A randomised trial comparing the levonorgestrel intrauterine system and thermal balloon ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding

Incidence and impact of anticoagulation-associated abnormal menstrual bleeding in women after venous thromboembolism

Preliminary data and clinical experience have suggested an increased risk of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) in women of reproductive age treated with anticoagulants, but solid data are lacking. The TEAM-VTE study was an international multicenter prospective cohort study in women aged 18 to 50 years diagnosed with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE). Menstrual blood loss was measured by pictorial blood loss assessment charts at baseline for the last menstrual cycle before VTE diagnosis and prospectively for each cycle during 3 to 6 months of follow-up. AUB was defined as an increased score on the pictorial blood loss assessment chart (>100 or >150) or self-reported AUB. AUB-related quality of life (QoL) was assessed at baseline and the end of follow-up using the Menstrual Bleeding Questionnaire. The study was terminated early because of slow recruitment attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the 98 women, 65 (66%) met at least one of the 3 definitions of AUB during follow-up (95% confidence interval [CI], 57%-75%). AUB occurred in 60% of women (36 of 60) without AUB before VTE diagnosis (new-onset AUB; 95% CI, 47%-71%). Overall, QoL decreased over time, with a mean Menstrual Bleeding Questionnaire score increase of 5.1 points (95% CI, 2.2-7.9), but this decrease in QoL was observed only among women with new-onset AUB. To conclude, 2 of every 3 women who start anticoagulation for acute VTE experience AUB, with a considerable negative impact on QoL. These findings should be a call to action to increase awareness and provide evidence-based strategies to prevent and treat AUB in this setting. This was an academic study registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT04748393; no funding was received.

Variation of outcome reporting in studies of interventions for heavy menstrual bleeding: a systematic review

Background: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) detrimentally effects women. It is important to be able to compare treatments and synthesise data to understand which interventions are most beneficial, however, when there is variation in outcome reporting, this is difficult. Objectives: To identify variation in reported outcomes in clinical studies of interventions for HMB. Materials and methods: Searches were performed in medical databases and trial registries, using the terms ‘heavy menstrual bleeding’, menorrhagia*, hypermenorrhoea*, HMB, “heavy period „period“, effective*, therapy*, treatment, intervention, manage* and associated MeSH terms. Two authors independently reviewed and selected citations according to pre-defined selection criteria, including both randomised and observational studies. The following data were extracted- study characteristics, methodology and quality, and all reported outcomes. Analysis considered the frequency of reporting. Results: There were 14 individual primary outcomes, however reporting was varied, resulting in 45 specific primary outcomes. There were 165 specific secondary outcomes. The most reported outcomes were menstrual blood loss and adverse events. Conclusions: A core outcome set (COS) would reduce the evident variation in reporting of outcomes in studies of HMB, allowing more complete combination and comparison of study results and preventing reporting bias. What is new? This in-depth review of past research into heavy menstrual bleeding shows that there is the need for a core outcome set for heavy menstrual bleeding.

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.

[Management of women with abnormal uterine bleeding: Clinical practice guidelines of the French National College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF)]

OBJECTIVE

To provide French guidelines for the management of women with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB).

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 26 experts was formed. A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the beginning of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independently of any industrial funding (i.e. pharmaceutical, or medical devices). The authors were advised to follow the rules of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE®) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence. The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized.

METHODS

The last guidelines from the Collège national des gynécologues et obstétriciens français (CNGOF) on the management of women with AUB was published in 2008. The literature seems now sufficient for an update. The committee studied questions within 7 fields (diagnosis; adolescent; idiopathic AUB; endometrial hyperplasia and polyps; fibroids type 0 to 2; fibroids type 3 and more; adenomyosis). Each question was formulated in a PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) format and the evidence profiles were produced. The literature review and recommendations were made according to the GRADE® methodology.

RESULTS

The experts' synthesis work and the application of the GRADE method resulted in 36 recommendations. Among the formalized recommendations, 19 present a strong agreement and 17 a weak agreement. Fourteen questions did not find any response in the literature. We preferred to abstain from recommending instead of providing expert advice.

CONCLUSIONS

The 36 recommendations made it possible to specify the diagnostic and therapeutic strategies of various clinical situations managed by the practitioner, from the simplest to the most complex.

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding affects the physical functioning and social well-being of many women. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and endometrial ablation are 2 frequently applied treatments in women with heavy menstrual bleeding.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system with endometrial ablation in women with heavy menstrual bleeding.

STUDY DESIGN

This multicenter, randomized controlled, noninferiority trial was performed in 26 hospitals and in a network of general practices in the Netherlands. Women with heavy menstrual bleeding, aged 34 years and older, without a pregnancy wish or intracavitary pathology were randomly allocated to treatment with either the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) or endometrial ablation, performed with a bipolar radiofrequency device (NovaSure). The primary outcome was blood loss at 24 months, measured with a Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart score. Secondary outcomes included reintervention rates, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and sexual function.

RESULTS

We registered 645 women as eligible, of whom 270 women provided informed consent. Of these, 132 women were allocated to the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (baseline Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart score, 616) and 138 women to endometrial ablation (baseline Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart score, 630). At 24 months, mean Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart scores were 64.8 in the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system group and 14.2 in the endometrial ablation group (difference, 50.5 points; 95% confidence interval, 4.3-96.7; noninferiority, P=.87 [25 Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart point margin]). Compared with 14 women (10%) in the endometrial ablation group, 34 women (27%) underwent a surgical reintervention in the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system group (relative risk, 2.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.49-4.68). There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction and quality of life between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Both the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and endometrial ablation strategies lead to a large decrease in menstrual blood loss in women with heavy menstrual bleeding, with comparable quality of life scores after treatment. Nevertheless, there was a significant difference in menstrual blood loss in favor of endometrial ablation, and we could not demonstrate noninferiority of starting with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Women who start with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, a reversible and less invasive treatment, are at an increased risk of needing additional treatment compared with women who start with endometrial ablation. The results of this study will enable physicians to provide women with heavy menstrual bleeding with the evidence to make a well-informed decision between the 2 treatments.

Timing of insertion affects expulsion in patients using the levonorgestrel 52 mg intrauterine system for noncontraceptive indications

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate levonorgestrel 52 mg intrauterine system (IUS) expulsion risk by menstrual cycle day of insertion (days 1-8 vs days 9 and beyond) in women using the IUS for noncontraceptive indications.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with a levonorgestrel IUS inserted for the management of noncontraceptive, gynecologic conditions at Kaiser Permanente-Hawaii between January 2009 and December 2010. We used multivariable logistic regression models to estimate the likelihood of IUS expulsion adjusting for demographic and clinical factors and a Kaplan-Meier curve for survival analysis.

RESULTS

Of 176 patients identified, insertion occurred in 42 patients in cycle days 1 to 8 and 87 patients after day 8. Patient follow-up within the Kaiser system ranged from 1 to 71 months. Thirty-nine (22%) patients experienced expulsion, 16 (38%) and 15 (17%) for the 2 timing groups, respectively. Expulsion was more likely if the IUS placement occurred during the menstrual cycle days 1 to 8 (adjusted odds ratio 3.57 [95% confidence interval 1.13, 11.31]), which was consistent with the Kaplan-Meier analysis (p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

Levonorgestrel IUS expulsion among women using the IUS for noncontraceptive indications occurred more frequently if insertion occurred during the first eight days of the menstrual cycle.

