Usual medical treatments or levonorgestrel-IUS for women with heavy menstrual bleeding: long-term randomised pragmatic trial in primary care

J. Kai, L. Middleton, J. Daniels, H. Pattison, K. Tryposkiadis, J. Gupta
{"title":"Usual medical treatments or levonorgestrel-IUS for women with heavy menstrual bleeding: long-term randomised pragmatic trial in primary care","authors":"J. Kai, L. Middleton, J. Daniels, H. Pattison, K. Tryposkiadis, J. Gupta","doi":"10.3399/bjgp16X687577","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common, chronic problem affecting women and health services. However, long-term evidence on treatment in primary care is lacking. Aim To assess the effectiveness of commencing the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) or usual medical treatments for women presenting with HMB in general practice. Design and setting A pragmatic, multicentre, parallel, open-label, long term, randomised controlled trial in 63 primary care practices across the English Midlands. Method In total, 571 women aged 25–50 years, with HMB were randomised to LNG-IUS or usual medical treatment (tranexamic/mefenamic acid, combined oestrogen–progestogen, or progesterone alone). The primary outcome was the patient reported Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS, measuring effect of HMB on practical difficulties, social life, psychological and physical health, and work and family life; scores from 0 to 100). Secondary outcomes included surgical intervention (endometrial ablation/hysterectomy), general quality of life, sexual activity, and safety. Results At 5 years post-randomisation, 424 (74%) women provided data. While the difference between LNG-IUS and usual treatment groups was not significant (3.9 points; 95% confidence interval = −0.6 to 8.3; P = 0.09), MMAS scores improved significantly in both groups from baseline (mean increase, 44.9 and 43.4 points, respectively; P<0.001 for both comparisons). Rates of surgical intervention were low in both groups (surgery-free survival was 80% and 77%; hazard ratio 0.90; 95% CI = 0.62 to 1.31; P = 0.6). There was no difference in generic quality of life, sexual activity scores, or serious adverse events. Conclusion Large improvements in symptom relief across both groups show treatment for HMB can be successfully initiated with long-term benefit and with only modest need for surgery.","PeriodicalId":22333,"journal":{"name":"The British Journal of General Practice","volume":"76 1","pages":"e861 - e870"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"21","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp16X687577","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

Abstract

Background Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common, chronic problem affecting women and health services. However, long-term evidence on treatment in primary care is lacking. Aim To assess the effectiveness of commencing the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) or usual medical treatments for women presenting with HMB in general practice. Design and setting A pragmatic, multicentre, parallel, open-label, long term, randomised controlled trial in 63 primary care practices across the English Midlands. Method In total, 571 women aged 25–50 years, with HMB were randomised to LNG-IUS or usual medical treatment (tranexamic/mefenamic acid, combined oestrogen–progestogen, or progesterone alone). The primary outcome was the patient reported Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS, measuring effect of HMB on practical difficulties, social life, psychological and physical health, and work and family life; scores from 0 to 100). Secondary outcomes included surgical intervention (endometrial ablation/hysterectomy), general quality of life, sexual activity, and safety. Results At 5 years post-randomisation, 424 (74%) women provided data. While the difference between LNG-IUS and usual treatment groups was not significant (3.9 points; 95% confidence interval = −0.6 to 8.3; P = 0.09), MMAS scores improved significantly in both groups from baseline (mean increase, 44.9 and 43.4 points, respectively; P<0.001 for both comparisons). Rates of surgical intervention were low in both groups (surgery-free survival was 80% and 77%; hazard ratio 0.90; 95% CI = 0.62 to 1.31; P = 0.6). There was no difference in generic quality of life, sexual activity scores, or serious adverse events. Conclusion Large improvements in symptom relief across both groups show treatment for HMB can be successfully initiated with long-term benefit and with only modest need for surgery.
重度月经出血妇女的常规药物治疗或左炔诺孕酮- ius:初级保健的长期随机实用试验
背景:月经大量出血是影响妇女和卫生服务的一种常见的慢性问题。然而,缺乏关于初级保健治疗的长期证据。目的评价在一般实践中开始左炔诺孕酮释放宫内系统(LNG-IUS)或常规药物治疗对HMB妇女的有效性。设计和设置一项实用的、多中心的、平行的、开放标签的、长期的、随机对照试验,在英国中部地区的63个初级保健实践中进行。方法571例25-50岁的HMB患者随机分为LNG-IUS组和常规药物组(氨甲环/甲氧胺酸组、雌激素-孕激素联用组和黄体酮单用组)。主要观察指标为患者报告的月经过多多属性量表(MMAS),衡量HMB对实际困难、社会生活、心理和生理健康、工作和家庭生活的影响;分数从0到100)。次要结局包括手术干预(子宫内膜消融/子宫切除术)、总体生活质量、性活动和安全性。结果在随机分组后5年,424名(74%)女性提供了数据。而LNG-IUS与常规治疗组差异无统计学意义(3.9分;95%置信区间= - 0.6 ~ 8.3;P = 0.09),两组患者的MMAS评分均较基线显著提高(平均分别提高44.9分和43.4分;两项比较P<0.001)。两组的手术干预率均较低(无手术生存率分别为80%和77%;风险比0.90;95% CI = 0.62 ~ 1.31;P = 0.6)。在一般生活质量、性活动评分或严重不良事件方面没有差异。结论:两组患者在症状缓解方面的显著改善表明,HMB治疗可以成功启动,长期受益,仅需少量手术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信