Dataset Information

Low dose dexamethasone as treatment for women with heavy menstrual bleeding: A response-adaptive randomised placebo-controlled dose-finding parallel group trial (DexFEM).

ABSTRACT:

Background

The symptom of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) diminishes quality-of-life for many mid-age women and imposes substantial societal burden. We investigated our hypothesis that HMB reflects impaired endometrial vasoconstriction due to endometrial glucocorticoid deficiency. Does reversing this deficiency, by short-term luteal-phase treatment with exogenous glucocorticoid (dexamethasone), ameliorate HMB?

Methods

In our Bayesian response-adaptive parallel-group placebo-controlled randomised trial, five pre-planned interim analyses used primary outcome data to adjust randomisation probabilities to favour doses providing most dose-response information. Participants with HMB, recruited from Lothian (Scotland) NHS clinics and via community invitations/advertisements, were aged over 18 years; reported regular 21-42 day menstrual cycles; and had measured menstrual blood loss (MBL) averaging ≥ 50 mL over two screening periods. Identically encapsulated placebo, or one of six Dexamethasone doses (0·2 mg, 0·4 mg, 0·5 mg, 0·6 mg, 0·75 mg, 0·9 mg), were taken orally twice-daily over five days in the mid-luteal phase of three menstrual cycles. Participants, investigators, and those measuring outcomes were masked to group assignment. Primary outcome, change in average MBL from screening to 'treatment', was analysed by allocated treatment, for all with data.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01769820; EudractCT 2012-003,405-98 FINDINGS: Recruitment lasted 29/01/2014 to 25/09/2017; 176 were screened, 107 randomised and 97 provided primary outcome data (n = 24,5,9,21,8,14,16 in the seven arms, placebo to 1·8 mg total daily active dose). In Bayesian normal dynamic linear modelling, 1·8 mg dexamethasone daily showed a 25 mL greater reduction in MBL from screening, than placebo (95% credible interval 1 to 49 mL), and probability 0·98 of benefit over placebo. Adverse events were reported by 75% (58/77) receiving dexamethasone, 58% (15/26) taking placebo. Three serious adverse events occurred, two during screening, one in a placebo participant. No woman withdrew due to adverse effects.

Interpretation

Our adaptive trial in HMB showed that dexamethasone 1·8 mg daily reduced menstrual blood loss. The role of dexamethasone in HMB management deserves further investigation.

Funding

UK MRC DCS/DPFS grant MR/J003611/1.

SUBMITTER: Warner P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8261537 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionHeavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) diminishes individual quality-of-life and poses substantial societal burden. In HMB endometrium, inactivation of cortisol (by enzyme 11β hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 2 (11βHSD2)), may cause local endometrial glucocorticoid deficiency and hence increased angiogenesis and impaired vasoconstriction. We propose that 'rescue' of luteal phase endometrial glucocorticoid deficiency could reduce menstrual bleeding.Methods and analysisDexFEM is a double-blind response-adaptive parallel-group placebo-controlled trial in women with HMB (108 to be randomised), with active treatment the potent oral synthetic glucocorticoid dexamethasone, which is relatively resistant to 11βHSD2 inactivation. Participants will be aged over 18 years, with mean measured menstrual blood loss (MBL) for two screening cycles ≥50 mL. The primary outcome is reduction in MBL from screening. Secondary end points are questionnaire assessments of treatment effect and acceptability. Treatment will be for 5 days in the mid-luteal phases of three treatment menstrual cycles. Six doses of low-dose dexamethasone (ranging from 0.2 to 0.9 mg twice daily) will be compared with placebo, to ascertain optimal dose, and whether this has advantage over placebo. Statistical efficiency is maximised by allowing randomisation probabilities to 'adapt' at five points during enrolment phase, based on the response data available so far, to favour doses expected to provide greatest additional information on the dose-response. Bayesian Normal Dynamic Linear Modelling, with baseline MBL included as covariate, will determine optimal dose (re reduction in MBL). Secondary end points will be analysed using generalised dynamic linear models. For each dose for all end points, a 95% credible interval will be calculated for effect versus placebo.Ethics and disseminationDexamethasone is widely used and hence well-characterised safety-wise. Ethical approval has been obtained from Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (12/SS/0147). Trial findings will be disseminated via open-access peer-reviewed publications, conferences, clinical networks, public lectures, and our websites.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov NCT01769820; EudractCT 2012-003405-98.

