Continuous compared with cyclic oral contraceptives for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea: a randomized controlled trial

Association between the use of oral contraceptives and the occurrence of systemic hypertension: A systematic review with statistical comparison between randomized clinical trial interventions

Introduction

In the WHO eligibility criteria, there is agreement that hypertensive women taking Oral Contraceptive Hormonal Combined (OCHC) may be at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. The risk-to-benefit ratio hinges on the severity of the condition. While a mild increase in blood pressure is a common occurrence in consumers of OCHC, the potential for developing high blood pressure exists during oral contraceptive use. Consequently, there is a possibility of increased cardiovascular risk, with limited available data on this issue.

Objective

To evaluate the potential effects of OCHC on blood pressure through a systematic review with statistical analysis of existing randomized controlled trials.

Method

This systematic review with statistical comparison adheres to the recommendations outlined in the PRISMA (Principal Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. The analysis strategy involves comparing the mean difference in blood pressure change according to the type of treatment, in addition to the calculation of clinically relevant outcomes (CRO).

Results

Our findings suggest a clinically relevant outcome related to the increase in blood pressure in users of ethinyl estradiol combined with gestodene in a cyclic regimen over 6 months. Conversely, a decrease in blood pressure was observed among users of ethinyl estradiol combined with chlormadinone over 24 months of usage.

Conclusion

While our study found minor variations in blood pressure across varying forms of oral contraceptives, these differences are not significant enough to warrant specific clinical recommendations. However, the results suggest that individuals with hypertension should exercise caution with ethinyl estradiol, particularly when administered cyclically alongside gestodene, due to the potential risk of increased blood pressure. Additionally, the use of oral contraceptives containing ethinyl estradiol paired with chlormadinone acetate or ethinyl estradiol combined with drospirenone may be more suitable for individuals at a high risk of developing hypertension.

Ginger for Pain Management in Primary Dysmenorrhea: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Primary dysmenorrhea is a common gynecological disorder that affects many women of reproductive age. Ginger, a widely used spice with anti-inflammatory properties, has been suggested as a potential treatment for the painful cramps associated with this condition. Objective: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of ginger for pain management in primary dysmenorrhea. Methods: Our systematic review was registered in Prospero (CRD42023418001). Six English (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL complete, and Cochrane) and one Persian electric database (SID) was searched up to May 2023 for English or Persian studies that measure the effect of ginger on pain in dysmenorrhea. The Cochrane tool was used to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. Random effects meta-analyses were performed to obtain standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Out of the 804 articles initially identified from the search, 24 were included for qualitative analysis and 12 for quantitative analysis after a full-text evaluation. The combined results of the studies indicate that ginger is notably more effective than placebo in reducing both the intensity (SMD = -1.13; 95% CI = -1.59 to -0.68, I2 = 81.05%) and duration of pain (SMD = -0.29; 95% CI = -0.46 to -0.12). There were no differences between ginger and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (SMD = 0.01; 95% CI = -0.24 to 0.25), or exercise (SMD = 0.06; 95% CI = -0.66 to 0.78) for pain intensity. Safety-related data were infrequently reported. Conclusions: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that ginger can effectively reduce pain associated with dysmenorrhea. The findings are limited due to risk of bias in the included studies and the unclear risk-benefit ratio.

