Expert opinion on characteristics of vulval LS: initial identification of important clinical features through an international electronic-Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Lichen sclerosus (LS) is a chronic inflammatory condition mainly affecting genital skin. It causes distressing symptoms that impact daily quality of life as well as progressive anatomical changes and potential risk of cancer. Vulval LS is often misdiagnosed and treatment delayed. If non-experts are supported to identify clinical features of LS, they may diagnose the condition sooner and commence timely treatment or refer to specialist services for assessment and confirmatory biopsy. OBJECTIVES: To reach international expert consensus on clinical diagnostic features for vulval LS. METHODS: Between March and May 2023, a four-stage electronic-Delphi consensus exercise was conducted. In the first three rounds, participants were asked to rate the importance of a list of clinical features. Responses from round one were summarised and presented in rounds two and three, along with additional features suggested by participants. Any items which met the definition of consensus as 'very important/critical', or 'not important' were not voted upon again in subsequent rounds. In round four, items which met agreement for 'important but not critical' were ranked in order of their importance. Consensus was defined a priori, and all rounds were conducted anonymously. RESULTS: A total of 47 participants from 14 countries completed round one with 42 (89%) retained by round 3 when consensus was determined. Round four was completed by 36 (77%) participants. Participants completing all four rounds predominantly included healthcare professionals (78%, n=28) and patient support group representatives (19%, n=7). In round one, 21 diagnostic features were voted upon. Participants suggested an additional 10 features which were subsequently added to the round two survey. After three rounds, consensus was achieved for five diagnostic features: whiteness, itch, changes in anatomy, burying of the clitoral area, and improvement in response to topical steroids. There were also 12 features voted as 'important but not critical' and participants subsequently ranked them in the 4th round. CONCLUSIONS: Experts have agreed on five critical diagnostic features for vulval LS in adults and an additional 12 features that may also be important. Future research should assess these clinical features for diagnostic validity through a multicentre diagnostic test accuracy study.

Preventing recurrence of endometriosis-related pain by means of long-acting progestogen therapy: the PRE-EMPT RCT.

Background: Endometriosis affects 1 in 10 women, many of whom have surgery for persistent pain. Recurrence of symptoms following an operation is common. Although hormonal treatment can reduce this risk, there is uncertainty about the best option. Objectives: To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of long-acting progestogen therapy compared with the combined oral contraceptive pill in preventing recurrence of endometriosis-related pain and quality of life. Design: A multicentre, open, randomised trial with parallel economic evaluation. The final design was informed by a pilot study, qualitative exploration of women's lived experience of endometriosis and a pretrial economic model. Setting: Thirty-four United Kingdom hospitals. Participants: Women of reproductive age undergoing conservative surgery for endometriosis. Interventions: Long-acting progestogen reversible contraceptive (either 150 mg depot medroxyprogesterone acetate or 52 mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system) or combined oral contraceptive pill (30 µg ethinylestradiol, 150 µg levonorgestrel). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the pain domain of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 questionnaire at 36 months post randomisation. The economic evaluation estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Results: Four hundred and five women were randomised to receive either long-acting reversible contraceptive (N = 205) or combined oral contraceptive pill (N = 200). Pain scores improved in both groups (24 and 23 points on average) compared with preoperative values but there was no difference between the two (adjusted mean difference: -0.8, 95% confidence interval -5.7 to 4.2; p = 0.76). The long-acting reversible contraceptive group underwent fewer surgical procedures or second-line treatments compared with the combined oral contraceptive group (73 vs. 97; hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.00). The mean adjusted quality-adjusted life-year difference between two arms was 0.043 (95% confidence interval -0.069 to 0.152) in favour of the combined oral contraceptive pill, although this cost an additional £533 (95% confidence interval 52 to 983) per woman. Limitations: Limitations include the absence of a no-treatment group and the fact that many women changed treatments over the 3 years of follow-up. Use of telephone follow-up to collect primary outcome data in those who failed to return questionnaires resulted in missing data for secondary outcomes. The COVID pandemic may have affected rates of further surgical treatment. Conclusions: At 36 months, women allocated to either intervention had comparable levels of pain, with both groups showing around a 40% improvement from presurgical levels. Although the combined oral contraceptive was cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the difference between the two was marginal and lower rates of repeat surgery might make long-acting reversible contraceptives preferable to some women. Future work: Future research needs to focus on evaluating newer hormonal preparations, a more holistic approach to symptom suppression and identification of biomarkers to diagnose endometriosis and its recurrence. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN97865475. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN97865475. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 11/114/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 55. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. The NIHR recognises that people have diverse gender identities, and in this report, the word 'woman' is used to describe patients or individuals whose sex assigned at birth was female, whether they identify as female, male or non-binary.

Endometriosis is a condition where cells similar to ones that line the womb are found elsewhere in the body. Endometriosis affects 1 in 10 women, many of whom have surgery for persistent pain. Unfortunately, symptoms often return and some women will need repeat operations. Hormonal contraceptives can prevent the return of endometriosis-related pain: either long-acting reversible contraceptives (injections or a coil, fitted inside the womb) or the combined oral contraceptive pill (often called 'the pill'). We do not know which is the best option. The aim of this trial was to find out which of these two hormone treatments was more effective in terms of symptom relief, avoidance of further surgery and costs. Four hundred and five women with endometriosis, who were not intending to get pregnant, participated in a clinical trial. Half of the participants took long-acting reversible contraceptives, and the other half took the pill for 3 years following endometriosis surgery. The choice of treatment was made at random by a computer to ensure a fair comparison, although those allocated to the long-acting contraceptive could choose between injections or the coil. Participants completed questionnaires about their symptoms and life quality at intervals up to 3 years. Both treatments were equally good at reducing pain but more women using the pill had repeat operations. The pill was a little more costly overall but associated with a slightly higher quality of life. Both treatments are equally effective in reducing pain up to 3 years after surgery for endometriosis. The differences in costs are small and the choice of treatment should be based on personal preference.

