Endometrial Biopsy in an Outpatient Gynaecological Setting: Overinvestigation.

OBJECTIVE: We reviewed the indications for endometrial biopsy at the general gynaecology outpatient clinic of the Université de Montréal Hospital Center and measured their compliance with the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada and other international guidelines. METHODS: Three hundred and seventy-one files of patients who had an endometrial biopsy between January and October 2015 were reviewed. Indication for endometrial biopsy and pathology results were noted. Files were separated into four categories. RESULTS: In the postmenopausal bleeding category, all files complied with the SOGC. We found hyperplasia or neoplasia in 13% of patients. In the asymptomatic endometrial thickening category, 9% of the files did not show sufficient indication for biopsy. None of the patients presented hyperplasia or neoplasia. In the abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) - under 41 years old category, there was no indication for biopsy in 23% of the files. We found hyperplasia or neoplasia in 13% of patients, but only in patients with an indication for biopsy. In patients with AUB - over 40, non-compliance with SOGC was 3%. But according to international guidelines, 42% of patients with AUB between 41 and 45 years old did not have an indication for biopsy and none showed hyperplasia or neoplasia. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated clinically significant overinvestigation in patients with AUB. Indications should be reviewed carefully before performing an endometrial biopsy in women under 41. In addition, the value of endometrial biopsies in patients between 41 and 45 years old with menorrhagia and no additional risk factor should be reevaluated.

The Obesity-Fertility Protocol: a randomized controlled trial assessing clinical outcomes and costs of a transferable interdisciplinary lifestyle intervention, before and during pregnancy, in obese infertile women.

BACKGROUND: Obesity in infertile women increases the costs of fertility treatments, reduces their effectiveness and increases significantly the risks of many complications of pregnancy and for the newborn. Studies suggest that even a modest loss of 5-10 % of body weight can restore ovulation. However, there are gaps in knowledge regarding the benefits and cost-effectiveness of a lifestyle modification program targeting obese infertile women and integrated into the fertility clinics. This study will evaluate clinical outcomes and costs of a transferable interdisciplinary lifestyle intervention, before and during pregnancy, in obese infertile women. We hypothesize that the intervention will: 1) improve fertility, efficacy of fertility treatments, and health of mothers and their children; and 2) reduce the cost per live birth, including costs of fertility treatments and pregnancy outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: Obese infertile women (age: 18-40 years; BMI ≥30 kg/m(2) or ≥27 kg/m(2) with polycystic ovary syndrome) will be randomised to either a lifestyle intervention followed by standard fertility treatments after 6 months if no conception has been achieved (intervention group) or standard fertility treatments only (control group). The intervention and/or follow-up will last for a maximum of 18 months or up to the end of pregnancy. Evaluation visits will be planned every 6 months where different outcome measures will be assessed. The primary outcome will be live-birth rates at 18 months. The secondary outcomes will be sub-divided into four categories: lifestyle and anthropometric, fertility, pregnancy complications, and neonatal outcomes. Outcomes and costs will be also compared to similar women seen in three fertility clinics across Canada. Qualitative data will also be collected from both professionals and obese infertile women. DISCUSSION: This study will generate new knowledge about the implementation, impacts and costs of a lifestyle management program in obese infertile women. This information will be relevant for decision-makers and health care professionals, and should be generalizable to North American fertility clinics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01483612. Registered 25 November 2011.

Public health implications of a North American publicly funded in vitro fertilization program; lessons to learn.

PURPOSE: A retrospective study was conducted to determine trends in practice and outcomes that occurred since the implementation of the publicly funded in vitro fertilization (IVF) and single embryo transfer (SET) program in Quebec, in August, 2010. METHODS: Data presented was extracted from an advisory report by the Health and Welfare Commissioner, and from a report by the Ministry of Health and Social Services published in June 2014 and October 2013, respectively. This data is publicly available, and was collected from all six private and three public-assisted reproduction centers in Quebec providing IVF services. Data pertains to all IVF cycles performed from the 2009-2010 to 2012-2013 fiscal years. RESULTS: SET was performed in 71 % of cycles in 2012. The number of children born from IVF was 1057 in 2009-2010 and 1723 in 2012-2013 (p < 0.0001). Multiple birth rates from IVF were 24 % in 2009-2010 (before the program began) and 9.45 % in 2012-2013 (p < 0.0001). The proportions of IVF babies that were premature, that were the result of multiple births, or that required neonatal intensive care unit admission (NICU) all decreased by 35.5 % (p < 0.0001), 55 % (p < 0.0001), and 37 % (p < 0.0001), respectively, from 2009-2010 to 2012-2013. The cost per NICU admission for an IVF baby increased from $19,990 to $28,418 from 2009-2010 to 2011-2012. CONCLUSION: This first North American publicly funded IVF program with a SET policy shows that such a program contributes substantially to number of births. It has also succeeded in increasing access to treatment and decreasing perinatal morbidity by decreasing multiple birth rates from IVF. A substantial increase in global public health care costs occurred as well.

