Danazol for heavy menstrual bleeding

Postmenopausal endometriosis: a challenging condition beyond menopause

IMPORTANCE AND OBJECTIVE

Postmenopausal endometriosis is a complex condition that challenges the conventional belief that endometriosis resolves with menopause. Despite the cessation of menstruation, a subset of women continues to experience or develop endometriosis-related symptoms during the postmenopausal period. Thus, this review aimed to shed light on postmenopausal endometriosis, exploring its clinical features, diagnostic considerations, management approaches, and the potential impact on women's health.

METHODS

PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were used for the research, with only articles in English language, using the following terms: "postmenopausal endometriosis," "menopause," "management," "treatment," and "quality of life," from inception to 2023.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The clinical features of postmenopausal endometriosis include persistent or recurrent pelvic pain, dyspareunia, bowel, or urinary symptoms and, occasionally, abnormal vaginal bleeding. The absence of menstrual cycles presents a diagnostic challenge, as the traditional diagnostic criteria for endometriosis rely on menstrual patterns. Visual cues may be less evident, and the symptoms often overlap with other gynecological conditions, necessitating a thorough evaluation to differentiate postmenopausal endometriosis from other potential causes. Management approaches for postmenopausal endometriosis encompass surgical intervention, hormonal therapies, pain management, and individualized care. Postmenopausal endometriosis significantly impacts the quality of life, sexual health, and long-term well-being of women. Understanding the clinical features, diagnostic challenges, and management approaches of postmenopausal endometriosis is crucial for healthcare professionals to provide effective care and to improve the quality of life of women affected by this condition.

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.

Interventions commonly available during pandemics for heavy menstrual bleeding: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Within the context of heavy menstrual bleeding, pandemics impact upon women's assessment and treatment by healthcare providers.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews evaluating interventions for heavy menstrual bleeding that are commonly available during pandemics.

METHODS

We sought published Cochrane Reviews, evaluating interventions that can continue during pandemics for women with heavy menstrual bleeding with no known underlying cause. We identified Cochrane Reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in June 2020. The primary outcome was menstrual bleeding. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, patient satisfaction, side effects, and serious adverse events. We undertook the selection of systematic reviews, data extraction, and quality assessment in duplicate. We resolved any disagreements by discussion. We assessed review quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool, and the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four Cochrane Reviews, with 11 comparisons, data from 44 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and 3196 women. We assessed all the reviews to be high quality. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) NSAIDs may be more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding than placebo (mean difference (MD) -124 mL per cycle, 95% confidence interval (CI) -186 to -62 mL per cycle; 1 RCT, 11 women; low-certainty evidence). Mefenamic acid may be similar to naproxen (MD 21 mL per cycle, 95% CI -6 to 48 mL per cycle; 2 RCTs, 61 women; low-certainty evidence), and NSAIDs may be similar to combined hormonal contraceptives for heavy menstrual bleeding (MD 25 mL per cycle, 95% CI -22 to 73 mL per cycle; 1 RCT, 26 women; low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs may be be less effective in reducing menstrual bleeding than antifibrinolytics (relative risk (RR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85; 2 RCTs, 161 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAIDs reduce menstrual blood loss more than short-cycle progestogens (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.32; 1 RCT 32 women; very low-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics Antifibrinolytics appear to be more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding than placebo (MD -53 mL per cycle, 95% CI -63 to -44 mL per cycle; 4 RCTs, 565 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may be similar to placebo on the incidence of side effects (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18; 1 RCT, 297 women; low-certainty evidence), and they are probably similar on the incidence of serious adverse events (thrombotic events; RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.00 to 2.46; 2 RCT, 468 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may be more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding than short-cycle progestogen (MD -111 mL per cycle, 95% CI -178 mL to -44 mL per cycle; 1 RCT, 46 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics are similar to short-cycle progestogens on quality of life (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.76 to 3.64; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-certainty evidence), patient satisfaction (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.39; 1 RCT, 42 women; very low-certainty evidence), or side effects (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; 3 RCTs, 211 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics are more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding when compared with long-cycle progestogen (MD -9 points per cycle, 95% CI -30 to 12 points per cycle; 2 RCTs, 184 women; low-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may increase self-reported improvement in menstrual bleeding when compared with long-cycle medroxyprogesterone acetate (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.61; 1 RCT, 94 women; low-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may be similar to long-cycle progestogens on quality of life (MD 5, 95% CI -2.49 to 12.49; 1 RCT, 90 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics are similar to long-cycle progestogens on side effects (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.00; 2 RCTs, 184 women; very low-certainty evidence). There were no trials comparing antifibrinolytics to combined hormonal contraceptives. Combined hormonal contraceptives Combined hormonal contraceptives appear to be more effective for heavy menstrual bleeding than placebo or no treatment (RR 13.25, 95% CI 2.94 to 59.64; 2 RCTs, 363 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Combined hormonal contraceptives are probably similar to placebo on the incidence of side effects (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.60; 2 RCTs, 411 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Progestogens There were no trials comparing progestogens to placebo. Limitations in the evidence included risk of bias in the primary RCTs, inconsistency between the primary RCTs, and imprecision in effect estimates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that antifibrinolytics and combined hormonal contraceptives reduce heavy menstrual bleeding compared with placebo. There is low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs reduce heavy menstrual bleeding compared with placebo. There is low-certainty evidence that antifibrinolytics are more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding when compared with NSAIDs and short-cycle progestogens, but we are unable to draw conclusions about the effects of antifibrinolytics compared to long-cycle progestogens, on low-certainty evidence.

