Treating menorrhagia in primary care. An overview of drug trials and a survey of prescribing practice

Norethisterone-Induced Liver Injury and a Short Survey Among Gynecologists

Norethisterone, a commonly used oral contraceptive, and treatment for various gynecological disorders such as menorrhagia, abnormal uterine bleeding, and breast cancer, has been associated with multiple liver injuries. These injuries can manifest as hepatitis or cholestatic types of injury, benign neoplasms, peliosis hepatis, sinusoidal obstruction syndrome, and enlargement of existing hemangiomas. This report presents three cases in which liver enzyme levels were elevated due to norethisterone intake. Two of the cases were individuals undergoing evaluation as potential kidney donors in the nephrology department for their spouses, while the third case involved a patient with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage-5 on maintenance hemodialysis. Regular follow-up of these patients, particularly due to the significance of two being kidney donors and one having advanced CKD, allowed for early detection of asymptomatic liver enzyme elevation and prompt discontinuation of norethisterone. Prescribing norethisterone is common in gynecological settings, including ours. To assess gynecologists' knowledge regarding norethisterone-related side effects, we conducted an online survey, the results of which are discussed in this report.

Interventions for heavy menstrual bleeding; overview of Cochrane reviews and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is excessive menstrual blood loss that interferes with women's quality of life, regardless of the absolute amount of bleeding. It is a very common condition in women of reproductive age, affecting 2 to 5 of every 10 women. Diverse treatments, either medical (hormonal or non-hormonal) or surgical, are currently available for HMB, with different effectiveness, acceptability, costs and side effects. The best treatment will depend on the woman's age, her intention to become pregnant, the presence of other symptoms, and her personal views and preferences.

OBJECTIVES

To identify, systematically assess and summarise all evidence from studies included in Cochrane Reviews on treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), using reviews with comparable participants and outcomes; and to present a ranking of the first- and second-line treatments for HMB.

METHODS

We searched for published Cochrane Reviews of HMB interventions in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The primary outcomes were menstrual bleeding and satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, adverse events and the requirement of further treatment. Two review authors independently selected the systematic reviews, extracted data and assessed quality, resolving disagreements by discussion. We assessed review quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool and evaluated the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods. We grouped the interventions into first- and second-line treatments, considering participant characteristics (desire for future pregnancy, failure of previous treatment, candidacy for surgery). First-line treatments included medical interventions, and second-line treatments included both the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and surgical treatments; thus the LNG-IUS is included in both groups. We developed different networks for first- and second-line treatments. We performed network meta-analyses of all outcomes, except for quality of life, where we performed pairwise meta-analyses. We reported the mean rank, the network estimates for mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the certainty of evidence (moderate, low or very low certainty). We also analysed different endometrial ablation and resection techniques separately from the main network: transcervical endometrial resection (TCRE) with or without rollerball, other resectoscopic endometrial ablation (REA), microwave non-resectoscopic endometrial ablation (NREA), hydrothermal ablation NREA, bipolar NREA, balloon NREA and other NREA.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library up to July 2021. We updated the reviews that were over two years old. In July 2020, we started the overview with no new reviews about the topic. The included medical interventions were: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antifibrinolytics (tranexamic acid), combined oral contraceptives (COC), combined vaginal ring (CVR), long-cycle and luteal oral progestogens, LNG-IUS, ethamsylate and danazol (included to provide indirect evidence), which were compared to placebo. Surgical interventions were: open (abdominal), minimally invasive (vaginal or laparoscopic) and unspecified (or surgeon's choice of route of) hysterectomy, REA, NREA, unspecified endometrial ablation (EA) and LNG-IUS. We grouped the interventions as follows. First-line treatments Evidence from 26 studies with 1770 participants suggests that LNG-IUS results in a large reduction of menstrual blood loss (MBL; mean rank 2.4, MD -105.71 mL/cycle, 95% CI -201.10 to -10.33; low certainty evidence); antifibrinolytics probably reduce MBL (mean rank 3.7, MD -80.32 mL/cycle, 95% CI -127.67 to -32.98; moderate certainty evidence); long-cycle progestogen reduces MBL (mean rank 4.1, MD -76.93 mL/cycle, 95% CI -153.82 to -0.05; low certainty evidence), and NSAIDs slightly reduce MBL (mean rank 6.4, MD -40.67 mL/cycle, -84.61 to 3.27; low certainty evidence; reference comparator mean rank 8.9). We are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining interventions and the sensitivity analysis for reduction of MBL, as the evidence was rated as very low certainty. We are uncertain of the true effect of any intervention (very low certainty evidence) on the perception of improvement and satisfaction. Second-line treatments Bleeding reduction is related to the type of hysterectomy (total or supracervical/subtotal), not the route, so we combined all routes of hysterectomy for bleeding outcomes. We assessed the reduction of MBL without imputed data (11 trials, 1790 participants) and with imputed data (15 trials, 2241 participants). Evidence without imputed data suggests that hysterectomy (mean rank 1.2, OR 25.71, 95% CI 1.50 to 439.96; low certainty evidence) and REA (mean rank 2.8, OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.29 to 5.66; low certainty evidence) result in a large reduction of MBL, and NREA probably results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 2.0, OR 3.32, 95% CI 1.53 to 7.23; moderate certainty evidence). Evidence with imputed data suggests hysterectomy results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 1.0, OR 14.31, 95% CI 2.99 to 68.56; low certainty evidence), and NREA probably results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 2.2, OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.29 to 6.05; moderate certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the true effect for REA (very low certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on amenorrhoea (very low certainty evidence). Evidence from 27 trials with 4284 participants suggests that minimally invasive hysterectomy results in a large increase in satisfaction (mean rank 1.3, OR 7.96, 95% CI 3.33 to 19.03; low certainty evidence), and NREA also increases satisfaction (mean rank 3.6, OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.33; low certainty evidence), but we are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining interventions (very low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests LNG-IUS is the best first-line treatment for reducing menstrual blood loss (MBL); antifibrinolytics are probably the second best, and long-cycle progestogens are likely the third best. We cannot make conclusions about the effect of first-line treatments on perception of improvement and satisfaction, as evidence was rated as very low certainty. For second-line treatments, evidence suggests hysterectomy is the best treatment for reducing bleeding, followed by REA and NREA. We are uncertain of the effect on amenorrhoea, as evidence was rated as very low certainty. Minimally invasive hysterectomy may result in a large increase in satisfaction, and NREA also increases satisfaction, but we are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining second-line interventions, as evidence was rated as very low certainty.

Reproductive issues in women on direct oral anticoagulants

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are replacing warfarin and other vitamin K antagonists for a wide range of indications. Advantages of DOAC therapy are fewer food and drug interactions and fixed dosing without routine laboratory monitoring, making DOACs the perfect choice especially for younger patients, in whom the main indication for anticoagulation is prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Although DOACs are safer and much more convenient than other anticoagulant alternatives, their profile may have drawbacks, especially for younger female patients in whom reproductive issues need special considerations. These may include the issue of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) during anticoagulant therapy, the embryotoxicity risk from inadvertent DOAC exposure during pregnancy, and the prevention or planning of pregnancies during DOAC therapy. This review summarizes the most relevant evidence in this increasingly important field of women's health.

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.

A randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in primary care against standard treatment for menorrhagia: the ECLIPSE trial

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem, yet evidence to inform decisions about initial medical treatment is limited.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) (Mirena®, Bayer) compared with usual medical treatment, with exploration of women's perspectives on treatment.

DESIGN

A pragmatic, multicentre randomised trial with an economic evaluation and a longitudinal qualitative study.

