Combination GnRH antagonists for endometriosis: Balancing efficacy with side effects.

Endometriosis is a chronic pain condition affecting 1 in 10 women. There is an unmet need for better medical treatments for endometriosis. We spotlight trials of a single preparation combined HRT-GnRH antagonist (Relugolix) by Giudice et al.,1 for endometriosis-associated pain.

Prevalence of deep and ovarian endometriosis in early pregnancy: ultrasound diagnostic study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence and morphological appearance of deep endometriosis and ovarian endometrioma using pelvic ultrasound examination in women attending for an early pregnancy assessment. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study set within a dedicated early pregnancy unit. The study included 1341 consecutive women who attended for an early pregnancy assessment for reassurance or because of suspected early pregnancy complications. All women underwent a transvaginal scan to assess the location and viability of their pregnancy. In addition, a detailed examination of pelvic organs was carried out to detect the presence of endometriosis and other gynecological abnormalities. Data analysis was performed using logistic regression and multivariable analysis. RESULTS: The prevalence of deep endometriosis and/or ovarian endometrioma in women attending our early pregnancy unit was 4.9% (95% CI, 3.8-6.2%). In 33/66 (50.0% (95% CI, 37.9-62.1%)) women with endometriosis, this was a new diagnosis that was made during their early pregnancy scan. On multivariable analysis, the presence of endometriosis was strongly associated with a history of subfertility (odds ratio (OR), 3.15 (95% CI, 1.63-6.07)) and presence of a congenital uterine anomaly (OR, 5.69 (95% CI, 2.17-14.9)) and uterine fibroids (OR, 2.37 (95% CI, 1.31-4.28)). Morphological changes typical of decidualization were seen in 11/33 (33.3% (95% CI, 17.2-49.4%)) women with ovarian endometrioma and 18/57 (31.6% (95% CI, 19.5-43.7%)) women with deep endometriotic nodules. CONCLUSIONS: Deep endometriosis and ovarian endometrioma were present in a significant proportion of women attending for early pregnancy assessment. The prevalence varied depending on a history of subfertility, and therefore is likely to differ significantly among populations, depending on their characteristics. Ultrasound is a useful tool for the detection of endometriosis in early pregnancy and the identification of women who may benefit from specialist antenatal care. © 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems: a review on the road to a universally accepted endometriosis classification.

BACKGROUND: In the field of endometriosis, several classification, staging and reporting systems have been developed. However, endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems that have been published and validated for use in clinical practice have not been systematically reviewed up to now. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the current review is to provide a historical overview of these different systems based on an assessment of published studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic Pubmed literature search was performed. Data were extracted and summarised. RESULTS: Twenty-two endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems have been published between 1973 and 2021, each developed for specific and different purposes. There is still no international agreement on how to describe the disease. Studies evaluating different systems are summarised 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. CONCLUSIONS: Of the 22 endometriosis classification, staging and reporting systems identified in this historical overview, only a few have been evaluated, in 46 studies, for the purpose for which they were developed. 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. WHAT IS NEW?: This overview of existing systems is a first step in working towards a universally accepted endometriosis classification.

An International Terminology for Endometriosis, 2021.

BACKGROUND: 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 was 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. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the current paper is to develop a set of terms and definitions on endometriosis that would be the basis for standardisation in disease description, classification and research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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 finalisation of the first draft, the members of the international societies and other stakeholders were consulted for feedback and comments, which led to further adaptations. 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 characterised by the presence of endometrium-like epithelium and/or stroma outside the endometrium and myometrium, usually with an associated inflammatory process. CONCLUSIONS: 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 harmonisation in endometriosis research and clinical practice. Future research may require further refinement of the presented definitions. WHAT IS NEW?: A consensus based international terminology for endometriosis for clinical and research use.

