Phytoestrogen Treatment for Menopausal Vasomotor Symptoms after Breast Cancer.

Introduction: In breast cancer patients, menopausal symptoms are often reached earlier and in a more severe manner than in healthy women. They can dramatically reduce a patient's quality of life. Treatment for breast cancer patients remains difficult due to hormone replacement therapy being contraindicated. Therefore, treatment alternatives like herbal phytoestrogen preparations are considered to be a treatment option. Methods: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated comparisons of food products, extracts, or dietary supplements containing phytoestrogens in women with a diagnosis of breast cancer were included in the analysis. Results: There was no evidence that phytoestrogen preparations had a benefit over placebo in the treatment of breast cancer patients with menopausal symptoms. Neither the frequency nor severity of menopausal symptoms and the quality of life or occurrence of adverse events were reduced in comparison to a placebo. Conclusion: As we cannot prove a benefit of plant extracts in the treatment of menopausal symptoms in breast cancer patients, different herbal preparations should be analyzed in RCTs in order to find sufficient and safe new treatment options for symptomatic menopausal breast cancer patients. A focus should also be laid on developing a core outcome set to simplify pooling of different studies.

Quality of life in men with Klinefelter syndrome: a multicentre study.

Background: Klinefelter syndrome (KS) is associated with an increased risk of lower socioeconomic status and a higher risk for morbidity and mortality, which may have a significant impact on quality of life (QOL). The objective of this study is to investigate QOL in a large European cohort of men with KS. Design: Cross-sectional multicentre study. Methods: Two-hundred-eighteen men with KS were recruited from 14 clinical study centres in 6 European countries which participated in the European dsd-LIFE study. Male normative data from a healthy and a psychiatric reference population were used for comparison. The validated World Health Organization (WHO) QOL (WHOQOL)-BREF questionnaire was used to investigate five main domains of quality of life (WHOQOL): global, physical, psychological, environment, and social. Results: The QOL physical domain score was lower for men with KS compared to the healthy reference population (KS: 66.9; s.d. 19.4, n = 193; healthy reference population: 76.5; s.d. 16.2, n = 1324, P < 0.001) but higher compared to the psychiatric reference population (54.6; s.d. 20.6; n = 77, P < 0.001). The WHOQOL-psychological domain score was lower for men with KS compared to the healthy reference population (KS: 63.6; s.d. 17.8, n = 193; healthy reference population: 67.8; s.d. 15.6, n = 1324, P < 0.05) but higher compared to the psychiatric reference population (45.9; s.d. 26.0), n = 77, P < 0.001). The social domain score on the WHOQOL questionnaire was found to be lower in men with Klinefelter syndrome (KS) compared to the healthy reference population (KS: 60.0; s.d. 21.6, n = 193; healthy reference population: 68.2; s.d. 13.8, n = 1324, P < 0.001). However, this score was similar to that of the psychiatric reference population (61.0; s.d. 17.0, n = 77, P = 0.5). The WHO environment domain score of men with KS (70.0; s.d. 15.0, n = 193) was similar to the healthy reference population (70.5; s.d. 20.7, n = 1324) but higher compared to the psychiatric reference population (61.9; s.d. 20.8, n = 77, P = 0.002). Experienced discrimination, less social activities, and the presence of chronic health problems were associated with significantly decreased QOL in men with KS. Conclusion: Overall QOL in European men with KS is significantly worse compared to a healthy European reference population. Especially, the presence of discrimination, less social activities, and chronic health problems is associated with lower physical, psychological, and social QOL. Further studies are necessary to investigate if a multidisciplinary approach may help to provide adequate counselling and psychosocial support to improve QOL.

