Progesterone or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems for heavy menstrual bleeding

Heavy Menstrual Bleeding in Adolescents with Joint Hypermobility Syndrome/Hypermobile-Type Ehlers-Danlos: A Review

Heavy menstrual bleeding has a high prevalence and is well documented in adult patients with hypermobile-type Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, but there is limited research surrounding work-up and treatment for the adolescent population. Excessive menstrual blood loss can significantly interfere with emotional and physical quality of life. A provider should acquire a comprehensive medical and menstrual history and focused physical examination, as well as baseline laboratory studies, to determine the presence of anemia or underlying bleeding disorder. Use of a pictorial blood assessment chart may be considered to help quantify the amount of bleeding. Treatment to reduce heavy menstrual flow and referral to specialty care should be initiated swiftly to improve quality of life for this population. [Pediatr Ann. 2024;53(3):e104-e108.].

Comparison of Bleeding Pattern and Quality of Life Before and After the Insertion of a Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System for Heavy Menstrual Bleeding: A Seven-Year Review

Background This study aimed to examine the role of a levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) regarding improvements in bleeding patterns and quality of life (QOL) and determine the reason for its failure or withdrawal from treatment in some patients. Methodology This retrospective study was conducted in a tertiary care center in eastern India. A seven-year assessment, with both qualitative and quantitative assessments, of the effect of LNG-IUS in women with HMB was performed using the Menorrhagia Multiattribute Scale (MMAS) and Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (MOS SF-36) score as a tool to assess the QOL, and the pictorial bleeding assessment chart (PBAC) to assess bleeding patterns. The study population was divided into the following four groups based on duration: three months to one year, one to two years, two to three years, and more than years. The continuation, expulsion, and hysterectomy rates were evaluated. Results The mean MMAS and MOS SF-36 scores increased significantly (p < 0.05) from 36.73 ± 20.40 to 93.72 ± 14.62 and 35.33 ± 6.73 to 90.54 ± 15.89, respectively. The mean PBAC score decreased from 176.36 ± 79.85 to 32.19 ± 63.87. In total, 348 women (94.25%) continued the LNG-IUS, and 3.44% had uncontrolled menorrhagia. Furthermore, at the end of seven years, the expulsion rate was 2.28% due to adenomyosis and pelvic inflammatory disease, and the hysterectomy rate was 5.75%. In addition, 45.97% and 48.27% of the participants had amenorrhea and hypomenorrhea, respectively. Conclusions LNG-IUS improves bleeding and QOL in women with HMB. In addition, it requires less skill and is a non-invasive and nonsurgical option, which should be considered first.

Outcomes of Menstrual Management Use in Transgender and Gender-Diverse Adolescents

OBJECTIVE

To describe and compare the outcomes of various menstrual-management methods, including method choice, continuation, bleeding patterns, amenorrhea rates, effect on moods and dysphoria, and side effects, in transgender and gender-diverse adolescents.

METHODS

This was a retrospective chart review of all patients seen in a multidisciplinary pediatric gender program from March 2015 to December 2020 who were assigned female at birth, had achieved menarche, and used a menstrual-management method during the study period. Data were abstracted on patient demographics and menstrual-management method continuation, bleeding patterns, side effects, and satisfaction at 3 months (T1) and 1 year (T2). Outcomes were compared between method subgroups.

RESULTS

Among the 101 included patients, 90% chose either oral norethindrone acetate or a 52-mg levonorgestrel (LNG) intrauterine device (IUD). There were no differences in continuation rates for these methods at either follow-up time. Almost all patients had improved bleeding at T2 (96% for norethindrone acetate and 100% for IUD users), with no difference between subgroups. Amenorrhea rates were 84% for norethindrone acetate and 67% for IUD at T1 and 97% and 89%, respectively, at T2, with no differences at either point. The majority of patients had improved pain, menstrually related moods, and menstrually related dysphoria at both follow-up points. There were no differences in side effects between subgroups. There were no differences in method satisfaction between the groups at T2.

CONCLUSION

Most patients chose norethindrone acetate or an LNG IUD for menstrual management. Continuation, amenorrhea, and improved bleeding, pain, and menstrually related moods and dysphoria were high for all patients, indicating that menstrual management is a viable intervention for gender-diverse patients who experience increased dysphoria related to menses.

Impact of combined endometrial resection or ablation and levonorgestrel intrauterine device on postoperative bleeding pattern

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to describe the rate of amenorrhea in women treated with transcervical endometrial resection (TCER) or radiofrequency endometrial ablation combined with levonorgestrel intrauterine contraceptive device (LNG-IUD) six months post-operatively.

METHODS

The study was performed as a prospective cohort study. All patients were included at four gynecological centers in Region of Southern Denmark. In total, 162 women referred due to menorrhagia, metrorrhagia or menometrorrhagia and offered TCER or radiofrequency endometrial ablation in combination with or without LNG-IUD included during November 2018 to June 2021 at the women's own discretion and without any cost (covered by the hospital). Data were analyzed using a multivariate regression model.

RESULTS

In total, 58 women were offered TCER and 31 (53.4%) combined treatment with TCER + LNG-IUD. Among 104 women who received radiofrequency endometrial ablation, 46 (44.2%) underwent combined treatment with LNG-IUD. The incidence of amenorrhea was 26% among women who underwent treatment with TCRE and 52% when treated with TCER + LNG-IUD (adjusted OR 5.16; 95% CI 1.35-19.6; P < 0.016). Radiofrequency endometrial ablation was followed by a 41% incidence of amenorrhea, and when radiofrequency endometrial ablation was combined with LNG-IUD, the incidence of amenorrhea was 63% (adjusted OR 2.15; 95% CI 0.86-5.37; P < 0.1). We observed no statistically significant differences when comparing the groups across.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that the combination of TCER or radiofrequency endometrial ablation with LNG-IUD was superior to TCER. However, the combined treatment of radiofrequency endometrial ablation with LNG-IUD did not reach statistical significance. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effects of different ablation techniques on the amenorrhea rate.

