Standardising outcome reporting for clinical trials of interventions for heavy menstrual bleeding: Development of a core outcome set.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a core outcome set for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). DESIGN: Core outcome set (COS) development methodology described by the COMET initiative. SETTING: University hospital gynaecology department, online international survey and web-based international consensus meetings. POPULATION OR SAMPLE: An international collaboration of stakeholders (clinicians, patients, academics, guideline developers) from 20 countries and 6 continents. METHODS: Phase 1: Systematic review of previously reported outcomes to identify potential core outcomes. Phase 2: Qualitative studies with patients to identify outcomes most important to them. Phase 3: Online two-round Delphi survey to achieve consensus about which outcomes are most important. Phase 4: A consensus meeting to finalise the COS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome importance was assessed in the Delphi survey on a 9-point scale. RESULTS: From the 'long list' of 114, 10 outcomes were included in the final COS: subjective blood loss; flooding; menstrual cycle metrics; severity of dysmenorrhoea; number of days with dysmenorrhoea; quality of life; adverse events; patient satisfaction; number of patients going on to have further treatment for HMB and haemoglobin level. CONCLUSIONS: The final COS includes variables that are feasible for use in clinical trials in all resource settings and apply to all known underlying causes of the symptom of HMB. These outcomes should be reported in all future trials of interventions, their systematic reviews, and clinical guidelines to underpin policy.

Combined oral contraceptive pill for primary dysmenorrhoea.

BACKGROUND: Dysmenorrhoea (painful menstrual cramps) is common and a major cause of pain in women. Combined oral contraceptives (OCPs) are often used in the management of primary dysmenorrhoea, but there is a need for reporting the benefits and harms. Primary dysmenorrhoea is defined as painful menstrual cramps without pelvic pathology. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of combined oral contraceptive pills for the management of primary dysmenorrhoea. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date 28 March 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing all combined OCPs with other combined OCPs, placebo, or management with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Participants had to have primary dysmenorrhoea, diagnosed by ruling out pelvic pathology through pelvic examination or ultrasound. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were pain score after treatment, improvement in pain, and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 RCTs (3723 women). Eleven RCTs compared combined OCP with placebo, eight compared different dosages of combined OCP, one compared two OCP regimens with placebo, and one compared OCP with NSAIDs. OCP versus placebo or no treatment OCPs reduce pain in women with dysmenorrhoea more effectively than placebo. Six studies reported treatment effects on different scales; the result can be interpreted as a moderate reduction in pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.74 to -0.41; I² = 28%; 6 RCTs, 588 women; high-quality evidence). Six studies also reported pain improvement as a dichotomous outcome (risk ratio (RR) 1.65, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.10; I² = 69%; 6 RCTs, 717 women; low-quality evidence). The data suggest that in women with a 28% chance of improvement in pain with placebo or no treatment, the improvement in women using combined OCP will be between 37% and 60%. Compared to placebo or no treatment, OCPs probably increase the risk of any adverse events (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.43; I² = 79%; 7 RCTs, 1025 women; moderate-quality evidence), and may also increase the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.77, 95% CI 0.49 to 6.43; I² = 22%; 4 RCTs, 512 women; low-quality evidence). Women who received OCPs had an increased risk of irregular bleeding compared to women who received placebo or no treatment (RR 2.63, 95% CI 2.11 to 3.28; I² = 29%; 7 RCTs, 1025 women; high-quality evidence). In women with a risk of irregular bleeding of 18% if using placebo or no treatment, the risk would be between 39% and 60% if using combined OCP. OCPs probably increase the risk of headaches (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.04; I² = 44%; 5 RCTs, 656 women; moderate-quality evidence), and nausea (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.30; I² = 39%; 8 RCTs, 948 women; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of OCP on weight gain (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.75 to 4.45; 1 RCT, 76 women; low-quality evidence). OCPs may slightly reduce requirements for additional medication (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.98; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 163 women; low-quality evidence), and absence from work (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.97; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 148 women; low-quality evidence). One OCP versus another OCP Continuous use of OCPs (no pause or inactive tablets after the usual 21 days of hormone pills) may reduce pain in women with dysmenorrhoea more effectively than the standard regimen (SMD -0.73, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.34; 2 RCTs, 106 women; low-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine if there was a difference in pain improvement between ethinylestradiol 20 µg and ethinylestradiol 30 µg OCPs (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.74; 1 RCT, 326 women; moderate-quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference between third- and fourth-generation and first- and second-generation OCPs (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; 1 RCT, 178 women; moderate-quality evidence). The standard regimen of OCPs may slightly increase the risk of any adverse events over the continuous regimen (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.22; I² = 76%; 3 RCTs, 602 women; low-quality evidence), and probably increases the risk of irregular bleeding (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.69; 2 RCTs, 379 women; moderate-quality evidence). Due to lack of studies, it is uncertain if there is a difference between continuous and standard regimen OCPs in serious adverse events (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.24; 1 RCT, 212 women), headaches (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.76; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 435 women), or nausea (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.30; I² = 23%; 2 RCTs, 435 women) (all very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if one type of OCP reduces absence from work more than the other (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.99; 1 RCT, 445 women; very low-quality evidence). OCPs versus NSAIDs There were insufficient data to determine whether OCPs were more effective than NSAIDs for pain (mean difference -0.30, 95% CI -5.43 to 4.83; 1 RCT, 91 women; low-quality evidence). The study did not report on adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: OCPs are effective for treating dysmenorrhoea, but they cause irregular bleeding, and probably headache and nausea. Long-term effects were not covered in this review. Continuous use of OCPs was probably more effective than the standard regimen but safety should be ensured with long-term data. Due to lack of data, we are uncertain whether NSAIDs are better than OCPs for treating dysmenorrhoea.

Aromatase inhibitors (letrozole) for ovulation induction in infertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most common cause of infrequent periods (oligomenorrhoea) and absence of periods (amenorrhoea). It affects about 5% to 20% of women worldwide and often leads to anovulatory infertility. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are a class of drugs that were introduced for ovulation induction in 2001. Since about 2001 clinical trials have reached differing conclusions as to whether the AI, letrozole, is at least as effective as the first-line treatment clomiphene citrate (CC), a selective oestrogen receptor modulator (SERM). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of AIs (letrozole) (with or without adjuncts) compared to SERMs (with or without adjuncts) for infertile women with anovulatory PCOS for ovulation induction followed by timed intercourse or intrauterine insemination. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following sources, from their inception to 4 November 2021, to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO. We also checked reference lists of relevant trials, searched the trial registers and contacted experts in the field for any additional trials. We did not restrict the searches by language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all RCTs of AIs used alone or with other medical therapies for ovulation induction in women of reproductive age with anovulatory PCOS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted the data and assessed risks of bias using RoB 1. We pooled trials where appropriate using a fixed-effect model to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for most outcomes, and risk differences (RDs) for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). The primary outcomes were live birth rate and OHSS rate. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and multiple pregnancy rates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for each comparison using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: This is a substantive update of a previous review; of six previously included trials, we excluded four from this update and moved two to 'awaiting classification' due to concerns about validity of trial data. We included five additional trials for this update that now includes a total of 41 RCTs (6522 women). The AI, letrozole, was used in all trials. Letrozole compared to SERMs with or without adjuncts followed by timed intercourse Live birth rates were higher with letrozole (with or without adjuncts) compared to SERMs followed by timed intercourse (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.11; I2 = 0%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 10; 11 trials, 2060 participants; high-certainty evidence). This suggests that in women with a 20% chance of live birth using SERMs, the live birth rate in women using letrozole with or without adjuncts would be 27% to 35%. There is high-certainty evidence that OHSS rates are similar with letrozole or SERMs (0.5% in both arms: risk difference (RD) -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; I2 = 0%; 10 trials, 1848 participants; high-certainty evidence). There is evidence for a higher pregnancy rate in favour of letrozole (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.45 to 1.98; I2 = 0%; NNTB = 10; 23 trials, 3321 participants; high-certainty evidence). This suggests that in women with a 24% chance of clinical pregnancy using SERMs, the clinical pregnancy rate in women using letrozole with or without adjuncts would be 32% to 39%. There is little or no difference between treatment groups in the rate of miscarriage per pregnancy (25% with SERMs versus 24% with letrozole: OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.32; I2 = 0%; 15 trials, 736 participants; high-certainty evidence) and multiple pregnancy rate (2.2% with SERMs versus 1.6% with letrozole: OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.32; I2 = 0%; 14 trials, 2247 participants; high-certainty evidence). However, a funnel plot showed mild asymmetry, indicating that some trials in favour of SERMs might be missing.  Letrozole compared to laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) One trial reported very low-certainty evidence that live birth rates may be higher with letrozole compared to LOD (OR 2.07, 95% CI 0.99 to 4.32; 1 trial, 141 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This suggests that in women with a 22% chance of live birth using LOD with or without adjuncts, the live birth rate in women using letrozole with or without adjuncts would be 24% to 47%. No trial reported OHSS rates. Due to the low-certainty evidence we are uncertain if letrozole improves pregnancy rates compared to LOD (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.28; I² = 0%; 3 trials, 367 participants; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that in women with a 29% chance of clinical pregnancy using LOD with or without adjuncts, the clinical pregnancy rate in women using letrozole with or without adjuncts would be 28% to 45%. There seems to be no evidence of a difference in miscarriage rates per pregnancy comparing letrozole to LOD (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.92; I² = 0%; 3 trials, 122 participants; low-certainty evidence). This also applies to multiple pregnancies (OR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 74.90; 1 trial, 141 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Letrozole appears to improve live birth rates and pregnancy rates in infertile women with anovulatory PCOS, compared to SERMs, when used for ovulation induction, followed by intercourse. There is high-certainty evidence that OHSS rates are similar with letrozole or SERMs. There was high-certainty evidence of no difference in miscarriage rate and multiple pregnancy rate. We are uncertain if letrozole increases live birth rates compared to LOD. In this update, we added good quality trials and removed trials with concerns over data validity, thereby upgrading the certainty of the evidence base.