Aromatase inhibitors (letrozole) for ovulation induction in infertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most common cause of infrequent periods (oligomenorrhoea) and absence of periods (amenorrhoea). It affects about 5% to 20% of women worldwide and often leads to anovulatory infertility. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are a class of drugs that were introduced for ovulation induction in 2001. Since about 2001 clinical trials have reached differing conclusions as to whether the AI, letrozole, is at least as effective as the first-line treatment clomiphene citrate (CC), a selective oestrogen receptor modulator (SERM). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of AIs (letrozole) (with or without adjuncts) compared to SERMs (with or without adjuncts) for infertile women with anovulatory PCOS for ovulation induction followed by timed intercourse or intrauterine insemination. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following sources, from their inception to 4 November 2021, to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO. We also checked reference lists of relevant trials, searched the trial registers and contacted experts in the field for any additional trials. We did not restrict the searches by language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all RCTs of AIs used alone or with other medical therapies for ovulation induction in women of reproductive age with anovulatory PCOS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted the data and assessed risks of bias using RoB 1. We pooled trials where appropriate using a fixed-effect model to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for most outcomes, and risk differences (RDs) for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). The primary outcomes were live birth rate and OHSS rate. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and multiple pregnancy rates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for each comparison using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: This is a substantive update of a previous review; of six previously included trials, we excluded four from this update and moved two to 'awaiting classification' due to concerns about validity of trial data. We included five additional trials for this update that now includes a total of 41 RCTs (6522 women). The AI, letrozole, was used in all trials. Letrozole compared to SERMs with or without adjuncts followed by timed intercourse Live birth rates were higher with letrozole (with or without adjuncts) compared to SERMs followed by timed intercourse (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.11; I2 = 0%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 10; 11 trials, 2060 participants; high-certainty evidence). This suggests that in women with a 20% chance of live birth using SERMs, the live birth rate in women using letrozole with or without adjuncts would be 27% to 35%. There is high-certainty evidence that OHSS rates are similar with letrozole or SERMs (0.5% in both arms: risk difference (RD) -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; I2 = 0%; 10 trials, 1848 participants; high-certainty evidence). There is evidence for a higher pregnancy rate in favour of letrozole (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.45 to 1.98; I2 = 0%; NNTB = 10; 23 trials, 3321 participants; high-certainty evidence). This suggests that in women with a 24% chance of clinical pregnancy using SERMs, the clinical pregnancy rate in women using letrozole with or without adjuncts would be 32% to 39%. There is little or no difference between treatment groups in the rate of miscarriage per pregnancy (25% with SERMs versus 24% with letrozole: OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.32; I2 = 0%; 15 trials, 736 participants; high-certainty evidence) and multiple pregnancy rate (2.2% with SERMs versus 1.6% with letrozole: OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.32; I2 = 0%; 14 trials, 2247 participants; high-certainty evidence). However, a funnel plot showed mild asymmetry, indicating that some trials in favour of SERMs might be missing.  Letrozole compared to laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) One trial reported very low-certainty evidence that live birth rates may be higher with letrozole compared to LOD (OR 2.07, 95% CI 0.99 to 4.32; 1 trial, 141 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This suggests that in women with a 22% chance of live birth using LOD with or without adjuncts, the live birth rate in women using letrozole with or without adjuncts would be 24% to 47%. No trial reported OHSS rates. Due to the low-certainty evidence we are uncertain if letrozole improves pregnancy rates compared to LOD (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.28; I² = 0%; 3 trials, 367 participants; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that in women with a 29% chance of clinical pregnancy using LOD with or without adjuncts, the clinical pregnancy rate in women using letrozole with or without adjuncts would be 28% to 45%. There seems to be no evidence of a difference in miscarriage rates per pregnancy comparing letrozole to LOD (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.92; I² = 0%; 3 trials, 122 participants; low-certainty evidence). This also applies to multiple pregnancies (OR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 74.90; 1 trial, 141 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Letrozole appears to improve live birth rates and pregnancy rates in infertile women with anovulatory PCOS, compared to SERMs, when used for ovulation induction, followed by intercourse. There is high-certainty evidence that OHSS rates are similar with letrozole or SERMs. There was high-certainty evidence of no difference in miscarriage rate and multiple pregnancy rate. We are uncertain if letrozole increases live birth rates compared to LOD. In this update, we added good quality trials and removed trials with concerns over data validity, thereby upgrading the certainty of the evidence base.

The impact of Klinefelter syndrome on socioeconomic status: a multicenter study.

