Antenatal dietary supplementation with myo-inositol for preventing gestational diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes with onset or first recognition during pregnancy is an increasing problem worldwide. Myo-inositol, an isomer of inositol, is a naturally occurring sugar commonly found in cereals, corn, legumes and meat. Myo-inositol is one of the intracellular mediators of the insulin signal and correlates with insulin sensitivity in type 2 diabetes. The potential beneficial effect of improving insulin sensitivity suggests that myo-inositol may be useful for women in preventing gestational diabetes. This is an update of a review first published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To assess if antenatal dietary supplementation with myo-inositol is safe and effective, for the mother and fetus, in preventing gestational diabetes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP (17 March 2022) and the reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including cluster-RCTs and conference abstracts, assessing the effects of myo-inositol for the prevention of gestational diabetes in pregnant women. We included studies that compared any dose of myo-inositol, alone or in a combination preparation, with no treatment, placebo or another intervention. Quasi-randomised and cross-over trials were not eligible. We excluded women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted the data. We checked the data for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTs (one conducted in Ireland, six conducted in Italy) reporting on 1319 women who were 10 weeks to 24 weeks pregnant at the start of the studies. The studies had relatively small sample sizes and the overall risk of bias was low. For the primary maternal outcomes, meta-analysis showed that myo-inositol may reduce the incidence of gestational diabetes (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 0.90; 6 studies, 1140 women) and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.61; 5 studies, 1052 women). However, the certainty of the evidence was low to very low. For the primary neonatal outcomes, only one study measured the risk of a large-for-gestational-age infant and found myo-inositol was associated with both appreciable benefit and harm (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.02; 1 study, 234 infants; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on the other primary neonatal outcomes (perinatal mortality, mortality or morbidity composite). For the secondary maternal outcomes, we are unclear about the effect of myo-inositol on weight gain during pregnancy (mean difference (MD) -0.25 kilogram (kg), 95% CI -1.26 to 0.75 kg; 4 studies, 831 women) and perineal trauma (RR 4.0, 95% CI 0.45 to 35.25; 1 study, 234 women) because the evidence was assessed as being very low-certainty. Further, myo-inositol may result in little to no difference in caesarean section (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.07; 4 studies, 829 women; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on the other secondary maternal outcomes (postnatal depression and the development of subsequent type 2 diabetes mellitus). For the secondary neonatal outcomes, meta-analysis showed no neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 3.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 10.52; 4 studies; 671 infants; very low-certainty evidence). However, myo-inositol may be associated with a reduction in the incidence of preterm birth (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.70; 4 studies; 829 infants). There were insufficient data for a number of maternal and neonatal secondary outcomes, and no data were reported for any of the long-term childhood or adulthood outcomes, or for health service utilisation outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from seven studies shows that antenatal dietary supplementation with myo-inositol during pregnancy may reduce the incidence of gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and preterm birth. Limited data suggest that supplementation with myo-inositol may not reduce the risk of a large-for-gestational-age infant.  The current evidence is based on small studies that were not powered to detect differences in outcomes such as perinatal mortality and serious infant morbidity. Six of the included studies were conducted in Italy and one in Ireland, which raises concerns about the lack of generalisability to other settings. There is evidence of inconsistency among doses of myo-inositol, the timing of administration and study population. As a result, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence for many outcomes to low or very low certainty. Further studies for this promising antenatal intervention for preventing gestational diabetes are encouraged and should include pregnant women of different ethnicities and varying risk factors. Myo-inositol at different doses, frequency and timing of administration, should be compared with placebo, diet and exercise, and pharmacological interventions. Long-term follow-up should be considered and outcomes should include potential harms, including adverse effects.

