GnRH analogue in everyday gynecology: is it possible to rationalize its use?

BACKGROUND: The study was an audit of patients who attended the Menstrual Disorders Clinic at Glasgow Royal Infirmary over a five year period, and received gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analog (GnRHa). We aimed to identify the clinical indications for the use of GnRHa, and the effect of the latter in terms of symptom resolution and ultimate outcome. We aim to use this information to formulate a strategy for the use of GnRHa by targeting this expensive therapy to those situations where maximum benefit will be achieved. METHODS: A retrospective case review analysis of 201 patients. RESULTS: Thirty-eight percent of women presented with pelvic pain, 33% with disordered menstruation and 26% with premenstrual symptomatology. Overall, 74% of patients reported a beneficial effect of GnRHa. In the non-cyclical pelvic pain group, those patients with adhesions constituted a much greater proportion of those who did not derive benefit from GnRHa than those who did (43% vs. 16%; p<0.05; data not shown). In those patients with disordered menses, there was no difference between the diagnosis in those who did or did not derive benefit from GnRHa. Also with the exception of endometrial preparation prior to ablation and in the correction of anemia, the ultimate outcome was no different in the two groups. Of the patients with premenstrual symptomatology, the greatest proportion of those deriving benefit from GnRHa (41%) ultimately had an operative resolution. CONCLUSIONS: Our results enable us to use GnRHa as a first line in those clinical situations where maximum benefit will be achieved, either in terms of symptom resolution or as a tool to identify the most appropriate therapeutic option. We can therefore rationalize our prescribing both to the benefit of the patient and to our budget.

Is screening for bacteriuria in pregnancy worth while?

A total of 4470 pregnant women were screened for bacteriuria by the dipslide method and significant growth found in 226 (5.1%). In 198 cases the urine was re-examined, in 119 by using suprapubic aspiration or catheterisation (62 (52%) samples contained bacteria) and in 79 by using midstream urine samples (26 (33%) samples contained greater than 10(8) colony forming units/1), showing the maximum prevalence of confirmed bacteriuria to be 2.6%. Overt urinary tract infection developed later in four of 80 patients with proved bacteriuria who had been given antibiotics, in one of eight untreated patients with bacteriuria, in one of 110 patients with unconfirmed bacteriuria, and in one of 226 non-bacteriuric controls. A history of urinary tract infection was given by 18% of controls and 42% of women with confirmed bacteriuria. Screening for bacteriuria and treatment with antibiotics to prevent later overt infection is expensive. Whether it is worth while and cost effective depends largely on the prevalence of bacteriuria in the local population and the proportion who develop overt infection. The screening and treatment programme reported here appeared to prevent only six cases of overt infection.