Effects of Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine Device Therapy on Ovarian Reserve in Menorrhagia

Objective This study aimed to investigate the effects of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) treatment on ovarian reserve in women of reproductive age diagnosed with menorrhagia. Methods This was a prospective controlled trial involving 50 women with menorrhagia and a control group comprising age-matched 50 healthy women. Women who satisfied the LNG group criteria underwent an endometrial pipelle biopsy and LNG-IUD insertion. Ovarian reserve tests were performed prior to and six months after LNG-IUD insertion in the LNG group cases. Results Follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), estradiol (E2), anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), endometrial thickness (ET), total antral follicle count (AFC), and mean ovarian volume values before LNG-IUD insertion did not differ between the LNG and control groups. When the final measurements were compared, FSH, AMH, total AFC, and average ovarian volume increased (p=0.05, 0.046, 0.022, and 0.022, respectively), E2 and ET decreased (p=0.034 and 0.001, respectively) in the LNG group, while LH did not differ significantly between the groups (p=0.71). Conclusion We observed that LNG-IUD use effectively improves fertility capacity. In this study, LNG-IUD use in reproductive-age women diagnosed with menorrhagia decreased E2 levels, did not change LH levels, and increased FSH, AFC, and AMH levels.

Prevalence of Heavy Menstrual Bleeding and Its Associated Cognitive Risks and Predictive Factors in Women With Severe Mental Disorders

There has been limited studies examining treatment-induced heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) in women with severe mental illnesses. The aim of this study was to examine HMB prevalence and HMB-associated factors in young women (18–34 years old) diagnosed with bipolar disorder (BP), major depressive disorder (MDD), or schizophrenia (SCZ) who have full insight and normal intelligence. Eighteen-month menstruation histories were recorded with pictorial blood loss assessment chart assessments of HMB. Multivariate analyses were conducted to obtain odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Drug effects on cognition were assessed with the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB). HMB prevalence were: BP, 25.85%; MDD, 18.78%; and SCH, 13.7%. High glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level was a strong risk factor for HMB [BP OR, 19.39 (16.60–23.01); MDD OR, 2.69 (4.59–13.78); and SCZ OR, 9.59 (6.14–12.43)]. Additional risk factors included fasting blood sugar, 2-h postprandial blood glucose, and use of the medication valproate [BP: OR, 16.00 (95%CI 12.74–20.22); MDD: OR, 13.88 (95%CI 11.24–17.03); and SCZ OR, 11.35 (95%CI 8.84–19.20)]. Antipsychotic, antidepressant, and electroconvulsive therapy use were minor risk factors. Pharmacotherapy-induced visual learning impairment was associated with HMB [BP: OR, 9.01 (95%CI 3.15–13.44); MDD: OR, 5.99 (95%CI 3.11–9.00); and SCZ: OR, 7.09 (95%CI 2.99–9.20)]. Lithium emerged as a protective factor against HMB [BP: OR, 0.22 (95%CI 0.14–0.40); MDD: OR, 0.30 (95%CI 0.20–0.62); and SCZ: OR, 0.65 (95%CI 0.33–0.90)]. In SCZ patients, hyperlipidemia and high total cholesterol were HMB-associated factors (ORs, 1.87–2.22). Psychiatrist awareness of HMB risk is concerningly low (12/257, 2.28%). In conclusion, prescription of VPA should be cautioned for women with mental illness, especially BP, and lithium may be protective against HMB.

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.

Bleeding patterns of women with heavy menstrual bleeding or dysmenorrhoea using the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system: results from a real-world observational study in Japan (J-MIRAI)

PURPOSE

To collect real-world safety and clinical outcome data on the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) for functional/organic heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) and dysmenorrhoea in Japanese women (J-MIRAI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this prospective, multicentre, single-cohort, open-label, post-authorisation study, we assessed menstrual blood loss after LNG-IUS insertion by changes from baseline in pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBAC) scores. Scores for the menorrhagia multi-attribute scale (MMAS) were collected for 12 months to assess quality of life.

RESULTS

We included 47 patients with complete PBAC score and patient diary data. The median PBAC score before LNG-IUS insertion was 159.0, which decreased significantly to 6.0 at 12 months post-insertion; for patients with adenomyosis (n = 20), PBAC score decreased from 174.5 pre-insertion to 19.5 at 12 months. The number of patient-reported bleeding days was correlated with PBAC score ≥5. The proportion of women with prolonged bleeding decreased from 85.7% to 34.6% by the study's end. Some women reported no bleeding after the first 90-day reference period. The mean MMAS overall score significantly increased from 50.50 before insertion to 88.67 at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Japanese women with functional/organic HMB experienced substantial reductions in bleeding symptoms and improvements in quality of life after 12-month use of the LNG-IUS.

Comparison of Levonorgestrel-releasing Intrauterine System (LNG-IUS) against Laparoscopic Assisted Supracervical Hysterectomy (LASH) for menorrhagia treatment: An economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

This economic evaluation and literature review was conducted with the primary aim to compare the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic assisted supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) with NICE's gold-standard treatment of Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) for menorrhagia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was conducted from an NHS perspective, using data from two European studies to compare the treatments. Individual costs and benefits were assessed within one year of having the intervention. An Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) was calculated, followed by sensitivity analysis. Expected Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYS) and costs to the NHS were calculated alongside health net benefits (HNB) and monetary net benefits (MNB).

