Gabapentin for the Management of Chronic Pelvic Pain in Women (GaPP1): A Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial.

Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) affects 2.1-24% of women. Frequently, no underlying pathology is identified, and the pain is difficult to manage. Gabapentin is prescribed for CPP despite no robust evidence of efficacy. We performed a pilot trial in two UK centres to inform the planning of a future multicentre RCT to evaluate gabapentin in CPP management. Our primary objective was to determine levels of participant recruitment and retention. Secondary objectives included estimating potential effectiveness, acceptability to participants of trial methodology, and cost-effectiveness of gabapentin. Women with CPP and no obvious pelvic pathology were assigned to an increasing regimen of gabapentin (300-2700 mg daily) or placebo. We calculated the proportion of eligible women randomised, and of randomised participants who were followed up to six months. The analyses by treatment group were by intention-to-treat. Interviews were conducted to evaluate women's experiences of the trial. A probabilistic decision analytical model was used to estimate cost-effectiveness. Between September 2012-2013, 47 women (34% of those eligible) were randomised (22 to gabapentin, 25 to placebo), and 25 (53%) completed six-month follow-up. Participants on gabapentin had less pain (BPI difference 1.72 points, 95% CI:0.07-3.36), and an improvement in mood (HADS difference 4.35 points, 95% CI:1.97-6.73) at six months than those allocated placebo. The majority of participants described their trial experience favorably. At the UK threshold for willingness-to-pay, the probabilities of gabapentin or no treatment being cost-effective are similar. A pilot trial assessing gabapentin for CPP was feasible, but uncertainty remains, highlighting the need for a large definitive trial.

A randomised controlled trial of microwave endometrial ablation without endometrial preparation in the outpatient setting: patient acceptability, treatment outcome and costs.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outpatient microwave endometrial ablation (MEA) in the postmenstrual phase to standard MEA treatment after drug preparation in a day case theatre environment. DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial. SETTING: A large United Kingdom teaching hospital. POPULATION: Two hundred and ten women complaining of excessive menstrual loss. METHODS: Two hundred and ten women with excessive menstrual loss were randomised. Ninety-seven women were treated as outpatients in the immediate post-menstrual phase and 100 were treated in an operating theatre after hormonal preparation. All procedures were commenced under local anaesthesia with or without conscious sedation. Analysis was by modified intention to treat. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures were satisfaction with treatment (measured at one year) and acceptability of treatment (measured at two weeks). Secondary outcome measures were menstrual outcome and financial cost. RESULTS: Significantly more women found treatment post-menses acceptable; 86 (89.5%) versus 76 (76.0%) [difference in proportions 13.6%, 95% CI (3.0%, 23.9%)]. Similar numbers in each arm were totally or generally satisfied with the treatment, 86 (92.5%) versus 84 (88.4%) [difference in proportions 4.1%, 95% CI (-4.7%, 12.9%)] while amenorrhoea rates at one year were comparable, 52 (55.9%) versus 60 (61.9%). [difference in proportions -5.9%, 95% CI (-19.8%, 7.6%)]. The mean health service costs were 124 pounds (95% CI 86-194 pounds) lower for the patients in the post-menses group. CONCLUSION: MEA performed under local anaesthesia (with or without conscious sedation) in the post-menstrual phase achieves high levels of satisfaction is very acceptable to patients and results in significantly reduced health service costs. Importantly menstrual outcomes are not affected by omission of drug preparation. There is now good evidence to support the use of MEA, without drug endometrial preparation, in the outpatient setting.

Microwave endometrial ablation vs. rollerball electroablation for menorrhagia: a multicenter randomized trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of microwave endometrial ablation (MEA) with those of rollerball electroablation (REA) for the treatment of menorrhagia. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial (Canadian Task Force classification I). SETTING: Eight academic medical centers and private medical practices. PATIENTS: Three hundred twenty-two women with documented menorrhagia due to benign causes. INTERVENTION: MEA or REA. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: By intent-to-treat analysis, the success rate of MEA at 12 months (87.0%; CI 81.7%-91.2%) did not differ significantly (p = .40) from that of REA (83.2%; CI 74.7%-89.7%). Among evaluable patients, success rate was also similar (p = .24) in the MEA (96.4%; CI 92.7%-98.5%) and REA (92.7%; CI 85.6%-97%) groups. The amenorrhea rate in evaluable patients after MEA was 61.3% (CI 54.1 %-68.2%). In patients with myomas, the success and amenorrhea rates in evaluable patients after MEA were 90.3% (CI 74.2%-98%) and 61.3% (CI 42.2%-78.2%), respectively. In evaluable patients with body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or greater, MEA success rate was 96.7% (CI 88.5%-99.6%) compared with 81.8% (CI 59.7%-94.8%) for REA (p = .042). The ablation procedure was performed under IV sedation in 62% of patients in the MEA group versus 18% of patients in the REA group (p <.001); whereas, general anesthesia was employed more often in patients undergoing REA (37% vs. 76%, p <.001). No major complications were encountered. Patient satisfaction with results of treatment was high (98.5% of the MEA and 99.0% of the REA group). CONCLUSIONS: Microwave endometrial ablation is an efficacious and safe procedure for the treatment of menorrhagia. Over half of patients treated with MEA achieve amenorrhea, and the procedure is suitable for women with myomas and irregular uterine cavities. The procedure is easily learned and can be performed rapidly, under IV sedation in most cases.