Interventions for heavy menstrual bleeding; overview of Cochrane reviews and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is excessive menstrual blood loss that interferes with women's quality of life, regardless of the absolute amount of bleeding. It is a very common condition in women of reproductive age, affecting 2 to 5 of every 10 women. Diverse treatments, either medical (hormonal or non-hormonal) or surgical, are currently available for HMB, with different effectiveness, acceptability, costs and side effects. The best treatment will depend on the woman's age, her intention to become pregnant, the presence of other symptoms, and her personal views and preferences. OBJECTIVES: To identify, systematically assess and summarise all evidence from studies included in Cochrane Reviews on treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), using reviews with comparable participants and outcomes; and to present a ranking of the first- and second-line treatments for HMB. METHODS: We searched for published Cochrane Reviews of HMB interventions in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The primary outcomes were menstrual bleeding and satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, adverse events and the requirement of further treatment. Two review authors independently selected the systematic reviews, extracted data and assessed quality, resolving disagreements by discussion. We assessed review quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool and evaluated the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods. We grouped the interventions into first- and second-line treatments, considering participant characteristics (desire for future pregnancy, failure of previous treatment, candidacy for surgery). First-line treatments included medical interventions, and second-line treatments included both the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and surgical treatments; thus the LNG-IUS is included in both groups. We developed different networks for first- and second-line treatments. We performed network meta-analyses of all outcomes, except for quality of life, where we performed pairwise meta-analyses. We reported the mean rank, the network estimates for mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the certainty of evidence (moderate, low or very low certainty). We also analysed different endometrial ablation and resection techniques separately from the main network: transcervical endometrial resection (TCRE) with or without rollerball, other resectoscopic endometrial ablation (REA), microwave non-resectoscopic endometrial ablation (NREA), hydrothermal ablation NREA, bipolar NREA, balloon NREA and other NREA. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library up to July 2021. We updated the reviews that were over two years old. In July 2020, we started the overview with no new reviews about the topic. The included medical interventions were: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antifibrinolytics (tranexamic acid), combined oral contraceptives (COC), combined vaginal ring (CVR), long-cycle and luteal oral progestogens, LNG-IUS, ethamsylate and danazol (included to provide indirect evidence), which were compared to placebo. Surgical interventions were: open (abdominal), minimally invasive (vaginal or laparoscopic) and unspecified (or surgeon's choice of route of) hysterectomy, REA, NREA, unspecified endometrial ablation (EA) and LNG-IUS. We grouped the interventions as follows. First-line treatments Evidence from 26 studies with 1770 participants suggests that LNG-IUS results in a large reduction of menstrual blood loss (MBL; mean rank 2.4, MD -105.71 mL/cycle, 95% CI -201.10 to -10.33; low certainty evidence); antifibrinolytics probably reduce MBL (mean rank 3.7, MD -80.32 mL/cycle, 95% CI -127.67 to -32.98; moderate certainty evidence); long-cycle progestogen reduces MBL (mean rank 4.1, MD -76.93 mL/cycle, 95% CI -153.82 to -0.05; low certainty evidence), and NSAIDs slightly reduce MBL (mean rank 6.4, MD -40.67 mL/cycle, -84.61 to 3.27; low certainty evidence; reference comparator mean rank 8.9). We are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining interventions and the sensitivity analysis for reduction of MBL, as the evidence was rated as very low certainty. We are uncertain of the true effect of any intervention (very low certainty evidence) on the perception of improvement and satisfaction. Second-line treatments Bleeding reduction is related to the type of hysterectomy (total or supracervical/subtotal), not the route, so we combined all routes of hysterectomy for bleeding outcomes. We assessed the reduction of MBL without imputed data (11 trials, 1790 participants) and with imputed data (15 trials, 2241 participants). Evidence without imputed data suggests that hysterectomy (mean rank 1.2, OR 25.71, 95% CI 1.50 to 439.96; low certainty evidence) and REA (mean rank 2.8, OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.29 to 5.66; low certainty evidence) result in a large reduction of MBL, and NREA probably results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 2.0, OR 3.32, 95% CI 1.53 to 7.23; moderate certainty evidence). Evidence with imputed data suggests hysterectomy results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 1.0, OR 14.31, 95% CI 2.99 to 68.56; low certainty evidence), and NREA probably results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 2.2, OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.29 to 6.05; moderate certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the true effect for REA (very low certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on amenorrhoea (very low certainty evidence). Evidence from 27 trials with 4284 participants suggests that minimally invasive hysterectomy results in a large increase in satisfaction (mean rank 1.3, OR 7.96, 95% CI 3.33 to 19.03; low certainty evidence), and NREA also increases satisfaction (mean rank 3.6, OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.33; low certainty evidence), but we are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining interventions (very low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests LNG-IUS is the best first-line treatment for reducing menstrual blood loss (MBL); antifibrinolytics are probably the second best, and long-cycle progestogens are likely the third best. We cannot make conclusions about the effect of first-line treatments on perception of improvement and satisfaction, as evidence was rated as very low certainty. For second-line treatments, evidence suggests hysterectomy is the best treatment for reducing bleeding, followed by REA and NREA. We are uncertain of the effect on amenorrhoea, as evidence was rated as very low certainty. Minimally invasive hysterectomy may result in a large increase in satisfaction, and NREA also increases satisfaction, but we are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining second-line interventions, as evidence was rated as very low certainty.

Surveys of clinician and patient attitudes to an add-on for in vitro fertilisation.

BACKGROUND: Add-ons at the time of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) have become commonplace, despite a general lack of evidence that they are effective and safe. The 'Colorado Protocol' is a commonly used add-on consisting of aspirin, steroid and an antibiotic. Before commencing planning for a clinical trial evaluating the Colorado Protocol, researchers and funders need evidence that the Colorado Protocol is being prescribed, and to be assured that sufficient numbers of participants can be recruited for a clinical trial. AIMS: To survey fertility clinicians and patients on attitudes toward use of add-ons during IVF, willingness of patients to be randomly assigned to an add-on trial treatment or placebo, and what would be the clinically meaningful outcomes, using the Colorado Protocol as a test case. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two online surveys were conducted: clinicians from fertility clinics across the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand; and patients from Auckland-based clinics and NZ patient support groups. RESULTS: Of 58 clinicians, 44 (75%) had recommended an add-on within the preceding year. Thirty-nine (67%) clinicians were aware of the Colorado Protocol, with 17 (29%) having recommended it within the preceding year. Of the 289 patients, 80% indicated willingness to take trial medications during IVF, and 68% were willing to be randomly assigned to the placebo arm of a trial. The median perceived minimum clinically important difference in live births in both samples was 5%. CONCLUSIONS: A future trial of this add-on in IVF would be supported by patients in the context of the New Zealand fertility healthcare system.

IVF add-ons in Australia and New Zealand: A systematic assessment of IVF clinic websites.

