[Analysis of management efficacy in patients with heavy menstrual bleeding associated with antithrombotic therapy].

Objective: To evaluate different methods' efficacy of controlling acute bleeding and managing long-term menstruation in patients with heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) associated with antithrombotic therapy. Methods: The clinical data of 22 cases with HMB associated with antithrombotic therapy admitted to Peking University People's Hospital from January 2010 to August 2022 were analyzed, aged 39 years old (26-46 years). Changes in menstrual volume, hemoglobin (Hb), and quality of life were collected after control of acute bleeding and long-term menstrual management. Menstrual volume was assessed by pictorial blood assessment chart (PBAC), and quality of life was assessed by menorrhagia multi-attribute scale (MMAS). Results: (1) Treatment of acute bleeding: of the 22 cases with HMB associated with antithrombotic therapy, 16 cases were treated in our hospital and 6 in other hospital for emergency bleeding; of the 16 cases treated in our hospital, 3 underwent emergency intrauterine Foley catheter balloon compression due to severe bleeding (Hb decreased by 20 to 40 g/L within 12 hours). Of the 22 cases with antithrombotic therapy-related HMB, 15 (including 2 cases with severe bleeding) underwent emergency aspiration or endometrial resection, and intraoperative placement of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) followed by a significant reduction in bleeding volume; 3 cases had controlled acute bleeding after rivaroxaban dose reduction and continued observation; 2 cases were given gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists to control acute bleeding in other hospital, of which 1 case was temporarily treated with periodic blood transfusion, and the other one patient underwent total hysterectomy; and 2 cases had temporary amenorrhea with oral mifepristone after intrauterine balloon compression or oral norethindrone. (2) Long-term menstrual management: of the 22 cases with antithrombotic therapy-related HMB, 15 had LNG-IUS placement and 12 had LNG-IUS placement for 6 months, and menstrual volume was significantly reduced [PBAC scores were 365.0 (272.5-460.0) vs 25.0 (12.5-37.5), respectively; Z=4.593, P<0.001], Hb was significantly increased [91.5 g/L (71.8-108.2 g/L) vs 128.5 g/L (121.2-142.5 g/L); Z=4.695, P<0.001], and quality of life was significantly improved [MMAS scores were 415.0 (327.5-472.5) vs 580.0 (570.0-580.0), respectively; Z=-3.062, P=0.002] before placement compared with 6 months after placement. Three rivaroxaban dose reduction patients' PBAC scores decreased by 20 to 35 but remained >100, and perceived quality of life did not change significantly. Two cases with temporary amenorrhea treated with oral mifepristone felt significantly improved quality of life, and the MMAS scores increased by 220 and 180, respectively. Conclusion: Intrauterine Foley catheter balloon compression, aspiration or endometrial ablation could be used to control acute bleeding in patients with antithrombotic therapy-related HMB, and LNG-IUS for long-term management could reduce menstrual volume, increase hemoglobin, and improve the quality of life of patients.

Analysis of management efficacy in patients with heavy menstrual bleeding associated with antithrombotic therapy / 中华妇产科杂志

Objective: To evaluate different methods' efficacy of controlling acute bleeding and managing long-term menstruation in patients with heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) associated with antithrombotic therapy. Methods: The clinical data of 22 cases with HMB associated with antithrombotic therapy admitted to Peking University People's Hospital from January 2010 to August 2022 were analyzed, aged 39 years old (26-46 years). Changes in menstrual volume, hemoglobin (Hb), and quality of life were collected after control of acute bleeding and long-term menstrual management. Menstrual volume was assessed by pictorial blood assessment chart (PBAC), and quality of life was assessed by menorrhagia multi-attribute scale (MMAS). Results: (1) Treatment of acute bleeding: of the 22 cases with HMB associated with antithrombotic therapy, 16 cases were treated in our hospital and 6 in other hospital for emergency bleeding; of the 16 cases treated in our hospital, 3 underwent emergency intrauterine Foley catheter balloon compression due to severe bleeding (Hb decreased by 20 to 40 g/L within 12 hours). Of the 22 cases with antithrombotic therapy-related HMB, 15 (including 2 cases with severe bleeding) underwent emergency aspiration or endometrial resection, and intraoperative placement of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) followed by a significant reduction in bleeding volume; 3 cases had controlled acute bleeding after rivaroxaban dose reduction and continued observation; 2 cases were given gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists to control acute bleeding in other hospital, of which 1 case was temporarily treated with periodic blood transfusion, and the other one patient underwent total hysterectomy; and 2 cases had temporary amenorrhea with oral mifepristone after intrauterine balloon compression or oral norethindrone. (2) Long-term menstrual management: of the 22 cases with antithrombotic therapy-related HMB, 15 had LNG-IUS placement and 12 had LNG-IUS placement for 6 months, and menstrual volume was significantly reduced [PBAC scores were 365.0 (272.5-460.0) vs 25.0 (12.5-37.5), respectively; Z=4.593, P<0.001], Hb was significantly increased [91.5 g/L (71.8-108.2 g/L) vs 128.5 g/L (121.2-142.5 g/L); Z=4.695, P<0.001], and quality of life was significantly improved [MMAS scores were 415.0 (327.5-472.5) vs 580.0 (570.0-580.0), respectively; Z=-3.062, P=0.002] before placement compared with 6 months after placement. Three rivaroxaban dose reduction patients' PBAC scores decreased by 20 to 35 but remained >100, and perceived quality of life did not change significantly. Two cases with temporary amenorrhea treated with oral mifepristone felt significantly improved quality of life, and the MMAS scores increased by 220 and 180, respectively. Conclusion: Intrauterine Foley catheter balloon compression, aspiration or endometrial ablation could be used to control acute bleeding in patients with antithrombotic therapy-related HMB, and LNG-IUS for long-term management could reduce menstrual volume, increase hemoglobin, and improve the quality of life of patients.

