Comparative study of tranexamic acid and norethisterone in the treatment of ovulatory menorrhagia

The Critical Blood-Sparing Effect of Tranexamic Acid (TXA) in Liposuction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Tranexamic acid (TXA) has been used to improve bleeding outcomes in many surgical procedures. However, its blood-sparing effect in liposuction is not well established.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Central, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WorldWideScience.org databases from their inception to October 8, 2021, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The authors focused on 3 main topics: 1) TXA, 2) liposuction, and 3) complications. We included articles evaluating the potential blood-sparing effects of TXA in liposuction. Studies were excluded if they were systematic review articles or protocol papers, animal studies, conference abstracts, survey studies, or non-English publications.

Results

A total of 711 articles were identified, with 1 retrospective and 4 prospective (3 randomized) studies meeting our inclusion criteria. TXA was used in various forms: administered intravenously either on induction or after the procedure, mixed into the tumescent solution, or infiltrated into the liposuction sites after lipoaspiration. A significantly smaller reduction in hematocrit was noted in the TXA group compared with that in the non-TXA group (p<0.001) despite a significantly greater amount of lipoaspirate removed in the TXA group (p<0.001). Patients in non-TXA cohorts experienced adverse effects (such as seroma and need for transfusion) that were not seen in TXA cohorts.

Conclusion

TXA use in patients undergoing liposuction seems to be associated with a beneficial blood-sparing effect, which may enhance safety in this population. Future studies should aim to determine the optimal route and dosing for TXA in liposuction.

Evidence Based Medicine

Level IV.

A prophylactic TXA administration effectively reduces the risk of intraoperative bleeding during open management of pelvic and acetabular fractures

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of perioperative intravenous TXA in reducing blood loss in pelvic and acetabular fracture patients managed surgically. The study included 306 consecutive patients, divided as: group I, 157 patients who did not receive perioperative infusion of TXA and group II, 149 patients who received perioperative TXA. The perioperative blood test results and complication rates were compared between the two groups. The average perioperative hematocrit was higher during the preoperative period than during the first, second and third postoperative day in both groups. In the estimated blood loss between the two groups, there was a significant difference of 1391 (± 167.49) ml in group I and 725 (± 403.31) ml in group II respectively (p = 0.02). No significant difference was seen in the total of intraoperative transfusion units as well as in the total units of blood transfused. There was a reduced level of postoperative hemoglobin (9.28 ± 17.88 g/dl in group I and 10.06 ± 27.57 g/dl in group II compared to the values obtained in preoperative investigations (10.4 ± 2.37 g/dl in group I and 11.4 ± 2.08 g/dl in group II); with a significant difference in postoperative transfusion rates (p = 0.03). Therefore, the use of TXA effectively reduces the risk of intraoperative bleeding during open management of pelvic and acetabular fractures.

Combination of Intravenous and Intra-Articular Application of Tranexamic Acid and Epsilon-Aminocaproic Acid in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

There were limited randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of epsilon-aminocaproic acid (EACA) versus tranexamic acid (TXA) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of TXA and EACA in the combination of intravenous (IV) and intra-articular (IA) administration on reducing blood loss in patients following primary TKA.

METHODS

From January 2020 to January 2021, a total of 181 patients undergoing a primary unilateral TKA were enrolled in this prospective randomized controlled trial. Patients in the TXA group (n = 90) received 20 mg/kg of intravenous TXA preoperatively, 1 g of intra-articular TXA intraoperatively, and three doses of 20 mg/kg intravenous TXA at 0, 3, 6 h postoperatively. Patients in the EACA group (n = 91) received 120 mg/kg of intravenous EACA preoperatively, 2 g of intra-articular EACA intraoperatively, and three doses of 40 mg/kg intravenous EACA at 0, 3, 6 h postoperatively. The primary outcomes were total blood loss (TBL), transfusion rates and drop of hemoglobin (HB) level. The secondary outcomes included postoperative hospital stays and postoperative complications. The chi-square tests and Fisher's exact tests were utilized to compare categorical variables, while the independent-samples t-tests and Mann-Whitney tests were used to compare continuous variables.

RESULTS

The patients who received TXA averaged less TBL than the patients who received EACA (831.83 ml vs 1065.49 ml, P = 0.015), and HB drop in TXA group was generally less than that of EACA group on postoperative day 1 and 3 (20.84 ± 9.48 g/L vs 24.99 ± 9.40 g/L, P = 0.004; 31.28 ± 11.19 vs 35.46 ± 12.26 g/L, P = 0.047). The length of postoperative stays in EACA group was 3.66 ± 0.81 day, which is longer than 2.62 ± 0.68 day in TXA group (P < 0.001). No transfusions were required in either group. The risk of nausea and vomiting in TXA group was significantly higher than that in EACA group (11/90 vs 0/91, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Although the TBL and HB drop were slightly greater in EACA group, these results were not clinically important, given that no transfusions were required. EACA could be an alternative to TXA, especially for patients with severe nausea and vomiting after using TXA postoperatively. Further studies are needed to adjust dosage of EACA to make better comparison of the two drugs.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Disorders of Fibrinogen and Fibrinolysis

Fibrinogen plays a fundamental role in coagulation through its support for platelet aggregation and its conversion to fibrin. Fibrin stabilizes clots and serves as a scaffold and immune effector before being broken down by the fibrinolytic system. Given its importance, abnormalities in fibrin(ogen) and fibrinolysis result in a variety of disorders with hemorrhagic and thrombotic manifestations. This review summarizes (i) the basic elements of fibrin(ogen) and its role in coagulation and the fibrinolytic system; (ii) the laboratory evaluation for fibrin(ogen) disorders, including the use of global fibrinolysis assays; and (iii) the management of congenital and acquired disorders of fibrinogen and fibrinolysis.

Tranexamic acid for chronic subdural hematoma

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on optimal treatment for a chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH). In patients with only moderate symptoms treatment with tranexamic acid (TXA) has been suggested. We report off-label use of TXA in seven patients.

METHODS

Between August 2016 and May 2018 we identified seven patients for primary conservative treatment with TXA until satisfactory clinical and radiological status was achieved. Primary outcome was surgery for cSDH evacuation. Radiological follow-up was performed at regular intervals for hematoma volume measurements.

