Levonorgestrel intrauterine system versus medical therapy for menorrhagia

Background - Menorrhagia is a common problem, yet evidence to inform decisions about therapy is limited. In a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized trial, we compared the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (levonorgestrel-IUS) with usual medical treatment in women with menorrhagia who presented to their primary care providers. Methods - We randomly assigned 571 women with menorrhagia to treatment with levonorgestrel-IUS or usual medical treatment (tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined estrogen–progestogen, or progesterone alone). The primary outcome was the patient-reported score on the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS) (ranging from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating greater severity), assessed over a 2-year period. Secondary outcomes included general quality-of-life and sexual-activity scores and surgical intervention. Results - MMAS scores improved from baseline to 6 months in both the levonorgestrel-IUS group and the usual-treatment group (mean increase, 32.7 and 21.4 points, respectively; P<0.001 for both comparisons). The improvements were maintained over a 2-year period but were significantly greater in the levonorgestrel-IUS group than in the usual-treatment group (mean between-group difference, 13.4 points; 95% confidence interval, 9.9 to 16.9; P<0.001). Improvements in all MMAS domains (practical difficulties, social life, family life, work and daily routine, psychological well-being, and physical health) were significantly greater in the levonorgestrel-IUS group than in the usual-treatment group, and this was also true for seven of the eight quality-of-life domains. At 2 years, more of the women were still using the levonorgestrel-IUS than were undergoing the usual medical treatment (64% vs. 38%, P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of surgical intervention or sexual-activity scores. There were no significant differences in serious adverse events between groups. Conclusions - In women with menorrhagia who presented to primary care providers, the levonorgestrel-IUS was more effective than usual medical treatment in reducing the effect of heavy menstrual bleeding on quality of life. (Funded by the National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme; ECLIPSE Controlled-Trials.com number, ISRCTN86566246.)

Levonorgestrel intrauterine system versus medical therapy for menorrhagia

ABSTRACT: Menorrhagia is a common problem that interferes with a woman’s physical, emotional, and social life. Evidence to guide physicians for decision about therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding is lacking. One treatment option, the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (levonorgestrel-IUS), has been available in the United States since 2009. Updated meta-analyses comparing the levonorgestrel-IUS with nonhormonal and hormonal treatments showed that the levonorgestrel-IUS produced a greater reduction in menstrual blood loss at 3 to 12 months of follow-up. It is not clear whether these short-term benefits persist. Moreover, the rates of discontinuation of the levonorgestrel-IUS at 2 years are as high as 28%, and effects on bleeding-related quality of life are not known. This pragmatic, multicenter, randomized trial compared the effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-IUS with that of usual medical treatment among women with menorrhagia in a primary care setting. A total of 571 women with menorrhagia were randomized to treatment with levonorgestrel-IUS (n = 285) or usual medical treatment (n = 286). Usual treatment was tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined estrogen-progestogen, or progesterone alone. The primary study outcome measure was the patient-reported score on the condition-specific Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS) assessed over a 2-year period. The MMAS scores range from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating greater severity. Summary MMAS scores were assessed at 6, 12, and 24 months. Secondary outcome measures included general health-related quality of life, sexual-activity scores, and surgical intervention. There was a significant improvement in total MMAS scores from baseline to 6 months in both the levonorgestrel-IUS group and the usual-treatment group; the mean increase was 32.7 and 21.4 points, respectively; P < 0.001 for both comparisons. Over the 2-year follow-up, improvements were maintained in both groups but were significantly greater in the levonorgestrel-IUS group (mean between-group difference, 13.4 points; 95% confidence interval, 9.9–16.9; P < 0.001). Significantly greater improvements in all MMAS domains (practical difficulties, social life, psychological health, physical health, work and daily routine, and family life and relationships) occurred with the levonorgestrel-IUS than with the usual treatment (P < 0.001 with the use of a test for trend). This was also found for 7 of the 8 quality-of-life domains. At the 2-year end point, almost twice as many women were still using the levonorgestrel-IUS than were those receiving the usual medical treatment (64% vs 38%, P < 0.001). No significant between-group differences were noted in the rates of surgical intervention or sexual-activity scores as well as in the frequency of serious adverse events. These data show that levonorgestrel-IUS is more effective than usual medical treatment in improving the quality of life of women with menorrhagia in a primary care setting.

Randomised trial of levonorgestrel intrauterine system compared to usual medical treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding:the ECLIPSE Trial

Objective: Heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia) is a common problem, yet evidence is limited to inform therapeutic decisions.We compared the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system(LNG-IUS) to usual medical treatment in a pragmatic randomised trial in primary care. Methods: We randomly assigned 571 women consulting their primary care providers with menorrhagia to LNG-IUS or to usual medical treatment as clinically appropriate (tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined estrogen/progestogen or progestogen only). The primary outcome was a patient-reported measure ofimpact of menorrhagia, the validated Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS), assessed over 2 years. Secondary measures included generic quality of life (SF-36), sexual activity and surgical intervention.Results MMAS scores improved from baseline in both the LNG-IUS and usual medical treatment groups by 6 months (mean increases 32.7 points versus 21.4 points, respectively; P < 0.001for both) and were maintained over 2 years, but improvements were significantly greater with LNG-IUS (mean between-group difference 13.4 points, 95%CI, 9.9–16.9; P < 0.001).All domains of MMAS (practical difficulties, social life, family life,work/daily routine, psychological well being and physical health)improved significantly more with LNG-IUS, as were seven of the eight domains of SF-36. More women were still using LNG-IUSthan usual medical treatment at 2 years (64% versus 38%,P < 0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in surgical intervention rates or sexual activity scores. There were no serious adverse events in either group.Conclusions Among women presenting to primary care providers with menorrhagia, LNG-IUS was more effective than usual medical treatment at reducing the impact of this problem on their quality of life. In practice therefore, conventional treatments, such as tranexamic and mefenamic acid, remain helpful choices in women for whom LNG-IUS is considered unsuitable, or due to individual preference. For other women, LNG-IUS can be confidently recommended as an effective initial medical therapy for menorrhagia. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programme (project number 02/06/02)

