Biomedical subjects

C Augood

Publications and source records attributed to C Augood.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2002

Danazol for heavy menstrual bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in pre menopausal women. Medical therapy, with the avoidance of possibly unnecessary surgery is an attractive treatment option, but there is considerable variation in practice and uncertainty about the most effective therapy. Danazol is a synthetic steroid with anti-oestrogenic and anti progestogenic activity, and weak androgenic properties. Danazol suppresses oestrogen and progesterone receptors in the endometrium, leading to endometrial atrophy (thinning of the lining of the uterus) and reduced menstrual loss and to amenorrhoea in some women. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and tolerability of danazol when used for heavy menstrual bleeding in women of reproductive years. SEARCH STRATEGY: All studies which might describe randomised controlled trials of danazol for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding were obtained by electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, CINAHL, National Research Register and the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's Specialist Register of controlled trials (on 6 November 2001). Attempts were also made to identify trials from citation lists of included trials and relevant review articles. In most cases the first author of each included trial was contacted for unpublished additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of danazol versus placebo, any other medical (non-surgical) therapy or danazol in different dosages for heavy menstrual bleeding in women of reproductive age with regular HMB measured either subjectively or objectively. Trials that included women with post menopausal bleeding, intermenstrual bleeding and pathological causes of heavy menstrual bleeding were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Nine RCTs, with 353 women, were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review. 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, 28.2) and progestogens (OR 4.05, 95% CI 1.6, 10.2), but this did not appear to affect adherence to treatment. Danazol was shown to significantly lower the duration of menses when compared with NSAIDs (WMD -1.0; 95% CI -1.8, -0.3) and a progesterone releasing IUD (WMD -6.0; 95% CI -7.3, -4.8). There were no randomised trials comparing danazol with tranexamic acid or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Danazol appears to be an effective treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding compared to other medical treatments, though it is uncertain whether it is acceptable to women. The use of danazol may be limited by its side effect profile, its acceptability to women and the need for continuing treatment. Overall no strong recommendations can be made due to the small number of trials, and the small sample sizes of the included trials.

Danazol↗

PubMed2002

Cost effectiveness of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a review of published studies.

OBJECTIVE: Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in the lower genital tract may contribute to the prevention of pelvic inflammatory disease in women. The purpose of this review was to critically appraise, and summarise studies of the cost effectiveness of screening for C trachomatis. METHODS: A literature search was conducted on Medline and in Health Star from 1990-2000. Keywords were C trachomatis, screening, cost effectiveness. Bibliographies of reviewed articles were also searched. The population studied was asymptomatic sexually active women under 30 years of age in a primary care setting. The intervention assessed was screening for lower genital tract infection with C trachomatis and the outcomes studied were cases of C trachomatis detected, cases of PID prevented, and associated costs. Studies were assessed using the Drummond criteria for economic evaluations. They were assessed qualitatively as they were too heterogeneous to allow quantitative analysis. RESULTS: 10 studies were included. All were modelled scenarios and all found screening to be more cost effective than simply testing symptomatic women, although all were based on probabilities that were assumed. Six of the studies focused on DNA based testing, three of them using urine. The models showed screening to be cost effective at prevalences of 3.1-10.0%, and cost saving (overtesting symptomatic women) at a prevalence as low as 1.1%, if age was used as a selection factor and DNA based tests were used in urine samples. CONCLUSIONS: At the prevalence of infection expected in the target population, all studies suggest screening is cost effective. However, the assumptions used in the models have been difficult to confirm and there is a need for more data, particularly on the risk of complications in women with asymptomatic lower tract infection.

Chlamydia Infections↗

PubMed2001

Screening for Down's syndrome: effects, safety, and cost effectiveness of first and second trimester strategies.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects, safety, and cost effectiveness of antenatal screening strategies for Down's syndrome. DESIGN: Analysis of incremental cost effectiveness. SETTING: United Kingdom. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of liveborn babies with Down's syndrome, miscarriages due to chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis, health care costs of screening programme, and additional costs and additional miscarriages per additional affected live birth prevented by adopting a more effective strategy. RESULTS: Compared with no screening, the additional cost per additional liveborn baby with Down's syndrome prevented was 22 000 pound sterling for measurement of nuchal translucency. The cost of the integrated test was 51 000 pound sterling compared with measurement of nuchal translucency. All other strategies were more costly and less effective, or cost more per additional affected baby prevented. Depending on the cost of the screening test, the first trimester combined test and the quadruple test would also be cost effective options. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of screening strategy should be between the integrated test, first trimester combined test, quadruple test, or nuchal translucency measurement depending on how much service providers are willing to pay, the total budget available, and values on safety. Screening based on maternal age, the second trimester double test, and the first trimester serum test was less effective, less safe, and more costly than these four options.

Abortion, Spontaneous↗

PubMed2000

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for heavy menstrual bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding 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. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or prostaglandin synthetase inhibitors reduce prostaglandin levels which are elevated in women with excessive menstrual bleeding and also may have a beneficial effect on dysmenorrhoea. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to investigate the effectiveness of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in achieving a reduction in menstrual blood loss in women of reproductive years with heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches for relevant randomised controlled trials of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Register of Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychLIT, Current Contents, Biological Abstracts, Social Sciences Index and CINAHL were performed. Attempts were also made to identify trials from citation lists of review articles and drug companies were approached for unpublished data. In most cases, the first author of each included trial was contacted for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: The inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of individual NSAIDs with either each other, placebo or other medical treatments in women of reproductive years with regular heavy periods measured either objectively or subjectively and with no pathological or iatrogenic (treatment induced) causes for their heavy menstrual blood loss. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Sixteen RCTs were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review. The reviewers extracted the data independently and odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes were estimated from the data of nine trials. The remaining seven trials were of crossover design with data unsuitable for pooling and their individual results were described in text form. MAIN RESULTS: As a group, NSAIDs were more effective than placebo at reducing heavy menstrual bleeding but less effective than either tranexamic acid or danazol. 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. There was a non significant trend towards greater efficacy of NSAIDs compared to oral progestogen (luteal phase) and ethamsylate but no differences were demonstrated between NSAIDs and the progesterone releasing intra-uterine system (IUS) and the oral contraceptive pill, although these results were based on very small studies. There was no evidence of a difference between the individual NSAIDs (naproxen and mefenamic acid) in reducing HMB. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: NSAIDs reduce heavy menstrual bleeding when compared with placebo but are less effective than either tranexamic acid or danazol. However, adverse events are more severe with danazol therapy. In the limited number of small scale studies suitable for evaluation, no significant difference in efficacy was demonstrated between NSAIDs and other medical treatments such as oral progestogen given in the luteal phase, ethamsylate, oral contraceptive pill and the progesterone releasing IUS.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal↗

PubMed2000

Cisapride treatment for gastro-oesophageal reflux in children.

BACKGROUND: Gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) is an extremely common and usually self limiting condition in infants. When treatment is required, Cisapride, a pro-kinetic agent, has been commonly prescribed for the symptomatic management of GOR. There have been recent reports of possibly serious adverse events e.g. an increased QTc interval, cardiac arrhythmias, and death, associated with the use of Cisapride. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of Cisapride for symptoms of GOR in children compared with placebo or any other non-surgical treatments. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches were conducted of the Cochrane Central Trials Register and the specialised Trials register of the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group, MEDLINE and Embase. Reference lists of relevant review articles and identified trials were scrutinised and forward citation searches were performed in the Science Citation Index on all trials identified. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared oral Cisapride therapy with placebo or with other non-surgical treatments for children with a diagnosis of GOR were included. Only studies in which Cisapride was administered orally for a minimum of one week and which documented at least one of the primary outcomes were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcomes were defined as a change in symptoms at the end of treatment, presence of adverse events, occurrence of clinical complications, and weight gain. The secondary outcomes included physiological measures of GOR or histological evidence of oesophagitis. We dichotomised symptoms into 'same or worse' vs 'improved' and calculated summary odds ratios. Continuous measures of GOR (e.g. reflux index) were summarised as a weighted mean difference. All outcomes were analysed using a random effects method. Sensitivity analyses were also performed. MAIN RESULTS: Searches identified eight trials which met the inclusion criteria. Seven trials (a total of 236 participants) compared Cisapride with placebo. The odds ratio for 'same or worse' vs 'improved symptoms' at the end of treatment was 0.34 (95%CI 0.10, 1.19), thus showing no statistically significant difference between the two interventions. There was significant heterogeneity between the studies and the funnel plot suggested substantial publication bias. In the sensitivity analysis, the definition of outcomes was changed to 'any symptoms' vs 'no symptoms'. This resulted in the exclusion of three trials (one of them the largest, best quality trial). The resulting pooled odds ratio showed a significant effect of Cisapride (OR 0.19, 95%CI 0.08, 0.44). There were fewer adverse events with placebo than with Cisapride, but the difference was not statistically significant (OR 1.80, 95%CI 0.87, 3.70) and the result was based on small numbers. Cisapride compared with placebo produced a statistically significant reduction in the reflux index (weighted mean difference -6.49, 95%CI -10.13, -2.85), but as reflux index and clinical symptoms are poorly correlated, the clinical importance of this finding is uncertain. Other measures of oesophageal pH monitoring did not reach significance. One included study compared Cisapride with Gaviscon (or Gaviscon and Carobel). The odds ratio for 'same or worse' vs 'improvement' in the Cisapride group compared with Gaviscon was 3.26 (95%CI 0.93, 11.38). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: We found no clear evidence that Cisapride reduces symptoms of GOR. The results suggested substantial publication bias favouring studies showing a positive effect of Cisapride. Due to reports of serious adverse events, the company will stop marketing the drug as of July 14th, 2000 and therefore a larger study to provide more conclusive evidence of the effect of Cisapride is no longer possible.

Alginates↗

PubMed2000

Cisapride treatment for gastro-oesophageal reflux in children: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

The aim of the systematic review was to determine the effect of cisapride compared with placebo or other non-surgical therapies for the treatment of symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux in children. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Science Citation Index and reference lists for randomized controlled trials which compared cisapride with placebo or other non-surgical therapy in children. We included only trials which reported reflux-related symptoms as an outcome, provided that cisapride was administered orally for at least I week. Seven trials (286 children in total) compared cisapride with placebo. Two trials reported good concealment of treatment allocation. The pooled odds ratio for the 'same or worse' symptoms was 0.34 (95% CI 0.10, 1.19). There was substantial heterogeneity between studies (P < 0.00001) and the funnel plot was asymmetrical. Adverse effects (mainly diarrhoea) were not significantly increased with cisapride (pooled odds ratio (OR) 1.80: 0.87, 3.70). The reflux index was significantly reduced in children treated with cisapride (weighted mean difference -6.49: -10.13, -2.85). One study (50 children) compared cisapride with gaviscon plus carobel: the OR for the 'same or worse' symptoms was 3.26 (0.93, 11.38). There was no clear evidence that cisapride reduced symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux. As smaller, poorer quality studies were biased in favour of a positive treatment effect, the pooled OR overestimated the potential benefits of cisapride. There was some evidence to suggest that gaviscon plus carobel may be a more effective option than cisapride.

Child↗

PubMed1998

Smoking and female infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The high prevalence of smoking among women in their reproductive years continues to be a matter of concern. The negative effects of smoking on general health are well known, but smoking may also affect fertility. The objective of the present study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to determine whether there is an association between smoking and risk of infertility in women of reproductive age, and to assess the size of this effect. In the 12 studies used for this meta-analysis, the overall value of the odds ratio (OR) for risk of infertility in women smokers versus non-smokers was 1.60 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34-1.91]. Studies of subfertile women undergoing in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment also show a reduction in fecundity among women smokers. A meta-analysis of nine studies found an OR of 0.66 (95% CI 0.49-0.88) for pregnancies per number of IVF-treated cycles in smokers versus non-smokers. Despite the potential limitations of meta-analyses of observational studies, the evidence presented in this review is compelling because of the consistency of effect across different study designs, sample size and types of outcome. However, continued reassurance is needed that the calculated overall effect is not in fact due to confounding variables.

Adult↗