RESULTS

Five patients experienced complete resolution of symptoms, one patient had a burr-hole craniostomy five days after initiation of TXA treatment due to an increase of left-sided weakness and dysarthria and in one patient symptoms did not improve. Median follow-up was 15 weeks (range 6-25, without the operated patient). The median total volume before start of treatment was 83 mL (range 11-137) for all patients. At the last follow-up, the median total volume in the non-operated patients decreased by 73% to 33 mL (range 0-77).

CONCLUSIONS

TXA could be considered as primary medical treatment in patients with a cSDH and mild symptoms. The results of current randomized clinical trials must be awaited.

Applications of Tranexamic acid in benign gynecology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Bleeding at the time of benign gynecologic surgery, as well as from benign gynecologic conditions, is a major source of morbidity for many women. Few nonhormonal medical options exist for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding, and to reduce surgical bleeding during major gynecologic surgery. Interest in Tranexamic acid (TXA) as a means to reduce surgical blood loss has been growing across many surgical specialties. This review focuses on applications for TXA as a means to reduce heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) as well as to reduce surgical bleeding during benign gynecologic surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Tranexamic acid is an effective treatment to reduce the volume of bleeding during menstruation. Tranexamic acid was found to be superior to both placebo and oral progestins, and as good as combined oral contraceptives at reducing menstrual blood volume. Tranexamic acid has also been show to reduce the volume of bleeding during abdominal myomectomy as well as hysterectomy. There is a major need for prospective studies evaluating the utility of TXA for reducing blood loss during benign gynecologic surgery.

SUMMARY

Tranexamic acid has been found to be an excellent affordable nonhormonal treatment option for women with HMB and should be considered during major gynecologic surgery.

Cyclical progestogens for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a menstrual blood loss perceived by women as excessive that affects the health of women of reproductive age, interfering with their physical, emotional, social and material quality of life. Whilst abnormal menstrual bleeding may be associated with underlying pathology, in the present context, HMB is defined as excessive menstrual bleeding in the absence of other systemic or gynaecological disease. The first-line therapy is usually medical, avoiding possibly unnecessary surgery. Of the wide variety of medications used to reduce HMB, oral progestogens were originally the most commonly prescribed agents. This review assesses the effectiveness of two different types and regimens of oral progestogens in reducing ovulatory HMB.This is the update of a Cochrane review last updated in 2007, and originally named "Effectiveness of cyclical progestagen therapy in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding" (1998).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of oral progestogen therapy taken either during the luteal phase (short cycle) or for a longer course of 21 days per cycle (long cycle), in achieving a reduction in menstrual blood loss in women of reproductive age with HMB.

SEARCH METHODS

In January 2019 we searched Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility's specialized register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycInfo. We also searched trials registers, other sources of unpublished or grey literature and reference lists of retrieved trials. We also checked citation lists of review articles to identify trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different treatments for HMB that included cyclical oral progestogens were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trials for risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted trial authors for clarification of methods or additional data when necessary. We only assessed adverse events if they were separately measured in the included trials. We compared cyclical oral progestogen in different regimens and placebo or other treatments. Our primary outcomes were menstrual blood loss and satisfaction with treatment; the secondary outcomes were number of days of bleeding, quality of life, compliance and acceptability of treatment, adverse events and costs.

MAIN RESULTS

This review identified 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 1071 women in total. Most of the women knew which treatment they were receiving, which may have influenced their judgements about menstrual blood loss and satisfaction. Other aspects of trial quality varied among trials.We did not identify any RCTs comparing progestogen treatment with placebo. We assessed comparisons between oral progestogens and other medical therapies separately according to different regimens.Short-cycle progestogen therapy during the luteal phase (medroxyprogesterone acetate or norethisterone for 7 to 10 days, from day 15 to 19) was inferior to other medical therapy, including tranexamic acid, danazol and the progestogen-releasing intrauterine system (Pg-IUS (off of the market since 2001)), releasing 60 mcg of progesterone daily, with respect to reduction of menstrual blood loss (mean difference (MD) 37.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 17.67 to 56.91; I2 = 50%; 6 trials, 145 women). The rate of satisfaction and the quality of life with treatment was similar in both groups. The number of bleeding days was greater on the short cycle progestogen group compared to other medical treatments. Adverse events (such as gastrointestinal symptoms and weight gain) were more likely with danazol when compared with progestogen treatment. We note that danazol is no longer in general use for treating HMB.Long-cycle progestogen therapy (medroxyprogesterone acetate or norethisterone), from day 5 to day 26 of the menstrual cycle, is also inferior to the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS), releasing tranexamic acid and ormeloxifene, but may be similar to the combined vaginal ring with respect to reduction of menstrual blood loss (MD 16.88, 95% CI 10.93 to 22.84; I2 = 87%; 4 trials, 355 women). A higher proportion of women taking norethisterone found their treatment unacceptable compared to women having Pg-IUS (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.12, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.40; 1 trial, 40 women). However, the adverse effects of breast tenderness and intermenstrual bleeding were more likely in women with the LNG-IUS. No trials reported on days of bleeding or quality of life for this comparison.The evidence supporting these findings was limited by low or very low gradings of quality; thus, we are uncertain about the findings and there is a potential that they may change if we identify other trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low- or very low-quality evidence suggests that short-course progestogen was inferior to other medical therapy, including tranexamic acid, danazol and the Pg-IUS with respect to reduction of menstrual blood loss. Long cycle progestogen therapy (medroxyprogesterone acetate or norethisterone) was also inferior to the LNG-IUS, tranexamic acid and ormeloxifene, but may be similar to the combined vaginal ring with respect to reduction of menstrual blood loss.