RESULTS

A QALY gain of 0.069 was seen in use of LNG-IUS compared to LASH. This yielded a MNB between -£44.99 and -£734.99, alongside a HNB between -0.0705 QALYs and -0.106 QALYS. Using a £20,000-£30,000/QALY limit outlined by NICE,this showed the LNG-IUS to be more cost-effective than LASH, with LASH exceeding the upper bound of the £30,000/QALY limit. Sensitivity analysis lowered the ICER below the given threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

The ICER demonstrates it would not be cost-effective to replace the current gold-standard LNG-IUS with LASH, when treating menorrhagia in the UK. The ICER's proximity to the threshold and its high sensitivity alludes to the necessity for further research to generate a more reliable cost-effectiveness estimate. However, LASH could be considered as a first line treatment option in women with no desire to have children.

Predictive factors for failure of the levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system in women with heavy menstrual bleeding

Background

This study was conducted to identify factors that are associated with failure of treatment using the levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in women with heavy menstrual bleeding.

Methods

For this study, data of a cohort of women treated with an LNG-IUS was used. Women who suffered from heavy menstrual bleeding, aged 34 years and older, without intracavitary pathology and without a future child wish, were recruited in hospitals and general practices in the Netherlands. Eight potential prognostic baseline variables (age, body mass index, caesarean section, vaginal delivery, previous treatment, anticoagulant use, dysmenorrhea, and pictorial blood assessment score) were analyzed using univariable and multivariable regression models to estimate the risk of failure. The main outcome measure was discontinuation of the LNG-IUS within 24 months of follow up, defined as removal of the LNG-IUS or receiving an additional intervention.

Results

A total of 209 women received the LNG-IUS, 201 women were included in the analyses. 93 women (46%) discontinued LNG-IUS treatment within 24 months. Multivariable analysis showed younger age (age below 45) (adjusted RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.10–2.09, p = .012) and severe dysmenorrhea (adjusted RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.01–1.82, p = .041) to be associated with a higher risk of discontinuation.

Conclusions

High discontinuation rates are found in women who receive an LNG-IUS to treat heavy menstrual bleeding. A younger age and severe dysmenorrhea are found to be risk factors for discontinuation of LNG-IUS treatment. These results are relevant for counselling women with heavy menstrual bleeding.

The effect of corrective and therapeutic exercises on bleeding volume and severe menstrual pain in non-athletic women

The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between lumbar lordosis and severe menstrual pain and bleeding for the improvement of the health status in women. This was a quasi-experimental study where the effects of a training program, (based on correctional and therapeutic exercises, on primary dysmenorrhoea and menstrual bleeding in women with hyper-lordosis) was determined. The severity of menstrual pain was evaluated by use of a questionnaire. There was a significant incidence of neurological pain, which was not reduced in the control group (who had no exercise). There was a significant relationship between the severity of menstrual pain and hyper-lordosis. In the intervention group, there was a significant decrease in the severity of menstrual pain following 12 weeks of exercise. Hyper-lordosis can be improved by performing corrective exercises and strengthening the abdominal muscles.Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject? Exercise is positively associated with changes in the menstrual cycle and has beneficial effects on menstruation.What do the results of this study add? This research determines the relationship between lumbar lordosis and severe menstrual pain and the association of severe menstrual bleeding, in order to take effective corrective actions to improve women's health.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Hyper-lordosis can be improved by corrective exercises and strengthening of the abdominal muscles.

Heavy menstrual bleeding on direct factor Xa inhibitors: Rationale and design of the MEDEA study

BACKGROUND

In premenopausal women, treatment with direct oral factor Xa inhibitors is associated with an increased risk of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKA). Treatment with the direct oral thrombin inhibitor dabigatran appears to be associated with a reduced risk of HMB compared with VKA. These findings come from small observational studies or post hoc analyses of trials in which HMB was not a primary outcome. Use of tranexamic acid during the menstrual period may be effective in patients with HMB, but prospective data regarding efficacy and safety in patients on anticoagulant treatment are lacking.

RATIONALE AND DESIGN

A direct comparison of a factor Xa inhibitor and a thrombin inhibitor with HMB as primary outcome, as well as an evaluation of the effects of adding tranexamic acid in women with anticoagulant-associated HMB is highly relevant for clinical practice. The MEDEA study is a randomized, open-label, pragmatic clinical trial to evaluate management strategies in premenopausal women with HMB associated with factor Xa inhibitor therapy.

OUTCOMES

Women using factor Xa inhibitors with proven HMB, as assessed by a pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBAC) score of >150, will be randomized to one of three study arms: (i) switch to dabigatran; (ii) continue factor Xa inhibitor with addition of tranexamic acid during the menstrual period; or (iii) continue factor Xa inhibitor without intervention. The primary outcome is the difference in PBAC score before and after randomization. Here, we present the rationale and highlight several unique features in the design of the study.

Progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems for uterine fibroids (other than preoperative medical therapy)