Levonorgestrel intrauterine devices improve body constitution deviations in the perspective of traditional Chinese medicine and quality of life in patients with chronic pelvic pain and heavy menstrual bleeding.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether the use of levonorgestrel intrauterine devices (LNG-IUD) in the perspective of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) can improve the body constitution deviations and quality of life (QoL) in patients with chronic pelvic pain (CPP) and heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: To understand the TCM body constitution differences between patients, patients with CPP from a gynecology clinic were first compared to a healthy control group from the Academia Sinica Taiwan Biobank (TWB). Patients with CPP were also compared with patients with pelvic diseases from the TWB. Patients with CPP and HMB, some who under LNG-IUD treatment, underwent tests for physical consistency. After 6-8 months, the TCM body constitution and QoL of patients who received LNG-IUD treatment were reanalyzed. The questionnaires used included the Self-Assessment Chart of Menstrual Bleeding, the Taiwanese version of the Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart, the TCM Body Constitution Questionnaire, the 6-point Behavior Rating Scale, and the Taiwanese version of the Short Form-36 Health Survey. All data were analyzed using Wilcoxon's signed-rank test in SAS 9.4 software. RESULTS: In total, 2932 healthy women and 724 women with pelvic diseases were present in the TWB project. Moreover, 376 patients with CPP were admitted to a gynecology clinic, of whom 42 received LNG-IUD treatment. After LNG-IUD treatment, the primary endpoint was regarded as an improvement in Yang-Xu (lack of energy), Yin-Xu (lack of material), and phlegm stasis (accumulation of pathological products). These findings indicated an improvement in menstrual blood loss, pelvic pain, physical functioning, physical problems, body pain, general health, and emotional problems (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: LNG-IUD treatment improves body constitution deviations in TCM and QoL in patients with CPP and HMB. Our results provide a valuable reference for the use of modern medicine and TCM in treating CPP and HMB.

Demographic, Reproductive, and Medical Risk Factors for Intrauterine Device Expulsion.

OBJECTIVE: To explore to what extent intrauterine device (IUD) expulsion is associated with demographic and clinical risk factors. METHODS: The APEX-IUD (Association of Perforation and Expulsion of IntraUterine Devices) study was a U.S. cohort study using electronic health records from three integrated health care systems (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Southern California, and Washington) and a health care information exchange (Regenstrief Institute). These analyses included individuals aged 50 years or younger with IUD insertions from 2001 to 2018. Intrauterine device expulsion cumulative incidence and incidence rates were estimated. Using Cox regression models, hazard ratios with 95% CIs were estimated before and after adjustment for risk factors of interest (age, race and ethnicity, parity, body mass index [BMI], heavy menstrual bleeding, and dysmenorrhea) and potential confounders. RESULTS: In total, 228,834 individuals with IUD insertion and no delivery in the previous 52 weeks were identified (184,733 [80.7%] with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system). Diagnosis of heavy menstrual bleeding-particularly a diagnosis in both recent and past periods-was the strongest risk factor for IUD expulsion. Categories with the highest risk of IUD expulsion within each risk factor included individuals diagnosed with overweight, obesity, and morbid obesity; those in younger age groups, especially among those aged 24 years or younger; and in those with parity of four or more. Non-Hispanic White individuals had the lowest incidence and risk, and after adjustment, Asian or Pacific Islander individuals had the highest risk. Dysmenorrhea was not independently associated with expulsion risk when adjusting for heavy menstrual bleeding. CONCLUSION: Most risk factors for expulsion identified in this study appear consistent with known physiologic factors that affect uterine anatomy and physiology (age, BMI, heavy menstrual bleeding, parity). The increased risk of IUD expulsion among individuals of color warrants further investigation. Intrauterine devices are an effective long-term contraceptive; expulsion is uncommon, but patients should be counseled accordingly. FUNDING SOURCE: Bayer AG. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU PAS register, EUPAS33461.

Interventions to prevent or treat heavy menstrual bleeding or pain associated with intrauterine-device use.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding and pain are common reasons women discontinue intrauterine device (IUD) use. Copper IUD (Cu IUD) users tend to experience increased menstrual bleeding, whereas levonorgestrel IUD (LNG IUD) users tend to have irregular menstruation. Medical therapies used to reduce heavy menstrual bleeding or pain associated with Cu and LNG IUD use include non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), anti-fibrinolytics and paracetamol. We analysed treatment and prevention interventions separately because the expected outcomes for treatment and prevention interventions differ. We did not combine different drug classes in the analysis as they have different mechanisms of action. This is an update of a review originally on NSAIDs. The review scope has been widened to include all interventions for treatment or prevention of heavy menstrual bleeding or pain associated with IUD use. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have assessed strategies for treatment and prevention of heavy menstrual bleeding or pain associated with IUD use, for example, pharmacotherapy and alternative therapies. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to January 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs in any language that tested strategies for treatment or prevention of heavy menstrual bleeding or pain associated with IUD (Cu IUD, LNG IUD or other IUD) use. The comparison could be no intervention, placebo or another active intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. Primary outcomes were volume of menstrual blood loss, duration of menstruation and painful menstruation. We used a random-effects model in all meta-analyses. Review authors assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 21 trials involving 3689 participants from middle- and high-income countries. Women were 18 to 45 years old and either already using an IUD or had just had one placed for contraception. The included trials examined NSAIDs and other interventions. Eleven were treatment trials, of these seven were on users of the Cu IUD, one on LNG IUD and three on an unknown type. Ten were prevention trials, six focused on Cu IUD users, and four on LNG IUD users. Sixteen trials had high risk of detection bias due to subjective assessment of pain and bleeding. Treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding Cu IUD Vitamin B1 resulted in fewer pads used per day (mean difference (MD) -7.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.50 to -5.50) and fewer bleeding days (MD -2.00, 95% CI -2.38 to -1.62; 1 trial; 110 women; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of naproxen on the volume of menstruation compared to placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.09, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.78; 1 trial, 40 women; very low-certainty evidence). Treatment with mefenamic acid resulted in less volume of blood loss compared to tranexamic acid (MD -64.26, 95% CI -105.65 to -22.87; 1 trial, 94 women; low-certainty evidence). However, there was no difference in duration of bleeding with treatment of mefenamic acid or tranexamic acid (MD 0.08 days, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.42, 2 trials, 152 women; low-certainty evidence). LNG IUD The use of ulipristal acetate in LNG IUD may not reduce the number of bleeding days in 90 days in comparison to placebo (MD -9.30 days, 95% CI -26.76 to 8.16; 1 trial, 24 women; low-certainty evidence). Unknown IUD type Mefenamic acid may not reduce volume of bleeding compared to Vitex agnus measured by pictorial blood assessment chart (MD -2.40, 95% CI -13.77 to 8.97; 1 trial; 84 women; low-certainty evidence). Treatment of pain Cu IUD Treatment with tranexamic acid and sodium diclofenac may result in little or no difference in the occurrence of pain (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 17.25; 1 trial, 38 women; very low-certainty evidence). Unknown IUD type Naproxen may reduce pain (MD 4.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 7.29; 1 trial, 33 women; low-certainty evidence). Prevention of heavy menstrual bleeding Cu IUD We found very low-certainty evidence that tolfenamic acid may prevent heavy bleeding compared to placebo (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.85; 1 trial, 310 women). There was no difference between ibuprofen and placebo in blood volume reduction (MD -14.11, 95% CI -36.04 to 7.82) and duration of bleeding (MD -0.2 days, 95% CI -1.40 to 1.0; 1 trial, 28 women, low-certainty evidence). Aspirin may not prevent heavy bleeding in comparison to paracetamol (MD -0.30, 95% CI -26.16 to 25.56; 1 trial, 20 women; very low-certainty evidence). LNG IUD Ulipristal acetate may increase the percentage of bleeding days compared to placebo (MD 9.50, 95% CI 1.48 to 17.52; 1 trial, 118 women; low-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data for analysis in a single trial comparing mifepristone and vitamin B. There were insufficient data for analysis in the single trial comparing tranexamic acid and mefenamic acid and in another trial comparing naproxen with estradiol. Prevention of pain Cu IUD There was low-certainty evidence that tolfenamic acid may not be effective to prevent painful menstruation compared to placebo (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.14; 1 trial, 310 women). Ibuprofen may not reduce menstrual cramps compared to placebo (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.11 to 8.95; 1 trial, 20 women, low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this review should be interpreted with caution due to low- and very low-certainty evidence. Included trials were limited; the majority of the evidence was derived from single trials with few participants. Further research requires larger trials and improved trial reporting. The use of vitamin B1 and mefenamic acid to treat heavy menstruation and tolfenamic acid to prevent heavy menstruation associated with Cu IUD should be investigated. More trials are needed to generate evidence for the treatment and prevention of heavy and painful menstruation associated with LNG IUD.

Association between intrauterine device type and risk of perforation and device expulsion: results from the Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Device study.

BACKGROUND: Intrauterine devices, including levonorgestrel-releasing and copper devices, are highly effective long-acting reversible contraceptives. The potential risks associated with intrauterine devices are low and include uterine perforation and device expulsion. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the risk of perforation and expulsion associated with levonorgestrel-releasing devices vs copper devices in clinical practice in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: The Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Device study was a retrospective cohort study of women aged ≤50 years with an intrauterine device insertion during 2001 to 2018 and information on intrauterine device type and patient and medical characteristics. Of note, 4 research sites with access to electronic health records contributed data for the study: 3 Kaiser Permanente-integrated healthcare systems (Northern California, Southern California, and Washington) and 1 healthcare system using data from a healthcare information exchange in Indiana (Regenstrief Institute). Perforation was classified as any extension of the device into or through the myometrium. Expulsion was classified as complete (not visible in the uterus or abdomen or patient reported) or partial (any portion in the cervix or malpositioned). We estimated the crude incidence rates and crude cumulative incidence by intrauterine device type. The risks of perforation and expulsion associated with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices vs copper intrauterine devices were estimated using Cox proportional-hazards regression with propensity score overlap weighting to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: Among 322,898 women included in this analysis, the incidence rates of perforation per 1000 person-years were 1.64 (95% confidence interval, 1.53-1.76) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 1.27 (95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.48) for copper intrauterine devices; 1-year and 5-year crude cumulative incidence was 0.22% (95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.24) and 0.63% (95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.68) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 0.16% (95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.20) and 0.55% (95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.68) for copper intrauterine devices, respectively. The incidence rates of expulsion per 1000 person-years were 13.95 (95% confidence interval, 13.63-14.28) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 14.08 (95% confidence interval, 13.44-14.75) for copper intrauterine devices; 1-year and 5-year crude cumulative incidence was 2.30% (95% confidence interval, 2.24-2.36) and 4.52% (95% confidence interval, 4.40-4.65) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 2.30% (95% confidence interval, 2.18-2.44) and 4.82 (95% confidence interval, 4.56-5.10) for copper intrauterine devices, respectively. Comparing levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices with copper intrauterine devices, the adjusted hazard ratios were 1.49 (95% confidence intervals, 1.25-1.78) for perforation and 0.69 (95% confidence intervals, 0.65-0.73) for expulsion. CONCLUSION: After adjusting for potential confounders, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices were associated with an increased risk of uterine perforation and a decreased risk of expulsion relative to copper intrauterine devices. Given that the absolute numbers of these events are low in both groups, these differences may not be clinically meaningful.

Association between menorrhagia and risk of intrauterine device-related uterine perforation and device expulsion: results from the Association of Uterine Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Device study.

BACKGROUND: Intrauterine devices are effective instruments for contraception, and 1 levonorgestrel-releasing device is also indicated for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia). OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of intrauterine device expulsion and uterine perforation in women with and without a diagnosis of menorrhagia within the first 12 months before device insertion STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in 3 integrated healthcare systems (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Southern California, and Washington) and a healthcare information exchange (Regenstrief Institute) in the United States using electronic health records. Nonpostpartum women aged ≤50 years with intrauterine device (eg, levonorgestrel or copper) insertions from 2001 to 2018 and without a delivery in the previous 12 months were studied in this analysis. Recent menorrhagia diagnosis (ie, recorded ≤12 months before insertion) was ascertained from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. The study outcomes, viz, device expulsion and device-related uterine perforation (complete or partial), were ascertained from electronic medical records and validated in the data sources. The cumulative incidence and crude incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals were estimated. Cox proportional hazards models estimated the crude and adjusted hazard ratios using propensity score overlap weighting (13-16 variables) and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Among 228,834 nonpostpartum women, the mean age was 33.1 years, 44.4% of them were White, and 31,600 (13.8%) had a recent menorrhagia diagnosis. Most women had a levonorgestrel-releasing device (96.4% of those with and 78.2% of those without a menorrhagia diagnosis). Women with a menorrhagia diagnosis were likely to be older, obese, and have dysmenorrhea or fibroids. Women with a menorrhagia diagnosis had a higher intrauterine device-expulsion rate (40.01 vs 10.92 per 1000 person-years) than those without, especially evident in the first few months after insertion. Women with a menorrhagia diagnosis had a higher cumulative incidence (95% confidence interval) of expulsion (7.00% [6.70-7.32] at 1 year and 12.03% [11.52-12.55] at 5 years) vs those without (1.77% [1.70-1.84] at 1 year and 3.69% [3.56-3.83] at 5 years). The risk of expulsion was increased for women with a menorrhagia diagnosis vs for those without (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.84 [95% confidence interval, 2.66-3.03]). The perforation rate was low overall (<1/1000 person-years) but higher in women with a diagnosis of menorrhagia vs in those without (0.98 vs 0.63 per 1000 person-years). The cumulative incidence (95% confidence interval) of uterine perforation was slightly higher for women with a menorrhagia diagnosis (0.09% [0.06-0.14] at 1 year and 0.39% [0.29-0.53] at 5 years) than those without it (0.07% [0.06-0.08] at 1 year and 0.28% [0.24-0.33] at 5 years). The risk of perforation was slightly increased in women with a menorrhagia diagnosis vs in those without (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-2.13). CONCLUSION: The risk of expulsion is significantly higher in women with a recent diagnosis of menorrhagia. Patient education and counseling regarding the potential expulsion risk is recommended at insertion. The absolute risk of perforation for women with a recent diagnosis of menorrhagia is very low. The increased expulsion and perforation rates observed are likely because of causal factors of menorrhagia.

Unanticipated Consequences of Switching to Sugammadex: Anesthesia Provider Survey on the Hormone Contraceptive Drug Interaction.