Long acting progestogens versus combined oral contraceptive pill for preventing recurrence of endometriosis related pain: the PRE-EMPT pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of long acting progestogens compared with the combined oral contraceptive pill in preventing recurrence of endometriosis related pain. DESIGN: The PRE-EMPT (preventing recurrence of endometriosis) pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 34 UK hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 405 women of reproductive age undergoing conservative surgery for endometriosis. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised in a 1:1 ratio using a secure internet facility to a long acting progestogen (depot medroxyprogesterone acetate or levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system) or the combined oral contraceptive pill. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was pain measured three years after randomisation using the pain domain of the Endometriosis Health Profile 30 (EHP-30) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes (evaluated at six months, one, two, and three years) included the four core and six modular domains of the EHP-30, and treatment failure (further therapeutic surgery or second line medical treatment). RESULTS: 405 women were randomised to receive a long acting progestogen (n=205) or combined oral contraceptive pill (n=200). At three years, there was no difference in pain scores between the groups (adjusted mean difference -0.8, 95% confidence interval -5.7 to 4.2, P=0.76), which had improved by around 40% in both groups compared with preoperative values (an average of 24 and 23 points for long acting progestogen and combined oral contraceptive pill groups, respectively). Most of the other domains of the EHP-30 also showed improvement at all time points compared with preoperative scores, without evidence of any differences between groups. Women randomised to a long acting progestogen underwent fewer surgical procedures or second line treatments compared with those randomised to the combined oral contraceptive pill group (73 v 97; hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative prescription of a long acting progestogen or the combined oral contraceptive pill results in similar levels of improvement in endometriosis related pain at three years, with both groups showing around a 40% improvement compared with preoperative levels. While women can be reassured that both options are effective, the reduced risk of repeat surgery for endometriosis and hysterectomy might make long acting reversible progestogens preferable for some. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN97865475.

Metformin for endometrial hyperplasia.

BACKGROUND: Endometrial cancer is one of the most common gynaecological cancers in the world. Rates of endometrial cancer are rising, in part because of rising obesity rates. Endometrial hyperplasia is a precancerous condition in women that can lead to endometrial cancer if left untreated. Endometrial hyperplasia occurs more commonly than endometrial cancer. Progesterone tablets that are currently used to treat women with endometrial hyperplasia are associated with adverse effects in up to 84% of women. A levonorgestrel intrauterine device may improve compliance, but it is invasive, is not acceptable to all women, and is associated with irregular vaginal bleeding in 82% of cases. Therefore, an alternative treatment for women with endometrial hyperplasia is needed. Metformin, a drug that is often used to treat people with diabetes, has been shown, in some human studies, to reverse endometrial hyperplasia. However, the effectiveness and safety of metformin for treatment of endometrial hyperplasia remain uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of metformin in treating women with endometrial hyperplasia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, OpenGrey, LILACS, and two trials registers from inception to 5 September 2022. We searched the bibliographies of all relevant studies, and contacted experts in the field for any additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials comparing metformin (used alone or in combination with other medical therapies) versus placebo, no treatment, any conventional medical treatment, or any other active intervention for women with histologically confirmed endometrial hyperplasia of any type. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data from included studies, assessed the risk of bias in the included studies, and assessed the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. We resolved disagreements by discussion or by deferring to a third review author. When study details were missing, review authors contacted the study authors. The primary outcome of this review was regression of endometrial hyperplasia histology (with or without atypia) towards normal histology. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTs, in which a total of 387 women took part. In the comparison, Metformin plus megestrol versus megestrol alone, we rated the certainty of the evidence as low for the outcome, regression of endometrial hyperplasia. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low for the rest of the outcomes, in all three comparisons. Although there was a low risk of selection bias, there was a high risk of bias in the blinding of personnel and outcome assessment (performance bias and detection bias) in many studies. This update identified four new RCTs and six ongoing RCTs. Metformin versus megestrol We are uncertain whether metformin increases the regression of endometrial hyperplasia towards normal histology over megestrol (odds ratio (OR) 4.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56 to 15.32; P = 0.006; 2 RCTs, 83 participants; I² = 7%; very low-certainty evidence). This evidence suggests that if the rate of regression with megestrol is 61%, the rate of regression with metformin would be between 71% and 96%. It is unresolved whether metformin results in different rates of abnormal uterine bleeding or hysterectomy compared to megestrol. No study in this comparison reported progression of hyperplasia to endometrial cancer, recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia, health-related quality of life, or adverse effects during treatment. Metformin plus megestrol versus megestrol monotherapy The combination of metformin and megestrol may enhance the regression of endometrial hyperplasia towards normal histology more than megestrol alone (OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.65 to 6.51; P = 0.0007; 4 RCTs, 258 participants; I² = 0%, low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the rate of regression with megestrol monotherapy is 54%, the rate of regression with the addition of metformin would be between 66% and 84%. In one study, 3/8 (37.5%) of participants who took metformin had nausea that settled without further treatment. It is unresolved whether the combination of metformin and megestrol results in different rates of recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia, progression of endometrial hyperplasia to endometrial cancer, or hysterectomy compared to megestrol monotherapy. No study in this comparison reported abnormal uterine bleeding, or health-related quality of life. Metformin plus levonorgestrel (intrauterine system) versus levonorgestrel (intrauterine system) monotherapy We are uncertain whether there is a difference between groups in the regression of endometrial hyperplasia towards normal histology (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.56; 1 RCT, 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This evidence suggests that if the rate of regression with levonorgestrel monotherapy is 96%, the rate of regression with the addition of metformin would be between 73% and 100%. It is unresolved whether the combination of metformin and levonorgestrel results in different rates of abnormal uterine bleeding, hysterectomy, or the development of adverse effects during treatment compared to levonorgestrel monotherapy. No study in this comparison reported recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia, progression of hyperplasia to endometrial cancer, or health-related quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Review authors found insufficient evidence to either support or refute the use of metformin, specifically megestrol acetate, given alone or in combination with standard therapy, for the treatment of women with endometrial hyperplasia. Robustly designed and adequately powered randomised controlled trials, yielding long-term outcome data are still needed to address this clinical question.

