Efficacy of combined hormonal vaginal ring in comparison to combined hormonal pills in heavy menstrual bleeding

Interventions for heavy menstrual bleeding; overview of Cochrane reviews and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is excessive menstrual blood loss that interferes with women's quality of life, regardless of the absolute amount of bleeding. It is a very common condition in women of reproductive age, affecting 2 to 5 of every 10 women. Diverse treatments, either medical (hormonal or non-hormonal) or surgical, are currently available for HMB, with different effectiveness, acceptability, costs and side effects. The best treatment will depend on the woman's age, her intention to become pregnant, the presence of other symptoms, and her personal views and preferences.

OBJECTIVES

To identify, systematically assess and summarise all evidence from studies included in Cochrane Reviews on treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), using reviews with comparable participants and outcomes; and to present a ranking of the first- and second-line treatments for HMB.

METHODS

We searched for published Cochrane Reviews of HMB interventions in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The primary outcomes were menstrual bleeding and satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, adverse events and the requirement of further treatment. Two review authors independently selected the systematic reviews, extracted data and assessed quality, resolving disagreements by discussion. We assessed review quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool and evaluated the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods. We grouped the interventions into first- and second-line treatments, considering participant characteristics (desire for future pregnancy, failure of previous treatment, candidacy for surgery). First-line treatments included medical interventions, and second-line treatments included both the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and surgical treatments; thus the LNG-IUS is included in both groups. We developed different networks for first- and second-line treatments. We performed network meta-analyses of all outcomes, except for quality of life, where we performed pairwise meta-analyses. We reported the mean rank, the network estimates for mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the certainty of evidence (moderate, low or very low certainty). We also analysed different endometrial ablation and resection techniques separately from the main network: transcervical endometrial resection (TCRE) with or without rollerball, other resectoscopic endometrial ablation (REA), microwave non-resectoscopic endometrial ablation (NREA), hydrothermal ablation NREA, bipolar NREA, balloon NREA and other NREA.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library up to July 2021. We updated the reviews that were over two years old. In July 2020, we started the overview with no new reviews about the topic. The included medical interventions were: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antifibrinolytics (tranexamic acid), combined oral contraceptives (COC), combined vaginal ring (CVR), long-cycle and luteal oral progestogens, LNG-IUS, ethamsylate and danazol (included to provide indirect evidence), which were compared to placebo. Surgical interventions were: open (abdominal), minimally invasive (vaginal or laparoscopic) and unspecified (or surgeon's choice of route of) hysterectomy, REA, NREA, unspecified endometrial ablation (EA) and LNG-IUS. We grouped the interventions as follows. First-line treatments Evidence from 26 studies with 1770 participants suggests that LNG-IUS results in a large reduction of menstrual blood loss (MBL; mean rank 2.4, MD -105.71 mL/cycle, 95% CI -201.10 to -10.33; low certainty evidence); antifibrinolytics probably reduce MBL (mean rank 3.7, MD -80.32 mL/cycle, 95% CI -127.67 to -32.98; moderate certainty evidence); long-cycle progestogen reduces MBL (mean rank 4.1, MD -76.93 mL/cycle, 95% CI -153.82 to -0.05; low certainty evidence), and NSAIDs slightly reduce MBL (mean rank 6.4, MD -40.67 mL/cycle, -84.61 to 3.27; low certainty evidence; reference comparator mean rank 8.9). We are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining interventions and the sensitivity analysis for reduction of MBL, as the evidence was rated as very low certainty. We are uncertain of the true effect of any intervention (very low certainty evidence) on the perception of improvement and satisfaction. Second-line treatments Bleeding reduction is related to the type of hysterectomy (total or supracervical/subtotal), not the route, so we combined all routes of hysterectomy for bleeding outcomes. We assessed the reduction of MBL without imputed data (11 trials, 1790 participants) and with imputed data (15 trials, 2241 participants). Evidence without imputed data suggests that hysterectomy (mean rank 1.2, OR 25.71, 95% CI 1.50 to 439.96; low certainty evidence) and REA (mean rank 2.8, OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.29 to 5.66; low certainty evidence) result in a large reduction of MBL, and NREA probably results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 2.0, OR 3.32, 95% CI 1.53 to 7.23; moderate certainty evidence). Evidence with imputed data suggests hysterectomy results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 1.0, OR 14.31, 95% CI 2.99 to 68.56; low certainty evidence), and NREA probably results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 2.2, OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.29 to 6.05; moderate certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the true effect for REA (very low certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on amenorrhoea (very low certainty evidence). Evidence from 27 trials with 4284 participants suggests that minimally invasive hysterectomy results in a large increase in satisfaction (mean rank 1.3, OR 7.96, 95% CI 3.33 to 19.03; low certainty evidence), and NREA also increases satisfaction (mean rank 3.6, OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.33; low certainty evidence), but we are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining interventions (very low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests LNG-IUS is the best first-line treatment for reducing menstrual blood loss (MBL); antifibrinolytics are probably the second best, and long-cycle progestogens are likely the third best. We cannot make conclusions about the effect of first-line treatments on perception of improvement and satisfaction, as evidence was rated as very low certainty. For second-line treatments, evidence suggests hysterectomy is the best treatment for reducing bleeding, followed by REA and NREA. We are uncertain of the effect on amenorrhoea, as evidence was rated as very low certainty. Minimally invasive hysterectomy may result in a large increase in satisfaction, and NREA also increases satisfaction, but we are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining second-line interventions, as evidence was rated as very low certainty.

Vaginal ring acceptability: A systematic review and meta-analysis of vaginal ring experiences from around the world

OBJECTIVE

The vaginal ring (ring) is a female-initiated, long-acting drug delivery system for different indications, including HIV prevention. Our aim was to provide evidence for acceptability of the vaginal ring across indications to support dapivirine and multipurpose prevention technology ring introduction and roll out.

STUDY DESIGN

This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and grey literature for publications reporting favorable ring acceptability and secondary outcomes involving actual ring use (comfort, ease of ring use, ring comfort during sex, expulsions, and vaginal symptoms) or hypothetical acceptability for any indication published January 1, 1970-June 15, 2021. We estimated random-effects pooled prevalence, assessing between-study variation using meta-regression.

RESULTS

Of 2,234 records, we included 123 studies with 40,434 actual and hypothetical ring users. The primary outcome assessment included 50 studies with 60 ring subgroups totaling 19,271 ring users. The favorable acceptability pooled prevalence was 85.6% (95%CI 81.3, 89.0), while hypothetical acceptability among non-ring users was 27.6% (95%CI 17.5, 40.5). In meta-regression, acceptability was higher in menopause (95.4%; 95%CI 88.4, 98.2) compared to contraceptive rings (83.7%; 95%CI 75.6, 89.5). Acceptability was lower in pharmacokinetic studies (50%; 95%CI 22.1, 77.9) compared to RCTs (89.5%; 95%CI 85.8.92.4) and in studies assessing acceptability at ≥12 months (78.5%; 95%CI 66.5, 87.1) versus studies assessing acceptability at <3 months (91.9%; 95%CI 83.7, 96.1). European (90.6%; 95%CI 83.9, 94.7), Asian (97.1%; 95%CI 92.0, 99.0), and multi-region studies (93.5%; 95%CI 84.6, 97.4) reported more favorable acceptability compared to African studies (59.4%; 95%CI 38.3, 77.5). Secondary outcomes were similarly favorable, including ring comfort (92.9%; 95%CI 89.2, 95.4), ease of use (90.9%; 95%CI 86.5, 94.0), and comfort during sex (82.7%; 95%CI 76.4, 87.6). Limitations include inconsistent outcome definitions and unmeasured factors affecting acceptability.

CONCLUSIONS

Women who used vaginal rings reported they were acceptable across indications geographic regions and indications. Policy makers should consider the ring as an important option for pregnancy and HIV prevention drug development.

IMPLICATIONS

This review found favorable acceptability among vaginal ring users across indications and geographic areas, in contrast to low hypothetical acceptability among non-users. Vaginal rings are an important drug delivery system for pregnancy and HIV preventions, and scale-up should plan to address initial hesitancy among new users.