BACKGROUND: In vitro fertilisation (IVF) 'add-ons' are extra (non-essential) procedures, techniques or medicines, which usually claim to increase the chance of a successful IVF outcome. Use of IVF add-ons is believed to be widespread in many settings; however, information about add-on availability in Australasia is lacking. AIMS: To understand which add-ons are advertised on Australasian IVF clinic websites, and what is the evidence for their benefit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic assessment of website content was undertaken between December 2019-April 2020, capturing IVF add-ons advertised, including costs, claims of benefit, statements of risk or limitations, and evidence of effectiveness for improving live birth and pregnancy. A literature review assessed the strength and quality of evidence for each add-on. RESULTS: Of the 40 included IVF clinics websites, 31 (78%) listed one or more IVF add-ons. A total of 21 different add-ons or add-on groups were identified, the most common being preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (offered by 63% of clinics), time-lapse systems (33%) and assisted hatching (28%). In most cases (77%), descriptions of the IVF add-ons were accompanied by claims of benefit. Most claims (90%) were not quantified and very few referenced scientific publications to support the claims (9.8%). None of the add-ons were supported by high-quality evidence of benefit for pregnancy or live birth rates. The cost of IVF add-ons varied from $0 to $3700 (AUD/NZD). CONCLUSIONS: There is widespread advertising of add-ons on IVF clinic websites, which report benefits for add-ons that are not supported by high-quality evidence.

GM-CSF (granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor) supplementation in culture media for women undergoing assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: GM-CSF (granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor) is a growth factor that is used to supplement culture media in an effort to improve clinical outcomes for those undergoing assisted reproduction. It is worth noting that the use of GM-CSF-supplemented culture media often adds a further cost to the price of an in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycle. The purpose of this review was to assess the available evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness and safety of GM-CSF-supplemented culture media. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of GM-CSF-supplemented human embryo culture media versus culture media not supplemented with GM-CSF, in women or couples undergoing assisted reproduction. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard methodology recommended by Cochrane. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, DARE, OpenGrey, PubMed, Google Scholar, and two trials registers on 15 October 2019, checked references of relevant papers and communicated with experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing GM-CSF (including G-CSF (granulocyte colony-stimulating factor))-supplemented embryo culture media versus any other non-GM-CSF-supplemented embryo culture media (control) in women undergoing assisted reproduction. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were live birth and miscarriage rate. The secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, multiple gestation, preterm birth, birth defects, aneuploidy, and stillbirth rates. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methodology. We undertook one comparison, GM-CSF-supplemented culture media versus culture media not supplemented with GM-CSF, for those undergoing assisted reproduction. MAIN RESULTS: We included five studies, the data for three of which (1532 participants) were meta-analysed. We are uncertain whether GM-CSF-supplemented culture media makes any difference to the live-birth rate when compared to using conventional culture media not supplemented with GM-CSF (odds ratio (OR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.52, 2 RCTs, N = 1432, I2 = 69%, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of live birth associated with conventional culture media not supplemented with GM-CSF was 22%, the rate with the use of GM-CSF-supplemented culture media would be between 21% and 30%. We are uncertain whether GM-CSF-supplemented culture media makes any difference to the miscarriage rate when compared to using conventional culture media not supplemented with GM-CSF (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.36, 2 RCTs, N = 1432, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). This evidence suggests that if the miscarriage rate associated with conventional culture media not supplemented with GM-CSF was 4%, the rate with the use of GM-CSF-supplemented culture media would be between 2% and 5%. Furthermore, we are uncertain whether GM-CSF-supplemented culture media makes any difference to the following outcomes: clinical pregnancy (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.45, 3 RCTs, N = 1532 women, I2 = 67%, low-quality evidence); multiple gestation (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.10, 2 RCTs, N = 1432, I2 = 35%, very low-quality evidence); preterm birth (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.04, 2 RCTs, N = 1432, I2 = 76%, very low-quality evidence); birth defects (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.59 to 3.01, I2 = 0%, 2 RCTs, N = 1432, low-quality evidence); and aneuploidy (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.26, I2 = 0%, 2 RCTs, N = 1432, low-quality evidence). We were unable to undertake analysis of stillbirth, as there were no events in either arm of the two studies that assessed this outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the very low to low quality of the evidence, we cannot be certain whether GM-CSF is any more or less effective than culture media not supplemented with GM-CSF for clinical outcomes that reflect effectiveness and safety. It is important that independent information on the available evidence is made accessible to those considering using GM-CSF-supplemented culture media. The claims from marketing information that GM-CSF has a positive effect on pregnancy rates are not supported by the available evidence presented here; further well-designed, properly powered RCTs are needed to lend certainty to the evidence.

Interventions commonly available during pandemics for heavy menstrual bleeding: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Within the context of heavy menstrual bleeding, pandemics impact upon women's assessment and treatment by healthcare providers. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews evaluating interventions for heavy menstrual bleeding that are commonly available during pandemics. METHODS: We sought published Cochrane Reviews, evaluating interventions that can continue during pandemics for women with heavy menstrual bleeding with no known underlying cause. We identified Cochrane Reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in June 2020. The primary outcome was menstrual bleeding. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, patient satisfaction, side effects, and serious adverse events. We undertook the selection of systematic reviews, data extraction, and quality assessment in duplicate. We resolved any disagreements by discussion. We assessed review quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool, and the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included four Cochrane Reviews, with 11 comparisons, data from 44 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and 3196 women. We assessed all the reviews to be high quality. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) NSAIDs may be more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding than placebo (mean difference (MD) -124 mL per cycle, 95% confidence interval (CI) -186 to -62 mL per cycle; 1 RCT, 11 women; low-certainty evidence). Mefenamic acid may be similar to naproxen (MD 21 mL per cycle, 95% CI -6 to 48 mL per cycle; 2 RCTs, 61 women; low-certainty evidence), and NSAIDs may be similar to combined hormonal contraceptives for heavy menstrual bleeding (MD 25 mL per cycle, 95% CI -22 to 73 mL per cycle; 1 RCT, 26 women; low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs may be be less effective in reducing menstrual bleeding than antifibrinolytics (relative risk (RR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85; 2 RCTs, 161 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAIDs reduce menstrual blood loss more than short-cycle progestogens (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.32; 1 RCT 32 women; very low-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics Antifibrinolytics appear to be more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding than placebo (MD -53 mL per cycle, 95% CI -63 to -44 mL per cycle; 4 RCTs, 565 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may be similar to placebo on the incidence of side effects (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18; 1 RCT, 297 women; low-certainty evidence), and they are probably similar on the incidence of serious adverse events (thrombotic events; RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.00 to 2.46; 2 RCT, 468 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may be more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding than short-cycle progestogen (MD -111 mL per cycle, 95% CI -178 mL to -44 mL per cycle; 1 RCT, 46 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics are similar to short-cycle progestogens on quality of life (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.76 to 3.64; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-certainty evidence), patient satisfaction (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.39; 1 RCT, 42 women; very low-certainty evidence), or side effects (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; 3 RCTs, 211 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics are more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding when compared with long-cycle progestogen (MD -9 points per cycle, 95% CI -30 to 12 points per cycle; 2 RCTs, 184 women; low-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may increase self-reported improvement in menstrual bleeding when compared with long-cycle medroxyprogesterone acetate (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.61; 1 RCT, 94 women; low-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may be similar to long-cycle progestogens on quality of life (MD 5, 95% CI -2.49 to 12.49; 1 RCT, 90 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics are similar to long-cycle progestogens on side effects (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.00; 2 RCTs, 184 women; very low-certainty evidence). There were no trials comparing antifibrinolytics to combined hormonal contraceptives. Combined hormonal contraceptives Combined hormonal contraceptives appear to be more effective for heavy menstrual bleeding than placebo or no treatment (RR 13.25, 95% CI 2.94 to 59.64; 2 RCTs, 363 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Combined hormonal contraceptives are probably similar to placebo on the incidence of side effects (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.60; 2 RCTs, 411 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Progestogens There were no trials comparing progestogens to placebo. Limitations in the evidence included risk of bias in the primary RCTs, inconsistency between the primary RCTs, and imprecision in effect estimates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that antifibrinolytics and combined hormonal contraceptives reduce heavy menstrual bleeding compared with placebo. There is low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs reduce heavy menstrual bleeding compared with placebo. There is low-certainty evidence that antifibrinolytics are more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding when compared with NSAIDs and short-cycle progestogens, but we are unable to draw conclusions about the effects of antifibrinolytics compared to long-cycle progestogens, on low-certainty evidence.

