The International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision: A Step-Back for Women With Vulvodynia?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the International Classification of Diseases, 11th revision, (ICD-11) with current terminology of vulvodynia, approved by a broad-based consensus of the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD), the International Society for the Study of Women Sexual Health (ISSWSH), and the International Pelvic Pain Society (IPPS). METHODS: The diagnostic criteria and descriptions of vulvodynia as well as the definition and classification of chronic pain in ICD-11 were reviewed and compared with the Consensus Terminology and Classification of Persistent Vulvar Pain and Vulvodynia, endorsed in 2015 by the ISSVD, ISSWSH, and IPPS. RESULTS: Diagnostic criteria and descriptors of vulvodynia in the ICD-11 are outdated. Moreover, vulvodynia is not identified among chronic pain diagnoses, despite fulfilling the diagnostic criteria of chronic primary pain. Specifically, vulvodynia is a vulvar pain of at least 3-month duration, which is associated with significant emotional distress and functional disability, and is not better accounted for by another specific condition. CONCLUSIONS: The ICD-11 is not aligned with current vulvodynia diagnostic criteria and terminology, approved by the ISSVD, ISSWSH, and IPPS. Collaboration among the International Association for the Study of Pain Task Force on Classification of Chronic Pain, ICD team, ISSVD, ISSWSH, and IPPS is needed to harmonize terminologies, codes, and clinical approach regarding vulvar pain and vulvodynia classification.

2015 ISSVD, ISSWSH, and IPPS Consensus Terminology and Classification of Persistent Vulvar Pain and Vulvodynia.

INTRODUCTION: In 2014, the Executive Council of the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD), the Boards of Directors of the International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health (ISSWSH), and the International Pelvic Pain Society (IPPS) acknowledged the need to revise the current terminology of vulvar pain, based on the significant increase in high quality etiologic studies published in the last decade. METHODS: The new terminology was achieved in four steps. The first involved a terminology consensus conference with representatives of the three societies, held in April 2015. Then, an analysis of the relevant published studies was used to establish a level of evidence for each factor associated with vulvodynia. The terminology was amended based on feedback from members of the societies. Finally, each society's board accepted the new terminology. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: In 2015, the ISSVD, ISSWSH, and IPPS adopted a new vulvar pain and vulvodynia terminology that acknowledges the complexity of the clinical presentation and pathophysiology involved in vulvar pain and vulvodynia, and incorporates new information derived from evidence-based studies conducted since the last terminology published in 2003.

2015 ISSVD, ISSWSH, and IPPS Consensus Terminology and Classification of Persistent Vulvar Pain and Vulvodynia.

INTRODUCTION: In 2014, the executive council of the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease, the boards of directors of the International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health, and the International Pelvic Pain Society acknowledged the need to revise the current terminology of vulvar pain, on the basis of the significant increase in high-quality etiologic studies published in the last decade. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The new terminology was achieved in the following 4 steps. The first involved a terminology consensus conference with representatives of the 3 societies, held in April 2015. Then, an analysis of the relevant published studies was used to establish a level of evidence for each factor associated with vulvodynia. The terminology was amended on the basis of feedback from members of the societies. Finally, each society's board accepted the new terminology. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: In 2015, the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease, International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health, and International Pelvic Pain Society adopted a new vulvar pain and vulvodynia terminology that acknowledges the complexity of the clinical presentation and pathophysiology involved in vulvar pain and vulvodynia, and incorporates new information derived from evidence-based studies conducted since the last terminology published in 2003.

2015 ISSVD, ISSWSH and IPPS Consensus Terminology and Classification of Persistent Vulvar Pain and Vulvodynia.

INTRODUCTION: In 2014, the executive council of the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease, the boards of directors of the International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health, and the International Pelvic Pain Society acknowledged the need to revise the current terminology of vulvar pain, on the basis of the significant increase in high-quality etiologic studies published in the last decade. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The new terminology was achieved in the following 4 steps. The first involved a terminology consensus conference with representatives of the 3 societies, held in April 2015. Then, an analysis of the relevant published studies was used to establish a level of evidence for each factor associated with vulvodynia. The terminology was amended on the basis of feedback from members of the societies. Finally, each society's board accepted the new terminology. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: In 2015,the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease, International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health, and International Pelvic Pain Society adopted a new vulvar pain and vulvodynia terminology that acknowledges the complexity of the clinical presentation and pathophysiology involved in vulvar pain and vulvodynia, and incorporates new information derived from evidence-based studies conducted since the last terminology published in 2003.

