Metformin for endometrial hyperplasia.

BACKGROUND: Endometrial cancer is one of the most common gynaecological cancers in the world. Rates of endometrial cancer are rising, in part because of rising obesity rates. Endometrial hyperplasia is a precancerous condition in women that can lead to endometrial cancer if left untreated. Endometrial hyperplasia occurs more commonly than endometrial cancer. Progesterone tablets that are currently used to treat women with endometrial hyperplasia are associated with adverse effects in up to 84% of women. A levonorgestrel intrauterine device may improve compliance, but it is invasive, is not acceptable to all women, and is associated with irregular vaginal bleeding in 82% of cases. Therefore, an alternative treatment for women with endometrial hyperplasia is needed. Metformin, a drug that is often used to treat people with diabetes, has been shown, in some human studies, to reverse endometrial hyperplasia. However, the effectiveness and safety of metformin for treatment of endometrial hyperplasia remain uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of metformin in treating women with endometrial hyperplasia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, OpenGrey, LILACS, and two trials registers from inception to 5 September 2022. We searched the bibliographies of all relevant studies, and contacted experts in the field for any additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials comparing metformin (used alone or in combination with other medical therapies) versus placebo, no treatment, any conventional medical treatment, or any other active intervention for women with histologically confirmed endometrial hyperplasia of any type. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data from included studies, assessed the risk of bias in the included studies, and assessed the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. We resolved disagreements by discussion or by deferring to a third review author. When study details were missing, review authors contacted the study authors. The primary outcome of this review was regression of endometrial hyperplasia histology (with or without atypia) towards normal histology. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTs, in which a total of 387 women took part. In the comparison, Metformin plus megestrol versus megestrol alone, we rated the certainty of the evidence as low for the outcome, regression of endometrial hyperplasia. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low for the rest of the outcomes, in all three comparisons. Although there was a low risk of selection bias, there was a high risk of bias in the blinding of personnel and outcome assessment (performance bias and detection bias) in many studies. This update identified four new RCTs and six ongoing RCTs. Metformin versus megestrol We are uncertain whether metformin increases the regression of endometrial hyperplasia towards normal histology over megestrol (odds ratio (OR) 4.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56 to 15.32; P = 0.006; 2 RCTs, 83 participants; I² = 7%; very low-certainty evidence). This evidence suggests that if the rate of regression with megestrol is 61%, the rate of regression with metformin would be between 71% and 96%. It is unresolved whether metformin results in different rates of abnormal uterine bleeding or hysterectomy compared to megestrol. No study in this comparison reported progression of hyperplasia to endometrial cancer, recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia, health-related quality of life, or adverse effects during treatment. Metformin plus megestrol versus megestrol monotherapy The combination of metformin and megestrol may enhance the regression of endometrial hyperplasia towards normal histology more than megestrol alone (OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.65 to 6.51; P = 0.0007; 4 RCTs, 258 participants; I² = 0%, low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the rate of regression with megestrol monotherapy is 54%, the rate of regression with the addition of metformin would be between 66% and 84%. In one study, 3/8 (37.5%) of participants who took metformin had nausea that settled without further treatment. It is unresolved whether the combination of metformin and megestrol results in different rates of recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia, progression of endometrial hyperplasia to endometrial cancer, or hysterectomy compared to megestrol monotherapy. No study in this comparison reported abnormal uterine bleeding, or health-related quality of life. Metformin plus levonorgestrel (intrauterine system) versus levonorgestrel (intrauterine system) monotherapy We are uncertain whether there is a difference between groups in the regression of endometrial hyperplasia towards normal histology (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.56; 1 RCT, 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This evidence suggests that if the rate of regression with levonorgestrel monotherapy is 96%, the rate of regression with the addition of metformin would be between 73% and 100%. It is unresolved whether the combination of metformin and levonorgestrel results in different rates of abnormal uterine bleeding, hysterectomy, or the development of adverse effects during treatment compared to levonorgestrel monotherapy. No study in this comparison reported recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia, progression of hyperplasia to endometrial cancer, or health-related quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Review authors found insufficient evidence to either support or refute the use of metformin, specifically megestrol acetate, given alone or in combination with standard therapy, for the treatment of women with endometrial hyperplasia. Robustly designed and adequately powered randomised controlled trials, yielding long-term outcome data are still needed to address this clinical question.

