Byams, Vanessa R.

Abstract Menorrhagia is a common clinical problem among reproductive age women and annually 5% of reproductive age women seek medical attention, usually with gynecologists and other primary care physicians, for this symptom. Since underlying bleeding disorders are common in women presenting with menorrhagia, and referral for comprehensive hemostatic testing of substantial numbers of women with otherwise unexplained menorrhagia is problematic from the public health and cost perspective, a short, easy-to-administer screening tool comprised of 8 questions for identifying women with menorrhagia for hemostatic evaluation was previously developed (Am J Ob Gyn2008;198:e1–163e8). In the present study, the validity of the screening tool was evaluated in a multi-site, prospectively recruited cohort of women with menorrhagia. 232 women with menorrhagia age 18 and older with a pictorial blood assessment chart (PBAC) score > 100 were recruited from 5 US centers as potential subjects for a prospective cross-over study for evaluation of intranasal DDAVP versus tranexamic acid. All subjects underwent comprehensive laboratory testing for bleeding disorders, including VWF, platelet aggregation/ATP release, and factor assays. Study participants were administered a questionnaire which included the 8 screening tool questions in 4 categories, including history of duration and severity of menorrhagia, anemia treatment, excessive bleeding with hemostatic challenges, and family diagnosis of bleeding disorder. A screening tool was considered positive if there was a positive response for any of the questions in the four categories. Sensitivity of the screening tool with 95% confidence interval was calculated for bleeding disorders and also separately for low VWF (ristocetin cofactor < 50%), and platelet function defects.217 women with menorrhagia including 78% white and 16% black women with complete data were evaluated. In this population, a positive screening tool had a sensitivity of 89% (95% CI, 83–93) for bleeding disorders, 89% for platelet function defects (95% CI, 82–94), and 73% for low VWF (95% CI, 39–94). The sensitivity for bleeding disorders was 87% (95% CI, 79–92) among white women and 94% (95% CI, 79–99) among black women. Adding a PBAC score > 185 increased the sensitivity of the screening tool for bleeding disorders to 95% (95% CI, 90–98). Using a multi-site US population of adult women with menorrhagia, this study confirms the benefit of a short screening tool to assist primary care physicians in the selection of women with menorrhagia to refer for comprehensive hemostatic testing and evaluation. population of adult women with menorrhagia, this study confirms the benefit of a short screening tool to assist primary care physicians in the selection of women with menorrhagia to refer for comprehensive hemostatic testing and evaluation.

Introduction: Menorrhagia is a common health problem affecting ∼5-10% of women. The optimal management of menorrhagia among women with abnormal laboratory hemostasis is uncertain. The goal of this study was to determine the effect of intranasal desmopressin (IN-DDAVP) vs. oral tranexamic acid (TA) on menstrual blood loss (MBL) and quality of life (QOL). Methods: In a cross-over study design, 117 consenting women 18–50 years of age with menorrhagia (defined as subjective report of heavy bleeding and a pictorial blood assessment chart [PBAC] score > 100) with a negative gynecological evaluation and abnormal laboratory hemostasis (62% platelet dysfunction, 15% von Willebrand disease, 23% other coagulation defect or combined) were randomly assigned to initial IN-DDAVP or TA therapy each for two menstrual cycles, followed by cross-over to the second study drug for an additional two cycles. MBL by PBAC was measured at baseline and after each menstrual cycle while QOL was assessed by four validated instruments: Health Related Quality of Life (HRQOL), SF-36®, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) and the Ruta menorrhagia questionnaire. Results: There was a statistically significant decrease in the PBAC for both treatments. On average, the estimated decrease in the PBAC from baseline for IN-DDAVP was −66.0 (CI = (−89.5, −42.6)) and for TA, −107.8 (CI = (−131.5, −84.1)). The decrease in the PBAC score was larger for TA with a difference of 41.8 (p-value = 0.0002, CI = (20.4, 63.2)) between the two treatments. In the multivariable analysis, the test for treatment-cycle number interaction was not significant, suggesting no carry-over effect. The test for a treatment type effect was significant (p<0.0001) suggesting a greater reduction in PBAC score with TA compared to IN-DDAVP. Both IN-DDAVP and TA generally improved QOL as assessed by each of the four instruments. Over-all, the Ruta Menorrhagia Questionnaire and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale measurements showed the most statistically significant improvements. Conclusion: Both TA and IN-DDDAVP reduce MBL and improve QOL in females with menorrhagia and abnormal laboratory hemostasis.The significance of these findings are underscored by the fact that prior studies of menorrhagia treatment in these patients have not included validated QOL instruments. The marked improvement in MBL and QOL noted with TA and IN-DDAVP appears to justify hemostasis screening in women presenting with menorrhagia for whom no gynecological cause can be found.