Cost-effectiveness of mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriage: an economic evaluation based on the MifeMiso trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of mifepristone and misoprostol (MifeMiso) compared with misoprostol only for the medical management of a missed miscarriage. DESIGN: Within-trial economic evaluation and model-based analysis to set the findings in the context of the wider economic evidence for a range of comparators. Incremental costs and outcomes were calculated using nonparametric bootstrapping and reported using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Analyses were performed from the perspective of the UK's National Health Service (NHS). SETTING: Twenty-eight UK NHS early pregnancy units. SAMPLE: A cohort of 711 women aged 16-39 years with ultrasound evidence of a missed miscarriage. METHODS: Treatment with mifepristone and misoprostol or with matched placebo and misoprostol tablets. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per additional successfully managed miscarriage and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: For the within-trial analysis, MifeMiso intervention resulted in an absolute effect difference of 6.6% (95% CI 0.7-12.5%) per successfully managed miscarriage and a QALYs difference of 0.04% (95% CI -0.01 to 0.1%). The average cost per successfully managed miscarriage was lower in the MifeMiso arm than in the placebo and misoprostol arm, with a cost saving of £182 (95% CI £26-£338). Hence, the MifeMiso intervention dominated the use of misoprostol alone. The model-based analysis showed that the MifeMiso intervention is preferable, compared with expectant management, and this is the current medical management strategy. However, the model-based evidence suggests that the intervention is a less effective but less costly strategy than surgical management. CONCLUSIONS: The within-trial analysis found that based on cost-effectiveness grounds, the MifeMiso intervention is likely to be recommended by decision makers for the medical management of women presenting with a missed miscarriage. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: The combination of mifepristone and misoprostol is more effective and less costly than misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriages.

Dichloroacetate as a possible treatment for endometriosis-associated pain: a single-arm open-label exploratory clinical trial (EPiC).

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis (where endometrial-like tissue is found outside the uterus) affects ~ 176 million women worldwide and can lead to debilitating pelvic pain. There is an unmet need for new medical treatment options for endometriosis. Pelvic peritoneal mesothelial cells of women with endometriosis exhibit detrimental metabolic reprogramming that creates an environment favouring the formation and survival of endometriosis lesions. We have generated powerful preclinical proof-of-concept data to show that it is possible to correct this metabolic phenotype using dichloroacetate (DCA), a non-hormonal compound previously used to treat rare metabolic disorders in children. We plan a single-arm, open-label, single site exploratory clinical trial to inform the design of a future randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine the efficacy of DCA for the treatment of endometriosis-associated pain. METHODS: We will recruit 30 women with endometriosis-associated pain over a 6-month period. All participants will receive approximately 6.25 mg/kg oral DCA capsules twice daily for 6 weeks, with a dose increase to approximately 12.5 mg/kg twice daily for a further 6 weeks if their pain has not been adequately controlled on this dose regime and side-effects are acceptable. If pain is adequately controlled with minimal side-effects, the lower dose will be continued for a further 6 weeks. The primary objective is to determine whether it is possible to achieve acceptable recruitment and retention rates within the defined exclusion and inclusion criteria. Secondary objectives are to determine the acceptability of the trial to participants, including the proposed methods of recruitment, treatment, follow-up frequency and number of questionnaires. The recruitment rate will be determined by the proportion of patients recruited from the pool of eligible women. The retention rate will be determined by the proportion of participants who attended the final trial visit. DISCUSSION: This is a feasibility study to explore effectiveness and acceptability of the proposed field methodology (recruitment, retention, study processes and compliance with treatment). The results will be used to inform the design of a future RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04046081 Registered 6 August 2019.

Top 10 priorities for future infertility research: an international consensus development study.

