Effect and safety of paroxetine for vasomotor symptoms: systematic review and meta-analysis

Efficacy and Safety of Fezolinetant for the Treatment of Menopause-Associated Vasomotor Symptoms: A Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of fezolinetant for treating vasomotor symptoms (VMS) of menopause.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed/MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov , EMBASE, Cochrane Database, Scopus, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched through June 2023 for publications and randomized controlled trials on fezolinetant compared with placebo in menopausal women who experienced moderate-to-severe VMS.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Our literature search identified 330 articles, of which five studies with six reports were included in our meta-analysis per our eligibility criteria.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

The risk of bias was evaluated using Cochrane's RoB 2 (Risk of Bias version 2) tool, quality of evidence was graded using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach, and outcome measures data for effect size were pooled in random-effects model and rated. A total of 2,168 participants from five randomized clinical trials (six reports) were included. Fezolinetant significantly lowered VMS frequency, with pooled mean difference of 2.62 (95% CI, 1.84-3.41). The pooled mean difference for fezolinetant compared with placebo for the MENQOL (Menopause-Specific Quality of Life) measure was -0.60 (95% CI, -0.92 to -0.28), and the mean percentage improvement in VMS frequency was 22.51% (95% CI, 15.35-29.67). Fezolinetant was associated with improvement in sleep quality when compared with placebo.

CONCLUSION

Fezolinetant is effective in lowering moderate-to-severe VMS frequency and sleep disturbances in postmenopausal women.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42023427616.

Magnitude of placebo response in clinical trials of paroxetine for vasomotor symptoms: a meta-analysis

Introduction

Vasomotor symptoms, or hot flashes, are among the most common complaints for menopausal and postmenopausal women. As an alternative to hormone replacement therapy, paroxetine mesylate became the only non-hormonal treatment approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), despite limited evidence for its efficacy. More specifically, there is uncertainty around paroxetine's unique benefit and the magnitude of the placebo response in clinical trials of paroxetine.

Methods

Relevant databases were searched to identify randomized clinical trials examining the efficacy of paroxetine to treat hot flashes. The primary outcomes of interest were hot flash frequency and hot flash severity scores. Data was extracted from the published results, and risk of bias assessments were conducted.

Results

Six randomized clinical trials that included a total of 1,486 women were coded and analyzed. The results demonstrated that 79% of the mean treatment response for hot flash frequency is accounted for by a placebo response, resulting in a mean true drug effect of 21% at most. Additionally, 68% of the mean treatment response for hot flash severity is accounted for by a placebo response, resulting in a maximum true drug effect of 32%.

Discussion

The results herein call into question the actual efficacy of the only FDA approved, non-hormonal treatment for hot flashes by demonstrating that a placebo response accounts for the majority of treatment responses for reductions in both hot flash frequency and severity. The findings provide evidence to reevaluate the use of paroxetine to treat postmenopausal hot flashes and emphasize the importance of considering effective, alternative treatments for vasomotor symptoms.

The 2023 nonhormone therapy position statement of The North American Menopause Society

OBJECTIVE

To update the evidence-based Nonhormonal Management of Menopause-Associated Vasomotor Symptoms: 2015 Position Statement of The North American Menopause Society.

METHODS

An advisory panel of clinicians and research experts in women's health were selected to review and evaluate the literature published since the Nonhormonal Management of Menopause-Associated Vasomotor Symptoms: 2015 Position Statement of The North American Menopause Society. Topics were divided into five sections for ease of review: lifestyle; mind-body techniques; prescription therapies; dietary supplements; and acupuncture, other treatments, and technologies. The panel assessed the most current and available literature to determine whether to recommend or not recommend use based on these levels of evidence: Level I, good and consistent scientific evidence; Level II, limited or inconsistent scientific evidence, and Level III, consensus and expert opinion.

RESULTS

Evidence-based review of the literature resulted in several nonhormone options for the treatment of vasomotor symptoms. Recommended: Cognitive-behavioral therapy, clinical hypnosis, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors/serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, gabapentin, fezolinetant (Level I); oxybutynin (Levels I-II); weight loss, stellate ganglion block (Levels II-III). Not recommended: Paced respiration (Level I); supplements/herbal remedies (Levels I-II); cooling techniques, avoiding triggers, exercise, yoga, mindfulness-based intervention, relaxation, suvorexant, soy foods and soy extracts, soy metabolite equol, cannabinoids, acupuncture, calibration of neural oscillations (Level II); chiropractic interventions, clonidine; (Levels I-III); dietary modification and pregabalin (Level III).

