Cyclical progestogens for heavy menstrual bleeding

Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonists Are Effective in Long-term Treatment of Women with Abnormal Uterine Bleeding and Anticoagulant Therapy: Report of 3 Cases and Review of the Literature

Purpose of Review

To evaluate the efficacy of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) in women with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) on anticoagulant therapy.

Recent Findings

Prospective observational case series (Canadian Task Force Classification II-3) at University-affiliated teaching hospital. From January 2002 through December 2019, three premenopausal women on warfarin therapy were identified from our clinical practice. After clinical assessment, including Papanicolaou smear, endometrial biopsy, and pelvic sonography, a GnRHa was used to treat their AUB. Two women were receiving warfarin therapy (5–7 mg/day) for previous venous thromboembolism and one for mechanical heart valve replacement associated with Marfan’s syndrome. All patients had additional comorbid conditions and were at high risk for traditional medical or surgical therapies. After treatment with GnRHa, all women reported menstrual reduction at 3 months and remained amenorrheic for 2 to 11 years, two of whom reached menopause.

Summary

In properly assessed and selected premenopausal women with AUB receiving anticoagulant therapy and at high risk for traditional therapies, long-term GnRHa was an effective treatment in 3 patients.

Cyclical progestogens for heavy menstrual bleeding

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.

Combined hormonal contraceptives for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Menorrhagia or heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an excessive blood loss that impairs a woman's quality of life, either physical, emotional, social or material. It is benign and not associated with pregnancy or any other gynaecological or systemic disease. Medical treatments used to reduce excessive menstrual blood loss (MBL) include prostaglandin synthetase inhibitors, antifibrinolytics, oral contraceptive pills, and other hormones. The combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) is claimed to have a variety of beneficial effects, inducing a regular shedding of a thinner endometrium and inhibiting ovulation, thus having the effect of both treating HMB and providing contraception. More recently, a contraceptive vaginal ring (CVR) has been trialled to investigate whether this treatment can provide similar benefits to COCP while lessening hormonal systemic exposure. This review is an update of a review which originally focused on COCP alone. The scope of the review has been widened to consider other types of delivery of combined hormonal contraceptives for reduction of MBL.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of combined hormonal contraceptives (pills, vaginal ring or patch) compared with other medical therapies, placebo, or no therapy in the treatment of HMB. A secondary objective was to compare the COCP with the CVR.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Gynecology and Fertility Group trials register, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL and PsycINFO (search dates: Oct 1996, May 2002, June 2004, April 2006, June 2009, July 2017 and September 2018) for all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of COCP and CVR for the treatment of HMB. We also searched trial registers and the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of COCP or CVR compared with no treatment, placebo, or other medical therapies for women with HMB and regular menstrual cycles.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All assessments of trial quality and data extraction were performed unblinded by at least two review authors. Our primary review outcomes were treatment success, menstrual bleeding (assessed objectively, semi-objectively or subjectively), and participant satisfaction with treatment. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, quality of life, and haemoglobin level.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight RCTs involving 805 participants. Two trials comparing COCP with placebo were considered to be moderate quality and the remaining studies were low to very low quality, mainly because of serious risk of bias from lack of blinding and concerns over precision.COCP versus placeboCOCP, with a step-down oestrogen and step-up progestogen regimen, improved response to treatment (return to menstrual 'normality') (OR 22.12, 95% CI 4.40 to 111.12; 2 trials; 363 participants; I² = 50%; moderate-quality evidence), and lowered MBL (OR 5.15, 95% CI 3.16 to 8.40; 2 trials; 339 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) when compared to placebo. The results suggested that, if the chance of 'successful' treatment was 3% in women taking placebo, then COCP increased this chance from 12% to 77% in women with unacceptable HMB. Minor adverse events, in particular breast pain, were more common with COCP. No study in this comparison reported semi-objectively assessed MBL or participant satisfaction with treatment.COCP versus other medical treatmentsNon-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the COCP reduced MBL when compared to NSAIDs (mefenamic acid and naproxen). No study in this comparison reported semi-objectively assessed MBL, subjectively assessed MBL, participant satisfaction with treatment or adverse events.Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG IUS)The LNG IUS was more effective than COCP in reducing MBL (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.48; 2 trials; 151 participants; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence) but it was not clear whether satisfaction with treatment or adverse effects varied according to which treatment was used. No study in this comparison reported semi-objectively assessed MBL or subjectively assessed MBL.Contraceptive vaginal ring (CVR) versus other medical treatmentsCOCP COCP was compared with CVR in two trials. There were discrepancies between some of the findings and there was no evidence of a benefit for one treatment compared to the other for response to treatment, MBL or participant satisfaction with treatment. There was a greater likelihood of nausea with COCP. No study in this comparison reported objectively assessed MBL or subjectively assessed MBL.ProgestogensCVR was compared to long course progestogens in one trial. It is possible that CVR increased the odds of satisfaction; but we are uncertain whether CVR improved MBL. The evidence was based on small numbers of participants and was very low quality, so definitive conclusions could not be reached. No study in this comparison reported objectively assessed MBL, subjectively assessed MBL, or adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence suggests that the combined oral contraceptive pill over six months reduces HMB in women with unacceptable HMB from 12% to 77% (compared to 3% in women taking placebo). When compared with other medical options for HMB, COCP was less effective than the LNG IUS. Limited evidence suggested that COCP and CVR had similar effects. There was insufficient evidence to determine comparative efficacy of combined hormonal contraceptives with NSAIDs, or long course progestogens.