Feasibility, Acceptability, and Usefulness of a Screening Tool for Caregiver Learning Differences in Early Childhood Home Visiting: Staff and Caregiver Perspectives.

Early childhood home visiting programs are well positioned to improve equity and reduce health disparities for families headed by caregivers with intellectual disabilities and other learning differences. Early identification of learning differences through screening may help home visiting staff tailor services and thus improve family engagement and outcomes. Using a mixed methods design, this study assessed potential determinants and outcomes related to implementation of a screening tool for learning differences adapted for the home visiting context. Participants were six home visiting staff and nine caregivers from multiple home visiting programs in one state. Staff completed surveys at enrollment and each time they conducted a screen with a caregiver. Staff also completed semi-structured interviews after conducting screens with at least two caregivers. Caregivers completed semi-structured interviews after taking part in a screen. At study enrollment, staff felt it was important to know if caregivers had learning differences, yet some believed caregivers would not like being asked about them. Survey and interview data aligned with theoretical determinants of implementation success, including staff competencies related to screening (e.g., knowledge, skills), perceived fit of screening with staff role and organizational context, and beliefs that the screening would improve engagement of caregivers and service delivery. Staff perceived the tool to be acceptable, feasible, and useful, although some acknowledged that caregivers might feel uncomfortable if the tool was not used carefully. Overall, caregivers found the tool to be acceptable and most believed it was helpful for the home visitor to have information about their learning experiences and needs. Findings lend initial support for the use of an adapted screening tool to identify potential learning differences.

Effectiveness of laparoscopic removal of isolated superficial peritoneal endometriosis for the management of chronic pelvic pain in women (ESPriT2): protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis affects 190 million women and those assigned female at birth worldwide. For some, it is associated with debilitating chronic pelvic pain. Diagnosis of endometriosis is often achieved through diagnostic laparoscopy. However, when isolated superficial peritoneal endometriosis (SPE), the most common endometriosis subtype, is identified during laparoscopy, limited evidence exists to support the common decision to surgically remove it via excision or ablation. Improved understanding of the impact of surgical removal of isolated SPE for the management of chronic pelvic pain in women is required. Here, we describe our protocol for a multi-centre trial to determine the effectiveness of surgical removal of isolated SPE for the management of endometriosis-associated pain. METHODS: We plan to undertake a multi-centre participant-blind parallel-group randomised controlled clinical and cost-effectiveness trial with internal pilot. We plan to randomise 400 participants from up to 70 National Health Service Hospitals in the UK. Participants with chronic pelvic pain awaiting diagnostic laparoscopy for suspected endometriosis will be consented by the clinical research team. If isolated SPE is identified at laparoscopy, and deep or ovarian endometriosis is not seen, participants will be randomised intraoperatively (1:1) to surgical removal (by excision or ablation or both, according to surgeons' preference) versus diagnostic laparoscopy alone. Randomisation with block-stratification will be used. Participants will be given a diagnosis but will not be informed of the procedure they received until 12 months post-randomisation, unless required. Post-operative medical treatment will be according to participants' preference. Participants will be asked to complete validated pain and quality of life questionnaires at 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Our primary outcome is the pain domain of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 (EHP-30), via a between randomised group comparison of adjusted means at 12 months. Assuming a standard deviation of 22 points around the pain score, 90% power, 5% significance and 20% missing data, 400 participants are required to be randomised to detect an 8-point pain score difference. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to provide high quality evidence of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical removal of isolated SPE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN27244948. Registered 6 April 2021.

Ulipristal acetate versus levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for heavy menstrual bleeding (UCON): a randomised controlled phase III trial.

Background: Heavy menstrual bleeding affects one in four women and negatively impacts quality of life. Ulipristal acetate is prescribed to treat symptoms associated with uterine fibroids. We compared the effectiveness of ulipristal acetate and the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system at reducing the burden of heavy menstrual bleeding, irrespective of the presence of fibroids. Methods: This randomised, open-label, parallel group phase III trial enrolled women over 18 years with heavy menstrual bleeding from 10 UK hospitals. Participants were centrally randomised, in a 1:1 ratio, to either three, 12-week treatment cycles of 5 mg ulipristal acetate daily, separated by 4-week treatment-free intervals, or a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. The primary outcome, analysed by intention-to-treat, was quality of life measured by the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included menstrual bleeding and liver function. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 20426843. Findings: Between June 5th, 2015 and February 26th, 2020, 236 women were randomised, either side of a recruitment suspension due to concerns of ulipristal acetate hepatoxicity. Subsequent withdrawal of ulipristal acetate led to early cessation of recruitment but the trial continued in follow-up. The primary outcome substantially improved in both groups, and was 89, (interquartile range [IQR] 65 to 100, n = 53) and 94, (IQR 70 to 100, n = 50; adjusted odds ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26-1.17; p = 0.12) in the ulipristal and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system groups. Rates of amenorrhoea at 12 months were higher in those allocated ulipristal acetate compared to levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (64% versus 25%, adjusted odds ratio 7.12, 95% CI 2.29-22.2). Other outcomes were similar between the two groups and there were no cases of endometrial malignancy or hepatotoxicity due to ulipristal acetate use. Interpretation: Our findings suggested that both treatments improved quality of life. Ulipristal was more effective at inducing amenorrhoea. Ulipristal has been demonstrated to be an effective medical therapeutic option but currently its use has restrictions and requires liver function monitoring. Funding: UK Medical Research Council and National Institute of Health Research EME Programme (12/206/52).