Antifibrinolytics for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important physical and social problem for women. Oral treatment for HMB includes antifibrinolytic drugs, which are designed to reduce bleeding by inhibiting clot-dissolving enzymes in the endometrium.Historically, there has been some concern that using the antifibrinolytic tranexamic acid (TXA) for HMB may increase the risk of venous thromboembolic disease. This is an umbrella term for deep venous thrombosis (blood clots in the blood vessels in the legs) and pulmonary emboli (blood clots in the blood vessels in the lungs).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of antifibrinolytic medications as a treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and two trials registers in November 2017, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antifibrinolytic agents versus placebo, no treatment or other medical treatment in women of reproductive age with HMB. Twelve studies utilised TXA and one utilised a prodrug of TXA (Kabi).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were menstrual blood loss (MBL), improvement in HMB, and thromboembolic events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 RCTs (1312 participants analysed). The evidence was very low to moderate quality: the main limitations were risk of bias (associated with lack of blinding, and poor reporting of study methods), imprecision and inconsistency.Antifibrinolytics (TXA or Kabi) versus no treatment or placeboWhen compared with a placebo, antifibrinolytics were associated with reduced mean blood loss (MD -53.20 mL per cycle, 95% CI -62.70 to -43.70; I² = 8%; 4 RCTs, participants = 565; moderate-quality evidence) and higher rates of improvement (RR 3.34, 95% CI 1.84 to 6.09; 3 RCTS, participants = 271; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 11% of women improve without treatment, 43% to 63% of women taking antifibrinolytics will do so. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups in adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18; 1 RCT, participants = 297; low-quality evidence). Only one thromboembolic event occurred in the two studies that reported this outcome.TXA versus progestogensThere was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups in mean blood loss measured using the Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart (PBAC) (MD -12.22 points per cycle, 95% CI -30.8 to 6.36; I² = 0%; 3 RCTs, participants = 312; very low quality evidence), but TXA was associated with a higher likelihood of improvement (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.80; I² = 32%; 5 RCTs, participants = 422; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 46% of women improve with progestogens, 61% to 83% of women will do so with TXA.Adverse events were less common in the TXA group (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.94; I² = 28%; 4 RCTs, participants = 349; low-quality evidence). No thromboembolic events were reported in any group.TXA versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)TXA was associated with reduced mean blood loss (MD -73.00 mL per cycle, 95% CI -123.35 to -22.65; 1 RCT, participants = 49; low-quality evidence) and higher likelihood of improvement (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.74; 12 = 0%; 2 RCTs, participants = 161; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 61% of women improve with NSAIDs, 71% to 100% of women will do so with TXA. Adverse events were uncommon and no comparative data were available. No thromboembolic events were reported.TXA versus ethamsylateTXA was associated with reduced mean blood loss (MD 100 mL per cycle, 95% CI -141.82 to -58.18; 1 RCT, participants = 53; low-quality evidence), but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of improvement (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.55; 1 RCT, participants = 53; very low quality evidence) or withdrawal due to adverse events (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.15; 1 RCT, participants = 53; very low quality evidence).TXA versus herbal medicines (Safoof Habis and Punica granatum)TXA was associated with a reduced mean PBAC score after three months' treatment (MD -23.90 pts per cycle, 95% CI -31.92 to -15.88; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, participants = 121; low-quality evidence). No data were available for rates of improvement. TXA was associated with a reduced mean PBAC score three months after the end of the treatment phase (MD -10.40 points per cycle, 95% CI -19.20 to -1.60; I² not applicable; 1 RCT, participants = 84; very low quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of adverse events (RR 2.25, 95% CI 0.74 to 6.80; 1 RCT, participants = 94; very low quality evidence). No thromboembolic events were reported.TXA versus levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LIUS)TXA was associated with a higher median PBAC score than TXA (median difference 125.5 points; 1 RCT, participants = 42; very low quality evidence) and a lower likelihood of improvement (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.77; 1 RCT, participants = 42; very low quality evidence). This suggests that if 85% of women improve with LIUS, 20% to 65% of women will do so with TXA. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of adverse events (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.80; 1 RCT, participants = 42; very low quality evidence). No thromboembolic events were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antifibrinolytic treatment (such as TXA) appears effective for treating HMB compared to placebo, NSAIDs, oral luteal progestogens, ethamsylate, or herbal remedies, but may be less effective than LIUS. There were too few data for most comparisons to determine whether antifibrinolytics were associated with increased risk of adverse events, and most studies did not specifically include thromboembolism as an outcome.

Antifibrinolytic Therapy and Perioperative Considerations

Fibrinolysis is a physiologic component of hemostasis that functions to limit clot formation. However, after trauma or surgery, excessive fibrinolysis may contribute to coagulopathy, bleeding, and inflammatory responses. Antifibrinolytic agents are increasingly used to reduce bleeding, allogeneic blood administration, and adverse clinical outcomes. Tranexamic acid is the agent most extensively studied and used in most countries. This review will explore the role of fibrinolysis as a pathologic mechanism, review the different pharmacologic agents used to inhibit fibrinolysis, and focus on the role of tranexamic acid as a therapeutic agent to reduce bleeding in patients after surgery and trauma.

Comparison of Therapeutic Efficacies of Norethisterone, Tranexamic Acid and Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System for the Treatment of Heavy Menstrual Bleeding: A Randomized Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Our aim was to compare the therapeutic efficacies of norethisterone acid (NETA), tranexamic acid and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in treating idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB).

METHODS

Women with heavy uterine bleeding were randomized to receive NETA, tranexamic acid or LNG-IUS for 6 months. The primary outcome was a decrease in menstrual bleeding as assessed by pictorial blood loss assessment charts and hematological parameters analyzed at the 1st, 3rd and 6th months. Health-related quality of life (QOL) variables were also recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients were enrolled in each treatment group, but the results of only 62 were evaluated. NETA, tranexamic acid, and LNG-IUS reduced menstrual blood loss (MBL) by 53.1, 60.8, and 85.8%, respectively, at the 6th month. LNG-IUS was more effective than NETA and tranexamic acid in decreasing MBL. LNG-IUS was also more efficient than tranexamic acid in correcting anemia related to menorrhagia. Satisfaction rates were comparable among the NETA (70%), tranexamic acid (63%) and LNG-IUS (77%) groups. QOL in physical aspects increased significantly in the tranexamic acid and LNG-IUS groups.

CONCLUSION

The positive effect of LNG-IUS on QOL parameters, as well as its high efficacy, makes it a first-line option for HMB.

Surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Tranexamic acid--an old drug still going strong and making a revival

Experience with tranexamic acid, an indirect fibrinolytic inhibitor, started as soon as it was released from Shosuke Okamoto's lab in the early 1960s. It was first prescribed to females with heavy menstrual blood loss and to patients with hereditary bleeding disorders. Soon the indications were widened to elective surgery because of its blood saving effects. Contraindications are few, most important is ongoing venous or arterial thrombosis and allergy to tranexamic acid, and the doses has to be reduced in renal insufficiency. In randomized controlled trials, however, patients with other risk factors are excluded as well (patients with history of cardiovascular disease, thromboembolism, bleeding diathesis, renal failure with creatinine >250μmol/L, pregnancy, and patients on treatment with anticoagulants). Recent meta-analyses of several randomized controlled trials in orthopedic arthroplasty have shown that tranexamic acid reduces peri- and postoperative blood loss, blood transfusion requirements and reoperations caused by bleedings. In general, the preoperative dose was 10-15mg/kg i.v. (or 1g), followed or not, by one or two doses, some as continuous infusion i.v. To validate relationship between dose and effect more data are needed. No evidence was found of increased thromboembolic accidents or other adverse events in the patients on tranexamic acid compared to the control groups. In major cardiac surgery tranexamic acid has been used in a large number of controlled trials with various dosing schemes in which the highest dosages seem to be associated with neurotoxicity; therefore a maximum total dose of 100mg/kg especially in patients over 50years of age is recommended by ISMICS (International Society for Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery). Other indications for tranexamic acid are reviewed here as well. In recent years the extensive trial in severe trauma with massive bleedings using tranexamic acid was presented, CRASH-2 (Clinical Randomisation of an Antifibrinolytic in Significant Haemorrhage) comprising more than 20,000 patients. It showed that the survival was increased when tranexamic acid was given early after the accident compared to placebo; further studies are taking place is this field to get more information. Of utmost importance is the ongoing WOMAN (World Maternal Antifibrinolytic) a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial among 15,000 with clinical diagnosis of postpartum haemorrhage bearing in mind that each year a large number of women in low and middle income countries, die from causes related to childbirth. In summary, we consider tranexamic acid is a drug of great value to reduce almost any kind of bleeding, it is cheap and convenient to use and has principally few contraindications. It may be added, that tranexamic acid is included in the WHOs list of essential medicines.

Outcome following tranexamic acid exposure during breastfeeding

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the outcome of infants exposed to tranexamic acid during lactation.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A prospective, controlled observational study design was used. Mothers who contacted the Beilinson Teratology Information Service (BELTIS) regarding use of tranexamic acid while breastfeeding were followed up by phone interview. Data on lactation, neonatal symptoms, and outcomes at the age of 1-3 years were obtained. Mothers' breastfeeding while taking tranexamic acid and their infants were compared with those of a matched control group of breastfeeding mothers using a drug known to be safe during lactation (amoxicillin) and their infants.

RESULTS

Follow-up was obtained for 28 of 32 women who sought advice regarding use of tranexamic acid during breastfeeding. Of the 28 women, six did not take the drug, and one refused to participate. The 21 remaining women (study group) were compared with 42 control women. A decreased amount of breastmilk was reported by one woman in the study group versus two women in the control group (p=1.0). Possible adverse drug effects were reported for one of 21 study group infants (restlessness) and for one of 42 control group infants (gastroesophageal reflux) (p=1.0). Growth below the 3rd percentile was found in one of 21 study group infants versus four of 42 control group infants (p=0.66). Development was normal for all study group infants.

CONCLUSIONS

No increase in adverse long-term outcomes was found in infants exposed through breastfeeding to tranexamic acid. Our data in conjunction with previous estimates of very low drug exposure support continuation of breastfeeding in women requiring treatment with tranexamic acid.

Dengue: Moving from Current Standard of Care to State-of-the-Art Treatment

Treatment of dengue remains supportive in the absence of targeted antiviral therapy or approved vaccines. Responsive fluid management is key to preventing progression to shock or other severe manifestations. The dynamic natural history of dengue infection and its influence on hemodynamic homeostasis needs to be carefully considered in the planning of individualized therapy. Though largely self-limiting, the sheer burden of dengue disease on the global population will result in atypical manifestations especially in children, older adults, and comorbid patients. Management of these has not yet been systematized. The failure of recent randomized controlled trials to show utility for antiviral and immunomodulatory agents in dengue is disappointing. Vaccine candidates hold promise, but growing outbreaks require more robust, evidence-based management guidelines to inform clinicians, especially in novel epidemic situations.

Tranexamic Acid Tamponade to Control Postoperative Surgical Hemorrhage

When preparing for oral surgery, patients taking anticoagulants usually should not discontinue their medication because of the risk of a thromboembolic event. The therapeutic effect of many anticoagulants is not readily measured, so preoperatively, the surgeon cannot know the true risk for postoperative hemorrhage. The risk of a thromboembolic event usually outweighs the concerns of controlling postoperative hemorrhage. Hemophilia patients are also at risk for postoperative bleeding. Single extractions probably do not pose a serious risk for postoperative hemorrhage. However, when a mucogingival flap is raised in these patients, there may be prolonged bleeding. Surgical sponges saturated with aqueous tranexamic acid solution and compressed onto the bleeding site with biting pressure may stop bleeding. Bleeding was stopped in the case example presented here after three 10-minute compressions over 30 minutes in a patient taking aspirin and clopidogrel for a previous thromboembolic event and a metal coronary stent. The clot formed is very fragile and is prone to bleeding, so it should not be disturbed. This technique needs to be studied for efficacy.

Nonsurgical management of heavy menstrual bleeding: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of nonsurgical abnormal uterine bleeding treatments for bleeding control, quality of life (QOL), pain, sexual health, patient satisfaction, additional treatments needed, and adverse events.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Cochrane databases, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched from inception to May 2012. We included randomized controlled trials of nonsurgical treatments for abnormal uterine bleeding presumed secondary to endometrial dysfunction and abnormal uterine bleeding presumed secondary to ovulatory dysfunction. Interventions included the levonorgestrel intrauterine system, combined oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), progestins, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and antifibrinolytics. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, danazol, and placebo were allowed as comparators.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers independently screened 5,848 citations and extracted eligible trials. Studies were assessed for quality and strength of evidence.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Twenty-six articles met inclusion criteria. For reduction of menstrual bleeding in women with abnormal uterine bleeding presumed secondary to endometrial dysfunction, the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (71-95% reduction), combined OCPs (35-69% reduction), extended cycle oral progestins (87% reduction), tranexamic acid (26-54% reduction), and NSAIDs (10-52% reduction) were all effective treatments. The levonorgestrel intrauterine system, combined OCPs, and antifibrinolytics were all superior to luteal-phase progestins (20% increase in bleeding to 67% reduction). The levonorgestrel intrauterine system was superior to combined OCPs and NSAIDs. Antifibrinolytics were superior to NSAIDs for menstrual bleeding reduction. Data were limited on other important outcomes such as QOL for women with abnormal uterine bleeding presumed secondary to endometrial dysfunction and for all outcomes for women with abnormal uterine bleeding presumed secondary to ovulatory dysfunction.