SETTING

Women who presented in primary care.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 571 women with HMB. A purposeful sample of 27 women who were randomised or ineligible owing to treatment preference participated in semistructured face-to-face interviews around 2 and 12 months after commencing treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

LNG-IUS or usual medical treatment (tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined oestrogen-progestogen or progesterone alone). Women could subsequently swap or cease their allocated treatment.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the patient-reported score on the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS) assessed over a 2-year period and then again at 5 years. Secondary outcomes included general quality of life (QoL), sexual activity, surgical intervention and safety. Data were analysed using iterative constant comparison. A state transition model-based cost-utility analysis was undertaken alongside the randomised trial. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were derived from the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) and the Short Form questionnaire-6 Dimensions (SF-6D). The intention-to-treat analyses were reported as cost per QALY gained. Uncertainty was explored by conducting both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The MMAS total scores improved significantly in both groups at all time points, but were significantly greater for the LNG-IUS than for usual treatment [mean difference over 2 years was 13.4 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.9 to 16.9 points; p < 0.001]. However, this difference between groups was reduced and no longer significant by 5 years (mean difference in scores 3.9 points, 95% CI -0.6 to 8.3 points; p = 0.09). By 5 years, only 47% of women had a LNG-IUS in place and 15% were still taking usual medical treatment. Five-year surgery rates were low, at 20%, and were similar, irrespective of initial treatments. There were no significant differences in serious adverse events between groups. Using the EQ-5D, at 2 years, the relative cost-effectiveness of the LNG-IUS compared with usual medical treatment was £1600 per QALY, which by 5 years was reduced to £114 per QALY. Using the SF-6D, usual medical treatment dominates the LNG-IUS. The qualitative findings show that women's experiences and expectations of medical treatments for HMB vary considerably and change over time. Women had high expectations of a prompt effect from medical treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

The LNG-IUS, compared with usual medical therapies, resulted in greater improvement over 2 years in women's assessments of the effect of HMB on their daily routine, including work, social and family life, and psychological and physical well-being. At 5 years, the differences were no longer significant. A similar low proportion of women required surgical intervention in both groups. The LNG-IUS is cost-effective in both the short and medium term, using the method generally recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Using the alternative measures to value QoL will have a considerable impact on cost-effectiveness decisions. It will be important to explore the clinical and health-care trajectories of the ECLIPSE (clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in primary care against standard treatment for menorrhagia) trial participants to 10 years, by which time half of the cohort will have reached menopause.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86566246.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 88. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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.

Hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding

Hysterectomy is the most frequently performed major surgical intervention in gynecology. Although surgically removing the uterus is invasive, it represents the most definitive treatment option for heavy menstrual bleeding. In this article, we will discuss the indications for hysterectomy as a treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding, the different approaches to perform the hysterectomy, the complications which may occur during and after this procedure and finally the outcomes in comparison with other treatment options.

Progesterone or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in women and it accounts for 12% of all gynaecology referrals in the UK. Heavy menstrual bleeding is clinically defined as greater than or equal to 80 mL of blood loss per menstrual cycle. However, women may complain of excessive bleeding when their blood loss is less than 80 mL. Hysterectomy is often used to treat women with this complaint but medical therapy may be a successful alternative.The intrauterine device was originally developed as a contraceptive but the addition of progestogens to these devices resulted in a large reduction in menstrual blood loss. Case studies of two types of progesterone or progestogen-releasing systems, Progestasert and Mirena, reported reductions of up to 90% and improvements in dysmenorrhoea (pain or cramps during menstruation). Insertion, however, may be regarded as invasive by some women, which affects its acceptability as a treatment. Frequent intermenstrual bleeding and spotting is also likely during the first few months after commencing treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of progesterone or progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices in achieving a reduction in heavy menstrual bleeding.

SEARCH METHODS

All randomised controlled trials of progesterone or progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding were obtained by electronic searches of The Cochrane Library, the specialised register of MDSG, MEDLINE (1966 to January 2015), EMBASE (1980 to January 2015), CINAHL (inception to December 2014) and PsycINFO (inception to January 2015). Additional searches were undertaken for grey literature and for unpublished trials in trial registers. Companies producing progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices and experts in the field were contacted for information on published and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in women of reproductive age treated with progesterone or progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices versus no treatment, placebo, or other medical or surgical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding within primary care, family planning or specialist clinic settings were eligible for inclusion. Women with postmenopausal bleeding, intermenstrual or irregular bleeding, or pathological causes of heavy menstrual bleeding were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Potential trials were independently assessed by at least two review authors. The review authors extracted the data independently and data were pooled where appropriate. Risk ratios (RRs) were estimated from the data for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. The primary outcomes were reduction in menstrual blood loss and satisfaction; in addition, rate of adverse effects, changes in quality of life, failure of treatment and withdrawal from treatment were also assessed.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 RCTs (2082 women). The included trials mostly assessed the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG IUS) (no conclusions could be reached from one small study assessing Progestasert which was discontinued in 2001) and so conclusions are based only on LNG IUS. Comparisons were made with placebo, oral medical treatment, endometrial destruction techniques and hysterectomy. Ratings for the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison ranged from very low to high. Limitations in the evidence included inadequate reporting of study methods and inconsistency.Seven studies compared the LNG IUS with oral medical therapy: either norethisterone acetate (NET) administered over most of the menstrual cycle, medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) (administered for 10 days), the oral contraceptive pill, mefenamic acid or usual medical treatment where participants could choose the oral treatment that was most suitable. The LNG IUS was more effective at reducing HMB as measured by the alkaline haematin method (MD 66.91 mL, 95% CI 42.61 to 91.20; two studies, 170 women; I(2) = 81%, low quality evidence) or by Pictorial Bleeding Assessment Chart (PBAC) scores (MD 55.05, 95% CI 27.83 to 82.28; three studies, 335 women; I(2) = 79%, low quality evidence), improving quality of life and a greater number of women continued with their treatment at two years when compared with oral treatment. Although substantial heterogeneity was identified for the bleeding outcomes, the direction of effect consistently favoured the LNG IUS. There was insufficient evidence to reach conclusions on satisfaction. Minor adverse effects (such as pelvic pain, breast tenderness and ovarian cysts) were more common with the LNG IUS.Ten studies compared the LNG IUS with endometrial destruction techniques: three with transcervical resection, one with rollerball ablation and six with thermal balloon ablation. Evidence was inconsistent and very low quality with respect to reduction in bleeding outcomes and satisfaction was comparable between treatments (low and moderate quality evidence). Improvements in quality of life were experienced with both types of treatment. Minor adverse events were more common with the LNG IUS overall, but it appeared more cost effective compared to thermal ablation within a two-year time frame in one study.Three studies compared the LNG IUS with hysterectomy. The LNG IUS was not as successful at reducing HMB as hysterectomy (high quality evidence). The women in these studies reported improved quality of life, regardless of treatment. In spite of the high rate of surgical treatment in those having LNG IUS within 10 years, the LNG IUS was more cost effective than hysterectomy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG IUS) is more effective than oral medication as a treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). It is associated with a greater reduction in HMB, improved quality of life and appears to be more acceptable long term but is associated with more minor adverse effects than oral therapy.When compared to endometrial ablation, it is not clear whether the LNG IUS offers any benefits with regard to reduced HMB and satisfaction rates and quality of life measures were similar. Some minor adverse effects were more common with the LNG IUS but it appeared to be more cost effective than endometrial ablation techniques.The LNG IUS was less effective than hysterectomy in reducing HMB. Both treatments improved quality of life but the LNG IUS appeared more cost effective than hysterectomy for up to 10 years after treatment.

Recent advances in managing and understanding menstrual disorders

Menstrual disorders are a major reason for gynaecological consultations worldwide and, unfortunately there are many different definitions and classifications of this condition. Clear definitions and terminology are necessary for scientific literature, particularly for clinicians, and for clinical trials comparing two treatments. The International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Menstrual Disorders Working Group has proposed abandoning the use of one common term, dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB), while continuing to use the terms abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) and heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). Furthermore, the group issued the PALM-COEIN classification system for menstrual disorders, which has quickly been adopted around the world. The PALM-COEIN system allows clinicians and researchers to identify and classify women with both AUB and HMB in a systematic manner, provides reliable information for research purposes and for epidemiological and prevalence studies in different settings, and supports accurate diagnoses and treatment. Additionally, this classification system is useful for selecting treatments appropriate for different stages of women's reproductive years and for different patterns of menstrual bleeding. Among the proposed treatments are the use of combined oral contraceptives, the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

An assessment of economic measures used in menorrhagia: a systematic review

'Menorrhagia', or heavy menstrual bleeding, is a common problem affecting women. The principal driver for treatment is women's experience of its interference in their lives, so a measure of quality of life (QoL) is increasingly used as the primary outcome to assess treatment success. QoL measures need to accurately reflect women's concerns as these measures are often used to inform resource allocation decisions within the healthcare service. Healthcare decision-makers often advocate the use of generic measures so as to achieve consistency when making decisions. Generic measures, by definition, have a broad focus on QoL in contrast to disease-specific measures that focus on dimensions of health relevant to the condition. We report a systematic review of studies that have either used or assessed economic outcome measures in menorrhagia, and present criteria for assessing which measure is the most appropriate. Studies including women presenting with menorrhagia, and using or assessing economic measures were sought by searching nine electronic databases. Fifty-six eligible studies were identified. A narrative synthesis was most suitable to the review question. Eleven studies assessed the psychometric properties of the outcome measures, twelve studies applied the measures in an economic evaluation, and thirty-three used them in effectiveness studies. Mixed results on the psychometric properties of the instruments were observed. Studies were often found to include both a disease-specific and a generic measure. We found no consensus on the most appropriate economic outcome measure to use when assessing the cost-effectiveness of treatment for menorrhagia. This is an important finding as QoL is the primary focus for treatment decisions. The cyclical nature of the condition has a large impact on the reliability and validity of outcome measurement. Alternative measures, such as willingness-to-pay, which embrace more than health and avoid standard recall periods should be explored.

