Literature DB >> 32700364

Interventions commonly available during pandemics for heavy menstrual bleeding: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.

Magdalena Bofill Rodriguez1, Anne Lethaby1, Cindy Farquhar1, James Mn Duffy2,3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Within the context of heavy menstrual bleeding, pandemics impact upon women's assessment and treatment by healthcare providers.
OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews evaluating interventions for heavy menstrual bleeding that are commonly available during pandemics.
METHODS: We sought published Cochrane Reviews, evaluating interventions that can continue during pandemics for women with heavy menstrual bleeding with no known underlying cause. We identified Cochrane Reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in June 2020. The primary outcome was menstrual bleeding. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, patient satisfaction, side effects, and serious adverse events. We undertook the selection of systematic reviews, data extraction, and quality assessment in duplicate. We resolved any disagreements by discussion. We assessed review quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool, and the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods. MAIN
RESULTS: We included four Cochrane Reviews, with 11 comparisons, data from 44 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and 3196 women. We assessed all the reviews to be high quality. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) NSAIDs may be more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding than placebo (mean difference (MD) -124 mL per cycle, 95% confidence interval (CI) -186 to -62 mL per cycle; 1 RCT, 11 women; low-certainty evidence). Mefenamic acid may be similar to naproxen (MD 21 mL per cycle, 95% CI -6 to 48 mL per cycle; 2 RCTs, 61 women; low-certainty evidence), and NSAIDs may be similar to combined hormonal contraceptives for heavy menstrual bleeding (MD 25 mL per cycle, 95% CI -22 to 73 mL per cycle; 1 RCT, 26 women; low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs may be be less effective in reducing menstrual bleeding than antifibrinolytics (relative risk (RR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85; 2 RCTs, 161 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAIDs reduce menstrual blood loss more than short-cycle progestogens (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.32; 1 RCT 32 women; very low-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics Antifibrinolytics appear to be more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding than placebo (MD -53 mL per cycle, 95% CI -63 to -44 mL per cycle; 4 RCTs, 565 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may be similar to placebo on the incidence of side effects (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18; 1 RCT, 297 women; low-certainty evidence), and they are probably similar on the incidence of serious adverse events (thrombotic events; RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.00 to 2.46; 2 RCT, 468 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may be more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding than short-cycle progestogen (MD -111 mL per cycle, 95% CI -178 mL to -44 mL per cycle; 1 RCT, 46 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics are similar to short-cycle progestogens on quality of life (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.76 to 3.64; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-certainty evidence), patient satisfaction (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.39; 1 RCT, 42 women; very low-certainty evidence), or side effects (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; 3 RCTs, 211 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics are more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding when compared with long-cycle progestogen (MD -9 points per cycle, 95% CI -30 to 12 points per cycle; 2 RCTs, 184 women; low-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may increase self-reported improvement in menstrual bleeding when compared with long-cycle medroxyprogesterone acetate (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.61; 1 RCT, 94 women; low-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may be similar to long-cycle progestogens on quality of life (MD 5, 95% CI -2.49 to 12.49; 1 RCT, 90 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics are similar to long-cycle progestogens on side effects (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.00; 2 RCTs, 184 women; very low-certainty evidence). There were no trials comparing antifibrinolytics to combined hormonal contraceptives. Combined hormonal contraceptives Combined hormonal contraceptives appear to be more effective for heavy menstrual bleeding than placebo or no treatment (RR 13.25, 95% CI 2.94 to 59.64; 2 RCTs, 363 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Combined hormonal contraceptives are probably similar to placebo on the incidence of side effects (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.60; 2 RCTs, 411 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Progestogens There were no trials comparing progestogens to placebo. Limitations in the evidence included risk of bias in the primary RCTs, inconsistency between the primary RCTs, and imprecision in effect estimates. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that antifibrinolytics and combined hormonal contraceptives reduce heavy menstrual bleeding compared with placebo. There is low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs reduce heavy menstrual bleeding compared with placebo. There is low-certainty evidence that antifibrinolytics are more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding when compared with NSAIDs and short-cycle progestogens, but we are unable to draw conclusions about the effects of antifibrinolytics compared to long-cycle progestogens, on low-certainty evidence.
Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32700364      PMCID: PMC7388826          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013651.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  33 in total

1.  On the correlation between local fibrinolytic activity in menstrual fluid and total blood loss during menstruation and effects of desmopressin.

Authors:  Måns Edlund; Margareta Blombäck; Shu He
Journal:  Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 1.276

Review 2.  Heavy menstrual bleeding: An update on management.

Authors:  Joanna Davies; Rezan A Kadir
Journal:  Thromb Res       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 3.944

Review 3.  Combined oral contraceptives: a comprehensive review.

Authors:  Jessica Kiley; Cassing Hammond
Journal:  Clin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 2.190

4.  Cyclical progestogens for heavy menstrual bleeding.

Authors:  Magdalena Bofill Rodriguez; Anne Lethaby; Cindy Low; Iain T Cameron
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-08-14

5.  Naproxen in menorrhagia.

Authors:  G Rybo; S Nilsson; B Sikström; K G Nygren
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1981-03-14       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 6.  Combined oral contraceptives: venous thrombosis.

Authors:  Marcos de Bastos; Bernardine H Stegeman; Frits R Rosendaal; Astrid Van Hylckama Vlieg; Frans M Helmerhorst; Theo Stijnen; Olaf M Dekkers
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2014-03-03

Review 7.  Blood Pressure Out of the Office: Its Time Has Finally Come.

Authors:  Lawrence R Krakoff
Journal:  Am J Hypertens       Date:  2015-11-06       Impact factor: 2.689

Review 8.  Danazol for heavy menstrual bleeding.

Authors:  H Beaumont; C Augood; K Duckitt; A Lethaby
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2007-07-18

9.  Endometrial prostaglandins and menorrhagia: influence of a prostaglandin synthetase inhibitor in vivo.

Authors:  B K Tsang; M T Domingo; J E Spence; P R Garner; D K Dudley; H Oxorn
Journal:  Can J Physiol Pharmacol       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 2.273

Review 10.  The clinical relevance of progestogens in hormonal contraception: Present status and future developments.

Authors:  Pedro-Antonio Regidor
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2018-10-02
View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Interventions for heavy menstrual bleeding; overview of Cochrane reviews and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Magdalena Bofill Rodriguez; Sofia Dias; Vanessa Jordan; Anne Lethaby; Sarah F Lensen; Michelle R Wise; Jack Wilkinson; Julie Brown; Cindy Farquhar
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2022-05-31

2.  Interventions commonly available during pandemics for heavy menstrual bleeding: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.

Authors:  Magdalena Bofill Rodriguez; Anne Lethaby; Cindy Farquhar; James Mn Duffy
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-07-23

Review 3.  Uterine bleeding: how understanding endometrial physiology underpins menstrual health.

Authors:  Varsha Jain; Rohan R Chodankar; Jacqueline A Maybin; Hilary O D Critchley
Journal:  Nat Rev Endocrinol       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 47.564

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.