Protocol for developing, disseminating and implementing a core outcome set for endometriosis

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Temporal and regional differences in the incidence of hospital-diagnosed endometriosis:a Danish population-based study

INTRODUCTION: Due to diagnostic challenges, normalization of symptoms and an overall lack of awareness among both patients and physicians, endometriosis is an underdiagnosed disease. This can result in delayed treatment and potentially worsening of the disease. Despite initiatives, such as patients' support organizations and specialized endometriosis referral centers, differences in awareness, socioeconomic factors and lifestyle, combined with varying distances to specialized referral centers, could result in regional differences in the degree of underdiagnosing. This study aims to explore temporal and regional variations in the incidence of endometriosis based on the Danish hospital discharge register, and shed light on the degree of underdiagnosing of endometriosis in Denmark. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This registry‐based cohort study included all women aged 15–55 living in Denmark from 1990–2017. Participants were identified through the Danish Civil Registration system and endometriosis diagnoses received at a hospital were obtained from the Danish National Patient Registry. Incidence rates of diagnosed endometriosis were calculated for each year of the study period and for each municipality in Denmark. A Cox regression analysis, stratified by calendar time and adjusted for ethnic origin, household composition, highest educational level and family socioeconomic status, was performed to estimate the association between residence and likelihood of receiving a hospital‐based diagnosis of endometriosis. RESULTS: The nationwide incidence rate of hospital‐diagnosed endometriosis was 7.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.80–7.99) per 10 000 person‐years and the prevalence in 2017 was 1.63%. The results showed an overall increase in the incidence of diagnosed endometriosis of 46.8% (95% CI 32.9–62.2) during the study period and also displayed significant regional differences. After adjustments, women living in northern Jutland had the highest probability of receiving a hospital‐based diagnosis of endometriosis (hazard ratio 1.13, 95% CI 1.09–1.18), whereas women living in northern Zealand had the lowest probability (hazard ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.60–0.67) compared with eastern Jutland. These regional differences have become more evident over time. CONCLUSIONS: Our results reveal significant regional differences in the incidence of hospital‐diagnosed endometriosis, suggesting that a significant number of women may be left behind without a diagnosis. Further studies are needed to assess the underlying reasons for the significant regional differences

Endometriosis and the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic: Clinical Advice and Future Considerations

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a dramatic shift in the clinical practice of women’s health and routine care for endometriosis has been severely disrupted. Endometriosis is defined as an inflammatory disease characterized by lesions of endometrial-like tissue outside the uterus that is associated with pelvic pain and/or infertility (1). It affects ∼10% of reproductive age women worldwide, is diagnosed by surgical visualization or by radiological imaging, and is managed with hormone treatments or by laparoscopic removal of lesions (2–4). At the time of writing, under the guidance of international gynecological organizations (5–7), many centers temporarily ceased offering outpatient appointments, diagnostic imaging for nonacute pelvic pain, surgery for endometriosis, and fertility treatments. In the absence of routine care pathways and uncertainty about when health services will be available again, endometriosis sufferers are likely to feel vulnerable and that resultant stress and anxiety may contribute to a worsening of symptoms. The pandemic poses several important questions for healthcare providers on how best to deliver care within these restrictions. Herein, we present clinical advice on the management of endometriosis during the COVID-19 pandemic and future considerations

Fax +41 61 306 12 34 E-Mail karger@karger

of Women's Health instruments. Both aggregate analyses and country-specific analyses are planned for total costs per patient. Costs are broken down into cost drivers and into the various payers that incur costs. Conclusions: The cost estimates provided by the EndoCost cost-of-illness analysis may be used to justify the prioritisation of future research in endometriosis

World Endometriosis Research Foundation Endometriosis Phenome and biobanking harmonization project: II. Clinical and covariate phenotype data collection in endometriosis research

Objective: To harmonize the collection of nonsurgical clinical and epidemiologic data relevant to endometriosis research, allowing large-scale collaboration. Design: An international collaboration involving 34 clinical/academic centers and three industry collaborators from 16 countries on five continents. Setting: In 2013, two workshops followed by global consultation, bringing together 54 leaders in endometriosis research. Patients None. Intervention(s) Development of a self-administered endometriosis patient questionnaire (EPQ), based on [1] systematic comparison of questionnaires from eight centers that collect data from endometriosis cases (and controls/comparison women) on a medium to large scale (publication on >100 cases); [2] literature evidence; and [3] several global consultation rounds. Main Outcome Measure(s) Standard recommended and minimum required questionnaires to capture detailed clinical and covariate data. Result(s) The standard recommended (EPHect EPQ-S) and minimum required (EPHect EPQ-M) questionnaires contain questions on pelvic pain, subfertility and menstrual/reproductive history, hormone/medication use, medical history, and personal information. Conclusion(s) The EPQ captures the basic set of patient characteristics and exposures considered by the WERF EPHect Working Group to be most critical for the advancement of endometriosis research, but is also relevant to other female conditions with similar risk factors and/or symptomatology. The instruments will be reviewed based on feedback from investigators, and–after a first review after 1 year–triannually through systematic follow-up surveys. Updated versions will be made available through http://endometriosisfoundation.org/ephect