The current status of hormonal therapies for heavy menstrual bleeding

Hormonal treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB), especially bleeding related to endometrial causes (AUB-E), ovulatory dysfunction (AUB-O) and coagulopathy (AUB-C), and to some extent, uterine leiomyomas and adenomyosis, has become the first-line evidence-based management strategy during recent years. Hormonal treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is also endorsed as the first line of treatment in several international guidelines. In the present article, we review the efficacy of the commonly used and widely available hormonal treatments of AUB-O, AUB-E and AUB-C. The therapies include combined hormonal contraceptives, progestin-only preparations, and intrauterine release of levonorgestrel through the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. In addition, we make practical recommendations for patient management. We also review some of the current guidelines and their recommendations concerning the treatment of HMB. Finally, the effects of hormonal treatment on the overall management of AUB and its effects on the health care system and specialist training are discussed.

Efficacy of combined hormonal vaginal ring in comparison to combined hormonal pills in heavy menstrual bleeding

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy, acceptability and compliance of combined hormonal vaginal ring (CVR), with combined hormonal pills (CHP) in patients with heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB).

STUDY DESIGN

This prospective study was conducted in 50 women with HMB in age group of 25-40 years. Patients were divided in two groups of 25 each and followed for six treatment cycles. In each group, cycle comprised of three weeks of CVR (releases 15μg of EE and 120μg of the etonogestrel per day) or CHP (containing 30μgm of EE and 150μgm of LNG) use, followed by one ring or pill free week. After each cycle, patients were evaluated about the amount of blood loss and duration of bleeding by the pictoral blood assessment chart (PBAC), early bleeding (EWB), continued bleeding (CWB), intermenstrual bleeding, intended bleeding, compliance, and user acceptability. The collected data were analyzed using the Chi square test, t-test and ANOVA test.

RESULT

Reduction in PBAC score for CVR (70.73%) and CHP group (70.02%), duration of bleeding and incidence of EWB was comparable among the two groups. The incidence of intermenstrual bleeding was lower in CVR than in CHP group in cycle 3 and 4 with significant p value. The incidence of CWB was significantly lower and the incidence of intended bleeding pattern in CVR group was significantly higher in cycle 3, 4, 5 and 6, signifying better cycle control. Compliance was also higher in CVR (88%) than CHC (75.33% of all cycles).