Klinefelter syndrome (KS) is associated with an increased risk of neuropsychological morbidity, such as learning disabilities, which may have a significant impact on socioeconomic status (SES). The objective of this study was to investigate the SES in men with KS and to associate this outcome with social participation, age at diagnosis, testosterone therapy and physical and mental health status. Men with KS were recruited in 14 clinical study centers in six European countries which participated in the European dsd-LIFE study. Two hundred five men with KS were eligible for inclusion. Male normative data from the European Social Surveys (ESS) were used for comparison. Data related to education, occupation, satisfaction with income and householding were collected. Compared to the ESS reference population, fewer men with KS achieved a high level of education (13% vs 25%, P < 0.001). There was a significant difference in having a paid job (55% vs 66%, P < 0.001), and the percentage of absence by sickness or disability was higher among men with KS (10% vs 3%, P < 0.001). Furthermore, satisfaction with current household's income was lower (32% vs 42%, P < 0.01). Lower scores for subjective general health were associated with lower scores for these outcomes. Men with KS achieve on average lower levels of education, occupation and report less satisfaction with income compared to the ESS reference population. The presence of health problems and lower scores of subjective general health was related to lower levels of occupation and lower satisfaction with income in men with KS.

Assisted hatching on assisted conception (in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)).

BACKGROUND: Failure of implantation and conception may result from inability of the blastocyst to escape from its outer coat, which is known as the zona pellucida. Artificial disruption of this coat is known as assisted hatching and has been proposed as a method for improving the success of assisted conception by facilitating embryo implantation. OBJECTIVES: To determine effects of assisted hatching (AH) of embryos derived from assisted conception on live birth and multiple pregnancy rates.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register (until May 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; until May 2020), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (1966 to May 2020); and Embase (1980 to May 2020). We also searched trial registers for ongoing and registered trials (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov - a service of the US National Institutes of Health; http://www.who.int/trialsearch/Default.aspx - The World Health Organization International Trials Registry Platform search portal) (May 2020). SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors identified and independently screened trials. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of AH (mechanical, chemical, or laser disruption of the zona pellucida before embryo replacement) versus no AH that reported live birth or clinical pregnancy data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Two review authors independently performed quality assessments and data extraction. MAIN RESULTS: We included 39 RCTs (7249 women). All reported clinical pregnancy data, including 2486 clinical pregnancies. Only 14 studies reported live birth data, with 834 live birth events. The quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. The main limitations were serious risk of bias associated with poor reporting of study methods, inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias. Five trials are currently ongoing. We are uncertain whether assisted hatching improved live birth rates compared to no assisted hatching (odds ratio (OR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.29; 14 RCTs, N = 2849; I² = 20%; low-quality evidence). This analysis suggests that if the live birth rate in women not using assisted hatching is about 28%, the rate in those using assisted hatching will be between 27% and 34%. Analysis of multiple pregnancy rates per woman showed that in women who were randomised to AH compared with women randomised to no AH, there may have been a slight increase in multiple pregnancy rates (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.68; 18 RCTs, N = 4308; I² = 48%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the multiple pregnancy rate in women not using assisted hatching is about 9%, the rate in those using assisted hatching will be between 10% and 14%. When all of the included studies (39) are pooled, the clinical pregnancy rate in women who underwent AH may improve slightly in comparison to no AH (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.33; 39 RCTs, N = 7249; I² = 55%; low-quality evidence). However, when a random-effects model is used due to high heterogeneity, there may be little to no difference in clinical pregnancy rate (P = 0.04). All 14 RCTs that reported live birth rates also reported clinical pregnancy rates, and analysis of these studies illustrates that AH may make little to no difference in clinical pregnancy rates when compared to no AH (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.25; 14 RCTs, N = 2848; I² = 45%). We are uncertain about whether AH affects miscarriage rates due to the quality of the evidence (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.56; 17 RCTs, N = 2810; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This update suggests that we are uncertain of the effects of assisted hatching (AH) on live birth rates. AH may lead to increased risk of multiple pregnancy. The risks of complications associated with multiple pregnancy may be increased without evidence to demonstrate an increase in live birth rate, warranting careful consideration of the routine use of AH for couples undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). AH may offer a slightly increased chance of achieving a clinical pregnancy, but data quality was of low grade. We are uncertain about whether AH influences miscarriage rates.

Hormonal Contraception. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S3 Level, AWMF Registry Number 015/015, January 2020).