Research Priorities for Endometriosis:Recommendations From a Global Consortium of Investigators in Endometriosis

The 3rd International Consensus Workshop on Research Priorities in Endometriosis was held in São Paulo on May 4, 2014, following the 12th World Congress on Endometriosis. The workshop was attended by 60 participants from 19 countries and was divided into 5 main sessions covering pathogenesis/pathophysiology, symptoms, diagnosis/classification/prognosis, disease/symptom management, and research policy. This research priorities consensus statement builds on earlier efforts to develop research directions for endometriosis. Of the 56 research recommendations from the 2011 meeting in Montpellier, a total of 41 remained unchanged, 13 were updated, and 2 were deemed to be completed. Fifty-three new research recommendations were made at the 2014 meeting in Sao Paulo, which in addition to the 13 updated recommendations resulted in a total of 66 new recommendations for research. The research recommendations published herein, as well as those from the 2 previous papers from international consensus workshops, are an attempt to promote high-quality research in endometriosis by identifying and agreeing on key issues that require investigation. New areas included in the 2014 recommendations include infertility, patient stratification, and research in emerging nations, in addition to an increased focus on translational research. A revised and updated set of research priorities that builds on this document will be developed at the 13th World Congress on Endometriosis to be held on May 17-20, 2017, in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.Peter A. W. Rogers, G. David Adamson, Moamar Al-Jefout, Christian M. Becker, Thomas M. D, Hooghe, Gerard A. J. Dunselman, Asgerally Fazleabas, Linda C. Giudice, Andrew W. Horne, M. Louise Hull, Lone Hummelshoj, Stacey A. Missmer, Grant W. Montgomery, Pamela Stratton, Robert N. Taylor, Luk Rombauts, Philippa T. Saunders, Katy Vincent, Krina T. Zondervan for the WES/WERF Consortium for Research Priorities in Endometriosi

Clinical profiling of specific diagnostic subgroups of women with chronic pelvic pain

Introduction: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is a common condition affecting up to 26.6% of women, with many suffering for several years before diagnosis and/or treatment. Its clinical presentation is varied and there are frequently comorbid conditions both within and outside the pelvis. We aim to explore whether specific subgroups of women with CPP report different clinical symptoms and differing impact of pain on their quality of life (QoL). Methods: The study is part of the Translational Research in Pelvic Pain (TRiPP) project which is a cross-sectional observational cohort study. The study includes 769 female participants of reproductive age who completed an extensive set of questions derived from standardised WERF EPHect questionnaires. Within this population we defined a control group (reporting no pelvic pain, no bladder pain syndrome, and no endometriosis diagnosis, N = 230) and four pain groups: endometriosis-associated pain (EAP, N = 237), interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (BPS, N = 72), comorbid endometriosis-associated pain and BPS (EABP, N = 120), and pelvic pain only (PP, N = 127). Results: Clinical profiles of women with CPP (13–50 years old) show variability of clinical symptoms. The EAP and EABP groups scored higher than the PP group (p p p p p p p  Discussion: Our results demonstrate the negative impact that chronic pain has on CPP patients' QoL and reveal an increased negative impact of pain on the comorbid EABP group. Furthermore, it demonstrates the importance of dyspareunia in women with CPP. Overall, our results demonstrate the need for further exploration of interventions targeting QoL more broadly and suggest that novel approaches to classifying women with CPP are needed

The burden of endometriosis: costs and quality of life of women with endometriosis and treated in referral centres

BACKGROUND This study aimed to calculate costs and health-related quality of life of women with endometriosis-associated symptoms treated in referral centres. METHODS A prospective, multi-centre, questionnaire-based survey measured costs and quality of life in ambulatory care and in 12 tertiary care centres in 10 countries. The study enrolled women with a diagnosis of endometriosis and with at least one centre-specific contact related to endometriosis-associated symptoms in 2008. The main outcome measures were health care costs, costs of productivity loss, total costs and quality-adjusted life years. Predictors of costs were identified using regression analysis. RESULTS Data analysis of 909 women demonstrated that the average annual total cost per woman was €9579 (95% confidence interval €8559-€10 599). Costs of productivity loss of €6298 per woman were double the health care costs of €3113 per woman. Health care costs were mainly due to surgery (29%), monitoring tests (19%) and hospitalization (18%) and physician visits (16%). Endometriosis-associated symptoms generated 0.809 quality-adjusted life years per woman. Decreased quality of life was the most important predictor of direct health care and total costs. Costs were greater with increasing severity of endometriosis, presence of pelvic pain, presence of infertility and a higher number of years since diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS Our study invited women to report resource use based on endometriosis-associated symptoms only, rather than drawing on a control population of women without endometriosis. Our study showed that the economic burden associated with endometriosis treated in referral centres is high and is similar to other chronic diseases (diabetes, Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis). It arises predominantly from productivity loss, and is predicted by decreased quality of lif