Tranexamic acid therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding

INTRODUCTION

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB, also known as menorrhagia) is an important health problem that interferes with women's quality of life. It is one of the most common reasons why women are seen by their family doctors in primary care and is a condition frequently treated by surgery.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers the pharmacology of tranexamic acid in brief and concentrates on its use in the treatment of HMB. Papers published in the English language between January 1985 and November 2010 were reviewed using Medline, Embase, Cinahl and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Search terms were 'heavy menstrual bleeding', 'tranexamic acid' and 'menorrhagia'.

EXPERT OPINION

Tranexamic acid, a competitive inhibitor of plasminogen activation, has been used to treat HMB for well over four decades. Although several treatment options are available for HMB, tranexamic acid is particularly useful in women who either desire immediate pregnancy or for whom hormonal treatment is inappropriate. Tranexamic acid is a well-tolerated, cost-effective drug that reduces menstrual blood loss in the range of 34-59%. It improves the health-related quality of life in women in HMB.

Cost-effectiveness and quality of life associated with heavy menstrual bleeding among women using the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature for economic and health-related quality of life outcomes data associated with the use of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in the management of heavy menstrual bleeding.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases simultaneously using the Ovid interface to review the literature in a systematic manner for economic and health-related quality of life outcomes data associated with the use of the LNG-IUS in women with heavy menstrual bleeding. Articles were then selected for further review based on the relevance of their titles and/or abstracts. We identified 17 articles for inclusion in this review.

RESULTS

Treating heavy menstrual bleeding with the LNG-IUS was found to be cost-effective in various countries and settings. Moreover, irrespective of the measuring instrument used, health-related quality-of-life outcomes were found to be improved to a degree similar to that achieved with endometrial ablation or hysterectomy. In some cases, the LNG-IUS appeared to be more effective and less costly than the surgical options.

CONCLUSION

The LNG-IUS is a cost-effective treatment option for heavy menstrual bleeding when pharmacologic treatment is indicated.

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.

Endometrial resection / ablation techniques for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a significant health problem in premenopausal women; it can reduce their quality of life and cause anaemia. First-line therapy has traditionally been medical therapy but this is frequently ineffective. On the other hand, hysterectomy is obviously 100% effective in stopping bleeding but is more costly and can cause severe complications. Endometrial ablation is less invasive and preserves the uterus, although long-term studies have found that the costs of ablative surgery approach the cost of hysterectomy due to the requirement for repeat procedures. A large number of techniques have been developed to 'ablate' (remove) the lining of the endometrium. The gold standard techniques (laser, transcervical resection of the endometrium and rollerball) require visualisation of the uterus with a hysteroscope and, although safe, require skilled surgeons. A number of newer techniques have recently been developed, most of which are less time consuming. However, hysteroscopy may still be required as part of the ablative techniques and some of them must be considered to be still under development, requiring refinement and investigation.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy, safety and acceptability of methods used to destroy the endometrium to reduce HMB in premenopausal women.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials (from inception to August 2009). We also searched trial registers and other sources of unpublished or grey literature, reference lists of retrieved studies, experts in the field and made contact with pharmaceutical companies that manufactured ablation devices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing different endometrial ablation techniques in women with a complaint of heavy menstrual bleeding without uterine pathology. The outcomes included reduction of heavy menstrual bleeding, improvement in quality of life, operative outcomes, satisfaction with the outcome, complications and need for further surgery or hysterectomy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trials for quality and extracted data. Attempts were made to contact authors for clarification of data in some trials. Adverse events were only assessed if they were separately measured in the included trials.

MAIN RESULTS

In the comparison of the newer 'blind' techniques (second generation) with the gold standard hysteroscopic ablative techniques (first generation), there was no evidence of overall differences in the improvement in HMB or patient satisfaction.Surgery was an average of 15 minutes shorter (weighted mean difference (WMD) 14.9, 95% CI 10.1 to 19.7), local anaesthesia was more likely to be employed (odds ratio (OR) 6.4, 95% CI 3.0 to 13.7) and equipment failure was more likely (OR 4.6, 95% CI 1.5 to 14.0) with second-generation ablation. Women undergoing newer ablative procedures were less likely to have fluid overload, uterine perforation, cervical lacerations and hematometra than women undergoing the more traditional type of ablation and resection techniques (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.77; OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.1 to 1.0; OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.6 and OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.85, respectively). However, women were more likely to have nausea and vomiting and uterine cramping (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.6 to 3.9 and OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.8, respectively).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Endometrial ablation techniques offer a less invasive surgical alternative to hysterectomy. The rapid development of a number of new methods of endometrial destruction has made systematic comparisons between methods and with the 'gold standard' first generation techniques difficult. Most of the newer techniques are technically easier than hysteroscopy-based methods to perform but technical difficulties with new equipment need to be ironed out. Overall, the existing evidence suggests that success rates and complication profiles of newer techniques of ablation compare favourably with hysteroscopic techniques.

Role of tranexamic acid in management of dysfunctional uterine bleeding in comparison with medroxyprogesterone acetate

Currently, tranexamic acid (TXA) is used as 4 g/day in menorrhagia This prospective randomised study included 100 cases to assess efficacy and safety of 2 g/day TXA in dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB) vs cyclical 10 mg twice-daily medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) for 3 cycles. Follow-ups were made monthly for 3 months during therapy, then 3 months after. Mean pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBAC) score decreased from 356.9 to 141.6 in the TXA group and from the pre-treatment 370.9 to 156.6 with MPA and mean reduction of blood loss was 60.3% with TXA and 57.7% with MPA after 3 months (p < 0.005 in both groups). Lack of response during treatment was seen in three patients (6.1%) TXA and in 13 patients (28.9%) with MPA (p = 0.003). In patients who reported 3 months after stopping the treatment, 66.7% in TXA group and 50% in MPA had recurrence of menorrhagia, (p = 0.155). During the 6 months study period more hysterectomies were performed in the MPA than in the TXA group (17.8% vs 4%; p = 0.002). We conclude that TXA in 2 g/day dosage is an effective and safe option in DUB.

Cyclical progestogens for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Excessively heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) or menorrhagia is an important cause of ill health in women. Eighty per cent of women treated for HMB have no anatomical pathology, which makes medical therapy, with the avoidance of possibly unnecessary surgery, an attractive alternative. Of the wide variety of medications used to reduce heavy menstrual bleeding, oral progestogens are the most commonly prescribed. This review assesses the effectiveness of two different regimens of oral progestogens in reducing ovulatory HMB.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to investigate the effectiveness of oral progestogen therapy taken either during the luteal phase or for a longer course of 21 days in achieving a reduction in menstrual blood loss in women of reproductive years with heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (searched April 2007), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2007) and EMBASE (1985 to April 2007). Attempts were also made to identify trials from citation lists of review articles. In most cases, the first author of each included trial was contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of oral progestogen therapy versus placebo or other medical treatments in women of reproductive years with regular heavy periods measured either objectively or subjectively and with no pathological or iatrogenic causes for their heavy menstrual blood loss.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The review authors extracted the data independently. Odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes were estimated from the data.

MAIN RESULTS

No RCTs comparing progestogen treatment with placebo were identified. Comparisons between oral progestogens and other medical therapies were assessed separately according to dosage regimen.Progestogen therapy during the luteal phase was significantly less effective at reducing menstrual blood loss when compared with tranexamic acid, danazol and the progesterone-releasing intrauterine system (IUS). Duration of menstruation was significantly longer with the progesterone IUS when compared with oral progestogen therapy but significantly shorter with danazol treatment. Adverse events were significantly more likely with danazol when compared with progestogen treatment. Progestogen therapy from day 5 to day 26 of the menstrual cycle was significantly less effective at reducing menstrual blood loss than the IUS. A significantly higher proportion of norethisterone (NET) patients taking progestogens found their treatment unacceptable compared to IUS patients. However, the adverse effects of breast tenderness and intermenstrual bleeding were more likely in women with the IUS.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Progestogens administered from day 15 or 19 to day 26 of the cycle offer no advantage over other medical therapies such as danazol, tranexamic acid, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and the IUS in the treatment of menorrhagia in women with ovulatory cycles. Progestogen therapy for 21 days of the cycle results in a significant reduction in menstrual blood loss, although women found the treatment less acceptable than intrauterine levonorgestrel. This regimen of progestogen may have a role in the short-term treatment of menorrhagia.