CONCLUSION

This trial suggests that both the CVR and CHP are very effective short-term treatments for HMB in reproductive age group. However, women had better cycle control and compliance with CVR. This may be an attractive option among the wide variety of medications used to treat HMB.

Heavy menstrual bleeding and health-associated quality of life in women with von Willebrand's disease

Women with the inherited bleeding disorder von Willebrand's disease (VWD) face gender-specific hemostatic challenges during menstruation. Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) can negatively affect their overall life activities and the health-associated quality of life. The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether women with VWD experienced HMB and an impaired health-associated quality of life. The study subjects were recruited from the Coagulation Unit of Karolinska University Hospital. Information was retrieved from various self-administered forms and medical records. Of the 30 women (18-52 years) that were included in the present study, 50% suffered from HMB, although the majority received treatment for HMB. In addition, almost all the included women perceived limitations in the overall life activities due to menstruation. The health-associated quality of life for women with HMB was significantly lower (P<0.10) with regards to 'bodily pain' compared with Swedish women of the general population. In conclusion, women with VWD experienced reduced health-associated quality of life as a result of HMB. Therefore, preventing limitations in overall life activities and improving their health-associated quality of life thorough counseling on menstrual bleeding is important for women with VWD.

Comparison of Therapeutic Efficacies of Norethisterone, Tranexamic Acid and Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System for the Treatment of Heavy Menstrual Bleeding: A Randomized Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Our aim was to compare the therapeutic efficacies of norethisterone acid (NETA), tranexamic acid and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in treating idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB).

METHODS

Women with heavy uterine bleeding were randomized to receive NETA, tranexamic acid or LNG-IUS for 6 months. The primary outcome was a decrease in menstrual bleeding as assessed by pictorial blood loss assessment charts and hematological parameters analyzed at the 1st, 3rd and 6th months. Health-related quality of life (QOL) variables were also recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients were enrolled in each treatment group, but the results of only 62 were evaluated. NETA, tranexamic acid, and LNG-IUS reduced menstrual blood loss (MBL) by 53.1, 60.8, and 85.8%, respectively, at the 6th month. LNG-IUS was more effective than NETA and tranexamic acid in decreasing MBL. LNG-IUS was also more efficient than tranexamic acid in correcting anemia related to menorrhagia. Satisfaction rates were comparable among the NETA (70%), tranexamic acid (63%) and LNG-IUS (77%) groups. QOL in physical aspects increased significantly in the tranexamic acid and LNG-IUS groups.

CONCLUSION

The positive effect of LNG-IUS on QOL parameters, as well as its high efficacy, makes it a first-line option for HMB.

Surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding

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.

Medical management of heavy menstrual bleeding

Women with benign heavy menstrual bleeding have the choice of a number of medical treatment options to reduce their blood loss and improve quality of life. The role of the clinician is to provide information to facilitate women in making an appropriate choice. Unfortunately, many options can be associated with hormonal side effects, prevention of fertility and lack of efficacy, leading to discontinuation and progression to surgical interventions. Herein, we discuss the various options currently available to women, including antifibrinolytics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory preparations, oral contraceptive pills and oral, injectable and intrauterine progestogens. In addition, we describe the more novel option of selective progesterone receptor modulators and their current benefits and limitations.

Management of endometrial modifications in perimenopausal women

Perimenopause has a variable length and time of onset and is characterized by its variability in hormonal levels. The histological changes in the perimenopausal endometrium may be represented by nonproliferative or proliferative benign or malignant lesions. A commonly encountered manifestation of endometrium lesions during menopausal transition is the abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB). The clinical management of AUB must follow a standardized classification system for optimal results. The medical and surgical treatment must be adapted according to age, risk factors, symptoms, and cycle irregularities. Use of alternative therapies and proper diet may result in improved long-term outcomes.