Laparoscopic ovarian drilling for ovulation induction in women with anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common condition affecting 8% to 13% of reproductive-aged women. In the past clomiphene citrate (CC) used to be the first-line treatment in women with PCOS. Ovulation induction with letrozole should be the first-line treatment according to new guidelines, but the use of letrozole is off-label. Consequently, CC is still commonly used. Approximately 20% of women on CC do not ovulate. Women who are CC-resistant can be treated with gonadotrophins or other medical ovulation-induction agents. These medications are not always successful, can be time-consuming and can cause adverse events like multiple pregnancies and cycle cancellation due to an excessive response. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) is a surgical alternative to medical treatment. There are risks associated with surgery, such as complications from anaesthesia, infection, and adhesions. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of LOD with or without medical ovulation induction compared with medical ovulation induction alone for women with anovulatory polycystic PCOS and CC-resistance. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and two trials registers up to 8 October 2019, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with anovulatory PCOS and CC resistance who underwent LOD with or without medical ovulation induction versus medical ovulation induction alone, LOD with assisted reproductive technologies (ART) versus ART, LOD with second-look laparoscopy versus expectant management, or different techniques of LOD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias, extracted data and evaluated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE method. The primary effectiveness outcome was live birth and the primary safety outcome was multiple pregnancy. Pregnancy, miscarriage, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), ovulation, costs, and quality of life were secondary outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: This updated review includes 38 trials (3326 women). The evidence was very low- to moderate-quality; the main limitations were due to poor reporting of study methods, with downgrading for risks of bias (randomisation and allocation concealment) and lack of blinding. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling with or without medical ovulation induction versus medical ovulation induction alone Pooled results suggest LOD may decrease live birth slightly when compared with medical ovulation induction alone (odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.92; 9 studies, 1015 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). The evidence suggest that if the chance of live birth following medical ovulation induction alone is 42%, the chance following LOD would be between 28% and 40%. The sensitivity analysis restricted to only RCTs with low risk of selection bias suggested there is uncertainty whether there is a difference between the treatments (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.36; 4 studies, 415 women; I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). LOD probably reduces multiple pregnancy rates (Peto OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.66; 14 studies, 1161 women; I2 = 2%; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if we assume the risk of multiple pregnancy following medical ovulation induction is 5.0%, the risk following LOD would be between 0.9% and 3.4%. Restricting to RCTs that followed women for six months after LOD and six cycles of ovulation induction only, the results for live birth were consistent with the main analysis. There may be little or no difference between the treatments for the likelihood of a clinical pregnancy (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.03; 21 studies, 2016 women; I2 = 19%; low-quality evidence). There is uncertainty about the effect of LOD compared with ovulation induction alone on miscarriage (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.59; 19 studies, 1909 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). OHSS was a very rare event. LOD may reduce OHSS (Peto OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.91; 8 studies, 722 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Unilateral LOD versus bilateral LOD Due to the small sample size, the quality of evidence is insufficient to justify a conclusion on live birth (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.78; 1 study, 44 women; very low-quality evidence). There were no data available on multiple pregnancy. The likelihood of a clinical pregnancy is uncertain between the treatments, due to the quality of the evidence and the large heterogeneity between the studies (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.84; 7 studies, 470 women; I2 = 60%, very low-quality evidence). Due to the small sample size, the quality of evidence is not sufficient to justify a conclusion on miscarriage (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.33; 2 studies, 131 women; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Other comparisons Due to lack of evidence and very low-quality data there is uncertainty whether there is a difference for any of the following comparisons: LOD with IVF versus IVF, LOD with second-look laparoscopy versus expectant management, monopolar versus bipolar LOD, and adjusted thermal dose versus fixed thermal dose. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic ovarian drilling with and without medical ovulation induction may decrease the live birth rate in women with anovulatory PCOS and CC resistance compared with medical ovulation induction alone. But the sensitivity analysis restricted to only RCTs at low risk of selection bias suggests there is uncertainty whether there is a difference between the treatments, due to uncertainty around the estimate. Moderate-quality evidence shows that LOD probably reduces the number of multiple pregnancy. Low-quality evidence suggests that there may be little or no difference between the treatments for the likelihood of a clinical pregnancy, and there is uncertainty about the effect of LOD compared with ovulation induction alone on miscarriage. LOD may result in less OHSS. The quality of evidence is insufficient to justify a conclusion on live birth, clinical pregnancy or miscarriage rate for the analysis of unilateral LOD versus bilateral LOD. There were no data available on multiple pregnancy.

