Use of Myo-Inositol Vaginal Pessary in the Treatment of Subfertility.

Null.

Research progress in female pelvic floor rehabilitation aids. / å¥³æ€§ç›†åº•åº·å¤è¾ åŠ©å™¨å ·çš„ç ”ç©¶è¿›å±•.

Pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) is a common clinical problem that can lead to bladder and bowel dysfunction such as urinary incontinence, urinary retention, fecal incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and sexual dysfunction. Pelvic floor rehabilitation aids are essential tools in the treatment of PFD. However, there is limited understanding of the efficacy and mechanisms of these aids, and there is a lack of standardized guidelines for selecting appropriate aids for different types of PFD. To assist patients in choosing suitable pelvic floor rehabilitation aids to their needs, it is necessary to summarize the existing types, mechanisms, and applications of these aids. Based on their mechanisms and target functions, pelvic floor rehabilitation aids can be mainly categorized into 3 main types. The first type includes aids that improve pelvic floor function, such as vaginal dumbbells, vaginal tampons, and vaginal dilators, which aim to strengthen pelvic floor muscles and enhance the contractility of the urethral, vaginal, and anal sphincters, thereby improving incontinence symptoms. The second type consists of aids that mechanically block the outlet, such as pessaries, urethral plugs, incontinence pads, incontinence pants, anal plugs, and vaginal bowel control systems, which directly or indirectly prevent incontinence leakage. The third type includes aids that assist in outlet drainage, such as catheters and anal excreta collection devices, which help patients effectively expel urine, feces, and other waste materials, preventing incontinence leakage. By summarizing the existing pelvic floor rehabilitation aids, personalized guidance can be provided to patients with PFD, helping them select the appropriate aids for their rehabilitation needs.

Comparing cervical cerclage, pessary and vaginal progesterone for prevention of preterm birth in women with a short cervix (SuPPoRT): A multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cerclage, cervical pessary, and vaginal progesterone have each been shown to reduce preterm birth (PTB) in high-risk women, but to our knowledge, there has been no randomised comparison of the 3 interventions. The SuPPoRT "Stitch, Pessary, or Progesterone Randomised Trial" was designed to compare the rate of PTB <37 weeks between each intervention in women who develop a short cervix in pregnancy. METHODS AND FINDINGS: SuPPoRT was a multicentre, open label 3-arm randomised controlled trial designed to demonstrate equivalence (equivalence margin 20%) conducted from 1 July 2015 to 1 July 2021 in 19 obstetric units in the United Kingdom. Asymptomatic women with singleton pregnancies with transvaginal ultrasound cervical lengths measuring <25 mm between 14+0 and 23+6 weeks' gestation were eligible for randomisation (1:1:1) to receive either vaginal cervical cerclage (n = 128), cervical pessary (n = 126), or vaginal progesterone (n = 132). Minimisation variables were gestation at recruitment, body mass index (BMI), and risk factor for PTB. The primary outcome was PTB <37 weeks' gestation. Secondary outcomes included PTB <34 weeks', <30 weeks', and adverse perinatal outcome. Analysis was by intention to treat. A total of 386 pregnant women between 14+0 and 23+6 weeks' gestation with a cervical length <25 mm were randomised to one of the 3 interventions. Of these women, 67% were of white ethnicity, 18% black ethnicity, and 7.5% Asian ethnicity. Mean BMI was 25.6. Over 85% of women had prior risk factors for PTB; 39.1% had experienced a spontaneous PTB or midtrimester loss (>14 weeks gestation); and 45.8% had prior cervical surgery. Data from 381 women were available for outcome analysis. Using binary regression, randomised therapies (cerclage versus pessary versus vaginal progesterone) were found to have similar effects on the primary outcome PTB <37 weeks (39/127 versus 38/122 versus 32/132, p = 0.4, cerclage versus pessary risk difference (RD) -0.7% [-12.1 to 10.7], cerclage versus progesterone RD 6.2% [-5.0 to 17.0], and progesterone versus pessary RD -6.9% [-17.9 to 4.1]). Similarly, no difference was seen for PTB <34 and 30 weeks, nor adverse perinatal outcome. There were some differences in the mild side effect profile between interventions (vaginal discharge and bleeding) and women randomised to progesterone reported more severe abdominal pain. A small proportion of women did not receive the intervention as per protocol; however, per-protocol and as-treated analyses showed similar results. The main study limitation was that the trial was underpowered for neonatal outcomes and was stopped early due to the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that for women who develop a short cervix, cerclage, pessary, and vaginal progesterone were equally efficacious at preventing PTB, as judged with a 20% equivalence margin. Commencing with any of the therapies would be reasonable clinical management. These results can be used as a counselling tool for clinicians when managing women with a short cervix. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU Clinical Trials register. EudraCT Number: 2015-000456-15, clinicaltrialsregister.eu., ISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN13364447, isrctn.com.