IMPLICATIONS

In women planning to use the levonorgestrel IUS to treat gynecologic conditions such as abnormal uterine bleeding, dysmenorrhea, and endometrial hyperplasia, providers should consider waiting until after cycle day 8 to perform insertion.

Treatment of women with heavy menstrual bleeding: Results of a prospective cohort study alongside a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the reintervention rate of women who opted for treatment with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) to women who opted for endometrial ablation. Furthermore, the difference in reintervention rate between women in this observational cohort and women who were randomised was compared, with the hypothesis that women who actively decide on treatment have lower reintervention rates compared to women in a RCT.

STUDY DESIGN

An observational cohort study alongside a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) was conducted between April 2012 and January 2016, with a follow-up time of 24 months, in 26 hospitals and nearby general practices in the Netherlands. Women suffering from heavy menstrual bleeding, aged 34 years and older, without intracavitary pathology and without a future fertility desire, were eligible for this trial. Women who declined randomisation were asked to participate in the observational cohort. The outcome measure was reintervention rate at 24 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

276 women were followed in the observational cohort of which 87 women preferred an initial treatment with LNG-IUS and 189 women preferred an initial treatment with endometrial ablation. At 24 months of follow-up women in the LNG-IUS-group were more likely to receive a reintervention compared to the women in the ablation group, 28/81 (35 %) versus 25/178 (14 %) (aRR 2.42, CI 1.47-3.98, p-value 0.001). No differences in reintervention rates were found between women in the observational cohort and women in the RCT.

CONCLUSIONS

Women who receive an LNG-IUS are more likely to undergo an additional intervention compared to women who receive endometrial ablation. Reintervention rates of women in the cohort and RCT population were comparable. The results of this study endorse the findings of the RCT and will contribute to shared decision making in women with heavy menstrual bleeding.

Endometrial ablation or resection versus levonorgestrel intra-uterine system for the treatment of women with heavy menstrual bleeding and a normal uterine cavity: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endometrial ablation/resection and the levonorgestrel intra-uterine system (LNG-IUS) are well-established treatment options for heavy menstrual bleeding to avoid more invasive alternatives, such as hysterectomy.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of endometrial ablation or resection with the LNG-IUS in the treatment of premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding and to investigate sources of heterogeneity between studies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Biosis and Google Scholar as well as citations and reference lists published up to August 2019. Two authors independently screened 3701 citations for eligibility. We included randomized controlled trials published in any language, comparing endometrial ablation or resection to the LNG-IUS in the treatment of premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding and a normal uterine cavity.

OUTCOMES

Thirteen studies (N = 884) were eligible. Two independent authors extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies. Random effect models were used to compare the modalities and evaluate sources of heterogeneity. No significant differences were observed between endometrial ablation/resection and the LNG-IUS in terms of subsequent hysterectomy (primary outcome, risk ratio (RR) = 1.13, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.11, P = 0.71, I2 = 14%, 12 studies, 726 women), satisfaction, quality of life, amenorrhea and treatment failure. However, side effects were less common in women treated with endometrial ablation/resection compared to the LNG-IUS (RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.71, P < 0.001, I2 = 0%, 10 studies, 580 women). Three complications were reported in the endometrial ablation/resection group and none in the LNG-IUS group (P = 0.25). Mean age of the studied populations was identified as a significant source of heterogeneity between studies in subgroup analysis (P = 0.01). In fact, endometrial ablation/resection was associated with a higher risk of subsequent hysterectomy compared to the LNG-IUS in younger populations (mean age ≤ 42 years old, RR = 5.26, 95% CI 1.21 to 22.91, P = 0.03, I2 = 0%, 3 studies, 189 women). On the contrary, subsequent hysterectomy seemed to be less likely with endometrial ablation/resection compared to the LNG-IUS in older populations (mean age > 42 years old), although the reduction did not reach statistical significance (RR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.24, P = 0.14, I2 = 0%, 5 studies, 297 women). Finally, sensitivity analysis taking into account the risk of bias of included studies and type of surgical devices (first and second generation) did not modify the results. Most of the included studies reported outcomes at up to 3 years, and the relative performance of endometrial ablation/resection and LNG-IUS remains unknown in the longer term.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Endometrial ablation/resection and the LNG-IUS are two excellent treatment options for heavy menstrual bleeding, although women treated with the LNG-IUS are at higher risk of experiencing side effects compared to endometrial ablation/resection. Otherwise, younger women seem to present a lower risk of eventually requiring hysterectomy when treated with the LNG-IUS compared to endometrial ablation/resection.

Progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) impacts the quality of life of otherwise healthy women. The perception of HMB is subjective and management depends upon, among other factors, the severity of the symptoms, a woman's age, her wish to get pregnant, and the presence of other pathologies. Heavy menstrual bleeding was classically defined as greater than or equal to 80 mL of blood loss per menstrual cycle. Currently the definition is based on the woman's perception of excessive bleeding which is affecting her quality of life. 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: users of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) reported reductions of up to 90%. Insertion may, however, be regarded as invasive by some women, which affects its acceptability.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL (from inception to June 2019); and we searched grey literature and for unpublished trials in trial registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in women of reproductive age treated with LNG-IUS devices versus no treatment, placebo, or other medical or surgical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and conducted GRADE assessments of the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 RCTs (2511 women). Limitations in the evidence included risk of attrition bias and low numbers of participants. The studies compared the following interventions. LNG-IUS versus other medical therapy The other medical therapies were norethisterone acetate, medroxyprogesterone acetate, oral contraceptive pill, mefenamic acid, tranexamic acid or usual medical treatment (where participants could choose the oral treatment that was most suitable). The LNG-IUS may improve HMB, lowering menstrual blood loss according to the alkaline haematin method (mean difference (MD) 66.91 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) 42.61 to 91.20; 2 studies, 170 women; low-certainty evidence); and the Pictorial Bleeding Assessment Chart (MD 55.05, 95% CI 27.83 to 82.28; 3 studies, 335 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether the LNG-IUS may have any effect on women's satisfaction up to one year (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.63; 3 studies, 141 women; I² = 0%, very low-certainty evidence). The LNG-IUS probably leads to slightly higher quality of life measured with the SF-36 compared with other medical therapy if (MD 2.90, 95% CI 0.06 to 5.74; 1 study: 571 women; moderate-certainty evidence) or with the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MD 13.40, 95% CI 9.89 to 16.91; 1 trial, 571 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The LNG-IUS and other medical therapies probably give rise to similar numbers of women with serious adverse events (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 1 study, 571 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Women using other medical therapy are probably more likely to withdraw from treatment for any reason (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.60; 1 study, 571 women, moderate-certainty evidence) and to experience treatment failure than women with LNG-IUS (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.44; 6 studies, 535 women; moderate-certainty evidence). LNG-IUS versus endometrial resection or ablation (EA) Bleeding outcome results are inconsistent. We are uncertain of the effect of the LNG-IUS compared to EA on rates of amenorrhoea (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.72; 8 studies, 431 women; I² = 21%; low-certainty evidence) and hypomenorrhoea (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.33; 4 studies, 200 women; low-certainty evidence) and eumenorrhoea (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.00; 3 studies, 160 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether both treatments may have similar rates of satisfaction with treatment at 12 months (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07; 5 studies, 317 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if the LNG-IUS compared to EA has any effect on quality of life, measured with SF-36 (MD -14.40, 95% CI -22.63 to -6.17; 1 study, 33 women; very low-certainty evidence). Women with the LNG-IUS compared with EA are probably more likely to have any adverse event (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.94; 3 studies, 201 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Women with the LNG-IUS may experience more treatment failure compared to EA at one year follow up (persistent HMB or requirement of additional treatment) (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.90; 5 studies, 320 women; low-certainty evidence); or requirement of hysterectomy may be higher at one year follow up (RR 2.56, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.42; 3 studies, 400 women; low-certainty evidence). LNG-IUS versus hysterectomy We are uncertain whether the LNG-IUS has any effect on HMB compared with hysterectomy (RR for amenorrhoea 0.52, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.70; 1 study, 75 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether there is difference between LNG-IUS and hysterectomy in satisfaction at five years (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; 1 study, 232 women; low-certainty evidence) and quality of life (SF-36 MD 2.20, 95% CI -2.93 to 7.33; 1 study, 221 women; low-certainty evidence). Women in the LNG-IUS group may be more likely to have treatment failure requiring hysterectomy for HMB at 1-year follow-up compared to the hysterectomy group (RR 48.18, 95% CI 2.96 to 783.22; 1 study, 236 women; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported cost data suitable for meta-analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The LNG-IUS may improve HMB and quality of life compared to other medical therapy; the LNG-IUS is probably similar for HMB compared to endometrial destruction techniques; and we are uncertain if it is better or worse than hysterectomy. The LNG-IUS probably has similar serious adverse events to other medical therapy and it is more likely to have any adverse events than EA.