Strategies to improve adherence and continuation of shorter-term hormonal methods of contraception.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, hormonal contraceptives are among the most popular reversible contraceptives. Despite high perfect-use effectiveness rates, typical-use effectiveness rates for shorter-term methods such as oral and injectable contraceptives are much lower. In large part, this disparity reflects difficulties in ongoing adherence to the contraceptive regimen and low continuation rates. Correct use of contraceptives to ensure effectiveness is vital to reducing unintended pregnancy. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of strategies aiming to improve adherence to, and continuation of, shorter-term hormonal methods of contraception compared with usual family planning care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched to July 2018 in the following databases (without language restrictions): The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 7), PubMed via MEDLINE, POPLINE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing strategies aimed to facilitate adherence and continuation of shorter-term hormonal methods of contraception (such as oral contraceptives (OCs), injectable depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA or Depo-Provera), intravaginal ring, or transdermal patch) with usual family planning care in reproductive age women seeking to avoid pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were continuation or discontinuation of contraceptive method, rates of discontinuation due to adverse events (menstrual disturbances and all other adverse events), and adherence to method use as indicated by missed pills and on-time/late injections. Pregnancy was a secondary outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 RCTs involving 6242 women. Six trials provided direct in-person counseling using either multiple counseling contacts or multiple components during one visit. Four trials provided intensive reminders of appointments or next dosing, of which two provided additional educational health information as well as reminders. All trials stated 'usual care' as the comparison.The certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Main limitations were risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methodological detail, lack of blinding, and incomplete outcome data), inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision.Continuation of hormonal contraceptive methodsIt is uncertain whether intensive counseling improves continuation of hormonal contraceptive methods compared with usual care (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.54; 2624 participants; 6 studies; I2 = 79%; very low certainty evidence). The evidence suggested: if the chance of continuation with usual care is 39%, the chance of continuation with intensive counseling would be between 41% and 50%. The overall pooled OR suggested continuation of improvement, however, when stratified by contraceptive method type, the positive results were restricted to DMPA.It is uncertain whether reminders (+/- educational information) improve continuation of hormonal contraceptive methods compared with usual care (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.73; 933 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 69%; very low certainty evidence).The evidence suggested: if the chance of continuation with usual care is 52%, the chance of continuation with reminders would be between 52% and 65%.Discontinuation due to adverse eventsThe evidence suggested that counseling may be associated with a decreased rate of discontinuation due to adverse events compared with usual care, with a lower rate of discontinuation due to menstrual disturbances (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.37; 350 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence), but may make little or no difference to all other adverse events (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.47; 350 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence). The evidence suggested: if the chance of discontinuation with usual care due to menstrual disturbances is 32%, the chance of discontinuation with intensive counseling would be between 5% and 15%; and that if the chance of discontinuation with usual care due to other adverse events is 55%, the chance of discontinuation with intensive counseling would be between 30% and 64%.Discontinuation was not reported among trials that investigated the use of reminders (+/- educational information).Adherence Adherence was not reported among trials that investigated the use of intensive counseling.Among trials that investigated reminders (+/- educational information), there was no conclusive evidence of a difference in adherence as indicated by missed pills (MD 0.80, 95% CI -1.22 to 2.82; 73 participants; 1 study; moderate certainty evidence) or by on-time injections (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.29; 350 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). The evidence suggested: if the chance of adherence to method use as indicated by on-time injections with usual care is 50%, the chance of adherence with method use as indicated by on-time injections with reminders would be between 35% and 56%.PregnancyThere was no conclusive evidence of a difference in rates of pregnancy between intensive counseling and usual care (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.57; 1985 participants; 3 studies; I2 = 0%, very low certainty evidence). The evidence suggested: if the chance of pregnancy with usual care is 18%, the chance of pregnancy with counseling would be between 18% and 25%.Pregnancy was not reported among trials that investigated the use of reminders (+/- educational information). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the importance of this topic, studies have not been published since the last review in 2013 (nine studies) with only one study added in 2019 that neither changed the results nor improved the certainty of evidence.Overall, the certainty of evidence for strategies to improve adherence and continuation of contraceptives is low. Intensive counseling and reminders (with or without educational information) may be associated with improved continuation of shorter-term hormonal contraceptive methods when compared with usual family planning care. However, this should be interpreted with caution due to the low certainty of the evidence. Included trials used a variety of shorter-term hormonal contraceptive methods which may account for the high heterogeneity. It is possible that the effectiveness of strategies for improving adherence and continuation are contingent on the contraceptive method targeted. There was limited reporting of objectively measurable outcomes (e.g. electronic monitoring device) among included studies. Future trials would benefit from standardized definitions and measurements of adherence, and consistent terminology for describing interventions and comparisons. Further research requires larger studies, follow-up of at least one year, and improved reporting of trial methodology.