BACKGROUND

Uterine fibroids can cause heavy menstrual bleeding. Medical treatments are considered to preserve fertility. It is unclear whether progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems can reduce fibroid-related symptoms. This is the first update of a Cochrane Review published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems in treating premenopausal women with uterine fibroids.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases to July 2020. We also searched trials registers for ongoing and registered trials, and checked references of relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All identified published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems in treating premenopausal women with uterine fibroids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review included four studies with 221 women with uterine fibroids. The evidence was very low quality, downgraded for serious risk of bias, due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUS) versus hysterectomy There was no information on the outcomes of interest, including adverse events. LNG-IUS versus low dose combined oral contraceptive (COC) At 12 months, we are uncertain whether LNG-IUS reduced the percentage of abnormal uterine bleeding, measured with the alkaline hematin test (mean difference (MD) 77.50%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 70.44 to 84.56; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence), or the pictorial blood assessment chart (PBAC; MD 34.50%, 95% CI 11.59 to 57.41; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence); increased haemoglobin levels (MD 1.50 g/dL, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.15; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence), or reduced fibroid size more than COC (MD 1.90%, 95% CI -12.24 to 16.04; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not measure adverse events. LNG-IUS versus oral progestogen (norethisterone acetate (NETA)) Compared to NETA, we are uncertain whether LNG-IUS reduced abnormal uterine bleeding more from baseline to six months (visual bleeding score; MD 23.75 points, 95% CI 1.26 to 46.24; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence); increased the percentage of change in haemoglobin from baseline to three months (MD 4.53%, 95% CI 1.46 to 7.60; 1 RCT, 48 women; very low-quality evidence), or from baseline to six months (MD 10.14%, 95% CI 5.57 to 14.71; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not measure fibroid size. Spotting (adverse event) was more likely to be reported by women with the LNG-IUS (64.3%) than by those taking NETA (30%; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence). Oral progestogen (dienogest, desogestrel) versus goserelin acetate Compared to goserelin acetate, we are uncertain whether abnormal uterine bleeding was reduced at 12 weeks with dienogest (PBAC; MD 216.00 points, 95% CI 149.35 to 282.65; 1 RCT, 14 women; very low-quality evidence) or desogestrel (PBAC; MD 78.00 points, 95% CI 28.94 to 127.06; 1 RCT, 16 women; very low-quality evidence). Vasomotor symptoms (adverse events, e.g. hot flashes) are only associated with goserelin acetate (55%), not with dienogest (1 RCT, 14 women; very low-quality evidence) or with desogestrel (1 RCT, 16 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not report fibroid size.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Because of very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain whether the LNG-IUS reduces abnormal uterine bleeding or increases haemoglobin levels in premenopausal women with uterine fibroids, compared to COC or norethisterone acetate. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the LNG-IUS reduces the size of uterine fibroids compared to COC. We are uncertain whether oral progestogens reduce abnormal uterine bleeding as effectively as goserelin acetate, but women reported fewer adverse events, such as hot flashes.

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for endometrial hyperplasia

BACKGROUND

In the absence of treatment, endometrial hyperplasia (EH) can progress to endometrial cancer, particularly in the presence of histologic nuclear atypia. The development of EH results from exposure of the endometrium to oestrogen unopposed by progesterone. Oral progestogens have been used as treatment for EH without atypia, and in some cases of EH with atypia in women who wish to preserve fertility or who cannot tolerate surgery. EH without atypia is associated with a low risk of progression to atypia and cancer; EH with atypia is where the cells are structurally abnormal, and has a higher risk of developing cancer. Oral progestogen is not always effective at reversing the hyperplasia, can be associated with side effects, and depends on patient adherence. The levonorgestrel-intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) is an alternative method of administration of progestogen and may have some advantages over non-intrauterine progestogens.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in women with endometrial hyperplasia (EH) with or without atypia compared to medical treatment with non-intrauterine progestogens, placebo, surgery or no treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGF) Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO, and conference proceedings of 10 relevant organisations. We handsearched references in relevant published studies. We also searched ongoing trials in ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, and other trial registries. We performed the final search in May 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials of women with a histological diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia with or without atypia comparing LNG-IUS with non-intrauterine progestogens, placebo, surgery or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were regression of EH and adverse effects associated with the LNG-IUS device (such as pelvic inflammatory disease, device expulsion, uterine perforation) when compared to treatment with non-intrauterine progestogens, placebo, surgery or no treatment. Secondary outcomes included hysterectomy, hormone-related adverse effects (such as bleeding/spotting, pelvic pain, breast tenderness, ovarian cysts, weight gain, acne), withdrawal from treatment due to adverse effects, satisfaction with treatment, and cost or resource use. We rated the overall quality of evidence using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs (1657 women aged 22 to 75 years) met the inclusion criteria. Two studies had insufficient data for meta-analysis, thus the quantitative analysis included 11 RCTs. All trials evaluated treatment duration of six months or less. The evidence ranged from very low to moderate quality: the main limitations were risk of bias (associated with lack of blinding and poor reporting of study methods), inconsistency and imprecision. LNG-IUS versus non-intrauterine progestogens Primary outcomes Regression of endometrial hyperplasia The LNG-IUS probably improves regression of EH compared with non-intrauterine progestogens at short-term follow-up (up to six months) (OR 2.94, 95% CI 2.10 to 4.13; I² = 0%; 10 RCTs, 1108 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if regression of EH following treatment with a non-intrauterine progestogen is assumed to be 72%, regression of EH following treatment with LNG-IUS would be between 85% and 92%. Regression of EH may be improved by LNG-IUS compared with non-intrauterine progestogens at long-term follow-up (12 months) (OR 3.80, 95% CI 1.75 to 8.23; 1 RCT, 138 participants; low-quality evidence), Adverse effects associated with LNG-IUS There was insufficient evidence to determine device-related adverse effects; only one study reported on expulsion with insufficient data for analysis. Secondary outcomes The LNG-IUS may be associated with fewer hysterectomies (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.46; I² = 19%; 4 RCTs, 452 participants; low-quality evidence), fewer withdrawals from treatment due to hormone-related adverse effects (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.35; I² = 0%; 4 RCTs, 360 participants; low-quality evidence) and improved patient satisfaction with treatment (OR 5.28, 95% CI 2.51 to 11.10; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 202 participants; very low-quality evidence) compared to non-intrauterine progestogens. The LNG-IUS may be associated with more bleeding/spotting (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.43; I² = 78%; 3 RCTs, 428 participants) and less nausea (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.95; I² = 0%; 3 RCTs, 428 participants) compared to non-intrauterine progestogens. Data from single trials for mood swings and fatigue had a similar direction of effect as for bleeding/spotting, nausea and weight gain. There was insufficient evidence to determine cost or resource use. LNG-IUS versus no treatment Regression of endometrial hyperplasia One study demonstrated that the LNG-IUS is associated with regression of EH without atypia (OR 78.41, 95% CI 22.86 to 268.97; I² = 0%; 1 RCT, 190 participants; moderate-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. This study did not report on any other review outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-quality evidence that treatment with LNG-IUS used for three to six months is probably more effective than non-intrauterine progestogens at reversing EH in the short term (up to six months) and long term (up to two years). Adverse effects (device-related and hormone-related) were poorly and incompletely reported across studies. Very low quality to low-quality evidence suggests the LNG-IUS may reduce the risk of hysterectomy, and may be associated with more bleeding/spotting, less nausea, less withdrawal from treatment due to adverse effects, and increased satisfaction with treatment, compared to non-intrauterine progestogens. There was insufficient evidence to reach conclusions regarding device-related adverse effects, or cost or resource use.

