1.
LNG-IUS vs. medical treatments for women with heavy menstrual bleeding: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Chen S, Liu J, Peng S, Zheng Y
Frontiers in medicine. 2022;9:948709
Abstract
INTRODUCTION To compare efficacy and safety of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) with medical treatments for women with heavy menstrual bleeding. MATERIALS AND METHODS We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang databases for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in November 2021. All meta-analyses were performed using the random-effects model. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021295379. RESULTS A total of trials (with 14 references) reporting on 1,677 women were included in this systematic review. The majority of the included RCTs were rated with low-to-unclear risk of bias in selection, detection, attrition, reporting, and other bias. All RCTs were rated as high risk in performance bias because blinding was difficult to ensure in the compared groups. Results of meta-analyses revealed that the number of clinical responders was greater in the LNG-IUS group than that in the medical treatments group at both 6-month (steroidal: five RCTs; n = 490; risk ratio [RR]: 1.72 [1.13, 2.62]; I (2) = 92%; nonsteroidal: one RCT; n = 42; RR: 2.34 [1.31, 4.19]) and 12-month (steroidal: three RCTs; n = 261; RR: 1.31 [1.01, 1.71]; I (2) = 74%) endpoints, with no clear differences on number of dropouts, and the incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSION Evidence indicates that LNG-IUS is superior to the medical treatments in short-term and medium-term clinical responses, blood loss control, compliance, and satisfaction. Meanwhile, frequency of adverse events related to LNG-IUS is acceptable. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION PROSPERO, identifier CRD42021259335, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021295379.
2.
Effect of Mirena Intrauterine Device on Endometrial Thickness, Quality of Life Score, and Curative Effect in Patients with Perimenopausal Abnormal Uterine Bleeding
Yu Y, Zhou Z, Wang L, Liu J
Computational and mathematical methods in medicine. 2022;2022:5648918
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To study the effect of Mirena intrauterine device (IUD) on endometrial thickness, life quality score, and curative effect in patients with perimenopausal abnormal uterine bleeding. METHODS Eighty patients with perimenopausal abnormal uterine bleeding cured from January 2020 to December 2021 were enrolled as the object of study. According to random number table, the patients were classified into the study (n = 40) and control (n = 40) groups. The control cases were cured with medroxyprogesterone. The study cases were cured with Mirena IUD. The effective rate of clinical therapies was evaluated after 3 months of treatment. The endometrial thickness, menstrual volume score, and life quality score (WHOQOL-BREF) was measured after 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months of treatment. RESULTS The effective rate of patients with Mirena IUD for 3 months was higher compared to the control group (P < 0.05). The endometrial thickness and menstrual volume scores of study cohort after 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months following treatment were remarkably lower than those before treatment (P < 0.05) and were considerably lower than those of control cohort (P < 0.05). The hemoglobin level of the studied cases after 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months after therapy was remarkably upregulated (P < 0.05) and was greatly higher compared to the controlled cases (P < 0.05). After 3-month treatment, the WHOQOL-BREF score of the study group was higher compared to the control group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION The Mirena IUD is far more effective in the treatment of perimenopausal abnormal uterine bleeding and is helpful in reducing the thickness of the endometrium. Patients' menstrual flow can be controlled, and anemia can be corrected; thus, patients improve their quality of life and health status and can be considered for further promotion.
3.
Hepatitis B immunoglobulin during pregnancy for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of hepatitis B virus
Eke AC, Eleje GU, Eke UA, Xia Y, Liu J
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017;((2)):CD008545.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hepatitis is a viral infection of the liver. It is mainly transmitted between people through contact with infected blood, frequently from mother to baby in-utero. Hepatitis B poses significant risk to the fetus and up to 85% of infants infected by their mothers at birth develop chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) is a purified solution of human immunoglobulin that could be administered to the mother, newborn, or both. HBIG offers protection against HBV infection when administered to pregnant women who test positive for hepatitis B envelope antigen (HBeAg) or hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), or both. When HBIG is administered to pregnant women, the antibodies passively diffuse across the placenta to the child. This materno-fetal diffusion is maximal during the third trimester of pregnancy. Up to 1% to 9% infants born to HBV-carrying mothers still have HBV infection despite the newborn receiving HBIG plus active HBV vaccine in the immediate neonatal period. This suggests that additional intervention such as HBIG administration to the mother during the antenatal period could be beneficial to reduce the transmission rate in utero. OBJECTIVES To determine the benefits and harms of hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) administration to pregnant women during their third trimester of pregnancy for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of hepatitis B virus infection. SEARCH METHODS We searched the The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), SCOPUS, African Journals OnLine, and INDEX MEDICUS up to June 2016. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and portal of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) in December 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised clinical trials comparing HBIG versus placebo or no intervention in pregnant women with HBV. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors extracted data independently. We analysed dichotomous outcome data using risk ratio (RR) and continuous outcome data using mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For meta-analyses, we used a fixed-effect model and a random-effects model, along with an assessment of heterogeneity. If there were statistically significant discrepancies in the results, we reported the more conservative point estimate. If the two estimates were equal, we used the estimate with the widest CI as our main result. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group suggested bias risk domains and risk of random errors using Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS All 36 included trials originated from China and were at overall high risk of bias. The trials included 6044 pregnant women who were HBsAg, HBeAg, or hepatitis B virus DNA (HBV-DNA) positive. Only seven trials reported inclusion of HBeAg-positive mothers. All 36 trials compared HBIG versus no intervention. None of the trials used placebo.Most of the trials assessed HBIG 100 IU (two trials) and HBIG 200 IU (31 trials). The timing of administration of HBIG varied; 30 trials administered three doses of HBIG 200 IU at 28, 32, and 36 weeks of pregnancy. None of the trials reported all-cause mortality or other serious adverse events in the mothers or babies. Serological signs of hepatitis B infection of the newborns were reported as HBsAg, HBeAg, and HBV-DNA positive results at end of follow-up. Twenty-nine trials reported HBsAg status in newborns (median 1.2 months of follow-up after birth; range 0 to 12 months); seven trials reported HBeAg status (median 1.1 months of follow-up after birth; range 0 to 12 months); and 16 trials reported HBV-DNA status (median 1.2 months of follow-up; range 0 to 12 months). HBIG reduced mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HBsAg when compared with no intervention (179/2769 (6%) with HBIG versus 537/2541 (21%) with no intervention; RR 0.30, TSA-adjusted CI 0.20 to 0.52; I2 = 36%; 29 trials; 5310 part