Surgery for women with pelvic organ prolapse with or without stress urinary incontinence.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is common in women and is frequently associated with stress urinary incontinence (SUI). In many cases however, SUI is present only with the prolapse reduced (occult SUI) or may develop after surgical treatment for prolapse (de novo SUI). OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact on postoperative bladder function of surgery for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse with or without concomitant or delayed two-stage continence procedures to treat or prevent stress urinary incontinence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE-In-Process, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, handsearching journals and conference proceedings (searched 11 November 2017) and reference lists of relevant articles. We also contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including surgical operations for POP with or without continence procedures in continent or incontinent women. Our primary outcome was subjective postoperative SUI. Secondary outcomes included recurrent POP on examination, overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms, and voiding dysfunction. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 RCTs (2717 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from low to moderate. The main limitations were risk of bias (especially blinding of outcome assessors), indirectness and imprecision associated with low event rates and small samples.POP surgery in women with SUIVaginal repair with vs without concomitant mid-urethral sling (MUS)A concomitant MUS probably improves postoperative rates of subjective SUI, as the evaluated clinical effect appears large (risk ratio (RR) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.48; 319 participants, two studies; I² = 28%; moderate-quality evidence), and probably decreases the need for further continence surgery (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.74; 134 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if the risk of SUI with POP surgery alone is 39%, the risk with an MUS is between 8% and 19%.Rates of recurrent POP on examination, OAB, and voiding dysfunction were not reported.Vaginal repair with concomitant vs delayed MUSEvidence suggested little or no difference between groups in reporting postoperative SUI (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.37; 140 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence).Rates of recurrent POP on examination, OAB, and voiding dysfunction and the need for further surgery were not reported.Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with vs without Burch colposuspensionAn additional Burch colposuspension probably has little or no effect on postoperative SUI at one year (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.60; 47 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence), OAB symptoms (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.18; 33 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence), or voiding dysfunction (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.43; 47 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence). Rates of recurrent POP and the need for further surgery were not reported.POP surgery in women with occult SUIVaginal repair with vs without concomitant MUSMUS probably improves rates of subjective postoperative SUI (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.55; 369 participants, five studies; I² = 44%; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if the risk with surgery alone is 34%, the risk with a concomitant MUS is between 10% and 22%. Evidence suggests little or no difference between groups in rates of recurrent POP (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.19; 50 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence), OAB symptoms (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.07; 43 participants, one study; low-quality evidence), or voiding dysfunction (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.15 to 6.55; 50 participants, one study; low-quality evidence). The need for further surgery was not reported.POP surgery in continent women Vaginal repair with vs without concomitant MUSResearchers provided no conclusive evidence of a difference between groups in rates of subjective postoperative SUI (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.00; 220 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if the risk with surgery alone is 40%, the risk with a concomitant MUS is between 19% and 40%. Rates of recurrent POP, OAB, and voiding dysfunction and the need for further surgery were not reported.Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with vs without Burch colposuspensionWe are uncertain whether there is a difference between groups in rates of subjective postoperative SUI (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.19 to 9.01; 379 participants, two studies; I² = 90%; low-quality evidence), as RCTs produced results in different directions with a very wide confidence interval. We are also uncertain whether there is a difference between groups in rates of voiding dysfunction (RR 8.49, 95% CI 0.48 to 151.59; 66 participants, one study; low-quality evidence) or recurrent POP (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.30; 250 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence. No study reported OAB symptoms and need for further surgery.Vaginal repair with armed anterior vaginal mesh repair vs anterior native tissue Anterior armed mesh repair may slightly increase postoperative de novo SUI (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.37; 905 participants, seven studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence) but may decrease recurrent POP (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.38; 848 participants, five studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in rates of voiding dysfunction (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.22 to 12.10; 125 participants, two studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). Rates of OAB and the need for further surgery were not reported.Adverse events were infrequently reported in all studies; cost was not studied in any trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In women with POP and SUI (symptomatic or occult), a concurrent MUS probably reduces postoperative SUI and should be discussed in counselling. It might be feasible to postpone the MUS and perform a delayed (two-stage) continence procedure, if required.Although an abdominal continence procedure (Burch colposuspension) during abdominal POP surgery in continent women reduced de novo SUI rates in one underpowered trial, another RCT reported conflicting results. Adding an MUS during vaginal POP repair might reduce postoperative development of SUI.An anterior native tissue repair might be better than use of transobturator mesh for preventing postoperative SUI; however, prolapse recurrence is more common with native tissue repair.

Oral contraceptives for pain associated with endometriosis.