Long-Term Compliance of Self-Care Pessary in Symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Continuation of using a pessary for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is important for improving symptoms but the data on long-term compliance is very limited. Therefore, we conducted this study aimed at evaluating the compliance of patients in the long-term use of a pessary. METHODS: The medical records of women with symptomatic POP were retrospectively reviewed to recruit cases opting for pessary use. The inclusion criteria were women who had a successful pessary fitting and completed at least 5 years of follow-up. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, death during the follow-up period, and loss to follow-up. Demographic data, pelvic organ prolapse stage, associated symptoms, type and size of pessary, and reason for discontinuation were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 261 patients opted for pessary use. Of them, 88.9% (231 out of 261) were successful in initial pessary fitting and 54 were excluded for various reasons. The remaining 178 patients were available for analysis. The continuation rate of self-care pessary at the 5-year follow-up was 53.93% (96). The discontinuation rate was 46.07% (82). The main reasons for discontinuation were desire for surgery (39.1%) and discomfort (31.7%). The highest rate of discontinuation (46.63%) was found in the 1st year of follow-up. The significant risk factors of discontinuation included digitation symptoms on univariate analysis and prior hysterectomy on multivariate analysis, with an odds ratio (95% CI) of 5.98 (1.56-22.88). CONCLUSIONS: Among Thai women, the adherence to self-care pessary in symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse at the 5-year follow-up was 53.93%. The main reason for discontinuation was a prior hysterectomy.

A multimodality review of gynecologic devices in the pelvis.

There are a wide variety of gynecologic devices encountered on pelvic imaging which may not be the focus or primary reason for imaging. Such devices include pessaries, menstrual products, radiation therapy devices, tubal occlusion devices, and contraceptive devices, including intrauterine devices and intravaginal rings. This manuscript offers a comprehensive review of multimodality imaging appearances of gynecologic devices encountered on pelvic imaging and discusses device indications, positioning, and complications.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of pessary self-management versus clinic-based care for pelvic organ prolapse in women: the TOPSY RCT with process evaluation.