Aims This is an official interdisciplinary guideline published and coordinated by the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG), the Austrian Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (OEGGG) and the Swiss Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (SGGG). The guideline was developed for use in German-speaking regions and is backed by numerous professional societies and organizations. The aim of this guideline is to provide an evidence- and consensus-based overview of the diagnostic approach and the management of hormonal contraception based on a systematic evaluation of the relevant literature. Methods To compile this S3-guideline, a systematic search for evidence was carried out in PubMed and the Cochrane Library to adapt existing guidelines and identify relevant reviews and meta-analyses. A structured evaluation of the evidence was subsequently carried out on behalf of the Guidelines Commission of the DGGG, and a structured consensus was achieved based on consensus conferences attended by representative members from the different specialist societies and professions. Recommendations Evidence-based recommendations about the advice given to women requesting contraception were compiled. The guideline particularly focuses on prescribing contraceptives which are appropriate to women's individual needs, take account of her personal circumstances, and have few or no side effects.

Clinical adjuncts in in vitro fertilization: a growing list.

A growing list of clinical adjuncts are being used during in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. Most of these IVF add-ons (such as growth hormone, aspirin, heparin, dehydroepiandrostenedione, testosterone, male and female antioxidants, and screening hysteroscopy) are being introduced into routine clinical practice in a hurried manner without any clear evidence of benefit in most cases. These add-ons make the IVF more complicated and increase the overall cost for the treatment, which is borne by the couples and health care providers. Our current review found no high-quality evidence to support the use of these IVF add-ons in routine practice. Large, well-designed, randomized trials must be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of these interventions. There is also a pressing need to develop an evidence-dictated mechanism for introducing newer interventions into routine clinical settings.

Antibiotic therapy for pelvic inflammatory disease: an abridged version of a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic regimens used to treat pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). DESIGN: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Risk of bias was assessed using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane guidelines. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. DATA SOURCES: Eight electronic databases were searched from date of inception up to July 2016. Database searches were complemented by screening of reference lists of relevant studies, trial registers, conference proceeding abstracts and grey literature. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: RCTs comparing the use of antibiotics with placebo or other antibiotics for the treatment of PID in women of reproductive age, either as inpatient or outpatient treatment. RESULTS: We included 37 RCTs (6348 women). The quality of evidence ranged from very low to high, the main limitations being serious risk of bias (due to poor reporting of study methods and lack of blinding), serious inconsistency and serious imprecision. There was no clear evidence of a difference in the rates of cure for mild-moderate or for severe PID for the comparisons of azithromycin versus doxycycline, quinolone versus cephalosporin, nitroimidazole versus no use of nitroimidazole, clindamycin plus aminoglycoside versus quinolone, or clindamycin plus aminoglycoside versus cephalosporin. No clear evidence of a difference between regimens in antibiotic-related adverse events leading to discontinuation of therapy was observed. CONCLUSIONS: We found no conclusive evidence that one regimen of antibiotics was safer or more effective than any other for the treatment of PID, and there was no clear evidence for the use of nitroimidazoles (metronidazole) compared with the use of other drugs with activity against anaerobes. More evidence is needed to assess treatments for women with PID, particularly comparing regimens with or without the addition of nitroimidazoles and the efficacy of azithromycin compared with doxycycline.

