Danazol in the treatment of menorrhagia: the effect of a 1 month induction dose (200 mg) and 2 month's maintenance therapy (200 mg, 100 mg, 50 mg or placebo)

Danazol

A comprehensive profile of danazol describing the nomenclatures, formulae, elemental composition, appearance, uses and applications is presented. The profile contains the method which was utilized for the preparation of the drug substance and its respective scheme is outlined. The physical characteristics of the drug including the solubility, X-ray powder diffraction pattern, differential scanning calorimetry, thermal behavior and spectroscopic studies are described. The methods which were used for the analysis of the drug substance in bulk drug and/or in pharmaceutical formulations including the compendial, spectrophotometric, electrochemical and the chromatographic methods are reported. The stability, toxicity, pharmacokinetics, bioavailability, drug evaluation and monitoring, comparisons, pharmacology, in addition to several compiled reviews on the drug substance which were involved. Finally, two hundred and seventy-nine references are listed at the end of this profile.

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.

Danazol for unexplained subfertility

BACKGROUND

The synthetic androgen Danazol, was developed in the 1970's as a treatment for endometriosis. Its use was soon advocated in women with unexplained subfertility. Two randomised trials were subsequently conducted to assess the effectiveness of danazol in this population.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effect of danazol on live birth rate in women with unexplained subfertility.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Sub-fertility Group's specialised register of trials (searched November , 2006) the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2006), MEDLINE (1966-November 2006), EMBASE (1980 - November 2006) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of danazol compared with placebo or no treatment in women with unexplained subfertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted by two reviewers EH and GT.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials involving seventy-one women were included. There was no statistically significant difference in the live birth/ ongoing pregnancy rate between danazol and placebo at the end of treatment (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.0 to 8.29; P=0.36) or at the end of follow-up (OR 2.41; 95% CI 0.59, 9.82; P=0.22). There was no significant difference in clinical pregnancies following treatment (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01, 2.26; P=0.17), however there were significantly more clinical pregnancies during the follow-up period in the danazol group compared with the placebo group (OR 3.15, 95%CI 0.98, 10.10; P<0.05). Multiple side effects were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available data demonstrate no evidence of the benefit of danazol for unexplained subfertility. Although there is insufficient evidence to be certain of this, the need for contraception during treatment and the adverse effects and costs of danazol, make its use for this problem unwarranted. The increased pregnancy rate in the long term follow-up data may be attributable to additional therapies and did not influence the live birth/ongoing pregnancy data.

Benefits and risks of pharmacological agents used for the treatment of menorrhagia

Menorrhagia affects the lives of many women. The assessment of menstrual flow is highly subjective and gauging the severity of the condition by objective assessment of menstrual blood loss is impractical. In treating menorrhagia, the primary aim should be to improve quality of life. Women are willing to undergo quite invasive treatment in order to achieve this. Drug therapy is the initial treatment of choice and the only option for those who wish to preserve their reproductive function. Despite the availability of a number of drugs, there is a general lack of an evidence-based approach, marked variation in practice and continuing uncertainty regarding the most appropriate therapy. Adverse effects and problems with compliance also undermine the success of medical treatment. This article reviews the available literature to compare the efficacy and tolerability of different medical treatments for menorrhagia. Tranexamic acid and mefenamic acid are among the most effective first-line drugs used to treat menorrhagia. Despite being used extensively in the past, oral luteal phase norethisterone is probably one of the least effective agents. Women requiring contraception have a choice of the combined oral contraceptive pill, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) or long-acting progestogens. Danazol, gestrinone and gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues are all effective in terms of reducing menstrual blood loss but adverse effects and costs limit their long-term use. They have a role as second-line drugs for a short period of time in women awaiting surgery. While current evidence suggests that the LNG-IUS is an effective treatment, further evaluation, including long-term follow up, is awaited. Meanwhile, the quest continues for the ideal form of medical treatment for menorrhagia--one that is effective, affordable and acceptable.

Menorrhagia: an update

Menorrhagia is defined as a 'complaint of heavy cyclical menstrual bleeding occurring over several consecutive cycles'. Objectively it is a total menstrual blood loss equal to or greater than 80 ml per menstruation. It is estimated that approximately 30% of women complain of menorrhagia. Excessive bleeding is the main presenting complaint in women referred to gynecologists and it accounts for two-thirds of all hysterectomies, and most of endoscopic endometrial destructive surgery. Thus, menorrhagia is an important healthcare problem. Its etiology, investigation, medical and surgical management are described. In approximately 50% of cases of menorrhagia no pathology is found at hysterectomy. Abnormal levels of prostaglandins or the fibrinolytic system in the endometrium have been implicated. Effective medical treatments suitable for long-term use include intrauterine progestogens, antifibrinolytic agents (tranexamic acid) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (mefenamic acid). Over the past decade there has been increasing use of endometrial destructive techniques as an alternative to hysterectomy. Their further refinement and the advent of fibroid embolization has increased the options available to women.

Menorrhagia from a haematologist's point of view. Part II: management

The management of menorrhagia has until recently been the domain of the gynaecologist. As haematologists, we are now addressing the issue of optimal management of menorrhagia in our patients with bleeding disorders. Addressing three life periods, the menarche, reproductive years, and postchildbearing years, this review will discuss the use of oral contraceptive agents, antifibrinolytics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, intranasal DDAVP and the new levonorgestrel-impregnated IUD. Management of specific bleeding disorders will also be reviewed for von Willebrand disease, haemophilia A and B carriers, women with factor XI deficiency and PAI-1 deficiency.

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

All studies which might describe randomised controlled trials of danazol for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding were obtained by electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, CINAHL, National Research Register and the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's Specialist Register of controlled trials (on 6 November 2001). Attempts were also made to identify trials from citation lists of included trials and relevant review articles. In most cases the first author of each included trial was contacted for unpublished additional information.

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 for this review. 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, 28.2) and progestogens (OR 4.05, 95% CI 1.6, 10.2), but this did not appear to affect adherence to treatment. Danazol was shown to significantly lower the duration of menses when compared with NSAIDs (WMD -1.0; 95% CI -1.8, -0.3) and a progesterone releasing IUD (WMD -6.0; 95% CI -7.3, -4.8). There were no randomised trials comparing danazol with tranexamic acid or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Danazol appears to be an effective treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding compared to other medical treatments, though it is uncertain whether it is acceptable to women. The use of danazol may be limited by its side effect profile, its acceptability to women and the need for continuing treatment. Overall no strong recommendations can be made due to the small number of trials, and the small sample sizes of the included trials.

Danazol for unexplained infertilty

BACKGROUND

The androgen, Danazol, was developed in the 1970's as a treatment for endometriosis. Its use was soon advocated in women with unexplained infertility. Two randomized trials were subsequently conducted to assess the effectiveness of danazol in this population.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effects of danazol on pregnancy rates in women with unexplained subfertility.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Subfertility Review Group specialised register of controlled trials was searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of danazol compared with placebo or no treatment in women with unexplained subfertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted by two reviewers.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials involving 68 women were involved. There was no difference found in pregnancy rate between danazol and placebo (odds ratio 2.57, 95% confidence 0.53 to 12.46).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

There is not enough evidence to evaluate the effect of danazol on pregnancy rates in women with unexplained subfertility. The need to use contraception during danazol treatment, adverse effects and costs are additional considerations.