Frequency of symptoms, determinants of severe symptoms, validity of and cut-off score for Menopause Rating Scale (MRS) as a screening tool: A cross-sectional survey among midlife Nepalese women

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Majority of Nepalese women live in remote rural areas, where health services are not easily accessible. We determined the validity of Menopause Rating Scale (MRS) as a screening tool for identification of women with severe menopausal symptoms and cut-off MRS score for referral.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A cross-sectional survey was carried out between February and August, 2008. Trained health workers administered MRS and a questionnaire to 729 women (40 to 65 years) attending health screening camps in Kaski district of Western Development Region of Nepal. Information about demographics, menopausal status, and use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT), chronic disease, self-perceived general health and reproductive history was also collected. Menopausal status was classified according to the Staging of Reproductive Ageing Workshop (STRAW). We calculated rates of menopausal symptoms, sensitivity, and specificity and likelihood ratios of MRS scores for referral to a gynaecologist. We also carried out multivariate analyses to identify the predictors for referral to a gynaecologist for severe symptoms.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total 729 women were interviewed. Mean age at menopause was 49.9 years (SD 5.6). Most frequently reported symptoms were, sleeping problems (574, 78.7%), physical and mental exhaustion (73.5%), hot flushes (508, 69.7%), joint and muscular discomfort (500, 68.6%) and dryness of vagina (449, 61.6%). Postmenopausal women (247, 33.9%) and perimenopausal (215, 29.5%) women together experienced significantly higher prevalence of all symptoms than the premenopausal (267, 36.6%) women. MRS score of ≥16 had highest ratio for (sensitivity + specificity)/2. Women who reported urogenital symptoms [OR 5.29, 95% CI 2.59, 10.78], and self perceived general health as poor [OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.11, 1.53] were more likely to be referred to a gynaecologist for severe menopausal symptoms. While women reporting somatic [OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63, 0.82] and psychological [OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74, 0.99] symptoms were less likely to be referred.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>MRS may be used as a screening tool at a cut-off score of ≥16 with least misclassification rate. However, its utility may be limited by woman's general health status and occurrence of urogenital symptoms.</p

Antidepressants during and after Menopausal Transition: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

To assess the therapeutic benefits of antidepressants in depressive women during and after menopausal transition, PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and Science Direct were systematically searched from inception to February 1, 2020 for randomized controlled trials examining antidepressants compared to placebo. Primary outcome was change in depressive symptom severity, while secondary outcomes were rates of response/remission rates and dropout/discontinuation due to adverse events. Seven trials involving 1,676 participants (mean age = 52.6 years) showed significant improvement in depressive symptoms (k = 7, Hedges’ g = 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.32 to 0.57, p < 0.001) relative to that in controls. Furthermore, response (k = 3, odds ratio (OR) = 2.53, 95% CI = 1.24 to 5.15, p = 0.01) and remission (k = 3, OR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.32 to 2.57, p < 0.001) rates were significantly higher in antidepressant-treated groups compared to those with controls. Although dropout rates did not differ between antidepressant and control groups (k = 6, OR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.70 to 1.26, p = 0.68), the rate of discontinuation due to adverse events was significantly higher in antidepressant-treated groups (k = 6, OR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.86, p = 0.01). Subgroup analysis indicated that antidepressants were also efficacious for depressive symptoms in those without diagnosis of MDD. The results demonstrated that antidepressants were efficacious for women with depressive syndromes during and after menopausal transition but associated with a higher risk of discontinuation due to adverse events

Biological versus chronological ovarian age:implications for assisted reproductive technology

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Women have been able to delay childbearing since effective contraception became available in the 1960s. However, fertility decreases with increasing maternal age. A slow but steady decrease in fertility is observed in women aged between 30 and 35 years, which is followed by an accelerated decline among women aged over 35 years. A combination of delayed childbearing and reduced fecundity with increasing age has resulted in an increased number and proportion of women of greater than or equal to 35 years of age seeking assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Literature searches supplemented with the authors' knowledge.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Despite major advances in medical technology, there is currently no ART treatment strategy that can fully compensate for the natural decline in fertility with increasing female age. Although chronological age is the most important predictor of ovarian response to follicle-stimulating hormone, the rate of reproductive ageing and ovarian sensitivity to gonadotrophins varies considerably among individuals. Both environmental and genetic factors contribute to depletion of the ovarian oocyte pool and reduction in oocyte quality. Thus, biological and chronological ovarian age are not always equivalent. Furthermore, biological age is more important than chronological age in predicting the outcome of ART. As older patients present increasingly for ART treatment, it will become more important to critically assess prognosis, counsel appropriately and optimize treatment strategies. Several genetic markers and biomarkers (such as anti-Müllerian hormone and the antral follicle count) are emerging that can identify women with accelerated biological ovarian ageing. Potential strategies for improving ovarian response include the use of luteinizing hormone (LH) and growth hormone (GH). When endogenous LH levels are heavily suppressed by gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues, LH supplementation may help to optimize treatment outcomes for women with biologically older ovaries. Exogenous GH may improve oocyte development and counteract the age-related decline of oocyte quality. The effects of GH may be mediated by insulin-like growth factor-I, which works synergistically with follicle-stimulating hormone on granulosa and theca cells.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Patients with biologically older ovaries may benefit from a tailored approach based on individual patient characteristics. Among the most promising adjuvant therapies for improving ART outcomes in women of advanced reproductive age are the administration of exogenous LH or GH.</p