Comprehensive Analysis of Iron Deficiency Anemia and Its Related Disorders in Premenopausal Women Based on a Propensity Score Matching Case Control Study Using National Health Insurance Service Database in Korea.

BACKGROUND: Menorrhagia is a common cause of iron deficiency anemia (IDA) in premenopausal women. However, the effects of menorrhagia on IDA in premenopausal women have been underestimated compared to those on other IDA-related disorders (IRDs) such as gastrointestinal malignancies (GIMs). To better understand the relationship between menorrhagia and IDA in premenopausal women, we analyzed the National Health Insurance Service-National Health Information Database (NHIS-NHID). METHODS: From 2005 to 2008, data about women between the age of 20 and 59 years were extracted from the NHIS-NHID to create a propensity score-matched case (IDA) and control group. The annual incidence of IDA was calculated per age group. A 10-year follow up of the study population was determined to detect IRDs in case and control groups. We compared the risk of detection (ROD) of IRDs, including GIM and gynecological disorders associated with menorrhagia - leiomyoma of uterus (LM) and adenomyosis (AM), in the case and the control group. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2008, women diagnosed with IDA (n = 535,249) and healthy women as a control group (n = 1,070,498) were identified from the NHIS-NHID. The annual incidence of IDA was 767.4 (2005), 948.7 (2006), 981.6 (2007), and 897.7 (2008) per 100,000 women. The age distribution of IDA was similar each year; IDA was common in women aged 30-39 years (36-37%) and 40-49 years (30-32%), and its incidence was significantly decreased in women aged 50-59 years (< 10%). The ROD of IRDs were significantly higher in the IDA group than in the control group (LM: 20.8% vs. 6.9%, AM: 5.6% vs. 1.6%, and GIM: 2.6% vs. 0.7%). The corresponding hazard ratios were 3.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.85-3.93) for LM, 4.99 (95% CI, 4.90-5.09) for AM, and 3.43 (95% CI, 3.32-3.55) for GIM. The ROD of the IRDs varied; the ROD of LM in the IDA group increased with age and decreased in the age group 50-59 years. AM was more frequently detected in women with IDA aged 30-39 years and less in women older than 40 years. The frequency of GIM increased with age. CONCLUSION: In this study, we found that the gynecologic disease is the main cause of IDA in premenopausal women. Gynecological evaluations should be performed more actively in the clinic to prevent and control IDA and IRDs.

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.

Screening hemostatic defects in Saudi University students with unexplained menorrhagia: a diagnosis, which could be missed.

Bleeding disorders are a common cause of unexplained menorrhagia in adolescents. However, there is lack of information provided on Arab girls. To estimate the prevalence of coagulation factor deficiencies and platelet dysfunction among Saudi university students with unexplained menorrhagia. In this cross sectional study, 463 adolescent girls surveyed for having heavy menses for further evaluation of underlying bleeding tendencies using screening standardized questionnaire. Only 109 girls out of the total 463 girls reported menorrhagia and were included in the evaluation. All girls with menorrhagia were evaluated by Pictorial blood assessment chart (PBAC) for precise evaluation of menstrual blood loss (PBAC score >100), had underwent pelvic ultrasonography and screening of hemostatic abnormalities (complete blood count, PFA-100, PT, aPTT, vWF:RCo, vWF:Ag, coagulation factors assay). On the basis of the score of PBAC more than 100, 25.6% (28/109) of adolescent women (age ranged: 17-25 years old) had confirmed menorrhagia. In 30.8% of them, an ultimate diagnosis of bleeding tendency or hemostatic abnormality was detected [five cases of probable von Willebrand disease (vWD) or low level of vWF:Ag and/or vWF:RCo, two cases of probable platelet dysfunction, and one case of factorV (FV) deficiency]. Anemia was found in 39.28% (11/28) of them; however, only 4 (36%) had received iron supplements. Our study demonstrated that hemostatic defects are not uncommon in Saudi adolescent women presenting with menorrhagia but mostly unrecognized and untreated. It is probably advisable to screen women with menorrhagia for these defects.

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.

The Prevalence and Impact of Heavy Menstrual Bleeding (Menorrhagia) in Elite and Non-Elite Athletes.

To identify the prevalence and impact of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) in exercising females where anemia may have a significant effect on training and performance a 'Female Health Questionnaire' was designed incorporating a validated diagnostic HMB series, demographics, exercise ability data, training status, anemia, iron supplementation and whether the menstrual cycle had affected training and performance. The survey was conducted in two stages; initially online, advertised via social media, and then repeated via face-to-face interviews with runners registered for the 2015 London Marathon. 789 participants responded to the online survey, and 1073 completed the survey at the marathon. HMB was reported by half of those online (54%), and by more than a third of the marathon runners (36%). Surprisingly, HMB was also prevalent amongst elite athletes (37%). Overall, 32% of exercising females reported a history of anemia, and 50% had previously supplemented with iron. Only a minority (22%) had sought medical advice. HMB is highly prevalent in exercising females, associated with self-reported anemia, increased use of iron supplementation and a perceived negative impact on performance. Further research is needed to investigate the impact of HMB, iron deficiency and anemia in exercising females.