Reasons for non-adherence to antiretroviral therapy:patients' perspectives provide evidence of multiple causes

The objective of the study was to define common reasons for non-adherence (NA) to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) and the number of reasons reported by non-adherent individuals. A confidential questionnaire was administered to HIV-seropositive patients taking proteinase inhibitor based HAART. Median self-reported adherence was 95% (n = 178, range = 60-100%). The most frequent reasons for at least 'sometimes' missing a dose were eating a meal at the wrong time (38.2%), oversleeping (36.3%), forgetting (35.0%) and being in a social situation (30.5%). The mean number of reasons occurring at least 'sometimes' was 3.2; 20% of patients gave six or more reasons; those reporting the lowest adherence reported a significantly greater numbers of reasons (ρ = - 0.59; p < 0.001). Three factors were derived from the data by principal component analysis reflecting 'negative experiences of HAART', 'having a low priority for taking medication' and 'unintentionally missing doses', accounting for 53.8% of the variance. On multivariate analysis only the latter two factors were significantly related to NA (odds ratios 0.845 and 0.849, respectively). There was a wide spectrum of reasons for NA in our population. The number of reasons in an individual increased as adherence became less. A variety of modalities individualized for each patient are required to support patients with the lowest adherence.

25th RCOphth Congress, President's Session paper:25 years of progress in medical retina

The quarter century since the foundation of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists has coincided with immense change in the subspecialty of medical retina, which has moved from being the province of a few dedicated enthusiasts to being an integral, core part of ophthalmology in every eye department. In age-related macular degeneration, there has been a move away from targeted, destructive laser therapy, dependent on fluorescein angiography to intravitreal injection therapy of anti-growth factor agents, largely guided by optical coherence tomography. As a result of these changes, ophthalmologists have witnessed a marked improvement in visual outcomes for their patients with wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD), while at the same time developing and enacting entirely novel ways of delivering care. In the field of diabetic retinopathy, this period also saw advances in laser technology and a move away from highly destructive laser photocoagulation treatment to gentler retinal laser treatments. The introduction of intravitreal therapies, both steroids and anti-growth factor agents, has further advanced the treatment of diabetic macular oedema. This era has also seen in the United Kingdom the introduction of a coordinated national diabetic retinopathy screening programme, which offers an increasing hope that the burden of blindness from diabetic eye disease can be lessened. Exciting future advances in retinal imaging, genetics, and pharmacology will allow us to further improve outcomes for our patients and for ophthalmologists specialising in medical retina, the future looks very exciting but increasingly busy.

Insulin therapy in people with type 2 diabetes:opportunities and challenges?

Given the continued interest in defining the optimal management of individuals with type 2 diabetes, the Editor of Diabetes Care convened a working party of diabetes specialists to examine this topic in the context of insulin therapy. This was prompted by recent new evidence on the use of insulin in such people. The group was aware of evidence that the benefits of insulin therapy are still usually offered late, and thus the aim of the discussion was how to define the optimal timing and basis for decisions regarding insulin and to apply these concepts in practice. It was noted that recent evidence had built upon that of the previous decades, together confirming the benefits and safety of insulin therapy, albeit with concerns about the potential for hypoglycemia and gain in body weight. Insulin offers a unique ability to control hyperglycemia, being used from the time of diagnosis in some circumstances, when metabolic control is disturbed by medical illness, procedures, or therapy, as well as in the longer term in ambulatory care. For those previously starting insulin, various other forms of therapy can be added later, which offer complementary effects appropriate to individual needs. Here we review current evidence and circumstances in which insulin can be used, consider individualized choices of alternatives and combination regimens, and offer some guidance on personalized targets and tactics for glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. © 2014 by the American Diabetes Association.

Medical management of diabetic retinopathy:fenofibrate and ACCORD eye studies

The approach of all ophthalmologists, diabetologists and general practitioners seeing patients with diabetic retinopathy should be that good control of blood glucose, blood pressure and plasma lipids are all essential components of modern medical management. The more recent data on the use of fenofibrate in the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) and The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) Eye studies is reviewed. In FIELD, fenofibrate (200 mg/day) reduced the requirements for laser therapy and prevented disease progression in patients with pre-existing diabetic retinopathy. In ACCORD Eye, fenofibrate (160 mg daily) with simvastatin resulted in a 40% reduction in the odds of retinopathy progressing over 4 years, compared with simvastatin alone. This occurred with an increase in HDL-cholesterol and a decrease in the serum triglyceride level in the fenofibrate group, as compared with the placebo group, and was independent of glycaemic control. We believe fenofibrate is effective in preventing progression of established diabetic retinopathy in type 2 diabetes and should be considered for patients with pre-proliferative diabetic retinopathy and/or diabetic maculopathy, particularly in those with macular oedema requiring laser. © 2011 Macmillan Publishers Limited All rights reserved.