Mode of birth in women with low-lying placenta: protocol for a prospective multicentre 1:3 matched case-control study in Italy (the MODEL-PLACENTA study).

INTRODUCTION: The term placenta praevia defines a placenta that lies over the internal os, whereas the term low-lying placenta identifies a placenta that is partially implanted in the lower uterine segment with the inferior placental edge located at 1-20 mm from the internal cervical os (internal-os-distance). The most appropriate mode of birth in women with low-lying placenta is still controversial, with the majority of them undergoing caesarean section. The current project aims to evaluate the rate of vaginal birth and caesarean section in labour due to bleeding by offering a trial of labour to all women with an internal-os-distance >5 mm as assessed by transvaginal sonography in the late third trimester. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The MODEL-PLACENTA is a prospective, multicentre, 1:3 matched case-control study involving 17 Maternity Units across Lombardy and Emilia-Romagna regions, Italy. The study includes women with a placenta located in the lower uterine segment at the second trimester scan. Women with a normally located placenta will be enrolled as controls. A sample size of 30 women with an internal-os-distance >5 mm at the late third trimester scan is needed at each participating Unit. Since the incidence of low-lying placenta decreases from 2% in the second trimester to 0.4% at the end of pregnancy, 150 women should be recruited at each centre at the second trimester scan. A vaginal birth rate ≥60% in women with an internal-os-distance >5 mm will be considered appropriate to start routinely admitting to labour these women. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the study was given by the Brianza Ethics Committee (No 3157, 2019). Written informed consent will be obtained from study participants. Results will be disseminated by publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentation in international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04827433 (pre-results stage).

Comparison of two "a priori" risk assessment algorithms for preeclampsia in Italy: a prospective multicenter study.

PURPOSE: To compare the performance of the algorithms proposed by the Fetal Medicine Foundation in 2012 and BCNatal in 2013 in an Italian population. METHODS: A multicentric prospective study was carried out which included pregnancies at 11-13 weeks' gestation from Jan 2014 through May 2017. Two previously published algorithms were used for the calculation of the "a priori" risk of preeclampsia (based on risk factors from medical history) in each individual. RESULTS: In a study population of 11,632 cases, 67 (0.6%) developed early preeclampsia and 211 (1.8%) developed late preeclampsia. The detection rates (95% CI) for early and late preeclampsia were 58.2% (45.5-70.2) vs. 41.8% (29.6-54.5) (p value < 0.05) and 44.1% (37.3-51.1) vs. 38% (31.3-44.8) (p value < 0.05) for the Fetal Medicine Foundation and BCNatal, respectively (at a 10% false positive rate). The associated risk was 1:226 and 1:198 (p value ns) for early PE, and 1:17 and 1:24 (p value ns) for late PE for the Fetal Medicine Foundation and BCNatal, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Fetal Medicine Foundation screening for preeclampsia at 11-13 weeks' gestation scored the highest detection rate for both early and late PE. At a fixed 10% false positive rate, the estimated "a priori" risks of both the Fetal Medicine Foundation and the BCNatal algorithms in an Italian population were quite similar, and both were reliable and consistent.

Potential benefits of pregnancy on endometriosis symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the potential benefits of pregnancy on endometriosis symptoms. This is a retrospective study that has been conducted at Academic department and referral center for endometriosis. STUDY DESIGN: We included all conservative women who had a live birth after at least one surgery for endometriosis and who reported pre-pregnancy moderate to severe pelvic pain symptoms (at least one among dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia, non menstrual pelvic pain and dyschezia). Data were collected before pregnancy and two years after delivery. The main aim of the study was comparing endometriosis-related pain symptoms before and after pregnancy. Mental health and quality of life were also assessed to investigate the possible psychological benefits of pregnancy. RESULTS: One-hundred thirty- one women were identified. Forty- nine women (37%, 95% CI: 29-47%) had a clinically relevant recurrence of symptoms requiring medical or surgical treatment. Two years after delivery, 84% of women (95% CI 77-90%) reported at least one moderate-severe pain symptom. A statistically significant improvement was observed for HADS and SF-12 scores but not for FSFI. CONCLUSION: Women with endometriosis experiencesymptoms relief during and immediately after pregnancy. However, as for hormonal medical therapy, symptoms rapidly recur in the vast majority of cases.

Norethindrone acetate or dienogest for the treatment of symptomatic endometriosis: a before and after study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the proportion of patients satisfied with their treatment before and after a systematic change from norethindrone acetate to dienogest as the first-line progestin for symptomatic endometriosis. DESIGN: Before and after study. SETTING: Academic department. PATIENT(S): The last 90 new consecutive endometriosis patients in whom norethindrone acetate was used, and the first 90 new consecutive endometriosis patients in whom dienogest was used. INTERVENTION(S): Norethindrone acetate at the oral dose of 2.5 mg once a day until June 6, 2013, then dienogest at the oral dose of 2 mg once a day thereafter. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Degree of satisfaction with treatment after 6 months of progestin therapy and assessment of any variations in pain symptoms, psychological status, sexual function, or health-related quality of life associated with the introduction of dienogest. RESULT(S): The proportion of satisfied plus very satisfied women after 6 months of treatment was 71% in the "before" period (norethindrone acetate) and 72% in the "after" period (dienogest). The implementation of dienogest was not associated with statistically significant ameliorations in overall pain relief, psychological status, sexual functioning, or health-related quality of life. Treatment was well tolerated by 58% of norethindrone acetate users compared with 80% of dienogest users. After dienogest implementation, the absolute risk reduction in the occurrence of any side effect was 13.9% (95% confidence interval, 0.8%-28.6%). CONCLUSION(S): Considering the large difference in the cost of the two drugs, dienogest should be suggested selectively in women who do not tolerate norethindrone acetate.

