Pessary or surgery for a symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: the PEOPLE study, a multicentre prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the 24-month efficacy of pessary or surgery as the primary treatment for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP). DESIGN: Multicentre prospective comparative cohort study. SETTING: Twenty-two Dutch hospitals. POPULATION: Women referred with symptomatic POP of stage ≥2 and moderate-to-severe POP symptoms. METHODS: The primary outcome was subjective improvement at the 24-month follow-up according to the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale. Secondary outcomes included improvement in prolapse-related symptoms measured with the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), improvement in subjective severeness of symptoms according to the Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S) scale and crossover between therapies. The primary safety outcome was the occurrence of adverse events. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: PGI-I at 24 months. RESULTS: We included 539 women, with 335 women (62.2%) in the pessary arm and 204 women (37.8%) in the surgery arm. After 24 months, subjective improvement was reported by 134 women (83.8%) in the surgery group compared with 180 women (74.4%) in the pessary group (risk difference 9.4%, 95% CI 1.4-17.3%, P < 0.01). Seventy-nine women (23.6%) switched from pessary to surgery and 22 women (10.8%) in the surgery group underwent additional treatment. Both groups showed a significant reduction in bothersome POP symptoms (P ≤ 0.01) and a reduction in the perceived severity of symptoms (P ≤ 0.001) compared with the baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Significantly more women in the surgery group reported a subjective improvement after 24 months. Both therapies, however, showed a clinically significant improvement of prolapse symptoms. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Pessary treatment and vaginal surgery are both efficacious in reducing the presence and severity of prolapse symptoms, although the chance of significant improvement is higher following surgery.

Adjuvant VACcination against HPV in surgical treatment of Cervical Intra-epithelial Neoplasia (VACCIN study) a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is caused by Human Papilloma viruses (HPV) and is preceded by precursor stages: Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia (CIN). CIN is mostly found in women in their reproductive age and treated with a Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure (LEEP). The recurrence or residual disease rate after treatment is up to 17%. These women have a lifelong increased risk of recurrent CIN, cervical cancer and other HPV related malignancies. Furthermore, LEEP treatments are associated with complications such as premature birth. Limited data show that prophylactic HPV vaccination at the time of LEEP reduces recurrence rates, therefore leading to a reduction in repeated surgical interventions and side effect like preterm birth. The primary study objective is to evaluate the efficacy of the nonavalent HPV vaccination in women with a CIN II-III (high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) lesion who will undergo a LEEP in preventing recurrent CIN II-III after 24 months. METHODS: This study is a randomised, double blinded, placebo controlled trial in 750 patients without prior HPV vaccination or prior treatment for CIN and with histologically proven CIN II-III (independent of their hrHPV status) for whom a LEEP is planned. Included patients will be randomised to receive either three injections with nonavalent (9 HPV types) HPV vaccine or placebo injections (NaCL 0.9%) as a comparator. Treatment and follow-up will be according the current Dutch guidelines. Primary outcome is recurrence of a CIN II or CIN III lesion at 24 months. A normal PAP smear with negative hrHPV test serves as surrogate for absence of CIN. At the start and throughout the study HPV typing, quality of life and cost effectiveness will be tested. DISCUSSION: Although prophylactic HPV vaccines are highly effective, little is known about the effectivity of HPV vaccines on women with CIN. Multiple LEEP treatments are associated with complications. We would like to evaluate the efficacy of HPV vaccination in addition to LEEP treatment to prevent residual or recurrent cervical dysplasia and decrease risks of repeated surgical treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Medical Ethical Committee approval number: NL66775.078.18. Affiliation: Erasmus Medical Centre. Dutch trial register: NL 7938. Date of registration 2019-08-05.

Cognitive outcome in congenital central hypothyroidism: a systematic review with meta-analysis of individual patient data.

Objective: To provide an overview of cognitive and motor outcome, and quality of life (QoL) in patients with congenital central hypothyroidism (CH-C). Design: Systematic review with individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis. Methods: OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycInfo were searched from inception to June 11th, 2019. Studies in patients with CH-C, either isolated or with multiple pituitary hormone deficiency (MPHD), were included if CH-C patients could be separated from any additional patient groups. Primary outcomes were full-scale intelligence quotient (FSIQ) and motor outcome; secondary outcome was QoL. Following data-extraction, one-stage IPD meta-analysis was performed, fitting a linear mixed model with FSIQ as dependent variable. Random intercepts were fitted for each study. Results: Six studies measuring FSIQ were eligible for meta-analysis, comprising 30 CH-C patients (20 males; 27 MPHD patients). FSIQ range was wide (64-123). Mean weighted FSIQ was 97 (95% CI: 88-105). Twenty-seven percent had an FSIQ below 85 (≥1 s.d. below norm score), and 10% below 70 (≥2 s.d. below norm score). There was no significant association between FSIQ and sex or age. Age at treatment initiation was available from three studies only, thus impeding a reliable analysis of this parameter. Motor outcome and QoL were each studied in one study; no quantitative analyses could be performed for these outcomes. Conclusion: A wide range in FSIQ scores was observed in CH-C patients. Results should be interpreted with caution, because included patients mainly had MPHD and age at treatment initiation was unknown for the majority of patients.