Project description:BackgroundHeavy menstrual bleeding affects 25% of women in the UK, many of whom require surgery to treat it. Hysterectomy is effective but has more complications than endometrial ablation, which is less invasive but ultimately leads to hysterectomy in 20% of women. We compared laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with endometrial ablation in women seeking surgical treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding.MethodsIn this parallel-group, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial in 31 hospitals in the UK, women younger than 50 years who were referred to a gynaecologist for surgical treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding and who were eligible for endometrial ablation were randomly allocated (1:1) to either laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy or second generation endometrial ablation. Women were randomly assigned by either an interactive voice response telephone system or an internet-based application with a minimisation algorithm based on centre and age group (<40 years vs ≥40 years). Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy involves laparoscopic (keyhole) surgery to remove the upper part of the uterus (the body) containing the endometrium. Endometrial ablation aims to treat heavy menstrual bleeding by destroying the endometrium, which is responsible for heavy periods. The co-primary clinical outcomes were patient satisfaction and condition-specific quality of life, measured with the menorrhagia multi-attribute quality of life scale (MMAS), assessed at 15 months after randomisation. Our analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle. The trial was registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN49013893.FindingsBetween May 21, 2014, and March 28, 2017, we enrolled and randomly assigned 660 women (330 in each group). 616 (93%) of 660 women were operated on within the study period, 588 (95%) of whom received the allocated procedure and 28 (5%) of whom had an alternative surgery. At 15 months after randomisation, more women allocated to laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy were satisfied with their operation compared with those in the endometrial ablation group (270 [97%] of 278 women vs 244 [87%] of 280 women; adjusted percentage difference 9·8, 95% CI 5·1-14·5; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2·53, 95% CI 1·83-3·48; p<0·0001). Women randomly assigned to laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy were also more likely to have the best possible MMAS score of 100 than women assigned to endometrial ablation (180 [69%] of 262 women vs 146 [54%] of 268 women; adjusted percentage difference 13·3, 95% CI 3·8-22·8; adjusted OR 1·87, 95% CI 1·31-2·67; p=0·00058). 14 (5%) of 309 women in the laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy group and 11 (4%) of 307 women in the endometrial ablation group had at least one serious adverse event (adjusted OR 1·30, 95% CI 0·56-3·02; p=0·54).InterpretationLaparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy is superior to endometrial ablation in terms of clinical effectiveness and has a similar proportion of complications, but takes longer to perform and is associated with a longer recovery.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Project description:BackgroundHeavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in premenopausal women. Although surgery is often used as a treatment, a range of medical therapies are also available. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduce prostaglandin levels, which are elevated in women with excessive menstrual bleeding and also may have a beneficial effect on dysmenorrhoea.ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of NSAIDs in achieving a reduction in menstrual blood loss (MBL) in women of reproductive years with HMB.Search methodsWe searched, in April 2019, the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility specialised register, Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online (CENTRAL CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the clinical trial registries and reference lists of articles.Selection criteriaThe inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of individual NSAIDs or combined with other medical therapy with each other, placebo or other medical treatments in women with regular heavy periods measured either objectively or subjectively and with no pathological or iatrogenic (treatment-induced) causes for their HMB.Data collection and analysisWe identified 19 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (759 women) that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review and two review authors independently extracted data. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes from the data of nine trials. We described in data tables the results of the remaining seven cross-over trials with data unsuitable for pooling, one trial with skewed data, and one trial with missing variances. One trial had no data available for analysis.Main resultsAs a group, NSAIDs were more effective than placebo at reducing HMB but less effective than tranexamic acid, danazol or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG IUS). Treatment with danazol caused a shorter duration of menstruation and more adverse events than NSAIDs, but this did not appear to affect the acceptability of treatment, based on trials from 1980 to 1990. However, currently danazol is not a usual or recommended treatment for HMB. There was no clear evidence of difference between NSAIDs and the other treatments (oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, an older progesterone-releasing intrauterine system and the oral contraceptive pill (OCP), but most studies were underpowered. There was no evidence of a difference between the individual NSAIDs (naproxen and mefenamic acid) in reducing HMB. The evidence quality ranged from low to moderate, the main limitations being risk of bias and imprecision.Authors' conclusionsNSAIDs reduce HMB when compared with placebo, but are less effective than tranexamic acid, danazol or LNG IUS. However, adverse events are more severe with danazol therapy. In the limited number of small studies suitable for evaluation, there was no clear evidence of a difference in efficacy between NSAIDs and other medical treatments such as oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, OCP or the older progesterone-releasing intrauterine system.