Progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems for uterine fibroids (other than preoperative medical therapy).


Journal

The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
ISSN: 1469-493X
Titre abrégé: Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100909747

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
23 11 2020
Historique:
entrez: 23 11 2020
pubmed: 24 11 2020
medline: 22 12 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Uterine fibroids can cause heavy menstrual bleeding. Medical treatments are considered to preserve fertility. It is unclear whether progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems can reduce fibroid-related symptoms. This is the first update of a Cochrane Review published in 2013. To determine the effectiveness of progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems in treating premenopausal women with uterine fibroids. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases to July 2020. We also searched trials registers for ongoing and registered trials, and checked references of relevant trials. All identified published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems in treating premenopausal women with uterine fibroids. Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. This updated review included four studies with 221 women with uterine fibroids. The evidence was very low quality, downgraded for serious risk of bias, due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUS) versus hysterectomy There was no information on the outcomes of interest, including adverse events. LNG-IUS versus low dose combined oral contraceptive (COC) At 12 months, we are uncertain whether LNG-IUS reduced the percentage of abnormal uterine bleeding, measured with the alkaline hematin test (mean difference (MD) 77.50%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 70.44 to 84.56; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence), or the pictorial blood assessment chart (PBAC; MD 34.50%, 95% CI 11.59 to 57.41; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence); increased haemoglobin levels (MD 1.50 g/dL, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.15; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence), or reduced fibroid size more than COC (MD 1.90%, 95% CI -12.24 to 16.04; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not measure adverse events. LNG-IUS versus oral progestogen (norethisterone acetate (NETA)) Compared to NETA, we are uncertain whether LNG-IUS reduced abnormal uterine bleeding more from baseline to six months (visual bleeding score; MD 23.75 points, 95% CI 1.26 to 46.24; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence); increased the percentage of change in haemoglobin from baseline to three months (MD 4.53%, 95% CI 1.46 to 7.60; 1 RCT, 48 women; very low-quality evidence), or from baseline to six months (MD 10.14%, 95% CI 5.57 to 14.71; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not measure fibroid size. Spotting (adverse event) was more likely to be reported by women with the LNG-IUS (64.3%) than by those taking NETA (30%; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence). Oral progestogen (dienogest, desogestrel) versus goserelin acetate Compared to goserelin acetate, we are uncertain whether abnormal uterine bleeding was reduced at 12 weeks with dienogest (PBAC; MD 216.00 points, 95% CI 149.35 to 282.65; 1 RCT, 14 women; very low-quality evidence) or desogestrel (PBAC; MD 78.00 points, 95% CI 28.94 to 127.06; 1 RCT, 16 women; very low-quality evidence). Vasomotor symptoms (adverse events, e.g. hot flashes) are only associated with goserelin acetate (55%), not with dienogest (1 RCT, 14 women; very low-quality evidence) or with desogestrel (1 RCT, 16 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not report fibroid size. Because of very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain whether the LNG-IUS reduces abnormal uterine bleeding or increases haemoglobin levels in premenopausal women with uterine fibroids, compared to COC or norethisterone acetate. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the LNG-IUS reduces the size of uterine fibroids compared to COC. We are uncertain whether oral progestogens reduce abnormal uterine bleeding as effectively as goserelin acetate, but women reported fewer adverse events, such as hot flashes.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Uterine fibroids can cause heavy menstrual bleeding. Medical treatments are considered to preserve fertility. It is unclear whether progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems can reduce fibroid-related symptoms. This is the first update of a Cochrane Review published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems in treating premenopausal women with uterine fibroids.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases to July 2020. We also searched trials registers for ongoing and registered trials, and checked references of relevant trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All identified published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems in treating premenopausal women with uterine fibroids.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
This updated review included four studies with 221 women with uterine fibroids. The evidence was very low quality, downgraded for serious risk of bias, due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUS) versus hysterectomy There was no information on the outcomes of interest, including adverse events. LNG-IUS versus low dose combined oral contraceptive (COC) At 12 months, we are uncertain whether LNG-IUS reduced the percentage of abnormal uterine bleeding, measured with the alkaline hematin test (mean difference (MD) 77.50%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 70.44 to 84.56; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence), or the pictorial blood assessment chart (PBAC; MD 34.50%, 95% CI 11.59 to 57.41; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence); increased haemoglobin levels (MD 1.50 g/dL, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.15; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence), or reduced fibroid size more than COC (MD 1.90%, 95% CI -12.24 to 16.04; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not measure adverse events. LNG-IUS versus oral progestogen (norethisterone acetate (NETA)) Compared to NETA, we are uncertain whether LNG-IUS reduced abnormal uterine bleeding more from baseline to six months (visual bleeding score; MD 23.75 points, 95% CI 1.26 to 46.24; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence); increased the percentage of change in haemoglobin from baseline to three months (MD 4.53%, 95% CI 1.46 to 7.60; 1 RCT, 48 women; very low-quality evidence), or from baseline to six months (MD 10.14%, 95% CI 5.57 to 14.71; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not measure fibroid size. Spotting (adverse event) was more likely to be reported by women with the LNG-IUS (64.3%) than by those taking NETA (30%; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence). Oral progestogen (dienogest, desogestrel) versus goserelin acetate Compared to goserelin acetate, we are uncertain whether abnormal uterine bleeding was reduced at 12 weeks with dienogest (PBAC; MD 216.00 points, 95% CI 149.35 to 282.65; 1 RCT, 14 women; very low-quality evidence) or desogestrel (PBAC; MD 78.00 points, 95% CI 28.94 to 127.06; 1 RCT, 16 women; very low-quality evidence). Vasomotor symptoms (adverse events, e.g. hot flashes) are only associated with goserelin acetate (55%), not with dienogest (1 RCT, 14 women; very low-quality evidence) or with desogestrel (1 RCT, 16 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not report fibroid size.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Because of very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain whether the LNG-IUS reduces abnormal uterine bleeding or increases haemoglobin levels in premenopausal women with uterine fibroids, compared to COC or norethisterone acetate. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the LNG-IUS reduces the size of uterine fibroids compared to COC. We are uncertain whether oral progestogens reduce abnormal uterine bleeding as effectively as goserelin acetate, but women reported fewer adverse events, such as hot flashes.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33226133
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008994.pub3
pmc: PMC8094271
doi:

Substances chimiques

Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal 0
Contraceptives, Oral 0
Progestins 0
Goserelin 0F65R8P09N
dienogest 46M3EV8HHE
Levonorgestrel 5W7SIA7YZW
Nandrolone 6PG9VR430D
Desogestrel 81K9V7M3A3
Norethindrone Acetate 9S44LIC7OJ
Medroxyprogesterone Acetate C2QI4IOI2G
Leuprolide EFY6W0M8TG
Lynestrenol N2Z8ALG4U5

Types de publication

Journal Article Meta-Analysis Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

CD008994

Commentaires et corrections

Type : UpdateOf

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Références

Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1986;5(3):235-41
pubmed: 3093395
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Nov 15;11:CD000547
pubmed: 29139105
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993 Nov;169(5):1266-76
pubmed: 8238195
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Feb 28;(2):CD008994
pubmed: 23450594
Fertil Steril. 2017 Jul;108(1):152-160.e4
pubmed: 28579415
Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jun;48(2):312-24
pubmed: 15805789
Semin Reprod Med. 2010 May;28(3):260-73
pubmed: 20414849
Environ Health Perspect. 2003 Jun;111(8):1037-54
pubmed: 12826476
BMC Womens Health. 2012 Mar 26;12:6
pubmed: 22448610
Hum Reprod. 1997 Mar;12(3):436-40
pubmed: 9130735
Stat Med. 2004 May 15;23(9):1351-75
pubmed: 15116347
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2016;32(5):408-11
pubmed: 26743136
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Oct;20(4):381-5
pubmed: 12383322
Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Jun;44(2):364-71
pubmed: 11344999
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011 Feb;112(2):126-30
pubmed: 21092958
Fertil Steril. 1988 Mar;49(3):404-9
pubmed: 2963759
J Appl Stat. 2018;45(9):1714-1733
pubmed: 30906098
J Thromb Haemost. 2007 Jan;5(1):133-8
pubmed: 17010149
Fertil Steril. 1995 Aug;64(2):313-20
pubmed: 7615109
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2013 Oct;22(10):807-16
pubmed: 24033092
Fertil Steril. 2007 Jun;87(6):1399-412
pubmed: 17307170
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2008 Aug;22(4):615-26
pubmed: 18372219
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2002 May 10;102(2):199-201
pubmed: 11950491
Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2005;59(1):29-35
pubmed: 15377823
Contraception. 2007 Mar;75(3):193-8
pubmed: 17303488
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1993 May;76(5):1217-23
pubmed: 8496313
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Apr 30;(4):CD002126
pubmed: 25924648
Steroids. 2000 Oct-Nov;65(10-11):585-92
pubmed: 11108863
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005 Dec 1;123(2):131-8
pubmed: 16129548
BJOG. 2017 Sep;124(10):1501-1512
pubmed: 28296146
Contraception. 2010 Jul;82(1):41-55
pubmed: 20682142
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2000 Mar;89(1):7-13
pubmed: 10733017
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012 Jan;116(1):35-8
pubmed: 21959070
Hum Reprod. 1992 Mar;7(3):328-32
pubmed: 1534089
Hum Reprod Update. 2004 May-Jun;10(3):207-20
pubmed: 15140868
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 May;202(5):420-8
pubmed: 20031112
Pak J Med Sci. 2014 Jul;30(4):834-9
pubmed: 25097527
BJOG. 2007 Dec;114(12):1510-5
pubmed: 17995495
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996 Sep;103(9):909-14
pubmed: 8813312
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011 Apr;113(1):3-13
pubmed: 21345435
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2018 Feb;27(2):148-155
pubmed: 29083258
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Dec;93(12):4664-71
pubmed: 18765509
Steroids. 2014 Aug;86:69-78
pubmed: 24832215
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990 Aug;97(8):734-9
pubmed: 2400752
Endocr Rev. 2005 May;26(3):423-38
pubmed: 15857972
Contraception. 2007 Jun;75(6 Suppl):S99-103
pubmed: 17531625
Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Nov;132(5):1252-1264
pubmed: 30303923
Obstet Gynecol. 2008 May;111(5):1129-36
pubmed: 18448745
J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2016 Jan 12;17(1):21-5
pubmed: 27026775
Contraception. 2007 Jun;75(6 Suppl):S130-3
pubmed: 17531604
Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2006 Mar;33(1):59-67
pubmed: 16504806
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Jan;172(1 Pt 1):14-8
pubmed: 7847524

Auteurs

Ussanee S Sangkomkamhang (US)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Khon Kaen Hospital, Khon Kaen, Thailand.

Pisake Lumbiganon (P)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.

Porjai Pattanittum (P)

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Public Health, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH