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).

Scattering-based Light Microscopy: From Metal Nanoparticles to Single Proteins.

Our ability to detect, image, and quantify nanoscopic objects and molecules with visible light has undergone dramatic improvements over the past few decades. While fluorescence has historically been the go-to contrast mechanism for ultrasensitive light microscopy due to its superior background suppression and specificity, recent developments based on light scattering have reached single-molecule sensitivity. They also have the advantages of universal applicability and the ability to obtain information about the species of interest beyond its presence and location. Many of the recent advances are driven by novel approaches to illumination, detection, and background suppression, all aimed at isolating and maximizing the signal of interest. Here, we review these developments grouped according to the basic principles used, namely darkfield imaging, interferometric detection, and surface plasmon resonance microscopy.

Test evaluation trials present different challenges for trial managers compared to intervention trials.

INTRODUCTION: Test evaluation trials present different challenges for trial managers compared to intervention trials. There has been very little research on the management of test evaluation trials and how this impacts on trial success, in comparison with intervention trials. Evaluations of medical tests present specific challenges, because they are a pivot point bridging the complexities of pathways prompting testing with treatment decision-making. We systematically explored key differences in the trial design and management of test evaluation trials compared to intervention trials at the different stages of study design and delivery. We identified challenges in test evaluation trials that were more pronounced than in intervention trials, based on experience from 10 test evaluation trials. METHODS: We formed a focus group of 7 trial managers and a statistician who had been involved in the day-to-day management of both test evaluation trials and intervention trials. We used discussion and content analysis to group challenges from 10 trials into a structured thematic format. The trials covered a range of medical conditions, diagnostic tests, clinical pathways and conditions including chronic kidney disease, chronic pelvic pain, colitis, detrusor over-activity, group B streptococcal colonisation, tuberculosis and colorectal, lung, ovarian and thyroid cancers. RESULTS: We identified 10 common themes underlying challenges that are more pronounced in test evaluation compared to intervention trials. We illustrate these themes with examples from 10 trials, including with 31 specific challenges we experienced. The themes were ethics/governance; accessing patient populations; recruitment; patient preference; test processes, clinical pathways and samples storage; uncertainty of diagnostic results; verifying diagnosis (reference standard); follow-up; adverse effects; and diagnostic impact. CONCLUSION: We present 10 common themes, including 31 challenges, in test evaluation trials that will be helpful to others designing and managing future test evaluation trials. Proactive identification of potential challenges at the design and planning stages of test evaluation trials will enable strategies to improve trial design and management that may be different from standard strategies used for intervention trials. Future work could extend this topic to include challenges for other trial stakeholders including participants, clinicians, statisticians and funders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: All trials reviewed in this project were registered and are provided in Table 1.

MRI versus laparoscopy to diagnose the main causes of chronic pelvic pain in women: a test-accuracy study and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) symptoms in women are variable and non-specific; establishing a differential diagnosis can be hard. A diagnostic laparoscopy is often performed, although a prior magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan may beneficial. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the accuracy and added value of MRI in making diagnoses of (1) idiopathic CPP and (2) the main gynaecological causes of CPP. To quantify the impact MRI can have on decision-making with respect to triaging for therapeutic laparoscopy and to conduct an economic evaluation. DESIGN: Comparative test-accuracy study with cost-effectiveness modelling. SETTING: Twenty-six UK-based hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 291 women with CPP. METHODS: Pre-index information concerning the patient's medical history, previous pelvic examinations and ultrasound scans was collected. Women reported symptoms and quality of life at baseline and 6 months. MRI scans and diagnostic laparoscopy (undertaken and interpreted blind to each other) were the index tests. For each potential cause of CPP, gynaecologists indicated their level of certainty that the condition was causing the pelvic pain. The analysis considered both diagnostic laparoscopy as a reference standard for observing structural gynaecological causes and consensus from a two-stage expert independent panel for ascertaining the cause of CPP. The stage 1 consensus was based on pre-index, laparoscopy and follow-up data; for stage 2, the MRI scan report was also provided. The primary analysis involved calculations of sensitivity and specificity for the presence or absence of each structural gynaecological cause of pain. A decision-analytic model was developed, with a 6-month time horizon. Two strategies, laparoscopy or MRI, were considered and populated with study data. RESULTS: Using reference standards of laparoscopic and expert panel diagnoses, MRI scans had high specificity but poor sensitivity for observing deep-infiltrating endometriosis, endometrioma, adhesions and ovarian cysts. MRI scans correctly identified 56% [95% confidence interval (CI) 48% to 64%] of women judged to have idiopathic CPP, but missed 46% (95% CI 37% to 55%) of those considered to have a gynaecological structural cause of CPP. MRI added significant value, over and above the pre-index information, in identifying deep-infiltrating endometriosis (p = 0.006) and endometrioma (p = 0.02) as the cause of pain, but not for other gynaecological structural causes or for identifying idiopathic CPP (p = 0.08). Laparoscopy was significantly more accurate than MRI in diagnosing idiopathic CPP (p < 0.0001), superficial peritoneal endometriosis (p < 0.0001), deep-infiltrating endometriosis (p < 0.0001) and endometrioma of the ovary (p = 0.02) as the cause of pelvic pain. The accuracy of laparoscopy appeared to be able to rule in these diagnoses. Using MRI to identify women who require therapeutic laparoscopy would lead to 369 women in a cohort of 1000 receiving laparoscopy unnecessarily, and 136 women who required laparoscopy not receiving it. The economic analysis highlighted the importance of the time horizon, the prevalence of CPP and the cut-off values to inform the sensitivity and specificity of MRI and laparoscopy on the model results. MRI was not found to be a cost-effective diagnostic approach in any scenario. CONCLUSIONS: MRI was dominated by laparoscopy in differential diagnosis of women presenting to gynaecology clinics with CPP. It did not add value to information already gained from history, examination and ultrasound about idiopathic CPP and various gynaecological conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13028601. 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. 22, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