Background: Pelvic organ prolapse is common, causes unpleasant symptoms and negatively affects women's quality of life. In the UK, most women with pelvic organ prolapse attend clinics for pessary care. Objectives: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management on prolapse-specific quality of life for women with prolapse compared with clinic-based care; and to assess intervention acceptability and contextual influences on effectiveness, adherence and fidelity. Design: A multicentre, parallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial with a mixed-methods process evaluation. Participants: Women attending UK NHS outpatient pessary services, aged ≥ 18 years, using a pessary of any type/material (except shelf, Gellhorn or Cube) for at least 2 weeks. Exclusions: women with limited manual dexterity, with cognitive deficit (prohibiting consent or self-management), pregnant or non-English-speaking. Intervention: The self-management intervention involved a 30-minute teaching appointment, an information leaflet, a 2-week follow-up telephone call and a local clinic telephone helpline number. Clinic-based care involved routine appointments determined by centres' usual practice. Allocation: Remote web-based application; minimisation was by age, pessary user type and centre. Blinding: Participants, those delivering the intervention and researchers were not blinded to group allocation. Outcomes: The patient-reported primary outcome (measured using the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7) was prolapse-specific quality of life, and the cost-effectiveness outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (a specifically developed health Resource Use Questionnaire was used) at 18 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included self-efficacy and complications. Process evaluation data were collected by interview, audio-recording and checklist. Analysis was by intention to treat. Results: Three hundred and forty women were randomised (self-management, n = 169; clinic-based care, n = 171). At 18 months post randomisation, 291 questionnaires with valid primary outcome data were available (self-management, n = 139; clinic-based care, n = 152). Baseline economic analysis was based on 264 participants (self-management, n = 125; clinic-based care, n = 139) with valid quality of life and resource use data. Self-management was an acceptable intervention. There was no group difference in prolapse-specific quality of life at 18 months (adjusted mean difference -0.03, 95% confidence interval -9.32 to 9.25). There was fidelity to intervention delivery. Self-management was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, with an estimated incremental net benefit of £564.32 and an 80.81% probability of cost-effectiveness. At 18 months, more pessary complications were reported in the clinic-based care group (adjusted mean difference 3.83, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 6.86). There was no group difference in general self-efficacy, but self-managing women were more confident in pessary self-management activities. In both groups, contextual factors impacted on adherence and effectiveness. There were no reported serious unexpected serious adverse reactions. There were 32 serious adverse events (self-management, n = 17; clinic-based care, n = 14), all unrelated to the intervention. Skew in the baseline data for the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7, the influence of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the potential effects of crossover and the lack of ethnic diversity in the recruited sample were possible limitations. Conclusions: Self-management was acceptable and cost-effective, led to fewer complications and did not improve or worsen quality of life for women with prolapse compared with clinic-based care. Future research is needed to develop a quality-of-life measure that is sensitive to the changes women desire from treatment. Study registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN62510577. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/82/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 23. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Pelvic organ prolapse is a common and distressing condition experienced by large numbers of women. Prolapse is when the organs that are usually in the pelvis drop down into the vagina. Women experience a feeling of something coming down into the vagina, along with bowel, bladder and sexual problems. One possible treatment is a vaginal pessary. The pessary is a device that is inserted into the vagina and holds the pelvic organs back in their usual place. Women who use a vaginal pessary usually come back to clinic every 6 months to have their pessary removed and replaced; this is called clinic-based care. However, it is possible for a woman to look after the pessary herself; this is called self-management. This study compared self-management with clinic-based care. Three hundred and forty women with prolapse took part; 171 received clinic-based care and 169 undertook self-management. Each woman had an equal chance of being in either group. Women in the self-management group received a 30-minute teaching appointment, an information leaflet, a 2-week follow-up telephone call and a telephone number for their local centre. Women in the clinic-based care group returned to clinic as advised by the treating healthcare professional. Self-management was found to be acceptable. Women self-managed their pessary in ways that suited their lifestyle. After 18 months, there was no difference between the groups in women's quality of life. Women in the self-management group experienced fewer pessary complications than women who received clinic-based care. Self-management costs less to deliver than clinic-based care. In summary, self-management did not improve women's quality of life more than clinic-based care, but it did lead to women experiencing fewer complications and cost less to deliver in the NHS. The findings support self-management as a treatment pathway for women using a pessary for prolapse.

Cost-effectiveness of pessary therapy versus surgery for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: an economic evaluation alongside a randomised non-inferiority controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pessary therapy as an initial treatment option compared with surgery for moderate to severe pelvic organ prolapse (POP) symptoms in secondary care from a healthcare and a societal perspective. DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial with a 24-month follow-up. SETTING: 21 hospitals in the Netherlands, recruitment conducted between 2015 and 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 1605 women referred to secondary care with symptomatic prolapse stage ≥2 were requested to participate. Of them, 440 women gave informed consent and were randomised to pessary therapy (n=218) or to surgery (n=222) in a 1:1 ratio stratified by hospital. INTERVENTIONS: Pessary therapy and surgery. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), a 7-point scale dichotomised into successful versus unsuccessful, with a non-inferiority margin of -10%; quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) measured by the EQ-5D-3L; healthcare and societal costs were based on medical records and the institute for Medical Technology Assessment questionnaires. RESULTS: For the PGI-I, the mean difference between pessary therapy and surgery was -0.05 (95% CI -0.14; 0.03) and -0.03 (95% CI -0.07; 0.002) for QALYs. In total, 54.1% women randomised to pessary therapy crossed over to surgery, and 3.6% underwent recurrent surgery. Healthcare and societal costs were significantly lower in the pessary therapy (mean difference=-€1807, 95% CI -€2172; -€1446 and mean difference=-€1850, 95% CI -€2349; -€1341, respectively). The probability that pessary therapy is cost-effective compared with surgery was 1 at willingness-to-pay thresholds between €0 and €20 000/QALY gained from both perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: Non-inferiority of pessary therapy regarding the PGI-I could not be shown and no statistically significant differences in QALYs between interventions were found. Due to significantly lower costs, pessary therapy is likely to be cost-effective compared with surgery as an initial treatment option for women with symptomatic POP treated in secondary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4883.