Tranexamic Acid-associated Necrosis and Intralesional Thrombosis of Uterine Leiomyomas

INTRODUCTION

Women with menorrhagia have increased levels of plasminogen activators in the endometrium. Tranexamic acid (cyklokapron), an antifibrinolytic agent, is commonly prescribed worldwide to women with menorrhagia, including those with fibroids. Necrosis in uterine leiomyomas may be associated with pregnancy, and progestogen or oral contraceptive use but its association with tranexamic acid has not been investigated. Four hundred ninety patients with uterine leiomyomas in 2004 and 2005 were reviewed. Their ages ranged from 22 to 86 (mean 47.2). One hundred forty-seven (30%) were treated with tranexamic acid.

RESULTS

Infarct-type necrosis was observed in the leiomyomas of 38 patients, 22 of whom had tranexamic acid (15%) whereas the remaining 16 had no drug exposure (4.7%) (odds ratio=3.60; 95% confidence interval: 1.83-6.07; P=0.0003). Two patients who took the drug less than 2 weeks before surgery had early infarcts with appearance resembled coagulative type necrosis. Eleven of the 22 cases of drug-induced necrotic leiomyoma (50%) also showed intralesional thrombus formation, and 4 showed organization of the thrombi.

CONCLUSIONS

Infarct-type necrosis and thrombosis of leiomyoma was more commonly observed in patients treated with tranexamic acid. Although the drug is effective for menorrhagia, clinicians should be aware of the possible complications associated with leiomyoma necrosis such as pain and fever. Distinguishing between types of necrosis may not always be straightforward particularly in early infarcts when the reparative connective tissue reaction between the viable and necrotic cells is not well-developed, resulting in an appearance similar to coagulative necrosis. When the overall gross and microscopic features of a leiomyoma with coagulative necrosis favor a benign lesion, the drug history should be reviewed so that this type of early and healing infarct-type necrosis is considered as the underlying cause of the apparent coagulative necrosis. This may otherwise result in a diagnosis of smooth muscle tumor of uncertain malignant potential, leading to prolonged follow-up and unnecessary further surgical intervention.

Danazol for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in pre menopausal women. Medical therapy, with the avoidance of possibly unnecessary surgery is an attractive treatment option, but there is considerable variation in practice and uncertainty about the most effective therapy. Danazol is a synthetic steroid with anti-oestrogenic and anti progestogenic activity, and weak androgenic properties. Danazol suppresses oestrogen and progesterone receptors in the endometrium, leading to endometrial atrophy (thinning of the lining of the uterus) and reduced menstrual loss and to amenorrhoea in some women.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and tolerability of Danazol when used for heavy menstrual bleeding in women of reproductive years.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's Specialised Register (April 2007). We also searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2007), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2007), EMBASE (1980 to April 2007, CINAHL (1982 to April 2007). Attempts were also made to identify trials from citation lists of included trials and relevant review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of Danazol versus placebo, any other medical (non-surgical) therapy or Danazol in different dosages for heavy menstrual bleeding in women of reproductive age with regular HMB measured either subjectively or objectively. Trials that included women with post menopausal bleeding, intermenstrual bleeding and pathological causes of heavy menstrual bleeding were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Nine RCTs, with 353 women, were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The main outcomes were menstrual blood loss, the number of women experiencing adverse effects, weight gain, withdrawals due to adverse effects and dysmenorrhoea. If data could not be extracted in a form suitable for meta-analysis, they were presented in a descriptive format.

MAIN RESULTS

Most data were not in a form suitable for meta analysis, and the results are based on a small number of trials, all of which are under-powered. Danazol appears to be more effective than placebo, progestogens, NSAIDs and the OCP at reducing MBL, but confidence intervals were wide. Treatment with Danazol caused more adverse events than NSAIDs (OR 7.0; 95% CI 1.7 to 28.2) and progestogens (OR 4.05, 95% CI 1.6 to10.2). Danazol was shown to significantly lower the duration of menses when compared with NSAIDs (WMD -1.0; 95% CI -1.8 to -0.3) and a progesterone releasing IUD (WMD -6.0; 95% CI -7.3 to -4.8). There were no randomised trials comparing Danazol with tranexamic acid or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Danazol appears to be an effective treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding compared to other medical treatments. The use of Danazol may be limited by its side effect profile, its acceptability to women and the need for continuing treatment. The small number of trials, and the small sample sizes of the included trials limit the recommendations for clinical care. Further studies are unlikely in the future and this review will not be updated unless further studies are identified.

Cyclooxygenase enzyme expression and E series prostaglandin receptor signalling are enhanced in heavy menstruation

BACKGROUND

Although the mechanisms underlying the causes of heavy menstrual blood loss (MBL) remain to be elucidated, prostaglandins have been previously implicated. This study was initiated to elucidate a pattern of expression of the various components of the cyclooxygenase (COX)-prostaglandin signalling pathways present in the endometrium of women with normal and heavy MBLs.

METHODS

Endometrial biopsies were collected at different stages of the menstrual cycle from women who underwent measurement of MBL. Tissue was divided for either examination of gene expression by quantitative RT-PCR analysis or in vitro culture experimentation.

RESULTS

Analysis of gene expression demonstrated a significant elevation in expression of COX-1 and COX-2 mRNA in endometrium obtained from women with heavy MBL when compared with endometrium obtained from women with normal MBL. Tissue culture with PGE(2) stimulation caused a significantly elevated production of cyclic AMP (cAMP) by endometrium of women with heavy MBL when compared with normal MBL. Expression of phosphodiesterase 4B, an enzyme involved in cAMP breakdown, was reduced in these same endometrial samples obtained from women with heavy MBL.

CONCLUSIONS

These data identify the E series prostaglandin receptors and their signalling pathways as potential therapeutic targets in the treatment of heavy menstruation.

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system vs. transcervical endometrial resection for dysfunctional uterine bleeding

OBJECTIVE

To compare the acceptability, efficacy, adverse effects, and user satisfaction of a levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) for the treatment of dysfunctional uterine bleeding.

METHOD

Of 50 women with a pictoral blood loss assessment chart (PBAC) score of 100 or greater, 25 had a LNG-IUS inserted (Mirena; Schering, Berlin, Germany) and 25 underwent TCRE. Procedure-related complications, PBAC score, hemoglobin levels, adverse effects, and rates of acceptability and satisfaction were recorded at 3-month intervals for a period of 12 months.

RESULTS

At the end of 1 year there were a 97% and a 94% reduction in menstrual blood loss in the LNG-IUS and TCRE groups, respectively, and hemoglobin concentration had increased by 5.5% in the LNG-IUS group and 5.2% in the TCRE group. Adverse effects were similar in both groups except for systemic effects, which were seen only in the LNG-IUS group. Satisfaction rates were about 80% in the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Both treatments were found to be equally effective but LNG-IUS placement requires less operator skill and entails no operative hazards, and the device provides effective contraception.

Cost-effectiveness of treatments for dysfunctional uterine bleeding in women who need contraception

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of oral contraceptives (OCs), the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and surgical management in treating dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB) in women not desiring additional children.

METHOD

A Markov model was constructed from the perspective of the health services payers for a 5-year period. Treatment costs, DUB treatment success rates and contraception success rates were obtained through a literature review.

RESULTS

In women not responding to an initial trial of OCs, surgical management was more effective than the LNG-IUS (95.5% vs. 92%) but at higher cost (US$4853 vs. US$2796 per woman). Among responders to OCs, continuing treatment with the LNG-IUS instead of OCs was more effective (92% vs. 90.4%) and less expensive (US$2796 vs. US$4711). For women naïve to medical therapy, the LNG-IUS and OCs had similar effectiveness, but cost for the LNG-IUS was lower (US$2796 vs. US$4895). In all scenarios, surgery followed if medical therapy failed; rates of primary method failure were 62.5% with OCs and 34% with the LNG-IUS at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment strategies employing the LNG-IUS are the most cost-effective in managing DUB, regardless of whether a woman has previously tried OC therapy.

The obstetric and gynaecological management of women with inherited bleeding disorders - review with guidelines produced by a taskforce of UK Haemophilia Centre Doctors' Organization

The gynaecological and obstetric management of women with inherited coagulation disorders requires close collaboration between obstetrician/gynaecologists and haematologists. Ideally these women should be managed in a joint disciplinary clinic where expertise and facilities are available to provide comprehensive assessment of the bleeding disorder and a combined plan of management. The haematologist should arrange and interpret laboratory tests and make provision for appropriate replacement therapy. These guidelines have been provided for healthcare professionals for information and guidance and it is also intended that they are readily available for women with bleeding disorders.

