Endometriosis: Etiology, pathobiology, and therapeutic prospects.

Endometriosis is a common condition associated with infertility that causes chronic pain in many, but not all, women. It is defined by the presence of endometrial-like tissue outside the uterus. Although the cause and natural history of the disorder remain uncertain, hormonal, neurological, and immunological factors are all implicated in the mechanisms contributing to development of symptoms. Because definitive diagnosis requires surgery, there is often a long diagnostic delay after onset of symptoms. Current interventions for endometriosis have limited efficacy and unacceptable side effects/risks and are associated with high rates of symptom recurrence. Here, we review recent advances in our understanding of the etiology of endometriosis, discuss current diagnostic and treatment strategies, highlight current clinical trials, and consider how recent results offer new avenues for the identification of endometriosis biomarkers and the development of effective non-surgical therapies that are fertility-sparing.

SnapShot: Endometriosis.

Endometriosis is chronic disorder with high socioeconomic impact defined by the presence of endometrial-like tissue ("lesions") outside the uterus. Genetic, hormonal, and immunological factors as well as endometrial progenitor cells are implicated in development of lesions. A hallmark of the disorder is chronic pain associated with neuroinflammation and changes in the CNS. Women with endometriosis are at increased risk of infertility. Current therapies are inadequate. To view this SnapShot, open or download the PDF.

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.

Linzagolix therapy versus a placebo in patients with endometriosis-associated pain: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, Phase 3 study (EDELWEISS 3).