Intravaginal lactic acid gel versus oral metronidazole for treating women with recurrent bacterial vaginosis: the VITA randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Bacterial vaginosis is a common and distressing condition for women. Short-term antibiotic treatment is usually clinically effective, but recurrence is common. We assessed the effectiveness of intravaginal lactic acid gel versus oral metronidazole for treating recurrent bacterial vaginosis. METHODS: We undertook an open-label, multicentre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial in nineteen UK sexual health clinics and a university health centre. Women aged ≥ 16 years, with current bacterial vaginosis symptoms and a preceding history of bacterial vaginosis, were randomised in a 1:1 ratio using a web-based minimisation algorithm, to 400 mg twice daily oral metronidazole tablets or 5 ml once daily intravaginal lactic acid gel, for 7 days. Masking of participants was not possible. The primary outcome was participant-reported resolution of symptoms within 2 weeks. Secondary outcomes included time to first recurrence of symptoms, number of recurrences and repeat treatments over 6 months and side effects. RESULTS: Five hundred and eighteen participants were randomised before the trial was advised to stop recruiting by the Data Monitoring Committee. Primary outcome data were available for 79% (204/259) allocated to metronidazole and 79% (205/259) allocated to lactic acid gel. Resolution of bacterial vaginosis symptoms within 2 weeks was reported in 70% (143/204) receiving metronidazole versus 47% (97/205) receiving lactic acid gel (adjusted risk difference -23·2%; 95% confidence interval -32.3 to -14·0%). In those participants who had initial resolution and for whom 6 month data were available, 51 of 72 (71%) women in the metronidazole group and 32 of 46 women (70%) in the lactic acid gel group had recurrence of symptoms, with median times to first recurrence of 92 and 126 days, respectively. Reported side effects were more common following metronidazole than lactic acid gel (nausea 32% vs. 8%; taste changes 18% vs. 1%; diarrhoea 20% vs. 6%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Metronidazole was more effective than lactic acid gel for short-term resolution of bacterial vaginosis symptoms, but recurrence is common following both treatments. Lactic acid gel was associated with fewer reported side effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14161293 , prospectively registered on 18th September 2017.

Combination of gefitinib and methotrexate to treat tubal ectopic pregnancy (GEM3): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Tubal ectopic pregnancies can cause substantial morbidity or even death. Current treatment is with methotrexate or surgery. Methotrexate treatment fails in approximately 30% of women who subsequently require rescue surgery. Gefitinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor, might improve the effects of methotrexate. We assessed the efficacy of oral gefitinib with methotrexate, versus methotrexate alone, to treat tubal ectopic pregnancy. METHODS: We performed a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across 50 UK hospitals. Participants diagnosed with tubal ectopic pregnancy were administered a single dose of intramuscular methotrexate (50 mg/m2) and randomised (1:1 ratio) to 7 days of additional oral gefitinib (250 mg daily) or placebo. The primary outcome, analysed by intention to treat, was surgical intervention to resolve the ectopic pregnancy. Secondary outcomes included time to resolution of ectopic pregnancy and serious adverse events. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, ISCRTN 67795930. FINDINGS: Between Nov 2, 2016, and Oct 6, 2021, 328 participants were allocated to methotrexate and gefitinib (n=165) or methotrexate and placebo (n=163). Three participants in the placebo group withdrew. Surgical intervention occurred in 50 (30%) of 165 participants in the gefitinib group and in 47 (29%) of 160 participants in the placebo group (adjusted risk ratio 1·15, 95% CI 0·85 to 1·58; adjusted risk difference -0·01, 95% CI -0·10 to 0·09; p=0·37). Without surgical intervention, median time to resolution was 28·0 days in the gefitinib group and 28·0 days in the placebo group (subdistribution hazard ratio 1·03, 95% CI 0·75 to 1·40). Serious adverse events occurred in five (3%) of 165 participants in the gefitinib group and in six (4%) of 162 participants in the placebo group. Diarrhoea and rash were more common in the gefitinib group. INTERPRETATION: In women with a tubal ectopic pregnancy, adding oral gefitinib to parenteral methotrexate does not offer clinical benefit over methotrexate and increases minor adverse reactions. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research.

Effects on heavy menstrual bleeding and pregnancy of uterine artery embolization (UAE) or myomectomy for women with uterine fibroids wishing to avoid hysterectomy: The FEMME randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine treatment options (myomectomy vs. uterine artery embolization (UAE)) for women wishing to avoid hysterectomy. METHODS: A multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted on 254 women and data were collected on fibroid-specific quality of life (UFS-QOL), loss of menstrual blood, and pregnancy. RESULTS: At 4 years, the mean difference in the UFS-QOL was 5.0 points (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.4 to 11.5; P = 0.13) in favor of myomectomy. This was not statistically significant as it was at 2 years. There were no differences in bleeding scores, rates of amenorrhea, or heavy bleeding. Of those who were still menstruating, the majority reported regular or fairly regular periods: 36 of 48 (75%) in the UAE group and 30 of 39 (77%) in the myomectomy group. Twelve women after UAE and six women after myomectomy became pregnant (4 years) with seven and five live births, respectively (hazard ratio 0.48, 95% CI 0.18-1.28). There was no difference between the levels of hormones associated with the uterine reserve in each group. CONCLUSION: Leiomyoma are common in reproductive-aged women, causing heavy menses and subfertility. Among women with uterine fibroids, myomectomy resulted in better fibroid-related quality of life at 4 years, compared with UAE but the treatments decreased menstrual bleeding equally. There was also no significant difference in the impact of treatment on ovarian reserve.