CONCLUSION

For the reduction in mean blood loss in women with heavy menstrual bleeding presumed secondary to abnormal uterine bleeding presumed secondary to endometrial dysfunction, we recommend the use of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system over OCPs, luteal-phase progestins, and NSAIDs. For other outcomes (QOL, pain, sexual health, patient satisfaction, additional treatments needed, and adverse events) and for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding presumed secondary to ovulatory dysfunction, we were unable to make recommendations based on the limited available data.

Treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding of endometrial origin: randomized controlled trial of medroxyprogesterone acetate and tranexamic acid

PURPOSE

This study aimed at comparing the efficacy of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) and tranexamic acid (TA) for treating heavy menstrual bleeding of endometrial origin (HMB).

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was carried out in three gynecology clinics in Tehran, Iran. Ninety women with the HMB of endometrial origin were randomized into the study: 44 patients took MPA for 21 days from day 5 and 46 patients took tranexamic acid for 5 days from day 1 of menses for three consecutive menstrual cycles. Blood loss was measured using the pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBAC); hematological assessments were made before intervention and after treatment. SF-36 and HMB Questionnaire (MQ) were given to assess quality of life. Statistical analysis was performed using t test, Paired t test, χ(2), Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and repeated measure analysis.

RESULTS

PBLC mean score, duration of bleeding and Hb values as well as quality of life were significantly improved in both groups (P < 0.05). But there was no significant deference between groups. More drug complication and less satisfaction were reported by MPA group (P = 0.003 and P = 0.002, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term use of MPA is as effective as Tranexamic acid in treating HMB and increasing quality of life. However, bleeding irregularity side effects of MPA might limit its use.

Tranexamic acid for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding: efficacy and safety

Tranexamic acid has proven to be an effective treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). It reduces menstrual blood loss (MBL) by 26%-60% and is significantly more effective than placebo, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, oral cyclical luteal phase progestins, or oral etamsylate, while the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system reduces MBL more than tranexamic acid. Other treatments used for HMB are oral contraceptives, danazol, and surgical interventions (endometrial ablation and hysterectomy). Medical therapy is usually considered a first-line treatment for idiopathic HMB. Tranexamic acid significantly improves the quality of life of women treated for HMB. The recommended oral dosage is 3.9-4 g/day for 4-5 days starting from the first day of the menstrual cycle. Adverse effects are few and mainly mild. No evidence exists of an increase in the incidence of thrombotic events associated with its use. An active thromboembolic disease is a contraindication. In the US, a history of thrombosis or thromboembolism, or an intrinsic risk for thrombosis or thromboembolism are considered contraindications as well. This review focuses on the efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid in the treatment of idiopathic HMB. We searched for medical literature published in English on tranexamic acid from Ovid Medline, PubMed, and Cinahl. Additional references were identified from the reference lists of articles. Ovid Medline, PubMed, and Cinahl search terms were "tranexamic acid" and "menorrhagia" or "heavy menstrual bleeding." Searches were last updated on March 25, 2012. Studies with women receiving tranexamic acid for HMB were included; randomized controlled studies with a description of appropriate statistical methodology were preferred. Relevant data on the physiology of menstruation and the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of tranexamic acid are also included.

Oral Modified-Release Tranexamic Acid for Heavy Menstrual Bleeding

OBJECTIVE:

To review the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety profile of an oral modified-release (MR) formulation of tranexamic acid.

DATA SOURCES:

Literature was accessed through MEDLINE (1966-July 2012), Iowa Drug Information Service (1997-July 2012), and bibliographies of pertinent articles. Search terms included tranexamic acid, Lysteda, menorrhagia, menstrual blood loss, and heavy menstrual bleeding.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION:

All available English-language abstracts and human studies were identified for review. Data provided by the manufacturer and the Food and Drug Administration were also evaluated. Efficacy was evaluated in 2 clinical trials, change in quality of life was evaluated in 3 clinical trials, and safety was evaluated in 4 clinical trials.

DATA SYNTHESIS:

Tranexamic acid is a synthetic lysine analogue with antifibrinolytic activity. It interferes with the binding of plasminogen to fibrin, resulting in enhanced fibrin clot integrity. A novel MR formulation of oral tranexamic acid is approved for treatment of cyclic heavy menstrual bleeding. MR tranexamic acid is initiated at the beginning of heavy menstrual bleeding and can be taken for up to 5 days per cycle. Clinical trials show it to be safe and effective. Dosage adjustments are needed for women with renal insufficiency. Adverse effects are considered mild to moderate, with the most common being menstrual discomfort, headache, and back pain. The most significant safety concerns relate to the risk of thromboembolism.

CONCLUSIONS:

MR tranexamic acid offers a new first-line therapy for patients with cyclic heavy menstrual bleeding. It is reported to be safe and effective. There are no labeled equivalents to MR tranexamic acid for cyclic heavy menstrual bleeding.