BACKGROUND: Sugammadex binds progesterone with high affinity and may interfere with hormonal contraceptive effectiveness. The clinical, economical, and ethical implications of unintended pregnancy should prompt anesthesiologists to actively consider and manage this pharmacologic interaction. We surveyed anesthesiology providers at our institution about knowledge of this potential adverse drug interaction, how they manage it clinically, and the extent to which they involve patients in shared decision-making regarding choice of neuromuscular blocker antagonist. METHODS: A survey instrument was distributed to anesthesiology providers at a large, tertiary-care medical center. The survey explored prior experience using neostigmine and sugammadex, knowledge about potential sugammadex interference with hormonal contraception, pre-/postoperative counseling practices, clinical management, and shared decision-making regarding potential use of neostigmine in lieu of sugammadex to avoid this drug-drug interaction. RESULTS: Of 259 surveys distributed, 155 were fully completed, and 10 were partially completed. Overall response rate was 60% (residents 85%, student nurse anesthetists 53%, certified registered nurse anesthetists 58%, attendings 48%). All but 1 respondent recognized the potential for sugammadex interference with oral hormonal contraception. Far fewer accurately identified potential interference with hormonal intrauterine devices (44%) and hormonal contraceptive implants (55%). The manufacturer's recommended 7-day duration of alternative contraception was correctly identified by 72% of respondents; others (22%) reported longer durations (range 10-30 days). Most (78% overall) agreed/strongly agreed that potential interference with contraceptive effectiveness should be discussed with patients preoperatively. Despite the majority (86% overall) that endorsed shared decision-making and inviting patient input regarding choice between sugammadex and neostigmine, many respondents reported "rarely/never" having discussed this drug interaction with patients in actual clinical practice, either preoperatively (67%) or postoperatively (80%). Furthermore, most respondents (79%) reported "rarely/never" administering neostigmine to intentionally avoid this drug interaction. CONCLUSIONS: Two years after designating sugammadex as antagonist of choice, physician and nurse anesthesia providers reported seldom inquiring about contraceptive use among women of childbearing potential and rarely discussing potential risk of contraceptive failure from sugammadex exposure. Most lack accurate knowledge of sugammadex interference with hormonal intrauterine and subcutaneous contraceptive devices. Although most endorse preoperative counseling and support patient autonomy or shared decision-making regarding choice of reversal agent, the same respondents report rarely, if ever, actualizing these positions in clinical practice. These conflicting findings highlight the need for education regarding residual neuromuscular block versus adverse drug interactions, collaboration among providers involved in patient counseling, and intentional mindfulness of reproductive justice when caring for women of childbearing potential.

Endometrial ablation or resection versus levonorgestrel intra-uterine system for the treatment of women with heavy menstrual bleeding and a normal uterine cavity: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endometrial ablation/resection and the levonorgestrel intra-uterine system (LNG-IUS) are well-established treatment options for heavy menstrual bleeding to avoid more invasive alternatives, such as hysterectomy. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of endometrial ablation or resection with the LNG-IUS in the treatment of premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding and to investigate sources of heterogeneity between studies. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Biosis and Google Scholar as well as citations and reference lists published up to August 2019. Two authors independently screened 3701 citations for eligibility. We included randomized controlled trials published in any language, comparing endometrial ablation or resection to the LNG-IUS in the treatment of premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding and a normal uterine cavity. OUTCOMES: Thirteen studies (N = 884) were eligible. Two independent authors extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies. Random effect models were used to compare the modalities and evaluate sources of heterogeneity. No significant differences were observed between endometrial ablation/resection and the LNG-IUS in terms of subsequent hysterectomy (primary outcome, risk ratio (RR) = 1.13, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.11, P = 0.71, I2 = 14%, 12 studies, 726 women), satisfaction, quality of life, amenorrhea and treatment failure. However, side effects were less common in women treated with endometrial ablation/resection compared to the LNG-IUS (RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.71, P < 0.001, I2 = 0%, 10 studies, 580 women). Three complications were reported in the endometrial ablation/resection group and none in the LNG-IUS group (P = 0.25). Mean age of the studied populations was identified as a significant source of heterogeneity between studies in subgroup analysis (P = 0.01). In fact, endometrial ablation/resection was associated with a higher risk of subsequent hysterectomy compared to the LNG-IUS in younger populations (mean age ≤ 42 years old, RR = 5.26, 95% CI 1.21 to 22.91, P = 0.03, I2 = 0%, 3 studies, 189 women). On the contrary, subsequent hysterectomy seemed to be less likely with endometrial ablation/resection compared to the LNG-IUS in older populations (mean age > 42 years old), although the reduction did not reach statistical significance (RR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.24, P = 0.14, I2 = 0%, 5 studies, 297 women). Finally, sensitivity analysis taking into account the risk of bias of included studies and type of surgical devices (first and second generation) did not modify the results. Most of the included studies reported outcomes at up to 3 years, and the relative performance of endometrial ablation/resection and LNG-IUS remains unknown in the longer term. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: Endometrial ablation/resection and the LNG-IUS are two excellent treatment options for heavy menstrual bleeding, although women treated with the LNG-IUS are at higher risk of experiencing side effects compared to endometrial ablation/resection. Otherwise, younger women seem to present a lower risk of eventually requiring hysterectomy when treated with the LNG-IUS compared to endometrial ablation/resection.