Protocol for the INFORMED (Individualised Patient Care and Treatment for Maternal Diabetes) Study: a randomised controlled trial embedded within routine care.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetes in pregnancy presents a unique physiological challenge to manage glycaemia while maintaining adequate nourishment for the growing fetus. Women with diabetes who become pregnant are at greater risk of adverse maternal and newborn outcomes, compared with women without diabetes. Evidence suggests that control of (postprandial) glycaemia is key to manage maternal and offspring health but it is not yet clear (1) how diet and lifestyle moderate these shifts across the full duration of pregnancy or (2) what aspects of maternal and offspring health are associated with dysglycaemia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: To investigate these gaps, a cross-over randomised clinical trial has been embedded within routine clinical care. Seventy-six pregnant women in their first trimester with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (with or without medication) attending their routine antenatal appointments at National Health Service (NHS) Leeds Teaching Hospitals will be recruited. Following informed consent, data on women's health, glycaemia, pregnancy and delivery will be shared by the NHS with researchers. At each visit in the first (10-12 weeks), second (18-20 weeks) and third (28-34 weeks) trimester, participants will be asked for consent to: (1) lifestyle and diet questionnaires, (2) blood for research purposes and (3) analysis of urine collected at clinical visits. Additionally, participants will be asked to consume two blinded meals in duplicate in second and third trimester. Glycaemia will be assessed by continuous glucose monitoring as part of routine care. The primary outcome is the effect of experimental meals (high vs low protein) on postprandial glycaemia. Secondary outcomes include (1) the association between dysglycaemia and maternal and newborn health, and (2) the association between maternal metabolic profiles in early pregnancy with dysglycaemia in later pregnancy. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Leeds East Research Ethics Committee and NHS (REC: 21/NE/0196) approved the study. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated to participants and the wider public. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN57579163.

Safety and efficacy of intrauterine balloon tamponade vs uterine gauze packing in managing postpartum hemorrhage: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is debate on whether uterine gauze packing or intrauterine balloon tamponade is safer and more effective as a surgical management option for treating postpartum hemorrhage. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare intra- and postoperative outcomes of intrauterine balloon tamponade and uterine gauze packing in patients with postpartum hemorrhage. STUDY DESIGN: A range of databases such as Cochrane and PubMed were searched using terms including "post-partum haemorrhage," "uterine balloon tamponade," and "uterine gauze packing." All observational studies comparing intrauterine balloon tamponade with uterine gauze packing were included. Five studies were identified enrolling 821 adult patients diagnosed with postpartum hemorrhage. Primary outcomes included blood loss volume, success rates, and maternal mortality. Secondary outcomes comprised requiring additional interventions, postoperative hemoglobin levels, and requiring blood transfusions. Fixed and random models were used for analysis. RESULTS: Intrauterine balloon tamponade seemed to be a superior option to uterine gauze packing. Intrauterine balloon tamponade was better in reducing intraoperative blood loss, with a statistically significant improvement (P<.0001). Cases managed with intrauterine balloon tamponade seemed to have statistically significant shorter operative time (P=.023) and hospital length of stay (P=.020) in one study. CONCLUSION: Intrauterine balloon tamponade remains more effective and safer as a first-line surgical management option for postpartum hemorrhage compared with uterine gauze packing.

Metformin for endometrial hyperplasia.

