Oestrogen therapy for urinary incontinence in post-menopausal women.

BACKGROUND: It is possible that oestrogen deficiency may be an aetiological factor in the development of urinary incontinence in women. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003 and subsequently updated in 2009. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of local and systemic oestrogens used for the treatment of urinary incontinence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register of trials (searched 21 June 2012) which includes searches of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings, and the reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that included oestrogens in at least one arm in women with symptomatic or urodynamic diagnoses of stress, urgency or mixed urinary incontinence or other urinary symptoms post-menopause. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trials were evaluated for risk of bias and appropriateness for inclusion by the review authors. Data were extracted by at least two authors and cross checked. Subgroup analyses were performed by grouping participants under local or systemic administration. Where appropriate, meta-analysis was undertaken. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-four trials were identified which included approximately 19,676 incontinent women of whom 9599 received oestrogen therapy (1464 involved in trials of local vaginal oestrogen administration). Sample sizes of the studies ranged from 16 to 16,117 women. The trials used varying combinations of type of oestrogen, dose, duration of treatment and length of follow up. Outcome data were not reported consistently and were available for only a minority of outcomes.The combined result of six trials of systemic administration (of oral systemic oestrogens) resulted in worse incontinence than on placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.32, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.48). This result was heavily weighted by a subgroup of women from the Hendrix trial, which had large numbers of participants and a longer follow up of one year. All of the women had had a hysterectomy and the treatment used was conjugated equine oestrogen. The result for women with an intact uterus where oestrogen and progestogen were combined also showed a statistically significant worsening of incontinence (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.18).There was some evidence that oestrogens used locally (for example vaginal creams or pessaries) may improve incontinence (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.86). Overall, there were around one to two fewer voids in 24 hours amongst women treated with local oestrogen, and there was less frequency and urgency. No serious adverse events were reported although some women experienced vaginal spotting, breast tenderness or nausea.Women who were continent and received systemic oestrogen replacement, with or without progestogens, for reasons other than urinary incontinence were more likely to report the development of new urinary incontinence in one large study.One small trial showed that women were more likely to have an improvement in incontinence after pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) than with local oestrogen therapy (RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.50 to 3.52).The data were too few to address questions about oestrogens compared with or in combination with other treatments, different types of oestrogen or different modes of delivery. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Urinary incontinence may be improved with the use of local oestrogen treatment. However, there was little evidence from the trials on the period after oestrogen treatment had finished and no information about the long-term effects of this therapy was given. Conversely, systemic hormone replacement therapy using conjugated equine oestrogen may worsen incontinence. There were too few data to reliably address other aspects of oestrogen therapy, such as oestrogen type and dose, and no direct evidence comparing routes of administration. The risk of endometrial and breast cancer after long-term use of systemic oestrogen suggests that treatment should be for limited periods, especially in those women with an intact uterus.

Oestrogen therapy for urinary incontinence in post-menopausal women.

BACKGROUND: It is possible that oestrogen deficiency may be an aetiological factor in the development of urinary incontinence in women. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of local and systemic oestrogens used for the treatment of urinary incontinence. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register of trials (2 April 2009) and the reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that included oestrogens in at least one arm, in women with symptomatic or urodynamic diagnoses of stress, urgency or mixed urinary incontinence or other urinary symptoms post-menopause. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trials were evaluated for methodological quality and appropriateness for inclusion by the review authors. Data were extracted by at least two authors and cross checked. Subgroup analyses were performed grouping participants under local or systemic administration. Where appropriate, meta-analysis was undertaken. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty- three trials were identified which included 19,313 (1,262 involved in trials of local administration) incontinent women of whom 9417 received oestrogen therapy. Sample sizes ranged from 16 to 16,117. The trials used varying combinations of type of oestrogen, dose, duration of treatment and length of follow up. Outcome data were not reported consistently and were available for only a minority of outcomes.Systemic administration (of oral oestrogens) resulted in worse incontinence than on placebo (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.48). This result is heavily weighted by a subgroup of women from the Hendrix trial, which had large numbers of participants and a longer follow up of one year; all the women had had a hysterectomy and the treatment used was conjugated equine oestrogen. The result for women with an intact uterus where oestrogen and progestogen combined were used also showed a statistically significant worsening of incontinence (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.18).There was some evidence that oestrogens used locally (for example vaginal creams or tablets) may improve incontinence (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.86). Overall, there were around one to two fewer voids in 24 hours and nocturnal voids amongst women treated with local oestrogen, and there was less frequency and urgency. No serious adverse events were reported although some women experienced vaginal spotting, breast tenderness or nausea.Women who were continent and received systemic oestrogen replacement, with or without progestogens, for reasons other than urinary incontinence were more likely to report the development of new urinary incontinence in one large study.The data were too few to address questions about oestrogens compared with or in combination with other treatments, different types of oestrogen or different modes of delivery. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Local oestrogen treatment for incontinence may improve or cure it, but there was little evidence from the trials on the period after oestrogen treatment had finished and none about long-term effects. However, systemic hormone replacement therapy, using conjugated equine oestrogen, may make incontinence worse. There were too few data to reliably address other aspects of oestrogen therapy, such as oestrogen type and dose, and no direct evidence on route of administration. The risk of endometrial and breast cancer after long-term use suggests that oestrogen treatment should be for limited periods, especially in those women with an intact uterus.

Laparoscopic colposuspension: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of laparoscopic colposuspension for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING: Teaching hospitals. POPULATION: Women with symptoms or urodynamic diagnosis of stress, urge or mixed incontinence. METHODS: Randomised and 'quasi-randomised trials' in women with symptoms or urodynamic diagnoses of stress, urge or mixed incontinence including laparoscopic surgery in at least one arm of the trial were identified from the Cochrane Incontinence Review Group's Specialised Register of Controlled Trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Subjective cure, objective cure, quality of life measurements and surgical outcome measures. RESULTS: Eight trials met the inclusion criteria. Five trials compared laparoscopic (n = 233) with open (n = 254) colposuspension. Risk of a positive stress test at follow up was significantly less in the open group (relative risk [RR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82 to 0.98). When one poor quality trial was excluded from the analysis, the relative risk was still less in the open group, but was no longer significant (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.01). If considered as risk difference there is a 9% significantly higher risk of failure for laparoscopic colposuspension, however, excluding one poor quality trial, this risk of failure is non-significant at 8%. Analysis of subjective cure showed no difference between the groups. A trend was shown towards a higher complication rate, less post-operative pain, shorter hospital stay and time to return to normal function for laparoscopic compared with open colposuspension. Three trials compared different methods of laparoscopic colposuspension. Data from these trials could not be combined in view of the differences in the trials. Based on a single trial, two sutures were better than one. Sutures were as effective as mesh/staples. No conclusion could be drawn about the benefits of transperitoneal or extraperitoneal access. CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to make valid conclusions as the evidence is limited by short term follow up and small numbers of trials and participants. However, it is possible that no difference exists between laparoscopic and open colposuspension for either objective or subjective cure. Further, well designed and adequately powered randomised controlled trials are required.