Menorrhagia, mechanisms and targeted therapies

The effect of frankincense (Boswellia serrata, oleoresin) and ginger (Zingiber officinale, rhizoma) on heavy menstrual bleeding: A randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of frankincense (Boswellia serrata, oleoresin) and ginger (Zingiber officinale, rhizoma) as complementary treatments for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) among women of reproductive age.

DESIGN

Randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial.

SETTING

Gynecology outpatient clinics.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients with HMB (n = 102) were randomly assigned to three groups. All patients received ibuprofen (200 mg) and either frankincense (300 mg), ginger (300 mg), or a placebo, which contains 200 mg anhydrous lactose as the filling agent and was similar in appearance to the two other drugs. Patients received the medications three times a day for seven days of the menstrual cycle, starting from the first bleeding day and this was repeated for two consecutive menstrual cycles.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Amount and duration of menstrual bleeding and quality of life (QOL).

RESULTS

Duration of menstrual bleeding was decreased in the frankincense (-1.77 ± 2.47 days, P = 0.003) and ginger (-1.8 ± 1.79 days, P = 0.001) groups, but not in the placebo group (-0.52 ± 1.86 days, P = 0.42). Amount of menstrual bleeding was decreased in all (P < 0.05), with no difference among the study groups (P > 0.05). More improvement in QOL was observed in the frankincense (-25.7 ± 3.1; P < 0.001) and ginger (-29.2 ± 3.7: P < 0.001) groups compared to the placebo group (-15.07 ± 3.52; P < 0.001) and between the groups, differences were statistically significant (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Ginger and frankincense seem to be effective complementary treatments for HMB. Further studies with a larger sample size and longer follow-up are warranted in this regard.

Economic Evaluation of Global Endometrial Ablation Versus Inpatient and Outpatient Hysterectomy for Treatment of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding: US Commercial and Medicaid Payer Perspectives

Every year, abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) exacts a heavy toll on women's health and leads to high costs for the US health care system. The literature shows that endometrial ablation results in fewer complications, shorter recovery and lower costs than more commonly performed hysterectomy procedures. The objective of this study was to model clinical-economic outcomes, budget impact, and cost-effectiveness of global endometrial ablation (GEA) versus outpatient hysterectomy (OPH) and inpatient hysterectomy (IPH) procedures. A decision tree, state-transition (semi-Markov) economic model was developed to simulate 3 hypothetical cohorts of women who received surgical treatment for AUB (GEA, OPH, and IPH) over 1, 2, and 3 years to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes for GEA vs. OPH and GEA vs. IPH. Two versions of the model were created to reflect both commercial health care payer and US Medicaid perspectives, and analyses were conducted for both payer types. Total health care costs in the first year after GEA were substantially lower compared with those for IPH and OPH. Budget impact analysis results showed that increasing GEA utilization yields total annual cost savings of about $906,000 for a million-member commercial health plan and about $152,000 in cost savings for a typical-sized state Medicaid plan with 1.4 million members. Cost-effectiveness analysis results for both perspectives showed GEA as economically dominant (conferring greater benefit at lower cost) over both OPH and IPH in the 1-year commercial scenario. This study demonstrates that, for some patients, GEA may prove to be a safe, uterus-sparing, cost-effective alternative to OPH and IPH for the surgical treatment of AUB.

Cost-effectiveness of treatments for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding affects up to one third of women in the United States, resulting in a reduced quality of life and significant cost to the health care system. Multiple treatment options exist, offering different potential for symptom control at highly variable initial costs, but the relative value of these treatment options is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of 4 treatment options for heavy menstrual bleeding: hysterectomy, resectoscopic endometrial ablation, nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation, and the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system.

STUDY DESIGN

We formulated a decision tree evaluating private payer costs and quality-adjusted life years over a 5 year time horizon for premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding and no suspected malignancy. For each treatment option, we used probabilities derived from literature review to estimate frequencies of minor complications, major complications, and treatment failure resulting in the need for additional treatments. Treatments were compared in terms of total average costs, quality-adjusted life years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to understand the range of possible outcomes if model inputs were varied.