90 YEARS OF PROGESTERONE: Selective progesterone receptor modulators in gynaecological therapies

Abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) is a chronic, debilitating and common condition affecting one in four women of reproductive age. Current treatments (conservative, medical and surgical) may be unsuitable, poorly tolerated or may result in loss of fertility. Selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRMs) influence progesterone-regulated pathways, a hormone critical to female reproductive health and disease; therefore, SPRMs hold great potential in fulfilling an unmet need in managing gynaecological disorders. SPRMs in current clinical use include RU486 (mifepristone), which is licensed for pregnancy interruption, and CDB-2914 (ulipristal acetate), licensed for managing AUB in women with leiomyomas and in a higher dose as an emergency contraceptive. In this article, we explore the clinical journey of SPRMs and the need for further interrogation of this class of drugs with the ultimate goal of improving women's quality of life.

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.

​Challenge in managing abnormal uterine bleeding in a patient on novel oral anticoagulant therapy

This is a case report of a 48-year-old woman who presented with heavy per vaginal bleeding to the emergency department after being commenced on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for venous thromboembolism. She had significant bleeding which initially required resuscitation and stabilisation. Her symptoms were ultimately managed by changing her anticoagulation agent to therapeutic low molecular weight heparin with Clexane^© the agent of choice. This case study highlights the complexity of managing these patients as well as highlighting the need for ongoing research into DOACs in this area.

Sex matters: Practice 5P's when treating young women with venous thromboembolism

Sex matters when it comes to venous thromboembolism (VTE). We defined 5P's - period, pill, prognosis, pregnancy, and postthrombotic syndrome - that should be discussed with young women with VTE. Menstrual blood loss (Period) can be aggravated by anticoagulant therapy. This seems particularly true for direct oral anticoagulants. Abnormal uterine bleeding can be managed by hormonal therapy, tranexamic acid, or modification of treatment. The use of combined oral contraceptives (Pill) is a risk factor for VTE. The magnitude of the risk depends on progestagen types and estrogen doses used. In women using therapeutic anticoagulation, concomitant hormonal therapy does not increase the risk of recurrent VTE. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and low-dose progestin-only pills do not increase the risk of VTE. In young women VTE is often provoked by transient hormonal risk factors that affects prognosis. Sex is incorporated as predictor in recurrent VTE risk assessment models. However, current guidelines do not propose using these to guide treatment duration. Pregnancy increases the risk of VTE by 4-fold to 5-fold. Thrombophilia and obstetric risk factors further increase the risk of pregnancy-related VTE. In women with a history of VTE, the risk of recurrence during pregnancy or post partum appears to be influenced by risk factors present during the first VTE. In most women with a history of VTE, antepartum and postpartum thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin is indicated. Women generally are affected by VTE at a younger age then men, and they have to deal with long-term complications (Post-thrombotic syndrome) of deep vein thrombosis early in life.

Levonorgestrel intrauterine system associated amenorrhea: a systematic review and metaanalysis

OBJECTIVE DATA

Amenorrhea is a polarizing noncontraceptive effect of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system. Composite amenorrhea prevalence estimates that summarize all clinical data for the first-year after insertion currently are not available. The purpose of this study was to investigate the validity of existing prevalence estimates by the systematic calculation of amenorrhea measures for a general population of levonorgestrel intrauterine system users and to provide 90-day interval point estimates for the first year of use.

STUDY

We identified clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, and randomized comparative trials that were published in English between January 1970 and September 2017 through electronic searches of 12 biomedical and scientific literature databases that included MEDLINE and ClinicalTrials.gov.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

We considered studies that clearly defined amenorrhea per World Health Organization standards (the complete cessation of bleeding for at least 90 days), collected data from written daily bleeding diaries (the gold standard data collection technique on menstrual bleeding changes), and evaluated levonorgestrel intrauterine system devices that released 20 μg of levonorgestrel per day. We assessed study quality using guidelines established by the US Preventive Services Task Force and Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Two reviewers independently conducted all review stages; disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Where possible, data were pooled with the use of a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Of 2938 potentially relevant studies, we included 9 in our meta-analysis. We calculated amenorrhea prevalence, which was weighted for inter- and intrastudy variance, for 4 90-day intervals and months 0-12. Our results demonstrated few levonorgestrel intrauterine system users (0.2%; 95% confidence interval, 0.0-0.4) experienced amenorrhea during the first 90 days after insertion; however, prevalence increased to 8.1% (95% confidence interval, 6.6-9.7) on days 91-180. Finally, 18.2% (95% confidence interval, 14.9-21.5) of users experienced amenorrhea for at least 1 90-day interval during the first year. Although interstudy heterogeneity limited reliability of days 181-271 and 272-365 measures, prevalence increased from 13.6% (95% confidence interval, 9.3-18.0) to 20.3% (95% confidence interval, 13.5-27.0), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Approximately 20% of levonorgestrel intrauterine system users experience amenorrhea during at least 1 90-day interval by the first year after insertion. This composite estimate is consistent with the product labeling and demonstrates that most users do not experience amenorrhea during the first year. These results provide accurate summary measures to facilitate counselling and informed method selection.