SMFM Consult Series #70: Management of short cervix in individuals without a history of spontaneous preterm birth.

Most deliveries before 34 weeks of gestation occur in individuals with no previous history of preterm birth. Midtrimester cervical length assessment using transvaginal ultrasound is one of the best clinical predictors of spontaneous preterm birth. This Consult provides guidance for the diagnosis and management of a short cervix in an individual without a history of preterm birth. The following are Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine recommendations: (1) we recommend that all cervical length measurements used to guide therapeutic recommendations be performed using a transvaginal approach and in accordance with standardized procedures as described by organizations such as the Perinatal Quality Foundation or the Fetal Medicine Foundation (GRADE 1C); (2) we recommend using a midtrimester cervical length of ≤25 mm to diagnose a short cervix in individuals with a singleton gestation and no previous history of spontaneous preterm birth (GRADE 1C); (3) we recommend that asymptomatic individuals with a singleton gestation and a transvaginal cervical length of ≤20 mm diagnosed before 24 weeks of gestation be prescribed vaginal progesterone to reduce the risk of preterm birth (GRADE 1A); (4) we recommend that treatment with vaginal progesterone be considered at a cervical length of 21 to 25 mm based on shared decision-making (GRADE 1B); (5) we recommend that 17-alpha hydroxyprogesterone caproate, including compounded formulations, not be prescribed for the treatment of a short cervix (GRADE 1B); (6) in individuals without a history of preterm birth who have a sonographic short cervix (10-25 mm), we recommend against cerclage placement in the absence of cervical dilation (GRADE 1B); (7) we recommend that cervical pessary not be placed for the prevention of preterm birth in individuals with a singleton gestation and a short cervix (GRADE 1B); and (8) we recommend against routine use of progesterone, pessary, or cerclage for the treatment of cervical shortening in twin gestations outside the context of a clinical trial (GRADE 1B).

Effectiveness and safety of a novel, collapsible pessary for management of pelvic organ prolapse.

BACKGROUND: Pessaries are an effective treatment for pelvic organ prolapse, yet currently available pessaries can cause discomfort during removal and insertion. An early feasibility trial of an investigational, collapsible pessary previously demonstrated mechanical feasibility during a brief 15-minute office trial. Longer-term, patient-centered safety and efficacy data are needed. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of the investigational vaginal pessary for pelvic organ prolapse at 3 months. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective, 7-center, open-label equivalence study with participants serving as their own controls. Subjects were current users of a Gellhorn or ring pessary with ≥stage 2 prolapse. Subjective and objective data were collected at baseline for 1 month while subjects used their current pessary. Data were then collected throughout a 3-month treatment phase with the study pessary. The primary outcome was change in Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 score. Secondary outcome measures included objective assessment of prolapse support, changes in the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7, and pain with insertion and removal, measured using a visual analog scale. Data from subjects fitted with the study pessary were analyzed using an intention-to-treat approach, and those who dropped out were assigned scores at the upper limit of the predefined equivalence limits. Secondary per protocol analyses included subjects who completed treatment. The study was powered to 80% with a minimal important change equivalence limit of 18.3 points on the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 scale. Square root transformations were used for nonparametric data, and P values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: A total of 78 subjects were enrolled, however, 16 withdrew before study pessary placement. The study pessary was fitted in 62 subjects (50 ring and 12 Gellhorn pessary users), and 48 (62%) completed the 3-month intervention. The change in Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 scores at 3 months demonstrated equivalence when compared with the subjects' baseline scores (mean difference, -3.96 [improvement]; 90% confidence interval, -11.99 to 4.08; P=.002). Among those completing study, the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 scores, equivalence was not demonstrated and scores favored the study pessary (mean difference, -10.45; 90% confidence interval, -20.35 to 0.54; P=.095). Secondary outcomes included objective measures of support, which were similar (mean difference: Ba, 0.54 cm; Bp, 0.04 cm, favoring study pessary; improvement in mean Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 scores for those who completed the trial: before, 32.23; after, 16.86; P=.019), and pain with insertion and removal, which was lower with the study pessary than with the subject's own pessary (mean difference visual analog scale score insertion, 9.91 mm; P=.019; removal, 11.23 mm; P=.019). No serious adverse events related to the pessary were reported. CONCLUSION: Equivalence was demonstrated in the primary outcome of the study pessary when compared with current, noncollapsible pessaries in terms of change in severity and bother of pelvic floor symptoms. Among participants who completed the trial, the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 improved with study pessary use and change in Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 scores were nonequivalent, favoring the study pessary. Subjects reported significantly lower pain scores with both pessary insertion and removal with the novel collapsible pessary when compared with their standard pessary.