RESULTS

The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system had superior quality-of-life outcomes to hysterectomy with lower costs. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system was cost-effective compared with hysterectomy in the majority of scenarios (90%). Both resectoscopic and nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation were associated with reduced costs compared with hysterectomy but resulted in a lower average quality of life. According to standard willingness-to-pay thresholds, resectoscopic endometrial ablation was considered cost effective compared with hysterectomy in 44% of scenarios, and nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation was considered cost effective compared with hysterectomy in 53% of scenarios.

CONCLUSION

Comparing all trade-offs associated with 4 possible treatments of heavy menstrual bleeding, the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system was superior to both hysterectomy and endometrial ablation in terms of cost and quality of life. Hysterectomy is associated with a superior quality of life and fewer complications than either type of ablation but at a higher cost. For women who are unwilling or unable to choose the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system as a first-course treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding, consideration of cost, procedure-specific complications, and patient preferences can guide the decision between hysterectomy and ablation.

Cost-Effectiveness of Global Endometrial Ablation vs. Hysterectomy for Treatment of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding: US Commercial and Medicaid Payer Perspectives

Cost-effectiveness modeling studies of global endometrial ablation (GEA) for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) from a US perspective are lacking. The objective of this study was to model the cost-effectiveness of GEA vs. hysterectomy for treatment of AUB in the United States from both commercial and Medicaid payer perspectives. The study team developed a 1-, 3-, and 5-year semi-Markov decision-analytic model to simulate 2 hypothetical patient cohorts of women with AUB-1 treated with GEA and the other with hysterectomy. Clinical and economic data (including treatment patterns, health care resource utilization, direct costs, and productivity costs) came from analyses of commercial and Medicaid claims databases. Analysis results show that cost savings with simultaneous reduction in treatment complications and fewer days lost from work are achieved with GEA versus hysterectomy over almost all time horizons and under both the commercial payer and Medicaid perspectives. Cost-effectiveness metrics also favor GEA over hysterectomy from both the commercial payer and Medicaid payer perspectives-evidence strongly supporting the clinical-economic value about GEA versus hysterectomy. Results will interest clinicians, health care payers, and self-insured employers striving for cost-effective AUB treatments.

Cost effectiveness of endometrial ablation with the NovaSure(®) system versus other global ablation modalities and hysterectomy for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding: US commercial and Medicaid payer perspectives

OBJECTIVES

Abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) interferes with physical, emotional, and social well-being, impacting the quality of life of more than 10 million women in the USA. Hysterectomy, the most common surgical treatment of AUB, has significant morbidity, low mortality, long recovery, and high associated health care costs. Global endometrial ablation (GEA) provides a surgical alternative with reduced morbidity, cost, and recovery time. The NovaSure(®) system utilizes unique radiofrequency impedance-based GEA technology. This study evaluated cost effectiveness of AUB treatment with NovaSure ablation versus other GEA modalities and versus hysterectomy from the US commercial and Medicaid payer perspectives.

METHODS

A health state transition (semi-Markov) model was developed using epidemiologic, clinical, and economic data from commercial and Medicaid claims database analyses, supplemented by published literature. Three hypothetical cohorts of women receiving AUB interventions were simulated over 1-, 3-, and 5-year horizons to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes for NovaSure, other GEA modalities, and hysterectomy.

RESULTS

Model analyses show lower costs for NovaSure-treated patients than for those treated with other GEA modalities or hysterectomy over all time frames under commercial payer and Medicaid perspectives. By Year 3, cost savings versus other GEA were $930 (commercial) and $3,000 (Medicaid); cost savings versus hysterectomy were $6,500 (commercial) and $8,900 (Medicaid). Coinciding with a 43%-71% reduction in need for re-ablation, there were 69%-88% fewer intervention/reintervention complications for NovaSure-treated patients versus other GEA modalities, and 82%-91% fewer versus hysterectomy. Furthermore, NovaSure-treated patients had fewer days of work absence and short-term disability. Cost-effectiveness metrics showed NovaSure treatment as economically dominant over other GEA modalities in all circumstances. With few exceptions, similar results were shown for NovaSure treatment versus hysterectomy.