Disorders of hemostasis and excessive menstrual bleeding: prevalence and clinical impact

The prevalence and impact of most underlying disorders of hemostasis are reviewed in women with excessive menstrual bleeding. The most common underlying bleeding disorder is von Willebrand disease, which occurs in only 1% to 2% of the general population but in approximately 13% of women with excessive menstrual bleeding.

Endometrial destruction techniques for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a significant health problem in premenopausal women; it can reduce their quality of life and cause anaemia. First-line therapy has traditionally been medical therapy but this is frequently ineffective. On the other hand, hysterectomy is obviously 100% effective in stopping bleeding but is more costly and can cause severe complications. Endometrial ablation is less invasive and preserves the uterus, although long-term studies have found that the costs of ablative surgery approach the cost of hysterectomy due to the requirement for repeat procedures. A large number of techniques have been developed to 'ablate' (remove) the lining of the endometrium. The gold standard techniques (laser, transcervical resection of the endometrium and rollerball) require visualisation of the uterus with a hysteroscope and, although safe, require skilled surgeons. A number of newer techniques have recently been developed, most of which are less time consuming. However, hysteroscopy may still be required as part of the ablative techniques and some of them must be considered to be still under development, requiring refinement and investigation.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy, safety and acceptability of methods used to destroy the endometrium to reduce HMB in premenopausal women.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials (April 2004). We also searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2004), EMBASE (1980 to July 2004), Current Contents (1993 to week 38, 2001), Biological Abstracts (1980 to June 2001), PsycLIT (1967 to August 2001), CINAHL (1982 to July 2004) and the metaregister of controlled trials and ISRCTN register (December 2004). We also searched reference lists of articles and contacted pharmaceutical companies and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing different endometrial ablation techniques in women with a complaint of heavy menstrual bleeding without uterine pathology. The outcomes included reduction of heavy menstrual bleeding, improvement in quality of life, operative outcomes, satisfaction with the outcome, complications and need for further surgery or hysterectomy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trials for quality and extracted data. Attempts were made to contact authors for clarification of data in some trials. Adverse events were only assessed if they were separately measured in the included trials.

MAIN RESULTS

In the comparison of the newer non-hysteroscopic techniques (second generation) with the gold standard hysteroscopic ablative techniques (first generation) overall, surgery was an average of 15 minutes shorter (weighted mean difference (WMD) 14.9, 95% CI 10.1 to 19.7), local anaesthesia was more likely to be employed (odds ratio (OR) 8.3, 95% CI 3.9 to 17.5) and equipment failure was more likely (OR 4.2, 95% CI 1.3 to 13.8) with second-generation ablation. Women undergoing newer ablative procedures were less likely to have fluid overload, uterine perforation, cervical lacerations and hematometra than women undergoing the more traditional type of ablation and resection techniques (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.5; OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.7; OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.3 and OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.7, respectively). However, women were more likely to have nausea and vomiting and uterine cramping (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.5 to 3.4 and OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.9, respectively). Some differences were also found in amenorrhoea rates and satisfaction rates, but there did not appear to be a trend over time so these results may be due to chance.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Endometrial ablation techniques continue to play an important role in the management of HMB. The rapid development of a number of new methods of endometrial destruction has made systematic comparisons between methods and with the 'gold standard' of transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) difficult. Most of the newer techniques are technically easier than hysteroscopy-based methods to perform. However, uterine perforation, which is the major complication of endometrial ablation, cannot be excluded without hysteroscopy. Overall, the existing evidence suggests that success rates and complication profiles of newer techniques of ablation compare favourably with TCRE, although technical difficulties with new equipment need to be ironed out.

Progesterone or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in women and it accounts for 12% of all gynaecology referrals in the UK. Heavy menstrual bleeding is clinically defined as greater than or equal to 80 ml of blood loss per menstrual cycle. However, women may complain of excessive bleeding when their blood loss is less than 80 ml. Hysterectomy is often used to treat women with this complaint but medical therapy may be a successful alternative. The intrauterine coil device was originally developed as a contraceptive but the addition of uterine relaxing hormones, progestogens, to these devices resulted in a large reduction in menstrual blood loss. Case studies of two types of progesterone or progestogen-releasing systems, Progestasert and Mirena, reported reductions of up to 90% and that dysmenorrhoea may be improved. Insertion, however, may be regarded as invasive by some women, which affects its acceptability as a treatment. Frequent intermenstrual bleeding and spotting is also likely during the first few months.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and acceptability of progesterone or progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices in achieving a reduction in heavy menstrual bleeding.

SEARCH STRATEGY

All studies which might describe randomised controlled trials of progesterone or progestagen-releasing intrauterine devices for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding were obtained by electronic searches of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1966 to 2005) and EMBASE (1980 to 2005). Companies producing progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices and experts in the field were contacted for information on published and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in women of reproductive age treated with progesterone or progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices versus no treatment, placebo, or other medical or surgical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding within primary care, family planning or specialist clinic settings were eligible for inclusion. Women with postmenopausal bleeding, intermenstrual or irregular bleeding, or pathological causes of heavy menstrual bleeding were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Potential trials were independently assessed by three review authors and nine trials met the criteria for inclusion in the review. The reviewers extracted the data independently and data were pooled where appropriate. Odds ratios (OR) were estimated from the data for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences (WMD) for continuous outcomes. The primary outcome was reduction in menstrual blood loss but incidence of side effects, changes in quality of life, satisfaction and acceptability measures were also assessed.

MAIN RESULTS

Progesterone or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems have not been compared to placebo or no treatment. Progestasert has been compared to a number of different medical therapies in one small study but no conclusions can be made about its effectiveness. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG IUS) has been compared to oral cyclical norethisterone (NET) administered on days 5 to 26 of the menstrual cycle in one trial and was significantly more effective although there was a large reduction in loss from baseline in both groups. Some short term side effects were more common in the LNG IUS group but a significantly greater proportion of women in this group were satisfied and willing to continue with their treatment. In one trial of women awaiting hysterectomy, where the LNG IUS was compared with a control group taking their existing medical therapy, a higher proportion of the women in the intrauterine device group cancelled their planned surgery after six months of treatment. The LNG IUS has been compared to an endometrial ablation: either transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) (two trials) or balloon ablation (three trials). There was a significantly greater mean reduction in menstrual bleeding in one trial in those undergoing balloon ablation (WMD -45.2 units, 95% CI -56.9 to -33.5), a lower score on the pictorial blood loss chart (PBAC) (WMD 33.2 units, 95% CI 27.2 to 39.2) and higher rates of successful treatment in 3 trials including both balloon and TCRE (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.58) but the rates of satisfaction with treatment was were similar. There was no conclusive evidence of changes in quality of life between groups but women with the LNG IUS had a greater incidence of progestogenic side effects within one year. The LNG IUS has been compared to hysterectomy in one trial. There was no evidence of a change in quality of life scores but the LNG IUS treatment had lower costs than with hysterectomy, both at one and five-years follow up.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG IUS) is more effective than cyclical norethisterone (for 21 days) as a treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding. Women with an LNG IUS are more satisfied and willing to continue with treatment but experience more side effects, such as intermenstrual bleeding and breast tenderness. The LNG IUS results in a smaller mean reduction in menstrual blood loss (as assessed by the PBAC chart) than endometrial ablation but there is no evidence of a difference in the rate of satisfaction with treatment. Women with an LNG IUS experience more progestogenic side effects compared to women having TCRE for treatment of their heavy menstrual bleeding but there is no evidence of a difference in their perceived quality of life. The LNG IUS treatment costs less than hysterectomy but there is no evidence of a difference in quality of life measures between these groups. There are no data available from randomised controlled trials comparing progesterone-releasing intrauterine systems to either placebo or other commonly used medical therapies for heavy menstrual bleeding.

Randomised comparative trial of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system and mefenamic acid for the treatment of idiopathic menorrhagia: a multiple analysis using total menstrual fluid loss, menstrual blood loss and pictorial blood loss assessment charts

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG IUS) with mefenamic acid in the management of objective idiopathic menorrhagia.

DESIGN

Phase III, Single centre, open, randomised, comparative, parallel group study.

SETTING

District General Hospital in the United Kingdom.

POPULATION

Fifty-one women with objective menorrhagia.

METHODS

Twenty-five women randomised to receive the LNG IUS and 26 to oral mefenamic acid for six cycles.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Change from baseline in menstrual blood loss (MBL), total menstrual fluid loss (TMFL) and pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBAC) score at the third and sixth cycle of treatment.

