Lethaby A E, Cooke I, Rees M
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, 2nd Floor, National Women's Hospital, Claude Road, Epsom, Auckland, New Zealand.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000(2):CD002126. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002126.
Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in women and it accounts for 12% of all gynaecology referrals in the UK. Heavy menstrual bleeding is clinically defined as greater than, or equal to, 80mls blood loss per menstrual cycle but women may complain of excessive bleeding when their blood loss is less than 80ml. Hysterectomy is often used to treat women with this complaint but medical therapy may be a successful alternative. The intrauterine coil device was originally developed as a contraceptive but the addition of uterine relaxing hormones, or progestogens, to these devices resulted in a large reduction in menstrual blood loss. Case studies of 2 types of progesterone/progestogen releasing systems, Progestasert and Mirena, report reductions of up to 90% and dysmenorrhoea may be improved. Insertion, however, may be regarded as invasive by some women affecting its acceptability as a treatment and frequent intermenstrual bleeding and spotting is likely during the first few months.
To determine the effectiveness and acceptability of progesterone/progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices in achieving a reduction in heavy menstrual bleeding.
All studies which might describe randomised controlled trials of progesterone/progestagen-releasing intrauterine devices for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding were obtained by electronic searches of the MEDLINE 1966-1999, EMBASE 1980-1999 databases and the Cochrane Library. Companies producing progestogen releasing intrauterine devices and experts in the field were contacted for information on published and unpublished trials.
Randomised controlled trials in women of reproductive age treated with progesterone/progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices versus no treatment, placebo, or other medical or surgical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding within either the primary care, family planning or specialist clinic setting were eligible for inclusion. Women with postmenopausal bleeding, intermenstrual or irregular bleeding, or pathological causes of heavy menstrual bleeding were excluded.
Potential trials were independently assessed by three reviewers and five trials met the criteria for inclusion in the review. The reviewers extracted the data independently and data were pooled where appropriate. Odds ratios for dichtomous outcomes and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes were estimated from the data. The primary outcome was reduction in menstrual blood loss but incidence of side effects, changes in quality of life and satisfaction and acceptability measures were also assessed.
Progesterone/progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems have not been compared to placebo or no treatment. Progestasert has been compared to a number of different medical therapies in one small study but no conclusions can be made about effectiveness. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG IUS) has been compared to oral cyclical norethisterone (NET) administered on days 5-26 in one trial and was significantly more effective although there was a large reduction from baseline in both groups and these differences were not perceived by the women undergoing the treatment. Some side effects were more common in the LNG IUS group but a significantly greater proportion of women in this group were satisfied and willing to continue with their treatment. In one trial of women awaiting hysterectomy where the LNG IUS was compared with a control group taking their existing medical therapy, a higher proportion of the women in the former group cancelled their planned surgery after 6 months of treatment. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device has been compared to a surgical procedure (transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE)) in two trials. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)
月经过多是女性健康问题的一个重要原因,在英国,它占所有妇科转诊病例的12%。临床上,月经过多被定义为每个月经周期失血大于或等于80毫升,但当女性失血量少于80毫升时,她们也可能抱怨出血过多。子宫切除术常被用于治疗有此症状的女性,但药物治疗可能是一种成功的替代方法。宫内节育器最初是作为一种避孕工具开发的,但在这些装置中添加子宫松弛激素或孕激素后,月经失血量大幅减少。关于两种孕激素/孕酮释放系统(普维拉和曼月乐)的案例研究报告称,月经失血量减少了90%,痛经症状也可能得到改善。然而,对一些女性来说,放置宫内节育器可能被视为一种侵入性操作,这影响了它作为一种治疗方法的可接受性,并且在最初几个月可能会频繁出现经间期出血和点滴出血。
确定孕激素/孕酮释放宫内节育器在减少月经过多方面的有效性和可接受性。
通过对MEDLINE 1966 - 1999、EMBASE 1980 - 1999数据库以及Cochrane图书馆进行电子检索,获取所有可能描述孕激素/孕酮释放宫内节育器治疗月经过多的随机对照试验的研究。联系生产孕激素释放宫内节育器的公司以及该领域的专家,获取已发表和未发表试验的信息。
在初级保健、计划生育或专科诊所环境中,对使用孕激素/孕酮释放宫内节育器治疗月经过多的育龄女性进行的随机对照试验,与不治疗、安慰剂或其他药物或手术治疗进行比较的,符合纳入标准。排除绝经后出血、经间期或不规则出血或月经过多的病理原因的女性。
三位评审员独立评估潜在的试验,五项试验符合纳入本综述的标准。评审员独立提取数据,并在适当情况下合并数据。根据数据估计二分结果的比值比和连续结果的加权平均差。主要结果是月经失血量的减少,但也评估了副作用的发生率、生活质量的变化以及满意度和可接受性指标。
孕激素/孕酮释放宫内节育系统未与安慰剂或不治疗进行比较。在一项小型研究中,普维拉与多种不同的药物治疗进行了比较,但关于有效性无法得出结论。在一项试验中,将左炔诺孕酮宫内节育器(LNG IUS)与在第5 - 26天服用的口服周期性炔诺酮(NET)进行了比较,虽然两组的基线都有大幅下降且接受治疗的女性并未察觉到这些差异,但LNG IUS的效果显著更好。LNG IUS组的一些副作用更常见,但该组中显著更多的女性对治疗感到满意并愿意继续治疗。在一项对等待子宫切除术的女性进行的试验中,将LNG IUS与服用现有药物治疗的对照组进行比较,前一组中有更高比例的女性在治疗6个月后取消了计划中的手术。在两项试验中,将左炔诺孕酮宫内节育器与一种外科手术(子宫内膜切除术(TCRE))进行了比较。(摘要截断)