Multipurpose Prevention Technologies: Oral, Parenteral, and Vaginal Dosage Forms for Prevention of HIV/STIs and Unplanned Pregnancy

There is a high global prevalence of HIV, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and unplanned pregnancies. Current preventative daily oral dosing regimens can be ineffective due to low patient adherence. Sustained release delivery systems in conjunction with multipurpose prevention technologies (MPTs) can reduce high rates of HIV/STIs and unplanned pregnancies in an all-in-one efficacious, acceptable, and easily accessible technology to allow for prolonged release of antivirals and contraceptives. The concept and development of MPTs have greatly progressed over the past decade and demonstrate efficacious technologies that are user-accepted with potentially high adherence. This review gives a comprehensive overview of the latest oral, parenteral, and vaginally delivered MPTs in development as well as drug delivery formulations with the potential to advance as an MPT, and implementation studies regarding MPT user acceptability and adherence. Furthermore, there is a focus on MPT intravaginal rings emphasizing injection molding and hot-melt extrusion manufacturing limitations and emerging fabrication advancements. Lastly, formulation development considerations and limitations are discussed, such as nonhormonal contraceptive considerations, challenges with achieving a stable coformulation of multiple drugs, achieving sustained and controlled drug release, limiting drug-drug interactions, and advancing past preclinical development stages. Despite the challenges in the MPT landscape, these technologies demonstrate the potential to bridge gaps in preventative sexual and reproductive health care.

Design and Characterization of a Novel Series of Geometrically Complex Intravaginal Rings with Digital Light Synthesis

Intravaginal rings (IVRs) represent a sustained-release approach to drug delivery and have long been used and investigated for hormones and microbicides delivery. For decades, IVRs have been manufactured by injection molding and hot-melt extrusion with very limited design and material capabilities. Additive manufacturing (AM), specifically digital light synthesis (DLS), represents an opportunity to harness the freedom of design to expand control and tunability of drug release properties from IVRs. We report a novel approach to IVR design and manufacturing that results in geometrically complex internal architectures through the incorporation of distinct unit cells using computationally-aided design (CAD) software. We developed a systematic approach to design through the generation of an IVR library and investigated the effects of these parameters on ring properties. We demonstrate the ability to precisely and predictably control the compressive properties of the IVR independent of the internal architecture with which control of drug release kinetics can be achieved, thus opening the door for a 'plug-and-play' platform approach to IVR fabrication.

Vaginal ring acceptability and related preferences among women in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and narrative synthesis

The vaginal ring (VR) is a female-initiated drug-delivery platform used for different indications, including HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). We conducted a systematic review of VR acceptability, values and preferences among women in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) to inform further investment and/or guidance on VR use for HIV prevention. Following PRISMA guidelines, we used structured methods to search, screen, and extract data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting quantitative outcomes of acceptability of the VR for any indication published 1/1970-2/2019 (PROSPERO: CRD42019122220). Of 1,110 records identified, 68 met inclusion criteria. Studies included women 15-50+ years from 25 LMIC for indications including HIV prevention, contraception, abnormal bleeding, and menopause. Overall VR acceptability was high (71-98% across RCTs; 62-100% across observational studies), with 80-100% continuation rates in RCTs and favorable ease of insertion (greater than 85%) and removal 89-99%). Users reported concerns about the VR getting lost in the body (8-43%), although actual expulsions and adverse events were generally infrequent. Most women disclosed use to partners, with some worrying about partner anger/violence. The VR was not felt during intercourse by 70-92% of users and 48-97% of partners. Acceptability improved over time both within studies (as women gained VR experience and worries diminished), and over chronological time (as the device was popularized). Women expressed preferences for accessible, long-acting, partner-approved methods that prevent both HIV and pregnancy, can be used without partner knowledge, and have no impact on sex and few side effects. This review was limited by a lack of standardization of acceptability measures and study heterogeneity. This systematic review suggests that most LMIC women users have a positive view of the VR that increases with familiarity of use; and, that many would consider the VR an acceptable future delivery device for HIV prevention or other indications.

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.