Tranexamic acid: a review of its use in the treatment of hyperfibrinolysis

Tranexamic acid, a synthetic derivative of the amino acid lysine, is an antifibrinolytic agent that acts by binding to plasminogen and blocking the interaction of plasmin(ogen) with fibrin, thereby preventing dissolution of the fibrin clot. Tranexamic acid (Transamin®) is indicated in Japan for use in certain conditions with abnormal bleeding or bleeding tendencies in which local or systemic hyperfibrinolysis is considered to be involved. This article reviews the efficacy and tolerability of tranexamic acid in conditions amenable to antifibrinolytic therapy and briefly overviews the pharmacological properties of the drug. In large, randomized controlled trials, tranexamic acid generally significantly reduced perioperative blood loss compared with placebo in a variety of surgical procedures, including cardiac surgery with or without cardiopulmonary bypass, total hip and knee replacement and prostatectomy. In many instances, tranexamic acid also reduced transfusion requirements associated with surgery. It also reduced blood loss in gynaecological bleeding disorders, such as heavy menstrual bleeding, postpartum haemorrhage and bleeding irregularities caused by contraceptive implants. Tranexamic acid significantly reduced all-cause mortality and death due to bleeding in trauma patients with significant bleeding, particularly when administered early after injury. It was also effective in traumatic hyphaema, gastrointestinal bleeding and hereditary angioneurotic oedema. While it reduces rebleeding in subarachnoid haemorrhage, it may increase ischaemic complications. Pharmacoeconomic analyses predicted that tranexamic acid use in surgery and trauma would be very cost effective and potentially life saving. In direct comparisons with other marketed agents, tranexamic acid was at least as effective as ε-aminocaproic acid and more effective than desmopressin in surgical procedures. It was more effective than desmopressin, etamsylate, flurbiprofen, mefenamic acid and norethisterone, but less effective than the levonorgestrel-releasing intra-uterine device in heavy menstrual bleeding and was as effective as prednisolone in traumatic hyphaema. Tranexamic acid was generally well tolerated. Most adverse events in clinical trials were of mild or moderate severity; severe or serious events were rare. Therefore, while high-quality published evidence is limited for some approved indications, tranexamic acid is an effective and well tolerated antifibrinolytic agent.

Efficacy of tranexamic acid in the treatment of idiopathic and non-functional heavy menstrual bleeding: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of tranexamic acid in the treatment of idiopathic and non-functional heavy menstrual bleeding.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

POPULATION

Women with a diagnosis of idiopathic and non-functional heavy menstrual bleeding treated with tranexamic acid.

METHODS

Electronic searches were conducted in literature databases up to February 2011 by two independent reviewers. We included all trials involving the efficacy of tranexamic acid for the treatment of heavy uterine bleeding. Pregnant, postmenopausal and cancer patients were excluded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Effect of tranexamic acid treatment on objective reduction of menstrual bleeding and improvement in patient quality of life.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies met our inclusion criteria. Available evidence indicates that tranexamic acid therapy in women with idiopathic menorrhagia resulted in 34-54% reduction in menstrual blood loss. Following tranexamic acid treatment, patient's quality-of-life parameters improved by 46-83%, compared with 15-45% for norethisterone treatment. When compared with placebo, tranexamic acid use significantly decreased the blood loss by 70% in women with menorrhagia secondary to an intrauterine device (p<0.001). Limited evidence indicated potential benefit in fibroid patients with menorrhagia. No thromboembolic event was reported in all studies analyzed.

CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence indicates that tranexamic acid treatment is effective and safe, and could potentially improve quality of life of patients presenting with idiopathic and non-functional heavy menstrual bleeding. Data on the therapeutic efficacy of tranexamic acid in patients with symptomatic fibroids are limited, and further studies are therefore needed.

A dose-response study of a novel, oral tranexamic formulation for heavy menstrual bleeding

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the efficacy and safety of 2 dosing regimens of a novel, oral tranexamic acid formulation (Lysteda; Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc, Parsippany, NJ) in women with cyclic heavy menstrual bleeding.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, parallel-group trial for 3 menstrual cycles (n = 304). Women with mean menstrual blood loss (MBL) of ≥ 80 mL/cycle were randomized to receive either 1.95 g/d or 3.9 g/d of tranexamic acid or placebo for up to 5 days of menstrual bleeding. Primary efficacy endpoints were mean MBL reduction from baseline, mean MBL reductions that were considered "meaningful" by subjects, and mean MBL reductions from baseline > 50 mL/cycle. Adverse events (AEs) were also assessed.

RESULTS

Only the 3.9 g/d group met all 3 primary efficacy endpoints. AEs did not significantly differ among the 3 groups. There were no serious study-related AEs.

CONCLUSION

The 3.9-g/d dose met all 3 primary efficacy endpoints, whereas the 1.95 g/d dose met 2 primary efficacy endpoints. Both doses were well tolerated.

Tranexamic acid therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding

INTRODUCTION

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB, also known as menorrhagia) is an important health problem that interferes with women's quality of life. It is one of the most common reasons why women are seen by their family doctors in primary care and is a condition frequently treated by surgery.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers the pharmacology of tranexamic acid in brief and concentrates on its use in the treatment of HMB. Papers published in the English language between January 1985 and November 2010 were reviewed using Medline, Embase, Cinahl and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Search terms were 'heavy menstrual bleeding', 'tranexamic acid' and 'menorrhagia'.

EXPERT OPINION

Tranexamic acid, a competitive inhibitor of plasminogen activation, has been used to treat HMB for well over four decades. Although several treatment options are available for HMB, tranexamic acid is particularly useful in women who either desire immediate pregnancy or for whom hormonal treatment is inappropriate. Tranexamic acid is a well-tolerated, cost-effective drug that reduces menstrual blood loss in the range of 34-59%. It improves the health-related quality of life in women in HMB.

Antifibrinolytic therapy with tranexamic acid in pregnancy and postpartum

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is critically to review the available evidence regarding the use, efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid in the management of hemorrhage during pregnancy and for prevention and treatment of postpartum hemorrhage.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We performed a systematic search of electronic literature (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane, DARE) to review all studies looking at the use of tranexamic acid during pregnancy and puerperium. We did a meta-analysis on three randomized controlled trials that evaluated reduction in blood loss in women undergoing cesarean sections with the use of tranexamic acid.

RESULTS

An electronic search yielded 34 articles, the studies dating from 1976 to 2010, five randomized controlled trials, seven observational studies, and twenty-two case reports. Meta-analysis showed that the estimate of the combined effect of tranexamic acid compared with placebo was a difference of 32.5 ml reduction in blood loss (95% CI -4.1-69.13; p = 0.08). Tranexamic acid was also used successfully to prevent and treat bleeding in observation studies and case reports. Pulmonary embolism was reported in two cases; however, the possible involvement of tranexamic acid in these thrombotic episodes could neither be confirmed nor excluded.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical studies suggest that tranexamic acid reduces the amount of blood loss after delivery during cesarean sections and vaginal deliveries, and reduces the requirement for blood transfusion. Tranexamic acid seems to be safe and effective in the prevention and management of bleeding during pregnancy. Further investigation and larger clinical trials with better design and methodological quality are required to confirm these findings.

