Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues for endometriosis

Background: Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition affecting 6 to 11% of reproductive-age women and may cause dyspareunia, dysmenorrhoea, and infertility. One treatment strategy is medical therapy with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) to reduce pain due to endometriosis. One of the adverse effects of GnRHas is a decreased bone mineral density. In addition to assessing the effect on pain, quality of life, most troublesome symptom and patients' satisfaction, the current review also evaluated the effect on bone mineral density and risk of adverse effects in women with endometriosis who use GnRHas versus other treatment options. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of GnRH analogues (GnRHas) in the treatment of painful symptoms associated with endometriosis and to determine the effects of GnRHas on bone mineral density of women with endometriosis. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the trial registries in May 2022 together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared GnRHas with other hormonal treatment options, including analgesics, danazol, intra-uterine progestogens, oral or injectable progestogens, gestrinone and also GnRHas compared with no treatment or placebo. Trials comparing GnRHas versus GnRHas in conjunction with add-back therapy (hormonal or non-hormonal) or calcium-regulation agents were also included in this review. Data collection and analysis: We used standard methodology as recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes are relief of overall pain and the objective measurement of bone mineral density. Secondary outcomes include adverse effects, quality of life, improvement in the most troublesome symptoms and patient satisfaction. Due to high risk of bias associated with some of the studies, primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at low risk of selection bias. Sensitivity analysis including all studies was then performed. Main results: Seventy-two studies involving 7355 patients were included. The evidence was very low to low quality: the main limitations of all studies were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision. Trials comparing GnRHas versus no treatment. We did not identify any studies. Trials comparing GnRHas versus placebo. There may be a decrease in overall pain, reported as pelvic pain scores (RR 2.14; 95% CI 1.41 to 3.24, 1 RCT, n = 87, low-certainty evidence), dysmenorrhoea scores (RR 2.25; 95% CI 1.59 to 3.16, 1 RCT, n = 85, low-certainty evidence), dyspareunia scores (RR 2.21; 95% CI 1.39 to 3.54, 1 RCT, n = 59, low-certainty evidence), and pelvic tenderness scores (RR 2.28; 95% CI 1.48 to 3.50, 1 RCT, n = 85, low-certainty evidence) after three months of treatment. We are uncertain of the effect for pelvic induration, based on the results found after three months of treatment (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.79, 1 RCT, n = 81, low-certainty evidence). Besides, treatment with GnRHas may be associated with a greater incidence of hot flushes at three months of treatment (RR 3.08; 95% CI 1.89 to 5.01, 1 RCT, n = 100, low-certainty evidence). Trials comparing GnRHas versus danazol. For overall pain, for women treated with either GnRHas or danazol, a subdivision was made between pelvic tenderness, partly resolved and completely resolved. We are uncertain about the effect on relief of overall pain, when a subdivision was made for overall pain (MD -0.30; 95% CI -1.66 to 1.06, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), pelvic pain (MD 0.20; 95% CI -0.26 to 0.66, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), dysmenorrhoea (MD 0.10; 95% CI -0.49 to 0.69, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), dyspareunia (MD -0.20; 95% CI -0.77 to 0.37, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), pelvic induration (MD -0.10; 95% CI -0.59 to 0.39, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), and pelvic tenderness (MD -0.20; 95% CI -0.78 to 0.38, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) after three months of treatment. For pelvic pain (MD 0.50; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.90, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) and pelvic induration (MD 0.70; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), the complaints may decrease slightly after treatment with GnRHas, compared to danazol, for six months of treatment. Trials comparing GnRHas versus analgesics. We did not identify any studies. Trials comparing GnRHas versus intra-uterine progestogens. We did not identify any low risk of bias studies. Trials comparing GnRHas versus GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents. There may be a slight decrease in bone mineral density (BMD) after 12 months treatment with GnRHas, compared to GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents for anterior-posterior spine (MD -7.00; 95% CI -7.53 to -6.47, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) and lateral spine (MD -12.40; 95% CI -13.31 to -11.49, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence). Authors' conclusions: For relief of overall pain, there may be a slight decrease in favour of treatment with GnRHas compared to placebo or oral or injectable progestogens. We are uncertain about the effect when comparing GnRHas with danazol, intra-uterine progestogens or gestrinone. For BMD, there may be a slight decrease when women are treated with GnRHas, compared to gestrinone. There was a bigger decrease of BMD in favour of GnRHas, compared to GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents. However, there may be a slight increase in adverse effects when women are treated with GnRHas, compared to placebo or gestrinone. Due to a very low to low certainty of the evidence, a wide range of outcome measures and a wide range of outcome measurement instruments, the results should be interpreted with caution

External validation of a prediction model to select the best day-three embryo for transfer in in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmatic sperm injection procedures

Objective: To evaluate the multivariate embryo selection model by van Loendersloot et al. (2014) (VL) in a different geographical context. Design: This is a retrospective external validation study of a 5-year cohort of women undergoing in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmatic sperm injection. Setting: Two outpatient fertility clinics. Patient(s): A total of 1,197 women who underwent 1,610 fresh in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmatic sperm injection cycles with single embryo transfer were included. Intervention(s): None. Main Outcome Measure(s): The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for diagnostic efficacy was used to assess the discriminative value of the model. Calibration for testing the validity of the VL model was performed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test and a calibration plot. Result(s): Three hundred thirty-three patients (21%) achieved a viable pregnancy of at least 11 weeks. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve using the VL model was 0.68. No significant difference between the predicted implantation rate and the observed implantation rates was showed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow (X2= 6.70). The calibration plot showed an intercept of the regression line of 0.34 and the estimated slope was 0.72. Conclusion: The investigated VL model was able to distinguish between higher and lower implantation potential of embryos in our clinical setting