MRI reporting standard for chronic pelvic pain: consensus development.

AIM: To identify radiological parameters that should be reported on gynaecological MRI in order to create a standardized assessment pro forma for reporting CPP, which may be used in clinical practice. METHODS: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) in females is a common problem presenting a major challenge to healthcare providers. The complex multifactorial aetiology requires a multidisciplinary approach and often necessitates diagnostic laparoscopy for assessment. MRI is emerging as a potential non-invasive alternative for evaluation of CPP; however, standardization of reporting is required for it to be used in routine clinical practice. A two-generational Delphi survey with an expert panel of 28 radiologists specializing in gynaecological MRI from across the UK was used to refine a proposed reporting template for CPP. RESULTS: 75% response rate for the first round and 79% for the second. Following the second round, agreement was reached on the structure of the pro forma and the way in which information was sought, with overall consistency of agreement between experts deemed as fair (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.394). This was accepted as the final version by consensus. CONCLUSION: The standardized pro forma developed in this study will form the basis for future prospective evaluation of MRI in CPP. This template could be modified for the assessment of other benign gynaecological conditions. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Female CPP is a significant problem presenting challenges for clinicians. MRI is often used for evaluation and standardization of techniques, and reporting is required. The pro forma developed in this study will form the basis for future prospective MRI evaluation.

Bladder pain syndrome: validation of simple tests for diagnosis in women with chronic pelvic pain: BRaVADO study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Bladder pain syndrome (BPS), a condition with no gold standard diagnosis, comprises of a cluster of signs and symptoms. Bladder filling pain and bladder wall tenderness are two basic clinical features, present in a high number of sufferers. This study will validate the performance of these simple tests for BPS in women with chronic pelvic pain (CPP). METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a prospective test validation study amongst women with unexplained CPP presenting to gynaecology outpatient clinics. Two index tests will be performed: patient reported bladder filling pain and bladder wall tenderness on internal pelvic bimanual examination. A final diagnosis of BPS will be made by expert consensus panel. We will assess the rates of index tests in women with CPP; evaluate the correlation between index tests and Pelvic Pain Urgency/ Frequency (PUF) questionnaire results; and determine index test sensitivity and specificity using a range of analytical methods. Assuming a 50% prevalence of BPS and an 80% power approximately 152 subjects will be required exclude sensitivity of < 55% at 70% sensitivity. DISCUSSION: The results of this test validation study will be used to identify whether a certain combination of signs and symptoms can accurately diagnose BPS.

How do we define the term idiopathic?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The term idiopathic is often used to describe a disease with no identifiable cause. It may be a diagnosis of exclusion; however, what specific minimum investigations need to be performed to define idiopathic is not always clear. This commentary describes the problems inherent in reaching a definition for the term idiopathic. RECENT FINDINGS: There is limited literature describing methodology to define a condition with no clear diagnostic criteria. This article offers chronic pelvic pain (CPP) syndrome as an example, in which structured qualitative interviews, literature searches and group consensus discussions were undertaken to produce a working definition for idiopathic CPP. SUMMARY: It is important to correctly develop these standardized definitions for use as outcome measures in research and as clinical indicators in healthcare.