Is the Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart (PBAC) score associated with treatment outcome after endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding? A cohort study

OBJECTIVE

The Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart (PBAC) is a validated tool that is used to diagnose heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). Knowledge of the effect of its score and its relationship with outcome could have implications for using the PBAC as an outcome measurement in future HMB studies, and as a tool to evaluate the treatment effect in research and clinical practice. Our aim was to relate PBAC scores to other measures of success after endometrial ablation for HMB.

DESIGN

Analysis of individual patient data (IPD) of randomised controlled trials studying women with HMB.

SETTING

Women with HMB consulting their gynecologists.

POPULATION OR SAMPLE

Individual patient data (IPD) of randomised controlled trials studying women with HMB.

METHODS

We included studies if they had studied second-generation endometrial ablation techniques and had collected PBAC scores for both baseline and follow-up. The effectiveness of treatment was scored as satisfaction or re-intervention (yes/no) 12 months after treatment. We related these outcomes to the PBAC score at 12 months after treatment, and to PBAC decrease between baseline and 12 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

We studied data for 900 patients included in nine studies. The median PBAC score at 12 months was 7 (0-2500). The overall satisfaction rate was 89% and the overall re-intervention rate was 7.2%. A clear association was found between absolute PBAC score at the 12-month follow-up and satisfaction (odds ratio, OR 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI 0.11-0.24) and surgical re-intervention (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.8-2.8). A change in PBAC score was also associated with satisfaction (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.7-2.3) and surgical re-intervention (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.63-0.75). Both the absolute PBAC scores and the changes in score show high accuracy for both treatment outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

PBAC scores at 12 months after treatment are significantly associated with satisfaction and re-intervention rates. We propose to use the PBAC in research as a primary end point in studies on HMB, and in clinical practice as a measure to assess the effectiveness of treatment.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

PBAC scores 12 months after treatment are significantly associated with satisfaction and reintervention rates.

Ulipristal acetate induces cell cycle delay and remodeling of extracellular matrix

Uterine leiomyoma is a benign tumor that grows within the muscle tissue of the uterus. Ulipristal acetate (UPA) is a pre-operative drug used to reduce the size of leiomyoma. The aim of the present study was to examine the in vitro mechanistic details of action of UPA on uterine leiomyomas. Primary cultures of leiomyoma cells were isolated from patient myomectomy specimens and incubated in the presence or absence of UPA at various concentrations. The proliferation, cell viability and doubling time properties of the treated cells were analyzed. In addition, the mRNA and protein expression levels of p21, p27, cyclin E, cyclin-dependent kinase 2 (CDK2), matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2 and MMP-9 were examined, as well as the structure of F-actin in the primary-cultured leiomyoma cells. The results demonstrated that UPA exerted inhibitory effects on proliferation of primary-cultured leiomyoma cells. Expression of p21 and p27 was upregulated, while cyclin E and CDK2 were downregulated in UPA-treated primary-cultured leiomyoma cells. An increased expression of MMP-2 was observed in primary-cultured leiomyoma cells and a leiomyoma tissue sample of a patient with previous history of UPA treatment. Furthermore, a pronounced formation of F-actin stress fibers was observed in leiomyoma cells of the UPA-treated patient. These data suggest that UPA treatment attenuated the proliferation of uterine fibroid cells via upregulation of p21 and p27, resulting in cell cycle delay. The findings in the current study also suggest that UPA may cause extracellular matrix constriction, leading to the shrinkage in size of the leiomyoma possibly via stimulation of MMP-2 expression and induction of actin stress fibers.

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.

Surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from inception to January 2016: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and clinical trials registers (clinical trials.gov and ICTRP). We also searched the reference lists of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing conservative surgery or hysterectomy versus medical therapy (oral or intrauterine) for heavy menstrual bleeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the studies, assessed their risk of bias and extracted the data. Our primary outcomes were menstrual bleeding, satisfaction rate and adverse events. Where appropriate we pooled the data to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using a fixed-effect model. We assessed heterogeneity with the I(2) statistic and evaluated the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 parallel-group RCTs (1289 women). Surgical interventions included hysterectomy and endometrial resection or ablation. Medical interventions included oral medication and the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUS). The overall quality of the evidence for different comparisons ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were lack of blinding, attrition and imprecision. Moreover, it was difficult to interpret long-term study findings as many women randomised to medical interventions subsequently underwent surgery. Surgery versus oral medicationSurgery (endometrial resection) was more effective in controlling bleeding at four months (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.94 to 3.64, one RCT, 186 women, moderate quality evidence) and also at two years (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.57, one RCT, 173 women, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups at five years (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34, one RCT, 140 women, very low quality evidence).Satisfaction with treatment was higher in the surgical group at two years (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.74, one RCT, 173 women, moderate quality evidence), but there was no evidence of a difference between the groups at five years (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.37, one RCT, 114 women, very low quality evidence). There were fewer adverse events in the surgical group at four months (RR 0.26, 95 CI 0.15 to 0.46, one RCT, 186 women). These findings require cautious interpretation, as 59% of women randomised to the oral medication group had had surgery within two years and 77% within five years. Surgery versus LNG-IUSWhen hysterectomy was compared with LNG-IUS, the hysterectomy group were more likely to have objective control of bleeding at one year (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.19, one RCT, 223 women, moderate quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life between the groups at five or 10 years, but by 10 years 46% of women originally assigned to LNG-IUS had undergone hysterectomy. Adverse effects associated with hysterectomy included surgical complications such as bladder or bowel perforation and vesicovaginal fistula. Adverse effects associated with LNG-IUS were ongoing bleeding and hormonal symptoms.When conservative surgery was compared with LNG-IUS, at one year the surgical group were more likely to have subjective control of bleeding (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.32, five RCTs, 281 women, low quality evidence, I(2) = 15%). Satisfaction rates were higher in the surgical group at one year (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04, to 1.28, six RCTs, 442 women, I(2) = 27%), but this finding was sensitive to the choice of statistical model and use of a random-effects model showed no conclusive evidence of a difference between the groups. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in satisfaction rates at two years (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08, two RCTs, 117 women, I(2) = 1%).At one year there were fewer adverse events (such as bleeding and spotting) in the surgical group (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.82, three RCTs, moderate quality evidence). It was unclear what proportion of women assigned to LNG-IUS underwent surgery over long-term follow-up, as there were few data beyond one year.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Surgery, especially hysterectomy, reduces menstrual bleeding more than medical treatment at one year. There is no conclusive evidence of a difference in satisfaction rates between surgery and LNG-IUS, though adverse effects such as bleeding and spotting are more likely to occur with LNG-IUS. Oral medication suits a minority of women in the long term, and the LNG-IUS device provides a better alternative to surgery in most cases. Although hysterectomy is a definitive treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding, it can cause serious complications for a minority of women. Most women may be well advised to try a less radical treatment as first-line therapy. Both LNG-IUS and conservative surgery appear to be safe, acceptable and effective.

The medical management of abnormal uterine bleeding in reproductive-aged women

In the treatment of women with abnormal uterine bleeding, once a thorough history, physical examination, and indicated imaging studies are performed and all significant structural causes are excluded, medical management is the first-line approach. Determining the acuity of the bleeding, the patient's medical history, assessing risk factors, and establishing a diagnosis will individualize their medical regimen. In acute abnormal uterine bleeding with a normal uterus, parenteral estrogen, a multidose combined oral contraceptive regimen, a multidose progestin-only regimen, and tranexamic acid are all viable options, given the appropriate clinical scenario. Heavy menstrual bleeding can be treated with a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, combined oral contraceptives, continuous oral progestins, and tranexamic acid with high efficacy. Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs may be utilized with hormonal methods and tranexamic acid to decrease menstrual bleeding. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists are indicated in patients with leiomyoma and abnormal uterine bleeding in preparation for surgical interventions. In women with inherited bleeding disorders all hormonal methods as well as tranexamic acid can be used to treat abnormal uterine bleeding. Women on anticoagulation therapy should consider using progestin-only methods as well as a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist to treat their heavy menstrual bleeding. Given these myriad options for medical treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding, many patients may avoid surgical intervention.

Levonorgestrel intrauterine system versus thermal balloon ablation for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

At present, there have been no standard research outcomes as to whether the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) or thermal balloon ablation (TBA) is superior for the treatment of patients suffering from heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). Therefore, in the present study, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted in order to compare the effectiveness and affordability of the LNG-IUS with TBA in the treatment of HMB. A literature search of the following electronic databases was conducted: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, the Chinese Scientific Journals Database, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure; and a statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software. Seven RCTs involving 467 patients (235 LNG-IUS, 232 TBA) met the inclusion criteria for the present study. As assessed by pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBAC) scores, the LNG-IUS significantly reduced menstrual bleeding after 24 months [standardized mean difference (SMD), −0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), −1.22 to −0.50; P<0.00001]. Furthermore, the total treatment cost of the LNG-IUS was lower than that of TBA (SMD, −2.35; 95% CI, −2.98 to −1.72; P<0.00001). However, at the 24 month follow-up, side effects such as amenorrhea occurred more frequently in patients treated with the LNG-IUS, as compared with TBA (relative risk, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.46–4.25; P=0.0008). No significant differences in hemoglobin levels and quality of life were demonstrated between the two treatment groups. The results of the present meta-analysis suggest that the LNG-IUS may be more effective and affordable than TBA as a long-term treatment (24 months) for HMB. However, following 12–24 months of treatment, side effects such as amenorrhea may be more frequent in patients treated with the LNG-IUS. When considering short-term treatment for HMB, controversy remains regarding the two methods and further studies are required to precisely evaluate the outcomes.

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.

A clinical study assessing the efficacy of a new variant of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system for abnormal uterine bleeding

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a new variant of the levonorgestrel-intrauterine system (LNG-IUS)-Emily-for the treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB).

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter, single-arm, phase 4 study was conducted at six centers in India between July 2012 and August 2013. Eligible women were aged 30-50years, had completed their family, had AUB, and a pictorial bleeding assessment chart (PBAC) score of at least 100. After screening (visit 1) and insertion of the device (visit 2), participants were followed up at 1week, 1month, 3months, and 6months. The primary outcomes were menstrual blood loss (assessed by PBAC) and quality of life (assessed by the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire).

RESULTS

Among 63 participants, 45 (71%) completed the study. Mean PBAC score decreased from 238.0±128.7 at screening to 13.1±19.2 at 6months (P<0.001). EQ-5D-3L score increased from 79.0±14.1 at visit 2 to 86.3±9.0 at 6months (P=0.003). No serious adverse events related to the device were reported.

CONCLUSION

Among women with AUB, use of the Emily LNG-IUS significantly reduces menstrual bleeding and improves quality of life. Clinical Trials Registry of India: CTRI/2012/07/002843.

Endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation vs medical management of abnormal uterine bleeding

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether endometrial ablation is associated with increased risk or delayed diagnosis of endometrial cancer compared with medical management of abnormal uterine bleeding.

DESIGN

Multi-centered retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

SETTING

The study was performed using data from The Health Improvement Network, a representative population-based cohort of patients in 495 outpatient general practitioner practices in the United Kingdom.

PATIENTS

Women aged >25 years with abnormal uterine bleeding diagnosed between June 1994 and September 2010.

INTERVENTIONS

Endometrial ablation, medical management, or both.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 234 721 women met study inclusion and exclusion criteria, 4776 of whom underwent endometrial ablation and the remaining 229 945 received medical management. Cox models compared endometrial cancer rates between ablation and medical management groups using hazard ratios. To investigate a possible diagnostic delay, the median time from bleeding diagnosis to endometrial cancer diagnosis in women in whom endometrial cancer developed was compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. All statistical tests were 2-tailed, with α = .05. During a median observation period of 4.07 years (interquartile range [IQR], 1.88-7.17), endometrial cancer developed in 3 women in the ablation group and 601 women in the medical management group (ablation hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-1.40; p = .17). Median time to diagnosis was 237 in the ablation group, and 299 days in the medical management group (ablation IQR, 155-1350; medical management IQR, 144-1133.5; p = .99). Adjusted and sensitivity analyses did not change the results.