Non-steroidal 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. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduce prostaglandin levels, which are elevated in women with excessive menstrual bleeding and also may have a beneficial effect on dysmenorrhoea. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of NSAIDs in achieving a reduction in menstrual blood loss (MBL) in women of reproductive years with HMB. SEARCH METHODS: We searched, in April 2019, the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility specialised register, Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online (CENTRAL CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the clinical trial registries and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: The inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of individual NSAIDs or combined with other medical therapy with 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 HMB. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified 19 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (759 women) that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review and two review authors independently extracted data. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes from the data of nine trials. We described in data tables the results of the remaining seven cross-over trials with data unsuitable for pooling, one trial with skewed data, and one trial with missing variances. One trial had no data available for analysis. MAIN RESULTS: As a group, NSAIDs were more effective than placebo at reducing HMB but less effective than 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, based on trials from 1980 to 1990. However, currently danazol is not a usual or recommended treatment for HMB. There was no clear evidence of difference between NSAIDs and the other treatments (oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, an older progesterone-releasing intrauterine system and the oral contraceptive pill (OCP), but most studies were underpowered. There was no evidence of a difference between the individual NSAIDs (naproxen and mefenamic acid) in reducing HMB. The evidence quality ranged from low to moderate, the main limitations being risk of bias and imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: NSAIDs reduce HMB when compared with placebo, but are less effective than 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, there was no clear evidence of a difference in efficacy between NSAIDs and other medical treatments such as oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, OCP or the older progesterone-releasing intrauterine system.

Temperature of embryo culture for assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: 'Infertility' is defined as the failure to achieve pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected sexual intercourse. One in six couples experience a delay in becoming pregnant. In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is one of the assisted reproductive techniques used to enable couples to achieve a live birth. One of the processes involved in IVF is embryo culture in an incubator, where a stable environment is created and maintained. The incubators are set at approximately 37°C, which is based on the human core body temperature, although several studies have shown that this temperature may in fact be lower in the female reproductive tract and that this could be beneficial. In this review we have included randomised controlled trials which compared different temperatures of embryo culture. OBJECTIVES: To assess different temperatures of embryo culture for human assisted reproduction, which may lead to higher live birth rates. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases and trial registers: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, clinicaltrials.gov, The World Health Organization International Trials Registry Platform search portal, DARE, Web of Knowledge, OpenGrey, LILACS database, PubMed and Google Scholar. Furthermore, we manually searched the references of relevant articles and contacted experts in the field to obtain additional data. We did not restrict the search by language or publication status. We performed the last search on 6 March 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of articles retrieved by the search. Full texts of potentially eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were obtained and screened. We included all RCTs which compared different temperatures of embryo culture in IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), with a minimum difference in temperature between the two incubators of ≥ 0.5°C. The search process is shown in the PRISMA flow chart. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data from the included studies; the third review author resolved any disagreements. We contacted trial authors to provide additional data. The primary review outcomes were live birth and miscarriage. Clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy and adverse events were secondary outcomes. All extracted data were dichotomous outcomes, and odds ratios (OR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs, with a total of 563 women, that compared incubation of embryos at 37.0°C or 37.1°C with a lower incubator temperature (37.0°C versus 36.6°C, 37.1°C versus 36.0°C, 37.0° versus 36.5°C). Live birth, miscarriage, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy and multiple pregnancy were reported. After additional information from the authors, we confirmed one study as having no adverse events; the other two studies did not report adverse events. We did not perform a meta-analysis as there were not enough studies included per outcome. Live birth was not graded since there were no data of interest available. The evidence for the primary outcome, miscarriage, was of very low quality. The evidence for the secondary outcomes, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy and multiple pregnancy was also of very low quality. We downgraded the evidence because of high risk of bias (for performance bias) and imprecision due to limited included studies and wide CIs.Only one study reported the primary outcome, live birth (n = 52). They performed randomisation at the level of oocytes and not per woman, and used a paired design whereby two embryos, one from 36.0°C and one from 37.0°C, were transferred. The data from this study were not interpretable in a meaningful way and therefore not presented. Only one study reported miscarriage. We are uncertain whether incubation at a lower temperature decreases the miscarriage (odds ratio (OR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.55; 1 study, N = 412; very low-quality evidence).Of the two studies that reported clinical pregnancy, only one of them performed randomisation per woman. We are uncertain whether a lower temperature improves clinical pregnancy compared to 37°C for embryo incubation (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.60; 1 study, N = 412; very low-quality evidence). For the outcome, ongoing pregnancy, we are uncertain if a lower temperature is better than 37°C (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.62; 1 study, N = 412; very low quality-evidence). Multiple pregnancy was reported by two studies, one of which used a paired design, which made it impossible to report the data per temperature. We are uncertain if a temperature lower than 37°C reduces multiple pregnancy (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.07; 1 study, N = 412; very low-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to make a conclusion regarding adverse events, as no studies reported data suitable for analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review evaluated different temperatures for embryo culture during IVF. There is a lack of evidence for the majority of outcomes in this review. Based on very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain if incubating at a lower temperature than 37°C improves pregnancy outcomes. More RCTs are needed for comparing different temperatures of embryo culture which require reporting of clinical outcomes as live birth, miscarriage, clinical pregnancy and adverse events.

Endometrial resection and ablation versus hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in women of reproductive age, causing them physical problems, social disruption and reducing their quality of life. Medical therapy has traditionally been first-line therapy. Surgical treatment of HMB often follows failed or ineffective medical therapy. The definitive treatment is hysterectomy, but this is a major surgical procedure with significant physical and emotional complications, as well as social and economic costs. Less invasive surgical techniques, such as endometrial resection and ablation, have been developed with the purpose of improving menstrual symptoms by removing or ablating the entire thickness of the endometrium. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of techniques of endometrial destruction by any means versus hysterectomy by any means for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. SEARCH METHODS: Electronic searches for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) targeted-but were not limited to-the following: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's specialised register, CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the ongoing trial registries. We made attempts to identify trials by examining citation lists of review articles and guidelines and by performing handsearching. Searches were performed in 1999, 2007, 2008, 2013 and on 10 December 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Any RCTs that compared techniques of endometrial resection or ablation (by any means) with hysterectomy (by any technique) for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding in premenopausal women. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed trials for risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: We identified nine RCTs that fulfilled our inclusion criteria for this review. For two trials, the review authors identified multiple publications that assessed different outcomes at different postoperative time points for the same women. No included trials used third generation techniques.Clinical measures of improved bleeding symptoms and satisfaction rates were observed in women who had undergone hysterectomy compared to endometrial ablation. A slightly lower proportion of women who underwent endometrial ablation perceived improvement in bleeding symptoms at one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.93; 4 studies, 650 women, I² = 31%; low-quality evidence), at two years (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99; 2 studies, 292 women, I² = 53%) and at four years (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99; 2 studies, 237 women, I² = 79%). Women in the endometrial ablation group also showed improvement in pictorial blood loss assessment chart compared to their baseline (PBAC) score at one year (MD 24.40, 95% CI 16.01 to 32.79; 1 study, 68 women; moderate-quality evidence) and at two years (MD 44.00, 95% CI 36.09 to 51.91; 1 study, 68 women). Repeat surgery resulting from failure of the initial treatment was more likely to be needed after endometrial ablation than after hysterectomy at one year (RR 16.17, 95% CI 5.53 to 47.24; 927 women; 7 studies; I2 = 0%), at two years (RR 34.06, 95% CI 9.86 to 117.65; 930 women; 6 studies; I2 = 0%), at three years (RR 22.90, 95% CI 1.42 to 370.26; 172 women; 1 study) and at four years (RR 36.32, 95% CI 5.09 to 259.21;197 women; 1 study). The satisfaction rate was lower amongst those who had endometrial ablation at two years after surgery (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.95; 4 studies, 567 women, I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), and no evidence of clear difference was reported between post-treatment satisfaction rates in groups at other follow-up times (1 and 4 years).Most adverse events, both major and minor, were more likely after hysterectomy during hospital stay. Women who had an endometrial ablation were less likely to experience sepsis (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.31; participants = 621; studies = 4; I2 = 62%), blood transfusion (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.59; 791 women; 5 studies; I2 = 0%), pyrexia (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.35; 605 women; 3 studies; I2 = 66%), vault haematoma (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.34; 858 women; 5 studies; I2 = 0%) and wound haematoma (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.53; 202 women; 1 study) before hospital discharge. After discharge from hospital, the only difference that was reported for this group was a higher rate of infection (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.58; 172 women; 1 study).Recovery time was shorter in the endometrial ablation group, considering hospital stay, time to return to normal activities and time to return to work; we did not, however, pool these data owing to high heterogeneity. Some outcomes (such as a woman's perception of bleeding and proportion of women requiring further surgery for HMB), generated a low GRADE score, suggesting that further research in these areas is likely to change the estimates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Endometrial resection and ablation offers an alternative to hysterectomy as a surgical treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding. Both procedures are effective, and satisfaction rates are high. Although hysterectomy offers permanent and immediate relief from heavy menstrual bleeding, it is associated with a longer operating time and recovery period. Hysterectomy also has higher rates of postoperative complications such as sepsis, blood transfusion and haematoma (vault and wound). The initial cost of endometrial destruction is lower than that of hysterectomy but, because retreatment is often necessary, the cost difference narrows over time.