Treatment preferences for medication or surgery in patients with deep endometriosis and bowel involvement – a discrete choice experiment

Objective: To study the preferences of women with deep endometriosis (DE) with bowel involvement when they have to choose between conservative (medication) or surgical treatment. Design: Labelled discrete choice experiment (DCE). Setting: Dutch academic and non-academic hospitals and online recruitment. Population or Sample: A total of 169 women diagnosed with DE of the bowel. Methods: Baseline characteristics and the fear of surgery were collected. Women were asked to rank attributes and choose between hypothetical conservative or surgical treatment in different choice sets (scenarios). Each choice set offered different levels of all treatment attributes. Data were analysed by using multinomial logistic regression. Main Outcome Measures: The following attributes – effect on/risk of pain, fatigue, pregnancy, endometriosis lesions, mood swings, osteoporosis, temporary stoma and permanent intestinal symptoms – were used in this DCE. Results: In the ranking, osteoporosis was ranked with low importance, whereas in the DCE, a lower chance of osteoporosis was one of the most important drivers when choosing a conservative treatment. Women with previous surgery showed less fear of surgery compared with women without surgery. Low anterior resection syndrome was almost equally important for patients as the chance of pain reduction. Pain reduction had higher importance than improving fertility chances, even in women with desire for a future child. Conclusions: The risk of developing low anterior resection syndrome as a result of treatment is almost equally important as the reduction of pain symptoms. Women with previous surgery experience less fear of surgery compared with women without a surgical history. Tweetable Abstract: First discrete choice experiment in patients with deep endometriosis.Medical Instruments & Bio-Inspired Technolog

Spontaneous Haemoperitoneum in Pregnancy: Nationwide Surveillance and Delphi Audit System

Objective: To evaluate the incidence, diagnostic management strategies and clinical outcomes of women with spontaneous haemoperitoneum in pregnancy (SHiP) and reassess the definition of SHiP. Design: A population-based cohort study using the Netherlands Obstetric Surveillance System (NethOSS). Setting: Nationwide, the Netherlands. Population: All pregnant women between April 2016 and April 2018. Methods: This is a case study of SHiP using the monthly registry reports of NethOSS. Complete anonymised case files were obtained. A newly introduced online Delphi audit system (DAS) was used to evaluate each case, to make recommendations on improving the management of SHiP and to propose a new definition of SHiP. Main outcome measures: Incidence and outcomes, lessons learned about clinical management and the critical appraisal of the current definition of SHiP. Results: In total, 24 cases were reported. After a Delphi procedure, 14 cases were classified as SHiP. The nationwide incidence was 4.9 per 100 000 births. Endometriosis and conceiving after artificial reproductive techniques were identified as risk factors. No maternal and three perinatal deaths occurred. Based on the DAS, adequate imaging of free intra-abdominal fluid, and identifying and treating women with signs of hypovolemic shock could improve the early detection and management of SHiP. A revised definition of SHiP was proposed, excluding the need for surgical or radiological intervention. Conclusions: SHiP is a rare and easily misdiagnosed condition that is associated with high perinatal mortality. To improve care, better awareness among healthcare workers is needed. The DAS is a sufficient tool to audit maternal morbidity and mortality

The LIFESTYLE study: costs and effects of a structured lifestyle program in overweight and obese subfertile women to reduce the need for fertility treatment and improve reproductive outcome. A randomised controlled trial

Background: In the Netherlands, 30% of subfertile women are overweight or obese, and at present there is no agreement on fertility care for them. Data from observational and small intervention studies suggest that reduction of weight will increase the chances of conception, decrease pregnancy complications and improve perinatal outcome, but this has not been confirmed in randomised controlled trials. This study will assess the cost and effects of a six-months structured lifestyle program aiming at weight reduction followed by conventional fertility care (intervention group) as compared to conventional fertility care only (control group) in overweight and obese subfertile women. We hypothesize that the intervention will decrease the need for fertility treatment, diminish overweight-related pregnancy complications, and will improve perinatal outcome.Methods/Design: Multicenter randomised controlled trial in subfertile women (age 18-39 year) with a body mass index between 29 and 40 kg/m2. Exclusion criteria are azoospermia, use of donor semen, severe endometriosis, premature ovarian failure, endocrinopathies or pre-existent hypertensive disorders.In the intervention group the aim is a weight loss of at least 5% to10% in a six-month period, to be achieved by the combination of a diet, increase of physical activity and behavioural modification. After six months, in case no conception has been achieved, these patients will start fertility treatment according to the Dutch fertility guidelines. In the control group treatment will be started according to Dutch fertility guidelines, independently of the patient's weight.Outcome measures and analysis: The primary outcome measure is a healthy singleton born after at least 37 weeks of gestation after vaginal delivery. Secondary outcome parameters including pregnancy outcome and complications, percentage of women needing fertility treatment, clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates, body weight, quality of life and costs.Data will be analysed according to the intention to treat principle, and cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed to compare the costs and health effects in the intervention and control group.Discussion: The trial will provide evidence for costs and effects of a lifestyle intervention aiming at weight reduction in overweight and obese subfertile women and will offer guidance to clinicians for the treatment of these patients.Trial registration:Dutch Trial Register NTR1530<br/