CONCLUSIONS

No difference was observed in endometrial cancer rates, and there was no delay in diagnosis when comparing endometrial ablation vs medical management. Further studies are needed to investigate the effect of previous ablation exposure on histology or cancer stage at manifestation of endometrial cancer.

Impact of a new levonorgestrel intrauterine system, Levosert(®), on heavy menstrual bleeding: results of a one-year randomised controlled trial

Objective

To evaluate a new levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) called Levosert^® for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) in comparison to the reference product Mirena^®.

Methods

A multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, in non-menopausal women diagnosed with functional HMB (defined as menstrual blood loss [MBL] ≥ 80 mL) randomised to either Levosert^® or Mirena^® and followed for up to one year. MBL was evaluated using a validated modified version of the Wyatt pictogram.

Results

A total of 280 women were randomised (141 to Levosert^® and 139 to Mirena^®). During the one-year treatment period, both Levosert^® and Mirena^® dramatically decreased MBL and increased haemoglobin and ferritin levels. There were no statistically significant differences between Levosert^® and Mirena^® regarding any of the parameters evaluated during the study. Similar bleeding patterns were observed in both groups. Levosert^® was inserted with the same ease as Mirena^®. Both treatments were associated with identical expulsion rates and no perforations occurred in either treatment group.

Conclusion

Levosert^®, a new LNG-IUS designed to release the same daily amount of LNG as Mirena^®, is highly effective in the treatment of HMB. No differences were observed between Levosert^® and Mirena^® regarding all evaluated outcomes, including safety profile.

Individualized vaginal bleeding experience of women with uterine fibroids in the PEARL I randomized controlled trial comparing the effects of ulipristal acetate or placebo

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the individualized bleeding experience of women with fibroids and anaemia in a 3 month randomized placebo controlled trial (PEARL I) of the selective progesterone receptor modulator (SPRM), ulipristal acetate (UPA)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

In contrast to continuing excessive regular menstruation in the placebo group, a majority of women treated with UPA (63.1% of those on 5 mg/day and 71.3% of those on 10 mg/day) experienced the rapid onset of amenorrhoea or minimal blood loss [pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBAC) < 12]. The remainder experienced various patterns of bleeding and intensity of blood loss that are described for the first time, including an association of irregular bleeding on UPA with sub-mucous fibroids.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The majority experience on UPA is amenorrhoea but the bleeding experience of the others has not been characterized.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A 13 week randomized controlled trial in women, eligible for surgery for uterine fibroids and anaemia, comparing placebo (n = 48), UPA 5 mg (n = 95) or UPA 10 mg (n = 94). The treatment aim was fibroid shrinkage and the primary definitions and outcomes are published elsewhere; here the secondary outcome measure of vaginal bleeding pattern is described.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Women, 18-50 years old, with fibroids and haemoglobin ≤10.2 g/dl, justifying surgery. At least one fibroid was 3-10 cm diameter and uterus ≤16 weeks pregnancy size. All used the daily PBAC methodology in a screening cycle (Ps) and throughout treatment, and for the 4 weeks preceding Week 26 and Week 38 in those who did not have surgery. An excessive menstruation is PBAC > 100. The bleeding patterns were characterized using the classification of Belsey, developed under auspices of WHO.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In the placebo group, all women had an excessive screening PBAC [median 376; interquartile range (IQR) 241-574]; 81.3% of them had regular menstrual bleeding and the intensity of bleeding remained similar, so that the median PBAC in the next three periods was 90, 92 and 93% of the screening value. Four of the 48 women had spontaneous improvement in bleeding and one developed amenorrhoea and elevation of gonadotrophins. In the placebo group, 22 women provided Week 26 and 21 women provided Week 38 PBAC data. The median Week 26 PBAC (312: IQR 102-524) and Week 38 PBAC (236; IQR 103-465) indicated ongoing excessive bleeding. In the UPA group, screening PBAC confirmed excessive bleeding (UPA 5 mg, median 358; IQR 232-621; UPA 10 mg, median 330; IQR 235-542). UPA was initiated from the start of a menstruation (P1) and no women had regular periods on treatment. Following P1 through the whole of the remaining 13 weeks of UPA treatment amenorrhoea or minimal loss (PBAC < 12 for whole phase) occurred in 63.1% (UPA 5 mg) or 71.3% (UPA 10 mg). The characterization of the individualized bleeding experience of the remaining women on 5 mg and 10 mg UPA, respectively, were infrequent bleeding in 17.9 and 12.8%; frequent or prolonged bleeding or both in 12.7 and 11.7% and irregular bleeding in 5.3 and 3.2%. In those with prolonged, frequent or irregular bleeding there was a high chance that sub-mucous fibroids were present (UPA 5 mg 100% and UPA 10 mg 78.6%) but no correlation with progesterone receptor modulator-associated endometrial changes.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The follow-up PBAC data at Week 26 and Week 38 are only valid for women who did not have surgical intervention. These groups may not be representative of the groups at screening.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This first detailed description of these SPRM bleeding patterns provides clinicians with an indication of potential responses in women using the SPRM UPA and provides an extended definition of bleeding in untreated women with excessive bleeding and fibroids.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Funded by PregLem/Gedeon Richter. D.H.B. is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of PregLem, and in this role participated in the study design and supervision. Stock originally held in PregLem was given up when PregLem was incorporated into Gedeon Richter; D.H.B. does not currently hold stock. M.A.L. has received payment from Gideon Richter to attend a meeting to present these data (Barcelona, April 2013) but no financial support in preparing the manuscript. B.C.J.M.F. is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of PregLem and has received fees and grant support from the following companies: Andromed, Ardana, Auxogyn, Ferring, Genovum, Gedeon Richter, Merck Serono, MSD, Organon, Pantharei Bioscience, PregLem, Roche, Schering, Schering Plough, Serono, Watson Laboratories and Wyeth. P.T. is a paid statistical consultant for PregLem SA. E.B. is a full time employee of PregLem and received payment from stocks sold in October 2010 from the company's full acquisition by Gedeon Richter Group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00755755 (PEARL I).

Levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) versus endometrial ablation (Novasure) in women with heavy menstrual bleeding: a multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding is an important health problem. Two frequently used therapies are the levonorgestrel intra-uterine system (LNG-IUS) and endometrial ablation. The LNG-IUS can be applied easily by the general practitioner, which saves costs, but has considerable failure rates. As an alternative, endometrial ablation is also very effective, but this treatment has to be performed by a gynaecologist. Due to lack of direct comparison of LNG-IUS with endometrial ablation, there is no evidence based preferred advice for the use of one of these treatment possibilities.

METHOD/DESIGN

A multicenter randomised controlled trial, organised in a network infrastructure in the Netherlands in which general practitioners and gynaecologists collaborate.

DISCUSSON

This study, considering both effectiveness and cost effectiveness of LNG-IUS versus endometrial ablation may well improve care for women with heavy menstrual bleeding.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch trial register, number NTR2984.