Combined oral contraceptive pill for primary dysmenorrhoea

BACKGROUND

Dysmenorrhoea (painful menstrual cramps) is common and a major cause of pain in women. Combined oral contraceptives (OCPs) are often used in the management of primary dysmenorrhoea, but there is a need for reporting the benefits and harms. Primary dysmenorrhoea is defined as painful menstrual cramps without pelvic pathology.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of combined oral contraceptive pills for the management of primary dysmenorrhoea.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date 28 March 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing all combined OCPs with other combined OCPs, placebo, or management with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Participants had to have primary dysmenorrhoea, diagnosed by ruling out pelvic pathology through pelvic examination or ultrasound.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were pain score after treatment, improvement in pain, and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 RCTs (3723 women). Eleven RCTs compared combined OCP with placebo, eight compared different dosages of combined OCP, one compared two OCP regimens with placebo, and one compared OCP with NSAIDs. OCP versus placebo or no treatment OCPs reduce pain in women with dysmenorrhoea more effectively than placebo. Six studies reported treatment effects on different scales; the result can be interpreted as a moderate reduction in pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.74 to -0.41; I² = 28%; 6 RCTs, 588 women; high-quality evidence). Six studies also reported pain improvement as a dichotomous outcome (risk ratio (RR) 1.65, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.10; I² = 69%; 6 RCTs, 717 women; low-quality evidence). The data suggest that in women with a 28% chance of improvement in pain with placebo or no treatment, the improvement in women using combined OCP will be between 37% and 60%. Compared to placebo or no treatment, OCPs probably increase the risk of any adverse events (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.43; I² = 79%; 7 RCTs, 1025 women; moderate-quality evidence), and may also increase the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.77, 95% CI 0.49 to 6.43; I² = 22%; 4 RCTs, 512 women; low-quality evidence). Women who received OCPs had an increased risk of irregular bleeding compared to women who received placebo or no treatment (RR 2.63, 95% CI 2.11 to 3.28; I² = 29%; 7 RCTs, 1025 women; high-quality evidence). In women with a risk of irregular bleeding of 18% if using placebo or no treatment, the risk would be between 39% and 60% if using combined OCP. OCPs probably increase the risk of headaches (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.04; I² = 44%; 5 RCTs, 656 women; moderate-quality evidence), and nausea (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.30; I² = 39%; 8 RCTs, 948 women; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of OCP on weight gain (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.75 to 4.45; 1 RCT, 76 women; low-quality evidence). OCPs may slightly reduce requirements for additional medication (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.98; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 163 women; low-quality evidence), and absence from work (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.97; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 148 women; low-quality evidence). One OCP versus another OCP Continuous use of OCPs (no pause or inactive tablets after the usual 21 days of hormone pills) may reduce pain in women with dysmenorrhoea more effectively than the standard regimen (SMD -0.73, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.34; 2 RCTs, 106 women; low-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine if there was a difference in pain improvement between ethinylestradiol 20 μg and ethinylestradiol 30 μg OCPs (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.74; 1 RCT, 326 women; moderate-quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference between third- and fourth-generation and first- and second-generation OCPs (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; 1 RCT, 178 women; moderate-quality evidence). The standard regimen of OCPs may slightly increase the risk of any adverse events over the continuous regimen (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.22; I² = 76%; 3 RCTs, 602 women; low-quality evidence), and probably increases the risk of irregular bleeding (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.69; 2 RCTs, 379 women; moderate-quality evidence). Due to lack of studies, it is uncertain if there is a difference between continuous and standard regimen OCPs in serious adverse events (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.24; 1 RCT, 212 women), headaches (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.76; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 435 women), or nausea (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.30; I² = 23%; 2 RCTs, 435 women) (all very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if one type of OCP reduces absence from work more than the other (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.99; 1 RCT, 445 women; very low-quality evidence). OCPs versus NSAIDs There were insufficient data to determine whether OCPs were more effective than NSAIDs for pain (mean difference -0.30, 95% CI -5.43 to 4.83; 1 RCT, 91 women; low-quality evidence). The study did not report on adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

OCPs are effective for treating dysmenorrhoea, but they cause irregular bleeding, and probably headache and nausea. Long-term effects were not covered in this review. Continuous use of OCPs was probably more effective than the standard regimen but safety should be ensured with long-term data. Due to lack of data, we are uncertain whether NSAIDs are better than OCPs for treating dysmenorrhoea.

Quantifying the Impact of Dysmenorrhea Symptoms on Quality-of-Life and Access to Oral Contraceptives by Income

Background

Dysmenorrhea, or painful menstrual periods, is one of the most common gynecological complaints. Most reports of uterine contractions range between moderate to severe pain, and patients often elect to cope with their discomfort without assistance from a physician. In the process, women experiencing dysmenorrhea are more likely to report absenteeism from work and school.

Objectives

This study measures the reported impact of dysmenorrhea on patients' lives and elucidates a relationship between income and access to oral contraceptives.

Methods

Two hundred women completed a survey about their symptoms, level of pain, treatments, and the extent to which dysmenorrhea affected day-to-day obligations. Most questions were multiple-choice while others permitted several answer selections or were free response. The data was analyzed using JMP statistical software.

Results

Eighty-four percent of respondents reported moderate to severe pain during menstruation. This discomfort has caused 65.5% of the cohort to miss work and 68% to avoid participating in social gatherings. Pain relief medications are most often used as treatment - 143 respondents took ibuprofen, 93 took acetaminophen, and 51 took naproxen. 29.5% of respondents are prescribed birth control for cramps and blood flow. Income (p = 0.049), age (p = 0.002), and education (p = 0.002) were significant predictors for oral contraceptive pill (OCP) use. The lowest income groups were found to use OCPs at less than half the rate as the highest income respondents.

Conclusion

Dysmenorrhea affected most participants in the cohort with an impact that extends beyond professional obligations. Income was found to be positively correlated with increased OCP use, whereas education level was inversely correlated. Clinicians should consider how patients' backgrounds influence their access to OCP options. An improvement on this study's findings would be to establish a causal relationship between these demographic factors and access to OCPs.

Disease Burden of Dysmenorrhea: Impact on Life Course Potential

Dysmenorrhea is the most common gynecologic condition among the female population and has a significant impact on life course potential. It has a widespread impact on a female's mental and physical well-being, with longstanding impairments on quality of life, personal relationships, and education and career attainment. Furthermore, untreated dysmenorrhea can lead to hyperalgesic priming, which predisposes to chronic pelvic pain. Primary dysmenorrhea is pain in the lower abdomen that occurs before or during menses and in the absence of pelvic pathology. One possible mechanism is endometrial inflammation and increased prostaglandin release, resulting in painful uterine contractions. Dysmenorrhea may also occur secondary to pelvic pathology, such as endometriosis, adenomyosis or due to cyclic exacerbation of non-gynecologic pain conditions. A thorough patient evaluation is essential to differentiate between potential causes and guide management. Treatment must be tailored to individual patient symptoms. Pharmacologic management with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications and/or combined hormonal contraceptives is most common. Heat therapy, exercise, vitamins and dietary supplements have limited evidence and can be offered for patients seeking non-pharmacologic adjunctive or alternative options. Greater awareness for both health-care providers and patients allows for early intervention to reduce impact on quality of life and life course potential.