Economic burden of surgically confirmed endometriosis in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the societal economic burden of illness caused by surgically confirmed endometriosis in Canada in 2009, including direct health care costs, lost productivity, and lost leisure time costs. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design, direct health care resource use data were obtained from nine family physicians and nine gynaecologists from across Canada, who were experienced in the treatment of women with surgically confirmed endometriosis. Data on alternative treatments and health care providers, as well as work absenteeism, lost leisure time, and caregiver time were obtained from a convenience sample of 27 women with endometriosis treated at two gynaecology clinics in Alberta and Quebec. Unit costs were assigned to resource use items for treatment-seeking patients, and total costs for each resource use item were aggregated to estimate the societal costs of endometriosis in Canada in 2009, across all prevalent cases of surgically confirmed endometriosis. RESULTS: The estimated mean annual societal cost of endometriosis was $5,200 per patient (95% CI $3,700 to $7,100), with lost productivity and lost leisure time costs accounting for 78%. Extrapolating these figures yields an estimated total annual cost to Canadian society of $1.8 billion (95% CI $1.3 billion to $2.4 billion) attributable to surgically confirmed endometriosis in Canada. CONCLUSION: For some women, surgically confirmed endometriosis has a substantial negative impact that can result in suffering to the individual and her family, and lead to substantial productivity losses. Understanding the interplay between direct costs, lost productivity, and quality of life is critical for accurately identifying and evaluating effective treatments for this condition.

Should symptomatic menopausal women be offered hormone therapy?

UNLABELLED: Many physicians remain uncertain about prescribing hormone therapy for symptomatic women at the onset of menopause. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) convened a multidisciplinary group of healthcare providers to discuss the efficacy and risks of hormone therapy for symptomatic women, and to determine whether it would be appropriate to treat women at the onset of menopause who were complaining of menopausal symptoms. MAJOR FINDINGS: Numerous controlled clinical trials consistently demonstrate that hormone therapy, administered via oral, transdermal, or vaginal routes, is the most effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms. Topical vaginal formulations of hormone therapy should be preferred when prescribing solely for the treatment of symptoms of vulvar and vaginal atrophy. Data from the Women's Health Initiative indicate that the overall attributable risk of invasive breast cancer in women receiving estrogen plus progestin was 8 more cases per 10,000 women-years. No increased risk for invasive breast cancer was detected for women who never used hormone therapy in the past or for those receiving estrogen only. Hormone therapy is not effective for the treatment of cardiovascular disease and that the risk of cardiovascular disease with hormone therapy is principally in older women who are considerably postmenopause. CONCLUSIONS: Healthy symptomatic women should be offered the option of hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms. Symptom relief with hormone therapy for many younger women (at the onset of menopause) with menopausal symptoms outweighs the risks and may provide an overall improvement in quality of life. Hormone therapy should be individualized for symptomatic women. This involves tailoring the regimen and dose to individual needs.

Canadian Consensus Conference on menopause, 2006 update.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidelines for health care providers on the management of menopause in asymptomatic healthy women as well as in women presenting with vasomotor symptoms, urogenital, sexual, and mood and memory concerns and on specific medical considerations, and cardiovascular and cancer issues. OUTCOMES: Prescription medications, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), and lifestyle interventions are presented according to their efficacy in treating menopausal symptoms. EVIDENCE: MEDLINE and the Cochrane database were searched for articles from March 2001 to April 2005 in English on subjects related to menopause, menopausal symptoms, urogenital and sexual health, mood and memory, hormone therapy, CAM, and on specific medical considerations that affect the decision of which intervention to choose. VALUES: The quality of evidence is rated using the criteria described in the report of the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. Recommendations for practice are ranked according to the method described in this report (see Table 1). SPONSORS: The development of this consensus guideline was supported by unrestricted educational grants from Berlex Canada Inc, Lilly Canada, Merck Frosst, Novartis, Novogen, Novo Nordisk, Proctor and Gamble, Schering Canada, and Wyeth Canada.

Should symptomatic menopausal women be offered hormone therapy?

UNLABELLED: Many physicians remain uncertain about prescribing hormone therapy for symptomatic women at the onset of menopause. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) convened a multidisciplinary group of healthcare providers to discuss the efficacy and risks of hormone therapy for symptomatic women, and to determine whether it would be appropriate to treat women at the onset of menopause who were complaining of menopausal symptoms. MAJOR FINDINGS: Numerous controlled clinical trials consistently demonstrate that hormone therapy, administered via oral, transdermal, or vaginal routes, is the most effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms. Topical vaginal formulations of hormone therapy should be preferred when prescribing solely for the treatment of symptoms of vulvar and vaginal atrophy. Data from the Women's Health Initiative indicate that the overall attributable risk of invasive breast cancer in women receiving estrogen plus progestin was 8 more cases per 10,000 women-years. No increased risk for invasive breast cancer was detected for women who never used hormone therapy in the past or for those receiving estrogen only. Hormone therapy is not effective for the treatment of cardiovascular disease and that the risk of cardiovascular disease with hormone therapy is principally in older women who are considerably postmenopause. CONCLUSIONS: Healthy symptomatic women should be offered the option of hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms. Symptom relief with hormone therapy for many younger women (at the onset of menopause) with menopausal symptoms outweighs the risks and may provide an overall improvement in quality of life. Hormone therapy should be individualized for symptomatic women. This involves tailoring the regimen and dose to individual needs.