Abnormal uterine bleeding in reproductive-aged women

Abnormal uterine bleeding is a common medical condition with several causes. The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics published guidelines in 2011 to develop universally accepted nomenclature and a classification system. In addition, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recently updated recommendations on evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding and indications for endometrial biopsies. This article reviews both medical and surgical treatments, including meta-analysis reviews of the most effective treatment options.

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus medical therapy for menorrhagia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) with conventional medical treatment in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding.

Material/Methods

Relevant studies were identified by a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and clinical trials registries (from inception to April 2014). Randomized controlled trials comparing the LNG-IUS with conventional medical treatment (mefenamic acid, tranexamic acid, norethindrone, medroxyprogesterone acetate injection, or combined oral contraceptive pills) in patients with menorrhagia were included.

Results

Eight randomized controlled trials that included 1170 women (LNG-IUS, n=562; conventional medical treatment, n=608) met inclusion criteria. The LNG-IUS was superior to conventional medical treatment in reducing menstrual blood loss (as measured by the alkaline hematin method or estimated by pictorial bleeding assessment chart scores). More women were satisfied with the LNG-IUS than with the use of conventional medical treatment (odds ratio [OR] 5.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.73–9.86). Compared with conventional medical treatment, the LNG-IUS was associated with a lower rate of discontinuation (14.6% vs. 28.9%, OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.20–0.74) and fewer treatment failures (9.2% vs. 31.0%, OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.10–0.34). Furthermore, quality of life assessment favored LNG-IUS over conventional medical treatment, although use of various measurements limited our ability to pool the data for more powerful evidence. Serious adverse events were statistically comparable between treatments.

Conclusions

The LNG-IUS was the more effective first choice for management of menorrhagia compared with conventional medical treatment. Long-term, randomized trials are required to further investigate patient-based outcomes and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the LNG-IUS and other medical treatments.

Satisfaction and health-related quality of life in women with heavy menstrual bleeding; results from a non-interventional trial of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or conventional medical therapy

Purpose

To evaluate the patient satisfaction and health related quality of life (HRQoL) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) versus conventional medical treatments ([CMTs] combined oral contraceptives, oral progestins, and antifibrinolytics, alone or in combination) in Asian women with heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB).

Patients and methods

A total of 647 patients diagnosed with HMB were recruited to this non-interventional study from the eight participating countries in Asia. Patient satisfaction was recorded at the last visit (at 12 months or premature discontinuation). At each visit (at 3, 6, and 12 months), patients completed the menorrhagia multi-attribute scale (MMAS) to assess HRQoL.

Results

A total of 83.5% of patients on the LNG-IUS were “very satisfied” or at least “satisfied” with the therapeutic effect of HMB treatment, compared with 59.2% of patients with CMTs (P<0.05). The mean (± standard deviation) MMAS score increased from 41.4±24.5 to 87.7±21.4 in the LNG-IUS arm, and from 44.1±24.9 to 73.1±25.3 in the CMTs arm. This increase was significantly higher in patients on the LNG-IUS, as compared with those on CMTs (P<0.05). The improvement in HRQoL in both treatment groups correlated with the body mass index of the patient, with larger improvement obtained in women with a higher body mass index.

Conclusion

The majority of women using the LNG-IUS or CMTs for HMB were satisfied with their treatment, and both treatment modalities were associated with significant improvements in HRQoL over time. The improvement was greater with the LNG-IUS, compared with CMTs.

Treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding of endometrial origin: randomized controlled trial of medroxyprogesterone acetate and tranexamic acid

PURPOSE

This study aimed at comparing the efficacy of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) and tranexamic acid (TA) for treating heavy menstrual bleeding of endometrial origin (HMB).