Medical treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding in primary care: 10-year data from the ECLIPSE trial.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem that can significantly affect women's lives. There is a lack of evidence on long-term outcomes after seeking treatment. AIM: To assess continuation rates of medical treatments and rates of surgery in women 10 years after initial management for HMB in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a prospective observational cohort study. METHOD: Women with HMB who participated in the ECLIPSE primary care trial (ISRCTN86566246) completed questionnaires 10 years after randomisation to the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) or other usual medical treatments (oral tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined oestrogen-progestogen; or progesterone alone). Outcomes were rates of surgery, medical treatments, and quality of life using the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and EuroQoL EQ-5D. RESULTS: The responding cohort of 206 women was demographically and clinically representative of the original trial population. Mean age at baseline was 41.9 years (SD 4.9) and 53.7 years (SD 5.1) at follow-up. Over the 10-year follow-up, 60 of 206 (29.1%) women had surgery (hysterectomy n = 34, 16.5%; endometrial ablation n = 26, 12.6%). Between 5 and 10 years, 89 women (43.2%) ceased all medical treatments and 88 (42.7%) used LNG-IUS alone or in combination with other treatments. Fifty-six women (27.2%) were using LNG-IUS at 10 years. There were improvements over time in quality-of-life scores, with no evidence of differences in these or other outcomes between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Medical treatments for women with HMB can be successfully initiated in primary care, with low rates of surgery and improvement in quality of life observed a decade later.

Uterine artery embolisation versus myomectomy for premenopausal women with uterine fibroids wishing to avoid hysterectomy: the FEMME RCT.

BACKGROUND: Uterine fibroids are the most common tumour in women of reproductive age and are associated with heavy menstrual bleeding, abdominal discomfort, subfertility and reduced quality of life. For women wishing to retain their uterus and who do not respond to medical treatment, myomectomy and uterine artery embolisation are therapeutic options. OBJECTIVES: We examined the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of uterine artery embolisation compared with myomectomy in the treatment of symptomatic fibroids. DESIGN: A multicentre, open, randomised trial with a parallel economic evaluation. SETTING: Twenty-nine UK hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Premenopausal women who had symptomatic uterine fibroids amenable to myomectomy or uterine artery embolisation were recruited. Women were excluded if they had significant adenomyosis, any malignancy or pelvic inflammatory disease or if they had already had a previous open myomectomy or uterine artery embolisation. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to myomectomy or embolisation in a 1 : 1 ratio using a minimisation algorithm. Myomectomy could be open abdominal, laparoscopic or hysteroscopic. Embolisation of the uterine arteries was performed under fluoroscopic guidance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Uterine Fibroid Symptom Quality of Life questionnaire (with scores ranging from 0 to 100 and a higher score indicating better quality of life) at 2 years, adjusted for baseline score. The economic evaluation estimated quality-adjusted life-years (derived from EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version, and costs from the NHS perspective). RESULTS: A total of 254 women were randomised - 127 to myomectomy (105 underwent myomectomy) and 127 to uterine artery embolisation (98 underwent embolisation). Information on the primary outcome at 2 years was available for 81% (n = 206) of women. Primary outcome scores at 2 years were 84.6 (standard deviation 21.5) in the myomectomy group and 80.0 (standard deviation 22.0) in the uterine artery embolisation group (intention-to-treat complete-case analysis mean adjusted difference 8.0, 95% confidence interval 1.8 to 14.1, p = 0.01; mean adjusted difference using multiple imputation for missing responses 6.5, 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 11.9). The mean difference in the primary outcome at the 4-year follow-up time point was 5.0 (95% CI -1.4 to 11.5; p = 0.13) in favour of myomectomy. Perioperative and postoperative complications from all initial procedures occurred in similar percentages of women in both groups (29% in the myomectomy group vs. 24% in the UAE group). Twelve women in the uterine embolisation group and six women in the myomectomy group reported pregnancies over 4 years, resulting in seven and five live births, respectively (hazard ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 1.28). Over a 2-year time horizon, uterine artery embolisation was associated with higher costs than myomectomy (mean cost £7958, 95% confidence interval £6304 to £9612, vs. mean cost £7314, 95% confidence interval £5854 to £8773), but with fewer quality-adjusted life-years gained (0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 0.78, vs. 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 0.87). The differences in costs (difference £645, 95% confidence interval -£1381 to £2580) and quality-adjusted life-years (difference -0.09, 95% confidence interval -0.11 to -0.04) were small. Similar results were observed over the 4-year time horizon. At a threshold of willingness to pay for a gain of 1 QALY of £20,000, the probability of myomectomy being cost-effective is 98% at 2 years and 96% at 4 years. LIMITATIONS: There were a substantial number of women who were not recruited because of their preference for a particular treatment option. CONCLUSIONS: Among women with symptomatic uterine fibroids, myomectomy resulted in greater improvement in quality of life than did uterine artery embolisation. The differences in costs and quality-adjusted life-years are very small. Future research should involve women who are desiring pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN70772394. FUNDING: This study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 22. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?: Uterine fibroids are the most common non-cancerous tumour in women of childbearing age. Uterine fibroids are associated with heavy bleeding, lower chances of having children and reduced quality of life. Traditional surgical options were either to remove the fibroids (via myomectomy) or to completely remove the womb. A newer approach, known as uterine artery embolisation, involves blocking the blood supply to the fibroids in the womb. WHAT DID WE PLAN TO DO?: We compared myomectomy with uterine artery embolisation in women with fibroids who wanted to keep their womb. We wanted to see which treatment improved quality of life, was associated with the fewest complications and was the best value for money for the NHS. We also wanted to see if either treatment had an impact on women's ability to get pregnant and give birth. We included 254 women in a clinical trial. Women were assigned to have myomectomy or uterine artery embolisation at random to ensure a fair comparison. Women completed questionnaires about their symptoms and quality of life at intervals up to 4 years after treatment. WHAT DID WE FIND?: We found that myomectomy improved women's quality of life more than uterine artery embolisation. Complications from the treatments occurred in a similar proportion of women. There appeared to be no difference on reproductive hormone levels between treatments. Too few women in the trial got pregnant for any difference in the numbers of women having children to be seen. The differences in costs and overall disease burden were small. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?: Both treatments improve quality of life and cost about the same to the NHS but, on average, myomectomy will provide greater benefit to women. There is no evidence to suggest that either treatment is unsuitable for women wanting to get pregnant, but more research is needed in younger women.