STUDY QUESTION: Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified? SUMMARY ANSWER: The top 10 research priorities for the four areas of male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction, and ethics, access, and organization of care for people with fertility problems were identified. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management, and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is a barrier to improving the care received by those people with fertility problems. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Potential research questions were collated from an initial international survey, a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines, and Cochrane systematic reviews. A rationalized list of confirmed research uncertainties was prioritized in an interim international survey. Prioritized research uncertainties were discussed during a consensus development meeting. Using a formal consensus development method, the modified nominal group technique, diverse stakeholders identified the top 10 research priorities for each of the categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction, and ethics, access, and organization of care. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems, and others (healthcare funders, healthcare providers, healthcare regulators, research funding bodies and researchers) were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The initial survey was completed by 388 participants from 40 countries, and 423 potential research questions were submitted. Fourteen clinical practice guidelines and 162 Cochrane systematic reviews identified a further 236 potential research questions. A rationalized list of 231 confirmed research uncertainties were entered into an interim prioritization survey completed by 317 respondents from 43 countries. The top 10 research priorities for each of the four categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility (including age-related infertility, ovarian cysts, uterine cavity abnormalities, and tubal factor infertility), medically assisted reproduction (including ovarian stimulation, IUI, and IVF), and ethics, access, and organization of care, were identified during a consensus development meeting involving 41 participants from 11 countries. These research priorities were diverse and seek answers to questions regarding prevention, treatment, and the longer-term impact of infertility. They highlight the importance of pursuing research which has often been overlooked, including addressing the emotional and psychological impact of infertility, improving access to fertility treatment, particularly in lower resource settings, and securing appropriate regulation. Addressing these priorities will require diverse research methodologies, including laboratory-based science, qualitative and quantitative research, and population science. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, methodological decisions informed by professional judgement, and arbitrary consensus definitions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We anticipate that identified research priorities, developed to specifically highlight the most pressing clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems, and others, will help research funding organizations and researchers to develop their future research agenda. STUDY FUNDING/ COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was funded by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Geoffrey Adamson reports research sponsorship from Abbott, personal fees from Abbott and LabCorp, a financial interest in Advanced Reproductive Care, committee membership of the FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, International Federation of Fertility Societies, and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, and research sponsorship of the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies from Abbott and Ferring. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. Hans Evers reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. Andrew Horne reports research sponsorship from the Chief Scientist's Office, Ferring, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, and Wellbeing of Women and consultancy fees from Abbvie, Ferring, Nordic Pharma, and Roche Diagnostics. M. Louise Hull reports grants from Merck, grants from Myovant, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work and ownership in Embrace Fertility, a private fertility company. Neil Johnson reports research sponsorship from Abb-Vie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy fees from Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Roche Diagnostics, and Vifor Pharma. José Knijnenburg reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. Richard Legro reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. Ben Mol reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. Craig Niederberger reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. Jane Stewart reports being employed by a National Health Service fertility clinic, consultancy fees from Merck for educational events, sponsorship to attend a fertility conference from Ferring, and being a clinical subeditor of Human Fertility. Annika Strandell reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. Jack Wilkinson reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. Andy Vail reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from HFEA for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. Lan Vuong reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the present work. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Top 10 priorities for future infertility research: an international consensus development study† ‡.

STUDY QUESTION: Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified? SUMMARY ANSWER: The top 10 research priorities for the four areas of male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care for people with fertility problems were identified. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is a barrier to improving the care received by those people with fertility problems. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Potential research questions were collated from an initial international survey, a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane systematic reviews. A rationalized list of confirmed research uncertainties was prioritized in an interim international survey. Prioritized research uncertainties were discussed during a consensus development meeting. Using a formal consensus development method, the modified nominal group technique, diverse stakeholders identified the top 10 research priorities for each of the categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others (healthcare funders, healthcare providers, healthcare regulators, research funding bodies and researchers) were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The initial survey was completed by 388 participants from 40 countries, and 423 potential research questions were submitted. Fourteen clinical practice guidelines and 162 Cochrane systematic reviews identified a further 236 potential research questions. A rationalized list of 231 confirmed research uncertainties was entered into an interim prioritization survey completed by 317 respondents from 43 countries. The top 10 research priorities for each of the four categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility (including age-related infertility, ovarian cysts, uterine cavity abnormalities and tubal factor infertility), medically assisted reproduction (including ovarian stimulation, IUI and IVF) and ethics, access and organization of care were identified during a consensus development meeting involving 41 participants from 11 countries. These research priorities were diverse and seek answers to questions regarding prevention, treatment and the longer-term impact of infertility. They highlight the importance of pursuing research which has often been overlooked, including addressing the emotional and psychological impact of infertility, improving access to fertility treatment, particularly in lower resource settings and securing appropriate regulation. Addressing these priorities will require diverse research methodologies, including laboratory-based science, qualitative and quantitative research and population science. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, methodological decisions informed by professional judgment and arbitrary consensus definitions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We anticipate that identified research priorities, developed to specifically highlight the most pressing clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others, will help research funding organizations and researchers to develop their future research agenda. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was funded by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. G.D.A. reports research sponsorship from Abbott, personal fees from Abbott and LabCorp, a financial interest in Advanced Reproductive Care, committee membership of the FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, International Federation of Fertility Societies and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, and research sponsorship of the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies from Abbott and Ferring. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. A.W.H. reports research sponsorship from the Chief Scientist's Office, Ferring, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research and Wellbeing of Women and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Ferring, Nordic Pharma and Roche Diagnostics. M.L.H. reports grants from Merck, grants from Myovant, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work and ownership in Embrace Fertility, a private fertility company. N.P.J. reports research sponsorship from AbbVie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy fees from Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Roche Diagnostics and Vifor Pharma. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring and retains a financial interest in NexHand. J.S. reports being employed by a National Health Service fertility clinic, consultancy fees from Merck for educational events, sponsorship to attend a fertility conference from Ferring and being a clinical subeditor of Human Fertility. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. J.W. reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. A.V. reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the present work. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