Semen preparation techniques for intrauterine insemination.

BACKGROUND: Semen preparation techniques for assisted reproduction, including intrauterine insemination (IUI), were developed to select the motile morphologically normal spermatozoa. The yield of many motile, morphologically normal spermatozoa might influence treatment choices and therefore outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of three different semen preparation techniques (gradient; swim-up; wash and centrifugation) on clinical outcomes (live birth rate; clinical pregnancy rate) in subfertile couples undergoing IUI. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Direct Database, National Research Register, Biological Abstracts and clinical trial registries in March 2019, and checked references and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy in terms of clinical outcomes of semen preparation techniques used for subfertile couples undergoing IUI. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes are live birth rate and clinical pregnancy rate per couple. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTS in the review; we included six of these, totalling 485 couples, in the meta-analysis. No trials reported the primary outcome of live birth. The evidence was of very low-quality. The main limitations were (unclear) risk of bias, signs of imprecision and inconsistency in results among studies and the small number of studies/participants included.Swim-up versus gradient technique Considering the quality of evidence, we are uncertain whether there was a difference between clinical pregnancy rates (CPR) for swim-up versus a gradient technique (odds ratio (OR) 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.35; I² = 71%; 4 RCTs, 370 participants; very low-quality evidence). The results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy after the use of a gradient technique is assumed to be 24%, the chance of pregnancy after using the swim-up technique is between 14% and 30%. We are uncertain whether there was a real difference between ongoing pregnancy rates per couple (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.82; heterogeneity not applicable; 1 RCT, 223 participants; very low-quality evidence). Considering the quality of evidence, we are uncertain whether there was a difference between multiple pregnancy rates (MPR) per couple comparing a swim-up versus gradient technique (MPR per couple 0% versus 0%; 1 RCT, 25 participants; very low-quality of evidence). Considering the quality of evidence, we are also uncertain whether there was a difference between miscarriage rates (MR) per couple comparing a swim-up versus gradient technique (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.59; I² = 44%; 3 RCTs, 330 participants; very low-quality evidence). No studies reported on ectopic pregnancy rate, fetal abnormalities or infection rate.Swim-up versus wash techniqueConsidering the quality of evidence, we are uncertain whether there is a difference in clinical pregnancy rates after a swim-up technique versus wash and centrifugation (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.13; I² = 55%; 2 RCTs, 78 participants; very low-quality evidence). The results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy after the use of a wash technique is assumed to be 38%, the chance of pregnancy after using the swim-up technique is between 9% and 41%. Considering the quality of evidence, we are uncertain whether there was a difference between multiple pregnancy rates between swim-up technique versus wash technique (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.02 to 13.28; heterogeneity not applicable; 1 RCT, 26 participants; very low-quality evidence). Miscarriage rate was only reported by one study: no miscarriages were reported in either treatment arm. No studies reported on ongoing pregnancy rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, fetal abnormalities or infection rate.Gradient versus wash techniqueConsidering the quality of evidence, we are uncertain whether there is a difference in clinical pregnancy rates after a gradient versus wash and centrifugation technique (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.58 to 5.46; I² = 52%; 2 RCTs, 94 participants; very low-quality evidence). The results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy after the use of a wash technique is assumed to be 13%, the chance of pregnancy after using the gradient technique is between 8% and 46%. Considering the quality of evidence, we are uncertain whether there was a difference between multiple pregnancy rates per couple between the treatment groups (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.83; very low-quality evidence). Considering the quality of evidence, we are also uncertain whether there was a difference between miscarriage rates per couple between the treatment groups (OR 6.11, 95% CI 0.27 to 138.45; very low-quality evidence). No studies reported on ongoing pregnancy rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, fetal abnormalities or infection rate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to recommend any specific semen preparation technique: swim-up versus gradient versus wash and centrifugation technique. No studies reported on live birth rates. Considering the quality of evidence (very low), we are uncertain whether there is a difference in clinical pregnancy rates, ongoing pregnancy rates, multiple pregnancy rates or miscarriage rates per couple) between the three sperm preparation techniques. Further randomised trials are warranted that report live birth data.

Endometrial resection and ablation techniques for heavy menstrual bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a significant health problem in premenopausal women; it can reduce their quality of life and can cause social disruption and physical problems such as iron deficiency anaemia. First-line treatment has traditionally consisted of medical therapy (hormonal and non-hormonal), but this is not always successful in reducing menstrual bleeding to acceptable levels. Hysterectomy is a definitive treatment, but it is more costly and carries some risk. Endometrial ablation may be an alternative to hysterectomy that preserves the uterus. Many techniques have been developed to 'ablate' (remove) the lining of the endometrium. First-generation techniques require visualisation of the uterus with a hysteroscope during the procedure; although it is safe, this procedure requires specific technical skills. Newer techniques for endometrial ablation (second- and third-generation techniques) have been developed that are quicker than previous approaches because they do not require hysteroscopic visualisation during the procedure. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of endometrial destruction techniques to reduce heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) in premenopausal women. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo (from inception to May 2018). We also searched trials registers, other sources of unpublished or grey literature, and reference lists of retrieved studies, and we made contact with experts in the field and with pharmaceutical companies that manufacture ablation devices. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different endometrial ablation or resection techniques for women reporting HMB without known uterine pathology, other than fibroids outside the uterine cavity and smaller than 3 centimetres, were eligible. Outcomes included improvement in HMB and in quality of life, patient satisfaction, operative outcomes, complications, and the need for further surgery, including hysterectomy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trials for risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for clarification of methods or for additional data. We assessed adverse events only if they were separately measured in the included trials. We undertook comparisons with individual techniques as well as an overall comparison of first- and second-generation ablation methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included in this update 28 studies (4287 women) with sample sizes ranging from 20 to 372. Most studies had low risk of bias for randomisation, attrition, and selective reporting. Less than half of these studies had adequate allocation concealment, and most were unblinded. Using GRADE, we determined that the quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. We downgraded evidence for risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency.Overall comparison of second-generation versus first-generation (i.e. gold standard hysteroscopic ablative) techniques revealed no evidence of differences in amenorrhoea at 1 year and 2 to 5 years' follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.27; 12 studies; 2145 women; I² = 77%; and RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.72; 672 women; 4 studies; I² = 80%; very low-quality evidence) and showed subjective improvement at 1 year follow-up based on a Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart (PBAC) (< 75 or acceptable improvement) (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09; 5 studies; 1282 women; I² = 0%; and RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.28; 236 women; 1 study; low-quality evidence). Study results showed no difference in patient satisfaction between second- and first-generation techniques at 1 year follow-up (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.04; 11 studies; 1750 women; I² = 36%; low-quality evidence) nor at 2 to 5 years' follow-up (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.13; 672 women; 4 studies; I² = 81%).Compared with first-generation techniques, second-generation endometrial ablation techniques were associated with shorter operating times (mean difference (MD) -13.52 minutes, 95% CI -16.90 to -10.13; 9 studies; 1822 women; low-quality evidence) and more often were performed under local rather than general anaesthesia (RR 2.8, 95% CI 1.8 to 4.4; 6 studies; 1434 women; low-quality evidence).We are uncertain whether perforation rates differed between second- and first-generation techniques (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.01; 1885 women; 8 studies; I² = 0%).Trials reported little or no difference between second- and first-generation techniques in requirement for additional surgery (ablation or hysterectomy) at 1 year follow-up (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.26; 6 studies: 935 women; low-quality evidence). At 5 years, results showed probably little or no difference between groups in the requirement for hysterectomy (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.22; 4 studies; 758 women; moderate-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Approaches to endometrial ablation have evolved from first-generation techniques to newer second- and third-generation approaches. Current evidence suggests that compared to first-generation techniques (endometrial laser ablation, transcervical resection of the endometrium, rollerball endometrial ablation), second-generation approaches (thermal balloon endometrial ablation, microwave endometrial ablation, hydrothermal ablation, bipolar radiofrequency endometrial ablation, endometrial cryotherapy) are of equivalent efficacy for heavy menstrual bleeding, with comparable rates of amenorrhoea and improvement on the PBAC. Second-generation techniques are associated with shorter operating times and are performed more often under local rather than general anaesthesia. It is uncertain whether perforation rates differed between second- and first-generation techniques. Evidence was insufficient to show which second-generation approaches were superior to others and to reveal the efficacy and safety of third-generation approaches versus first- and second-generation techniques.

Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: Embryo incubation and assessment is a vital step in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Traditionally, embryo assessment has been achieved by removing embryos from a conventional incubator daily for quality assessment by an embryologist, under a microscope. In recent years time-lapse systems (TLS) have been developed which can take digital images of embryos at frequent time intervals. This allows embryologists, with or without the assistance of embryo selection software, to assess the quality of the embryos without physically removing them from the incubator.The potential advantages of a TLS include the ability to maintain a stable culture environment, therefore limiting the exposure of embryos to changes in gas composition, temperature, and movement. A TLS has the potential advantage of improving embryo selection for ART treatment by utilising additional information gained through continuously monitoring embryo development. Use of a TLS often adds significant extra cost to ART treatment. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of a TLS compared to conventional embryo incubation and assessment on clinical outcomes in couples undergoing ART. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard methodology recommended by Cochrane. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and two trials registers on 7 January 2019 and checked references of appropriate papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TLS, with or without embryo selection software, versus conventional incubation with morphological assessment; and TLS with embryo selection software versus TLS without embryo selection software among couples undergoing ART. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage and stillbirth, and cumulative live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate. The secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy and cumulative clinical pregnancy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methodology. We made the following comparisons.TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images versus conventional incubation and assessmentTLS utilising embryo selection software versus TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images TLS utilising embryo selection software versus conventional incubation and assessment MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs (N = 2955 infertile couples). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to low. The main limitations were high risk of bias in the included studies, imprecision, indirectness, and inconsistency. There were no data on cumulative live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate or cumulative clinical pregnancy rate.TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images versus conventional incubation and assessmentIt is unclear whether there is any difference between interventions in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.23, 3 RCTs, N = 826, I2 = 33%, low-quality evidence) or in miscarriage rates (OR 1.90, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.61, 3 RCTs, N = 826, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy associated with conventional incubation and assessment is 35%, the rate with the use of TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images would be between 27% and 40%, and if the miscarriage rate with conventional incubation is 4%, the rate associated with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images would be between 4% and 14%. It is unclear whether there is a difference between the interventions in rates of stillbirth (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.49, 1 RCT, N = 76, low-quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.41, 4 RCTs, N = 875, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence).TLS utilising embryo selection software versus TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS imagesAll findings for this comparison were very uncertain due to the very low-quality of the evidence. No data were available on live birth, but one RCT reported ongoing pregnancy. It is unclear whether there is any difference between the interventions in rates of ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.20, 1 RCT, N = 163); miscarriage (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.01, 2 RCTs, N = 463, I2 = 0%); or clinical pregnancy (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42, 2 RCTs, N = 463, I2 = 0%). The evidence suggests that if the rate of ongoing pregnancy associated with TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images is 47%, the rate associated with TLS utilising embryo selection software would be between 22% and 52%, and if the miscarriage rate associated with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images is 5%, the rate associated with TLS utilising embryo selection software would be between 4% and 15%. No studies reported stillbirth.TLS utilising embryo selection software versus conventional incubation and assessmentThe findings for this comparison were also very uncertain due to the very low quality of the evidence. It is unclear whether there is any difference between the interventions in rates of live birth (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.36, 3 RCTs, N = 1617, I2 = 84%). There was very low-quality evidence that TLS might reduce miscarriage rates (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89, 3 RCTs, N = 1617, I2 = 0%). It is unclear whether there is any difference between the interventions in rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16, 3 RCTs, N = 1617, I2 = 89%). The evidence suggests that if the rate of live birth associated with conventional incubation and assessment is 48%, the rate with TLS utilising embryo selection software would be between 46% and 55%, and if the miscarriage rate with conventional incubation and assessment is 11%, the rate associated with TLS would be between 5% and 10%. No stillbirths occurred in the only study reporting this outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient good-quality evidence of differences in live birth or ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage and stillbirth, or clinical pregnancy to choose between TLS, with or without embryo selection software, and conventional incubation. As the evidence is of low or very low-quality, our findings should be interpreted with caution.

Gestational age-specific perinatal mortality rates for assisted reproductive technology (ART) and other births.

STUDY QUESTION: Is perinatal mortality rate higher among births born following assisted reproductive technology (ART) compared to non-ART births? SUMMARY ANSWER: Overall perinatal mortality rates in ART births was higher compared to non-ART births, but gestational age-specific perinatal mortality rate of ART births was lower for very preterm and moderate to late preterm births. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Births born following ART are reported to have higher risk of adverse perinatal outcomes compared to non-ART births. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This population-based retrospective cohort study included 407 368 babies (391 952 non-ART and 15 416 ART)-393 491 singletons and 10 877 twins or high order multiples. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: All births (≥20 weeks of gestation and/or ≥400 g of birthweight) in five states and territories in Australia during the period 2007-2009 were included in the study, using National Perinatal Data Collection (NPDC). Primary outcome measures were rates of stillbirth, neonatal and perinatal deaths. Adjusted odds ratio (AOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to estimate the likelihood of perinatal death. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Rates of multiple birth and low birthweight were significantly higher in ART group compared to the non-ART group (P < 0.01). Overall perinatal mortality rate was significantly higher for ART births (16.5 per 1000 births, 95% CI 14.5-18.6), compared to non-ART births (11.3 per 1000 births, 95% CI 11.0-11.6) (AOR 1.45, 95% CI 1.26-1.68). However, gestational age-specific perinatal mortality rate of ART births (including both singletons and multiples) was lower for very preterm (<32 weeks' gestation) and moderate to late preterm births (32-36 weeks' gestation) (AOR 0.61, 95% CI 0.53-0.70 and AOR 0.61, 95% CI 0.53-0.70, respectively) compared to non-ART births. Congenital abnormality and spontaneous preterm were the most common causes of neonatal deaths in both ART and non-ART group. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Due to different cut-off limit for perinatal period in Australia, the results of this study should be interpreted with cautions for other countries. Australian definition of perinatal period commences at 20 completed weeks (140 days) of gestation and ends 27 completed days after birth which is different from the definition by World Health Organisation (commences at 22 completed weeks (154 days) of gestation and ends seven completed days after birth) and by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (includes infant deaths under age 7 days and fetal deaths at 28 weeks of gestation or more). WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Preterm birth is the single most important contributing factor to increased risk of perinatal mortality among ART singletons compared to non-ART singletons. Further research on reducing early preterm delivery, with the aim of reducing the perinatal mortality among ART births is needed. Couples who access ART treatment should be fully informed regarding the risk of preterm birth and subsequent risk of perinatal death. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): There was no funding associated with this study. No conflict of interest was declared.

Assisted reproductive technology: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.