CONCLUSION

Model results demonstrate strong financial favorability for NovaSure ablation versus other GEA modalities and hysterectomy from commercial and Medicaid payer perspectives. Results will interest clinicians, health care payers, and self-insured employers striving for cost-effective AUB treatments.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in premenopausal women. Although surgery is often used as a treatment, a range of medical therapies are also available. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduce prostaglandin levels, which are elevated in women with excessive menstrual bleeding and also may have a beneficial effect on dysmenorrhoea.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to investigate the effectiveness of NSAIDs in achieving a reduction in menstrual blood loss in women of reproductive years with HMB.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders & Subfertility Group trials register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL in July 2012 and reference lists of articles. We also contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of individual NSAIDs or combined with other medical therapy with either each other, placebo or other medical treatments in women with regular heavy periods measured either objectively or subjectively and with no pathological or iatrogenic (treatment-induced) causes for their heavy menstrual blood loss.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Eighteen RCTs were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review and data were extracted independently. Odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes were estimated from the data of nine trials. The results of the remaining seven cross-over trials with data unsuitable for pooling, one trial with skewed data and one trial with missing variances were described in data tables.

MAIN RESULTS

As a group, NSAIDs were more effective than placebo at reducing HMB but less effective than either tranexamic acid, danazol or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG IUS). Treatment with danazol caused a shorter duration of menstruation and more adverse events than NSAIDs but this did not appear to affect the acceptability of treatment. There were no statistically significant differences between NSAIDs and the other treatments (oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, an older progesterone-releasing intrauterine system (Progestasert), oral contraceptive pill (OCC)) but most studies were underpowered. There was no evidence of a difference between the individual NSAIDs (naproxen and mefenamic acid) in reducing HMB.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

NSAIDs reduce HMB when compared with placebo but are less effective than tranexamic acid, danazol or LNG IUS. However, adverse events are more severe with danazol therapy. In the limited number of small studies suitable for evaluation, no significant difference in efficacy was demonstrated between NSAIDs and other medical treatments such as oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, OCC or another type of intrauterine system, Progestasert.

Management of heavy menstrual bleeding in general practice

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common symptom that leads women to seek medical treatment. Sources of HMB are variable; patients may present with obvious uterine pathology, systemic disease, or even localized hemostatic dysregulation that defies clinical measurement. Whereas surgical intervention even in the absence of overt pathology had historically been the most common route of treatment for HMB, an expanding therapeutic armamentarium provides greater options and the possibility of maintaining fertility in affected women.

SCOPE

A descriptive literature review was performed to identify relevant articles discussing the management of HMB. The PubMed database was searched using the terms 'heavy menstrual bleeding', 'menorrhagia', 'abnormal uterine bleeding', or 'dysfunctional uterine bleeding' in combination with 'diagnosis', 'treatment', 'management', or 'guidelines'. Results were limited to articles published in English within the past 10 years. Additional statements, consensus documents, and clinical guidelines were located through review of professional society websites.

FINDINGS

For practical purposes, a subjective definition of HMB (i.e., excessive menstrual blood loss that is not tolerated by the patient and adversely affects quality of life) rather than objective measures can be used by the clinician as the basis for further investigation. Standard diagnostic examinations and initiation of therapy are well within the purview of the general practitioner. A wide variety of medical therapy options are available, although few treatments are specifically indicated for the management of HMB. The approval of tranexamic acid in the United States specifically for the treatment of HMB is a recent development that provides practitioners with an effective, noncontraceptive alternative medical therapy. For women without evidence of uterine pathology, invasive/surgical procedures are generally considered as a second-line treatment option.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the breadth of available medical and surgical treatment choices, identifying a suitable therapeutic strategy should be feasible for all patients, even in this highly heterogeneous population.

Clinical and health service implications of second generation endometrial ablation devices

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review evaluates the current evidence on the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of the ever-increasing number of second-generation endometrial ablation devices.

RECENT FINDINGS

The literature covered by this review includes (1) evidence on long-term benefit, avoidance of hysterectomy and improvement in quality of life, (2) applicability of these techniques in the outpatient environment under local or no anaesthesia, (3) frequency and nature of early and delayed complications associated with these devices, (4) impact on clinical practice and the health service, and (5) implications for research.

SUMMARY

Where appropriate, second-generation devices are rapidly becoming the first-line surgical choice for the management of heavy menstrual bleeding. This has both cost-savings and negative implications for the health service. There is also emerging evidence that improvement in quality of life is more relevant to women than amenorrhoea rates. What has come to light from this review is the lack of accurate data on adverse events rate, and the urgent need for a better appreciation of the frequency and nature of complications.