Johannes Bitzer1
(1)
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
Johannes Bitzer
Email: Johannes.Bitzer@usb.ch
9.1 Introduction
Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) represents a common gynecological complaint among women of reproductive age.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK defines HMB as “excessive menstrual blood loss that interferes with the woman’s physical, emotional, social, and material quality of life, and that can occur alone or in combination with other symptoms.”
The prevalence of HMB varies widely depending on its definition, and the methods used to ascertain magnitude of blood loss have ranged up to 52 % but the prevalence has been based on women’s perception of heaviness.
MB >80 mL is objectively assessed; prevalence has been reported in up to 14 %. HMB is associated with psychological morbidity and negatively affects activities of daily living including social, professional, and family life.
A significant number of women diagnosed with HMB have iron deficiency anemia (hemoglobin less than 120 g/L) or a history of anemia.7
HMB is associated with increased use of health-care resources including high rates of surgical intervention.
9.2 How to Diagnose Heavy Menstrual Bleeding
There are several approaches to the diagnosis of heavy menstrual bleeding.
The objective measures which are used in studies are either the alkaline hematin method (measuring hematin in sanitary pads) or pictorial blood loss assessment scores.
Questions to ask to help quantify blood loss during menses
|
Questions |
Answer from women with normal MBL |
|
How often do you change your sanitary pad/tampon during the peak flow days? |
Change pads/tampons every 3 h |
|
How many pads/tampons do you use over a single menstrual period? |
Use fewer than 21 pads/tampons per cycle |
|
Do you need to change the tampon/pad during the night? |
Seldom need to change a pad/tampon during the night |
|
How large are any clots that are passed? |
Have clots less than 1 in. in diameter |
|
Has a medical adviser told you that you are anemic? |
Not be anemic |
Matleson KA, Clark MA. Women Health 2010;50;195–211.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/menorrhagia/DSD0394/DSECTION=symptoms
9.3 Causes of Heavy Menstrual Bleeding and Diagnostic Classification
The FIGO Committee on Menstrual Disorders developed a descriptive terminology to characterize the frequency, regularity, duration, and heaviness of flow of a woman’s menses14 and the PALM-COEIN classification for causes of bleeding, based on discrete structural (PALM: polyps, adenomyosis, leiomyomas, and malignancy/hyperplasia) and nonstructural causes (COEIN: coagulopathy, ovulatory dysfunction, endometrial dysfunction, iatrogenic, and not yet classified).
Most women with a complaint of HMB do not have any structural or histologically identifiable abnormalities.
In the new PALM-COEIN classification, the classification will be abnormal uterine bleeding due to endometrial dysfunction (AUB-E).
9.4 Treatment Options
There are two basic therapeutic approaches.
The surgical approach comprises endometrial ablation/resection and hysterectomy. There is an approximative bleeding reduction of 87 and 100 %, respectively. The proportion of patients having less than 80 ml blood loss per cycle is 100 % in both procedures.
Other clinical properties of these methods are summarized in the table.
Properties of surgical methods in HMB treatment
|
Ablation/resection |
Hysterectomy |
|
|
Patient satisfaction |
83 %a |
93 %b |
|
Level of evidence for clinical efficacy |
Several randomized and observational studies |
Several randomized and observational studies |
|
Validity and reliability of measured outcome |
High: efficacy reliably assessed by amenorrhea rates and number of repeated interventions |
High: definite procedure |
|
Safety (potential ADRs as mentioned in the NICE guidelines) |
Vaginal discharge, increased period pain or cramping (even if no further bleeding), perforation (but very rare with second-generation techniques) |
Infection, damage to other abdominal organs, urinary dysfunction (frequent passing of urine and incontinence), thrombosis, death (rare) |
aBusfield et al. Br J Obstet Gynaeool. 2006;113:257–253
bAberdeen Endometrial Ablation Trials Group. Br J Obstet Gynaeool. 1999;106;360–356
The medical approach includes the following drugs:
· Combined oral contraceptives
· Oral/depot progestogen
· Tranexamic acid
· Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)
· Progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems
9.4.1 Combined Hormonal Contraceptives
There are eight studies (involving 430 patients) available that assess the impact of combined hormonal contraceptives in the treatment of HMB, of which six were randomized controlled trials, five assessed combined oral contraceptives and one assessed the use of vaginal ring.
The medium bleeding reduction is about 43 %.
The advantage of this treatment is that it provides additional contraception if desired by the woman.
The treatment is under the control of the woman and in general well tolerated.
Commonly reported adverse effects of combined hormonal contraception include abdominal cramp/pain, acne, breast tenderness/discomfort, depression/mood changes, diarrhea, headache, nausea/vomiting, and weight gain.
As a class, estrogen-containing hormonal methods increase the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The incidence of VTE with modern low-dose combined hormonal contraceptives is increased by about twofold compared with nonusers (from 4.7 per 10,000 woman years to 9.1 per 10,000 woman years), but remains less than that associated with pregnancy (20 per 10,000 pregnancies). The increased risk of venous thromboembolism is generally attributed to the estrogen component, but whether this increased risk is independent of the progestogen component continues to be a subject for debate. Of note, anemia has been shown to be associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism, which raises the possibility that HMB may predispose toward increased risk of this condition.
9.4.2 The Cochrane Review Summarized the Evidence
· COCs are frequently prescribed (off-label) to treat the symptoms of heavy and/or prolonged menstrual bleeding.
· However, no prospective, well-designed studies exist to validate and quantify this effect.
· Single case reports show high efficacy of two- to fourfold dosage in acute bleeding (e.g., in adolescents).
· Safety of such high dosages lacks systematic evidence.
9.4.3 Estradiol/Dienogest Combined Oral Contraceptive
Two placebo-controlled studies assessed the multiphasic E2V/DNG combined oral contraceptive in over 260 women with HMB presumed due to endometrial dysfunction treated over seven cycles of treatment.81, 82 A pooled analysis of the two studies identified reported an 88 % reduction in median MBL by treatment cycle 7 relative to baseline (vs. 24 % with placebo).
9.4.4 Oral Progestogens
The following progestogens are used to treat heavy menstrual bleeding:
· Lynestrenol
· Norethisterone acetate/norethisterone
· Medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA)
· Dydrogesterone
· Chlormadinone acetate
· Progesterone
All twelve studies but one were randomized controlled trials.
The progestogens assessed were NETA and medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), administered as short-course (2 or less weeks OR ≤14 days per cycle) or long-course (3 or more weeks OR ≥21 days per cycle) treatment.
9.4.4.1 Short-Course Oral Progestogens
The available data with short-course oral progestogens (involving >150 patients) were generally inconsistent or, at best, suggest it had limited efficacy in reducing MBL.
Anovulatory patients (AUB-O), who are missing endogenous progesterone, may respond well to “short cycle” progestogen therapy.
One small study that included women with anovulatory HMB (n = 6) reported mean MBL reductions of 39 and 51 % after 1 and 2 months of treatment, respectively, with NETA 5 mg or MPA 10 mg both three times daily from day 12 to 25 of the cycle.
9.4.4.2 Long-Course Oral Progestogens
In contrast, treatment with long-course progestogens (3 or more weeks per cycle) for AUB-E consistently reduced pictorial bleeding assessment scores (PBCAS) in studies involving >200 patients.
The average bleeding reduction is 0–22 % if used as labeled and 37–87 % in higher/longer doses than labeled.
In studies that reported adverse events during treatment with oral progestogens, these generally included headache, breast tenderness, nausea, and bleeding problems (any bleeding problem reported as an adverse event).
There are no major health risks reported.
9.4.5 Tranexamic Acid
There are 11 studies (>800 patients) reporting the impact of tranexamic acid on HMB; 9 are randomized and two are non-randomized trials all in women with HMB presumed due to endometrial dysfunction.
The average bleeding reduction is between 22 and 40 %.
The Cochrane Review states the following:
· AF therapy causes a greater reduction in objective measurements of HMB when compared to placebo or other medical therapies (NSAIDS, oral luteal phase progestogens, and ethamsylate).
· AF treatment is not associated with an increase in side effects compared to placebo, NSAIDS, oral luteal phase progestogens, or ethamsylate.
· There are no data available within randomized controlled trials which record the frequency of thromboembolic events.
No studies assessed the use of tranexamic acid for more than 6 months. The proportion of women subsequently receiving surgical treatment was only reported in one study which found that only 2/49 (4 %) underwent surgical treatment.
Adverse events were reported such as nausea/vomiting, headache, and allergies/allergic reactions.
In the placebo-controlled studies, there were no statistical significant differences in the frequency of any adverse events between treatment and placebo groups.
Although there is a theoretical risk that tranexamic acid could increase the risk of venous thromboembolism, the limited population-based studies do not support that conclusion. Nonetheless, it is regarded as wise to avoid its use in women with a history of or predisposition to thrombosis.
9.4.6 Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs)
Of 19 studies of NSAIDs for HMB presumed due to endometrial dysfunction (involving >470 patients), 17 were randomized controlled trials.
The NSAIDs most frequently used are
· Mefenamic acid
· Ibuprofen
· Naproxen
· Meclofenamate
· Flurbiprofen, over 3–5 days of treatment during menstruation
Overall, use of NSAIDs appears to be associated with a consistent but limited reduction in MBL (range 10–40 % mean MBL reduction), which persists for up to 15 months of continued treatment.
These treatments provide no contraceptive effect.
There is evidence that an additional benefit is the reduction of dysmenorrhea.
The adverse events during treatment, which are reported in three or more studies, included nausea/vomiting, abdominal pain, and headache.
9.4.7 Progestogen-Releasing Intrauterine Systems
The evidence base for the use of the LNG-IUS in HMB is substantial. In women with HMB attributed to endometrial dysfunction (AUB-E), there are 17 randomized controlled trials (including altogether >700 patients [range 22–119 patients]) and 10 non-randomized trials (including 380 patients [range 10–66 patients]).
In 11 of the randomized controlled trials, the LNG-IUS was compared to surgical options.
The LNG-IUS had consistent reduction in MBL (or PBAC scores) over the first 3 months of treatment (70 %) (irrespective of whether mean or median reductions were reported, or type of study [randomized vs. non-randomized]), with further reductions over the first year of treatment that are maintained through to at least 4 years of use.
In women with HMB attributed to uterine structural pathology or coagulopathy, the evidence was collected from 15 studies, including 2 randomized studies, and involved altogether >600 patients. Three studies were in women with coagulopathies, ten in women with leiomyomas, and two in women with adenomyosis.
These studies all reported MBL outcomes using PBAC scores, and one study also included data obtained with the alkaline hematin method.
The effectiveness of the LNG-IUS in reducing PBAC scores in women with coagulopathies appears mixed, with one study in women on anticoagulant therapy demonstrating rather modest mean reductions in PBAC scores of up to 35 % at 6 months of treatment and the other two studies in women with coagulopathies demonstrating similar reductions (median 61–84 % reduction in PBAC score over 3–12 months use) to those achieved in women with HMB presumed due to endometrial dysfunction.
Of note, women with HMB presumed due to intramural leiomyomas appear to experience similar benefits as in those with HMB presumed due to endometrial dysfunction which persisted for at least 3–4 years of treatment. The limited data in women with adenomyosis suggest that the LNG-IUS is equally effective in these women also.
The reported LNG-IUS expulsion (including partial expulsion) rates in women with HMB due to endometrial dysfunction in studies that specifically reported this outcome was 7 % (55/791) and 7 % (25/338) in women with HMB secondary to leiomyomas. Only one LNG-IUS expulsion was reported across the three studies in women with coagulopathies (1/60; 2 %) and three (3/102; 3 %) expulsions in women with adenomyosis. No uterine perforations were reported in any of these studies included in this review.
One-year continuation rates with LNG-IUS use in women with HMB due to endometrial dysfunction range between 80 and 95 % and 59 and 97 % in those with HMB secondary to leiomyomas. Women subsequently choosing to undertake or opt for surgical treatment varied between 0–24 % and 3–22 % in the two groups, respectively. The limited number of studies in women with coagulopathies or adenomyosis suggests similarly high 1-year continuations rates as in the other two groups of women with HMB. The need for subsequent surgical intervention was not discussed in the three studies in women with coagulopathies, and one (4 %) woman had a subsequent hysterectomy in one of the studies in subjects with adenomyosis.
In general, the need for subsequent surgical intervention was variably ascertained or was reported inconsistently across the studies.
Commonly reported adverse events with the LNG-IUS included bleeding problems (any bleeding problem reported as an adverse event), breast tenderness/pain, abdominal/pelvic pain, backache/pain, headache, ovarian “cysts” (persistent follicles), and acne.
As placebo-controlled trials are not possible in this context, it would difficult to definitively ascertain the proportion of adverse events that could be attributed to the nocebo phenomenon or background incidence.
The efficacy of newer LNG-IUS (13.5 μg LNG/24-h initial release rate; SkylaTM/Jaydess®) in treating HMB has not been assessed.
In summary, the LNG-IUS is the most widely studied medical therapy for HMB. The available data with the LNG-IUS suggest a consistent >60 % reduction in MBL (or PBAC scores) over the first 3 months of treatment, with further reductions over the first year of treatment that are maintained through to at least 4 years of use in women with HMB due to endometrial dysfunction. Moreover, the benefits of the LNG-IUS in reducing menstrual blood loss may also be extended to women with HMB secondary to leiomyomas or adenomyosis, as well as those with underlying coagulopathies. In general, the LNG-IUS appears well tolerated with high 1-year continuation rates. Other intrauterine systems have also been assessed in a limited number of studies, but whether these can be considered equivalent in terms of MBL reduction to the well-studied LNG-IUS has not been demonstrated.
9.4.8 Comparison of the Different Medical Interventions
Based on a large number of studies, it seems appropriate to classify and rate the different methods regarding their efficacy with respect to the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.
See the following table.
9.5 Summary
Heavy menstrual bleeding is a frequent problem in gynecologic practice. HMB has an important negative impact on the quality of life of women. HMB can be due to structural and nonstructural causes which are summarized in the PALM-COEIN classification. Surgical and medical treatment options are available and the decision regarding treatment should take into account the efficacy of the method, the side effects, and the risks on one hand and the individual needs and preferences of the woman on the other hand (contraception, wish for a child, personal values and preferences, etc.).
References with the author