CONCLUSION

Hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms and should be considered in menopausal women within 10 years of their final menstrual periods. For women who are not good candidates for hormone therapy because of contraindications (eg, estrogen-dependent cancers or cardiovascular disease) or personal preference, it is important for healthcare professionals to be well informed about nonhormone treatment options for reducing vasomotor symptoms that are supported by the evidence.

GRADE Use in Evidence Syntheses Published in High-Impact-Factor Gynecology and Obstetrics Journals: A Methodological Survey

Objective: To identify and describe the certainty of evidence of gynecology and obstetrics systematic reviews (SRs) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Method: Database searches of SRs using GRADE, published between 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2020, in the 10 "gynecology and obstetrics" journals with the highest impact factor, according to the Journal Citation Report 2019. Selected studies included those SRs using the GRADE approach, used to determine the certainty of evidence. Results: Out of 952 SRs, ninety-six SRs of randomized control trials (RCTs) and/or nonrandomized studies (NRSs) used GRADE. Sixty-seven SRs (7.04%) rated the certainty of evidence for specific outcomes. In total, we identified 946 certainty of evidence outcome ratings (n = 614 RCT ratings), ranging from very-low (42.28%) to low (28.44%), moderate (17.65%), and high (11.63%). High and very low certainty of evidence ratings accounted for 2.16% and 71.60% in the SRs of NRSs, respectively, compared with 16.78% and 26.55% in the SRs of RCTs. In the SRs of RCTs and NRSs, certainty of evidence was mainly downgraded due to imprecision and bias risks. Conclusions: More attention needs to be paid to strengthening GRADE acceptance and building knowledge of GRADE methods in gynecology and obstetrics evidence synthesis.

Management of postmenopausal women: Collège National des Gynécologues et Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF) and Groupe d'Etude sur la Ménopause et le Vieillissement (GEMVi) Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The aim of these recommendations is to set forth an individualized approach to the management of early postmenopausal women (i.e., within the first 10 years after natural menopause) covering all aspects of lifestyle and therapeutic management, with or without menopause hormone therapy (MHT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature review and consensus of French expert opinion. Recommendations were graded according to the HAS methodology and levels of evidence derived from the international literature, except when there was no good-quality evidence.

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS

The beginning of menopause is an ideal time for each woman to evaluate her health status by assessing her bone, cardiovascular, and cancer-related risk factors that may be amplified by postmenopausal estrogen deficiency and by reviewing her lifestyle habits. Improving lifestyle, including nutrition and physical activity, and avoiding risk factors (notably smoking), should be recommended to all women. MHT remains the most effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms but it could be also recommended as first-line treatment for the prevention of osteoporosis in early postmenopausal women at low to moderate risk for fracture. The risks of MHT differ depending on its type, dose, duration of use, route of administration, timing of initiation, and whether a progestogen is used. There is reasonable evidence that using transdermal estradiol in association with micronized progesterone or dydrogesterone may limit both the venous thromboembolic risk associated with oral estrogens and the risk of breast cancer associated with synthetic progestins. Treatment should be individualized to each woman, by using the best available evidence to maximize benefits and minimize risks, with periodic reevaluation of its benefit-risk balance. For bothersome genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) symptoms, vaginal treatment with lubricants and moisturizers is recommended as first-line treatment together with low-dose vaginal estrogen therapy, depending on the clinical course. No recommendation of an optimal duration of MHT can be made, but it must take into consideration the initial indication for MHT as well as each woman's benefit-risk balance. Management of gynecological side-effects of MHT is also examined. These recommendations are endorsed by the Groupe d'Etude sur la Ménopause et le Vieillissement hormonal (GEMVI) and the Collège National des Gynécologues-Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF).

The Efficacy and Safety of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Serotonin-Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors in the Treatment of Menopausal Hot Flashes: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Hot flashes (HF) are a common symptom during the menopausal transition. It is therefore important to identify effective drugs that can alleviate HF. This study aimed to systematically review published clinical trials on the efficacy and safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) in the treatment of HF in healthy menopausal women.

METHODS

In this systematic review, articles published during 2003-2019 in PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, Science Direct, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar as well as Iranian databases such as SID, and Magiran were searched. The quality of the selected articles was assessed using the Jadad score calculation.

RESULTS

Thirty-six articles on randomized controlled trials were included in this study, out of which 27 articles had acceptable, and nine had weak methodological quality. Findings on SSRIs class of drugs indicated that escitalopram, paroxetine, and fluoxetine have higher efficacy and safety in the treatment of menopausal HF than other drugs. Studies on the effectiveness of sertraline, citalopram, and fluvoxamine are limited in number or show inconsistent results. Therefore, further high-quality studies are required to confirm their effectiveness in alleviating HF. Within the SNRIs class, venlafaxine and desvenlafaxine showed significant efficacy in the treatment of menopausal HF. However, studies on the effectiveness of duloxetine are also limited, which requires further research.

