Efficacy of cyclic and extended regimens of ethinylestradiol 0.02 mg -levonorgestrel 0.09 mg for dysmenorrhea: A placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized trial

Assessing the impact of hormonal contraceptive use on menstrual health among women of reproductive age - a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Contraceptive methods are well-established in their ability to prevent pregnancy and increase individual agency in childbearing. Evidence suggests that contraceptives can also be used to treat adverse conditions associated with menstruation, including abnormal and prolonged uterine bleeding, heavy menstrual bleeding, painful menstruation, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, and premenstrual dysphoric disorders.This review investigates the effects of contraceptive techniques such as contraceptive pills, and long-acting reversible contraceptives (e.g. intrauterine devices, implants) on menstrual morbidity.

METHODS

Over ten databases with no geographical boundaries were searched from inception until October 2023. Study designs were one of the following types to be included: parallel or cluster randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, interrupted time series studies, cohort or longitudinal analyses, regression discontinuity designs, and case-control studies. Ten team members screened the papers in pairs with a Kappa score of more than 7, and Covidence was used. Conflicts were resolved by discussion, and the full papers were divided among the reviewers to extract the data from eligible studies.

RESULTS

Hormonal contraceptives are considered a well-tolerated, non-invasive, and clinically effective treatment for abnormal and prolonged uterine bleeding, heavy menstrual bleeding, painful menstruation, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, and premenstrual dysphoric disorders. Our studies investigating quality of life or well-being in women with heavy menstrual bleeding, endometriosis, or uterine fibroids have found improvements in all dimensions assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

Hormonal contraceptives significantly reduce pain, symptom severity, and abnormal bleeding patterns associated with women who suffer from heavy menstrual bleeding, endometriosis, and uterine fibroids.

Evaluation of the Characteristics of Ovarian Endometriomas in Patients with Endometriosis: Efficacy of a Low-Dose Estrogen/Progestogen Combination

OBJECTIVES

Approximately 17-44% of women diagnosed with endometriosis have ovarian endometriomas (cysts). Although ovarian endometriomas may adversely affect quality of life and work performance, the associations among patient characteristics, cyst size, and pain in women with endometriosis have not yet been reported. Thus, the objective of this study was to assess the association among age, cyst size, and pain in women with ovarian endometriomas.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective secondary analysis of pooled data from six randomized clinical trials on the use of low-dose estrogen/progestogen drugs for endometriosis.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, AND METHODS

Data on 491 patients enrolled in four randomized and two nonrandomized trials between 2003 and 2017 were pooled. None of the participants had undergone surgical treatment before trial participation. We examined differences in dysmenorrhea score, menstrual pain score, analgesic score, and pelvic pain, as measured using a visual analog scale (VAS), by age and endometrioma size.

RESULTS

The mean dysmenorrhea, menstrual pain, and analgesic scores were 4.2, 2.2, and 2.0, respectively. The mean VAS for pelvic pain was 55, which decreased significantly with an increase in age. Age was not associated with endometrioma size, including volume and maximum diameter, or dysmenorrhea score. Additionally, endometrioma volume and maximum diameter were not associated with menstrual pain, analgesic score, or pelvic pain.

LIMITATIONS

The details of past treatment history were not available; therefore, these could not be considered in the analysis. Additionally, the assessment of pain is heavily influenced by psychological factors, making it difficult to assess the true extent of pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Endometrioma size was not associated with dysmenorrhea or pelvic pain measured using the VAS.