Levonorgestrel intrauterine system versus medical therapy for menorrhagia

BACKGROUND

Menorrhagia is a common problem, yet evidence to inform decisions about therapy is limited. In a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized trial, we compared the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (levonorgestrel-IUS) with usual medical treatment in women with menorrhagia who presented to their primary care providers.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 571 women with menorrhagia to treatment with levonorgestrel-IUS or usual medical treatment (tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined estrogen-progestogen, or progesterone alone). The primary outcome was the patient-reported score on the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS) (ranging from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating greater severity), assessed over a 2-year period. Secondary outcomes included general quality-of-life and sexual-activity scores and surgical intervention.

RESULTS

MMAS scores improved from baseline to 6 months in both the levonorgestrel-IUS group and the usual-treatment group (mean increase, 32.7 and 21.4 points, respectively; P<0.001 for both comparisons). The improvements were maintained over a 2-year period but were significantly greater in the levonorgestrel-IUS group than in the usual-treatment group (mean between-group difference, 13.4 points; 95% confidence interval, 9.9 to 16.9; P<0.001). Improvements in all MMAS domains (practical difficulties, social life, family life, work and daily routine, psychological well-being, and physical health) were significantly greater in the levonorgestrel-IUS group than in the usual-treatment group, and this was also true for seven of the eight quality-of-life domains. At 2 years, more of the women were still using the levonorgestrel-IUS than were undergoing the usual medical treatment (64% vs. 38%, P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of surgical intervention or sexual-activity scores. There were no significant differences in serious adverse events between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In women with menorrhagia who presented to primary care providers, the levonorgestrel-IUS was more effective than usual medical treatment in reducing the effect of heavy menstrual bleeding on quality of life. (Funded by the National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme; ECLIPSE Controlled-Trials.com number, ISRCTN86566246.).

Effect of myoma size on failure of thermal balloon ablation or levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system treatment in women with menorrhagia

Objective

The aim of the present study was to identify variables associated with treatment failure in women with menorrhagia who were treated with thermal balloon ablation (TBA) or levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS), and to determine if there are subgroups where one treatment type is more effective than the other.

Methods

The study included 106 women with menorrhagia who were treated with TBA or LNG-IUS at the study institute between January 2003 and December 2007, with a follow-up period greater than 12 months. Data were collected by retrospective review of medical records. Treatment failure was defined as persistent or recurrent menorrhagia within one year after treatment or hysterectomy at any time during follow-up. The relationships between variables and treatment outcome were analyzed using the chi-square or Fisher's exact test. The treatment outcome of TBA was compared with LNG-IUS.

Results

Sixty-seven women were treated with TBA and 39 women were managed with LNG-IUS. Fifty-two women had a myoma ≥2.5 cm. Treatment failure was observed in 24 women (2 recurrent or persistent menorrhagia and 22 hysterectomies) and myoma size (≥2.5 cm vs. <2.5 cm) was associated with treatment outcome. TBA and LNG-IUS showed similar treatment outcomes.

Conclusion

A large myoma is a risk factor for treatment failure in women with menorrhagia treated with TBA or LNG-IUS.

Five-year follow-up of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus thermal balloon ablation for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The study was conducted to compare 5-year follow-up of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) or thermal balloon ablation (TBA) for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB).

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing LNG-IUS (n=30) and TBA (n=28) was performed. Hysterectomy rates, hemoglobin level, bleeding pattern, well-being status and satisfaction rates were assessed. Comparisons between groups were performed by χ(2) test and by unpaired and paired t tests.

RESULTS

After 5 years of follow-up, women treated with a TBA had higher rates of hysterectomy (24%) compared to the LNG-IUS group (3.7%) due to treatment failure (p=.039). Use of LNG-IUS resulted in higher mean hemoglobin (±SD) levels in comparison to the TBA group (14.1±0.3 vs 12.7±0.4 g/dL, p=.009). Menstrual blood loss was significantly higher in the TBA when compared to the LNG-IUS group (45.5% vs 0.0% p<.001). The psychological general well-being index scores were similar. Patient acceptability, perceived clinical improvement and overall satisfaction rates were significantly higher in women using LNG-IUS.

CONCLUSION

Five-year follow-up of HMB treatment with LNG-IUS was associated with higher efficacy and satisfaction ratings compared to TBA.

The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in heavy menstrual bleeding: a benefit-risk review

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem in women of reproductive age and can cause irritation, inconvenience, self-consciousness and fear of social embarrassment. Our objective was to review and appraise literature identified from the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to evaluate the clinical evidence and provide an update on the risks and benefits of using the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in the treatment of HMB. The LNG-IUS consistently reduces menstrual blood loss (MBL) in women with HMB, including those with underlying uterine pathology or bleeding disorders. The available data suggest that it reduces MBL to a greater extent than other medical therapies, including combined oral contraceptives, oral progestogens (both short- or long-cycle regimens), tranexamic acid and oral mefenamic acid. In addition, the LNG-IUS and endometrial ablation appear to reduce MBL to a similar extent. The adverse effects reported with the LNG-IUS in women with HMB are similar to those typically observed in women using the system for contraception. Uterine perforations were not reported in any of the studies reviewed, but expulsion rates may be higher than in the general population of LNG-IUS users. Overall, the LNG-IUS has a positive effect on most quality-of-life domains, at least comparable to those achieved with hysterectomy or endometrial ablation, and is consistently a cost-effective option across a variety of countries and settings. In conclusion, the LNG-IUS is an effective treatment option for women with HMB, including those with underlying organic pathology or bleeding disorders.

Thermal balloon ablation versus laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy for the surgical treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding: a randomized study

AIM

To compare postoperative outcomes and effects on quality of life following thermal balloon ablation (TBA) or laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH) in women with heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sixty-eight women requiring surgical treatment for HMB were randomly allocated into two treatment arms: TBA (n = 34) and LSH (n = 34). The randomization procedure was based on a computer-generated list. The primary outcome was a comparison of the effects on menstrual bleeding (Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart [PBAC]) between the two procedures. The secondary outcome measures were quality of life, improvement of bleeding patterns, intensity of postoperative pain, and early postoperative complications. Continuous outcome variables were analyzed using Student's t-test. Discrete variables were analyzed with the χ2 test or Fisher's exact test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The PBAC score was significantly reduced in both treatment groups. After LSH all women had amenorrhea. After TBA there was a significant improvement of bleeding frequency and length. The postoperative pain intensity at 24 h was significantly minor in women treated with TBA rather than with LSH. The Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form 36 (SF-36) score improved in both groups. However, LSH showed a negative impact on the emotional state. No intraoperative complications occurred, and no case was returned to the theatre in either group.

CONCLUSION

The effectiveness of TBA as a possible treatment of HMB is confirmed. However, LSH showed a definitive improvement of the symptoms, and a better life quality profile. Further controlled prospective studies are required for identifying the best surgical approach in women with 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.

Hysterectomy, endometrial destruction, and levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) for heavy menstrual bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis of data from individual patients

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relative effectiveness of hysterectomy, endometrial destruction (both "first generation" hysteroscopic and "second generation" non-hysteroscopic techniques), and the levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis of data from individual patients, with direct and indirect comparisons made on the primary outcome measure of patients' dissatisfaction.