A core outcome set for future endometriosis research: an international consensus development study.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a core outcome set for endometriosis. DESIGN: Consensus development study. SETTING: International. POPULATION: One hundred and sixteen healthcare professionals, 31 researchers and 206 patient representatives. METHODS: Modified Delphi method and modified nominal group technique. RESULTS: The final core outcome set includes three core outcomes for trials evaluating potential treatments for pain and other symptoms associated with endometriosis: overall pain; improvement in the most troublesome symptom; and quality of life. In addition, eight core outcomes for trials evaluating potential treatments for infertility associated with endometriosis were identified: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound; pregnancy loss, including ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy; live birth; time to pregnancy leading to live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital abnormalities. Two core outcomes applicable to all trials were also identified: adverse events and patient satisfaction with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Using robust consensus science methods, healthcare professionals, researchers and women with endometriosis have developed a core outcome set to standardise outcome selection, collection and reporting across future randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for endometriosis. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: @coreoutcomes for future #endometriosis research have been developed @jamesmnduffy.

Research priority setting in women's health: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Developing a shared agenda is an important step in ensuring future research has the necessary relevance. OBJECTIVE: To characterise research priority setting partnerships (PSPs) relevant to women's health. SEARCH STRATEGY: Included studies were identified by searching MEDLINE and the James Lind Alliance (JLA) database. SELECTION CRITERIA: Priority setting partnerships using formal consensus methods. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Descriptive narrative to describe the study characteristics, methods, and results. MAIN RESULTS: Ten national and two international PSPs were identified. All PSPs used the JLA method to identify research priorities. Nine PSPs had published a protocol. Potential research uncertainties were gathered from guidelines (two studies), Cochrane reviews (five studies), and surveys (12 studies). The number of healthcare professionals (31-287), patients (44-932), and others (33-139) who responded to the survey, and the number of uncertainties submitted (52-4767) varied. All PSPs entered confirmed research uncertainties (39-104) into interim priority setting surveys and healthcare professionals (31-287), patients (44-932), and others (33-139) responded. All PSPs entered a short list of research uncertainties into a consensus development meeting, which enabled healthcare professionals (six to 21), patients (eight to 14), and others (two to 13) to identify research priorities (ten to 15). Four PSPs have published their results. CONCLUSION: Future research priority setting studies should publish a protocol, use formal consensus development methods, and ensure their methods and results are comprehensively reported. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Research published in @BJOGtweets highlights future research priorities across women's health, including @FertilityTop10, @jamesmnduffy.

The cost-effectiveness of progesterone in preventing miscarriages in women with early pregnancy bleeding: an economic evaluation based on the PRISM trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of progesterone compared with placebo in preventing pregnancy loss in women with early pregnancy vaginal bleeding. DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a large multi-centre randomised placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Forty-eight UK NHS early pregnancy units. POPULATION: Four thousand one hundred and fifty-three women aged 16-39 years with bleeding in early pregnancy and ultrasound evidence of an intrauterine sac. METHODS: An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from National Health Service (NHS) and NHS and Personal Social Services perspectives. Subgroup analyses were carried out on women with one or more and three or more previous miscarriages. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per additional live birth at ≥34 weeks of gestation. RESULTS: Progesterone intervention led to an effect difference of 0.022 (95% CI -0.004 to 0.050) in the trial. The mean cost per woman in the progesterone group was £76 (95% CI -£559 to £711) more than the mean cost in the placebo group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for progesterone compared with placebo was £3305 per additional live birth. For women with at least one previous miscarriage, progesterone was more effective than placebo with an effect difference of 0.055 (95% CI 0.014-0.096) and this was associated with a cost saving of £322 (95% CI -£1318 to £673). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that progesterone is associated with a small positive impact and a small additional cost. Both subgroup analyses were more favourable, especially for women who had one or more previous miscarriages. Given available evidence, progesterone is likely to be a cost-effective intervention, particularly for women with previous miscarriage(s). TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Progesterone treatment is likely to be cost-effective in women with early pregnancy bleeding and a history of miscarriage.