Intracervical block for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system placement among nulligravid women: a randomized double-blind controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Fear of pain during the insertion of intrauterine contraceptives is a barrier to using these methods, especially for nulligravidas. An intracervical block may be easier and more reproducible than a paracervical block; however, this intervention has not been evaluated in nulligravid women to reduce pain with intrauterine contraceptive insertion. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a 3.6-mL 2% lidocaine intracervical block reduces pain at tenaculum placement and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion among nulligravidas; and, in addition, to assess whether the intracervical block has any effect on the ease of device insertion and on the overall experience with the procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized double-blind controlled trial, nulligravidas were block-randomized to 1 of 3 arms prior to 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion: 3.6-mL 2%-lidocaine intracervical block, sham injection (intracervical dry-needling), or no intervention. The primary outcome was pain at levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion. Secondary outcomes were pain at tenaculum placement, ease of insertion (assessed by healthcare providers), and the overall experience with the procedure (pain with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion compared with expectations, discomfort level, wish to undergo another device insertion in the future, and recommendation of the procedure to others). Participants' pain was measured with a 10-cm visual analogue scale and a 5-point Faces Pain Scale. Pain was summarized into categories (none, mild, moderate, severe) and also analyzed as a continuous variable (mean and 95% confidence interval). Our sample size had 80% power (α = 0.05) to detect a 15% difference in pain score measured by visual analogue scale (mean [standard deviation] visual analogue scale score = 5.9 [2.0] cm) and an absolute difference of 20% in the proportion of women reporting severe pain at levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion among groups. We used a χ2 test and a mixed-effects linear regression model. We calculated the number needed to treat for the intracervical block to avert severe pain at tenaculum placement and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion. RESULTS: A total of 302 women were randomized (99 to the intracervical block, 101 to the intracervical sham, and 102 to no intervention), and 300 had a successful device insertion. The intracervical block group had fewer women reporting severe pain than the other groups, both at tenaculum placement (intracervical block: 2% vs sham: 30.2% vs no intervention: 15.2%, P < .0001) and at levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion (intracervical block: 26.5% vs sham: 59.4% vs no intervention: 50.5%, P < .0001). The mean (95% confidence interval) pain score reported at levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion was lower in the intracervical block group than in the other groups (intracervical block: 4.3 [3.8-4.9] vs sham: 6.6 [6.2-7.0], P < .0001; intracervical block: 4.3 [3.8-4.9] vs no intervention: 5.8 [5.3-6.4], P < .0001). Women from the intracervical block group reported less pain than expected (P < .0001), rated the insertion as less uncomfortable (P < .0001), and were more willing to undergo another device insertion in the future (P < .01) than women in the other groups. The ease of insertion were similar among groups. The number needed to treat for the intracervical block to avert severe pain at tenaculum placement and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion was 2 and 4, respectively. CONCLUSION: A 3.6-mL 2% lidocaine intracervical block decreased pain at tenaculum placement and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion among nulligravidas. It also provided a better overall experience during the procedure.

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.

[Medical treatment for the management of painful endometriosis without infertility: CNGOF-HAS Endometriosis Guidelines]. / Traitement médical de l'endométriose douloureuse sans infertilité, RPC Endométriose CNGOF-HAS.

OBJECTIVE: To provide clinical practice guidelines for the management of painful endometriosis in women without infertility. METHODS: Systematic review of the literature literature since 2006, level of evidence rating, external proofreading and grading of the recommendation grade by an expert group according to HAS methodology. RESULTS: Combined hormonal contraceptives (COP) and the levonorgestrel-releasing intra-uterin system (LNG-IUS) are recommended as first-line hormonal therapies for the treatment of painful endometriosis (grade B). Second-line therapy relies on oral desogestrel microprogestative, etonogestrel-releasing implant, GnRH analogs (GnRHa) and dienogest (grade C). It is recommended to use add-back therapy containing estrogen in association with GnRHa (grade B). After endometriosis surgery, hormonal treatment relying on COP or LNG-IUS is recommended to prevent pain recurrence (grade B). COP is recommended to reduce the risk of endometrioma recurrence after surgery (grade B) but the prescription of GnRHa is not recommended (grade C). Continuous COP is recommended in case of dysmenorrhea (grade B). GnRHa is not recommended as first line endometriosis treatment for adolescent girl because of the risk of bone demineralization (grade B). The management of endometriosis-induced chronic pain requires an interdisciplinary evaluation. Physical therapies improving the quality of life such as yoga, relaxation or osteopathy can be proposed (expert agreement). Promising medical alternatives are currently under preclinical and clinical evaluation.

Menorrhagia Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Treatments (MOMITS): A 2 to 5-year follow-up.

We conducted a retrospective postal questionnaire-based study to assess the effectiveness and patient experience of minimally invasive treatments for menorrhagia by performing a two- to five-year follow up of patient symptoms. Questionnaires were distributed to 111 and 117 women following thermal balloon endometrial ablation (TBEA) and levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS), with response rates of 58.5% and 43.6% respectively. Sanitary pad use during the heaviest day of bleeding reduced by 8.4 and 5.2 pads in the TBEA and LNG-IUS groups respectively (p<0.05). An improvement in patients' quality of life (QOL) score exceeding 10 points was found in 79% and 61% in the TBEA and LNG-IUS groups respectively. Patient satisfaction (PS) improved in all areas, more so regarding participation in social activities in the TBEA group (p<0.05). Women undergoing TBEA would recommend the procedure to other women in 95%, and 93% in the LNG-IUS group. TBEA and LNG-IUS are highly acceptable management options for the treatment of menorrhagia, with improvement in QOL, PS and menstrual blood loss.

Pharmaceutical treatments to prevent recurrence of endometriosis following surgery: a model-based economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: Conduct an economic evaluation based on best currently available evidence comparing alternative treatments levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate, combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) and 'no treatment' to prevent recurrence of endometriosis after conservative surgery in primary care, and to inform the design of a planned trial-based economic evaluation. METHODS: We developed a state transition (Markov) model with a 36-month follow-up. The model structure was informed by a pragmatic review and clinical experts. The economic evaluation adopted a UK National Health Service perspective and was based on an outcome of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). As available data were limited, intentionally wide distributions were assigned around model inputs, and the average costs and outcome of the probabilistic sensitivity analyses were reported. RESULTS: On average, all strategies were more expensive and generated fewer QALYs compared to no treatment. However, uncertainty attributing to the transition probabilities affected the results. Inputs relating to effectiveness, changes in treatment and the time at which the change is made were the main causes of uncertainty, illustrating areas where robust and specific data collection is required. CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no evidence to support any treatment being recommended to prevent the recurrence of endometriosis following conservative surgery. The study highlights the importance of developing decision models at the outset of a trial to identify data requirements to conduct a robust post-trial analysis.