Heavy menstrual bleeding diagnosis and medical management

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common gynecological problem that has a significant impact on a woman’s quality of life and the activities of daily living. Due to the difficulty in accurately describing menstrual bleeding abnormalities using older terminology, the PALM-COEIN classification system of the Federation Internationale de Gynecologie et d’Obstetrique was proposed to describe and identify the etiology of abnormal endometrial bleeding. As there is no single pathway that is associated with HMB, there are several therapeutic interventions involving different molecular pathways to reduce HMB. This article will highlight the current evidence as it relates to the etiology of HMB as well as medical modalities of treatment.

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.

Management of endometrial modifications in perimenopausal women

Perimenopause has a variable length and time of onset and is characterized by its variability in hormonal levels. The histological changes in the perimenopausal endometrium may be represented by nonproliferative or proliferative benign or malignant lesions. A commonly encountered manifestation of endometrium lesions during menopausal transition is the abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB). The clinical management of AUB must follow a standardized classification system for optimal results. The medical and surgical treatment must be adapted according to age, risk factors, symptoms, and cycle irregularities. Use of alternative therapies and proper diet may result in improved long-term outcomes.

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus medical therapy for menorrhagia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) with conventional medical treatment in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding.

Material/Methods

Relevant studies were identified by a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and clinical trials registries (from inception to April 2014). Randomized controlled trials comparing the LNG-IUS with conventional medical treatment (mefenamic acid, tranexamic acid, norethindrone, medroxyprogesterone acetate injection, or combined oral contraceptive pills) in patients with menorrhagia were included.

Results

Eight randomized controlled trials that included 1170 women (LNG-IUS, n=562; conventional medical treatment, n=608) met inclusion criteria. The LNG-IUS was superior to conventional medical treatment in reducing menstrual blood loss (as measured by the alkaline hematin method or estimated by pictorial bleeding assessment chart scores). More women were satisfied with the LNG-IUS than with the use of conventional medical treatment (odds ratio [OR] 5.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.73–9.86). Compared with conventional medical treatment, the LNG-IUS was associated with a lower rate of discontinuation (14.6% vs. 28.9%, OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.20–0.74) and fewer treatment failures (9.2% vs. 31.0%, OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.10–0.34). Furthermore, quality of life assessment favored LNG-IUS over conventional medical treatment, although use of various measurements limited our ability to pool the data for more powerful evidence. Serious adverse events were statistically comparable between treatments.

Conclusions

The LNG-IUS was the more effective first choice for management of menorrhagia compared with conventional medical treatment. Long-term, randomized trials are required to further investigate patient-based outcomes and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the LNG-IUS and other medical treatments.