DATA SOURCES

Data were sought from the 30 randomised controlled trials identified after a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, and CINAHL databases, reference lists, and contact with experts. Raw data were available from 2814 women randomised into 17 trials (seven trials including 1359 women for first v second generation endometrial destruction; six trials including 1042 women for hysterectomy v first generation endometrial destruction; one trial including 236 women for hysterectomy v Mirena; three trials including 177 women for second generation endometrial destruction v Mirena). Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials comparing hysterectomy, first and second generation endometrial destruction, and Mirena for women with heavy menstrual bleeding unresponsive to other medical treatment.

RESULTS

At around 12 months, more women were dissatisfied with outcome with first generation hysteroscopic techniques than with hysterectomy (13% v 5%; odds ratio 2.46, 95% confidence interval 1.54 to 3.9, P<0.001), but hospital stay (weighted mean difference 3.0 days, 2.9 to 3.1 days, P<0.001) and time to resumption of normal activities (5.2 days, 4.7 to 5.7 days, P<0.001) were longer for hysterectomy. Unsatisfactory outcomes were comparable with first and second generation techniques (odds ratio 1.2, 0.9 to 1.6, P=0.2), although second generation techniques were quicker (weighted mean difference 14.5 minutes, 13.7 to 15.3 minutes, P<0.001) and women recovered sooner (0.48 days, 0.20 to 0.75 days, P<0.001), with fewer procedural complications. Indirect comparison suggested more unsatisfactory outcomes with second generation techniques than with hysterectomy (11% v 5%; odds ratio 2.3, 1.3 to 4.2, P=0.006). Similar estimates were seen when Mirena was indirectly compared with hysterectomy (17% v 5%; odds ratio 2.2, 0.9 to 5.3, P=0.07), although this comparison lacked power because of the limited amount of data available for analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

More women are dissatisfied after endometrial destruction than after hysterectomy. Dissatisfaction rates are low after all treatments, and hysterectomy is associated with increased length of stay in hospital and a longer recovery period. Definitive evidence on effectiveness of Mirena compared with more invasive procedures is lacking.

Non-contraceptive applications of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system

Intrauterine progestins have many important current and potential gynecologic applications. This article describes the evidence for use of intrauterine progestin for common gynecologic conditions beyond its important role in contraception. The pharmacology of and selection criteria for use of the levonorgestrel intrauterine device is discussed, and the evidence for use of intrauterine progestin delivery for menorrhagia, endometriosis management, uterine fibroids, adenomyosis and endometrial hyperplasia is reviewed.

Safety, efficacy and patient acceptability of the contraceptive and non-contraceptive uses of the LNG-IUS

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) provide highly effective, long-term, safe, reversible contraception, and are the most widely used reversible contraceptive method worldwide. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) is a T-shaped IUD with a steroid reservoir containing 52 mg of levonorgestrel that is released at an initial rate of 20 μg daily. It is highly effective, with a typical-use first year pregnancy rate of 0.1% - similar to surgical tubal occlusion. It is approved for 5 years of contraceptive use, and there is evidence that it can be effective for up to 7 years of continuous use. After removal, there is rapid return to fertility, with 1-year life-table pregnancy rates of 89 per 100 for women less than 30 years of age. Most users experience a dramatic reduction in menstrual bleeding, and about 15% to 20% of women become amenorrheic 1 year after insertion. The device's strong local effects on the endometrium benefit women with various benign gynecological conditions such as menorrhagia, dysmenorrhea, leiomyomata, adenomyosis, and endometriosis. There is also evidence to support its role in endometrial protection during postmenopausal estrogen replacement therapy, and in the treatment of endometrial hyperplasia.

Intrauterine progestins, progesterone antagonists, and receptor modulators: a review of gynecologic applications

Intrauterine progestins, progesterone receptor modulators, and antagonists have many important current and potential gynecologic applications. This article will describe the evidence for use of intrauterine progestin for common gynecologic conditions beyond its important role in contraception. We will review the evidence for use of intrauterine progestin delivery for menorrhagia, endometriosis management, adenomyosis treatment, uterine fibroids, endometrial hyperplasia, and its concurrent use in women on hormone replacement therapy or tamoxifen.

Efficacy of mifepristone in reducing intermenstrual vaginal bleeding in users of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of mifepristone to reduce intermenstrual bleeding in levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) users.

METHOD

In this prospective, open-label, comparative study, 36 women using the LNG-IUS for menorrhagia received 100mg of mifepristone every 30 days for 3 months (group 1). Fifty age-matched LNG-IUS users who did not receive any drugs were used as the comparison group (group 2). Menstrual bleeding days, pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBAC) score, and intermenstrual bleeding/spotting days were compared between the 2 groups at 3 months (during treatment) and at 6 months (3 months post treatment).

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. At 3 months, median duration and episodes of intermenstrual bleeding/spotting were significantly lower in group 1 compared with group 2 (6 vs 12.5 days, P=0.01; 2.5 vs 3, P=0.05, respectively). More women were satisfied with the LNG-IUS in the mifepristone group compared with the control group (75% vs 44%; P=0.004). At 6 months, the median duration of intermenstrual bleeding/spotting was significantly lower in group 1 compared with group 2 (6 vs 15 days; P=0.008).

CONCLUSION

Mifepristone was effective in reducing the number of episodes and duration of intermenstrual bleeding/spotting in LNG-IUS users.

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device insertion ameliorates leiomyoma-dependent menorrhagia among women of reproductive age without a significant regression in the uterine and leiomyoma volumes

Levonorgestrel- (LNG) releasing intrauterine device (IUD) insertion revealed significant reduction in visual bleeding scores and spotting with an increase in amenorrhea and uterine pulsatility index scores. LNG-IUD can be considered as a simple and effective alternative to surgical treatment in the management of leiomyoma-dependent menorrhagia of reproductive-age women.

A randomized prospective trial comparing the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system with thermal balloon ablation for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Use of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) was compared with thermal balloon ablation (TBA) for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB).

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective randomized trial comparing the LNG-IUS (n=30 women) and TBA (n=28 women).

RESULTS

Hemoglobin levels increased (p<.001) and blood loss was reduced (p<.001) in both groups after 1 year of treatment. Menstrual bleeding was less in the LNG-IUS group compared to the TBA group at 6 and 12 months of treatment (p=.035 and p=.048, respectively). Intermenstrual bleeding was significantly less in the TBA group at 6 months compared to the LNG-IUS group (p=.044); however, there was no significant difference at 12 months (p=.129). No difference was found in psychological aspects between pre- and posttreatment variables in either of the groups (p=.537).

CONCLUSIONS

Both the LNG-IUS and TBA appear to be effective in controlling HMB; however, posttreatment uterine bleeding patterns are different.

The levonorgestrel intrauterine system as an alternative to hysterectomy for the treatment of idiopathic menorrhagia

AIM OF THE STUDY

Prospective, observational study to determine the percentage of hysterectomies cancelled after a year of treatment with levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) among women diagnosed with idiopathic menorrhagia.