Aromatase inhibitors (letrozole) for subfertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most common cause of infrequent periods (oligomenorrhoea) and absence of periods (amenorrhoea). It affects about 4% to 8% of women worldwide and often leads to anovulatory subfertility. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are a class of drugs that were introduced for ovulation induction in 2001. Since about 2001 clinical trials have reached differing conclusions as to whether the AI letrozole is at least as effective as the first-line treatment clomiphene citrate (CC). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of aromatase inhibitors for subfertile women with anovulatory PCOS for ovulation induction followed by timed intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following sources from inception to November 2017 to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Pubmed, LILACS, Web of Knowledge, the World Health Organization (WHO) clinical trials register and Clinicaltrials.gov. We also searched the references of relevant articles. We did not restrict the searches by language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all RCTs of AIs used alone or with other medical therapies for ovulation induction in women of reproductive age with anovulatory PCOS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted the data and assessed risks of bias. We pooled studies where appropriate using a fixed-effect model to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for most outcomes, and risk differences (RDs) for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). The primary outcomes were live birth and OHSS. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and multiple pregnancy. We assessed the quality of the evidence for each comparison using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: This is a substantive update of a previous review. We identified 16 additional studies for the 2018 update. We include 42 RCTs (7935 women). The aromatase inhibitor letrozole was used in all studies.Letrozole compared to clomiphene citrate (CC) with or without adjuncts followed by timed intercourseLive birth rates were higher with letrozole (with or without adjuncts) compared to clomiphene citrate (with our without adjuncts) followed by timed intercourse (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.99; 2954 participants; 13 studies; I2 = 0%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 10; moderate-quality evidence). There is high-quality evidence that OHSS rates are similar with letrozole or clomiphene citrate (0.5% in both arms: risk difference (RD) -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.00; 2536 participants; 12 studies; I2 = 0%; high-quality evidence). There is evidence for a higher pregnancy rate in favour of letrozole (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.78; 4629 participants; 25 studies; I2 = 1%; NNTB = 10; moderate-quality evidence). There is little or no difference between treatment groups in the rate of miscarriage by pregnancy (20% with CC versus 19% with letrozole; OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.26; 1210 participants; 18 studies; I2 = 0%; high-quality evidence) and multiple pregnancy rate (1.7% with CC versus 1.3% with letrozole; OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.16; 3579 participants; 17 studies; I2 = 0%; high-quality evidence). However, a funnel plot showed mild asymmetry, indicating that some studies in favour of clomiphene might be missing.Letrozole compared to laparoscopic ovarian drillingThere is low-quality evidence that live birth rates are similar with letrozole or laparoscopic ovarian drilling (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.02; 548 participants; 3 studies; I2 = 23%; low-quality evidence). There is insufficient evidence for a difference in OHSS rates (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; 260 participants; 1 study; low-quality evidence). There is low-quality evidence that pregnancy rates are similar (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.74; 774 participants; 5 studies; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). There is insufficient evidence for a difference in miscarriage rate by pregnancy (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.43; 240 participants; 5 studies; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), or multiple pregnancies (OR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 74.90; 548 participants; 3 studies; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence).Additional comparisons were made for Letrozole versus placebo, Selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMS) followed by intrauterine insemination (IUI), follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), Anastrozole, as well as dosage and administration protocols. There is insufficient evidence for a difference in either group of treatment due to a limited number of studies. Hence more research is necessary. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Letrozole appears to improve live birth and pregnancy rates in subfertile women with anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome, compared to clomiphene citrate. There is high-quality evidence that OHSS rates are similar with letrozole or clomiphene citrate. There is high-quality evidence of no difference in miscarriage rates or multiple pregnancy rates. There is low-quality evidence of no difference in live birth and pregnancy rates between letrozole and laparoscopic ovarian drilling, although there were few relevant studies. For the 2018 update, we added good-quality trials, upgrading the quality of the evidence.