Comparing the effect of mefenamic Acid and vitex agnus on intrauterine device induced bleeding

INTRODUCTION

Increased bleeding is the most common cause of intrauterine device (IUD) removal. The use of alternative therapies to treat bleeding has increased due to the complications of medications. But most alternative therapies are not accepted by women. Therefore, conducting studies to find the right treatment with fewer complications and being acceptable is necessary. This study aimed to compare the effect of mefenamic acid and vitex agnus castus on IUD induced bleeding.

METHODS

This was a double blinded randomized controlled clinical trial. It was conducted on 84 women with random allocation in to two groups of 42 treated with mefenamic acid and vitex agnus capsules taking three times a day during menstruation for four months. Data were collected by demographic questionnaire and Higham 5 stage chart (1 month before the treatment and 4 months during the treatment)., Paired t-test, independent t-test, chi-square test, analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measurements, and SPSS software were used to determine the results.

RESULTS

Mefenamic acid and vitex agnus significantly decreased bleeding. This decrease in month 4 was 52% in the mefenamic acid group and 47.6% in the vitex agnus group. The mean bleeding score changes was statistically significant between the two groups in the first three months and before the intervention. In the mefenamic acid group, the decreased bleeding was significantly more than the vitex agnus group. However, during the 4(th) month, the mean change was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Mefenamic acid and vitex agnus were both effective on IUD induced bleeding; however, mefenamic acid was more effective.

Medical treatment of idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding. What is new? An evidence based approach

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important health problem affecting up to 30 % of reproductive age women, interfering with their quality of life. Medical therapy, with the avoidance of unnecessary surgery, is an attractive option.

PURPOSE

To provide a comprehensive review of the current medical treatments available for idiopathic HMB and to focus on the newly introduced modalities. Furthermore, to provide a practical algorithm based on the best available evidence.

METHODS

A PubMed search was conducted looking for the different trials, reviews and various guidelines relating to medical treatment of idiopathic HMB.

RESULTS

The most effective medical treatment for idiopathic HMB is the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. It provides a reliable long-term effect. Importantly, there is a growing scientific evidence for new modalities entailing; modified-release formulation of tranexamic acid, the new four-phasic estradiol valerate/dienogest contraceptive pills and combined contraceptive vaginal ring. Also, vaginal danazol has been tried.

CONCLUSION

Maintenance of status quo, i.e., keeping first-line treatment of idiopathic HMB as medical treatment is an essential issue. Modified-release formulation of tranexamic acid, the new four-phasic contraceptive pills and contraceptive vaginal ring are recently added to the medical armamentarium for treatment of idiopathic HMB increasing its efficacy.

Practice patterns and attitudes about treating abnormal uterine bleeding: a national survey of obstetricians and gynecologists

OBJECTIVE

We sought to examine the practice patterns and attitudes of obstetricians and gynecologists surrounding treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB).

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a cross-sectional study of members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Surveys, which were distributed using a sequential mixed method (both web- and mail-based) approach, included questions about practice characteristics, practice patterns, and knowledge about treatment options for AUB.

RESULTS

Of 802 questionnaires, 417 were returned (52%). The most commonly selected first-line choice for AUB treatment was combined oral contraceptives (97% anovulatory, 98% ovulatory). The levonorgestrel intrauterine system was the next most frequently selected option (63% anovulatory, 53% ovulatory). Respondents did not score high on questions about the effectiveness of treatments for AUB. Only 25% (n = 86) answered at least 2 of the 3 questions correctly.

CONCLUSION

Continued education is necessary to increase the utilization of the most effective treatment options for AUB.

Clinical practice guidelines on menorrhagia: management of abnormal uterine bleeding before menopause

BACKGROUND

Normal menstrual periods last 3-6 days and involve blood loss of up to 80ml. Menorrhagia is defined as menstrual periods lasting more than 7 days and/or involving blood loss greater than 80ml. The prevalence of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) is estimated at 11-13% in the general population and increases with age, reaching 24% in those aged 36-40 years.

