Interventions to prevent or treat heavy menstrual bleeding or pain associated with intrauterine-device use.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding and pain are common reasons women discontinue intrauterine device (IUD) use. Copper IUD (Cu IUD) users tend to experience increased menstrual bleeding, whereas levonorgestrel IUD (LNG IUD) users tend to have irregular menstruation. Medical therapies used to reduce heavy menstrual bleeding or pain associated with Cu and LNG IUD use include non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), anti-fibrinolytics and paracetamol. We analysed treatment and prevention interventions separately because the expected outcomes for treatment and prevention interventions differ. We did not combine different drug classes in the analysis as they have different mechanisms of action. This is an update of a review originally on NSAIDs. The review scope has been widened to include all interventions for treatment or prevention of heavy menstrual bleeding or pain associated with IUD use. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have assessed strategies for treatment and prevention of heavy menstrual bleeding or pain associated with IUD use, for example, pharmacotherapy and alternative therapies. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to January 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs in any language that tested strategies for treatment or prevention of heavy menstrual bleeding or pain associated with IUD (Cu IUD, LNG IUD or other IUD) use. The comparison could be no intervention, placebo or another active intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. Primary outcomes were volume of menstrual blood loss, duration of menstruation and painful menstruation. We used a random-effects model in all meta-analyses. Review authors assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 21 trials involving 3689 participants from middle- and high-income countries. Women were 18 to 45 years old and either already using an IUD or had just had one placed for contraception. The included trials examined NSAIDs and other interventions. Eleven were treatment trials, of these seven were on users of the Cu IUD, one on LNG IUD and three on an unknown type. Ten were prevention trials, six focused on Cu IUD users, and four on LNG IUD users. Sixteen trials had high risk of detection bias due to subjective assessment of pain and bleeding. Treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding Cu IUD Vitamin B1 resulted in fewer pads used per day (mean difference (MD) -7.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.50 to -5.50) and fewer bleeding days (MD -2.00, 95% CI -2.38 to -1.62; 1 trial; 110 women; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of naproxen on the volume of menstruation compared to placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.09, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.78; 1 trial, 40 women; very low-certainty evidence). Treatment with mefenamic acid resulted in less volume of blood loss compared to tranexamic acid (MD -64.26, 95% CI -105.65 to -22.87; 1 trial, 94 women; low-certainty evidence). However, there was no difference in duration of bleeding with treatment of mefenamic acid or tranexamic acid (MD 0.08 days, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.42, 2 trials, 152 women; low-certainty evidence). LNG IUD The use of ulipristal acetate in LNG IUD may not reduce the number of bleeding days in 90 days in comparison to placebo (MD -9.30 days, 95% CI -26.76 to 8.16; 1 trial, 24 women; low-certainty evidence). Unknown IUD type Mefenamic acid may not reduce volume of bleeding compared to Vitex agnus measured by pictorial blood assessment chart (MD -2.40, 95% CI -13.77 to 8.97; 1 trial; 84 women; low-certainty evidence). Treatment of pain Cu IUD Treatment with tranexamic acid and sodium diclofenac may result in little or no difference in the occurrence of pain (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 17.25; 1 trial, 38 women; very low-certainty evidence). Unknown IUD type Naproxen may reduce pain (MD 4.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 7.29; 1 trial, 33 women; low-certainty evidence). Prevention of heavy menstrual bleeding Cu IUD We found very low-certainty evidence that tolfenamic acid may prevent heavy bleeding compared to placebo (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.85; 1 trial, 310 women). There was no difference between ibuprofen and placebo in blood volume reduction (MD -14.11, 95% CI -36.04 to 7.82) and duration of bleeding (MD -0.2 days, 95% CI -1.40 to 1.0; 1 trial, 28 women, low-certainty evidence). Aspirin may not prevent heavy bleeding in comparison to paracetamol (MD -0.30, 95% CI -26.16 to 25.56; 1 trial, 20 women; very low-certainty evidence). LNG IUD Ulipristal acetate may increase the percentage of bleeding days compared to placebo (MD 9.50, 95% CI 1.48 to 17.52; 1 trial, 118 women; low-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data for analysis in a single trial comparing mifepristone and vitamin B. There were insufficient data for analysis in the single trial comparing tranexamic acid and mefenamic acid and in another trial comparing naproxen with estradiol. Prevention of pain Cu IUD There was low-certainty evidence that tolfenamic acid may not be effective to prevent painful menstruation compared to placebo (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.14; 1 trial, 310 women). Ibuprofen may not reduce menstrual cramps compared to placebo (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.11 to 8.95; 1 trial, 20 women, low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this review should be interpreted with caution due to low- and very low-certainty evidence. Included trials were limited; the majority of the evidence was derived from single trials with few participants. Further research requires larger trials and improved trial reporting. The use of vitamin B1 and mefenamic acid to treat heavy menstruation and tolfenamic acid to prevent heavy menstruation associated with Cu IUD should be investigated. More trials are needed to generate evidence for the treatment and prevention of heavy and painful menstruation associated with LNG IUD.

Influenza vaccines for preventing acute otitis media in infants and children.