Structural Gynecological Disease: Fibroids, Endometriosis, Ovarian Cysts

Fibroids, endometriosis, and ovarian cysts are common conditions. Fibroids can be asymptomatic or present with heavy menstrual bleeding, pelvic pressure, and pain. Endometriosis is a common cause of cyclical pelvic pain. Ovarian cysts are generally diagnosed incidentally. Transvaginal ultrasound is the performed imaging modality for all structural gynecological disease. Symptomatic management is recommended for each condition. Fibroids can be managed medically or surgically depending on the patient's symptoms and desire for future fertility. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are the first-line therapy for endometriosis followed by oral contraceptives and surgical management. Ovarian cysts can be managed expectantly.

Long-term treatment of endometriosis-related pain among women seeking hormonal contraception

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the different effects of a progestin-only contraceptive with desogestrel (DSG) vs combined oral contraceptives (COCs) for a first line long-term treatment of endometriosis-related pain among patients seeking hormonal contraception.

METHODS

An observational retrospective cohort study was conducted in collaboration with a local outpatient clinic for endometriosis among a group of nulliparous young women (n = 216) with endometriosis-related pain and seeking contraception. The cohort was subdivided into a group (n = 73) treated as first line by DSG and another group (n = 75) treated by a COC. During the study, clinical symptoms, side effects and possible changes in OC type use were recorded.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of clinical characteristics and pain scores before treatment. After 6 months both treatments were effective in reducing endometriosis-related pain, and those treated with DSG showed lower levels of dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia and nonmenstrual pelvic pain than COCs group (p < .01). After 12 months, in DSG Group some patients (15%) switched from DSG to a COC for breakthrough bleeding, whereas in COC Group 48% of patients switched to another type of COC for reduced efficacy on pain and/or for side effects. After 3 years of OC treatment, in DSG Group 79% of patients maintained the same therapy, whereas in COC Group only 14% continued the same COC type, 37% switched to another COC and 47% to DSG.

CONCLUSIONS

A progestin-only contraceptive with DSG is a valid option for long term management of endometriosis-related pain in patients seeking hormonal contraception.

Comparative evaluation of low-level light therapy and ethinyl estradiol and desogestrel combined oral contraceptive for clinical efficacy and regulation of serum biochemical parameters in primary dysmenorrhoea: a prospective randomised multicentre trial

We aimed to compare low-level light therapy with oral contraceptive pills for pain relief and serum levels of nitric oxide and prostaglandin E₂ in patients with primary dysmenorrhoea. This was a randomised, active comparator-controlled, multicentre study. In total, 156 patients were randomised to receive either low-level light therapy with light-emitting diodes (LED) applying on two acupoints, namely, conception vessel 4 (CV4) and CV6 or conventional treatment with oral Marvelon, 30 µg of ethinyl estradiol and 150 µg of desogestrel (DSG/EE), for three consecutive menstrual cycles. The main outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved 33% or more decrease in pain scores measured using the visual analogue scale, which was deemed as efficient rate. Absolute changes in visual analogue scale scores, serum levels of nitric oxide (assessed by nitrites and nitrates reflecting nitric oxide metabolism) and prostaglandin E₂ (measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) were the secondary outcomes. A total of 135 patients completed the study (73 in the light therapy group and 62 in the DSG/EE group). The efficient rate at the end of treatment was comparable between the groups (73.6% vs. 85.7%, χ² = 2.994, p = 0.084). A more significant reduction in pain scores was observed in the DSG/EE group (39.25% vs. 59.52%, p < 0.001). Serum levels of prostaglandin E₂ significantly decreased from baseline but did not differ between groups (- 109.57 ± 3.99 pg/mL vs. - 118.11 ± 12.93 pg/mL, p = 0.51). Nitric oxide concentration remained stable in both groups. Low-level light therapy with LED-based device applied on acupuncture points CV4 and CV6 demonstrated a similar level of dysmenorrhoea pain reduction to DSG/EE combined contraceptive. Both treatment modalities achieved clinically meaningful levels of pain reduction. Registration on ClinicalTrials.gov: TRN: NCT03953716, Date: April 04, 2019.

Efficacy of Low-Dose Estrogen-Progestins and Progestins in Japanese Women with Dysmenorrhea: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Although several studies suggest beneficial effects of low-dose estrogen-progestins (LEPs) and progestins on dysmenorrhea in Japanese women, the difference in efficacy between drugs remains unknown.

METHODS

We identified studies by searching the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and ICHUSHI databases and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that used total dysmenorrhea score and visual analogue scale (VAS) as outcome measures to evaluate LEPs and progestins for primary and secondary dysmenorrhea. We analyzed results by meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA).

RESULTS

We identified 10 articles on eight RCTs and included seven drugs (six LEPs and one progestin, i.e., dienogest) and placebo in the analysis. Meta-analysis showed improvements in total dysmenorrhea score and VAS for almost all drugs compared with placebo. In NMA, VAS in secondary dysmenorrhea improved more with dienogest than with norethisterone/ethinylestradiol (mean difference - 25.84 [95% CrI - 44.46 to - 7.15]). In the comparison of administration regimens, VAS improved more with progestin-continuous than LEP-cyclic and the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) of LEP-extended and progestin-continuous appeared to be higher than that of LEP-cyclic.

