The prevalence of premenstrual dysphoric disorder: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Premenstrual dysphoric disorder is characterised by symptoms confined to the premenstrual phase of the menstrual cycle. Confirmed diagnosis requires prospective monitoring of symptoms over two cycles, otherwise the diagnosis is provisional. We aimed to measure the point prevalence of premenstrual dysphoric disorder. METHODS: We searched for studies of prevalence using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and PubMed. For each study, the total sample size and number of cases were extracted. The prevalence across studies was calculated using random effects meta-analysis with a generalised linear mixed model. Potential sources of heterogeneity were explored by meta-regression and subgroup analyses. Pre-registration was with PROSPERO (CRD42021249249). RESULTS: 44 studies with 48 independent samples met inclusion criteria, consisting of 50,659 participants. The pooled prevalence was 3.2 % (95 % confidence intervals: 1.7 %-5.9 %) for confirmed and 7.7 % (95 % confidence intervals: 5.3 %-11.0 %) for provisional diagnosis. There was high heterogeneity across all studies (I2 = 99 %). Sources of heterogeneity identified by meta-regression were continent of sample (p < 0.0001), type of sample (community-based, university, high school) (p = 0.007), risk of bias (p = 0.009), and method of diagnosis (p = 0.017). Restricting the analysis to community-based samples using confirmed diagnosis resulted in a prevalence of 1.6 % (95 % confidence intervals: 1.0 %-2.5 %), with low heterogeneity (I2 = 26 %). LIMITATIONS: A small number of included studies used full DSM criteria in community settings. CONCLUSIONS: The point prevalence of premenstrual dysphoric disorder using confirmed diagnosis is lower compared with provisional diagnosis. Studies relying on provisional diagnosis are likely to produce artificially high prevalence rates.

A case series of premenstrual disorders presenting to the UK's National Female Hormone Clinic.

AIMS AND METHOD: We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics of female patients presenting with premenstrual disorders to a tertiary service in the UK. We conducted a retrospective case-note review of referrals to the National Female Hormone Clinic from April 2014 to August 2020. Based on clinical assessment, we determined whether the patient met criteria for premenstrual dysphoric disorder or premenstrual exacerbation of an underlying psychiatric disorder. RESULTS: Of 146 patients seen in clinic for premenstrual disorders, an ICD-10 psychiatric diagnosis was made in 130 (89.0%); a minority 16 (11.0%) did not have a psychiatric diagnosis. Following assessment, 94 patients (64.4%) met criteria for premenstrual dysphoric disorder and 67 (45.6%) had exacerbation of a psychiatric disorder. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Patients presenting to this specialist service had complex psychiatric comorbidity; almost half presented with exacerbation of a psychiatric disorder.

Intermittent selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for premenstrual syndromes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Intermittent (luteal phase) dosing of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors is one treatment strategy for premenstrual syndromes such as premenstrual dysphoric disorder. This avoids the risk of the antidepressant withdrawal syndrome associated with long-term continuous dosing. AIMS: To compare intermittent dosing to continuous dosing in terms of efficacy and acceptability. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed and CINAHL for randomised trials of intermittent compared with continuous dosing of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in premenstrual syndromes. We extracted response rates, dropout rates and changes in symptom scores. We used random effects meta-analyses to pool study-level data and calculated odds ratio for dichotomous data and standardised mean difference for continuous data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020224176). RESULTS: A total of 1841 references were identified, with eight studies being eligible for analysis, consisting of a total of 460 participants. All included studies provided response rates, six provided dropout rates and five provided symptom scores. There was no statistically significant differences between intermittent and continuous dosing in terms of response rate (odds ratio: 1.0, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.23-4.31, I2 = 71%), dropout rate (odds ratio 1.26, 95% CI: 0.39-4.09, I2 = 33%) or symptom change (standardised mean difference: 0.04, 95% CI: -0.27 to 0.35, I2 = 39%). All studies had a moderate or high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Since intermittent dosing avoids the potential for withdrawal symptoms, it should be considered more commonly in this patient population.