26 to 46.24; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence); increased the percentage of change in haemoglobin from baseline to three months (MD 4.53%, 95% CI 1.46 to 7.60; 1 RCT, 48 women; very low-quality evidence), or from baseline to six months (MD 10.14%, 95% CI 5.57 to 14.71; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not measure fibroid size. Spotting (adverse event) was more likely to be reported by women with the LNG-IUS (64.3%) than by those taking NETA (30%; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence). Oral progestogen (dienogest, desogestrel) versus goserelin acetate Compared to goserelin acetate, we are uncertain whether abnormal uterine bleeding was reduced at 12 weeks with dienogest (PBAC; MD 216.00 points, 95% CI 149.35 to 282.65; 1 RCT, 14 women; very low-quality evidence) or desogestrel (PBAC; MD 78.00 points, 95% CI 28.94 to 127.06; 1 RCT, 16 women; very low-quality evidence). Vasomotor symptoms (adverse events, e.g. hot flashes) are only associated with goserelin acetate (55%), not with dienogest (1 RCT, 14 women; very low-quality evidence) or with desogestrel (1 RCT, 16 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not report fibroid size.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Because of very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain whether the LNG-IUS reduces abnormal uterine bleeding or increases haemoglobin levels in premenopausal women with uterine fibroids, compared to COC or norethisterone acetate. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the LNG-IUS reduces the size of uterine fibroids compared to COC. We are uncertain whether oral progestogens reduce abnormal uterine bleeding as effectively as goserelin acetate, but women reported fewer adverse events, such as hot flashes.