Vaginal pessary: a culprit for intraperitoneal bladder perforation.

Vaginal pessaries are widely considered to be a safe and effective non-surgical management option for women with pelvic organ prolapse. Complications may occur, and are more frequent with improper care and certain device designs and materials. It is imperative to provide information to patients about potential complications. We present the case of a woman in her 70s who presented to the Emergency Department with increasing groin and abdominal pain following a vaginal pessary insertion 2 days prior for grade 3 vaginal vault prolapse. On presentation, her abdomen was markedly distended with guarding. Laboratory investigations showed a significant acute kidney injury with a metabolic acidosis. An initial non-contrast CT showed fluid and inflammatory changes surrounding the bladder, and bladder perforation was suspected. A subsequent CT cystogram showed extravasation of contrast from the bladder into the peritoneal cavity, in keeping with an intraperitoneal bladder rupture. The patient underwent an emergency bladder repair in theatre.

Self-care of vaginal pessary for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: There is no evidence about the efficacy of self-care of vaginal pessary in women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the adherence to pessary treatment among women who engage in self-management of their pessary. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis, according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines, and selected seven publications for inclusion in the analysis. RESULTS: Pooled continuation rate of self-cared vaginal pessary was the 76% (95%CI: 66-85%) with a I2-test of 93.3% (p < 0.001). Pooled conversion to POP surgery was the 12% (95%CI: 1-23%) with a I2-test of 96% (p < 0.001). Continuation rate was not statistically different between women who were treated by self-care and non-self-care management of vaginal pessary (RR 1.11, 95%CI 0.96-1.27; p = 0.15), with a related I2-test of 37% (p = 0.21). CONCLUSION: Self-care vaginal pessary management presented a high continuation rate in women affected by pelvic organ prolapse at a long follow-up. The rate of conversion to surgical management of POP was low. No significant difference in continuation rate were highlighted between women who adopted the self-care or the clinical-based management of pessary.

An effective non-hormonal option with high tolerability for mild to moderate symptoms of vaginal dryness associated with menopause.

OBJECTIVES: The efficacy and tolerability of a non-hormonal pessary (that forms an oil-in-water emollient with the vaginal fluid) were assessed for the treatment of symptoms of vaginal dryness associated with menopause. STUDY DESIGN: Seventy-nine postmenopausal women (mean age 60.8 ± 6.5 years) with mild to moderate symptoms of vaginal dryness (including dyspareunia) were enrolled in this open-label, prospective, post-market clinical follow-up trial, conducted in 2022 by one research center in Germany. The investigational pessary was applied for the first 7 days once daily and the subsequent 31 days twice a week, at bedtime. A treatment-free period of 6 days completed the trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: During the trial, participants filled out questionnaires that enabled the calculation of a total severity score for subjective symptoms of atrophy-related vaginal dryness and impairment of daily as well as sexual life. Furthermore, vaginal health index and safety were studied. RESULTS: A rapid and significant reduction in the severity scores for symptoms was observed over the 38-day course of treatment and beyond. Quality of life assessed by DIVA (day-to-day impact of vaginal aging) questionnaire, dyspareunia and vaginal health index also clearly improved. The tolerability was mainly rated as "good to very good" by the investigator and 94.9 % of participants. The vast majority were very satisfied with the simple and pleasant handling. No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: Overall, the presented data suggest that the investigated non-hormonal pessary is an effective and well tolerated treatment option for vaginal symptoms associated with dryness, thus improving quality of life for women, even those who are sexually active. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier NCT05211505.

Quality of Life after Treatment for Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Real-World Study: Recommendations, Vaginal Pessary, and Surgery.

