经皮和口服激素替代疗法对更年期症状控制的比较。

V Akhila, Pratapkumar
{"title":"经皮和口服激素替代疗法对更年期症状控制的比较。","authors":"V Akhila,&nbsp;Pratapkumar","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To compare clinical efficacy, side effects and continuation rates using oral hormone therapy (HT), percutaneous gel, and transdermal patch.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eighty-eight symptomatic menopausal women were allocated into 3 groups (oral, gel, patch); the patch group was further subdivided to be given either reservoir or matrix patch. After one year of follow up, symptomatic improvement, side effects and continuation rates were assessed and compared. Statistical analysis was performed using multiple analysis of variants and chi-square tests wherever appropriate, with p value < or = 0.05 considered significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Percentage of patients showing complete relief from vasomotor symptoms at one year were 62%, 95%, and 100% among oral, gel, and patch groups, respectively. Similarly, above-mentioned percentages were 30%, 65%, and 68% for psychological disturbances; 64%, 100%, and 100% for genital symptoms; 40%, 90%, and 100% for urinary symptoms. Incidence of side effects, such as breakthrough bleeding [6 (60%), 6 (71%), and 5 (66%) among oral, gel, and patch groups at 6 months] and mastodynia [5 (14%), 6 (20%), and 5 (18%)] was comparable among three groups. Skin intolerance was significantly higher (92% of patients) in the reservoir patch group compared to the matrix patch (22% of patients) and gel (10% of patients) at first month. Continuation rate for one year was comparable among oral, gel, and matrix patch: 81%, 83%, and 88%, respectively. However, continuation rate was 50% among reservoir patch group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Transdermal HT performed significantly better than oral HT in menopausal symptom control. Reservoir patch was unsuitable in tropical climate where matrix patch and gel performed better.</p>","PeriodicalId":50324,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Fertility and Womens Medicine","volume":"51 2","pages":"64-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of transdermal and oral HRT for menopausal symptom control.\",\"authors\":\"V Akhila,&nbsp;Pratapkumar\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To compare clinical efficacy, side effects and continuation rates using oral hormone therapy (HT), percutaneous gel, and transdermal patch.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eighty-eight symptomatic menopausal women were allocated into 3 groups (oral, gel, patch); the patch group was further subdivided to be given either reservoir or matrix patch. After one year of follow up, symptomatic improvement, side effects and continuation rates were assessed and compared. Statistical analysis was performed using multiple analysis of variants and chi-square tests wherever appropriate, with p value < or = 0.05 considered significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Percentage of patients showing complete relief from vasomotor symptoms at one year were 62%, 95%, and 100% among oral, gel, and patch groups, respectively. Similarly, above-mentioned percentages were 30%, 65%, and 68% for psychological disturbances; 64%, 100%, and 100% for genital symptoms; 40%, 90%, and 100% for urinary symptoms. Incidence of side effects, such as breakthrough bleeding [6 (60%), 6 (71%), and 5 (66%) among oral, gel, and patch groups at 6 months] and mastodynia [5 (14%), 6 (20%), and 5 (18%)] was comparable among three groups. Skin intolerance was significantly higher (92% of patients) in the reservoir patch group compared to the matrix patch (22% of patients) and gel (10% of patients) at first month. Continuation rate for one year was comparable among oral, gel, and matrix patch: 81%, 83%, and 88%, respectively. However, continuation rate was 50% among reservoir patch group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Transdermal HT performed significantly better than oral HT in menopausal symptom control. Reservoir patch was unsuitable in tropical climate where matrix patch and gel performed better.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50324,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Fertility and Womens Medicine\",\"volume\":\"51 2\",\"pages\":\"64-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Fertility and Womens Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Fertility and Womens Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:比较口服激素治疗(HT)、经皮凝胶和透皮贴剂的临床疗效、副作用和持续率。方法:88例有症状的绝经妇女分为口服、凝胶、贴剂3组;贴片组进一步细分为水库或基质贴片组。随访1年后,对症状改善、副作用和持续率进行评估和比较。采用多变量分析和卡方检验进行统计分析,p值<或= 0.05为显著性。结果:在口服、凝胶和贴片组中,血管舒缩症状在一年内完全缓解的患者比例分别为62%、95%和100%。同样,上述百分比分别为30%、65%和68%的心理障碍;64%, 100%和100%的生殖器症状;40% 90% 100%尿路症状副作用的发生率,如突破性出血[口服、凝胶和贴片组在6个月时发生6例(60%)、6例(71%)和5例(66%)]和乳突痛[5例(14%)、6例(20%)和5例(18%)]在三组之间具有可比性。在第一个月,与基质贴片(22%)和凝胶(10%)相比,储层贴片组的皮肤不耐受明显更高(92%的患者)。口服、凝胶和基质贴剂一年的持续率相当:分别为81%、83%和88%。而储层斑块组的延续率为50%。结论:经皮激素治疗对更年期症状的控制效果明显优于口服激素治疗。在热带气候条件下,基质贴片和凝胶贴片效果较好,不宜采用水库贴片。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A comparison of transdermal and oral HRT for menopausal symptom control.

Background: To compare clinical efficacy, side effects and continuation rates using oral hormone therapy (HT), percutaneous gel, and transdermal patch.

Methods: Eighty-eight symptomatic menopausal women were allocated into 3 groups (oral, gel, patch); the patch group was further subdivided to be given either reservoir or matrix patch. After one year of follow up, symptomatic improvement, side effects and continuation rates were assessed and compared. Statistical analysis was performed using multiple analysis of variants and chi-square tests wherever appropriate, with p value < or = 0.05 considered significant.

Results: Percentage of patients showing complete relief from vasomotor symptoms at one year were 62%, 95%, and 100% among oral, gel, and patch groups, respectively. Similarly, above-mentioned percentages were 30%, 65%, and 68% for psychological disturbances; 64%, 100%, and 100% for genital symptoms; 40%, 90%, and 100% for urinary symptoms. Incidence of side effects, such as breakthrough bleeding [6 (60%), 6 (71%), and 5 (66%) among oral, gel, and patch groups at 6 months] and mastodynia [5 (14%), 6 (20%), and 5 (18%)] was comparable among three groups. Skin intolerance was significantly higher (92% of patients) in the reservoir patch group compared to the matrix patch (22% of patients) and gel (10% of patients) at first month. Continuation rate for one year was comparable among oral, gel, and matrix patch: 81%, 83%, and 88%, respectively. However, continuation rate was 50% among reservoir patch group.

Conclusion: Transdermal HT performed significantly better than oral HT in menopausal symptom control. Reservoir patch was unsuitable in tropical climate where matrix patch and gel performed better.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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