Antibiotic therapy for pelvic inflammatory disease.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) is an infection that affects 4% to 12% of young women, and is one of the most common causes of morbidity in this age group. The main intervention for acute PID is the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics which cover Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and anaerobic bacteria, administered intravenously, intramuscularly, or orally. In this review, we assessed the optimal treatment regimen for PID. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic regimens used to treat pelvic inflammatory disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Infections Review Group's Specialized Register, which included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 1944 to 2016, located through electronic searching and handsearching; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid platform (1991 to July 2016); MEDLINE (1946 to July 2016); Embase (1947 to July 2016); LILACS, iAHx interface (1982 to July 2016); World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (July 2016); Web of Science (2001 to July 2016); OpenGrey (1990, 1992, 1995, 1996, and 1997); and abstracts in selected publications. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing the use of antibiotics with placebo or other antibiotics for the treatment of PID in women of reproductive age, either as inpatient or outpatient treatment. We limited our review to comparison of drugs in current use that are recommended for consideration by the 2015 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for treatment of PID. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We contacted investigators to obtain missing information. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consulting a fourth review author if necessary. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria, classifying it as high, moderate, low, or very low. We calculated Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (RR), using either random-effects or fixed-effect models and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome or for an additional harmful outcome, with their 95% confidence interval (CI), to measure the effect of the treatments. We conducted sensitivity analyses limited to studies at low risk of bias, for comparisons where such studies were available. MAIN RESULTS: We included 37 RCTs (6348 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to high, the main limitations being serious risk of bias (due to poor reporting of study methods and lack of blinding), serious inconsistency, and serious imprecision. Azithromycin versus doxycyclineThere was no clear evidence of a difference between the two drugs in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.55, I2 = 72%, 2 RCTs, 243 women, very low-quality evidence), severe PID (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.05, 1 RCT, 309 women, low-quality evidence), or adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.34, 3 RCTs, 552 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). In a sensitivity analysis limited to a single study at low risk of bias, azithromycin was superior to doxycycline in achieving cure in mild-moderate PID (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.67, 133 women, moderate-quality evidence). Quinolone versus cephalosporinThere was no clear evidence of a difference between the two drugs in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.10, 3 RCTs, 459 women, I2 = 5%, low-quality evidence), severe PID (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.23, 2 RCTs, 313 women, I2 = 7%, low-quality evidence), or adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 2.24, 95% CI 0.52 to 9.72, 5 RCTs, 772 women, I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence). Nitroimidazole versus no use of nitroimidazoleThere was no conclusive evidence of a difference between the nitroimidazoles (metronidazole) group and the group receiving other drugs with activity over anaerobes (e.g. amoxicillin-clavulanate) in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.10, 5 RCTs, 2427 women, I2 = 60%, moderate-quality evidence), severe PID (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.01, 11 RCTs, 1383 women, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence), or adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.59; participants = 3788; studies = 16; I2 = 0% , low-quality evidence). In a sensitivity analysis limited to studies at low risk of bias, findings did not differ substantially from the main analysis (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.15, 2 RCTs, 1201 women, I2 = 32%, high-quality evidence). Clindamycin plus aminoglycoside versus quinoloneThere was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.13, 1 RCT, 25 women, very low-quality evidence), severe PID (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.19, 2 studies, 151 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence), or adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.72, 3 RCTs, 163 women, very low-quality evidence). Clindamycin plus aminoglycoside versus cephalosporinThere was no clear evidence of a difference between the two groups in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.09, 2 RCTs, 150 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence), severe PID (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.06, 10 RCTs, 959 women, I2 = 21%, moderate-quality evidence), or adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.42, 10 RCTs, 1172 women, I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no conclusive evidence that one regimen of antibiotics was safer or more effective than any other for the cure of PID, and there was no clear evidence for the use of nitroimidazoles (metronidazole) compared to use of other drugs with activity over anaerobes. Moderate-quality evidence from a single study at low risk of bias suggested that a macrolide (azithromycin) may be more effective than a tetracycline (doxycycline) for curing mild-moderate PID. Our review considered only the drugs that are currently used and mentioned by the CDC.

High prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine use in patients with genetically proven mitochondrial disorders.

Despite major advances in understanding the pathophysiology of mitochondrial diseases, clinical management of these conditions remains largely supportive, and no effective treatment is available. We therefore assumed that the burden of disease combined with the lack of adequate treatment leaves open a big market for complementary and alternative medicine use. The objective of this study was to evaluate the use and perceived effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicine in children and adults with genetically proven mitochondrial disease. The reported use was surprisingly high, with 88% of children and 91% of adults having used some kind of complementary and alternative medicine in the last 2 years. Also, the mean cost of these treatments was impressive, being 489/year for children and 359/year for adult patients. Over-the-counter remedies (e.g., food supplements, homeopathy) and self-help techniques (e.g., Reiki, yoga) were the most frequently used complementary and alternative therapies in our cohort: 54% of children and 60% of adults reported the various complementary and alternative medicine therapies to be effective. Given the fact that currently no effective treatment exists, further research toward the different therapies is needed, as our study clearly demonstrates that such therapies are highly sought after by affected patients.

Aromatase inhibitors for subfertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome: summary of a Cochrane review.

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common cause of anovulatory subfertility. We evaluated the effectiveness and safety of aromatase inhibitors compared with other methods of ovulation induction in women with anovulatory PCOS.

Minimally invasive surgical techniques versus open myomectomy for uterine fibroids.