CONCLUSIONS

We confirmed that LEPs and dienogest are effective for primary and secondary dysmenorrhea and suggest that continuous regimens may be more effective than cyclic regimens in improving outcomes.

Dysmenorrhea and Endometriosis: Diagnosis and Management in Adolescents

Dysmenorrhea is common in adolescents. Most have primary dysmenorrhea and respond to empiric treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and/or hormonal therapies. Infrequently, patients have persistent symptoms requiring further evaluation including a pelvic examination, ultrasonography, and/or diagnostic laparoscopy. The most common cause of secondary dysmenorrhea in adolescents is endometriosis. Endometriosis is an estrogen-dependent, inflammatory condition with no surgical or medical cure. Treatment is individualized and typically includes surgical diagnosis with resection and/or ablation limited to visible lesions followed by hormonal suppressive therapy in an attempt to relieve symptoms, limit disease progression, and protect fertility. Multidisciplinary attention to comorbidities and pain management as well as patient education and support are important.

Efficacy of Ginger in the Treatment of Primary Dysmenorrhea: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

It has been evidenced that very few systematic reviews have examined the effectiveness of ginger for pain duration and its severity among women with primary dysmenorrhea. This meta-analysis was therefore performed to methodically incorporate and significantly evaluate randomized controlled ginger studies for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. The literature was searched using PubMed, Embase, Ovid, ClinicalKey, Medline, and electronic database. We have analyzed clinical trials by comparing ginger with placebo and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in women with primary dysmenorrhea. The primary outcomes assessed in our meta-analysis were pain severity and pain duration. Secondary outcomes were change in bleeding, side effects of the drug, and rate of satisfaction. We have screened a total of 638 studies, out of which narrative synthesis was formulated for eight studies. We have performed a meta-analysis of five trials examining ginger with placebo and other two randomized controlled trials comparing ginger with a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID); it seems to be more helpful for relieving menstrual pain than a placebo (mean difference [MD] = 2.67, 95% CI = 3.51-1.84, P = 0.0001, I2 = 86%), although it was found that ginger and NSAIDs were equally effective in pain severity (risk ratios [RR] = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.53-2.52, P = 0.72, I2 =77%). We have not observed any significant difference between ginger and placebo on pain duration among primary dysmenorrheic women (MD = -2.22, 95% CI = -7.62-3.18, P = 0.42, I2 = 56%). Accessible information proposes that oral ginger can be a compelling treatment for primary dysmenorrhea. This meta-analysis strongly supports the requirement for high methodological quality consistency for upcoming trials.

Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Tramadol versus Intravenous Paracetamol for Relief of Acute Pain of Primary Dysmenorrhea: A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Many pharmaceutical, surgical, and complementary medical interventions are used for primary dysmenorrhea treatment. However, no consensus has been reached about the most effective intervention.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of IV tramadol versus IV paracetamol in relieving acute pain of primary dysmenorrhea.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial was conducted in a tertiary referral hospital and included 100 patients between 18 and 35 years old diagnosed with primary dysmenorrhea. Patients received either 1-g paracetamol or 100-mg tramadol in 100-mL normal saline as an IV infusion over 10 min. Pain intensity was measured by using a visual analog scale at 15, 30, 60 min, and 2 h. We recorded drug side effects and requirements for rescue analgesics.

RESULTS

Pain scores were significantly lower in the tramadol group compared with the paracetamol group at 15, 30, 60 min, and 2 h (p < 0.001). Fewer patients in the tramadol group needed rescue analgesics compared with the paracetamol group (p = 0.04). No significant differences were reported in side effects between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

IV tramadol is superior to IV paracetamol in relieving acute pain of primary dysmenorrhea with a comparable side effect profile.

Prevalence, intensity, impact on quality of life and insights of dysmenorrhea among French women: A cross-sectional web survey

OBJECTIVE

Determine prevalence and intensity of primary dysmenorrhea in a sample of French women and assess impact on daily life and Quality of Life, care pathway and pain management METHODS: This cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted from December 19th2018 through January 10th2019 among a representative sample of 3001 French women aged 16 to 50.

RESULTS

2375 women (79%) reported having pain during menstruation, currently or in the past. 52% reported being currently affected, 27% had been affected in the past and 21% never suffered. Among younger women under 24, 66% reported current dysmenorrhea. Mean rating of pain intensity, evaluated on a visual analog scale from 0 to 10, was 6 + 1.9 in women presently having dysmenorrhea and 42% reported rating between 7 and 10. The impact on daily life was strong and there was a significant reduction of SF-36 scores in women experiencing dysmenorrhea. Among the 79% of women affected by dysmenorrhea, (current or past) 53% never used any medication and respectively 58% and 66% never sought medical advice.

CONCLUSION

Dysmenorrhea is very frequent in France with a significant impact on daily life and Quality of Life. There is a real inadequacy in the recognition and the management of this pathology, too often considered as common by the patients. There is a strong need for better information of the women and to raise the awareness of first line health-care professionals that any dysmenorrhea and especially severe dysmenorrhea must be accurately assessed and managed with the available therapeutic means.