Combined hormonal contraceptives for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Menorrhagia or heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an excessive blood loss that impairs a woman's quality of life, either physical, emotional, social or material. It is benign and not associated with pregnancy or any other gynaecological or systemic disease. Medical treatments used to reduce excessive menstrual blood loss (MBL) include prostaglandin synthetase inhibitors, antifibrinolytics, oral contraceptive pills, and other hormones. The combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) is claimed to have a variety of beneficial effects, inducing a regular shedding of a thinner endometrium and inhibiting ovulation, thus having the effect of both treating HMB and providing contraception. More recently, a contraceptive vaginal ring (CVR) has been trialled to investigate whether this treatment can provide similar benefits to COCP while lessening hormonal systemic exposure. This review is an update of a review which originally focused on COCP alone. The scope of the review has been widened to consider other types of delivery of combined hormonal contraceptives for reduction of MBL.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of combined hormonal contraceptives (pills, vaginal ring or patch) compared with other medical therapies, placebo, or no therapy in the treatment of HMB. A secondary objective was to compare the COCP with the CVR.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Gynecology and Fertility Group trials register, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL and PsycINFO (search dates: Oct 1996, May 2002, June 2004, April 2006, June 2009, July 2017 and September 2018) for all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of COCP and CVR for the treatment of HMB. We also searched trial registers and the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of COCP or CVR compared with no treatment, placebo, or other medical therapies for women with HMB and regular menstrual cycles.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All assessments of trial quality and data extraction were performed unblinded by at least two review authors. Our primary review outcomes were treatment success, menstrual bleeding (assessed objectively, semi-objectively or subjectively), and participant satisfaction with treatment. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, quality of life, and haemoglobin level.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight RCTs involving 805 participants. Two trials comparing COCP with placebo were considered to be moderate quality and the remaining studies were low to very low quality, mainly because of serious risk of bias from lack of blinding and concerns over precision.COCP versus placeboCOCP, with a step-down oestrogen and step-up progestogen regimen, improved response to treatment (return to menstrual 'normality') (OR 22.12, 95% CI 4.40 to 111.12; 2 trials; 363 participants; I² = 50%; moderate-quality evidence), and lowered MBL (OR 5.15, 95% CI 3.16 to 8.40; 2 trials; 339 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) when compared to placebo. The results suggested that, if the chance of 'successful' treatment was 3% in women taking placebo, then COCP increased this chance from 12% to 77% in women with unacceptable HMB. Minor adverse events, in particular breast pain, were more common with COCP. No study in this comparison reported semi-objectively assessed MBL or participant satisfaction with treatment.COCP versus other medical treatmentsNon-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the COCP reduced MBL when compared to NSAIDs (mefenamic acid and naproxen). No study in this comparison reported semi-objectively assessed MBL, subjectively assessed MBL, participant satisfaction with treatment or adverse events.Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG IUS)The LNG IUS was more effective than COCP in reducing MBL (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.48; 2 trials; 151 participants; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence) but it was not clear whether satisfaction with treatment or adverse effects varied according to which treatment was used. No study in this comparison reported semi-objectively assessed MBL or subjectively assessed MBL.Contraceptive vaginal ring (CVR) versus other medical treatmentsCOCP COCP was compared with CVR in two trials. There were discrepancies between some of the findings and there was no evidence of a benefit for one treatment compared to the other for response to treatment, MBL or participant satisfaction with treatment. There was a greater likelihood of nausea with COCP. No study in this comparison reported objectively assessed MBL or subjectively assessed MBL.ProgestogensCVR was compared to long course progestogens in one trial. It is possible that CVR increased the odds of satisfaction; but we are uncertain whether CVR improved MBL. The evidence was based on small numbers of participants and was very low quality, so definitive conclusions could not be reached. No study in this comparison reported objectively assessed MBL, subjectively assessed MBL, or adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence suggests that the combined oral contraceptive pill over six months reduces HMB in women with unacceptable HMB from 12% to 77% (compared to 3% in women taking placebo). When compared with other medical options for HMB, COCP was less effective than the LNG IUS. Limited evidence suggested that COCP and CVR had similar effects. There was insufficient evidence to determine comparative efficacy of combined hormonal contraceptives with NSAIDs, or long course progestogens.

[Contraception for women after 40: CNGOF Contraception Guidelines]

INTRODUCTION

Choosing contraception for women over 40 can be sometimes difficult but it is crucial since fertility and pregnancy's risks still exist. It requires a thorough evaluation of the situation, in order to identify any vascular and metabolic risk factors, along with the uterine and mammary benign pathologies already diagnosed.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review was to elaborate some guidelines for clinical practice regarding contraception's prescription for women over 40.

METHODS

A systematic review of the French and English existing literature was conducted. Pubmed and the Cochrane library were used to identify studies about contraception for perimenopausal women. International guidelines published by scientific societies were also reviewed (RCOG, FSRH, ESHRE, ACOG, WHO, HAS).

RESULTS

No contraceptive methods are contraindicated on the sole basis of age alone. However, because age is a risk factor for vascular and metabolic diseases, combined hormonal contraception and DMPA should not be prescribed at first intention. Copper IUD and progestin-only contraceptives (pill, implant, intrauterine device) should primarily be considered, since they offer good efficacy with lower risks.