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition which affects many women of reproductive age worldwide and is a major cause of pain and infertility. The combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) is widely used to treat pain occurring as a result of endometriosis, although the evidence for its efficacy is limited. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of oral contraceptive preparations in the treatment of painful symptoms ascribed to the diagnosis of laparoscopically proven endometriosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following from inception to 19 October 2017: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and the trial registers ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). We also handsearched reference lists of relevant trials and systematic reviews retrieved by the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) of the use of COCPs in the treatment of women of reproductive age with symptoms ascribed to the diagnosis of endometriosis that had been made visually at a surgical procedure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. One review author was an expert in the content matter. We contacted study authors for additional information. The primary outcome was self-reported pain (dysmenorrhoea) at the end of treatment. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials (612 women) met the inclusion criteria. Only three trials (404 women) provided data that were suitable for analysis.Combined oral contraceptive pill versus placeboTwo trials compared COCP with a placebo. These studies were at high risk of bias. For GRADE outcomes (self-reported pain (dysmenorrhoea) at the end of treatment), the quality of the evidence very low. Evidence was downgraded for imprecision as it was based on a single, small trial and for the visual analogue scale data there were wide confidence intervals (CIs). There appeared to have been substantial involvement of the pharmaceutical company funding the trials.Treatment with the COCP was associated with an improvement in self-reported pain at the end of treatment as evidenced by a lower score on the Dysmenorrhoea verbal rating scale (scale 0 to 3) compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) -1.30 points, 95% CI -1.84 to -0.76; 1 RCT, 96 women; very low quality evidence), a lower score on the Dysmenorrhoea visual analogue scale (no details of scale) compared with placebo (MD -23.68 points, 95% CI -28.75 to -18.62, 2 RCTs, 327 women; very low quality evidence) and a reduction in menstrual pain from baseline to the end of treatment (MD 2.10 points, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.82; 1 RCT, 169 women; very low quality evidence).Combined oral contraceptive pill versus medical therapiesOne underpowered trial compared the COCP with another medical treatment (goserelin). The study was at high risk of bias; the trial was unblinded and there was insufficient detail to judge allocation concealment and randomisation. For GRADE outcomes (self-reported pain (dysmenorrhoea) at the end of treatment), the quality of the evidence ranged from low to very low.At the end of treatment, the women in the goserelin group were amenorrhoeic and therefore no comparisons could be made between the groups for the primary outcome. At six months' follow-up, there was no clear evidence of a difference between women treated with the COCP and women treated with goserelin for measures of dysmenorrhoea on a visual analogue scale (scale 1 to 10) (MD -0.10, 95% CI -1.28 to 1.08; 1 RCT, 50 women; very low quality evidence) or a verbal rating scale (scale 0 to 3) (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.99 to 0.79; 1 RCT, 50 women; very low quality evidence). At six months' follow-up, there was no clear evidence of a difference between the COCP and goserelin groups for reporting complete absence of pain as measured by the visual analogue scale (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.02 to 8.43; 1 RCT, 50 women; very low quality evidence) or the verbal rating scale (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; 1 RCT, 49 women; low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the limited evidence from two trials at high risk of bias and limited data for the prespecified outcomes for this review, there is insufficient evidence to make a judgement on the effectiveness of the COCP compared with placebo and the findings cannot be generalised.Based on the limited evidence from one small trial that was at high risk of bias, there is insufficient evidence to make a judgement on the effectiveness of the COCP compared with other medical treatments. Only one comparison was possible, with the medical intervention being goserelin, and the findings cannot be generalised.Further research is needed to fully evaluate the role of COCPs in managing pain-related symptoms associated with endometriosis. There are other formulations of the combined hormonal contraception such as the transdermal patch, vaginal ring or combined injectable contraceptives which this review did not cover but should be considered in future updates.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for pain in women with endometriosis.

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition that affects women and can lead to painful symptoms and infertility. It greatly affects women's quality of life, impacting their careers, everyday activities, sexual and nonsexual relationships and fertility. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are most commonly used as first-line treatment for women with pain associated with endometriosis. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of NSAIDs used for management of pain in women with endometriosis compared with placebo, other NSAIDs, other pain management drugs or no treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials (October 2016), published in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, as well as MEDLINE (January 2008 to October 2016), Embase (date limited from 1 January 2016 to 19 October 2016, as all earlier references are included in CENTRAL output as a result of the Embase project), registers of ongoing trials and the reference lists of relevant publications. We identified no new randomised controlled trials. Unless we identify new evidence in the future, we will not update this review. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) describing use of NSAIDs for management of pain associated with endometriosis in women of all ages. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: In the 2009 update of this review, two review authors (CA and SH) independently read and extracted data from each of the included studies. We analysed cross-over trials using the inverse variance method of RevMan to calculate odds ratios for binary outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no new trials for the 2016 update. This review includes two trials, but we included only one trial, with 24 women, in the analysis.The overall risk of bias was unclear owing to lack of methodological detail. Using the GRADE method, we judged the quality of the evidence to be very low. We downgraded evidence for risk of bias and for imprecision (wide confidence intervals and evidence based on a single small trial).Comparison of NSAIDs (naproxen) versus placebo revealed no evidence of a positive effect on pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 3.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 17.69; one trial, 24 women; very low-quality evidence) in women with endometriosis. Evidence indicating whether women taking NSAIDs (naproxen) were less likely to require additional analgesia (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.29; one trial, 24 women; very low-quality evidence) or to experience side effects (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.47; one trial, 24 women; very low-quality evidence) when compared with placebo was inconclusive.Studies provided no data on quality of life, effects on daily activities, absence from work or school, need for more invasive treatment or participant satisfaction with treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Owing to lack of high-quality evidence and lack of reporting of outcomes of interest for this review, we can make no judgement as to whether NSAIDs (naproxen) are effective in managing pain caused by endometriosis. No evidence shows whether any individual NSAID is more effective than another. As shown in other Cochrane reviews, women taking NSAIDs must be aware that these drugs may cause unintended effects.

