达那唑重月经出血。
文章的细节
-
引用
复制到剪贴板 -
博蒙特H, Augood C, Duckitt K, Lethaby
达那唑重月经出血。
科克伦数据库系统启2007年7月18日;(3):CD001017。
- PubMed ID
-
17636649 (在PubMed]
- 文摘
-
背景:沉重的月经出血(HMB)是一个绝经前女性健康不良的重要原因。药物治疗,避免不必要的手术可能是一个有吸引力的治疗选择,但实际上有相当大的变化和不确定性最有效的治疗。beplayapp达那唑是合成类固醇anti-oestrogenic和反progestogenic活动,和弱雄激素的属性。达那唑抑制雌激素和孕激素受体在子宫内膜,使子宫内膜萎缩(子宫内壁变薄)和月经减少损失和在一些女性闭经。目的:确定达那唑的疗效和耐受性。当用于重型月经出血在生育年龄的女性。搜索策略:我们搜查了月经失调和Subfertility集团的专业注册(2007年4月)。我们还在Cochrane对照试验注册(Cochrane图书馆,问题2,2007),MEDLINE(1966年至2007年4月),EMBASE(1980年至2007年4月,CINAHL(1982年至2007年4月)。也尝试识别引用列表,包括试验的试验和相关的评论文章。选择标准:随机对照试验的达那唑和安慰剂,其他医疗非手术治疗或达那唑在不同剂量重育龄妇女的月经出血与普通HMB测量主观或客观。试验,包括女性绝经后出血,intermenstrual出血和沉重的月经出血的病理原因被排除在外。 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Nine RCTs, with 353 women, were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The main outcomes were menstrual blood loss, the number of women experiencing adverse effects, weight gain, withdrawals due to adverse effects and dysmenorrhoea. If data could not be extracted in a form suitable for meta-analysis, they were presented in a descriptive format. MAIN RESULTS: Most data were not in a form suitable for meta analysis, and the results are based on a small number of trials, all of which are under-powered. Danazol appears to be more effective than placebo, progestogens, NSAIDs and the OCP at reducing MBL, but confidence intervals were wide. Treatment with Danazol caused more adverse events than NSAIDs (OR 7.0; 95% CI 1.7 to 28.2) and progestogens (OR 4.05, 95% CI 1.6 to10.2). Danazol was shown to significantly lower the duration of menses when compared with NSAIDs (WMD -1.0; 95% CI -1.8 to -0.3) and a progesterone releasing IUD (WMD -6.0; 95% CI -7.3 to -4.8). There were no randomised trials comparing Danazol with tranexamic acid or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Danazol appears to be an effective treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding compared to other medical treatments. The use of Danazol may be limited by its side effect profile, its acceptability to women and the need for continuing treatment. The small number of trials, and the small sample sizes of the included trials limit the recommendations for clinical care. Further studies are unlikely in the future and this review will not be updated unless further studies are identified.