An Evidence-based Approach to the Medical Management of Fibroids: A Systematic Review.

Fibroids are the most common tumor of the female reproductive tract, but approved medical treatments are limited. Patients demand uterine-sparing treatments which preserve fertility and avoid surgery. We systematically reviewed PubMed and Cochrane databases from January 1985 to November 2015 for evidence-based medical therapies for fibroids in the context of disease prevention, treatment of early disease, treatment of symptomatic disease, and preoperative management. We identified 2182 studies, of which 52 studies met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Published data affirm the efficacy of multiple agents, which are promising avenues for the development of medical alternatives to surgery.

A randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in primary care against standard treatment for menorrhagia: the ECLIPSE trial.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem, yet evidence to inform decisions about initial medical treatment is limited. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) (Mirena®, Bayer) compared with usual medical treatment, with exploration of women's perspectives on treatment. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre randomised trial with an economic evaluation and a longitudinal qualitative study. SETTING: Women who presented in primary care. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 571 women with HMB. A purposeful sample of 27 women who were randomised or ineligible owing to treatment preference participated in semistructured face-to-face interviews around 2 and 12 months after commencing treatment. INTERVENTIONS: LNG-IUS or usual medical treatment (tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined oestrogen-progestogen or progesterone alone). Women could subsequently swap or cease their allocated treatment. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the patient-reported score on the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS) assessed over a 2-year period and then again at 5 years. Secondary outcomes included general quality of life (QoL), sexual activity, surgical intervention and safety. Data were analysed using iterative constant comparison. A state transition model-based cost-utility analysis was undertaken alongside the randomised trial. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were derived from the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) and the Short Form questionnaire-6 Dimensions (SF-6D). The intention-to-treat analyses were reported as cost per QALY gained. Uncertainty was explored by conducting both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The MMAS total scores improved significantly in both groups at all time points, but were significantly greater for the LNG-IUS than for usual treatment [mean difference over 2 years was 13.4 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.9 to 16.9 points; p < 0.001]. However, this difference between groups was reduced and no longer significant by 5 years (mean difference in scores 3.9 points, 95% CI -0.6 to 8.3 points; p = 0.09). By 5 years, only 47% of women had a LNG-IUS in place and 15% were still taking usual medical treatment. Five-year surgery rates were low, at 20%, and were similar, irrespective of initial treatments. There were no significant differences in serious adverse events between groups. Using the EQ-5D, at 2 years, the relative cost-effectiveness of the LNG-IUS compared with usual medical treatment was £1600 per QALY, which by 5 years was reduced to £114 per QALY. Using the SF-6D, usual medical treatment dominates the LNG-IUS. The qualitative findings show that women's experiences and expectations of medical treatments for HMB vary considerably and change over time. Women had high expectations of a prompt effect from medical treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The LNG-IUS, compared with usual medical therapies, resulted in greater improvement over 2 years in women's assessments of the effect of HMB on their daily routine, including work, social and family life, and psychological and physical well-being. At 5 years, the differences were no longer significant. A similar low proportion of women required surgical intervention in both groups. The LNG-IUS is cost-effective in both the short and medium term, using the method generally recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Using the alternative measures to value QoL will have a considerable impact on cost-effectiveness decisions. It will be important to explore the clinical and health-care trajectories of the ECLIPSE (clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in primary care against standard treatment for menorrhagia) trial participants to 10 years, by which time half of the cohort will have reached menopause. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86566246. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 88. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device use as an alternative to surgical therapy for uterine leiomyoma.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in the treatment of leiomyoma related menorrhagia and to assess the effect of LNG-IUS on uterine, leiomyoma, and ovarian volume. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective before and after study, LNG-IUS was inserted in 38 women with myoma-related menorrhagia. The patients were evaluated for serum levels of hemoglobin, hematocrit and uterine, leiomyoma, and ovarian volume at the time of insertion and at six months. RESULTS: Significant reduction in the Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart (PBAC) score and increases in serum hemoglobin levels and in amenorrhea was observed within three months. However, there was no statistically significant reduction in the myoma and uterine volume. Ovarian volume, also, did not changed significantly. CONCLUSION: The use of LNG-IUS is effective in reducing menorrhagia associated with leiomyomas with improvement in hemoglobin levels and may be a simple and effective alternative to surgical treatment of leiomyoma-related abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB-L) without significant influence on the volume of leiomyoma and ovarian and uterine volume.

Effect of intracervical anesthesia on pain associated with the insertion of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in women without previous vaginal delivery: a RCT.