Presence of Spontaneous Pain and Comorbid Pain Conditions Identifies Vulvodynia Subgroups.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of the study were to define the heterogeneity of vulvodynia by determining data-driven subgroups within the vulvodynia diagnosis using exploratory cluster analysis and to characterize the subgroups identified. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Included were participants in the longitudinal population-based study of vulvodynia in southeast Michigan who screened positive for vulvodynia at least once during the study. A cluster analysis using variables reflecting vulvar pain characteristics and comorbid pain conditions was conducted. Variables reflecting best separation of clusters were used to assign participants to subgroup categories. Demographic, psychiatric, general health, and other vulvar pain characteristics were summarized for each subgroup, followed by multinomial regression and pairwise comparisons of subgroups on these factors. RESULTS: Of 441 women screening positive for vulvodynia during the course of the study, 393 were eligible on the basis of data requirements. Cluster analysis suggested that best subgroup separation was based on the following 2 variables: (1) presence or absence of spontaneous vulvar pain and (2) presence or absence of other comorbid pain conditions. Subgroups did not differ by age or ethnicity. The subgroup having spontaneous pain and other comorbid conditions demonstrated greatest morbidity in general health measures, psychiatric disorders, and other vulvar pain measures. Primary versus secondary vulvodynia did not vary between subgroups and did not assist in subgroup separation in the cluster analysis. DISCUSSION: Subgroups based on exploratory cluster analysis demonstrated that presence of spontaneous pain and the presence of comorbid pain conditions resulted in best separation of groups. Presence of both spontaneous pain and other comorbid pain conditions identified the group with greatest morbidity.

Women in "Sexual" Pain: Exploring the Manifestations of Vulvodynia.

This study explored the sexual and pain histories and pain presentations of women with forms of chronic vulvar pain (i.e., vulvodynia). One hundred and seventy-seven women with five subtypes of vulvodynia completed an online questionnaire. Groups were similar across several domains: participants experienced pain for many years during sexual and nonsexual activities, and pain was rated as moderate to severe. However, several differences emerged when considering pain development, number of sexual partners, and treatment seeking. This study illustrates how severe vulvodynia pain can be, regardless of subtype. However, not all vulvodynia sufferers are alike, and distinctions between research and clinical practice are highlighted.

Is the 2003 ISSVD terminology and classification of vulvodynia up-to-date? A neurobiological perspective.

This paper aims to determine if the 2003 International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD) terminology and classification of vulval pain is up-to-date, according to a current and widely accepted neurobiological pain classification, which divides pain into nociceptive, inflammatory and pathological pain with the latter subdivided into neuropathic and dysfunctional pain. Nociceptive pain is protective, adaptive, high-threshold pain provoked by noxious stimuli. Inflammatory pain is protective, adaptive, low-threshold pain associated with peripheral tissue damage and inflammation. Pathological pain is non-protective, maladaptive, low-threshold pain caused by structural damage to the nervous system (neuropathic pain) or by its abnormal function (dysfunctional pain). The 2003 ISSVD vulval pain classification should be revised in terms of current neurobiological pain information. Inflammatory vulval pain occurs as a result of specific infectious, inflammatory and neoplastic disorders. Neuropathic vulval pain arises following a specific neurological disorder, responsible for structural damage to the nervous system. Vulvodynia is dysfunctional vulval pain, caused by abnormal function of the nervous system itself.

Vulvodínia: diagnóstico e tratamento / Vulvodynia: diagnosis and treatment

A vulvodínia é uma condição de desconforto vulvar crônico que afeta milhares de mulheres a cada ano. Trata-se de síndrome multifatorial com grande impacto na qualidade de vida das mulheres afetadas. Seu tratamento representa atualmente um desafio para o médico assistente que, apesar de estar mais atento ao seu diagnóstico, ainda não encontra evidências científicas para tratamento dessas pacientes. Ainda não é possível encontrar revisões sistemáticas ou metanálises pela heterogeneidade dos artigos. A abordagem multidisciplinar parece trazer melhores resultados. Habitualmente essas mulheres passam por vários especialistas à procura de alívio dos seus sintomas, na maioria das vezes sem sucesso. Este artigo objetiva fazer uma revisão atualizada do diagnóstico e tratamento da vulvodínia para orientar a prática clínica.(AU)