Stool frequency and form and gastrointestinal symptoms differ by day of the menstrual cycle in healthy adult women taking oral contraceptives: a prospective observational study

Background

Little is known about how the menstrual cycle affects gastrointestinal function and self-reported stress in young, healthy women taking oral contraceptives (OC). This study prospectively characterized gastrointestinal function and symptoms on each day throughout the menstrual cycle.

Methods

Healthy women aged 18–35 years (n = 78) who took OC participated in the 5-week observational study. Stool frequency, self-reported stress, stool form measured by the Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS), and gastrointestinal symptoms measured by a modified version of the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) were assessed daily. GSRS scores were reported (1 = no discomfort at all, 7 = very severe discomfort) and were averaged for individual syndrome scores or summed for the total score. The validated, weekly version of the GSRS was completed at two time points to reflect menstruation and 1 week prior to menstruation (n = 72). Outcomes were analyzed in linear mixed models with the Dunnett’s post hoc test against day 1 of menstrual bleeding or with nonparametric tests.

Results

Daily stress (P = 0.0018), BSFS score (P = 0.0493), stool frequency (P = 0.0241), abdominal pain (P < 0.0001), diarrhea (P = 0.0022), constipation (P = 0.0446), reflux (P = 0.0193), and indigestion (P < 0.0001) all varied significantly by the day of the menstrual cycle. Dunnett’s post hoc tests showed that scores (mean ± SEM) on the first day of bleeding (day 1) for daily abdominal pain (2.6 ± 0.2), diarrhea (1.7 ± 0.1), and indigestion (2.1 ± 0.2) symptoms were higher than scores on all other days of the menstrual cycle (P < 0.05) with scores not on day 1 falling under 1.5, or between no discomfort at all and slight discomfort. Reflux, stool frequency, BSFS, self-reported stress, and constipation were higher on day 1 (P < 0.05) than on 12, 8, 6, 4, and 2 other days of the menstrual cycle, respectively. The median (IQR) GSRS score was higher during the week of menstruation than the week prior to menstruation for diarrhea [1.50 (1.00–2.33) vs 1.33 (1.00–2.00), P = 0.002] and abdominal pain [2.00 (1.33–2.67) vs 1.67 (1.33–2.33), P = 0.011] syndrome scores.

Conclusion

Bowel habits appear to vary across the menstrual cycle and suggest more gastrointestinal discomfort on day 1 of menstrual bleeding in healthy women taking OC. Future interventional studies could identify ways to improve gastrointestinal symptoms in healthy women during menstruation.

No. 345-Primary Dysmenorrhea Consensus Guideline

OBJECTIVE

This guideline reviews the investigation and treatment of primary dysmenorrhea.

INTENDED USERS

Health care providers.

TARGET POPULATION

Women and adolescents experiencing menstrual pain for which no underlying cause has been identified.

EVIDENCE

Published clinical trials, population studies, and review articles cited in PubMed or the Cochrane database from January 2005 to March 2016.

VALIDATION METHODS

Seven clinical questions were generated by the authors and reviewed by the SOGC Clinical Practice-Gynaecology Committee. The available literature was searched. Guideline No. 169 was reviewed and rewritten in order to incorporate current evidence. Recommendations addressing the identified clinical questions were formulated and evaluated using the ranking of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS

Primary dysmenorrhea is common and frequently undertreated. Effective therapy is widely available at minimal cost. Treatment has the potential to improve quality of life and to decrease time lost from school or work.

GUIDELINE UPDATE

This guideline is a revision and update of No. 169, December 2005.

SPONSORS

SOGC.

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS.

Continuous vs. cyclic combined hormonal contraceptives for treatment of dysmenorrhea: a systematic review

Objective

This systematic review aims to evaluate the benefits of oral continuous combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) in managing dysmenorrhea by comparing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of continuous vs. cyclic CHC use for the following outcomes: (a) reducing dysmenorrhea duration and frequency, (b) severity, (c) recurrence and (d) interference with daily activity.

Study design

Cochrane, PUBMED and Popline databases were searched from 1934 to 2018 for all relevant studies evaluating CHC for treatment of dysmenorrhea. A study was selected if it (a) compared continuous regimen vs. cyclic regimen of oral CHC, (b) measured dysmenorrhea as a primary or secondary outcome, (c) was an RCT and (d) was published in English. Due to differences in CHC used and outcome measurement, a systematic analysis of individual study results and a limited meta-analysis were conducted.

Results

Of 780 studies that were screened by title and abstract, 8 were included in the final analysis; 6 evaluated cyclic vs. continuous CHC, and 2 evaluated cyclic vs. extended/flexible CHC use. Quality of evidence was low for all outcome measures. Overall, compared to cyclic use, flexible/extended CHC resulted in 4 fewer days of dysmenorrhea. Studies revealed conflicting results for interference with daily activity, pain severity and pain recurrence. Side effects were few in both comparison groups.

Conclusions

Continuous or extended/flexible CHC use may reduce dysmenorrhea duration compared to cyclic regimen; however, more rigorous research is needed.

Implications

This systematic review shows that continuous CHC use may reduce dysmenorrhea duration compared to cyclic regimen, although the quality of evidence is low. Future double-blinded RCTs with more rigorous study design, consistent outcome measures and comprehensive outcome reporting are needed.