Uterine artery embolization or myomectomy for women with uterine fibroids: Four-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the quality of life experienced by women with symptomatic uterine fibroids who had been treated with UAE in comparison to myomectomy. We report the four-year follow-up of the FEMME randomised trial. Two-year follow-up data has been previously reported. STUDY DESIGN: Premenopausal women who had symptomatic uterine fibroids amenable to myomectomy or uterine artery embolization were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Women were excluded if they had significant adenomyosis, any malignancy, pelvic inflammatory disease or had had a previous open myomectomy or uterine artery embolization.Participants were randomised to myomectomy or embolization in a 1:1 ratio using a minimisation algorithm. Myomectomy could be open abdominal, laparoscopic or hysteroscopic, according to clinician preference. Embolization of the uterine arteries was performed according to local practice, under fluoroscopic guidance.The primary outcome measure was the Uterine Fibroid Symptom Quality of Life questionnaire, adjusted for baseline score and reported here at four years post-randomisation. Subsequent procedures for fibroids, pregnancy and outcome were amongst secondary outcomes.Trial registration ISRCTN70772394 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN70772394. RESULTS: 254 women were randomized, 127 to myomectomy (105 underwent myomectomy) and 127 to uterine artery embolization (98 underwent embolization). At four years, 67 (53%) and 81 (64%) completed UFS-QoL quality of life scores. Mean difference in the UFS-QoL at 4 years was 5.0 points (95% CI -1.4 to 11.5; p = 0.13) in favour of myomectomy. There were 15 pregnancies in the UAE group and 7 in the myomectomy group, with a cumulative pregnancy rate to four years of 15% and 6% respectively (hazard ratio: 0.48; 95% CI 0.18-1.28). The cumulative repeat procedure rate to four years was 24% in the UAE group and 13% in the myomectomy group (hazard ratio: 0.53; 95% CI 0.27-1.05). CONCLUSIONS: Myomectomy resulted in greater improvement in quality of life compared with uterine artery embolization, although by four years, this difference was not statistically significant. Missing data may limit the generalisability of this result. The numbers of women becoming pregnant were too small draw a conclusion on the effect of the procedures on fertility.

Effect of Regional vs General Anesthesia on Incidence of Postoperative Delirium in Older Patients Undergoing Hip Fracture Surgery: The RAGA Randomized Trial.

Importance: In adults undergoing hip fracture surgery, regional anesthesia may reduce postoperative delirium, but there is uncertainty about its effectiveness. Objective: To investigate, in older adults undergoing surgical repair for hip fracture, the effects of regional anesthesia on the incidence of postoperative delirium compared with general anesthesia. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized, allocation-concealed, open-label, multicenter clinical trial of 950 patients, aged 65 years and older, with or without preexisting dementia, and a fragility hip fracture requiring surgical repair from 9 university teaching hospitals in Southeastern China. Participants were enrolled between October 2014 and September 2018; 30-day follow-up ended November 2018. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive either regional anesthesia (spinal, epidural, or both techniques combined with no sedation; n = 476) or general anesthesia (intravenous, inhalational, or combined anesthetic agents; n = 474). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was incidence of delirium during the first 7 postoperative days. Secondary outcomes analyzed in this article include delirium severity, duration, and subtype; postoperative pain score; length of hospitalization; 30-day all-cause mortality; and complications. Results: Among 950 randomized patients (mean age, 76.5 years; 247 [26.8%] male), 941 were evaluable for the primary outcome (6 canceled surgery and 3 withdrew consent). Postoperative delirium occurred in 29 (6.2%) in the regional anesthesia group vs 24 (5.1%) in the general anesthesia group (unadjusted risk difference [RD], 1.1%; 95% CI, -1.7% to 3.8%; P = .48; unadjusted relative risk [RR], 1.2 [95% CI, 0.7 to 2.0]; P = .57]). Mean severity score of delirium was 23.0 vs 24.1, respectively (unadjusted difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -4.6 to 3.1). A single delirium episode occurred in 16 (3.4%) vs 10 (2.1%) (unadjusted RD, 1.1%; 95% CI, -1.7% to 3.9%; RR, 1.6 [95% CI, 0.7 to 3.5]). Hypoactive subtype in 11 (37.9%) vs 5 (20.8%) (RD, 11.5; 95% CI, -11.0% to 35.7%; RR, 2.2 [95% CI, 0.8 to 6.3]). Median worst pain score was 0 (IQR, 0 to 20) vs 0 (IQR, 0 to 10) (difference 0; 95% CI, 0 to 0). Median length of hospitalization was 7 days (IQR, 5 to 10) vs 7 days (IQR, 6 to 10) (difference 0; 95% CI, 0 to 0). Death occurred in 8 (1.7%) vs 4 (0.9%) (unadjusted RD, -0.8%; 95% CI, -2.2% to 0.7%; RR, 2.0 [95% CI, 0.6 to 6.5]). Adverse events were reported in 106 episodes in the regional anesthesia group and 102 in the general anesthesia group; the most frequently reported adverse events were nausea and vomiting (47 [44.3%] vs 34 [33.3%]) and postoperative hypotension (13 [12.3%] vs 10 [9.8%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In patients aged 65 years and older undergoing hip fracture surgery, regional anesthesia without sedation did not significantly reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium compared with general anesthesia. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02213380.

Laparoscopic treatment of isolated superficial peritoneal endometriosis for managing chronic pelvic pain in women: study protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial (ESPriT1).