Vulvodynia is a vulvar discomfort and chronic condition that affects millions of women each year. It is a multifactorial syndrome with great impact on the quality of life of women affected by it. Its treatment is currently a challenge for the physician. Despite being closer to the diagnosis, scientific evidence for treating these patients has not yet been found. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis cannot be found due to the heterogeneity of the articles. A multidisciplinary approach seems to bring the best results. Usually these women consult several specialists seeking relief of their symptoms, most of the time without success. The aim of this article is to review the current diagnosis and treatment of vulvodynia to guide clinical practice.(AU)

Can Fear, Pain, and Muscle Tension Discriminate Vaginismus from Dyspareunia/Provoked Vestibulodynia? Implications for the New DSM-5 Diagnosis of Genito-Pelvic Pain/Penetration Disorder.

Fear has been suggested as the crucial diagnostic variable that may distinguish vaginismus from dyspareunia. Unfortunately, this has not been systematically investigated. The primary purpose of this study, therefore, was to investigate whether fear as evaluated by subjective, behavioral, and psychophysiological measures could differentiate women with vaginismus from those with dyspareunia/provoked vestibulodynia (PVD) and controls. A second aim was to re-examine whether genital pain and pelvic floor muscle tension differed between vaginismus and dyspareunia/PVD sufferers. Fifty women with vaginismus, 50 women with dyspareunia/PVD, and 43 controls participated in an experimental session comprising a structured interview, pain sensitivity testing, a filmed gynecological examination, and several self-report measures. Results demonstrated that fear and vaginal muscle tension were significantly greater in the vaginismus group as compared to the dyspareunia/PVD and no-pain control groups. Moreover, behavioral measures of fear and vaginal muscle tension were found to discriminate the vaginismus group from the dyspareunia/PVD and no-pain control groups. Genital pain did not differ significantly between the vaginismus and dyspareunia/PVD groups; however, genital pain was found to discriminate both clinical groups from controls. Despite significant statistical differences on fear and vaginal muscle tension variables between women suffering from vaginismus and dyspareunia/PVD, a large overlap was observed between these conditions. These findings may explain the great difficulty health professionals experience in attempting to reliably differentiate vaginismus from dyspareunia/PVD. The implications of these data for the new DSM-5 diagnosis of Genito-Pelvic Pain/Penetration Disorder are discussed.

A comparison of demographic and psychosexual characteristics of women with primary versus secondary provoked vestibulodynia.

OBJECTIVES: Provoked vestibulodynia (PVD) is a distressing genital pain condition affecting approximately 12% of premenopausal women. It has been speculated that primary (ie, lifelong) and secondary (ie, acquired) PVD may represent 2 distinct conditions with different etiologies. There is also evidence that primary and secondary PVD subtypes may respond differently to conventional treatments. The goal of this study was to compare the demographic, clinical, and psychosexual characteristics of a large sample of premenopausal women with primary and secondary PVD. METHODS: A total of 132 premenopausal women (n=42 primary; n=90 secondary) with PVD who sought treatment in a Multidisciplinary Vulvodynia Program completed demographic questions and a battery of validated self-report measures before treatment. RESULTS: Women with primary PVD had a longer duration of PVD as well as more time before diagnosis. Women with secondary PVD reported significantly more clitoral hood pain, higher overall vestibular pain levels, more overall sexual dysfunction and sex-related distress, and proportionately more intercourse occasions that were painful. Women with primary pain stated they had significantly more dysmenorrhea and were more likely to report that their partners were unaware of their PVD symptoms. There were no significant subtype differences on any psychological measure but a trend towards higher magnification of symptoms in women with secondary PVD. DISCUSSION: Overall the findings suggest some important differences in the characteristics of women with primary versus secondary PVD which may have management-related implications.

Differences in primary compared with secondary vestibulodynia by immunohistochemistry.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether primary and secondary vestibulodynia represent different pathologic pathways. METHODS: This was an analysis of archived vestibulectomy specimens from 88 premenopausal women with vestibulodynia (2002-2008). Patient records were reviewed to classify the type of vestibulodynia, duration of symptoms, and hormone status. Histologic sections were stained for hematoxylin and eosin to grade inflammation, S100 to highlight nerves, CD117 for mast cells, estrogen receptor α, and progesterone receptor. Differences between primary and secondary vestibulodynia were tested by t tests, chi-square analysis, and linear and logistic regression. RESULTS: Primary vestibulodynia showed significant neural hypertrophy and hyperplasia (P=.02, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-7.6) and increased progesterone receptor nuclear immunostaining (P=.004, adjusted OR 3.94, CI 1.6-9.9) compared with secondary vestibulodynia. Estrogen receptor α expression was also greater in primary vestibulodynia when symptom diagnosis was less than 5 years (P=.004, adjusted OR 5.53 CI 1.71-17.91). CONCLUSION: Primary and secondary vestibulodynia have significantly different histologic features, suggesting that they may have separate mechanistic pathways. Clinically, this may mean the discovery of distinct conditions.