CONCLUSION

Most studies have indicated the efficacy and safety of some antidepressants, such as SSRIs and SNRIs, in decreasing the frequency and severity of HF. These drugs are therefore recommended for the treatment of menopausal HF.

[Non-hormonal alternatives for the management of menopausal hot flushes. Postmenopausal women management: CNGOF and GEMVi clinical practice guidelines]

One of the major symptoms of climacteric syndrome is hot flushes (HF). They are most often experienced as very disabling. Estrogen therapy is the most effective treatment. However, it may be contraindicated in some women. The aim of this article is to provide a review of the scientific literature on pharmacological and non-pharmacological alternatives in this context. Only randomized trials and meta-analyses of randomized trials were considered. This review shows that some treatments usually used in non-gynecological or endocrinological disease have significant effect in reducing the frequency and/or severity of HF. Hence, some selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (paroxetine, citalopram and escitalopram), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (venlafaxine, desvenlafaxine) gabapentin, pregabalin and clonidine have a statistically effect as compared with placebo in reducing, the frequency and/or severity of HF. Some phytoestrogens, such as genistein, may also reduce the frequency of HF. Regarding non-pharmacological interventions, hypnosis, acupuncture or yoga have been analyzed with significant beneficial results, even if their evaluation is difficult by the absence of a good placebo group in most trials. By contrast, other approaches, both pharmacological or non-pharmacological, appear to be ineffective in the management of HT. These include homeopathy, vitamin E, alanine, omega 3, numerous phytoestrogens (red clover, black cohosh…), primrose oil, physical activity. In women suffering from breast cancer, several additional problems are added. On the one hand because all phytoestrogens are contraindicated and on the other hand, in patients using tamoxifen, because the molecules, that interact with CYP2D6, are to be formally avoided because of potential interaction with this anti-estrogen treatment. In conclusion, several pharmacological and non-pharmacological alternatives have significant efficacy in the management of severe HF.

Efficacy of Low-Dose Paroxetine for the Treatment of Hot Flushes in Surgical and Physiological Postmenopausal Women: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Background and Objectives: Hot flushes and sleep disturbances are the most common vasomotor symptoms (VMS) reported by postmenopausal women. Hormonal treatment is to date referred to as the gold standard approach but not suitable for all the patients. Alternative treatments are needed in case of a contraindication to menopausal hormone therapy (MHT), adverse side effects, and poor compliance. Paroxetine salt is the only nonhormonal medication approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the management of VMS. Nonetheless, few trials with low consensus are available about this topic. In this review, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of low-dose paroxetine therapy in the treatment of vasomotor hot flushes and night sleep disturbances in postmenopausal women. Materials and Methods: We performed an electronic search from the beginning of all databases to July 2019. All results were then limited to a randomized trial. Restrictions for language or geographic location were not utilized. Inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials of physiological or surgical postmenopausal women experiencing hot flushes and sleep disturbances who were randomized to either low-dose paroxetine or placebo (i.e., formulations without active ingredients). The primary outcome evaluated was the mean weekly reduction of hot flushes. Results: Five randomized clinical trials, including 1482 postmenopausal women, were analyzed. Significant heterogeneity (I² = 90%) between studies was noted. Hot flushes episodes were significantly reduced in the treatment arm compared to placebo (mean difference (MD) −7.97 [−10.51, −5.92] episodes/week). Results on the improvement on sleep were limited by being reported in only two studies; however, no significant reduction of night-time awakenings was observed (MD, −0.40 awakenings/night [−1.38, 0.58 CI]). Conclusions: Low-dose paroxetine is an effective treatment for vasomotor menopause symptoms, including hot flushes.

Complementary and alternative medicine for natural and treatment-induced vasomotor symptoms: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Vasomotor symptoms (VMS) are very common in menopausal populations and cancer patients and can cause physical and mental discomfort. We aim to summarize the findings of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) that assessed the effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicines(CAMs)on VMS to provide solid evidence for future practice.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from inception to May 2019 to identify relevant SRs/MAs. The methodological quality of SRs/MAs and evidence levels of the outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 29 SRs/MAs were reviewed. Evidence has shown that acupuncture, hypnosis, paced respiration, cognitive behavioural therapy, genistein, soy isoflavones, S-equol, combined preparations of black cohosh, and omega-3 supplements could significantly reduce VMS. The methodological quality of the SRs/MAs was moderate or high.

CONCLUSION

CAMs might be beneficial for reducing VMS, but the evidence levels were not high. Several priorities for future practice were identified.