BACKGROUND: Fibroids are common benign tumours arising in the uterus. Myomectomy is the surgical treatment of choice for women with symptomatic fibroids who prefer or want uterine conservation. Myomectomy can be performed by conventional laparotomy, by mini-laparotomy or by minimal access techniques such as hysteroscopy and laparoscopy. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of laparoscopic or hysteroscopic myomectomy compared with open myomectomy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (inception to July 2014), the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register of Controlled Trials (inception to July 2014), MEDLINE(R) (inception to July 2014), EMBASE (inception to July 2014), PsycINFO (inception to July 2014) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (inception to July 2014) to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also searched trial registers and references from selected relevant trials and review articles. We applied no language restriction in these searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing myomectomy via laparotomy, mini-laparotomy or laparoscopically assisted mini-laparotomy versus laparoscopy or hysteroscopy in premenopausal women with uterine fibroids diagnosed by clinical and ultrasound examination were included in the meta-analysis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted study selection and extracted data in duplicate. Primary outcomes were postoperative pain, reported in six studies, and in-hospital adverse events, reported in eight studies. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, reported in four studies, operating time, reported in eight studies and recurrence of fibroids, reported in three studies. Each of the other secondary outcomes-improvement in menstrual symptoms, change in quality of life, repeat myomectomy and hysterectomy at a later date-was reported in a single study. Odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and data combined using the fixed-effect model. The quality of evidence was assessed using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods. MAIN RESULTS: We found 23 potentially relevant trials, of which nine were eligible for inclusion in this review. The nine trials included in our meta-analysis had a total of 808 women. The overall risk of bias of included studies was low, as most studies properly reported their methods.Postoperative pain: Postoperative pain was measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS), with zero meaning 'no pain at all' and 10 signifying 'pain as bad as it could be.' Postoperative pain was significantly less, as determined by subjectively assessed pain score at six hours (MD -2.40, 95% CI -2.88 to -1.92, one study, 148 women, moderate-quality evidence) and 48 hours postoperatively (MD -1.90, 95% CI -2.80 to -1.00, two studies, 80 women, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence) in the laparoscopic myomectomy group compared with the open myomectomy group. This means that among women undergoing laparoscopic myomectomy, mean pain score at six hours and 48 hours would be likely to range from about three points lower to one point lower on a VAS zero-to-10 scale. No significant difference in postoperative pain score was noted between the laparoscopic and open myomectomy groups at 24 hours (MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.7 to 0.12, four studies, 232 women, I² = 43%, moderate-quality evidence). The overall quality of these findings is moderate; therefore further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.In-hospital adverse events: No evidence suggested a difference in unscheduled return to theatre (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.86, two studies, 188 women, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence) and laparoconversion (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.83, eight studies, 756 women, I² = 53%, moderate-quality evidence) when open myomectomy was compared with laparoscopic myomectomy. Only one study including 148 women reported injury to pelvic organs (no events were described in other studies), and no significant difference was noted between laparoscopic myomectomy and laparoscopically assisted mini-laparotomy myomectomy (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.86). Significantly lower risk of postoperative fever was observed in the laparoscopic myomectomy group compared with groups treated with all types of open myomectomy (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.77, I² = 0%, six studies, 635 women). This indicates that among women undergoing laparoscopic myomectomy, the risk of postoperative fever is 50% lower than among those treated with open surgery. No studies reported immediate hysterectomy, uterine rupture, thromboembolism or mortality. Six studies including 549 women reported haemoglobin drop, but these studies were not pooled because of extreme heterogeneity (I² = 97%) and therefore could not be included in the analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic myomectomy is a procedure associated with less subjectively reported postoperative pain, lower postoperative fever and shorter hospital stay compared with all types of open myomectomy. No evidence suggested a difference in recurrence risk between laparoscopic and open myomectomy. More studies are needed to assess rates of uterine rupture, occurrence of thromboembolism, need for repeat myomectomy and hysterectomy at a later stage.

Immunotherapy for prostate cancer: lessons from responses to tumor-associated antigens.

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men and the second most common cause of cancer-related death in men. In recent years, novel therapeutic options for PCa have been developed and studied extensively in clinical trials. Sipuleucel-T is the first cell-based immunotherapeutic vaccine for treatment of cancer. This vaccine consists of autologous mononuclear cells stimulated and loaded with an immunostimulatory fusion protein containing the prostate tumor antigen prostate acid posphatase. The choice of antigen might be key for the efficiency of cell-based immunotherapy. Depending on the treatment strategy, target antigens should be immunogenic, abundantly expressed by tumor cells, and preferably functionally important for the tumor to prevent loss of antigen expression. Autoimmune responses have been reported against several antigens expressed in the prostate, indicating that PCa is a suitable target for immunotherapy. In this review, we will discuss PCa antigens that exhibit immunogenic features and/or have been targeted in immunotherapeutic settings with promising results, and we highlight the hurdles and opportunities for cancer immunotherapy.