The Treatment of Dysmenorrhea

Menstrual disorders and abnormal uterine bleeding are common concerns of young women. Complaints include menses that are: too painful (dysmenorrhea), absent or occur irregularly (amenorrhea or oligoamenorrhea), or prolonged and heavy (menorrhagia, or excessive uterine bleeding). In providing optimal reproductive care, the medical provider must be able to distinguish between normal developmental patterns or symptoms requiring education and reassurance from pathologic conditions requiring prompt assessment and treatment. This article discusses the normal menstrual patterns seen in adolescent females and provides an evaluation and management approach to primary and secondary dysmenorrhea.

Comparative, open-label prospective study on the quality of life and sexual function of women affected by endometriosis-associated pelvic pain on 2 mg dienogest/30 µg ethinyl estradiol continuous or 21/7 regimen oral contraceptive

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effects of a continuous regimen combined oral contraceptive (COC) containing 2 mg dienogest and 30 µg ethinyl estradiol (DNG/EE) compared to a 21/7 regimen on the quality of life (QoL) and sexual function in women affected by endometriosis-associated pelvic pain.

METHODS

Sixty-three women constituted the Study group treated with DNG/EE COC continuous regimen; 33 women were given DNG/EE COC in a 21/7 regimen. To define the endometriosis-associated pelvic pain, the Visual Analogic Scale was used. The Short Form-36, Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and the Female Sexual Distress Scale (FSDS) were used to assess QoL, sexual function and sexual distress, respectively. The study included two follow-ups.

RESULTS

At 3 and 6 months of treatment there was an improvement in pain of the Study group (p < 0.001). The Control group underwent pain improvement at the second follow-up (p < 0.05). At the first and the second follow-ups, the Study group reported QoL improvements in all categories (p < 0.001). The Control group reported QoL improvements in all categories at the second follow-up (p < 0.05). At the first and the second follow-ups of the Study group, the FSFI total score had risen (p < 0.001), and the FSDS score had dropped (p < 0.001). An improvement of the FSFI score and a reduction of the FSDS score of the Control group was observed at the second follow-up (p < 0.001), but not at the first follow-up (p = NS).

CONCLUSIONS

Women on DNG/EE COC continuous regimen reported a reduction of endometriosis-associated pelvic pain and there was an improvement of their sexual activity and their QoL that was better than the DNG/EE 21/7 conventional regimen.

Chinese Obstetrics & Gynecology journal club: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether a journal club model could improve comprehension and written and spoken medical English in a population of Chinese medical professionals.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The study population consisted of 52 medical professionals who were residents or postgraduate master or PhD students in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, China.

INTERVENTION

After a three-part baseline examination to assess medical English comprehension, participants were randomised to either (1) an intensive journal club treatment arm or (2) a self-study group. At the conclusion of the 8-week intervention participants (n=52) were re-tested with new questions.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the change in score on a multiple choice examination. Secondary outcomes included change in scores on written and oral examinations which were modelled on the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL).

RESULTS

Both groups had improved scores on the multiple choice examination without a statistically significant difference between them (90% power). However, there was a statistically significant difference between the groups in mean improvement in scores for both written (95% CI 1.1 to 5.0; p=0.003) and spoken English (95% CI 0.06 to 3.7; p=0.04) favouring the journal club intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Interacting with colleagues and an English-speaking facilitator in a journal club improved both written and spoken medical English in Chinese medical professionals. Journal clubs may be suitable for use as a self-sustainable teaching model to improve fluency in medical English in foreign medical professionals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01844609.

Extended regimen combined oral contraception: A review of evolving concepts and acceptance by women and clinicians

Objectives: The clinical utility of extended regimen combined oral contraceptives (COCs) is increasingly being recognised. Our objective was to understand the attitudes of women and clinicians about the use of these regimens. We present the rationale for extended regimen COCs from a historical perspective, and trace their evolution and growing popularity in light of their clinical benefits. We conclude by offering potential strategies for counselling women about extended regimen COC options.

Methods: We conducted a MEDLINE search to identify and summarise studies of extended regimen COCs, focusing on attitudes of women and clinicians regarding efficacy, safety/tolerability and fewer scheduled bleeding episodes and other potential benefits.

Results: The body of contemporary literature on extended regimen COCs suggests that their contraceptive efficacy is comparable to that of conventional 28-day (i.e., 21/7) regimens. For women seeking contraception that allows infrequent scheduled bleeding episodes, particularly those who suffer from hormone withdrawal symptoms and cyclical symptoms (e.g., headache, mood changes, dysmenorrhoea, heavy menstrual bleeding), extended regimen COCs are an effective and safe option. Although satisfaction with extended regimen COCs in clinical trials is high, misperceptions about continuous hormone use may still limit the widespread acceptance of this approach.

Conclusions: Despite the widespread acceptance among clinicians of extended regimen COCs as an effective and safe contraceptive option, these regimens are underused, likely due to a lack of awareness about their availability and utility among women. Improved patient education and counselling regarding the safety and benefits of extended regimen COCs may help women make more informed contraceptive choices.

[Chronic pelvic pain in women]

BACKGROUND

Chronic pelvic pain in women represents a difficult diagnostic and therapeutic problem in the gynecological practice which is always a challenge when dealing with affected women.

GYNECOLOGICAL CAUSES

Possible gynecological causes are endometriosis, adhesions and/or pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), pelvic varicosis and ovarian retention syndrome/ovarian remnant syndrome. Other somatic causes are irritable bowel syndrome, bladder pain syndrome, interstitial cystitis and fibromyalgia.

PSYCHOSOCIAL FACTORS

Psychosocial causes contributing to chronic pelvic pain are a high comorbidity with psychological factors, such as anxiety disorders and substance abuse or depression but the influence of social factors is less certain. The association with physical and sexual abuse also remains unclear.

DIAGNOSTICS AND THERAPY

Important diagnostic steps are recording the patient history, a gynecological examination and laparoscopy. Multidisciplinary therapeutic approaches are considered to be very promising. Basic psychosomatic care and psychotherapy should be integrated into the therapeutic concept at an early stage.

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus a low-dose combined oral contraceptive for treatment of adenomyotic uteri: a randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

This study compares the efficacy of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and a low-dose combined oral contraceptive (COC) in reducing adenomyosis-related pain and bleeding.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomized clinical trial included 62 participants complaining of pain and bleeding that was associated with adenomyosis. Participants were randomly assigned to either LNG-IUS or COC treatment. The outcomes included the improvement of pain using a visual analogue scale, menstrual blood loss using a menstrual diary and estimated uterine volume by ultrasound for 6 months of treatment. We also compared uterine arteries and intramyometrial Doppler indices before and 6 months after treatment with both LNG-IUS and COCs.

RESULTS

Both treatments significantly reduced pain after 6 months of use; however, the reduction was greater in the LNG-IUS group (from 6.23±0.67 to 1.68±1.25) compared with the COCs group (from 6.55±0.68 to 3.90±0.54). Both treatment arms significantly decreased the number of bleeding days, uterine volume and Doppler blood flow in the uterus from before to after treatment. These effects were more significant in the LNG-IUS arm compared with the COC arm.

CONCLUSION

Both LNG-IUS and COCs decreased the pain and menstrual bleeding that is associated with adenomyosis. However, LNG-IUS is more effective than the COCs in reducing pain and menstrual blood loss. This effect may be secondary to the decrease in uterine volume and the increase in blood flow resistance.

Effects of wheat germ extract on the severity and systemic symptoms of primary dysmenorrhea: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Background:

Primary dysmenorrhea is one of the most common disorders in women and the main cause of absenteeism from work and school.

Objectives:

Considering the anti-inflammatory properties of wheat germ, the present study examined the effects of wheat germ extract on the severity and systemic symptoms of primary dysmenorrhea.

Patients and Methods:

This triple-blinded clinical trial was performed on 80 employed women in hospitals affiliated with Hamadan University of Medical Sciences (Hamadan, IR Iran). Subjects were allocated to two groups of 45 patients. Three 400-mg capsules of wheat germ extract or placebo were used daily٫ between the 16th day of the menstrual cycle to the fifth day of the next menstrual cycle for two consecutive months. Pain intensity was measured by a visual analogue scale thrice a day and a four-point verbal rating scale was employed to assess systemic symptoms.

Results:

Pain severity decreased only in the wheat germ extract group (P < 0.001) and there was no statistically significant change in the placebo group. In the wheat germ extract group, the pain severity decreased from 4.701 at baseline to 1.120 at the second cycle. The reduction in total scores of systemic symptoms of dysmenorrhea was statistically significant only in the wheat germ extract group (P < 0.001) and there was not a statistically significant change in the placebo group. It revealed statistically significant differences in systemic symptoms associated with dysmenorrhea including fatigue, headache, and mood swings in experimental group.

Conclusions:

Wheat germ extract seems to be an effective treatment for dysmenorrhea and its systemic symptoms, probably because of its anti-inflammatory effects.

Continuous or extended cycle vs. cyclic use of combined hormonal contraceptives for contraception

