Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for heavy menstrual bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in premenopausal women. Although surgery is often used as a treatment, a range of medical therapies are also available. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduce prostaglandin levels which are elevated in women with excessive menstrual bleeding and also may have a beneficial effect on dysmenorrhoea. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to investigate the effectiveness of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in achieving a reduction in menstrual blood loss in women of reproductive years HMB. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders & Subfertility Group trials register (searched April 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2007), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2007), EMBASE (1985 to April 2007), CINAHL (1982 to April 2007), Current Contents (1993 to April 2007) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: The inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of individual NSAIDs with either each other, placebo or other medical treatments in women with regular heavy periods measured either objectively or subjectively and with no pathological or iatrogenic (treatment induced) causes for their heavy menstrual blood loss. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Seventeen RCTs were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review and data were extracted independently. Odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes were estimated from the data of nine trials. The results of the remaining seven crossover trials with data unsuitable for pooling and one trial with skewed data were described in the Other Data section. MAIN RESULTS: As a group, NSAIDs were more effective than placebo at reducing heavy menstrual bleeding but less effective than either tranexamic acid, danazol or the levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (LNG IUS). Treatment with danazol caused a shorter duration of menstruation and more adverse events than NSAIDs but this did not appear to affect the acceptability of treatment. There were no statistically significant differences between NSAIDs and the other treatments (oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, an older progesterone releasing intra-uterine system (Progestasert), oral contraceptive pill (OCC)) but most studies were underpowered. There was no evidence of a difference between the individual NSAIDs (naproxen and mefenamic acid) in reducing HMB. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: NSAIDs reduce HMB when compared with placebo but are less effective than either tranexamic acid, danazol or LNG IUS. However, adverse events are more severe with danazol therapy. In the limited number of small studies suitable for evaluation, no significant difference in efficacy was demonstrated between NSAIDs and other medical treatments such as oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, OCC or another type of IUS, Progestasert.

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.

Nitric oxide donors for the treatment of preterm labour.

BACKGROUND: A number of tocolytics have been advocated for the treatment of threatened preterm labour in order to delay delivery. The rationale is that a delay in delivery may be associated with improved neonatal morbidity or mortality. Nitric oxide donors, such as nitroglycerin, have been used to relax the uterus. This review addresses their efficacy, side effects and influence on neonatal outcome. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether nitric oxide donors administered in threatened preterm labour are associated with a delay in delivery, adverse side effects or improved neonatal outcome. SEARCH STRATEGY: A comprehensive search of the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (March 2002) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2002) was undertaken. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of nitric oxide donors administered for tocolysis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial quality assessment and data extraction were done independently by two reviewers. MAIN RESULTS: Five randomised controlled trials (466 women) were included. Nitroglycerine was the NO donor used in all these trials. Nitric oxide donors did not delay delivery nor improve neonatal outcome when compared with placebo, no treatment or alternative tocolytics such as ritodrine, albuterol and magnesium sulphate. There was, however, a reduction in number of deliveries less than 37 weeks when compared with alternative tocolytics but the numbers of deliveries before 32 and 34 weeks were not influenced. Side effects (other than headache) were reduced in women who received nitric oxide donors rather than other tocolytics. However, women were significantly more likely to experience headache when NO donors had been used. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to support the routine administration of nitric oxide donors in the treatment of threatened preterm labour.