BACKGROUND: Endometrial cancer is one of the most common gynaecological cancers in the world. Rates of endometrial cancer are rising, in part because of rising obesity rates. Endometrial hyperplasia is a precancerous condition in women that can lead to endometrial cancer if left untreated. Endometrial hyperplasia occurs more commonly than endometrial cancer. Progesterone tablets currently used to treat women with endometrial hyperplasia are associated with adverse effects in up to 84% of women. The levonorgestrel intrauterine device (Mirena Coil, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Whippany, NJ, USA) may improve compliance, but it is invasive, is not acceptable to all women, and is associated with irregular vaginal bleeding in 82% of cases. Therefore, an alternative treatment for women with endometrial hyperplasia is needed. Metformin, a drug that is often used to treat people with diabetes, has been shown in some human studies to reverse endometrial hyperplasia. However, the effectiveness and safety of metformin for treatment of endometrial hyperplasia remain uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of metformin in treating women with endometrial hyperplasia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PubMed, Google Scholar, OpenGrey, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), and two trials registers from inception to 10 January 2017. We searched the bibliographies of all included studies and reviews on this topic. We also handsearched the conference abstracts of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) 2015 and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials comparing metformin (used alone or in combination with other medical therapies) versus placebo or no treatment, any conventional medical treatment, or any other active intervention for women with histologically confirmed endometrial hyperplasia of any type. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data from included studies, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We resolved disagreements by discussion or by deferment to a third review author. When study details were missing, review authors contacted study authors. The primary outcome of this review was regression of endometrial hyperplasia histology (with or without atypia) towards normal histology. Secondary outcome measures included recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia, progression of endometrial hyperplasia to endometrial cancer, hysterectomy rate, abnormal uterine bleeding, health-related quality of life, and adverse effects during treatment. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs in which a total of 77 women took part. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low for all outcomes owing to very serious risk of bias (associated with poor reporting, attrition, and limitations in study design) and imprecision.We performed a meta-analysis of two trials with 59 participants. When metformin was compared with megestrol acetate in women with endometrial hyperplasia, we found insufficient evidence to determine whether there were differences between groups for the following outcomes: regression of endometrial hyperplasia histology towards normal histology (odds ratio (OR) 3.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 11.57, two RCTs, n = 59, very low-quality evidence), hysterectomy rates (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.52, two RCTs, n = 59, very low-quality evidence), and rates of abnormal uterine bleeding (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.52, two RCTs, n = 44 , very low-quality evidence). We found no data for recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia or health-related quality of life. Both studies (n = 59) provided data on progression of endometrial hyperplasia to endometrial cancer as well as one (n = 16) reporting some adverse effects in the metformin arm, notably nausea, thrombosis, lactic acidosis, abnormal liver and renal function among others.Another trial including 16 participants compared metformin plus megestrol acetate versus megestrol acetate alone in women with endometrial hyperplasia. We found insufficient evidence to determine whether there were differences between groups for the following outcomes: regression of endometrial hyperplasia histology towards normal histology (OR 9.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 86.52, one RCT, n = 16, very low-quality evidence), recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia among women who achieve regression (OR not estimable, no events recorded, one RCT, n = 8, very low-quality evidence), progression of endometrial hyperplasia to endometrial cancer (OR not estimable, no events recorded, one RCT, n = 13, very low-quality evidence), or hysterectomy rates (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.37, one RCT, n = 16, very low-quality evidence). Investigators provided no data on abnormal uterine bleeding or health-related quality of life. In terms of adverse effects, three of eight participants (37.5%) in the metformin plus megestrol acetate study arm reported nausea. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, evidence is insufficient to support or refute the use of metformin alone or in combination with standard therapy - specifically, megestrol acetate - versus megestrol acetate alone, for treatment of endometrial hyperplasia. Robustly designed and adequately powered randomised controlled trials yielding long-term outcome data are needed to address this clinical question.

Metformin for endometrial hyperplasia: a Cochrane protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Endometrial hyperplasia is a precancerous lesion of the endometrium, commonly presenting with uterine bleeding. If managed expectantly, it frequently progresses to endometrial carcinoma, rates of which are increasing dramatically worldwide. However, the established treatment for endometrial hyperplasia (progestogens) involves multiple side effects and leaves the risk of recurrence. Metformin is the most commonly used oral hypoglycaemic agent in type 2 diabetes mellitus. It has also been linked to the reversal of endometrial hyperplasia and may therefore contribute to decreasing the prevalence of endometrial carcinoma without the fertility and side effect consequences of current therapies. However, the efficacy and safety of metformin being used for this therapeutic target is unclear and, therefore, this systematic review will aim to determine this. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search the following trials and databases with no language restrictions: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; EBSCO Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; PubMed; Google Scholar; ClinicalTrials.gov; the WHO International Trials Registry Platform portal; OpenGrey and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS). We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of use of metformin compared with a placebo or no treatment, conventional medical treatment (eg, progestogens) or any other active intervention. Two review authors will independently assess the trial eligibility, risk of bias and extract appropriate data points. Trial authors will be contacted for additional data. The primary review outcome is the regression of endometrial hyperplasia histology towards normal histology. Secondary outcomes include hysterectomy rate; abnormal uterine bleeding; quality of life scores and adverse reactions to treatments. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Dissemination of the completed review will be through the Cochrane Library as well as through presenting the results at appropriate conferences.