Therapeutic Approaches of Botulinum Toxin in Gynecology

Botulinum toxins (BoNTs) are produced by several anaerobic species of the genus Clostridium and, although they were originally considered lethal toxins, today they find their usefulness in the treatment of a wide range of pathologies in various medical specialties. Botulinum neurotoxin has been identified in seven different isoforms (BoNT-A, BoNT-B, BoNT-C, BoNT-D, BoNT-E, BoNT-F, and BoNT-G). Neurotoxigenic Clostridia can produce more than 40 different BoNT subtypes and, recently, a new BoNT serotype (BoNT-X) has been reported in some studies. BoNT-X has not been shown to actually be an active neurotoxin despite its catalytically active LC, so it should be described as a putative eighth serotype. The mechanism of action of the serotypes is similar: they inhibit the release of acetylcholine from the nerve endings but their therapeutically potency varies. Botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) is the most studied serotype for therapeutic purposes. Regarding the gynecological pathology, a series of studies based on the efficiency of its use in the treatment of refractory myofascial pelvic pain, vaginism, dyspareunia, vulvodynia and overactive bladder or urinary incontinence have been reported. The current study is a review of the literature regarding the efficiency of BoNT-A in the gynecological pathology and on the long and short-term effects of its administration

Biomarkers for the Noninvasive Diagnosis of Endometriosis: State of the Art and Future Perspectives

Background: Early and accurate diagnosis of endometriosis is crucial for the management of this benign, yet debilitating pathology. Despite the advances of modern medicine, there is no common ground regarding the pathophysiology of this disease as it continues to affect the quality of life of millions of women of reproductive age. The lack of specific symptoms often determines a belated diagnosis. The gold standard remains invasive, surgery followed by a histopathological exam. A biomarker or a panel of biomarkers is easy to measure, usually noninvasive, and could benefit the clinician in both diagnosing and monitoring the treatment response. Several studies have advanced the idea of biomarkers for endometriosis, thereby circumventing unnecessary invasive techniques. Our paper aims at harmonizing the results of these studies in the search of promising perspectives on early diagnosis. Methods: We selected the papers from Google Academic, PubMed, and CrossRef and reviewed recent articles from the literature, aiming to evaluate the effectiveness of various putative serum and urinary biomarkers for endometriosis. Results: The majority of studies focused on a panel of biomarkers, rather than a single biomarker and were unable to identify a single biomolecule or a panel of biomarkers with sufficient specificity and sensitivity in endometriosis. Conclusion: Noninvasive biomarkers, proteomics, genomics, and miRNA microarray may aid the diagnosis, but further research on larger datasets along with a better understanding of the pathophysiologic mechanisms are needed