INVESTIGATION

A blood count for red cells+platelets to test for anemia is recommended on a first-line basis for women consulting for AUB whose history and/or bleeding score justify it. A pregnancy test by an hCG assay should be ordered. A speculum examination and Pap smear, according to the French High Health Authority guidelines should be performed early on to rule out any cervical disease. Pelvic ultrasound, both abdominal (suprapubic) and transvaginal, is recommended as a first-line procedure for the etiological diagnosis of AUB. Hysteroscopy or hysterosonography can be suggested as a second-line procedure. MRI is not recommended as a first-line procedure.

TREATMENT

In idiopathic AUB, the first-line treatment is medical, with efficacy ranked as follows: levonorgestrel IUD, tranexamic acid, oral contraceptives, either estrogens and progestins or synthetic progestins only, 21 days a month, or NSAIDs. When hormone treatment is contraindicated or immediate pregnancy is desired, tranexamic acid is indicated. Iron must be included for patients with iron-deficiency anemia. For women who do not wish to become pregnant in the future and who have idiopathic AUB, the long-term efficacy of conservative surgical treatment is greater than that of oral medical treatment. Placement of a levonorgestrel IUD (or administration of tranexamic acid by default) is recommended for women with idiopathic AUB. If this fails, a conservative surgical technique must be proposed; the choices include second-generation endometrial ablation techniques (thermal balloon, microwave, radiofrequency), or, if necessary, first-generation techniques (endometrectomy, roller-ball). A first-line hysterectomy is not recommended in this context. Should a hysterectomy be selected for functional bleeding, it should be performed by the vaginal or laparoscopic routes.

Danazol for uterine fibroids

BACKGROUND

Uterine fibroids (myomas, fibromyomas, leiomyomas) are the most common benign tumours of the female genital tract. Danazol, a synthetic isoxazole derivative chemically related to 17-ethinyl testosterone, has been used for many years for the treatment of women with uterine fibroids.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of danazol in women with uterine fibroids.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Review Group Specialised Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 4); MEDLINE; EMBASE; Chinese Biomedical Disc; and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure for relevant trials (to December 2008). Attempts were made to identify trials from references in published studies. We also searched for ongoing trials in the five major clinical trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of danazol versus placebo or any other medical therapy in women with uterine fibroids confirmed by medical procedures, regardless of the women's symptoms or age. Women with malignancies were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were not been performed because there were no identified studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any studies which met our full inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no reliable evidence available from randomised controlled trials regarding the benefits and or harms of the use of danazol for treating uterine fibroids.

Surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of surgery versus medical therapy for HMB.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In September 2005 we searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trials register Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE EMBASE, Current Contents, Biological Abstracts, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also searched reference lists of articles retrieved and contacted pharmaceutical companies and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled randomised trials comparing conservative surgery or hysterectomy versus medical therapy (oral or intrauterine) for HMB DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trials for quality and extracted data .

MAIN RESULTS

The eight included trials randomised 821 women. In comparisons of oral medication versus surgery, 58% of women randomised to medical treatment had received surgery by two years. Compared to oral medication, endometrial resection was significantly more effective in controlling bleeding (at four months: OR 10.62, 95% CI 5.30 to 21.27) and significantly less likely to cause side effects (at four months: OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.31) and hysterectomy resulted in significantly greater improvements in mental health (at six months p = 0.04). In comparisons of LNG-IUS versus conservative surgery or hysterectomy, at one year there was no statistically significant difference in satisfaction rates or quality of life, though adverse effects were significantly less likely with conservative surgery (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.49). Two trials found conservative surgery significantly more effective than LNG-IUS in controlling bleeding at one year (OR 3.99, 95% CI 1.53 to 10.38). Two other small trials with longer follow-up found no difference or favoured LNG-IUS - however in both these studies the data were skewed and fewer than two thirds of participants were analysed. Hysterectomy stopped all bleeding but caused serious complications for some women.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Surgery, especially hysterectomy, reduces menstrual bleeding at one year more than medical treatments but LNG-IUS appears equally effective in improving quality of life. The evidence for longer term comparisons is weak and inconsistent. Oral medication suits a minority of women long term.