"You can't always get what you want": from doctrine to practicability of study designs for clinical investigation in endometriosis.

BACKGROUND: Patients, now generally well informed through dedicated websites and support organizations, are beginning to look askance at clinical experimentation. We conducted a survey investigation to verify whether women with endometriosis would still accept to participate in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) on treatment for pelvic pain. METHODS: A total of 500 patients consecutively self-referring to an academic outpatient endometriosis clinic, were asked to compile two questionnaires focused on hypothetical comparisons between a new drug and a standard drug, and between medical and surgical treatment, for endometriosis-associated pelvic pain. The main outcome measure was the percentage of patients willing to participate in a theoretical RCT. RESULTS: A total of 239 (48 %) women would decline participation in a comparative study on a new drug and a standard drug, as 204 (41 %) would prefer the former medication, and 35 (7 %) the latter. Fifty women (10 %) would participate in a RCT, but only 24 (5 %) would accept blinding. The most frequently chosen option was the patient preference trial (211; 42 %). No significant differences were observed in demographic and clinical characteristics between the 50 women who would accept and the 450 who would decline to be enrolled in a RCT. A total of 229 women (46 %) would decline participation in a comparative study on medical versus surgical treatment, as 186 (37 %) would prefer pharmacological therapy and 43 (9 %) a surgical procedure. Only 11 (2 %) women would participate in such a RCT. More than half of the women (260; 52 %) selected the patient preference trial. No significant variations in distributions of answers were observed between women who did or did not undergo a previous surgical procedure. CONCLUSION: Only a small minority of the women included in our study sample would accept randomization, and even less so blinding. Patient preference appears to play a central role when planning interventional trials on endometriosis-associated pelvic pain. Adequately designed observational analytic studies could be considered when recruitment in a RCT appears cumbersome.

Uterine adenomyosis and in vitro fertilization outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY QUESTION: Is adenomyosis associated with IVF/ICSI outcome in terms of clinical pregnancy rate? SUMMARY ANSWER: In a meta-analysis of published data, women with adenomyosis had a 28% reduction in the likelihood of clinical pregnancy at IVF/ICSI compared with women without adenomyosis. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Estimates of the effect of adenomyosis on IVF/ICSI outcome are inconsistent. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were conducted. A Medline search was performed to identify all the comparative studies published from January 1998 to June 2013 in the English language literature on IVF/ICSI outcome in women with and without adenomyosis. Two authors independently performed the literature screening, scrutinized articles of potential interest, selected relevant studies and extracted data. Studies were categorized based on research design. PARTICIPANTS, SETTING, METHODS: Of the 17 articles assessed in detail, 9 were finally selected based on diagnosis of adenomyosis at magnetic resonance imaging or transvaginal ultrasonography. The quality of studies was evaluated by means of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. A total of 1865 women were enrolled in the 9 selected studies, 665 of whom in 4 prospective observational studies, and 1200 in 5 retrospective studies. The dichotomous data for clinical pregnancy and secondary outcomes were expressed as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and were combined in a meta-analysis using the random-effects model. The heterogeneity Cochrane's Q and the I(2) statistics were calculated. Egger's approach to testing the significance of funnel plot asymmetry was also used. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The clinical pregnancy rate achieved after IVF/ICSI was 123/304 (40.5%) women with adenomyosis versus 628/1262 (49.8%) in those without adenomyosis. The RR of clinical pregnancy ranged from 0.37 (95% CI, 0.15-0.92) to 1.20 (95% CI, 0.58-2.45), with a significant heterogeneity among studies (I(2) = 56.8%, P = 0.023). Pooling of the results yielded a common RR of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.55-0.95). A funnel plot showed no indication of asymmetry among studies (Egger's test, P = 0.696). In a meta-regression model, no association was observed between prevalence of endometriosis and the likelihood of clinical pregnancy. Three studies reported the pregnancy rate per cycle. The common RR was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.51-0.98; I(2) = 78.1%, P = 0.010). The RR observed in a study with donated oocytes was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.75-1.08). The number of miscarriages per clinical pregnancy was reported in seven studies. A miscarriage was observed in 77/241 women with adenomyosis (31.9%) and in 97/687 in those without adenomyosis (14.1%). The RR of miscarriage ranged from 0.57 (95% CI, 0.15-2.17) to 18.00 (95% CI, 4.08-79.47) (I(2) = 67.7%, P = 0.005). Pooling of the results yielded a common RR of 2.12 (95% CI, 1.20-3.75). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Qualitative and quantitative heterogeneity among studies was high. At sensitivity analysis, I(2) statistic regarding the main outcome was reduced under the 50% threshold removing one trial, but the resulting confidence interval crossed unity. Also the confidence interval of the common RR of the four studies reporting only one IVF/ICSI cycle included unity. Only part of the studies could be included in the assessment of secondary outcomes. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Adenomyosis appears to impact negatively on IVF/ICSI outcome owing to reduced likelihood of clinical pregnancy and implantation, and increased risk of early pregnancy loss. Screening for adenomyosis before embarking on medically assisted reproductive procedures should be encouraged. The potentially protective role of long down-regulation protocols needs further evaluation. In future studies on the association between adenomyosis and IVF/ICSI outcome, a matched case-control design should be adopted, live birth should be the default primary outcome and only the results regarding the first cycle should be considered. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST: None.