Qiu Jin, Cheng Jiajing, Wang Qingying, Hua Jie
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China (mainland).
Med Sci Monit. 2014 Sep 23;20:1700-13. doi: 10.12659/MSM.892126.
The aim of this study was to compare the effects of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) with conventional medical treatment in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding.
Relevant studies were identified by a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and clinical trials registries (from inception to April 2014). Randomized controlled trials comparing the LNG-IUS with conventional medical treatment (mefenamic acid, tranexamic acid, norethindrone, medroxyprogesterone acetate injection, or combined oral contraceptive pills) in patients with menorrhagia were included.
Eight randomized controlled trials that included 1170 women (LNG-IUS, n=562; conventional medical treatment, n=608) met inclusion criteria. The LNG-IUS was superior to conventional medical treatment in reducing menstrual blood loss (as measured by the alkaline hematin method or estimated by pictorial bleeding assessment chart scores). More women were satisfied with the LNG-IUS than with the use of conventional medical treatment (odds ratio [OR] 5.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.73-9.86). Compared with conventional medical treatment, the LNG-IUS was associated with a lower rate of discontinuation (14.6% vs. 28.9%, OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.20-0.74) and fewer treatment failures (9.2% vs. 31.0%, OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.10-0.34). Furthermore, quality of life assessment favored LNG-IUS over conventional medical treatment, although use of various measurements limited our ability to pool the data for more powerful evidence. Serious adverse events were statistically comparable between treatments.
The LNG-IUS was the more effective first choice for management of menorrhagia compared with conventional medical treatment. Long-term, randomized trials are required to further investigate patient-based outcomes and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the LNG-IUS and other medical treatments.
本研究旨在比较左炔诺孕酮宫内节育系统(LNG-IUS)与传统药物治疗在减少月经过多方面的效果。
通过检索MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库及临床试验注册库(从建库至2014年4月)来确定相关研究。纳入比较LNG-IUS与传统药物治疗(甲芬那酸、氨甲环酸、炔诺酮、醋酸甲羟孕酮注射剂或复方口服避孕药)治疗月经过多患者的随机对照试验。
八项随机对照试验纳入了1170名女性(LNG-IUS组562例;传统药物治疗组608例),符合纳入标准。在减少月经失血方面(通过碱性正铁血红素法测量或通过图像失血评估图表评分估算),LNG-IUS优于传统药物治疗。与使用传统药物治疗相比,更多女性对LNG-IUS感到满意(优势比[OR]5.19,95%置信区间[CI]2.73 - 9.86)。与传统药物治疗相比,LNG-IUS的停药率较低(14.6%对28.9%,OR 0.39,95%CI 0.20 - 0.74),治疗失败较少(9.2%对31.0%,OR 0.18,95%CI 0.10 - 0.34)。此外,生活质量评估显示LNG-IUS优于传统药物治疗,尽管使用的各种测量方法限制了我们汇总数据以获得更有力证据的能力。治疗之间严重不良事件在统计学上具有可比性。
与传统药物治疗相比,LNG-IUS是治疗月经过多更有效的首选方法。需要长期随机试验进一步研究基于患者的结局,并评估LNG-IUS和其他药物治疗的成本效益。