Dysfunctional uterine bleeding: from adolescence to menopause

Dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB) is defined as excessive or prolonged uterine bleeding in premenopausal women that is not caused by pelvic pathology, medications, systemic disease or pregnancy. It is a common condition that can lead not only to physical symptoms such as iron deficiency, anaemia, cramps and fatigue, but also has significant psychological and social effects that impair a woman's quality of life. Progesterone is highly important in the regulation of menstrual bleeding and a progesterone-deficient anovulatory state is a common cause of DUB. There are a wide range of treatment options available including hormonal therapies (oral cyclical progestogens, depot progestogens, progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices, combined oral contraceptives, danazol, gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues and hormone replacement therapy), non-hormonal therapies (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and antifibrinolytic drugs) and surgery (hysterectomy and endometrial ablation). The choice of appropriate therapy should be based on factors such as the mechanism behind the DUB, which symptoms are most problematic, and the woman's need for fertility or contraception. However, there is currently a lack of clinical evidence to help support these decisions.

Tranexamic acid treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of an oral formulation of tranexamic acid for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.

METHODS

Adult women with heavy menstrual bleeding (mean menstrual blood loss 80 mL or more per cycle) were enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. After two pretreatment menstrual cycles, women were randomized to receive tranexamic acid 3.9 g/d or placebo for up to 5 days per menstrual cycle through six cycles. To meet the prespecified three-component primary efficacy end point, mean reduction in menstrual blood loss from baseline with tranexamic acid treatment needed to be 1) significantly greater than placebo, 2) greater than 50 mL, and 3) greater than a predetermined meaningful threshold (36 mL or higher). Health-related quality of life was measured using a validated patient-reported outcome instrument.

RESULTS

Women who received tranexamic acid (n=115) met all three primary efficacy end points: first, a significantly greater reduction in menstrual blood loss of -69.6 mL (40.4%) compared with -12.6 mL (8.2%) in the 72 women who received placebo (P<.001); reduction of menstrual blood loss exceeding a prespecified 50 mL; and last, reduction of menstrual blood loss considered meaningful to women. Compared with women receiving placebo, women treated with tranexamic acid experienced significant improvements in limitations in social or leisure and physical activities, work inside and outside the home, and self-perceived menstrual blood loss (P<.01). The majority of adverse events were mild to moderate in severity, and the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events was comparable with placebo.

CONCLUSION

In this study, a new oral tranexamic acid treatment was well tolerated and significantly improved both menstrual blood loss and health-related quality of life in women with heavy menstrual bleeding.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00386308.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

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

BACKGROUND

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

INVESTIGATION

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

TREATMENT

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

Tranexamic Acid Tablets

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive five to six well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committees. Subscribers also receive monthly 1-page summary monographs on agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing inservices. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation (DUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are sent in print and are also available online. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of a facility. Subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service also receive access to a pharmacy bulletin board, The Formulary Information Exchange (The F.I.X.). All topics pertinent to clinical and hospital pharmacy are discussed on The F.I.X.

Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. For more information about The Formulary Monograph Service or The F.I.X., call The Formulary at 800-322-4349. The May 2010 monograph topics are on aztreonam lysine inhalation solution, velaglucerase alfa for injection, hydromorphone hydrochloride extended-release tablets, meningococcal (groups A, C, Y, and W-135) oligosaccharide diphtheria CRM197 conjugate vaccine, and ceftaroline fosamil. The DUE is on aztreonam lysine inhalation solution.

Role of tranexamic acid in management of dysfunctional uterine bleeding in comparison with medroxyprogesterone acetate

Currently, tranexamic acid (TXA) is used as 4 g/day in menorrhagia This prospective randomised study included 100 cases to assess efficacy and safety of 2 g/day TXA in dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB) vs cyclical 10 mg twice-daily medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) for 3 cycles. Follow-ups were made monthly for 3 months during therapy, then 3 months after. Mean pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBAC) score decreased from 356.9 to 141.6 in the TXA group and from the pre-treatment 370.9 to 156.6 with MPA and mean reduction of blood loss was 60.3% with TXA and 57.7% with MPA after 3 months (p < 0.005 in both groups). Lack of response during treatment was seen in three patients (6.1%) TXA and in 13 patients (28.9%) with MPA (p = 0.003). In patients who reported 3 months after stopping the treatment, 66.7% in TXA group and 50% in MPA had recurrence of menorrhagia, (p = 0.155). During the 6 months study period more hysterectomies were performed in the MPA than in the TXA group (17.8% vs 4%; p = 0.002). We conclude that TXA in 2 g/day dosage is an effective and safe option in DUB.

Cyclical progestogens for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Excessively heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) or menorrhagia is an important cause of ill health in women. Eighty per cent of women treated for HMB have no anatomical pathology, which makes medical therapy, with the avoidance of possibly unnecessary surgery, an attractive alternative. Of the wide variety of medications used to reduce heavy menstrual bleeding, oral progestogens are the most commonly prescribed. This review assesses the effectiveness of two different regimens of oral progestogens in reducing ovulatory HMB.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to investigate the effectiveness of oral progestogen therapy taken either during the luteal phase or for a longer course of 21 days in achieving a reduction in menstrual blood loss in women of reproductive years with heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (searched April 2007), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2007) and EMBASE (1985 to April 2007). Attempts were also made to identify trials from citation lists of review articles. In most cases, the first author of each included trial was contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of oral progestogen therapy versus placebo or other medical treatments in women of reproductive years with regular heavy periods measured either objectively or subjectively and with no pathological or iatrogenic causes for their heavy menstrual blood loss.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The review authors extracted the data independently. Odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes were estimated from the data.

MAIN RESULTS

No RCTs comparing progestogen treatment with placebo were identified. Comparisons between oral progestogens and other medical therapies were assessed separately according to dosage regimen.Progestogen therapy during the luteal phase was significantly less effective at reducing menstrual blood loss when compared with tranexamic acid, danazol and the progesterone-releasing intrauterine system (IUS). Duration of menstruation was significantly longer with the progesterone IUS when compared with oral progestogen therapy but significantly shorter with danazol treatment. Adverse events were significantly more likely with danazol when compared with progestogen treatment. Progestogen therapy from day 5 to day 26 of the menstrual cycle was significantly less effective at reducing menstrual blood loss than the IUS. A significantly higher proportion of norethisterone (NET) patients taking progestogens found their treatment unacceptable compared to IUS patients. However, the adverse effects of breast tenderness and intermenstrual bleeding were more likely in women with the IUS.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Progestogens administered from day 15 or 19 to day 26 of the cycle offer no advantage over other medical therapies such as danazol, tranexamic acid, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and the IUS in the treatment of menorrhagia in women with ovulatory cycles. Progestogen therapy for 21 days of the cycle results in a significant reduction in menstrual blood loss, although women found the treatment less acceptable than intrauterine levonorgestrel. This regimen of progestogen may have a role in the short-term treatment of menorrhagia.