RESULTS

After six cycles the median menstrual blood loss was 5 mL in the LNG IUS group and 100 mL in the mefenamic acid group (P < 0.001). Median TMFL was 27 mL in the LNG IUS group and 157 mL in the mefenamic acid group (P < 0.001). Median PBAC score was 25 in the LNG IUS group and 159 in the mefenamic acid group. Changes in menstrual blood loss correlated strongly to changes in TMFL (r= 0.88) but PBAC correlated less well to blood loss and total fluid loss (r= 0.53 and r= 0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

Both the LNG IUS and mefenamic acid significantly decreased menstrual blood loss, TMFL and PBAC scores. The LNG IUS produced greater reductions in all parameters than mefenamic acid. Comparison of the different measurements suggests that TMFL assessment may be an easier and a more relevant measure of symptom severity than menstrual blood loss.

von Willebrand's disease and menorrhagia: prevalence, diagnosis, and management

The reported prevalence of von Willebrand's disease (vWD) is increased in women with menorrhagia, with current estimates ranging from 5% to 20%. The consistent results of multiple studies suggest testing should be included in the evaluation of patients with menorrhagia, especially in unexplained cases and prior to surgical intervention. Although a cyclic variation in von Willebrand's factor levels has not been confirmed, several studies suggest lower levels during menses and the early follicular phase. Menorrhagia is one of the most common bleeding manifestations of von Willebrand's disease, reported by 60-95% of women afflicted with this bleeding disorder. Menorrhagia is typically severe, often resulting in anemia and interfering with quality of life. Despite the frequency of menorrhagia, there is no consensus on optimal management. Although oral contraceptives are frequently prescribed, there are no studies confirming their efficacy using objective measures of response. Desmopressin was associated with an 80-92% response rate in several uncontrolled studies relying on patient assessment of efficacy. However, a small, randomized trial found no significant reduction in menstrual blood flow compared with placebo. There are anecdotal reports of the successful use of antifibrinolytic agents alone and in combination with other therapies. There are no studies comparing the relative efficacy and safety of the available medical therapies for von Willebrand's disease associated menorrhagia. Until these studies are completed, treatment should be individualized based on von Willebrand's disease subtype, patient age, contraceptive needs, and personal preference.

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for treating menstrual disorders: A patient satisfaction questionnaire

AIMS

To establish the continuation and satisfaction rates and the reasons for removal of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in Palmerston North Hospital (PNH), New Zealand.

SAMPLE AND SETTING

All women (120) who had a LNG-IUS inserted at PNH between June 1998 and June 2002 were included in the study.

METHODS

A survey questionnaire regarding bleeding patterns, side-effects and satisfaction rates relating to the device as well as reasons for premature removal, current treatment for dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB) and contraception was sent to all 120 women. Seventy-eight of the 85 women who received the questionnaire (91%) responded to it. Thirty-five women were lost to follow-up and the overall response rate was 65%.

RESULTS

The LNG-IUS was prematurely removed from nine women and expulsion occurred in one case. The overall continuation rate was 87%. No women had LNG-IUS removed as a result of hormonal side-effects except for bleeding abnormalities. The overall satisfaction rate was 76%.

CONCLUSION

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system is a well-accepted and efficacious therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding. These satisfaction and premature removal rates compare favourably with international figures. The response rate to the questionnaire was reasonably high given the highly mobile nature of the studied population.

Benefits and risks of pharmacological agents used for the treatment of menorrhagia

Menorrhagia affects the lives of many women. The assessment of menstrual flow is highly subjective and gauging the severity of the condition by objective assessment of menstrual blood loss is impractical. In treating menorrhagia, the primary aim should be to improve quality of life. Women are willing to undergo quite invasive treatment in order to achieve this. Drug therapy is the initial treatment of choice and the only option for those who wish to preserve their reproductive function. Despite the availability of a number of drugs, there is a general lack of an evidence-based approach, marked variation in practice and continuing uncertainty regarding the most appropriate therapy. Adverse effects and problems with compliance also undermine the success of medical treatment. This article reviews the available literature to compare the efficacy and tolerability of different medical treatments for menorrhagia. Tranexamic acid and mefenamic acid are among the most effective first-line drugs used to treat menorrhagia. Despite being used extensively in the past, oral luteal phase norethisterone is probably one of the least effective agents. Women requiring contraception have a choice of the combined oral contraceptive pill, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) or long-acting progestogens. Danazol, gestrinone and gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues are all effective in terms of reducing menstrual blood loss but adverse effects and costs limit their long-term use. They have a role as second-line drugs for a short period of time in women awaiting surgery. While current evidence suggests that the LNG-IUS is an effective treatment, further evaluation, including long-term follow up, is awaited. Meanwhile, the quest continues for the ideal form of medical treatment for menorrhagia--one that is effective, affordable and acceptable.

Modern management of menorrhagia

Menorrhagia, defined clinically as menstrual blood loss in excess of 80 ml per cycle, is a common gynaecological complaint that presents both to primary and secondary care. The aim of this review of the literature is to discuss current opinion in the investigation and management of menorrhagia. As menorrhagia is a subjective condition that is difficult and impractical to assess objectively, this review incorporates patient-centred outcomes such as patient satisfaction and continuation with treatment together with more traditional outcomes such as percentage reduction in menstrual loss. As there are many treatment options available, with no one option being superior in all respects, patient choice and treatment preferences should be taken into account when deciding upon management.

Current treatment of dysfunctional uterine bleeding

OBJECTIVES

We performed a review of the treatment modalities for dysfunctional uterine bleeding.

METHODS

Dysfunctional uterine bleeding can be treated medically or surgically. Medical treatment consists of anti-fibrinolytic tranexamic acid, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, the combined contraception pill, progestogen, danazol, or analogues of gonadotrophin releasing hormone. The levonorgestrel releasing intra uterine device is developed for contraception, but is also effective in the treatment of dysfunctional uterine bleeding. Surgical treatment includes endometrial ablation of the first and second-generation, and hysterectomy. This review contains current available evidence on the effectiveness of these therapies.

RESULTS

Antifibrinolytic tranexamic acid is the most effective medical therapy to treat dysfunctional uterine bleeding. In general medical therapy is not as effective as endometrial resection in terms of patient satisfaction and health related quality of life. The levonorgestrel releasing intra uterine device is an effective treatment for dysfunctional uterine bleeding. No difference in quality of life was observed in patients treated with a levonorgestrel releasing intra uterine device as compared to hysterectomy. Ablation techniques of the first generation are effective and safe when used by trained surgeons, but have a learning curve. Ablation techniques of the second generation are effective, but long-term follow-up data are not available. Similarly, there are no large randomised controlled trials comparing the levonorgestrel releasing intra uterine device to first and second-generation ablation techniques. Hysterectomy, the traditional standard of care, has a relatively high complication rate, but it generates a high satisfaction rate and good health related quality of life scores.

CONCLUSION

Since none of the treatments for dysfunctional bleeding is superior to one of the others, and since all treatments have their advantages and disadvantages, counselling of patients with dysfunctional bleeding should incorporate medical approach, levonorgestrel releasing IUD, endometrial ablation and hysterectomy.

Tranexamic acid: a review of its use in the management of menorrhagia

Tranexamic acid (Transamin), Cyklokapron, Exacyl, Cyklo-f) is a synthetic lysine derivative that exerts its antifibrinolytic effect by reversibly blocking lysine binding sites on plasminogen and thus preventing fibrin degradation. In a number of small clinical studies in women with idiopathic menorrhagia, tranexamic acid 2-4.5 g/day for 4-7 days reduced menstrual blood loss by 34-59% over 2-3 cycles, significantly more so than placebo, mefenamic acid, flurbiprofen, etamsylate and oral luteal phase norethisterone at clinically relevant dosages. Intrauterine administration of levonorgestrel 20 microg/day, however, produced the greatest reduction (96% after 12 months) in blood loss; 44% of patients treated with levonorgestrel developed amenorrhoea. Tranexamic acid 1.5 g three times daily for 5 days also significantly reduced menstrual blood loss in women with intrauterine contraceptive device-associated menorrhagia compared with diclofenac sodium (150 mg in three divided doses on day 1 followed by 25 mg three times daily on days 2-5) or placebo. Tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, etamsylate, flurbiprofen or diclofenac sodium had no effect on the duration of menses in the studies that reported such data. In a large noncomparative, nonblind, quality-of-life study, 81% of women were satisfied with tranexamic acid 3-6 g/day for 3-4 days/cycle for three cycles, and 94% judged their menstrual blood loss to be 'decreased' or 'strongly decreased' compared with untreated menstruations. The most commonly reported drug-related adverse events are gastrointestinal in nature. The total incidence of nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and dyspepsia in a double-blind study was 12% in patients who received tranexamic acid 1g four times daily for 4 days for two cycles (not significantly different to the incidence in placebo recipients). In conclusion, the oral antifibrinolytic drug tranexamic acid is an effective and well tolerated treatment for idiopathic menorrhagia. In clinical trials, tranexamic acid was more effective at reducing menstrual blood loss than mefenamic acid, flurbiprofen, etamsylate and oral luteal phase norethisterone. Although it was not as effective as intrauterine administration of levonorgestrel, the high incidence of amenorrhoea and adverse events such as intermenstrual bleeding resulting from such treatment may be unacceptable to some patients. Comparative studies of tranexamic acid with epsilon - aminocaproic acid, danazol and combined oral contraceptives, as well as long-term tolerability studies, would help to further define the place of the drug in the treatment of menorrhagia. Nevertheless, tranexamic acid may be considered as a first-line treatment for the initial management of idiopathic menorrhagia, especially for patients in whom hormonal treatment is either not recommended or not wanted.