BACKGROUND: Acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common infectious diseases in children. It has been reported that 64% of infants have an episode of AOM by the age of six months and 86% by one year. Although most cases of AOM are due to bacterial infection, it is commonly triggered by a viral infection. In most children AOM is self limiting, but it does carry a risk of complications. Since antibiotic treatment increases the risk of antibiotic resistance, influenza vaccines might be an effective way of reducing this risk by preventing the development of AOM. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in reducing the occurrence of acute otitis media in infants and children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov (15 February 2017). We also searched the reference lists of included studies to identify any additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing influenza vaccine with placebo or no treatment in infants and children aged younger than six years. We included children of either sex and of any ethnicity, with or without a history of recurrent AOM. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We performed statistical analyses using the random-effects and fixed-effect models and expressed the results as risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 trials (6 trials in high-income countries and 5 multicentre trials in high-, middle-, and low-income countries) involving 17,123 children aged 6 months to 6 years. Eight trials recruited participants from a healthcare setting. Ten trials (and all four trials that contributed to the primary outcome) declared funding from vaccine manufacturers. Four trials reported adequate allocation concealment, and 10 trials reported adequate blinding of participants and personnel. Attrition was low for eight trials included in the analysis.The primary outcome showed a small reduction in at least one episode of AOM over at least six months of follow-up (4 trials, 3134 children; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.02; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to -0.00; NNTB 25, 95% CI 12.5 to 100; low-quality evidence).The subgroup analyses (i.e. number of courses and types of vaccine administered) showed no differences.There was a reduction in the use of antibiotics in vaccinated children (2 trials, 1223 children; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.83; RD -0.11, 95% CI -0.16 to -0.06; moderate-quality evidence).We were unable to demonstrate whether there was any difference in the utilisation of health care. The use of influenza vaccine resulted in a significant increase in fever (7 trials, 10,615 children; RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.24; RD 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.04; low-quality evidence), rhinorrhoea (6 trials, 10,563 children; RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.29; RD 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.16; low-quality evidence), but no difference in pharyngitis. No major adverse events were reported.Differing from the protocol, the original publication of the review included a subgroup analysis of AOM episodes by season, and the secondary outcome 'types of influenza vaccine' was changed to a subgroup analysis. For this update, we removed the subgroup analyses for trial setting, season, and utilisation of health care due to the small number of trials involved. We removed Belshe 2000 from primary and secondary outcomes (courses of vaccine and types of vaccine) because it reported episodes of AOM per person. We did not perform a subgroup analysis by type of adverse event. We have reported each type of adverse event as a separate analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccine results in a small reduction in AOM. The observed reduction in the use of antibiotics needs to be considered in light of current recommended practices aimed at avoiding antibiotic overuse. Safety data from these trials were limited. The benefits may not justify the use of influenza vaccine without taking into account the vaccine efficacy in reducing influenza and safety data. We judged the quality of the evidence to be low to moderate. Additional research is needed.

Influenza vaccines for preventing acute otitis media in infants and children.

BACKGROUND: Acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common infectious diseases in children. It has been reported that 64% of infants have an episode of AOM by the age of six months and 86% by one year. Although most cases of AOM are due to bacterial infection, it is commonly triggered by a viral infection. In most children it is self limiting, but it does carry a risk of complications. Since antibiotic treatment increases the risk of antibiotic resistance, influenza vaccines might be an effective way of reducing this risk by preventing the development of AOM. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in reducing the occurrence of acute otitis media (AOM) in infants and children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1946 to July week 1, 2014), EMBASE (2010 to July 2014), CINAHL (1981 to July 2014), LILACS (1982 to July 2014), Web of Science (1955 to July 2014) and reference lists of articles to July 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing influenza vaccine with placebo or no treatment in infants and children aged younger than six years old. We included children of either sex and of any ethnicity, with or without a history of recurrent AOM. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We performed statistical analyses using the random-effects and fixed-effect models and expressed the results as risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 trials (six trials in high-income countries and four multicentre trials in high-, middle- and low-income countries) involving 16,707 children aged six months to six years. Eight trials recruited participants from a healthcare setting. Nine trials (and all five trials that contributed to the primary outcome) declared funding from vaccine manufacturers. Four trials reported adequate allocation concealment and nine trials reported adequate blinding of participants and personnel. Attrition was low for all trials included in the analysis.The primary outcome showed a small reduction in at least one episode of AOM over at least six months of follow-up (five trials, 4736 participants: RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.96; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.02; NNTB 25, 95% CI 15 to 50).The subgroup analyses (i.e. number of courses, settings, seasons or types of vaccine administered) showed no differences.There was a reduction in the use of antibiotics in vaccinated children (two trials, 1223 participants: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.83; RD -0.15, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.00).There was no significant difference in the utilisation of health care for the one trial that provided sufficient information to be included. The use of influenza vaccine resulted in a significant increase in fever (six trials, 10,199 participants: RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.24; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.05) and rhinorrhoea (six trials, 10,563 children: RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.29; RD 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.16) but no difference in pharyngitis. No major adverse events were reported.Compared to the protocol, the review included a subgroup analysis of AOM episodes by season, and changed the types of influenza vaccine from a secondary outcome to a subgroup analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccine results in a small reduction in AOM. The observed reduction with the use of antibiotics needs to be considered in the light of current recommended practices aimed at avoiding antibiotic overuse. Safety data from these trials are limited. The benefits may not justify the use of influenza vaccine without taking into account the vaccine efficacy in reducing influenza and safety data. The quality of the evidence was high to moderate. Additional research is needed.