BACKGROUND: As many as one in six couples will encounter problems with fertility, defined as failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after regular intercourse for 12 months. Increasingly, couples are turning to assisted reproductive technology (ART) for help with conceiving and ultimately giving birth to a healthy live baby of their own. Fertility treatments are complex, and each ART cycle consists of several steps. If one of these steps is incorrectly applied, the stakes are high as conception may not occur. With this in mind, it is important that each step of the ART cycle is supported by good evidence from well-designed studies. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on procedures and treatment options available to couples with subfertility undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedures. METHODS: Published Cochrane systematic reviews of couples undergoing ART procedures (in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection) were eligible for inclusion in the overview. We also identified Cochrane reviews in preparation, for future inclusion.The primary outcome of the overview was live birth or the composite outcome live birth or ongoing pregnancy, as reported by the included reviews. Our secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. We excluded studies of intrauterine insemination and ovulation induction.We undertook selection of systematic reviews, data extraction, and quality assessment in duplicate. We assessed review quality by using the AMSTAR tool. We organised reviews by their relevance to specific stages in the ART cycle. We summarised their findings in the text and reported data for each outcome in 'Additional tables'. MAIN RESULTS: We included 68 systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library up to May 2018. All were of high quality. These reviews identified 38 interventions that were effective (n = 23) or promising (n = 15), and they identified 19 interventions that were ineffective (n = 2) or possibly ineffective (n = 17). For 15 interventions, review authors were unable to draw conclusions owing to lack of evidence.We identified an additional 11 protocols and four titles for future inclusion in this overview. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This overview provides the most up-to-date evidence on ART cycles from systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials. Fertility treatments are costly, and the stakes are high. Using the best available evidence to optimise outcomes is best practice. Evidence from this overview could be used to develop clinical practice guidelines and protocols that can be applied in daily clinical practice to improve live birth rates and reduce rates of multiple pregnancy, cycle cancellation, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: Embryo incubation and assessment is a vital step in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Traditionally, embryo assessment has been achieved by removing embryos from a conventional incubator daily for quality assessment by an embryologist, under a light microscope. Over recent years time-lapse systems have been developed which can take digital images of embryos at frequent time intervals. This allows embryologists, with or without the assistance of embryo selection software, to assess the quality of the embryos without physically removing them from the incubator.The potential advantages of a time-lapse system (TLS) include the ability to maintain a stable culture environment, therefore limiting the exposure of embryos to changes in gas composition, temperature and movement. A TLS has the potential advantage of improving embryo selection for ART treatment by utilising additional information gained through continuously monitoring embryo development. Use of a TLS often adds significant extra cost onto an in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycle. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of a TLS compared to conventional embryo incubation and assessment on clinical outcomes in couples undergoing ART. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard methodology recommended by Cochrane. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers on 2 August 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the following comparisons: comparing a TLS, with or without embryo selection software, versus conventional incubation with morphological assessment; and TLS with embryo selection software versus TLS without embryo selection software among couples undergoing ART. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were live birth, miscarriage and stillbirth. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy and cumulative clinical pregnancy. We reported quality of the evidence for important outcomes using GRADE methodology. We made the following comparisons.TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images versus conventional incubation and assessmentTLS utilising embryo selection software versus TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images TLS utilising embryo selection software versus conventional incubation and assessment MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs (N = 2303 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were imprecision and risk of bias associated with lack of blinding of participants and researchers, and indirectness secondary to significant heterogeneity between interventions in some studies. There were no data on cumulative clinical pregnancy.TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images versus conventional incubation and assessmentThere is no evidence of a difference between the interventions in terms of live birth rates (odds ratio (OR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.13, 2 RCTs, N = 440, I2 = 11% , moderate-quality evidence) and may also be no evidence of difference in miscarriage rates (OR 2.25, 95% CI 0.84 to 6.02, 2 RCTs, N = 440, I2 = 44%, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the live birth rate associated with conventional incubation and assessment is 33%, the rate with use of TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images is between 19% and 36%; and that if the miscarriage rate with conventional incubation is 3%, the rate associated with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images would be between 3% and 18%. There is no evidence of a difference between the interventions in the stillbirth rate (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.49, 1 RCT, N = 76, low-quality evidence). There is no evidence of a difference between the interventions in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.33, 3 RCTs, N = 489, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence).TLS utilising embryo selection software versus TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS imagesNo data were available on live birth or stillbirth. We are uncertain whether TLS utilising embryo selection software influences miscarriage rates (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.01, 2 RCTs, N = 463, I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence) and there may be no difference in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42, 2 RCTs, N = 463, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the miscarriage rate associated with assessment of still TLS images is 5%, the rate with embryo selection software would be between 3% and 14%.TLS utilising embryo selection software versus conventional incubation and assessmentThere is no evidence of a difference between TLS utilising embryo selection software and conventional incubation improving live birth rates (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.54, 2 RCTs, N = 1017, I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether TLS influences miscarriage rates (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.08, 3 RCTs, N = 1351, I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the live birth rate associated with no TLS is 38%, the rate with use of conventional incubation would be between 36% and 58%, and that if miscarriage rate with conventional incubation is 9%, the rate associated with TLS would be between 4% and 10%. No data on stillbirths were available. It was uncertain whether the intervention influenced clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.45, 3 RCTs, N = 1351, I2 = 42%, very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence of differences in live birth, miscarriage, stillbirth or clinical pregnancy to choose between TLS, with or without embryo selection software, and conventional incubation. The studies were at high risk of bias for randomisation and allocation concealment, the result should be interpreted with extreme caution.

Antifibrinolytics for heavy menstrual bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important physical and social problem for women. Oral treatment for HMB includes antifibrinolytic drugs, which are designed to reduce bleeding by inhibiting clot-dissolving enzymes in the endometrium.Historically, there has been some concern that using the antifibrinolytic tranexamic acid (TXA) for HMB may increase the risk of venous thromboembolic disease. This is an umbrella term for deep venous thrombosis (blood clots in the blood vessels in the legs) and pulmonary emboli (blood clots in the blood vessels in the lungs). OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of antifibrinolytic medications as a treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and two trials registers in November 2017, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antifibrinolytic agents versus placebo, no treatment or other medical treatment in women of reproductive age with HMB. Twelve studies utilised TXA and one utilised a prodrug of TXA (Kabi). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were menstrual blood loss (MBL), improvement in HMB, and thromboembolic events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs (1312 participants analysed). The evidence was very low to moderate quality: the main limitations were risk of bias (associated with lack of blinding, and poor reporting of study methods), imprecision and inconsistency.Antifibrinolytics (TXA or Kabi) versus no treatment or placeboWhen compared with a placebo, antifibrinolytics were associated with reduced mean blood loss (MD -53.20 mL per cycle, 95% CI -62.70 to -43.70; I² = 8%; 4 RCTs, participants = 565; moderate-quality evidence) and higher rates of improvement (RR 3.34, 95% CI 1.84 to 6.09; 3 RCTS, participants = 271; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 11% of women improve without treatment, 43% to 63% of women taking antifibrinolytics will do so. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups in adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18; 1 RCT, participants = 297; low-quality evidence). Only one thromboembolic event occurred in the two studies that reported this outcome.TXA versus progestogensThere was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups in mean blood loss measured using the Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart (PBAC) (MD -12.22 points per cycle, 95% CI -30.8 to 6.36; I² = 0%; 3 RCTs, participants = 312; very low quality evidence), but TXA was associated with a higher likelihood of improvement (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.80; I² = 32%; 5 RCTs, participants = 422; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 46% of women improve with progestogens, 61% to 83% of women will do so with TXA.Adverse events were less common in the TXA group (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.94; I² = 28%; 4 RCTs, participants = 349; low-quality evidence). No thromboembolic events were reported in any group.TXA versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)TXA was associated with reduced mean blood loss (MD -73.00 mL per cycle, 95% CI -123.35 to -22.65; 1 RCT, participants = 49; low-quality evidence) and higher likelihood of improvement (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.74; 12 = 0%; 2 RCTs, participants = 161; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 61% of women improve with NSAIDs, 71% to 100% of women will do so with TXA. Adverse events were uncommon and no comparative data were available. No thromboembolic events were reported.TXA versus ethamsylateTXA was associated with reduced mean blood loss (MD 100 mL per cycle, 95% CI -141.82 to -58.18; 1 RCT, participants = 53; low-quality evidence), but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of improvement (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.55; 1 RCT, participants = 53; very low quality evidence) or withdrawal due to adverse events (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.15; 1 RCT, participants = 53; very low quality evidence).TXA versus herbal medicines (Safoof Habis and Punica granatum)TXA was associated with a reduced mean PBAC score after three months' treatment (MD -23.90 pts per cycle, 95% CI -31.92 to -15.88; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, participants = 121; low-quality evidence). No data were available for rates of improvement. TXA was associated with a reduced mean PBAC score three months after the end of the treatment phase (MD -10.40 points per cycle, 95% CI -19.20 to -1.60; I² not applicable; 1 RCT, participants = 84; very low quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of adverse events (RR 2.25, 95% CI 0.74 to 6.80; 1 RCT, participants = 94; very low quality evidence). No thromboembolic events were reported.TXA versus levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LIUS)TXA was associated with a higher median PBAC score than TXA (median difference 125.5 points; 1 RCT, participants = 42; very low quality evidence) and a lower likelihood of improvement (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.77; 1 RCT, participants = 42; very low quality evidence). This suggests that if 85% of women improve with LIUS, 20% to 65% of women will do so with TXA. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of adverse events (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.80; 1 RCT, participants = 42; very low quality evidence). No thromboembolic events were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antifibrinolytic treatment (such as TXA) appears effective for treating HMB compared to placebo, NSAIDs, oral luteal progestogens, ethamsylate, or herbal remedies, but may be less effective than LIUS. There were too few data for most comparisons to determine whether antifibrinolytics were associated with increased risk of adverse events, and most studies did not specifically include thromboembolism as an outcome.