BACKGROUND

The avoidance of menstruation through continuous or extended (greater than 28 days) administration of combination hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) has gained legitimacy through its use in treating endometriosis, dysmenorrhea, and menstruation-associated symptoms. Avoidance of menstruation through extended or continuous use of CHCs for reasons of personal preference may have additional advantages to women, including improved compliance, greater satisfaction, fewer menstrual symptoms, and less menstruation-related absenteeism from work or school.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the differences between continuous or extended-cycle CHCs (pills, patch, ring) in regimens of greater than 28 days of active hormone compared with traditional cyclic dosing (21 days of active hormone and 7 days of placebo, or 24 days of active hormones and 4 days of placebo). Our hypothesis was that continuous or extended-cycle CHCs have equivalent efficacy and safety but improved bleeding profiles, amenorrhea rates, adherence, continuation, participant satisfaction, and menstrual symptoms compared with standard cyclic CHCs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched computerized databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PUBMED, EMBASE, POPLINE, LILACS) for trials using continuous or extended CHCs (oral contraceptives, contraceptive ring and patch) during the years 1966 to 2013. We also searched the references in review articles and publications identified for inclusion in the protocol. Investigators were contacted regarding additional references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials in any language comparing continuous or extended-cycle (greater than 28 days of active hormones) versus traditional cyclic administration (21 days of active hormones and 7 days of placebo, or 24 days of active hormones and 4 days of placebo) of CHCs for contraception.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Titles and abstracts identified from the literature searches were assessed for potential inclusion. Data were extracted onto data collection forms and then entered into RevMan 5. Peto odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for all outcomes for dichotomous outcomes. Weighted mean difference was calculated for continuous outcomes. The trials were critically appraised by examining the following factors: study design, blinding, randomization method, group allocation concealment, exclusions after randomization, loss to follow-up, and early discontinuation. Because the included trials did not have a standard treatment (type of CHC formulation, route of delivery, or time length for continuous dosing), we could not aggregate data into meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve randomized controlled trials met our inclusion criteria. Study findings were similar between 28-day and extended or continuous regimens in regard to contraceptive efficacy (i.e., pregnancy rates) and safety profiles. When compliance was reported, no difference between 28-day and extended or continuous cycles was found. Participants reported high satisfaction with both dosing regimens, but this was not an outcome universally studied. Overall discontinuation and discontinuation for bleeding problems were not uniformly higher in either group. The studies that reported menstrual symptoms found that the extended or continuous group fared better in terms of headaches, genital irritation, tiredness, bloating, and menstrual pain. Eleven out of the twelve studies found that bleeding patterns were either equivalent between groups or improved with extended or continuous cycles over time. Endometrial lining assessments by ultrasound and/or endometrial biopsy were done in some participants and were all normal after cyclic or extended CHC use.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The 2014 update yielded four additional trials but unchanged conclusions. Evidence from existing randomized control trials comparing continuous or extended-cycle CHCs (greater than 28 days of active combined hormones) to traditional cyclic dosing (21 days of active hormone and 7 days of placebo, or 24 days of active hormone and 4 days of placebo) is of good quality. However, the variations in type of hormones and time length for extended-cycle dosing make a formal meta-analysis impossible. Future studies should choose a previously described type of CHC and dosing regimen. More attention needs to be directed towards participant satisfaction, continuation, and menstruation-associated symptoms.

Sildenafil citrate in the treatment of pain in primary dysmenorrhea: a randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION

Is a vaginal preparation of sildenafil citrate capable of alleviating acute menstrual pain in patients with primary dysmenorrhea (PD)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

A vaginal preparation of sildenafil citrate is capable of alleviating acute menstrual pain in patients with PD with no observed adverse effects.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Oral preparations of nitric oxide (NO) donor drugs augment relaxant effects of NO on myometrial cells, reverse the vasoconstriction caused by prostaglandins and successfully alleviate pain, but the incidence of side effects is too high for routine clinical use. Sildenafil citrate inhibits type 5-specific phosphodiesterase (PDE5), thus preventing the degradation of cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) in the muscle and augmenting the vasodilatory effects of NO. Therefore, by inhibiting PDE5, the tissue remains relaxed and more blood can circulate through. It has been used previously in a vaginal form with no observed side effects, and it enhances endometrial blood flow.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial comparing vaginal preparation of sildenafil citrate (100 mg single dose) to a placebo in 62 PD patients at the time of painful menstruation was conducted. The primary outcome was total pain relief over 4 consecutive hours (TOPAR4) comparing sildenafil citrate to placebo, where higher TOPAR4 scores represent better pain relief. Secondary outcomes were pain relief as measured by the visual analog scale (VAS) and uterine artery pulsatility index (PI). Subjects were recruited from December 2007 to January 2011. The trial was stopped due to closeout of the funding for the study.

PARTICIPANTS, SETTINGS, METHODS

Participants were women in good health, were aged 18-35 years and suffered from moderate to severe PD. They were randomized to either vaginal placebo or 100 mg vaginal sildenafil citrate in a 1:1 ratio using random permuted blocks having a block size of 4. At baseline and 1, 2, 3, and 4 h post-treatment, patients were asked to provide assessment of their degree of pain using two scales: (i) pain on the 5-level ordinal scale used for TOPAR4 calculation and (ii) pain level on the VAS. The study ended 4 h after treatment initiation.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Twenty-five subjects completed the study. Using the TOPAR4 score, the sildenafil citrate group had significantly better pain relief compared with the placebo group [mean (SD): 11.9 (3.2) versus 6.4 (2.1), respectively; difference in means = 5.3; 95% CI: (2.9,7.6); P < 0.001)]. On the VAS, sildenafil citrate provided better pain relief than placebo at each time point. At the 2-h time point, the PI was significantly lower in the sildenafil citrate group compared with the placebo group [mean (SD): 1.6 (0.6) versus 2.3 (0.5), respectively; difference in means = -0.7; 95% CI: (-1.2, -0.1); P = 0.01)].

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Since we did not meet our sample size due to the loss of funding and could not confirm our primary hypothesis, larger studies of longer duration, likely multi-center, are needed to confirm the findings from this study.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

A number of medications have been investigated to improve the treatment options for PD, but most have proven unsuccessful or to have an unfavorable risk/benefit ratio. Since PD is a condition that most women suffer from and seek treatment for at some point in their lives, our study offers hope that vaginal sildenafil citrate is a safe and effective option for patients who do not desire or are unresponsive to treatments now available on the market.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

Funding for this study was provided by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants RO3 TW007438 and K24 HD01476. The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00123162 (Clinical trials.gov).