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis (where endometrial-like tissue is found outside the uterus) affects ~ 176 million women worldwide and can lead to debilitating pelvic pain. Three subtypes of endometriosis exist, with ~ 80% of women having superficial peritoneal endometriosis (SPE). Endometriosis is diagnosed by laparoscopy and, if SPE is found, gynaecologists usually remove it surgically. However, many women get limited pain relief from surgical removal of SPE. We plan to undertake a future large trial where women who have only SPE found at initial laparoscopy are randomly allocated to have surgical removal (excision or ablation) of SPE, or not. Ultimately, we want to determine whether surgical removal improves overall symptoms and quality of life, or whether surgery is of no benefit, exacerbates symptoms, or even causes harm. The primary objective of this feasibility study is to determine what proportion of women with suspected SPE undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy will agree to randomisation. The secondary objectives are to determine if there are differences in key prognostic parameters between eligible women that agree to be randomised and those that decline; how many women having laparoscopy for investigation of chronic pelvic pain are eligible for the trial; the range of treatment effects and variability in outcomes and the most acceptable methods of recruitment, randomisation and assessment tools. METHODS: We will recruit up to 90 women with suspected SPE undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy over a 9-month recruitment period in four Scottish hospitals and randomise them 1:1 to either diagnostic laparoscopy alone (with a sham port to achieve blinding of the allocation) or surgical removal of endometriosis. Baseline characteristics, e.g. age, index of social deprivation, ethnicity, and intensity/duration of pain will be collected. Participants will be followed up by online questionnaires assessing pain, physical and emotional function at baseline, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months. DISCUSSION: Recruitment to a randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of surgery for endometriosis may be challenging because of preconceived ideas about treatment success amongst patients and clinicians. We have designed this study to assess feasibility of recruitment and to inform the design of our future definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClincicalTrials.gov, NCT04081532 STATUS: Recruiting.

Uterine artery embolization versus surgical treatment in patients with symptomatic uterine fibroids: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data.

OBJECTIVE: Uterine fibroids are the most common benign tumours in women of the reproductive age. Symptoms of heavy menstrual bleeding, abdominal discomfort and infertility may seriously affect a woman's quality of life. Uterine artery embolization is a safe and effective alternative treatment to hysterectomy or myomectomy for symptomatic uterine fibroids. Which treatment provides the highest quality of life, least complications, symptom reduction and least chance intervention, has not been established and might depend on strict patient selection. This study aims to identify which specific subgroups benefit most of each treatment by analyzing individual participant data derived from randomized controlled trials of women undergoing embolization or surgical treatment. This study will primarily assess the effectiveness of both treatment groups by evaluating the effect on quality of life of embolization in comparison to surgery on specific patient and fibroid characteristics and the possible need for re-intervention for fibroid-related symptoms. DATA SOURCES: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and The Cochrane Library were searched up to August 2020. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We will collect individual participant data from randomized controlled trials that studied clinical and procedural outcomes of premenopausal women with symptomatic uterine fibroids, who were randomized between uterine artery embolization and surgery. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Individual participant data from all eligible trials will be sought and analysed according to intention-to-treat principle. Risk of Bias will be done by using version 2 of the Cochrane tool for Risk of Bias in randomized trials. Subgroup analyses to explore the effect of e.g. age, fibroid characteristics and fibroid complaints will be performed, if data is available. This individual patient data meta-analysis will be analysed according to a one-stage model.

Randomised controlled trial to investigate the effectiveness of local oestrogen treatment in postmenopausal women undergoing pelvic organ prolapse surgery (LOTUS): a pilot study to assess feasibility of a large multicentre trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing oestrogen treatment with no oestrogen supplementation in women undergoing pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery. DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomised, parallel, open, external pilot trial involving six UK urogynaecology centres (July 2015-August 2016). PARTICIPANTS: Postmenopausal women with POP opting for surgery, unless involving mesh or for recurrent POP in same compartment. INTERVENTION: Women were randomised (1:1) to preoperative and postoperative oestrogen or no treatment. Oestrogen treatment (oestradiol hemihydrate 10 µg vaginal pessaries) commenced 6 weeks prior to surgery (once daily for 2 weeks, twice weekly for 4 weeks) and twice weekly for 26 weeks from 6 weeks postsurgery. OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes were assessment of eligibility and recruitment rates along with compliance and data completion. To obtain estimates for important aspects of the protocol to allow development of a definitive trial. RESULTS: 325 women seeking POP surgery were screened over 13 months and 157 (48%) were eligible. Of these, 100 (64%) were randomised, 50 to oestrogen and 50 to no oestrogen treatment, with 89 (44/45 respectively) ultimately having surgery. Of these, 89% (79/89) returned complete questionnaires at 6 months and 78% (32/41) reported good compliance with oestrogen. No serious adverse events were attributable to oestrogen use. CONCLUSIONS: A large multicentre RCT of oestrogen versus no treatment is feasible, as it is possible to randomise and follow up participants with high fidelity. Four predefined feasibility criteria were met. Compliance with treatment regimens is not a barrier. A larger trial is required to definitively address the role of perioperative oestrogen supplementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN46661996.

Progesterone to prevent miscarriage in women with early pregnancy bleeding: the PRISM RCT.