Inositol for subfertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Subfertile women are highly motivated to try different adjunctive therapies to have a baby, and the widespread perception is that dietary supplements such as myo-inositol (MI) and D-chiro-insoitol (DCI) are associated with only benefit, and not with harm. Many fertility clinicians currently prescribe MI for subfertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) as pre-treatment to in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or for ovulation induction; however no high-quality evidence is available to support this practice. This review assessed the evidence for the effectiveness of inositol in subfertile women with a diagnosis of PCOS. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral supplementation of inositol for reproductive outcomes among subfertile women with PCOS who are trying to conceive. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases (to July 2018): Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and AMED. We also checked reference lists and searched the clinical trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose, or combination of oral inositol versus placebo, no treatment/standard treatment, or treatment with another antioxidant, or with a fertility agent, or with another type of inositol, among subfertile women with PCOS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were live birth and adverse effects; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates and ovulation rates. We pooled studies using a fixed-effect model, and we calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall quality of the evidence by applying GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 trials involving 1472 subfertile women with PCOS who were receiving myo-inositol as pre-treatment to IVF (11 trials), or during ovulation induction (two trials). These studies compared MI versus placebo, no treatment/standard, melatonin, metformin, clomiphene citrate, or DCI. The evidence was of 'low' to 'very low' quality. The main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods, inconsistency, and lack of reporting of clinically relevant outcomes such as live birth and adverse events.We are uncertain whether MI improves live birth rates when compared to standard treatment among women undergoing IVF (OR 2.42, 95% CI 0.75 to 7.83; P = 0.14; 2 RCTs; 84 women; I² = 0%). Very low-quality evidence suggests that for subfertile women with PCOS undergoing pre-treatment to IVF who have an expected live birth rate of 12%, the rate among women using MI would be between 9% and 51%.We are uncertain whether MI may be associated with a decrease in miscarriage rate when compared to standard treatment (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.86; P = 0.02; 4 RCTs; 535 women; I² = 66%; very low-quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with PCOS with an expected miscarriage rate of 9% who are undergoing pre-treatment to IVF, the rate among women using MI would be between 2% and 8%; however this meta-analysis is based primarily on one study, which reported an unusually high miscarriage rate in the control group, and this has resulted in very high heterogeneity. When we removed this trial from the sensitivity analysis, we no longer saw the effect, and we noted no conclusive differences between MI and standard treatment.Low-quality evidence suggests that MI may be associated with little or no difference in multiple pregnancy rates when compared with standard treatment (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.71; P = 0.89; 2 RCTs; 425 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with PCOS who are undergoing pre-treatment to IVF, with an expected multiple pregnancy rate of 18%, the rate among women using inositol would be between 12% and 27%.We are uncertain whether MI may be associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate when compared to standard treatment (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.85; P = 0.22; 4 RCTs; 535 women; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with PCOS who are undergoing pre-treatment to IVF, with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 26%, the rate among women using MI would be between 24% and 40%. Ovulation rates were not reported for this comparison.Other comparisons included only one trial in each, so for the comparisons MI versus antioxidant, MI versus an insulin-sensitising agent, MI versus an ovulation induction agent, and MI versus another DCI, meta-analysis was not possible.No pooled evidence was available for women with PCOS undergoing ovulation induction, as only single trials performed comparison of the insulin-sensitising agent and the ovulation induction agent. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In light of available evidence of very low quality, we are uncertain whether MI improves live birth rate or clinical pregnancy rate in subfertile women with PCOS undergoing IVF pre-treatment taking MI compared to standard treatment. We are also uncertain whether MI decreases miscarriage rates or multiple pregnancy rates for these same women taking MI compared to standard treatment. No pooled evidence is available for use of MI versus placebo, another antioxidant, insulin-sensitising agents, ovulation induction agents, or another type of inositol for women with PCOS undergoing pre-treatment to IVF. No pooled evidence is available for use of MI in women undergoing ovulation induction.

Aromatase inhibitors (letrozole) for subfertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most common cause of infrequent periods (oligomenorrhoea) and absence of periods (amenorrhoea). It affects about 4% to 8% of women worldwide and often leads to anovulatory subfertility. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are a class of drugs that were introduced for ovulation induction in 2001. Since about 2001 clinical trials have reached differing conclusions as to whether the AI letrozole is at least as effective as the first-line treatment clomiphene citrate (CC). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of aromatase inhibitors for subfertile women with anovulatory PCOS for ovulation induction followed by timed intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following sources from inception to November 2017 to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Pubmed, LILACS, Web of Knowledge, the World Health Organization (WHO) clinical trials register and Clinicaltrials.gov. We also searched the references of relevant articles. We did not restrict the searches by language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all RCTs of AIs used alone or with other medical therapies for ovulation induction in women of reproductive age with anovulatory PCOS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted the data and assessed risks of bias. We pooled studies where appropriate using a fixed-effect model to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for most outcomes, and risk differences (RDs) for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). The primary outcomes were live birth and OHSS. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and multiple pregnancy. We assessed the quality of the evidence for each comparison using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: This is a substantive update of a previous review. We identified 16 additional studies for the 2018 update. We include 42 RCTs (7935 women). The aromatase inhibitor letrozole was used in all studies.Letrozole compared to clomiphene citrate (CC) with or without adjuncts followed by timed intercourseLive birth rates were higher with letrozole (with or without adjuncts) compared to clomiphene citrate (with our without adjuncts) followed by timed intercourse (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.99; 2954 participants; 13 studies; I2 = 0%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 10; moderate-quality evidence). There is high-quality evidence that OHSS rates are similar with letrozole or clomiphene citrate (0.5% in both arms: risk difference (RD) -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.00; 2536 participants; 12 studies; I2 = 0%; high-quality evidence). There is evidence for a higher pregnancy rate in favour of letrozole (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.78; 4629 participants; 25 studies; I2 = 1%; NNTB = 10; moderate-quality evidence). There is little or no difference between treatment groups in the rate of miscarriage by pregnancy (20% with CC versus 19% with letrozole; OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.26; 1210 participants; 18 studies; I2 = 0%; high-quality evidence) and multiple pregnancy rate (1.7% with CC versus 1.3% with letrozole; OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.16; 3579 participants; 17 studies; I2 = 0%; high-quality evidence). However, a funnel plot showed mild asymmetry, indicating that some studies in favour of clomiphene might be missing.Letrozole compared to laparoscopic ovarian drillingThere is low-quality evidence that live birth rates are similar with letrozole or laparoscopic ovarian drilling (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.02; 548 participants; 3 studies; I2 = 23%; low-quality evidence). There is insufficient evidence for a difference in OHSS rates (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; 260 participants; 1 study; low-quality evidence). There is low-quality evidence that pregnancy rates are similar (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.74; 774 participants; 5 studies; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). There is insufficient evidence for a difference in miscarriage rate by pregnancy (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.43; 240 participants; 5 studies; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), or multiple pregnancies (OR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 74.90; 548 participants; 3 studies; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence).Additional comparisons were made for Letrozole versus placebo, Selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMS) followed by intrauterine insemination (IUI), follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), Anastrozole, as well as dosage and administration protocols. There is insufficient evidence for a difference in either group of treatment due to a limited number of studies. Hence more research is necessary. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Letrozole appears to improve live birth and pregnancy rates in subfertile women with anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome, compared to clomiphene citrate. There is high-quality evidence that OHSS rates are similar with letrozole or clomiphene citrate. There is high-quality evidence of no difference in miscarriage rates or multiple pregnancy rates. There is low-quality evidence of no difference in live birth and pregnancy rates between letrozole and laparoscopic ovarian drilling, although there were few relevant studies. For the 2018 update, we added good-quality trials, upgrading the quality of the evidence.