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was carried out in three gynecology clinics in Tehran, Iran. Ninety women with the HMB of endometrial origin were randomized into the study: 44 patients took MPA for 21 days from day 5 and 46 patients took tranexamic acid for 5 days from day 1 of menses for three consecutive menstrual cycles. Blood loss was measured using the pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBAC); hematological assessments were made before intervention and after treatment. SF-36 and HMB Questionnaire (MQ) were given to assess quality of life. Statistical analysis was performed using t test, Paired t test, χ(2), Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and repeated measure analysis.

RESULTS

PBLC mean score, duration of bleeding and Hb values as well as quality of life were significantly improved in both groups (P < 0.05). But there was no significant deference between groups. More drug complication and less satisfaction were reported by MPA group (P = 0.003 and P = 0.002, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term use of MPA is as effective as Tranexamic acid in treating HMB and increasing quality of life. However, bleeding irregularity side effects of MPA might limit its use.

Medical treatment of idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding. What is new? An evidence based approach

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important health problem affecting up to 30 % of reproductive age women, interfering with their quality of life. Medical therapy, with the avoidance of unnecessary surgery, is an attractive option.

PURPOSE

To provide a comprehensive review of the current medical treatments available for idiopathic HMB and to focus on the newly introduced modalities. Furthermore, to provide a practical algorithm based on the best available evidence.

METHODS

A PubMed search was conducted looking for the different trials, reviews and various guidelines relating to medical treatment of idiopathic HMB.

RESULTS

The most effective medical treatment for idiopathic HMB is the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. It provides a reliable long-term effect. Importantly, there is a growing scientific evidence for new modalities entailing; modified-release formulation of tranexamic acid, the new four-phasic estradiol valerate/dienogest contraceptive pills and combined contraceptive vaginal ring. Also, vaginal danazol has been tried.

CONCLUSION

Maintenance of status quo, i.e., keeping first-line treatment of idiopathic HMB as medical treatment is an essential issue. Modified-release formulation of tranexamic acid, the new four-phasic contraceptive pills and contraceptive vaginal ring are recently added to the medical armamentarium for treatment of idiopathic HMB increasing its efficacy.

Clinical practice guidelines on menorrhagia: management of abnormal uterine bleeding before menopause

BACKGROUND

Normal menstrual periods last 3-6 days and involve blood loss of up to 80ml. Menorrhagia is defined as menstrual periods lasting more than 7 days and/or involving blood loss greater than 80ml. The prevalence of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) is estimated at 11-13% in the general population and increases with age, reaching 24% in those aged 36-40 years.

INVESTIGATION

A blood count for red cells+platelets to test for anemia is recommended on a first-line basis for women consulting for AUB whose history and/or bleeding score justify it. A pregnancy test by an hCG assay should be ordered. A speculum examination and Pap smear, according to the French High Health Authority guidelines should be performed early on to rule out any cervical disease. Pelvic ultrasound, both abdominal (suprapubic) and transvaginal, is recommended as a first-line procedure for the etiological diagnosis of AUB. Hysteroscopy or hysterosonography can be suggested as a second-line procedure. MRI is not recommended as a first-line procedure.

TREATMENT

In idiopathic AUB, the first-line treatment is medical, with efficacy ranked as follows: levonorgestrel IUD, tranexamic acid, oral contraceptives, either estrogens and progestins or synthetic progestins only, 21 days a month, or NSAIDs. When hormone treatment is contraindicated or immediate pregnancy is desired, tranexamic acid is indicated. Iron must be included for patients with iron-deficiency anemia. For women who do not wish to become pregnant in the future and who have idiopathic AUB, the long-term efficacy of conservative surgical treatment is greater than that of oral medical treatment. Placement of a levonorgestrel IUD (or administration of tranexamic acid by default) is recommended for women with idiopathic AUB. If this fails, a conservative surgical technique must be proposed; the choices include second-generation endometrial ablation techniques (thermal balloon, microwave, radiofrequency), or, if necessary, first-generation techniques (endometrectomy, roller-ball). A first-line hysterectomy is not recommended in this context. Should a hysterectomy be selected for functional bleeding, it should be performed by the vaginal or laparoscopic routes.