Aromatase inhibitors for subfertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most common cause of infrequent periods (oligomenorrhoea) and absence of periods (amenorrhoea). It affects about 4% to 8% of women worldwide and often leads to anovulatory subfertility. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are a novel class of drugs that were introduced for ovulation induction in 2001. Over the last ten years clinical trials have reached differing conclusions as to whether the AI letrozole is at least as effective as the first-line treatment clomiphene citrate (CC). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of aromatase inhibitors for subfertile women with anovulatory PCOS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following sources from inception to 24/10/2013 to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Pubmed, LILACS, Web of Knowledge, the World Health Organisation (WHO) clinical trials register and Clinicaltrials.gov. Furthermore, we manually searched the references of relevant articles.The search was not restricted by language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all RCTs of aromatase inhibitors used alone or with other medical therapies for ovulation induction in women of reproductive age with anovulatory PCOS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted the data and assessed trial quality. Studies were pooled where appropriate using a fixed effect model to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for most outcomes and risk differences (RDs) for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). The primary outcomes were live birth and OHSS. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy, miscarriage and multiple pregnancy. The quality of the evidence for each comparison was assessed using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 RCTs (5560 women). In all studies the aromatase inhibitor was letrozole. Live birth (12 RCTs) One RCT compared letrozole with placebo in women who were clomiphene resistant and the results were inconclusive (OR 3.17, 95% CI 0.12 to 83.17, n=36)Nine RCTs compared letrozole with clomiphene citrate (with or without adjuncts) followed by timed intercourse. The birth rate was higher in the letrozole group (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.03, n=1783, I²=3%)Two RCTs compared letrozole with laparoscopic ovarian drilling. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in live birth rate (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.86, n=407, I²=0%) OHSS (16 RCTs) There was no evidence of a difference in OHSS rates when letrozole was compared with placebo (one RCT, n=36), clomiphene citrate (with or without adjuncts) followed by timed intercourse (nine RCTs, n=2179), clomiphene citrate (with or without adjuncts) followed by intrauterine insemination (IUI) (two RCTs, n=1494), laparoscopic ovarian drilling (one RCT, n=260) or anastrozole (one RCT, n=220). Events were absent or very rare, and no study had more than 2 cases of OHSS. Clinical pregnancy (25 RCTs) One RCT compared letrozole versus placebo in women who were clomiphene resistant and the results were inconclusive (OR 3.17, 95% CI 0.12 to 83.17, n=36)Fourteen RCTs compared letrozole versus clomiphene citrate (with or without adjuncts) followed by timed intercourse. The pregnancy rate was higher in the letrozole group (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.60, n=2066, I²=25%)Three RCTs compared letrozole versus clomiphene citrate (with or without adjuncts) followed by IUI. The pregnancy rate was higher in the letrozole group (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.25, n=1597)Three RCTs compared letrozole versus laparoscopic ovarian drilling. There was no evidence of a difference in the clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.65, n=553, I²=0%)Two RCTs compared letrozole versus anastrozole, one RCT compared a five day versus a 10 day administration protocol for letrozole and another RCT compared 5 mg of letrozole versus 7.5 mg of letrozole. There was no evidence of a difference in the clinical pregnancy rate in these comparisons.The quality of the evidence was rated as low for live birth and pregnancy outcomes. The reasons for downgrading the evidence were poor reporting of study methods, possible publication bias and the tendency for studies that reported live birth to report higher clinical pregnancy rates in the letrozole group than studies that failed to report live birth (suggesting that results might be somewhat less favourable to letrozole if all studies reported live birth). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Letrozole appears to improve live birth and pregnancy rates in subfertile women with anovulatory PCOS, compared to clomiphene citrate. The quality of this evidence is low and findings should be regarded with some caution. There appears to be no difference in effectiveness between letrozole and laparoscopic ovarian drilling, though there were few relevant studies. OHSS was a very rare event, with no occurrences in most studies.