Internet-based treatment for vulvodynia (EMBLA) - Study protocol for a randomised controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Vulvodynia is defined as vulvar pain for at least 3 months without a clear cause. To the best of our knowledge, there are no trials investigating the effects of internet treatment using CBT (Cognitive behavioural therapy) treatment with Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) components for women with vulvodynia. The aim of this study is to examine the effects of such a guided internet-based intervention on provoked vulvar pain during the waiting period before clinical treatment. METHODS: We will randomise 52 patients to either guided internet-based intervention with CBT with (ACT) components or no intervention during the waiting period for treatment as usual. Online assessments are conducted at baseline, posttreatment, and at follow-up after 9 months. The primary outcome measure is provoked vulvar pain. Secondary outcomes are depression, anxiety, sexual function, and quality of life. Linear-mixed effect models will be used to assess the effect of the internet-based intervention on vulvar pain, pain acceptance, depression, anxiety, sexual function, and quality of life over time, by applying the intention-to-treat approach. Continuous data will be analysed with general linear models using intention-to-treat and also per protocol approaches to assess the effects of the intervention at different time points. Ordinal and binary data will be analysed with Mann Whitney's test, Fischer's exact test and multivariate logistic regression, respectively. DISCUSSION: As a randomised controlled trial with short- and long-term follow-up points, the EMBLA study intends to provide a novel and better understanding regarding the treatment of vulvodynia and the role of internet-based treatment as a complement to standard care for women suffering from vulvodynia. The effects of vulvodynia on pain, sexual function, quality of life, depression, and anxiety are investigated. The study's results are expected to be of value in the planning of clinical care in the medical area. High dropout rates and technical difficulties associated with using the platform are common in similar studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02809612.

Combined oral contraceptive use is associated with both improvement and worsening of mood in the different phases of the treatment cycle-A double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: Ever since the introduction of combined oral contraception (COC), one of the major reasons for discontinuing the pill use has been mood-related side effects. Moreover, women who discontinue the pill turn to less effective methods whereby the probability of an unintended conception increases. Approximately 4-10% of COC users complain of depressed mood, irritability or increased anxiety, but drug-related causality has been difficult to prove. Given the lack of randomized controlled trials in this area, we aimed to prospectively estimate the severity of adverse mood in COC users that would be as representative of general users as possible. METHODS: This investigator-initiated, multi-center, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study included 202 healthy women. Women were randomized to a COC (1.5mg estradiol and 2.5mg nomegestrolacetate) or placebo for three treatment cycles. Main outcome measure was the Daily Record of Severity of Problems (DRSP), which was filled out daily during one baseline cycle and the final treatment cycle. RESULTS: Results from 84 women in the COC group and 94 women in the placebo group were analysed. COC use was associated with small, but statistically significant, increases in mean anxiety (0.22; 95% CI: 0.07-0.37, p=0.003), irritability (0.23; 95% CI: 0.07-0.38, p=0.012), and mood swings scores (0.15; 95% CI: 0.00-0.31, p=0.047) during the intermenstrual phase, but a significant premenstrual improvement in depression (-0.33; 95% CI: -0.62 to -0.05, p=0.049). Secondary analyses showed that women with previous adverse hormonal contraceptive experience reported significantly greater mood worsening in the intermenstrual phase in comparison with healthy women, p<0.05. The proportion of women who reported a clinically relevant mood deterioration did not differ between those allocated to COC (24.1%) or placebo (17.0%), p=0.262. CONCLUSION: COC use is associated with small but statistically significant mood side effects in the intermenstrual phase. These findings are driven by a subgroup of women who clearly suffer from COC-related side effects. However, positive mood effects are noted in the premenstrual phase and the proportion of women with clinically relevant mood worsening did not differ between treatment groups.

Immediate versus delayed insertion of an etonogestrel releasing implant at medical abortion-a randomized controlled equivalence trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does a progestin releasing subdermal contraceptive implant affect the efficacy of medical abortion if inserted at the same visit as the progesterone receptor modulator, mifepristone, at medical abortion? SUMMARY ANSWER: A etonogestrel releasing subdermal implant inserted on the day of mifepristone did not impair the efficacy of the medical abortion compared with routine insertion at 2-4 weeks after the abortion. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: The etonogestrel releasing subdermal implant is one of the most effective long acting reversible contraceptive methods. The effect of timing of placement on the efficacy of mifepristone and impact on prevention of subsequent unintended pregnancy is not known. STUDY DESIGN SIZE, DURATION: This multicentre, randomized controlled, equivalence trial with recruitment between 13 October 2013 and 17 October 2015 included a total of 551 women with pregnancies below 64 days gestation opting for the etonogestrel releasing subdermal implant as postabortion contraception. Women were randomized to either insertion at 1 hour after mifepristone intake (immediate) or at follow-up 2-4 weeks later (delayed insertion). An equivalence design was used due to advantages for women such as fewer visits to the clinic with immediate insertion. The primary outcome was the percentage of women with complete abortion not requiring surgical intervention within 1 month. Secondary outcomes included insertion rates, pregnancy and repeat abortion rates during 6 months follow-up. Analysis was per protocol and by intention to treat. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women aged 18 years and older who had requested medical termination of a pregnancy up to 63 days of gestation and opted for an etonogestrel releasing contraceptive implant were recruited in outpatient family planning clinics in six hospitals in Sweden and Scotland. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Efficacy of medical abortion was 259/275 (94.2%) in the immediate insertion group and 239/249 (96%) in the routine insertion group with a risk difference of 1.8% (95% CI -0.4 to 4.1%), which was within the ±5% margin of equivalence. The insertion rate was 275/277 (98.9%) in the immediate group compared to 187/261 (71.6%) women in the routine group (P < 0.001). At 6 months of follow-up significantly fewer women in the immediate group had become pregnant again (2/277, 0.8%) compared to the routine group (10/261, 3.8%) P = 0.018. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: For the main outcome loss to follow-up data was minimized through access to patient records. Efforts were made to reduce loss to follow-up also for secondary outcomes. The results of the sensitivity analysis did not differ from the intention to treat or per protocol analysis. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Guidelines on postabortion contraception should be amended to include insertion of the etonogestrel releasing implant at the time of mifepristone intake for medical abortion up to and including a gestation of 63 days. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was funded by the Swedish Research Council (2012-2844), Stockholm City County and Karolinska Institutet (ALF). The contraceptive implants were provided by Merck and supplied by MSD Sweden. HKK and KGD have received honorariums for giving lectures for MSD/Merck and have participated in the national (HKK and KGD) and international (KGD) medical advisory boards for MSD/Merck. The other authors have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials number NCT01920022. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 06 August 2013. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 13 October 2013.