Background and Objectives: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition in women, with its prevalence increasing with age, and can significantly impact the quality of life (QOL) of many individuals. The objective of this study was to assess the overall improvement, quality of life, and continuation of primary treatment for POP over a 24-month period in a real-world setting. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective, observational, follow-up study of women with symptomatic POP who, as a primary treatment, opted for recommendations (lifestyle changes and pelvic floor muscle training), pessary therapy, or surgery. The primary outcome measure was a subjective improvement at the 24-month follow-up, measured with the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale. Secondary outcome measures were the continuation rate of the primary treatment method, reason for discontinuation, and the quality of life evaluated with the P-QoL questionnaire. Results: We included 137 women, with 45 women (32.8%) in the recommendations group, 39 (28.5%) in the pessary group, and 53 women (38.7%) in the surgery group. After 24 months, surgery, in comparison with pessary treatment and recommendations, resulted in significantly more women reporting a subjective improvement: 89.6%, 66.7%, and 22.9% (p < 0.001), respectively. Overall, 52% of women from the recommendations group and 36.4% from the pessary group switched to another treatment or discontinued the primary treatment within 24 months. However, women who continued the primary treatment, pessary use, and surgery showed similar subjective improvements (90.5% and 89.6%, respectively) and quality-of-life improvement. Conclusions: The chance of significant improvement was higher following surgery. However, after 24 months, both vaginal pessaries and surgery showed an important quality-of life improvement and can be proposed as primary treatment methods for pelvic organ prolapse.

Pelvic organ prolapse: self-management of pessaries can be a good option.

The studyHagen S, Kearney R, Goodman K, et al. Clinical effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management vs clinic-based care for pelvic organ prolapse (TOPSY): a randomised controlled superiority trial. eClinicalMedicine 2023;66:102326.To read the full NIHR Alert, go to: https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/alert/pelvic-organ-prolapse-self-management-of-pessaries-can-be-a-good-option/.

A randomized clinical trial comparing internal and external pessaries in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse in postmenopausal women: A pilot study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Internal vaginal pessary is among the leading treatments for pelvic organ prolapse (POP); however, it has a high adverse event rate. An external pessary was recently developed as an alternative. The study's objective was to compare the efficacy of external and internal pessaries in treating POP in postmenopausal women. METHODS: This parallel randomized (1:1 ratio) open-blind study included 40 symptomatic women with stage 2 or 3 POP. They were randomized into two groups: group 1 (internal pessary) and group 2 (external pessary) (n = 20 in each); and evaluated at the start of and 3 months after the treatment. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the results within and between the groups before and after the 3-month treatment. RESULTS: The groups were homogeneous, except for the variables previous pregnancies (p = 0.030) and POP-Q score of apical prolapse (p = 0.023) whose values were higher in group 2. A significant improvement in quality of life was observed in both groups after 3 months of follow-up; however, internal pessaries were found to be more effective (p < 0.001). In group 1 there were differences between the initial and final POP-Q scores of anterior (0.004) and apical prolapse (p = 0.005). The complication rate associated with internal pessary use was high (p = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: The present data suggested that external pessaries have a similar effect to internal ones for the treatment of POP and improvement of the quality of life of postmenopausal women.

Cost-Effectiveness of 2 Models of Pessary Care for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Findings From the TOPSY Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Pelvic organ prolapse is the descent of one or more reproductive organs from their normal position, causing associated negative symptoms. One conservative treatment option is pessary management. This study aimed to to investigate the cost-effectiveness of pessary self-management (SM) when compared with clinic-based care (CBC). A decision analytic model was developed to extend the economic evaluation. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial with health economic evaluation. The SM group received a 30-minute SM teaching session, information leaflet, 2-week follow-up call, and a local helpline number. The CBC group received routine outpatient pessary appointments, determined by usual practice. The primary outcome for the cost-effectiveness analysis was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), 18 months post-randomization. Uncertainty was handled using nonparametric bootstrap analysis. In addition, a simple decision analytic model was developed using the trial data to extend the analysis over a 5-year period. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the mean number of QALYs gained between SM and CBC (1.241 vs 1.221), but mean cost was lower for SM (£578 vs £728). The incremental net benefit estimated at a willingness to pay of £20 000 per QALY gained was £564, with an 80.8% probability of cost-effectiveness. The modeling results were consistent with the trial analysis: the incremental net benefit was estimated as £4221, and the probability of SM being cost-effective at 5 years was 69.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that pessary SM is likely to be cost-effective. The decision analytic model suggests that this result is likely to persist over longer durations.