MAIN FINDINGS

Eighty-two women with a mean age of 44.3 + or - 4.9 were enrolled. Throughout 1-year follow-up, progressive and significant reduction was observed in number of days of bleeding (8.9 + or - 4.0 vs. 5.0 + or - 5.4), number of sanitary measures (29.3 + or - 19.4 vs. 8.1 + or - 10.8) and percentage of patients having intense/very intense bleeding (98.8%vs. 6.4%). Duration of menstrual cycle significantly increased from 26.9 + or - 5.5 to 52.6 + or - 33.6 days. Significant improvement in overall health-related quality of life was achieved. Patient satisfaction was good/very good in 70.7%. Considering only women who attended 12-month visit satisfaction reached 91.2%. 75.6% of scheduled hysterectomies were cancelled. Adverse effects were recorded in less than 40% of patients with no significant differences between visits. Adverse effects led to premature discontinuation of treatment in seven cases. No serious adverse effects were encountered.

INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

LNG-IUS meets the effectiveness and tolerability criteria for being considered as a first choice treatment option for women with idiopathic menorrhagia. Its use may contribute to decrease the large number of hysterectomies scheduled in Spain.

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and endometrial ablation in heavy menstrual bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system and endometrial ablation in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding.

DATA SOURCES

Medline and EMBASE were searched online using Ovid up to January 2009, as well as the reference lists of published articles, to identify randomized controlled trials comparing the levonorgestrel intrauterine system with endometrial ablation in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

This systematic review and meta-analysis was restricted to randomized controlled trials in which menstrual blood loss was reported using pictorial blood loss assessment chart scores.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials that included 390 women (levonorgestrel intrauterine system, n=196; endometrial ablation, n=194) were retrieved. Three studies pertained to first-generation endometrial ablation (manual hysteroscopy) and three to second-generation endometrial ablation (thermal balloon). Study characteristics and quality were recorded for each study. Data on the effect of treatment on pictorial blood loss assessment chart scores were abstracted, integrated with meta-analysis techniques, and presented as weighted mean differences. Both treatment modalities were associated with similar reductions in menstrual blood loss after 6 months (weighted mean difference, -31.96 pictorial blood loss assessment chart score [95% confidence interval (CI), -65.96 to 2.04]), 12 months (weighted mean difference, 7.45 pictorial blood loss assessment chart score [95% CI, -12.37 to 27.26]), and 24 months (weighted mean difference, -26.70 pictorial blood loss assessment chart score [95% CI, -78.54 to 25.15]). In addition, both treatments were generally associated with similar improvements in quality of life in five studies that reported this as an outcome. No major complications occurred with either treatment modality in these small trials.

CONCLUSION

Based on the meta-analysis of six randomized clinical trials, the efficacy of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system in the management of heavy menstrual bleeding appears to have similar therapeutic effects to that of endometrial ablation up to 2 years after treatment.

Abnormal uterine bleeding: a review of patient-based outcome measures

OBJECTIVE

To summarize and evaluate the patient-based outcome measures (PBOMs) that have been used to study women with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

Original articles that used at least one PBOM and were conducted within a population of women with AUB.

PATIENT(S)

Women with AUB.

INTERVENTION(S)

The titles, abstracts, and studies were systematically reviewed for eligibility. The PBOMs used in eligible studies were summarized. Essential psychometric properties were identified, and a list of criteria for each property was generated.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

"Quality" of individual PBOMs as determined using the listed criteria for psychometric properties.

RESULT(S)

Nine hundred eighty-three studies referenced AUB and patient-reported outcomes. Of these, 80 studies met the eligibility criteria. Fifty different instruments were used to evaluate amount of bleeding, bleeding-related symptoms, or menstrual bleeding-specific quality of life. The quality of each of these instruments was evaluated on eight psychometric properties. The majority of instruments had no documentation of reliability, precision, or feasibility. There was no satisfactory evidence that any one instrument completely addressed all eight psychometric properties.

CONCLUSION(S)

Studies of women with AUB are increasingly using PBOMs. Many different PBOMs were used; however, no single instrument completely addressed eight important measurement properties.

Second-generation treatment: microwave

Microwave endometrial ablation is an effective treatment for heavy menstrual loss that achieves high satisfaction rates, is acceptable to patients, and is recommended by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence. It has been evaluated extensively in randomized trials against first- and second-generation endometrial ablative techniques. Its simplicity of use and short treatment time make it suitable for outpatient treatments, whilst it can also treat larger and irregular cavities. This article reviews the available clinical research and scientific basis of this endometrial ablation technique.

Second-generation endometrial ablation technologies: the hot liquid balloons

Hysteroscopic endometrial ablation (HEA) was introduced in the 1980s to treat menorrhagia. Its use required additional training, surgical expertise and specialized equipment to minimize emergent complications such as uterine perforations, thermal injuries and excessive fluid absorption. To overcome these difficulties and concerns, thermal balloon endometrial ablation (TBEA) was introduced in the 1990s. Four hot liquid balloons have been introduced into clinical practice. All systems consist of a catheter (4-10mm diameter), a silicone balloon and a control unit. Liquids used to inflate the balloons include internally heated dextrose in water (ThermaChoice, 87 degrees C), and externally heated glycine (Cavaterm, 78 degrees C), saline (Menotreat, 85 degrees ) and glycerine (Thermablate, 173 degrees C). All balloons require pressurization from 160 to 240 mmHg for treatment cycles of 2 to 10 minutes. Prior to TBEA, preoperative endometrial thinning, including suction curettage, is optional. Several RCTs and cohort studies indicate that the advantages of TBEA include portability, ease of use and short learning curve. In addition, small diameter catheters requiring minimal cervical dilatation (5-7 mm) and short duration of treatment cycles (2-8 min) allow treatment under minimal analgesia/anesthesia requirements in a clinic setting. Following TBEA serious adverse events, including thermal injuries to viscera have been experienced. To minimize such injuries some surgeons advocate the use of routine post-dilatation hysteroscopy and/or ultrasonography to confirm correct intrauterine placement of the balloon prior to initiating the treatment cycle. After 10 years of clinical practice, TBEA is thought to be the preferred first-line surgical treatment of menorrhagia in appropriately selected candidates. Economic modeling also suggested that TBEA may be more cost-effective than HEA.

Second-generation endometrial ablation – an overview

Various methods exist to destroy the endometrium as a treatment for menorrhagia. This chapter discusses the rationale, evidence, indications, and long-term safety and efficacy of the current techniques. It also discusses endometrial ablation in the context of its clinical utility in comparison with the existing alternative treatments.

Thermal balloon endometrial ablation: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study is to review the role of thermal balloon endometrial ablation (TBEA) as an alternative in treating abnormal uterine bleeding.

METHODS

Articles relevant to our review and relevant references from the initially identified articles on the field that were archived by May 2007, were retrieved from Pubmed.

RESULTS

Success rates ranged from 83 up to 94%, with patient's satisfaction ranging from 57 up to 94%. Persisted menorrhagia could reach 17% in some studies.

CONCLUSION

TBEA is an effective alternative method used in the treatment of menorrhagea which results in a significant reduction in menstrual bleeding and high satisfaction rates. However, a longer follow-up is required to determine the role of such a treatment.