Dietary supplementation with myo-inositol in women during pregnancy for treating gestational diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is any degree of glucose intolerance that first presents and is recognised during pregnancy and usually resolves after the birth of the baby. GDM is associated with increased short- and long-term morbidity for the mother and her baby. Treatment usually includes lifestyle modification and/or pharmacological therapy (oral antidiabetic agents or insulin) with the aim to maintain treatment targets for blood glucose concentrations. Finding novel treatment agents which are effective, acceptable and safe for the mother and her baby are important. One such emerging potential intervention is myo-inositol which is an isomer of inositol and occurs endogenously and is found in natural dietary sources such as fruits, vegetables, nuts and cereals. OBJECTIVES: To assess if dietary supplementation with myo-inositol during pregnancy is safe and effective, for the mother and fetus, in treating gestational diabetes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (7 April 2016), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised controlled trials reporting on the use of myo-inositol compared with placebo, no treatment or another intervention for the treatment of women with gestational diabetes. Quasi-randomised and cross-over studies are not eligible for inclusion. Women with pre-existing diabetes were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. For key outcomes (where data were available), we assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies (142 women and infants), both were conducted in women in Italy and compared myo-inositol with a placebo control.None of the maternal primary outcomes pre-specified for this review were reported in the included studies: hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; caesarean section; development of subsequent type 2 diabetes mellitus. No data were reported for the majority of this review's maternal secondary outcomes. We could only perform meta-analysis for two secondary outcomes: fasting oral glucose tolerance test and additional pharmacological treatment. All other results are based on data from single studies. Overall, the risk of bias of the included studies was judged to be unclear due to lack of key methodological information.There was no evidence of a difference between treatment groups in need for additional pharmacotherapy or weight gain during pregnancy, although myo-inositol was associated with a lower body mass index (BMI) change (mean difference (MD) -1.50 kg/m2; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.35 to -0.65; one trial, n = 73). Myo-inositol was associated with a reduction in the fasting blood glucose concentration at the end of treatment (MD -0.47 mmol/L; 95% CI -0.59 to -0.35; two trials, n = 142 women) compared with the control group. One small trial reported that myo-inositol was associated with a reduction in one-hour post-prandial blood glucose concentration at the end of treatment (MD -0.90 mmol/L; 95% CI -1.73 to -0.07; one trial, n = 73 women) compared with the control group. There was no difference between groups for the two-hour post-prandial blood glucose concentrations between groups (MD -0.70 mmol/L; 95% CI -1.46 to 0.06; one trial, n = 73 women). The one-hour and two-hour blood glucose concentrations show evidence of imprecision associated with wide CIs and small sample size.For the infant, there was no evidence of a difference in the risk for being born large-for-gestational age between the myo-inositol and the control group (risk ratio (RR) 0.36; 95% CI 0.02 to 8.58; one trial, n = 73 infants; low-quality evidence). The evidence was downgraded due to imprecision. This review's other primary outcomes were not reported in the included trials: perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality); mortality of morbidity composite (as defined by the trials); neurosensory disability. Infants in the myo-inositol group were less likely to have neonatal hypoglycaemia compared with the placebo group (RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.85; one study, n = 73 infants; low-quality evidence). There is evidence of imprecision for this outcome with low event rates and small sample size. There was no evidence of a difference between treatment and placebo groups for preterm birth or birthweight. Myo-inositol was associated with a later gestational age at birth compared with the placebo group (MD 2.10 weeks; 95% CI 1.27 to 2.93; one trial, n = 73 infants). No data were reported for any of the other neonatal outcomes for this review.No long-term outcomes were reported for the mother, infant as a child, infant as an adult, or health service outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are insufficient data to evaluate the effect of myo-inositol for the treatment of gestational diabetes, with no data to examine the majority of outcomes in this review. There do not appear to be any benefits for the infant associated with exposure to myo-inositol such as reduced risk of being born large-for-gestational age. Although the risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia is reduced for the myo-inositol group, there is evidence of imprecision. Evidence from two studies suggested that myo-inositol was associated with a reduced change in maternal BMI and fasting blood sugar concentration compared with placebo. There is a lack of reporting of the clinically meaningful outcomes pre-specified for this review.Uncertainty of the effectiveness of myo-inositol as a treatment for GDM for key maternal and infant outcomes remains and further high- quality trials with appropriate sample sizes are required to further investigate the role of myo-inositol as a treatment or co-treatment for women with gestational diabetes. Future trials should report on the core outcomes for GDM identified in the methods section of this review. Participants of varying ethnicities and with varying risk factors for GDM should be included in future trials. In addition, further trials of myo-inositol for the treatment of GDM should explore the optimal dose, frequency and timing of supplementation, report on adverse effects and assess the long- term effects of this intervention. Economic analysis or health service use and costs should also be included.