CONCLUSIONS

Contraception for women over 40 should not be put aside. Long acting reversible contraception and progestin-only pill have to be prescribed as first-ine. Contraception is no longer needed for women over 50 who use non-hormonal contraception, after a 12 month-amenorrhea. Patients treated with combined hormonal contraception must stop using it over 50. Measuring hormonal levels while using hormonal contraception is not recommended. An hormonal-contraception-free interval must be considered, while using barrier contraception method. If an ovarian activity persists, a non-hormonal contraception or progestin-only contraception (except for DMPA) should be (re-)established.

Is LNG-IUS the One-Stop Answer to AUB?

A systematic search of the literature available on the use of Levonorgestrel intra-uterine system (LNG-IUS) in women with abnormal uterine bleeding was done. This included PubMed searches up to February 2017 as well as references available with the authors. LNG-IUS usage in other situations was not included in the study. Each relevant published article was evaluated as to whether it served the purpose of this review. Available data show that LNG-IUS is certainly the one-stop answer to AUB, providing a safe and cost-effective treatment and being a substitute for hysterectomy in most women with AUB.

Benefits of reversible contraception

Long-acting reversible contraception—intrauterine devices and contraceptive implants—offers the highest protection against unintended pregnancies. In addition, the use of reversible hormonal contraception has added health benefits for women in both the short and the long term. This review will give an overview of the benefits of reversible contraception as well as an evidence-based recommendation on how it should be used to benefit women the most.

Minimally invasive treatment of adenomyosis

The aim of the present review is to give a comprehensive overview of minimal invasive treatment options and suggest a minimally invasive approach in women with adenomyosis (AD). A review of relevant literature on medical and surgical treatment options is performed. Surgical options include endometrial ablation, hysteroscopic endometrial and adenomyoma resection, laparoscopic resection of AD, high-intensity focused ultrasonography (HIFU), and uterine artery embolization (UAE). This review summarizes treatment strategies for the management of AD and highlights the present lack of knowledge, which makes suggestions of evidence-based treatment difficult.

Two Years Follow-Up of Patients with Abnormal Uterine Bleeding after Insertion of the Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in the long-term treatment of heavy menstrual blood loss in women unrelated to intrauterine pathology.

METHODS

One hundred and six parous women aged 33-48 years with recurrent heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) participated in this study. The women were followed up for 24 months and were assessed for intensity of bleeding both for pre- and post-insertion periods. An LNG-IUS was inserted in each patient within 7 days of the start of menstrual flow. The women were followed up at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months following the insertion of the intrauterine device.

RESULTS

One hundred and two women completed the follow-up period and had a significant reduction in the amount of menstrual blood loss. The LNG-IUS was well tolerated by all women. Pre-treatment of the use of the LNG-IUS, endometrial biopsy patterns for irregular proliferative endometrium and for atypical simple hyperplasia were 34/106 (32.08%) and 61/106 (57.55%) respectively and after treatment no abnormal pathologic findings were determined (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that the LNG-IUS is effective for significantly reducing the amount of menstrual blood loss in women with HMB.

Practice Bulletin No. 186: Long-Acting Reversible Contraception: Implants and Intrauterine Devices

Intrauterine devices and contraceptive implants, also called long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARC), are the most effective reversible contraceptive methods. The major advantage of LARC compared with other reversible contraceptive methods is that they do not require ongoing effort on the part of the patient for long-term and effective use. In addition, after the device is removed, the return of fertility is rapid (1, 2). The purpose of this Practice Bulletin is to provide information for appropriate patient selection and evidence-based recommendations for LARC initiation and management. The management of clinical challenges associated with LARC use is beyond the scope of this document and is addressed in Committee Opinion No. 672, Clinical Challenges of Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptive Methods (3).

LNG-IUS 12: a 19.5 levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for prevention of pregnancy for up to five years

INTRODUCTION

Globally, intrauterine devices (IUDs) are the second most commonly used form of reversible contraception because of their high efficacy, safety, convenience and cost effectiveness. The levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system with daily average release of 20 mcg (LNG-IUS 20) is the popular choice because of its favorable bleeding patterns and many noncontraceptive benefits. A three year (LNG-IUS 8) became available three years ago. More recently, the LNG-IUS 12 was added. This new IUD shares a smaller frame, narrow inserter and lower rate of amenorrhea with the LNG-IUS 8, but it offers the five years of contraceptive protection of the LNG-IUS 20. Areas covered: This article provides information on the contraceptive efficacy, safety and tolerability of this new IUS based on approximately 60,000 cycles of use. Where available, the impacts of subject age, parity and body mass index (BMI) on study outcomes are reported. Expert opinion: This new LNG-IUS 12 with mid-dose hormone levels, smaller frame and longer effective life fills a niche that may better meet the needs of women who might appreciate the narrow insertion tube and/or the lower rates of amenorrhea. Cost will ultimately help determine success.

The current status of hormonal therapies for heavy menstrual bleeding

Hormonal treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB), especially bleeding related to endometrial causes (AUB-E), ovulatory dysfunction (AUB-O) and coagulopathy (AUB-C), and to some extent, uterine leiomyomas and adenomyosis, has become the first-line evidence-based management strategy during recent years. Hormonal treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is also endorsed as the first line of treatment in several international guidelines. In the present article, we review the efficacy of the commonly used and widely available hormonal treatments of AUB-O, AUB-E and AUB-C. The therapies include combined hormonal contraceptives, progestin-only preparations, and intrauterine release of levonorgestrel through the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. In addition, we make practical recommendations for patient management. We also review some of the current guidelines and their recommendations concerning the treatment of HMB. Finally, the effects of hormonal treatment on the overall management of AUB and its effects on the health care system and specialist training are discussed.