STUDY QUESTION: Is the pain associated with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) insertion reduced by intracervical anesthesia in women without previous vaginal birth? SUMMARY ANSWER: Intracervical anesthesia was not associated with reduced pain in women without previous vaginal birth. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The pain associated with the insertion of intrauterine contraceptives (IUCs) is a limiting factor for the use of these contraceptives by some women. No prophylactic pharmacological intervention has proven efficacy in relieving pain during or after the insertion of IUCs. However, previous studies included women with previous vaginal delivery, and injectable intracervical anesthesia was not evaluated in any of these studies. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This was a randomized, open, parallel-group clinical trial that evaluated 100 women without previous vaginal delivery who wished to use the LNG-IUS for the first time. These women were evaluated immediately after LNG-IUS insertion and then 2 h and 6 h later. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The 100 women were randomized into two groups: (i) use of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) (ibuprofen, 400 mg) 1 h prior to LNG-IUS insertion; or (ii) 2% lidocaine intracervical injection 5 min prior to LNG-IUS insertion. The women were evaluated immediately after LNG-IUS insertion and then 2 h and 6 h after insertion. Two pain scales were used (the visual analogue scale and the facial pain scale) in addition to assessing the ease of insertion (as rated by the provider) and the level of discomfort during the procedure (as rated by the patient). Multivariate logistic regression was performed to analyze the predictors associated with moderate/severe pain. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The pain and discomfort associated with LNG-IUS insertion, and the ease of insertion of the LNG-IUS did not differ between the groups. Nulliparity was more associated with moderate/severe pain [adjusted odds ratio (OR): 3.1 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.3-7.80]. Injectable intracervical anesthesia use reduced the risk of moderate/severe pain by 40% [adjusted OR: 0.6 (95% CI: 0.2-1.4)]. The difference between the mean pain score in the intracervical anesthesia group and the NSAID group was <10%; thus, the effect size of the intervention was not significant. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Intracervical anesthesia was compared with an oral medication in this study. Intracervical injection of a saline solution or even a dry needling as the placebo for a double-blind study could be a more adequate control; however, this approach was not a protocol approved by the institutional review board. Considering that the majority of the insertions were easy (>80% in both groups), the results may not be extrapolated to difficult insertions with moderate/severe pain where local anesthesia may have a role. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The findings can be generalized to most insertions in nulliparous women or in those without a previous vaginal delivery. There is currently no evidence to recommend the routine use of prophylactic intracervical anesthesia prior to LNG-IUS insertion; there is no evidence that this treatment reduces insertion-related pain. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: RAF and CSV give occasional lectures for Bayer Healthcare. This study received funding from the National Institute of Hormones and Women's Health, National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02155166.

Effects of anemia and iron deficiency on quality of life in women with heavy menstrual bleeding.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of anemia and iron deficiency on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in women treated for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Five university hospitals in Finland. SAMPLE: A total of 236 women referred for HMB. METHODS: Women were randomized to treatment with hysterectomy or a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. We defined groups based on women's pretreatment hemoglobin [hemoglobin <120 g/L (anemic) vs. hemoglobin ≥120 g/L (nonanemic)] and serum ferritin (ferritin <15 µg/L vs. ≥15 µg/L) concentrations. HRQoL was compared between groups at baseline, 6 and 12 months after treatment. Hemoglobin and ferritin were followed for 5 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: HRQoL was measured by the RAND 36-item health survey (RAND-36), 5-Dimensional EuroQol and two questionnaires of mental wellbeing. RESULTS: At baseline, 63 women (27%) were anemic and 140 (60%) were severely iron deficient (ferritin <15 µg/L). Only 8% of the anemic women had taken iron supplementation. Twelve months after treatment hemoglobin had increased in both hemoglobin groups, but was still significantly lower (p < 0.001) in initially anemic women (128 g/L) compared with nonanemic women (136 g/L). Twelve months after treatment three domain scores of RAND-36 increased more (energy, p = 0.002; physical functioning, p = 0.04; social functioning, p = 0.05), and anxiety (p = 0.02) and depression scores (p = 0.002) decreased more in anemic compared with nonanemic women. Serum ferritin took 5 years to reach normal levels. CONCLUSIONS: Improved HRQoL after treatment of HMB is associated with correction of anemia. Clinicians should actively screen for anemia in women with HMB and emphasize early iron substitution as an integral part of treatment.

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system vs. usual medical treatment for menorrhagia: an economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To undertake an economic evaluation alongside the largest randomised controlled trial comparing Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device ('LNG-IUS') and usual medical treatment for women with menorrhagia in primary care; and compare the cost-effectiveness findings using two alternative measures of quality of life. METHODS: 571 women with menorrhagia from 63 UK centres were randomised between February 2005 and July 2009. Women were randomised to having a LNG-IUS fitted, or usual medical treatment, after discussing with their general practitioner their contraceptive needs or desire to avoid hormonal treatment. The treatment was specified prior to randomisation. For the economic evaluation we developed a state transition (Markov) model with a 24 month follow-up. The model structure was informed by the trial women's pathway and clinical experts. The economic evaluation adopted a UK National Health Service perspective and was based on an outcome of incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) estimated using both EQ-5D and SF-6D. RESULTS: Using EQ-5D, LNG-IUS was the most cost-effective treatment for menorrhagia. LNG-IUS costs £100 more than usual medical treatment but generated 0.07 more QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for LNG-IUS compared to usual medical treatment was £1600 per additional QALY. Using SF-6D, usual medical treatment was the most cost-effective treatment. Usual medical treatment was both less costly (£100) and generated 0.002 more QALYs. CONCLUSION: Impact on quality of life is the primary indicator of treatment success in menorrhagia. However, the most cost-effective treatment differs depending on the quality of life measure used to estimate the QALY. Under UK guidelines LNG-IUS would be the recommended treatment for menorrhagia. This study demonstrates that the appropriate valuation of outcomes in menorrhagia is crucial.