STUDY QUESTION: Does linzagolix administered orally once daily for up to 3 months at a dose of 75 mg alone or 200 mg in combination with add-back therapy (ABT) (1.0 mg estradiol; 0.5 mg norethindrone acetate, also known as norethisterone acetate [NETA]) demonstrate better efficacy than placebo in the management of endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain? SUMMARY ANSWER: Combining 200 mg linzagolix with ABT was found to significantly reduce dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain at 3 months of therapy, while a daily dose of 75 mg linzagolix yielded a significant decrease only in dysmenorrhea at 3 months. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY?: A previously published Phase 2, dose-finding study reported that at a dose of 200 mg daily, linzagolix promotes full suppression of estradiol secretion to serum levels below 20 pg/ml and noted that the addition of ABT may be needed to manage hypoestrogenic side effects. At lower doses (75 mg and 100 mg/day), linzagolix maintains estradiol values within the target range of 20-60 pg/ml, which could be ideal to alleviate symptoms linked to endometriosis. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: EDELWEISS 3 was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy Phase 3 study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of linzagolix for the treatment of moderate-to-severe endometriosis-associated pain. Treatment was administered orally once daily for up to 6 months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In the EDELWEISS 3 trial, 486 subjects with moderate-to-severe endometriosis-associated pain were randomized at a 1:1:1 ratio to one of the three study groups: placebo, 75 mg linzagolix alone or 200 mg linzagolix in association with ABT. Pain was measured daily on a verbal rating scale and recorded in an electronic diary. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: At 3 months, the daily 200 mg linzagolix dose with ABT met the primary efficacy objective, showing clinically meaningful and statistically significant reductions in dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain, with stable or decreased use of analgesics. The proportion of responders for dysmenorrhea in the 200 mg linzagolix with ABT group was 72.9% compared with 23.5% in the placebo group (P < 0.001), while the rates of responders for non-menstrual pelvic pain were 47.3% and 30.9% (P = 0.007), respectively. The 75 mg linzagolix daily dose demonstrated a clinically meaningful and statistically significant reduction in dysmenorrhea versus placebo at 3 months. The proportion of responders for dysmenorrhea in the 75 mg linzagolix group was 44.0% compared with 23.5% in the placebo group (P < 0.001). Although the 75 mg dose showed a trend toward reduction in non-menstrual pelvic pain at 3 months relative to the placebo, it was not statistically significant (P = 0.279). Significant improvements in dyschezia and overall pelvic pain were observed in both linzagolix groups when compared to placebo. Small improvements in dyspareunia scores were observed in both linzagolix groups but they were not significant. In both groups, hypoestrogenic effects were mild, with low rates of hot flushes and bone density loss of <1%. A daily dose of 200 mg linzagolix with ABT or 75 mg linzagolix alone was found to significantly reduce dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain also at 6 months of therapy. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Efficacy was compared between linzagolix groups and placebo; however, it would be useful to have results from comparative studies with estro-progestogens or progestogens. It will be important to ascertain whether gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists have significant benefits over traditional first-line medications. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Linzagolix administered orally once daily at a dose of 200 mg in combination with add-back therapy (ABT) demonstrated better efficacy and safety than placebo in the management of moderate-to-severe endometriosis-associated pain. The quality of life was improved and the risks of bone loss and vasomotor symptoms were minimized due to the ABT. The 75 mg dose alone could be suitable for chronic treatment of endometriosis-associated pain without the need for concomitant hormonal ABT, but further research is needed to confirm this. If confirmed, it would offer a viable option for women who do not want to wish to have ABT or for whom it is contraindicated. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Funding for the EDELWEISS 3 study was provided by ObsEva (Geneva, Switzerland). Analysis of data and manuscript writing were partially supported by ObsEva (Geneva, Switzerland), Theramex (London, UK) and Kissei (Japan) and grant 5/4/150/5 was awarded to M.-M.D. by FNRS. J.D. was a member of the scientific advisory board of ObsEva until August 2022, a member of the scientific advisory board of PregLem, and received personal fees from Gedeon Richter, ObsEva and Theramex. J.D. received consulting fees, speakers' fees, and travel support from Gedeon Richter, Obseva and Theramex, which was paid to their institution. C.B. has received fees from Theramex, Gedeon Richter, and Myovant, and travel support from Gedeon Richter-all funds went to the University of Oxford. He was a member of the data monitoring board supervising the current study, and served at an advisory board for endometriosis studies of Myovant. H.T. has received grants from Abbvie and was past president of ASRM. F.C.H. has received fees from Gedeon Richter and Theramex. O.D. received fees for lectures from Gedeon Richter and ObsEva and research grants for clinical studies from Preglem and ObsEva independent from the current study. A.H. has received grants from NIHR, UKRI, CSO, Wellbeing of Women, and Roche Diagnostics; he has received fees from Theramex. A.H.'s institution has received honoraria for consultancy from Roche Diagnostics, Gesynta, and Joii. M.P. has nothing to declare. F.P. has received fees from Theramex. S.P.R. has been a member of the scientific advisory board of Gedeon Richter and received fees from Gedeon Richter. A.P. and M.B. are employees of Theramex. E.B. was an employee of ObsEva, sponsor chair of the data monitoring board supervising the current study, and has been working as a consultant for Theramex since December 2022; she owns stock options in ObsEva. M.-M.D. has received fees and travel support from Gedeon Richter and Theramex. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03992846. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 20 June 2019. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLLMENT: 13 June 2019.

Macrophages inhibit and enhance endometriosis depending on their origin.

Macrophages are intimately involved in the pathophysiology of endometriosis, a chronic inflammatory disorder characterized by the growth of endometrial-like tissue (lesions) outside the uterus. By combining genetic and pharmacological monocyte and macrophage depletion strategies we determined the ontogeny and function of macrophages in a mouse model of induced endometriosis. We demonstrate that lesion-resident macrophages are derived from eutopic endometrial tissue, infiltrating large peritoneal macrophages (LpM) and monocytes. Furthermore, we found endometriosis to trigger continuous recruitment of monocytes and expansion of CCR2+ LpM. Depletion of eutopic endometrial macrophages results in smaller endometriosis lesions, whereas constitutive inhibition of monocyte recruitment significantly reduces peritoneal macrophage populations and increases the number of lesions. Reprogramming the ontogeny of peritoneal macrophages such that embryo-derived LpM are replaced by monocyte-derived LpM decreases the number of lesions that develop. We propose a putative model whereby endometrial macrophages are "proendometriosis" while newly recruited monocyte-derived macrophages, possibly in LpM form, are "antiendometriosis." These observations highlight the importance of monocyte-derived macrophages in limiting disease progression.

Early (Days 1-4) post-treatment serum hCG level changes predict single-dose methotrexate treatment success in tubal ectopic pregnancy.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the capacity of the change between Day 1 and Day 4 post-treatment serum human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) levels for predicting single-dose methotrexate treatment success in tubal ectopic pregnancy? SUMMARY ANSWER: Any fall in Days 1-4 serum hCG signified an 85% (95% CI 76.8-90.6) likelihood of treatment success for women with tubal ectopic pregnancy (initial hCG of ≥1000 and ≤5000 IU/l) managed with single-dose methotrexate. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: For those with tubal ectopic pregnancy managed by single-dose methotrexate, current guidelines advocate intervention if Days 4-7 hCG fails to fall by >15%. The trajectory of hCG over Days 1-4 has been proposed as an early indicator that predicts treatment success, allowing early reassurance for women. However, almost all prior studies of Days 1-4 hCG changes have been retrospective. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This was a prospective cohort study of women with tubal ectopic pregnancy (pre-treatment hCG of ≥1000 and ≤5000 IU/l) managed with single-dose methotrexate. The data were derived from a UK multicentre randomized controlled trial of methotrexate and gefitinib versus methotrexate and placebo for treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy (GEM3). For this analysis, we include data from both treatment arms. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants were categorized according to single-dose methotrexate treatment success or failure. Treatment success for this analysis was defined as complete and uneventful resolution of tubal ectopic pregnancy to serum hCG <30 IU/l following single-dose methotrexate treatment without additional treatment. Patient characteristics of the treatment success and failure groups were compared. Changes in Days 1-4, 1-7, and 4-7 serum hCG were evaluated as predictors of treatment success through receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Test performance characteristics were calculated for percentage change ranges and thresholds including optimal classification thresholds. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 322 women with tubal ectopic pregnancy were treated with single-dose methotrexate. The overall single-dose methotrexate treatment success rate was 59% (n = 189/322). For any fall in serum hCG on Days 1-4, likelihood ratios were >3, while for any fall of serum hCG >20% on Days 1-7, likelihood ratios reached 5. Any rise of serum hCG on Days 1-7 and 4-7 strongly reduced the chance of success. Any fall in Days 1-4 hCG predicted single-dose methotrexate treatment success with a sensitivity of 58% and specificity 84%, resulting in positive and negative predictive values of 85% and 57%, respectively. Any rise in Days 1-4 serum hCG <18% was identified as an optimal test threshold that predicted treatment success with 79% sensitivity and 74% specificity, resulting in 82% positive predictive value and 69% negative predictive value. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our findings may be limited by intervention bias resulting from existing guidelines which influences evaluation of hCG changes reliant on Day 7 serum hCG levels. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Examining a large prospective cohort, we show the value of Days 1-4 serum hCG changes in predicting single-dose methotrexate treatment success in tubal ectopic pregnancy. We recommend that clinicians provide early reassurance to women who have a fall or only a modest (<18%) rise in Days 1-4 serum hCG levels, that their treatment will likely be effective. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This project was supported by funding from the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research partnership (grant reference number 14/150/03). A.W.H. has received honoraria for consultancy for Ferring, Roche, Nordic Pharma and AbbVie. W.C.D. has received honoraria from Merck and Guerbet and research funding from Galvani Biosciences. L.H.R.W. has received research funding from Roche Diagnostics. B.W.M. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437). B.W.M. also reports consultancy for ObsEva and Merck and travel support from Merck. The other authors declare no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study is a secondary analysis of the GEM3 trial (ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN67795930).

A Randomized Trial of Progesterone in Women with Bleeding in Early Pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Bleeding in early pregnancy is strongly associated with pregnancy loss. Progesterone is essential for the maintenance of pregnancy. Several small trials have suggested that progesterone therapy may improve pregnancy outcomes in women who have bleeding in early pregnancy. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate progesterone, as compared with placebo, in women with vaginal bleeding in early pregnancy. Women were randomly assigned to receive vaginal suppositories containing either 400 mg of progesterone or matching placebo twice daily, from the time at which they presented with bleeding through 16 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome was the birth of a live-born baby after at least 34 weeks of gestation. The primary analysis was performed in all participants for whom data on the primary outcome were available. A sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome that included all the participants was performed with the use of multiple imputation to account for missing data. RESULTS: A total of 4153 women, recruited at 48 hospitals in the United Kingdom, were randomly assigned to receive progesterone (2079 women) or placebo (2074 women). The percentage of women with available data for the primary outcome was 97% (4038 of 4153 women). The incidence of live births after at least 34 weeks of gestation was 75% (1513 of 2025 women) in the progesterone group and 72% (1459 of 2013 women) in the placebo group (relative rate, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.07; P = 0.08). The sensitivity analysis, in which missing primary outcome data were imputed, resulted in a similar finding (relative rate, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.07; P = 0.08). The incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among women with bleeding in early pregnancy, progesterone therapy administered during the first trimester did not result in a significantly higher incidence of live births than placebo. (Funded by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment program; PRISM Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN14163439.).

Endometriosis Classification Systems: An International Survey to Map Current Knowledge and Uptake.

OBJECTIVE: In the field of endometriosis, several classification, staging and reporting systems have been developed, but do clinicians routinely use these classification systems, which system do they use and what are the clinicians' motivations? DATA SOURCES: A cross-sectional study was performed to gather data on the current use of endometriosis classification systems, problems encountered and interest in a new simple surgical descriptive system for endometriosis. Of particular focus were three systems most commonly used: the Revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine (rASRM) classification, the Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI), and the ENZIAN classification. Data were analysed by SPSS. A survey was designed using the online SurveyMonkey tool consisting of 11 questions concerning three domains-participants background, existing classification systems and intentions with regards to a new classification system for endometriosis. Replies were collected between 15 May and 1 July 2020. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: na TABULATION, INTEGRATION AND RESULTS: The final dataset included the replies of 1178 clinicians, including surgeons, gynecologists, reproductive endocrinologists, fertility specialists and sonographers, all managing women with endometriosis in their clinical practice. Overall, 75.5% of the professionals indicate that they currently use a classification system for endometriosis. The rASRM classification system was the best known and used system, the EFI system and ENZIAN system were known by a majority of the professionals but used by only a minority. The lack of clinical relevance was most often selected as a problem with using any system. The findings of the survey suggest that clinicians worldwide are open to using a new classification system for endometriosis that can achieve standardized reporting, and is clinically relevant and simple. The findings therefore support future initiatives for the development of a new descriptive system for endometriosis and provide information on user expectations and conditions for universal uptake of such a system. CONCLUSION: Even with a high uptake of the existing endometriosis classification systems (rASRM, ENZIAN and EFI), most clinicians managing endometriosis would like a new simple surgical descriptive system for endometriosis.

Repurposing dichloroacetate for the treatment of women with endometriosis.

Endometriosis is a chronic pain condition affecting ∼176 million women worldwide. It is defined by the presence of endometrium-like tissue (lesions) outside the uterus, most commonly on the pelvic peritoneum. There is no cure for endometriosis. All endometriosis drug approvals to date have been contraceptive, limiting their use in women of child-bearing age. We have shown that human peritoneal mesothelial cells (HPMCs) recovered from the pelvic peritoneum of women with endometriosis exhibit significantly higher glycolysis, lower mitochondrial respiration, decreased enzymatic activity of pyruvate dehydrogenase (PDH), and increased production of lactate compared to HPMCs from women without disease. Transforming growth factor-ß1 (TGF-ß1) is elevated in the peritoneal fluid from women with endometriosis, and exposure of HPMCs to TGF-ß1 exacerbates this abnormal phenotype. Treatment of endometriosis HPMCs with the pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase (PDK) inhibitor/PDH activator dichloroacetate (DCA) normalizes HPMC metabolism, reduces lactate secretion, and abrogates endometrial stromal cell proliferation in a coculture model. Oral DCA reduced peritoneal fluid lactate concentrations and endometriosis lesion size in a mouse model. These findings provide the rationale for targeting metabolic processes as a noncontraceptive treatment for women with endometriosis either as a primary nonhormonal treatment or to prevent recurrence after surgery.

Grade-focused interactions in higher education: has the pursuit for good grades replaced learning?

Undergraduate science students face immense pressure, both internally and externally, to achieve certain grades. Grade-focused interactions between students and instructors have anecdotally been reported to be increasing. However, no empirical study has yet evaluated students' grade perceptions or the prevalence of these interactions. If we want to change students' grade fixation, we first need to understand it. The purpose of this research study was to investigate the prevalence of and factors that contribute to students' grade-focused interactions. Using a mixed-methods approach via surveys and a quasi-experimental intervention with focus groups and audio recordings of student-instructor interactions, we found that students' perceptions of grades are relatively fixed. Furthermore, although >25% of our respondents reported negotiating a grade, there were no significant perceptual differences or academic values held between students who self-reported engaging in grade-focused interactions and those who did not. Our findings suggest that unless institutional and professional program requirements change, the pressure faced by students and their preoccupation with grades will not change either.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Undergraduate science students face immense pressure to perform academically; this pressure may be linked to grade-focused interactions, which have been anecdotally reported among educators. This study evaluated the prevalence of and motivations underlying this behavior. One-quarter of our study participants self-reported negotiating a grade. The vast majority of respondents perceived that they lost grades (rather than earned them); an intervention to change this "grade loss" mentality failed to have any impact on students' behavior.

Is There a Hidden Burden of Disease as a Result of Epigenetic Epithelial-to-Mesenchymal Transition Following Chlamydia trachomatis Genital Tract Infection?

Chlamydia trachomatis (CT), the most common bacterial sexually transmitted infection worldwide, has been widely researched for its involvement in many disease pathologies in the reproductive tract, including pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy, and tubal factor infertility. Recent findings, through the efforts to understand the pathogenesis of CT, suggest that CT can induce the process of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) through epigenetic changes in the epithelium of the female reproductive tract. This literature review aims to analyze the evidence for CT's ability to promote EMT and to pinpoint the areas that merit further investigation.

Gabapentin for chronic pelvic pain in women (GaPP2): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pelvic pain affects 2-24% of women worldwide and evidence for medical treatments is scarce. Gabapentin is effective in treating some chronic pain conditions. We aimed to measure the efficacy and safety of gabapentin in women with chronic pelvic pain and no obvious pelvic pathology. METHODS: We performed a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in 39 UK hospital centres. Eligible participants were women with chronic pelvic pain (with or without dysmenorrhoea or dyspareunia) of at least 3 months duration. Inclusion criteria were 18-50 years of age, use or willingness to use contraception to avoid pregnancy, and no obvious pelvic pathology at laparoscopy, which must have taken place at least 2 weeks before consent but less than 36 months previously. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive gabapentin (titrated to a maximum dose of 2700 mg daily) or matching placebo for 16 weeks. The online randomisation system minimised allocations by presence or absence of dysmenorrhoea, psychological distress, current use of hormonal contraceptives, and hospital centre. The appearance, route, and administration of the assigned intervention were identical in both groups. Patients, clinicians, and research staff were unaware of the trial group assignments throughout the trial. Participants were unmasked once they had provided all outcome data at week 16-17, or sooner if a serious adverse event requiring knowledge of the study drug occurred. The dual primary outcome measures were worst and average pain scores assessed separately on a numerical rating scale in weeks 13-16 after randomisation, in the intention-to-treat population. Self-reported adverse events were assessed according to intention-to-treat principles. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISCRTN77451762. FINDINGS: Participants were screened between Nov 30, 2015, and March 6, 2019, and 306 were randomly assigned (153 to gabapentin and 153 to placebo). There were no significant between-group differences in both worst and average numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores at 13-16 weeks after randomisation. The mean worst NRS pain score was 7·1 (standard deviation [SD] 2·6) in the gabapentin group and 7·4 (SD 2·2) in the placebo group. Mean change from baseline was -1·4 (SD 2·3) in the gabapentin group and -1·2 (SD 2·1) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference -0·20 [97·5% CI -0·81 to 0·42]; p=0·47). The mean average NRS pain score was 4·3 (SD 2·3) in the gabapentin group and 4·5 (SD 2·2) in the placebo group. Mean change from baseline was -1·1 (SD 2·0) in the gabapentin group and -0·9 (SD 1·8) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference -0·18 [97·5% CI -0·71 to 0·35]; p=0·45). More women had a serious adverse event in the gabapentin group than in the placebo group (10 [7%] of 153 in the gabapentin group compared with 3 [2%] of 153 in the placebo group; p=0·04). Dizziness, drowsiness, and visual disturbances were more common in the gabapentin group. INTERPRETATION: This study was adequately powered, but treatment with gabapentin did not result in significantly lower pain scores in women with chronic pelvic pain, and was associated with higher rates of side-effects than placebo. Given the increasing reports of abuse and evidence of potential harms associated with gabapentin use, it is important that clinicians consider alternative treatment options to off-label gabapentin for the management of chronic pelvic pain and no obvious pelvic pathology. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriage (MifeMiso): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The anti-progesterone drug mifepristone and the prostaglandin misoprostol can be used to treat missed miscarriage. However, it is unclear whether a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol is more effective than administering misoprostol alone. We investigated whether treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol would result in a higher rate of completion of missed miscarriage compared with misoprostol alone. METHODS: MifeMiso was a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial in 28 UK hospitals. Women were eligible for enrolment if they were aged 16 years and older, diagnosed with a missed miscarriage by pelvic ultrasound scan in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, chose to have medical management of miscarriage, and were willing and able to give informed consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a single dose of oral mifepristone 200 mg or an oral placebo tablet, both followed by a single dose of vaginal, oral, or sublingual misoprostol 800 µg 2 days later. Randomisation was managed via a secure web-based randomisation program, with minimisation to balance study group assignments according to maternal age (<30 years vs ≥30 years), body-mass index (<35 kg/m2vs ≥35 kg/m2), previous parity (nulliparous women vs parous women), gestational age (<70 days vs ≥70 days), amount of bleeding (Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart score; ≤2 vs ≥3), and randomising centre. Participants, clinicians, pharmacists, trial nurses, and midwives were masked to study group assignment throughout the trial. The primary outcome was failure to spontaneously pass the gestational sac within 7 days after random assignment. Primary analyses were done according to intention-to-treat principles. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN17405024. FINDINGS: Between Oct 3, 2017, and July 22, 2019, 2595 women were identified as being eligible for the MifeMiso trial. 711 women were randomly assigned to receive either mifepristone and misoprostol (357 women) or placebo and misoprostol (354 women). 696 (98%) of 711 women had available data for the primary outcome. 59 (17%) of 348 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group did not pass the gestational sac spontaneously within 7 days versus 82 (24%) of 348 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio [RR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·54-0·99; p=0·043). 62 (17%) of 355 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group required surgical intervention to complete the miscarriage versus 87 (25%) of 353 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (0·71, 0·53-0·95; p=0·021). We found no difference in incidence of adverse events between the study groups. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol was more effective than misoprostol alone in the management of missed miscarriage. Women with missed miscarriage should be offered mifepristone pretreatment before misoprostol to increase the chance of successful miscarriage management, while reducing the need for miscarriage surgery. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Ectopic pregnancy and epithelial to mesenchymal transition: is there a link?

Ectopic pregnancy (EP) is defined as the implantation of an embryo outside of the uterus and is a leading cause of first trimester maternal mortality and morbidity. This article discusses a possible role for epithelial to mesenchymal transition in the pathogenesis of EP, given the notable similarity of protein expression between the two processes.

An International Terminology for Endometriosis, 2021.

OBJECTIVE: Different classification systems have been developed for endometriosis, using different definitions for the disease, the different subtypes, symptoms and treatments. In addition, an International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care has been published in 2017 by the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ICMART) in collaboration with other organisations. An international working group convened over the development of a classification or descriptive system for endometriosis. As a basis for such system, a terminology for endometriosis was considered a condition sine qua non. The aim of the current study was to develop a set of terms and definitions be prepared on endometriosis that would be the basis for standardization in disease description, classification and research. DATA SOURCES: The working group listed a number of terms relevant to be included in the terminology, documented currently used and published definitions, and discussed and adapted them until consensus was reached within the working group. Following stakeholder review, further terms were added, and definitions further clarified. Although definitions were collected through published literature, the final set of terms and definitions is to be considered consensus-based. After finalization of the first draft, the members of the international societies and other stakeholders were consulted for feedback and comments, which lead to further adaptations. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: na TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: A list of 49 terms and definitions in the field of endometriosis is presented, including a definition for endometriosis and its subtypes, different locations, interventions, symptoms and outcomes. Endometriosis is defined as a disease characterized by the presence of endometrium-like epithelium and/or stroma outside the endometrium and myometrium, usually with an associated inflammatory process. CONCLUSION: The current paper outlines a list of 49 terms and definitions in the field of endometriosis. The application of the defined terms aims to facilitate harmonization in endometriosis research and clinical practice. Future research may require further refinement of the presented definitions.

Endometriosis Classification, Staging and Reporting Systems: A Review on the Road to a Universally Accepted Endometriosis Classification.

OBJECTIVE: In the field of endometriosis, several classification, staging and reporting systems have been developed. Which endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems have been published and validated for use in clinical practice? DATA SOURCES: A systematic PUBMED literature search was performed. Data were extracted and summarized. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: na TABULATION, INTEGRATION AND RESULTS: Twenty-two endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems have been published between 1973 and 2021, each developed for specific, and different, purposes. There still is no international agreement on how to describe the disease. Studies evaluating the different systems are summarized showing a discrepancy between the intended and the evaluated purpose, and a general lack of validation data confirming a correlation with pain symptoms or quality of life for any of the current systems. A few studies confirm the value of the ENZIAN system for surgical description of deep endometriosis. With regards to infertility, the endometriosis fertility index has been confirmed valid for its intended purpose. CONCLUSION: Of the 22 endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems identified in this historical overview, only a few have been evaluated for the purpose for which they were developed. The literature search was limited to PUBMED. Unpublished classification, staging or reporting systems, or those published in books were not considered. It can be concluded that there is no international agreement on how to describe endometriosis or how to classify it, and that most classification/staging systems show no or very little correlation with patient outcomes. This overview of existing systems is a first step in working towards a universally accepted endometriosis classification.

Macrophage-derived insulin-like growth factor-1 is a key neurotrophic and nerve-sensitizing factor in pain associated with endometriosis.

Endometriosis is a common incurable inflammatory disorder that is associated with debilitating pelvic pain in women. Macrophages are central to the pathophysiology of endometriosis: they dictate the growth and vascularization of endometriosis lesions and more recently have been shown to promote lesion innervation. The aim of this study was to determine the mechanistic role of macrophages in producing pain associated with endometriosis. Herein, we show that macrophage depletion in a mouse model of endometriosis can reverse abnormal changes in pain behavior. We identified that disease-modified macrophages exhibit increased expression of IGF-1 in an in vitro model of endometriosis-associated macrophages and confirmed expression by lesion-resident macrophages in mice and women. Concentrations of IGF-1 were elevated in peritoneal fluid from women with endometriosis and positively correlate with their pain scores. Mechanistically, we demonstrate that macrophage-derived IGF-1 promotes sprouting neurogenesis and nerve sensitization in vitro. Finally, we show that the Igf-1 receptor inhibitor linsitinib reverses the pain behavior observed in mice with endometriosis. Our data support a role for macrophage-derived IGF-1 as a key neurotrophic and sensitizing factor in endometriosis, and we propose that therapies that modify macrophage phenotype may be attractive therapeutic options for the treatment of women with endometriosis-associated pain.-Forster, R., Sarginson, A., Velichkova, A., Hogg, C., Dorning, A., Horne, A. W., Saunders, P. T. K., Greaves, E. Macrophage-derived insulin-like growth factor-1 is a key neurotrophic and nerve-sensitizing factor in pain associated with endometriosis.

Surgical treatment of fibroids for subfertility.

BACKGROUND: Fibroids are the most common benign tumours of the female genital tract and are associated with numerous clinical problems including a possible negative impact on fertility. In women requesting preservation of fertility, fibroids can be surgically removed (myomectomy) by laparotomy, laparoscopically or hysteroscopically depending on the size, site and type of fibroid. Myomectomy is however a procedure that is not without risk and can result in serious complications. It is therefore essential to determine whether such a procedure can result in an improvement in fertility and, if so, to then determine the ideal surgical approach. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of myomectomy on fertility outcomes and to compare different surgical approaches. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Epistemonikos database, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), LILACS, conference abstracts on the ISI Web of Knowledge, OpenSigle for grey literature from Europe, and reference list of relevant papers. The final search was in February 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of myomectomy compared to no intervention or where different surgical approaches are compared regarding the effect on fertility outcomes in a group of infertile women suffering from uterine fibroids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data collection and analysis were conducted in accordance with the procedure suggested in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. MAIN RESULTS: This review included four RCTs with 442 participants. The evidence was very low-quality with the main limitations being due to serious imprecision, inconsistency and indirectness. Myomectomy versus no intervention One study examined the effect of myomectomy compared to no intervention on reproductive outcomes. We are uncertain whether myomectomy improves clinical pregnancy rate for intramural (odds ratio (OR) 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 6.14; 45 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), submucous (OR 2.04, 95% CI 0.62 to 6.66; 52 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), intramural/subserous (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.40 to 10.09; 31 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence) or intramural/submucous fibroids (OR 3.24, 95% CI 0.72 to 14.57; 42 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). Similarly, we are uncertain whether myomectomy reduces miscarriage rate for intramural fibroids (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.26 to 6.78; 45 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), submucous fibroids (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.27 to 5.97; 52 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), intramural/subserous fibroids (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.10 to 6.54; 31 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence) or intramural/submucous fibroids (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 12.33; 42 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). This study did not report on live birth, preterm delivery, ongoing pregnancy or caesarean section rate. Laparoscopic myomectomy versus myomectomy by laparotomy or mini-laparotomy Two studies compared laparoscopic myomectomy to myomectomy at laparotomy or mini-laparotomy. We are uncertain whether laparoscopic myomectomy compared to laparotomy or mini-laparotomy improves live birth rate (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.50; 177 participants; two studies; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence), preterm delivery rate (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.11 to 4.29; participants = 177; two studies; I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence), clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.78; 177 participants; two studies; I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence), ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.26 to 10.04; 115 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), miscarriage rate (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.89; participants = 177; two studies; I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence), or caesarean section rate (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.39; participants = 177; two studies; I2 = 21%, very low-quality evidence). Monopolar resectoscope versus bipolar resectoscope One study evaluated the use of two electrosurgical systems during hysteroscopic myomectomy. We are uncertain whether bipolar resectoscope use compared to monopolar resectoscope use improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.50; 68 participants; one study, very low-quality evidence), clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.36; 68 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), or miscarriage rate (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.34; participants = 68; one study; very low-quality evidence). This study did not report on preterm delivery or caesarean section rate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence to determine the role of myomectomy for infertility in women with fibroids as only one trial compared myomectomy with no myomectomy. If the decision is made to have a myomectomy, the current evidence does not indicate a superior method (laparoscopy, laparotomy or different electrosurgical systems) to improve rates of live birth, preterm delivery, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, or caesarean section. Furthermore, the existing evidence needs to be viewed with caution due to the small number of events, minimal number of studies and very low-quality evidence.

Relevant human tissue resources and laboratory models for use in endometriosis research.

Endometriosis is characterized by the growth of endometrium-like tissue outside the uterus, most commonly on the pelvic peritoneum and ovaries. Although it may be asymptomatic in some women, in others it can cause debilitating pain, infertility or other symptoms including fatigue. Current research is directed both at understanding the complex etiology and pathophysiology of the disorder and at the development of new nonsurgical approaches to therapy that lack the unwanted side effects of current medical management. Tools for endometriosis research fall into two broad categories; patient-derived tissues, and fluids (and cells isolated from these sources) or models based on the use of cells or animals. In this review, we discuss the literature that has reported data from the use of these tools in endometriosis research and we highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each. Although many different models are reported in the literature, hypothesis-driven research will only be facilitated with careful experimental design and selection of the most appropriate human tissue from patients with and without endometriosis and combinations of physiologically relevant in vitro and in vivo laboratory models.