Impact of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system use on the cancer risk of the ovary and fallopian tube

BACKGROUND

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) is used for contraception and heavy menstrual bleeding. A long-term hormone therapy can modify the risk of gynecologic cancers. Little is known about the impact of LNG-IUS use on the risk for invasive and borderline ovarian tumor subtypes or for primary fallopian tube carcinoma. We examined the associations of LNG-IUS use with these tumors.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We identified from the national Medical Reimbursement Registry of Finland the women aged 30-49 years who had used LNG-IUS for menorrhagia in 1994-2007, and from the Finnish Cancer Registry ovarian cancers and primary fallopian tube carcinomas diagnosed before the age of 55 and by the end of 2013.

RESULTS

A total of 77 invasive ovarian cancers and seven primary fallopian tube carcinoma cases were diagnosed in a cohort of 93 843 LNG-IUS users during the follow-up of 1 083 126 women-years. The LNG-IUS users had decreased risk for both invasive ovarian cancer [standardized incidence ratio (SIR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.73] and for borderline ovarian tumors (SIR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57-0.99) as compared to the background population. The risk of primary fallopian tube carcinoma was not increased (SIR 1.22, 95% CI 0.49-2.50). Decreased risks for mucinous (SIR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24-0.87), endometrioid (SIR 0.55, 95% CI 0.28-0.98), and serous ovarian carcinomas (SIR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55-0.99) were seen in LNG-IUS users.

CONCLUSIONS

LNG-IUS use associated with decreased risk for both invasive and borderline ovarian tumors. The incidence of primary fallopian tube carcinoma did not significantly differ between LNG-IUS users and the background population.

Usual medical treatments or levonorgestrel-IUS for women with heavy menstrual bleeding: long-term randomised pragmatic trial in primary care

Background

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common, chronic problem affecting women and health services. However, long-term evidence on treatment in primary care is lacking.

Aim

To assess the effectiveness of commencing the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) or usual medical treatments for women presenting with HMB in general practice.

Design and setting

A pragmatic, multicentre, parallel, open-label, long term, randomised controlled trial in 63 primary care practices across the English Midlands.

Method

In total, 571 women aged 25–50 years, with HMB were randomised to LNG-IUS or usual medical treatment (tranexamic/mefenamic acid, combined oestrogen–progestogen, or progesterone alone). The primary outcome was the patient reported Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS, measuring effect of HMB on practical difficulties, social life, psychological and physical health, and work and family life; scores from 0 to 100). Secondary outcomes included surgical intervention (endometrial ablation/hysterectomy), general quality of life, sexual activity, and safety.

Results

At 5 years post-randomisation, 424 (74%) women provided data. While the difference between LNG-IUS and usual treatment groups was not significant (3.9 points; 95% confidence interval = −0.6 to 8.3; P = 0.09), MMAS scores improved significantly in both groups from baseline (mean increase, 44.9 and 43.4 points, respectively; P<0.001 for both comparisons). Rates of surgical intervention were low in both groups (surgery-free survival was 80% and 77%; hazard ratio 0.90; 95% CI = 0.62 to 1.31; P = 0.6). There was no difference in generic quality of life, sexual activity scores, or serious adverse events.

Conclusion

Large improvements in symptom relief across both groups show treatment for HMB can be successfully initiated with long-term benefit and with only modest need for surgery.

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.

Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease

BACKGROUND

The four approaches to hysterectomy for benign disease are abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of different surgical approaches to hysterectomy for women with benign gynaecological conditions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases (from inception to 14 August 2014) using the Ovid platform: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PsycINFO. We also searched relevant citation lists. We used both indexed and free-text terms.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which clinical outcomes were compared between one surgical approach to hysterectomy and another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and performed data extraction. Our primary outcomes were return to normal activities, satisfaction, quality of life, intraoperative visceral injury and major long-term complications (i.e. fistula, pelvi-abdominal pain, urinary dysfunction, bowel dysfunction, pelvic floor condition and sexual dysfunction).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 47 studies with 5102 women. The evidence for most comparisons was of low or moderate quality. The main limitations were poor reporting and imprecision. Vaginal hysterectomy (VH) versus abdominal hysterectomy (AH) (nine RCTs, 762 women)Return to normal activities was shorter in the VH group (mean difference (MD) -9.5 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -12.6 to -6.4, three RCTs, 176 women, I(2) = 75%, moderate quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. Laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) versus AH (25 RCTs, 2983 women)Return to normal activities was shorter in the LH group (MD -13.6 days, 95% CI -15.4 to -11.8; six RCTs, 520 women, I(2) = 71%, low quality evidence), but there were more urinary tract injuries in the LH group (odds ratio (OR) 2.4, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.8, 13 RCTs, 2140 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. LH versus VH (16 RCTs, 1440 women)There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for any primary outcomes. Robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) versus LH (two RCTs, 152 women)There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for any primary outcomes. Neither of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life.Overall, the number of adverse events was low in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Among women undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease, VH appears to be superior to LH and AH, as it is associated with faster return to normal activities. When technically feasible, VH should be performed in preference to AH because of more rapid recovery and fewer febrile episodes postoperatively. Where VH is not possible, LH has some advantages over AH (including more rapid recovery and fewer febrile episodes and wound or abdominal wall infections), but these are offset by a longer operating time. No advantages of LH over VH could be found; LH had a longer operation time, and total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) had more urinary tract injuries. Of the three subcategories of LH, there are more RCT data for laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy and LH than for TLH. Single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy and RH should either be abandoned or further evaluated since there is a lack of evidence of any benefit over conventional LH. Overall, the evidence in this review has to be interpreted with caution as adverse event rates were low, resulting in low power for these comparisons. The surgical approach to hysterectomy should be discussed and decided in the light of the relative benefits and hazards. These benefits and hazards seem to be dependent on surgical expertise and this may influence the decision. In conclusion, when VH is not feasible, LH may avoid the need for AH, but LH is associated with more urinary tract injuries. There is no evidence that RH is of benefit in this population. Preferably, the surgical approach to hysterectomy should be decided by the woman in discussion with her surgeon.