Menorrhagia: an update

Menorrhagia is defined as a 'complaint of heavy cyclical menstrual bleeding occurring over several consecutive cycles'. Objectively it is a total menstrual blood loss equal to or greater than 80 ml per menstruation. It is estimated that approximately 30% of women complain of menorrhagia. Excessive bleeding is the main presenting complaint in women referred to gynecologists and it accounts for two-thirds of all hysterectomies, and most of endoscopic endometrial destructive surgery. Thus, menorrhagia is an important healthcare problem. Its etiology, investigation, medical and surgical management are described. In approximately 50% of cases of menorrhagia no pathology is found at hysterectomy. Abnormal levels of prostaglandins or the fibrinolytic system in the endometrium have been implicated. Effective medical treatments suitable for long-term use include intrauterine progestogens, antifibrinolytic agents (tranexamic acid) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (mefenamic acid). Over the past decade there has been increasing use of endometrial destructive techniques as an alternative to hysterectomy. Their further refinement and the advent of fibroid embolization has increased the options available to women.

Danazol for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in pre menopausal women. Medical therapy, with the avoidance of possibly unnecessary surgery is an attractive treatment option, but there is considerable variation in practice and uncertainty about the most effective therapy. Danazol is a synthetic steroid with anti-oestrogenic and anti progestogenic activity, and weak androgenic properties. Danazol suppresses oestrogen and progesterone receptors in the endometrium, leading to endometrial atrophy (thinning of the lining of the uterus) and reduced menstrual loss and to amenorrhoea in some women.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and tolerability of danazol when used for heavy menstrual bleeding in women of reproductive years.

SEARCH STRATEGY

All studies which might describe randomised controlled trials of danazol for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding were obtained by electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, CINAHL, National Research Register and the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's Specialist Register of controlled trials (on 6 November 2001). Attempts were also made to identify trials from citation lists of included trials and relevant review articles. In most cases the first author of each included trial was contacted for unpublished additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of danazol versus placebo, any other medical (non-surgical) therapy or danazol in different dosages for heavy menstrual bleeding in women of reproductive age with regular HMB measured either subjectively or objectively. Trials that included women with post menopausal bleeding, intermenstrual bleeding and pathological causes of heavy menstrual bleeding were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Nine RCTs, with 353 women, were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The main outcomes were menstrual blood loss, the number of women experiencing adverse effects, weight gain, withdrawals due to adverse effects and dysmenorrhoea. If data could not be extracted in a form suitable for meta-analysis, they were presented in a descriptive format.

MAIN RESULTS

Most data were not in a form suitable for meta analysis, and the results are based on a small number of trials, all of which are under-powered. Danazol appears to be more effective than placebo, progestogens, NSAIDs and the OCP at reducing MBL, but confidence intervals were wide. Treatment with danazol caused more adverse events than NSAIDs (OR 7.0; 95% CI 1.7, 28.2) and progestogens (OR 4.05, 95% CI 1.6, 10.2), but this did not appear to affect adherence to treatment. Danazol was shown to significantly lower the duration of menses when compared with NSAIDs (WMD -1.0; 95% CI -1.8, -0.3) and a progesterone releasing IUD (WMD -6.0; 95% CI -7.3, -4.8). There were no randomised trials comparing danazol with tranexamic acid or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Danazol appears to be an effective treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding compared to other medical treatments, though it is uncertain whether it is acceptable to women. The use of danazol may be limited by its side effect profile, its acceptability to women and the need for continuing treatment. Overall no strong recommendations can be made due to the small number of trials, and the small sample sizes of the included trials.

The effect of tranexamic acid on the quality of life of women with heavy menstrual bleeding

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether medical treatment with tranexamic acid would increase the quality of life of women with heavy menstrual bleeding.

STUDY DESIGN

This open, uncontrolled usage study included 849 women diagnosed with heavy menstrual bleeding and considered eligible for tranexamic-acid treatment. The condition of the women was investigated at baseline and after the first and the third treated menstruation. Quality of life and subjectively experienced state of health were assessed with the aid of a questionnaire. Satisfaction with the treatment was registered.

RESULTS

After the third menstruation, 80% of the women were satisfied with the treatment. Impairment of social activities and impairment at work were greatly reduced by the treatment. Substantial improvements were also recorded with regard to alertness, productivity, cleanliness, spirits, action radius and overall well-being. Adverse reactions to the drug used for the treatment were few and non-serious.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical treatment with tranexamic acid increases quality of life for women with heavy menstrual bleeding.

The effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in menorrhagia: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUS), licensed at present for contraceptive use, may reduce menstrual blood loss with few side effects. If effective, surgery could be avoided with consequent resource savings.

METHODS

A systematic review addressing the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the LNG-IUS for menorrhagia was undertaken.

RESULTS

Five controlled trials and five case series were found which measured menstrual blood loss. Nine studies recorded statistically significant average menstrual blood loss reductions with LNG-IUS (range 74%-97%). Another showed reduction in menstrual disturbance score. The LNG-IUS was more effective than tranexamic acid, but slightly less effective than endometrial resection at reducing menstrual blood loss. In one study, 64% of women cancelled surgery at six months, compared with 14% of control group women. In another, 82% were taken off surgical waiting lists at one year. No cost effectiveness studies were found.

DISCUSSION

Small studies of moderate quality indicate the LNG-IUS is an effective treatment for menorrhagia. Costs may be less than for tranexamic acid in primary and secondary care. Although its use may reduce surgical waiting lists, cost effectiveness assessment requires longer follow up.

CONCLUSION

Effectiveness and cost effectiveness relative to other treatments and the effect on surgical waiting lists can only be established in larger trials measuring patient-centred outcomes in women with menorrhagia.

Management of menorrhagia in primary care-impact on referral and hysterectomy: data from the Somerset Morbidity Project

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the management of menorrhagia in primary care and its impact on referral and hysterectomy rates.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

SETTING

11 general practices from the Somerset Morbidity Project.

SUBJECTS

885 women consulting their general practitioner with menorrhagia over four years.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportions of these women investigated and treated with drugs in primary care, referred to a gynaecologist and undergoing operative procedures. The relation between investigation and prescribing in primary care and referral to and surgery in secondary care.

RESULTS

Less than half of women had a vaginal examination (42%, 95% CI 39% to 45%), or a full blood count (39%, 95% CI 36% to 43%). Almost a quarter of women, 23% (95% CI 20% to 26%), received no drugs and 37% (95% CI 34% to 40%) received norethisterone. Over a third, 38% (95% CI 34% to 40%), of women were referred, and once referred 43% (95% CI 38% to 48%) of women were operated on. Women referred to a gynaecologist were significantly more likely to have received tranexamic acid and/or mefenamic acid in primary care (chi(2)=16.4, df=1, p<0.001). There were substantial between practice variations in management, for example in prescribing of tranexamic acid and/or mefenamic acid (range 16% to 72%) and referral to gynaecology (range 24% to 52%). There was a significant association between high referral and high operative rates (Spearman's correlation coefficient=0.86, p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial differences in management exist between practices when investigating and prescribing for menorrhagia in primary care. Rates of prescribing of effective medical treatment remain low. The decision to refer a woman impacts markedly on her chances of subsequently being operated on. Effective management in primary care may not reduce referral or hysterectomy rates.

Menorrhagia in general practice--disease or illness

Menorrhagia is a common presentation in primary care. The gynaecological literature defines menorrhagia, as the loss of 80 ml or more of blood per period and guidelines for treatment are based on this definition. There is extensive evidence that the majority of women who complain of heavy bleeding do not fit the medical definition. We interviewed women presenting with menorrhagia to explore their perceptions and their initial interaction with the medical profession. A distinct illness model emerged. Women had a precise understanding of their complaint, so that a change in her cycle was indicative of a problem to many women, without reference to outside criteria. Women attached particular importance to how they felt and to their ability to function and they rejected the medical emphasis on blood loss evaluation. Many women were dissatisfied with the consultation and experienced doctors as being dismissive of their problem. They were seeking an explanation for why their periods had changed and had concerns that related to their understanding of menstrual bleeding. Interviewees were unsure whether period problems could be described as illness, and what range of disturbance was normal. It is suggested that the disease model of menorrhagia is not relevant to the majority of women with this complaint. It is proposed that the disease model be replaced with illness models.