Altered central sensitization in subgroups of women with vulvodynia.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical correlates of central nervous system alterations among women with vulvodynia. Altered central sensitization has been linked to dysfunction in central nervous system-inhibitory pathways (e.g., γ-aminobutyric acidergic), and metrics of sensory adaptation, a centrally mediated process that is sensitive to this dysfunction, could potentially be used to identify women at risk of treatment failure using conventional approaches. METHODS: Twelve women with vulvodynia and 20 age-matched controls participated in this study, which was conducted by sensory testing of the right hand's index and middle fingers. The following sensory precepts were assessed: (1) vibrotactile detection threshold; (2) amplitude discrimination capacity (defined as the ability to detect differences in intensity of simultaneously delivered stimuli to 2 fingers); and (3) a metric of adaptation (determined by the impact that applying conditioning stimuli have on amplitude discriminative capacity). RESULTS: Participants did not differ on key demographic variables, vibrotactile detection threshold, and amplitude discrimination capacity. However, we found significant differences from controls in adaptation metrics in 1 subgroup of vulvodynia patients. Compared with healthy controls and women with a shorter history of pain [n=5; duration (y) = 3.4 ± 1.3], those with a longer history [n=7; duration (y) = 9.3 ± 1.4)] were found to be less likely to have adaptation metrics similar to control values. DISCUSSION: Chronic pain is thought to lead to altered central sensitization, and adaptation is a centrally mediated process that is sensitive to this condition. This report suggests that similar alterations exist in a subgroup of vulvodynia patients.

Vulvodinia: un diagnóstico olvidado frente al dolor vulvar / Vulvodynia: unknown etiology of vulvar pain

La vulvodinia es una patología compleja y de difícil tratamiento. Se define como un dolor crónico de la vulva, que puede ser generalizado o localizado. La primera vez que se escribe sobre esta fue en 1889, por Skene. Sin embargo, es sólo hasta 1976, que los miembros de la International Society for Study of Vulvovaginal Diseases, reconocieron el dolor vulvar como una entidad patológica. Se estima una prevalencia de un 15 por ciento, con unas 14 millones de mujeres que lo padecen en EEUU. Generalmente consultan múltiples veces y a diferentes médicos, antes de llegar a un diagnóstico. No existen pruebas específicas, por lo que la clínica y el examen físico son las principales herramientas. Se deben excluir todas aquellas patologías que explican este dolor crónico vulvar. Su etiología es multifactorial, involucrando cambios a nivel de nociceptores, alteraciones de la inervación y la presencia de factores inflamatorios. Sin embargo, no podemos dejar de lado los aspectos psicosexuales, que pueden modular o desencadenar el dolor vulvar, al encontrar un sustrato alterado a nivel de estos tejidos. Basándose en estos aspectos, hoy existen diferentes tratamientos, que son efectivos si los utilizamos asociados y en forma gradual, ya que se potencian entre ellos.

Vulvodynia is a complex pathology and difficult to treat. In 1889 Skene was the first who write about this. However, only until 1976 the members of the International Society for Study of Vulvovaginal Diseases, recognized the vulvar pain as a disease entity. Prevalence estimated at 15 percent with an estimated 14 million women who suffer in the USA. A high number of gynaecologists do not know this diagnosis. For this reason women consult multiple times and to different doctors to reach a diagnosis. There are no specific tests for diagnosis. Finding in the clinical and physical examination are the main tools for this diagnosis. The different pathologies that could explain the presence of a chronic vulvar pain must be excluded. Undoubtedly its aetiology is multifactorial, involving changes in the number of nociceptors and alterations in the innervations, and the presence of inflammatory factors that may be the starting point of this pathology, as it seeks to explain the neuropathic theory. However we can not ignore the psychosomatic theory in explaining the psychosexual disorders as a trigger vulvar pain, in these altered tissues. Based on these aspects there are now treatments that are more or less effective when are gradually associated for better results.