Different intensities of glycaemic control for women with gestational diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has major short- and long-term implications for both the mother and her baby. GDM is defined as a carbohydrate intolerance resulting in hyperglycaemia or any degree of glucose intolerance with onset or first recognition during pregnancy from 24 weeks' gestation onwards and which resolves following the birth of the baby. Rates for GDM can be as high as 25% depending on the population and diagnostic criteria used and rates are increasing globally. Risk factors associated with GDM include advanced maternal age, obesity, ethnicity, family history of diabetes, and a previous history of GDM, macrosomia or unexplained stillbirth. There is wide variation internationally in glycaemic treatment target recommendations for women with GDM that are based on consensus rather than high-quality trials. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of different intensities of glycaemic control in pregnant women with GDM on maternal and infant health outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (1 February 2016) and reference lists of the retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included one randomised controlled trial. Cluster-randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions for carrying out data collection, assessing study quality and analysing results. Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility for inclusion, evaluated methodological quality and extracted data for the one included study. We sought additional information from one trial author but had no response. We assessed the quality of evidence for selected outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included one Canadian trial of 180 women, recruited between 20 to 32 weeks' gestation, who had been diagnosed with GDM. Data from 171 of the 180 women were published as a conference abstract and no full report has been identified. The overall risk of bias of the single included study was judged to be unclear.The included trial did not report on any of this review's primary outcomes. For the mother, these were hypertension disorders of pregnancy or subsequent development of type 2 diabetes. For the infant, our primary outcomes were (perinatal (fetal and neonatal) mortality; large-for-gestational age; composite of death or severe morbidity or later childhood neurosensory disability).The trial did report data relating to some of this review's secondary outcomes. There was no clear difference in caesarean section rates for women assigned to using strict glycaemic targets (pre-prandial 5.0 mmol/L (90 mg/L) and at one-hour postprandial 6.7 mmol/L (120 mg/dL)) (28/85, 33%) when compared with women assigned to using liberal glycaemic targets (pre-prandial 5.8 mmol/L (103 mg/dL) and at one-hour postprandial 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL)) (21/86, 24%) (risk ratio (RR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 2.18, one trial, 171 women; very low quality). Using the GRADE approach, we found the quality of the evidence to bevery low for caesarean section due to poor reporting of risk of bias, imprecision and publication bias. Strict glycaemic targets were associated with an increase in the use of pharmacological therapy (identified as the use of insulin in this study) (33/85; 39%) compared with liberal glycaemic targets (18/86; 21%) (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.03; one trial, 171 women). CIs are wide suggesting imprecision and caution is required when interpreting the data. No other secondary maternal outcome data relevant to this review were reported. For the infant, there were no clear differences between the groups of women receiving strict and liberal glycaemic targets for macrosomia (birthweight greater than 4000 g) (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.31 to 5.85, one trial, 171 babies); small-for-gestational age (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.63, one trial, 171 babies); birthweight (mean difference (MD) -92.00 g, 95% CI -241.97 to 57.97, one trial, 171 babies) or gestational age (MD -0.30 weeks, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.13, one trial, 171 babies). Adverse effects data were not reported. No other secondary neonatal outcomes relevant to this review were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review is based on a single study (involving 180 women) with an unclear risk of bias. The trial (which was only reported in a conference abstract) did not provide data for any of this review's primary outcomes but did provide data for a limited number of our secondary outcomes. There is insufficient evidence to guide clinical practice for targets for glycaemic control for women with GDM to minimise adverse effects on maternal and fetal health. Glycaemic target recommendations from international professional organisations for maternal glycaemic control vary widely and are reliant on consensus given the lack of high-quality evidence.Further high-quality trials are needed, and these should compare different glycaemic targets for guiding treatment of women with GDM, assess both short-term and long-term health outcomes for women and their babies, include women's experiences and assess health services costs. Four studies are ongoing.