A cost effectiveness analysis of goserelin compared with danazol as endometrial thinning agents

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the cost, effectiveness and cost effectiveness of two endometrial thinning agents prior to laser ablation for dysfunctional uterine bleeding: danazol and goserelin.

SETTING

A district general hospital.

DESIGN

A retrospective cost effectiveness analysis, from the perspective of the health service, based on data from an open, randomised, parallel group comparative study of 160 pre-menopausal women with dysfunctional uterine bleeding.

METHODS

Within the trial, length of operation and duration of hospital stay was recorded for each woman. Resource use due to complications of surgery and adverse drug events was evaluated by one of the authors (R.G.). Additional surgery after completion of the study was collected using a postal questionnaire which was distributed to every woman who had undergone surgery. Resource use was costed using detailed unit costs from a specific NHS trust and from published sources. A cost effectiveness analysis was undertaken relating differential cost to differential rates of amenorrhoea at women's last point of follow up.

RESULTS

Information on amenorrhoea was available from 138 women, of whom 111 had completed the questionnaire to indicate longer term follow up. Women who did not complete the clinical trial were not included in this economic evaluation. On average, women randomised to goserelin spent less time in theatre and on the ward. Based on longer term follow up, rates of retreatment were similar in the two groups. The mean (SD) health service cost of women in the goserelin group was pound sterling 323.84 (pound sterling 309.94), compared with pound sterling 243.45 (pound sterling 265.23) in the danazol group; median (range) costs were pound sterling 220.29 (pound sterling 191-pound sterling 2127) and pound sterling 159.76 (pound sterling 140-pound sterling 1426) in the two groups, respectively. These costs were significantly higher for goserelin (P = 0.0001). The goserelin group also had a higher rate of amenorrhoea (38.8% vs 28.6%, P = 0.23). Based on mean differences in cost, the incremental cost of goserelin per additional woman with amenorrhoea was pound sterling 788; based on median differences in cost the ratio was pound sterling 590.

CONCLUSIONS

The shorter duration in theatre and stay in hospital provided a modest offset of the higher acquisition cost of goserelin, but the overall cost of management remained significantly higher than managing women with danazol. The rates of amenorrhoea indicated that goserelin was more effective at 24 weeks and approximately two years after surgery, although statistical significance was only achieved at 24 weeks. The economic impact of women withdrawn from treatment was not considered, but sensitivity analysis indicates that these women may have had a large effect on the overall result of this study. Purchasers will need to decide whether the additional cost of management with goserelin is justified by the increased rates of amenorrhoea and the reduced withdrawals from treatment.

Endometrial resection and ablation versus hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) or menorrhagia is an important cause of ill health in women. Surgical treatment of HMB often follows failed or ineffective medical therapy and the definitive treatment is hysterectomy but this is a major surgical procedure with significant physical and emotional complications and social and economic costs. A number of less invasive surgical techniques (e.g. endometrial resection and laser ablation) have been developed with the purpose of removing the entire thickness of the endometrium. The benefits claimed for these therapies are reduced trauma and post-operative complications to the woman, reduced need for a general anaesthetic, direct cost savings to the health service due largely to a shift from inpatient to day case treatment and indirect cost savings to society as women return more quickly to their usual activities. However, endometrial hysteroscopic techniques are not always completely successful and additional surgical treatment is required in a proportion of cases. Although initially the resource and patient costs of these techniques are much cheaper than the cost of hysterectomy, the need for re treatment at a later stage may reduce the cost differential. Thus, the effectiveness of these techniques to improve a woman's perception of her own wellbeing long term has yet to be confirmed.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to compare endometrial destruction techniques with hysterectomy by any means for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB).

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches for relevant randomised controlled trials of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Sub fertility Group Register of Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychLIT, Current Contents, Biological Abstracts, Social Sciences Index and CINAHL were performed. Attempts were also made to identify trials from citation lists of review articles and hand searching. In most cases, the first or corresponding author of each included trial was contacted for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of endometrial destruction techniques with hysterectomy by any means for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding in premenopausal women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Five RCTs were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review. For two trials, a number of publications were identified which assessed different outcomes and different follow up time points for the same patients. The reviewers extracted the data independently and odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes were estimated from the data. Outcomes analysed included improvement in menstrual blood loss, satisfaction, change in quality of life, duration of surgery and hospital stay, time to return to work, adverse events and requirement for repeat surgery because of failure of the initial surgical treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

There was a significant advantage in favour of hysterectomy in the improvement in HMB and satisfaction rates (up to 4 years post surgery) compared with endometrial destruction techniques. Although many quality of life scales reported no differences between surgery groups, there was some evidence of a greater improvement in general health for hysterectomy patients. Duration of surgery, hospital stay and recovery time were all shorter following endometrial destruction. Most adverse events, both major and minor, were significantly more likely after hysterectomy and before discharge from hospital. After discharge from hospital, the only difference that was reported for this group was a higher rate of infection. Repeat surgery because of failure of the initial treatment, either endometrial ablation or hysterectomy, was more likely after endometrial destruction than hysterectomy. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Antifibrinolytics for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in women. Medical therapy, with the avoidance of possibly unnecessary surgery, is an attractive treatment option. A wide variety of medications are available to reduce heavy menstrual bleeding but there is considerable variation in practice and uncertainty about the most appropriate therapy. Plasminogen activators are a group of enzymes that cause fibrinolysis (the dissolution of clots). An increase in the levels of plasminogen activators has been found in the endometrium of women with heavy menstrual bleeding compared to those with normal menstrual loss. Plasminogen activator inhibitors (antifibrinolytic agents) have therefore been promoted as a treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding. There has been a reluctance to prescribe tranexamic acid due to possible side effects of the drugs such as an increased risk of thrombogenic disease (deep venous thrombosis). Long term studies in Sweden, however, have shown that the rate of incidence of thrombosis in women treated with tranexamic acid is comparable with the spontaneous frequency of thrombosis in women.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of antifibrinolytics in achieving a reduction in heavy menstrual bleeding.

SEARCH STRATEGY

All studies which might describe randomised controlled trials of antifibrinolytic therapy for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding were obtained by electronic searches of the MEDLINE 1966-1997, EMBASE 1980-1997 and the Cochrane Library. Companies producing antifibrinolytics and experts within the field were contacted for reference lists and information on unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in women of reproductive age treated with antifibrinolytic agents versus placebo, no treatment or any other medical (non-surgical) therapy for regular heavy menstrual bleeding within either the primary, family planning or specialist clinic settings. Women with post menopausal bleeding, intermenstrual bleeding, iatrogenic or pathological causes of heavy menstrual bleeding were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Fifteen eligible trials were assessed by three reviewers and eight of these did not meet with the inclusion criteria. Of the seven remaining trials, four of these could be included within the meta-analysis. The remaining three trials had a crossover design and despite contacting the authors and appropriate companies, we were unable to extract the results in a format suitable to include these within the meta-analysis. However the results are included within the text of the review for discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

Antifibrinolytic therapy compared to placebo showed a significant reduction in mean blood loss (WMD -94.0 [-151.4, -36.5]) and significant change in mean reduction of blood loss (WMD -110.2 [-146. 5, -73.8]). This objective improvement was not mirrored by a patient perceived improvement in monthly menstrual blood loss (RR 2.5 [0.9, 7.3]) in the one study which recorded this outcome ( approximately approximately Edlund 1995 approximately approximately ). Antifibrinolytic agents were compared to only three other medical (non-surgical) therapies: mefenamic acid, norethisterone administered in the luteal phase and ethamsylate. In all instances, there was a significant reduction in mean blood loss (WMD -73.0 [-123.4, -22.6], WMD -111.0 [-178.5, -43.5] and (WMD -100 [-143.9, -56.1] respectively) and a strong, although non-significant trend in favour of tranexamic acid in the participants' perception of an improvement in menstrual blood loss. There were no significant differences in the frequency of reported gastrointestinal side effects with tranexamic acid when compared to either NSAIDs (RR 0.9 [0.4, 2.1], oral luteal phase progestagens (RR 0.4 [0.1, 1.2]) or ethamsylate (RR 0.88 [0.3, 2.9]) when these treatments were used for heavy menstrual bleeding. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)