Tranexamic Acid-associated Necrosis and Intralesional Thrombosis of Uterine Leiomyomas

INTRODUCTION

Women with menorrhagia have increased levels of plasminogen activators in the endometrium. Tranexamic acid (cyklokapron), an antifibrinolytic agent, is commonly prescribed worldwide to women with menorrhagia, including those with fibroids. Necrosis in uterine leiomyomas may be associated with pregnancy, and progestogen or oral contraceptive use but its association with tranexamic acid has not been investigated. Four hundred ninety patients with uterine leiomyomas in 2004 and 2005 were reviewed. Their ages ranged from 22 to 86 (mean 47.2). One hundred forty-seven (30%) were treated with tranexamic acid.

RESULTS

Infarct-type necrosis was observed in the leiomyomas of 38 patients, 22 of whom had tranexamic acid (15%) whereas the remaining 16 had no drug exposure (4.7%) (odds ratio=3.60; 95% confidence interval: 1.83-6.07; P=0.0003). Two patients who took the drug less than 2 weeks before surgery had early infarcts with appearance resembled coagulative type necrosis. Eleven of the 22 cases of drug-induced necrotic leiomyoma (50%) also showed intralesional thrombus formation, and 4 showed organization of the thrombi.

CONCLUSIONS

Infarct-type necrosis and thrombosis of leiomyoma was more commonly observed in patients treated with tranexamic acid. Although the drug is effective for menorrhagia, clinicians should be aware of the possible complications associated with leiomyoma necrosis such as pain and fever. Distinguishing between types of necrosis may not always be straightforward particularly in early infarcts when the reparative connective tissue reaction between the viable and necrotic cells is not well-developed, resulting in an appearance similar to coagulative necrosis. When the overall gross and microscopic features of a leiomyoma with coagulative necrosis favor a benign lesion, the drug history should be reviewed so that this type of early and healing infarct-type necrosis is considered as the underlying cause of the apparent coagulative necrosis. This may otherwise result in a diagnosis of smooth muscle tumor of uncertain malignant potential, leading to prolonged follow-up and unnecessary further surgical intervention.

Danazol for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in pre menopausal women. Medical therapy, with the avoidance of possibly unnecessary surgery is an attractive treatment option, but there is considerable variation in practice and uncertainty about the most effective therapy. Danazol is a synthetic steroid with anti-oestrogenic and anti progestogenic activity, and weak androgenic properties. Danazol suppresses oestrogen and progesterone receptors in the endometrium, leading to endometrial atrophy (thinning of the lining of the uterus) and reduced menstrual loss and to amenorrhoea in some women.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and tolerability of Danazol when used for heavy menstrual bleeding in women of reproductive years.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's Specialised Register (April 2007). We also searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2007), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2007), EMBASE (1980 to April 2007, CINAHL (1982 to April 2007). Attempts were also made to identify trials from citation lists of included trials and relevant review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of Danazol versus placebo, any other medical (non-surgical) therapy or Danazol in different dosages for heavy menstrual bleeding in women of reproductive age with regular HMB measured either subjectively or objectively. Trials that included women with post menopausal bleeding, intermenstrual bleeding and pathological causes of heavy menstrual bleeding were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Nine RCTs, with 353 women, were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The main outcomes were menstrual blood loss, the number of women experiencing adverse effects, weight gain, withdrawals due to adverse effects and dysmenorrhoea. If data could not be extracted in a form suitable for meta-analysis, they were presented in a descriptive format.

MAIN RESULTS

Most data were not in a form suitable for meta analysis, and the results are based on a small number of trials, all of which are under-powered. Danazol appears to be more effective than placebo, progestogens, NSAIDs and the OCP at reducing MBL, but confidence intervals were wide. Treatment with Danazol caused more adverse events than NSAIDs (OR 7.0; 95% CI 1.7 to 28.2) and progestogens (OR 4.05, 95% CI 1.6 to10.2). Danazol was shown to significantly lower the duration of menses when compared with NSAIDs (WMD -1.0; 95% CI -1.8 to -0.3) and a progesterone releasing IUD (WMD -6.0; 95% CI -7.3 to -4.8). There were no randomised trials comparing Danazol with tranexamic acid or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Danazol appears to be an effective treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding compared to other medical treatments. The use of Danazol may be limited by its side effect profile, its acceptability to women and the need for continuing treatment. The small number of trials, and the small sample sizes of the included trials limit the recommendations for clinical care. Further studies are unlikely in the future and this review will not be updated unless further studies are identified.

Management of Heavy Menstrual Bleeding: Is Hysterectomy the Radical Mastectomy of Gynecology?

Both hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding and radical mastectomy for breast cancer are steeped in the history of surgery and have recently been challenged as being too radical for the disorder at hand. Radical mastectomy has largely been replaced with local removal of the tumor with subsequent radiation and/or chemotherapy. Alternatives to hysterectomy include a number of medical interventions, most notably intrauterine progestin-releasing systems, and endometrial ablation, a procedure that has a relatively high success rate and one that is now feasible for many women in an office or procedure room setting. However, although radical mastectomy rates have dropped precipitously, hysterectomy rates, at least in the United States remain relatively stable. Determining the proportion of hysterectomies that are done for heavy menstrual bleeding is difficult, largely because of coding issues, so it is difficult to measure the impact of new medical and minimally invasive surgical procedures. Nevertheless, it seems clear that many women are not exposed to the plethora of options to hysterectomy, a fact that may reflect a number of issues that may include training, skill, and financial incentives or disincentives. Clearly, options to hysterectomy are not a panacea, but if women are empowered to select from all of the options available, the rate of hysterectomy for bleeding should decrease while maintaining, or even enhancing the patient's satisfaction with care.