Combined oral contraceptive pill for primary dysmenorrhoea

BACKGROUND

Dysmenorrhoea (painful menstrual cramps) is common and a major cause of pain in women. Combined oral contraceptives (OCPs) are often used in the management of primary dysmenorrhoea, but there is a need for reporting the benefits and harms. Primary dysmenorrhoea is defined as painful menstrual cramps without pelvic pathology.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of combined oral contraceptive pills for the management of primary dysmenorrhoea.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date 28 March 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing all combined OCPs with other combined OCPs, placebo, or management with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Participants had to have primary dysmenorrhoea, diagnosed by ruling out pelvic pathology through pelvic examination or ultrasound.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were pain score after treatment, improvement in pain, and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 RCTs (3723 women). Eleven RCTs compared combined OCP with placebo, eight compared different dosages of combined OCP, one compared two OCP regimens with placebo, and one compared OCP with NSAIDs. OCP versus placebo or no treatment OCPs reduce pain in women with dysmenorrhoea more effectively than placebo. Six studies reported treatment effects on different scales; the result can be interpreted as a moderate reduction in pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.74 to -0.41; I² = 28%; 6 RCTs, 588 women; high-quality evidence). Six studies also reported pain improvement as a dichotomous outcome (risk ratio (RR) 1.65, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.10; I² = 69%; 6 RCTs, 717 women; low-quality evidence). The data suggest that in women with a 28% chance of improvement in pain with placebo or no treatment, the improvement in women using combined OCP will be between 37% and 60%. Compared to placebo or no treatment, OCPs probably increase the risk of any adverse events (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.43; I² = 79%; 7 RCTs, 1025 women; moderate-quality evidence), and may also increase the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.77, 95% CI 0.49 to 6.43; I² = 22%; 4 RCTs, 512 women; low-quality evidence). Women who received OCPs had an increased risk of irregular bleeding compared to women who received placebo or no treatment (RR 2.63, 95% CI 2.11 to 3.28; I² = 29%; 7 RCTs, 1025 women; high-quality evidence). In women with a risk of irregular bleeding of 18% if using placebo or no treatment, the risk would be between 39% and 60% if using combined OCP. OCPs probably increase the risk of headaches (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.04; I² = 44%; 5 RCTs, 656 women; moderate-quality evidence), and nausea (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.30; I² = 39%; 8 RCTs, 948 women; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of OCP on weight gain (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.75 to 4.45; 1 RCT, 76 women; low-quality evidence). OCPs may slightly reduce requirements for additional medication (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.98; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 163 women; low-quality evidence), and absence from work (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.97; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 148 women; low-quality evidence). One OCP versus another OCP Continuous use of OCPs (no pause or inactive tablets after the usual 21 days of hormone pills) may reduce pain in women with dysmenorrhoea more effectively than the standard regimen (SMD -0.73, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.34; 2 RCTs, 106 women; low-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine if there was a difference in pain improvement between ethinylestradiol 20 μg and ethinylestradiol 30 μg OCPs (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.74; 1 RCT, 326 women; moderate-quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference between third- and fourth-generation and first- and second-generation OCPs (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; 1 RCT, 178 women; moderate-quality evidence). The standard regimen of OCPs may slightly increase the risk of any adverse events over the continuous regimen (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.22; I² = 76%; 3 RCTs, 602 women; low-quality evidence), and probably increases the risk of irregular bleeding (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.69; 2 RCTs, 379 women; moderate-quality evidence). Due to lack of studies, it is uncertain if there is a difference between continuous and standard regimen OCPs in serious adverse events (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.24; 1 RCT, 212 women), headaches (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.76; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 435 women), or nausea (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.30; I² = 23%; 2 RCTs, 435 women) (all very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if one type of OCP reduces absence from work more than the other (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.99; 1 RCT, 445 women; very low-quality evidence). OCPs versus NSAIDs There were insufficient data to determine whether OCPs were more effective than NSAIDs for pain (mean difference -0.30, 95% CI -5.43 to 4.83; 1 RCT, 91 women; low-quality evidence). The study did not report on adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

OCPs are effective for treating dysmenorrhoea, but they cause irregular bleeding, and probably headache and nausea. Long-term effects were not covered in this review. Continuous use of OCPs was probably more effective than the standard regimen but safety should be ensured with long-term data. Due to lack of data, we are uncertain whether NSAIDs are better than OCPs for treating dysmenorrhoea.

Efficacy of Low-Dose Estrogen-Progestins and Progestins in Japanese Women with Dysmenorrhea: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Although several studies suggest beneficial effects of low-dose estrogen-progestins (LEPs) and progestins on dysmenorrhea in Japanese women, the difference in efficacy between drugs remains unknown.

METHODS

We identified studies by searching the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and ICHUSHI databases and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that used total dysmenorrhea score and visual analogue scale (VAS) as outcome measures to evaluate LEPs and progestins for primary and secondary dysmenorrhea. We analyzed results by meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA).

RESULTS

We identified 10 articles on eight RCTs and included seven drugs (six LEPs and one progestin, i.e., dienogest) and placebo in the analysis. Meta-analysis showed improvements in total dysmenorrhea score and VAS for almost all drugs compared with placebo. In NMA, VAS in secondary dysmenorrhea improved more with dienogest than with norethisterone/ethinylestradiol (mean difference - 25.84 [95% CrI - 44.46 to - 7.15]). In the comparison of administration regimens, VAS improved more with progestin-continuous than LEP-cyclic and the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) of LEP-extended and progestin-continuous appeared to be higher than that of LEP-cyclic.

CONCLUSIONS

We confirmed that LEPs and dienogest are effective for primary and secondary dysmenorrhea and suggest that continuous regimens may be more effective than cyclic regimens in improving outcomes.