BACKGROUND: The study was an audit of patients who attended the Menstrual Disorders Clinic at Glasgow Royal Infirmary over a five year period, and received gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analog (GnRHa). We aimed to identify the clinical indications for the use of GnRHa, and the effect of the latter in terms of symptom resolution and ultimate outcome. We aim to use this information to formulate a strategy for the use of GnRHa by targeting this expensive therapy to those situations where maximum benefit will be achieved. METHODS: A retrospective case review analysis of 201 patients. RESULTS: Thirty-eight percent of women presented with pelvic pain, 33% with disordered menstruation and 26% with premenstrual symptomatology. Overall, 74% of patients reported a beneficial effect of GnRHa. In the non-cyclical pelvic pain group, those patients with adhesions constituted a much greater proportion of those who did not derive benefit from GnRHa than those who did (43% vs. 16%; p<0.05; data not shown). In those patients with disordered menses, there was no difference between the diagnosis in those who did or did not derive benefit from GnRHa. Also with the exception of endometrial preparation prior to ablation and in the correction of anemia, the ultimate outcome was no different in the two groups. Of the patients with premenstrual symptomatology, the greatest proportion of those deriving benefit from GnRHa (41%) ultimately had an operative resolution. CONCLUSIONS: Our results enable us to use GnRHa as a first line in those clinical situations where maximum benefit will be achieved, either in terms of symptom resolution or as a tool to identify the most appropriate therapeutic option. We can therefore rationalize our prescribing both to the benefit of the patient and to our budget.
BACKGROUND: The study was an audit of patients who attended the Menstrual Disorders Clinic at Glasgow Royal Infirmary over a five year period, and received gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analog (GnRHa). We aimed to identify the clinical indications for the use of GnRHa, and the effect of the latter in terms of symptom resolution and ultimate outcome. We aim to use this information to formulate a strategy for the use of GnRHa by targeting this expensive therapy to those situations where maximum benefit will be achieved. METHODS: A retrospective case review analysis of 201 patients. RESULTS: Thirty-eight percent of women presented with pelvic pain, 33% with disordered menstruation and 26% with premenstrual symptomatology. Overall, 74% of patients reported a beneficial effect of GnRHa. In the non-cyclical pelvic pain group, those patients with adhesions constituted a much greater proportion of those who did not derive benefit from GnRHa than those who did (43% vs. 16%; p<0.05; data not shown). In those patients with disordered menses, there was no difference between the diagnosis in those who did or did not derive benefit from GnRHa. Also with the exception of endometrial preparation prior to ablation and in the correction of anemia, the ultimate outcome was no different in the two groups. Of the patients with premenstrual symptomatology, the greatest proportion of those deriving benefit from GnRHa (41%) ultimately had an operative resolution. CONCLUSIONS: Our results enable us to use GnRHa as a first line in those clinical situations where maximum benefit will be achieved, either in terms of symptom resolution or as a tool to identify the most appropriate therapeutic option. We can therefore rationalize our prescribing both to the benefit of the patient and to our budget.