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.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for heavy menstrual bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in premenopausal women. Although surgery is often used as a treatment, a range of medical therapies are also available. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduce prostaglandin levels which are elevated in women with excessive menstrual bleeding and also may have a beneficial effect on dysmenorrhoea. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to investigate the effectiveness of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in achieving a reduction in menstrual blood loss in women of reproductive years HMB. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches for relevant randomised controlled trials of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, the Cochrane Library and CINAHL were performed. Attempts were also made to identify trials from citation lists of review articles and drug companies were approached for unpublished data. In most cases, the first author of each included trial was contacted for additional information. An updated search was performed in September and October 2001 but no new eligible trials were identified. SELECTION CRITERIA: The inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of individual NSAIDs with either each other, placebo or other medical treatments in women with regular heavy periods measured either objectively or subjectively and with no pathological or iatrogenic (treatment induced) causes for their heavy menstrual blood loss. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Sixteen RCTs were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review and data were extracted independently. Odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes were estimated from the data of nine trials. The results of the remaining seven crossover trials with data unsuitable for pooling were described in the Other Data section. MAIN RESULTS: As a group, NSAIDs were more effective than placebo at reducing heavy menstrual bleeding but less effective than either tranexamic acid or danazol. Treatment with danazol caused a shorter duration of menstruation and more adverse events than NSAIDs but this did not appear to affect the acceptability of treatment. There were no statistically significant differences between NSAIDs and the other treatments (oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, progesterone releasing intra-uterine system (IUS), oral contraceptive pill (OCC)) but most studies were underpowered. There was no evidence of a difference between the individual NSAIDs (naproxen and mefenamic acid) in reducing HMB. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: NSAIDs reduce HMB when compared with placebo but are less effective than either tranexamic acid or danazol. However, adverse events are more severe with danazol therapy. In the limited number of small studies suitable for evaluation, no significant difference in efficacy was demonstrated between NSAIDs and other medical treatments such as oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, OCC or IUS.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for heavy menstrual bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding is an important cause of ill health in premenopausal women. Although surgery is often used as a treatment, a range of medical therapies are also available. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or prostaglandin synthetase inhibitors reduce prostaglandin levels which are elevated in women with excessive menstrual bleeding and also may have a beneficial effect on dysmenorrhoea. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to investigate the effectiveness of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in achieving a reduction in menstrual blood loss in women of reproductive years with heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches for relevant randomised controlled trials of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Register of Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychLIT, Current Contents, Biological Abstracts, Social Sciences Index and CINAHL were performed. Attempts were also made to identify trials from citation lists of review articles and drug companies were approached for unpublished data. In most cases, the first author of each included trial was contacted for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: The inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of individual NSAIDs with either each other, 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 (treatment induced) causes for their heavy menstrual blood loss. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Sixteen RCTs were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review. The reviewers extracted the data independently and odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes were estimated from the data of nine trials. The remaining seven trials were of crossover design with data unsuitable for pooling and their individual results were described in text form. MAIN RESULTS: As a group, NSAIDs were more effective than placebo at reducing heavy menstrual bleeding but less effective than either tranexamic acid or danazol. Treatment with danazol caused a shorter duration of menstruation and more adverse events than NSAIDs but this did not appear to affect the acceptability of treatment. There was a non significant trend towards greater efficacy of NSAIDs compared to oral progestogen (luteal phase) and ethamsylate but no differences were demonstrated between NSAIDs and the progesterone releasing intra-uterine system (IUS) and the oral contraceptive pill, although these results were based on very small studies. There was no evidence of a difference between the individual NSAIDs (naproxen and mefenamic acid) in reducing HMB. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: NSAIDs reduce heavy menstrual bleeding when compared with placebo but are less effective than either tranexamic acid or danazol. However, adverse events are more severe with danazol therapy. In the limited number of small scale studies suitable for evaluation, no significant difference in efficacy was demonstrated between NSAIDs and other medical treatments such as oral progestogen given in the luteal phase, ethamsylate, oral contraceptive pill and the progesterone releasing IUS.

Smoking and female infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The high prevalence of smoking among women in their reproductive years continues to be a matter of concern. The negative effects of smoking on general health are well known, but smoking may also affect fertility. The objective of the present study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to determine whether there is an association between smoking and risk of infertility in women of reproductive age, and to assess the size of this effect. In the 12 studies used for this meta-analysis, the overall value of the odds ratio (OR) for risk of infertility in women smokers versus non-smokers was 1.60 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34-1.91]. Studies of subfertile women undergoing in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment also show a reduction in fecundity among women smokers. A meta-analysis of nine studies found an OR of 0.66 (95% CI 0.49-0.88) for pregnancies per number of IVF-treated cycles in smokers versus non-smokers. Despite the potential limitations of meta-analyses of observational studies, the evidence presented in this review is compelling because of the consistency of effect across different study designs, sample size and types of outcome. However, continued reassurance is needed that the calculated overall effect is not in fact due to confounding variables.

Cancer in women with infertility.

There has been increasing concern in recent years regarding a possible link between drugs given for infertility treatment and the subsequent risk of cancer, particularly ovarian cancer. Recent epidemiological studies reassure us that any effect, if present, is likely to be small, and does not affect women who conceive with such treatment.