Community Pharmacists' Therapeutic Recommendations for Heavy Flow, Androgen Excess, Fragility Fractures and Night Sweats in Menstruating Women

Background:

Physicians and menstruating women often ask pharmacists for recommendations about menstrual cycle–related problems. Progesterone and medroxyprogesterone may provide physiology-based treatment, but official indications in menstruating women in Canada are minimal.

Objectives:

To describe pharmacists' responses to vignette-based questions about the treatment of common clinical problems in menstruating women and review evidence-based therapies.

Methods:

A pharmacist interviewer administered an 11-item questionnaire to a random sample of community pharmacists. Questions were based on clinical vignettes in adolescent, pre- and perimenopausal women and related to heavy flow, polycystic ovary syndrome, premenopausal osteoporosis, perimenopausal night sweats and side effects/contraindications for estrogens and progesterone/progestins.

Results:

The participation rate was 58%, including equal numbers of male and female pharmacists. Seventy-two percent indicated that they would treat menorrhagia in an anemic 13-year-old with oral contraceptives — 21% would recommend ibuprofen and 86% iron. Half recommended that a 35-year-old smoker with heavy flow and acne stop oral contraceptives, but the other 50% recommended a switch to an oral contraceptive with cyproterone. For premenopausal osteoporosis, the majority recommended calcium and vitamin D, but 53% endorsed oral contraceptives — only 7% suggested cyclic medroxyprogesterone. For night sweats, the majority recommended progesterone/progestin in a regularly menstruating 42-year-old woman. Estrogens are contraindicated with past thrombosis and/or breast cancer family history, and they could cause nausea; 50% of pharmacists also attributed these adverse effects to progesterone/progestins.

Conclusions:

Community pharmacists vary widely in their treatment choices for common pre- and perimenopausal women's menstrual cycle–related problems. The evidence in support of most recommendations is minimal or lacking.

Surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) significantly impairs the quality of life of many otherwise healthy women. Perception of HMB is subjective and management usually depends upon what symptoms are acceptable to the individual. Medical treatment options include oral medication and a hormone-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS). Surgical options include conservative surgery (uterine resection or ablation) and hysterectomy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of surgery versus medical therapy for HMB.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In September 2005 we searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trials register Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE EMBASE, Current Contents, Biological Abstracts, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also searched reference lists of articles retrieved and contacted pharmaceutical companies and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled randomised trials comparing conservative surgery or hysterectomy versus medical therapy (oral or intrauterine) for HMB DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trials for quality and extracted data .

MAIN RESULTS

The eight included trials randomised 821 women. In comparisons of oral medication versus surgery, 58% of women randomised to medical treatment had received surgery by two years. Compared to oral medication, endometrial resection was significantly more effective in controlling bleeding (at four months: OR 10.62, 95% CI 5.30 to 21.27) and significantly less likely to cause side effects (at four months: OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.31) and hysterectomy resulted in significantly greater improvements in mental health (at six months p = 0.04). In comparisons of LNG-IUS versus conservative surgery or hysterectomy, at one year there was no statistically significant difference in satisfaction rates or quality of life, though adverse effects were significantly less likely with conservative surgery (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.49). Two trials found conservative surgery significantly more effective than LNG-IUS in controlling bleeding at one year (OR 3.99, 95% CI 1.53 to 10.38). Two other small trials with longer follow-up found no difference or favoured LNG-IUS - however in both these studies the data were skewed and fewer than two thirds of participants were analysed. Hysterectomy stopped all bleeding but caused serious complications for some women.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Surgery, especially hysterectomy, reduces menstrual bleeding at one year more than medical treatments but LNG-IUS appears equally effective in improving quality of life. The evidence for longer term comparisons is weak and inconsistent. Oral medication suits a minority of women long term.