Antenatal dietary supplementation with myo-inositol in women during pregnancy for preventing gestational diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes, glucose intolerance with onset or first recognition during pregnancy, is a rising problem worldwide. Both non-pharmacological and pharmacological approaches to the prevention of gestational diabetes have been, and continue to be explored. Myo-inositol, an isomer of inositol, is a naturally occurring sugar commonly found in cereals, corn, legumes and meat. It is one of the intracellular mediators of the insulin signal and correlated with insulin sensitivity in type 2 diabetes. The potential beneficial effect on improving insulin sensitivity suggests that myo-inositol may be useful for women in preventing gestational diabetes. OBJECTIVES: To assess if antenatal dietary supplementation with myo-inositol is safe and effective, for the mother and fetus, in preventing gestational diabetes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP (2 November 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought published and unpublished randomised controlled trials, including conference abstracts, assessing the effects of myo-inositol for the prevention of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Quasi-randomised and cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion, but cluster designs were eligible. Participants in the trials were pregnant women. Women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes were excluded. Trials that compared the administration of any dose of myo-inositol, alone or in a combination preparation were eligible for inclusion. Trials that used no treatment, placebo or another intervention as the comparator were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, risk of bias and extracted the data. Data were checked for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: We included four randomised controlled trials (all conducted in Italy) reporting on 567 women who were less than 11 weeks' to 24 weeks' pregnant at the start of the trials. The trials had small sample sizes and one trial only reported an interim analysis. Two trials were open-label. The overall risk of bias was unclear.For the mother, supplementation with myo-inositol was associated with a reduction in the incidence of gestational diabetes compared with control (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.64; three trials; n = 502 women). Using GRADE methods this evidence was assessed as low with downgrading due to unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment in two of the included trials and lack of generalisability of findings. For women who received myo-inositol supplementation, the incidence of GDM ranged from 8% to 18%; for women in the control group, the incidence of GDM was 28%, using International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups Consensus Panel 2010 criteria to diagnose GDM.Two trials reported on hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, a primary maternal outcome of this review. There was no clear difference in risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy between the myo-inositol and control groups (average RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.02 to 8.41; two trials; n = 398 women; Tau(2) = 3.23; I(2) = 69%). Using GRADE methods, this evidence was assessed as very low, with downgrading due to wide confidence intervals with very low event rates, a small sample size, and lack of blinding and unclear allocation concealment methods, and a lack of generalisability. For women who received myo-inositol the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy ranged from 0% to 33%; for women in the control group the risk was 4%.For the infant, none of the included trials reported on the primary neonatal outcomes of this systematic review (large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality, mortality or morbidity composite).In terms of this review's secondary outcomes, there was no clear difference in the risk of caesarean section between the myo-inositol and control groups (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.19; two trials; n = 398 women). Using GRADE methods, this evidence was assessed as low, with downgrading due to unclear risk of bias in one trial and lack of generalisability. For women who received myo-inositol supplementation, the risk of having a caesarean section ranged from 34% to 54%; for women in the control group the was 45%. There were no maternal adverse effects of therapy in the two trials that reported on this outcome (the other two trials did not report this outcome).Two trials found no clear difference in the risk of macrosomia between infants whose mothers received myo-inositol supplementation compared with controls (average RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.02 to 6.37; two trials; n = 398 infants;Tau(2) = 3.33; I(2) = 73%). Similarly, there was no clear difference between groups in terms of neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.66) or shoulder dystocia (average RR 2.33, 95% CI 0.12 to 44.30, Tau(2) = 3.24; I(2) = 72%).There was a lack of data available for a large number of maternal and neonatal secondary outcomes, and no data for any of the long-term childhood or adulthood outcomes, or for health service cost outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from four trials of antenatal dietary supplementation with myo-inositol during pregnancy shows a potential benefit for reducing the incidence of gestational diabetes. No data were reported for any of this review's primary neonatal outcomes. There were very little outcome data for the majority of this review's secondary outcomes. There is no clear evidence of a difference for macrosomia when compared with control.The current evidence is based on small trials that are not powered to detect differences in outcomes including perinatal mortality and serious infant morbidity. All of the included studies were conducted in Italy which raises concerns about the lack of generalisability of the evidence to other settings. There is evidence of inconsistency and indirectness and as a result, many of the judgements on the quality of the evidence were downgraded to low or very low quality (GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool).Further trials for this promising antenatal intervention for preventing gestational diabetes are encouraged and should include pregnant women of different ethnicities and varying risk factors and use of myo-inositol (different doses, frequency and timing of administration) in comparison with placebo, diet and exercise or pharmacological interventions. Outcomes should include potential harms including adverse effects.