BACKGROUND: Progesterone is essential for a healthy pregnancy. Several small trials have suggested that progesterone therapy may rescue a pregnancy in women with early pregnancy bleeding, which is a symptom that is strongly associated with miscarriage. OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess the effects of vaginal micronised progesterone in women with vaginal bleeding in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. (2) To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of progesterone in women with early pregnancy bleeding. DESIGN: A multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of progesterone in women with early pregnancy vaginal bleeding. SETTING: A total of 48 hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 16-39 years with early pregnancy bleeding. INTERVENTIONS: Women aged 16-39 years were randomly assigned to receive twice-daily vaginal suppositories containing either 400 mg of progesterone or a matched placebo from presentation to 16 weeks of gestation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was live birth at ≥ 34 weeks. In addition, a within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from an NHS and NHS/Personal Social Services perspective. RESULTS: A total of 4153 women from 48 hospitals in the UK received either progesterone (n = 2079) or placebo (n = 2074). The follow-up rate for the primary outcome was 97.2% (4038 out of 4153 participants). The live birth rate was 75% (1513 out of 2025 participants) in the progesterone group and 72% (1459 out of 2013 participants) in the placebo group (relative rate 1.03, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.07; p = 0.08). A significant subgroup effect (interaction test p = 0.007) was identified for prespecified subgroups by the number of previous miscarriages: none (74% in the progesterone group vs. 75% in the placebo group; relative rate 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.04; p = 0.72); one or two (76% in the progesterone group vs. 72% in the placebo group; relative rate 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.12; p = 0.07); and three or more (72% in the progesterone group vs. 57% in the placebo group; relative rate 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.51; p = 0.004). A significant post hoc subgroup effect (interaction test p = 0.01) was identified in the subgroup of participants with early pregnancy bleeding and any number of previous miscarriage(s) (75% in the progesterone group vs. 70% in the placebo group; relative rate 1.09, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.15; p = 0.003). There were no significant differences in the rate of adverse events between the groups. The results of the health economics analysis show that progesterone was more costly than placebo (£7655 vs. £7572), with a mean cost difference of £83 (adjusted mean difference £76, 95% confidence interval -£559 to £711) between the two arms. Thus, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of progesterone compared with placebo was estimated as £3305 per additional live birth at ≥ 34 weeks of gestation. CONCLUSIONS: Progesterone therapy in the first trimester of pregnancy did not result in a significantly higher rate of live births among women with threatened miscarriage overall, but an important subgroup effect was identified. A conclusion on the cost-effectiveness of the PRISM trial would depend on the amount that society is willing to pay to increase the chances of an additional live birth at ≥ 34 weeks. For future work, we plan to conduct an individual participant data meta-analysis using all existing data sets. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14163439, EudraCT 2014-002348-42 and Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) 158326. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 33. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Miscarriage is a common complication of pregnancy that affects one in five pregnancies. Several small studies have suggested that progesterone, a hormone essential for maintaining a pregnancy, may reduce the risk of miscarriage in women presenting with early pregnancy bleeding. This research was undertaken to test whether or not progesterone given to pregnant women with early pregnancy bleeding would increase the number of live births when compared with placebo (dummy treatment). The women participating in the study had an equal chance of receiving progesterone or placebo, as determined by a computer; one group received progesterone (400 mg twice daily as vaginal pessaries) and the other group received placebo with an identical appearance. Treatment began when women presented with vaginal bleeding, were < 12 weeks of gestation and were found to have at least a pregnancy sac on an ultrasound scan. Treatment was stopped at 16 weeks of gestation, or earlier if the pregnancy ended before 16 weeks. Neither the participants nor their health-care professionals knew which treatment was being received. In total, 23,775 women were screened and 4153 women were randomised to receive either progesterone or placebo pessaries. Altogether, 2972 participants had a live birth after at least 34 weeks of gestation. Overall, the live birth rate in the progesterone group was 75% (1513 out of 2025 participants), compared with 72% (1459 out of 2013 participants) in the placebo group. Although the live birth rate was 3% higher in the progesterone group than in the placebo group, there was statistical uncertainty about this finding. However, it was observed that women with a history of one or more previous miscarriages and vaginal bleeding in their current pregnancy may benefit from progesterone. For women with no previous miscarriages, our analysis showed that the live birth rate was 74% (824 out of 1111 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 75% (840 out of 1127 participants) in the placebo group. For women with one or more previous miscarriages, the live birth rate was 75% (689 out of 914 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 70% (619 out of 886 participants) in the placebo group. The potential benefit appeared to be most strong for women with three or more previous miscarriages, who had a live birth rate of 72% (98 out of 137 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 57% (85 out of 148 participants) in the placebo group. Treatment with progesterone did not appear to have any negative effects.

Uterine-Artery Embolization or Myomectomy for Uterine Fibroids.

BACKGROUND: Uterine fibroids, the most common type of tumor among women of reproductive age, are associated with heavy menstrual bleeding, abdominal discomfort, subfertility, and a reduced quality of life. For women who wish to preserve their uterus and who have not had a response to medical treatment, myomectomy and uterine-artery embolization are therapeutic options. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial to evaluate myomectomy, as compared with uterine-artery embolization, in women who had symptomatic uterine fibroids and did not want to undergo hysterectomy. Procedural options included open abdominal, laparoscopic, or hysteroscopic myomectomy. The primary outcome was fibroid-related quality of life, as assessed by the score on the health-related quality-of-life domain of the Uterine Fibroid Symptom and Quality of Life (UFS-QOL) questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating a better quality of life) at 2 years; adjustment was made for the baseline score. RESULTS: A total of 254 women, recruited at 29 hospitals in the United Kingdom, were randomly assigned: 127 to the myomectomy group (of whom 105 underwent myomectomy) and 127 to the uterine-artery embolization group (of whom 98 underwent embolization). Data on the primary outcome were available for 206 women (81%). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean (±SD) score on the health-related quality-of-life domain of the UFS-QOL questionnaire at 2 years was 84.6±21.5 in the myomectomy group and 80.0±22.0 in the uterine-artery embolization group (mean adjusted difference with complete case analysis, 8.0 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8 to 14.1; P = 0.01; mean adjusted difference with missing responses imputed, 6.5 points; 95% CI, 1.1 to 11.9). Perioperative and postoperative complications from all initial procedures, irrespective of adherence to the assigned procedure, occurred in 29% of the women in the myomectomy group and in 24% of the women in the uterine-artery embolization group. CONCLUSIONS: Among women with symptomatic uterine fibroids, those who underwent myomectomy had a better fibroid-related quality of life at 2 years than those who underwent uterine-artery embolization. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment program; FEMME Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN70772394.).