Anti-fracture efficacy of zoledronate in subgroups of osteopenic postmenopausal women: secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We recently reported that the administration of zoledronate every 18 months to osteopenic older women reduces the incidence of fractures. OBJECTIVE: Here, we present a more detailed analysis of that trial to determine whether baseline clinical characteristics impact on the anti-fracture efficacy of this intervention. METHODS: This is a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial in osteopenic postmenopausal women aged ≥ 65 years, to determine the anti-fracture efficacy of zoledronate. 2000 women were recruited using electoral rolls and randomized to receive 4 infusions of either zoledronate 5 mg or normal saline, at 18-month intervals. Each participant was followed for 6 years. Calcium supplements were not supplied. RESULTS: Fragility fractures (either vertebral or nonvertebral) occurred in 190 women in the placebo group (227 fractures) and in 122 women in the zoledronate group (131 fractures), odds ratio (OR) 0.59 (95%CI 0.46, 0.76; P < 0.0001). There were no significant interactions between baseline variables (age, anthropometry, BMI, dietary calcium intake, baseline fracture status, recent falls history, bone mineral density, calculated fracture risk) and the treatment effect. In particular, the reduction in fractures appeared to be independent of baseline fracture risk, and numbers needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one woman fracturing were not significantly different across baseline fracture risk tertiles. CONCLUSIONS: The present analyses indicate that the decrease in fracture numbers is broadly consistent across this cohort. The lack of relationship between NNTs and baseline fracture risk calls into question the need for BMD measurement and precise fracture risk assessment before initiating treatment in older postmenopausal women.

Caesarean scar pregnancy in the UK: a national cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incidence of caesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) and to describe the management outcomes associated with this condition. DESIGN: A national cohort study using the UK Early Pregnancy Surveillance Service (UKEPSS). SETTING: 86 participating Early Pregnancy Units. POPULATION: All women diagnosed in the participating units with CSP between November 2013 and January 2015. METHODS: Cohort study of women identified through the UKEPSS monthly mailing system. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence, clinical outcomes and complications. RESULTS: 102 cases of CSP were reported, with an estimated incidence of 1.5 per 10 000 (95% CI 1.1-1.9) maternities. Full outcome data were available for 92 women. Management was expectant in 21/92 (23%), medical in 15/92 (16%) and surgical in 56/92 (61%). The success rates of expectant, medical and surgical management were 43% (9/21), 46% (7/15) and 96% (54/56), respectively. The complication rates were 15/21 (71%) with expectant, 9/15 (60%) with medical and 20/56 (36%) with surgical management. Discharge from care (median number of days) was 82 (range 37-174) with expectant, 21 (range 10-31) with medical and 11 (range 4-49) with surgical management. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical management appears to be associated with a high success rate, low complication rate and short post-treatment follow up. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Surgery for CSP appears to be successful, with low complication rates and short post-treatment follow up.

Impact of endometriosis on risk of further gynaecological surgery and cancer: a national cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term risk of further gynaecological surgery and cancer in women with endometriosis. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 281 937 women with nearly 5 million person years (4 923 628) of follow up from 1981 to 2010. METHODS: In this national population-based study we compared 17 834 women with a new surgical diagnosis of endometriosis with 83 303 women with no evidence of endometriosis at laparoscopy, 162 966 women who underwent laparoscopic sterilisation, and 17 834 age-matched women from the general population. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to calculate crude and adjusted hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk of further gynaecological surgery, number and type of repeat surgery and time to repeat surgery from the diagnosis of endometriosis. Cancer outcomes included subsequent risk of all cancer, gynaecological and non-gynaecological cancers. RESULTS: Women with endometriosis had a significantly higher risk of further surgery when compared with women with no evidence of endometriosis at laparoscopy [hazard ratio (HR) 1.69, 95% (confidence interval) CI 1.65-1.73], women who had undergone laparoscopic sterilisation (HR 3.30, 95% CI 3.23-3.37) and age-matched women from the general population (HR 5.95, 95% CI 5.71-6.20). They also have an increased risk of ovarian cancer when compared with general population counterparts (HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.08-2.89) or those with laparoscopic sterilisation (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.2-2.45). CONCLUSION: Women with surgically diagnosed endometriosis face an increased risk of multiple surgery. They have a higher chance of developing ovarian cancer in comparison with the general population and women with laparoscopic sterilisation. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Women with endometriosis face an increased risk of recurrent surgery and developing ovarian cancer.