Cervical pessary versus vaginal progesterone in women with a singleton pregnancy, a short cervix, and no history of spontaneous preterm birth at less than 34 weeks' gestation: open label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of cervical pessary and vaginal progesterone in the prevention of adverse perinatal outcomes and preterm birth in pregnant women of singletons with no prior spontaneous preterm birth at less than 34 weeks' gestation and who have a short cervix of 35 mm or less. DESIGN: Open label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. SETTING: 20 hospitals and five obstetric ultrasound practices in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Women with a healthy singleton pregnancy and an asymptomatic short cervix of 35 mm or less between 18 and 22 weeks' gestation were eligible. Exclusion criteria were prior spontaneous preterm birth at less than 34 weeks, a cerclage in situ, maternal age of younger than 18 years, major congenital abnormalities, prior participation in this trial, vaginal blood loss, contractions, cervical length of less than 2 mm or cervical dilatation of 3 cm or more. Sample size was set at 628 participants. INTERVENTIONS: 1:1 randomisation to an Arabin cervical pessary or vaginal progesterone 200 mg daily up to 36 weeks' of gestation or earlier in case of ruptured membranes, signs of infection, or preterm labour besides routine obstetric care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was a composite adverse perinatal outcome. Secondary outcomes were rates of (spontaneous) preterm birth at less than 28, 32, 34, and 37 weeks. A predefined subgroup analysis was planned for cervical length of 25 mm or less. RESULTS: From 1 July 2014 to 31 March 2022, 635 participants were randomly assigned to pessary (n=315) or to progesterone (n=320). 612 were included in the intention to treat analysis. The composite adverse perinatal outcome occurred in 19 (6%) of 303 participants with a pessary versus 17 (6%) of 309 in the progesterone group (crude relative risk 1.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 2.2)). The rates of spontaneous preterm birth were not significantly different between groups. In the subgroup of cervical length of 25 mm or less, spontaneous preterm birth at less than 28 weeks occurred more often after pessary than after progesterone (10/62 (16%) v 3/69 (4%), relative risk 3.7 (95% CI 1.1 to 12.9)) and adverse perinatal outcomes seemed more frequent in the pessary group (15/62 (24%) v 8/69 (12%), relative risk 2.1 (0.95 to 4.6)). CONCLUSIONS: In women with a singleton pregnancy with no prior spontaneous preterm birth at less than 34 weeks' gestation and with a midtrimester short cervix of 35 mm or less, pessary is not better than vaginal progesterone. In the subgroup of a cervical length of 25 mm or less, a pessary seemed less effective in preventing adverse outcomes. Overall, for women with single baby pregnancies, a short cervix, and no prior spontaneous preterm birth less than 34 weeks' gestation, superiority of a cervical pessary compared with vaginal progesterone to prevent preterm birth and consecutive adverse outcomes could not be proven. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP, EUCTR2013-002884-24-NL).

Luteal phase support using micronized vaginal progesterone as pessaries or capsules in artificial cycles: is there any difference?

RESEARCH QUESTION: Is there a difference between the proportion of patients with serum progesterone <8.8 ng/ml on the day of embryo transfer when micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) for luteal phase support (LPS) is given as pessaries versus capsules? DESIGN: This retrospective, matched-cohort, single-centre study compared pessaries (Cyclogest) versus capsules (Utrogestan, Progeffik) for LPS in hormone replacement treatment-embryo transfer (HRT-ET) cycles. Patients under 50 years old with a triple-layer endometrial thickness of ≥6.5 mm underwent transfer of one or two blastocysts. Serum progesterone concentrations were measured on the day of transfer; patients with concentrations <8.8 ng/ml received a single 'rescue' dose of additional progesterone by subcutaneous injection. RESULTS: In total 2665 HRT-ET cycles were analysed; 663 (24.9%) used pessaries for LPS and 2002 (75.1%) used capsules. Mean serum progesterone concentrations with standard deviations on the day of embryo transfer were significantly higher in the group using MVP pessaries compared with those using capsules (14.5 ± 5.1 versus 13.0 ± 4.8 ng/ml; P = 0.000). The percentage of participants with suboptimal serum progesterone concentrations on the day of embryo transfer (<8.8 ng/ml) was significantly lower in the pessary group than the capsule group (10.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.9-12.6% versus 17.9%, 95% CI 16.2-19.6%; adjusted odds ratio 0.426, 95% CI 0.290-0.625; P = 0.000). No differences in pregnancy outcome were observed between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Using MVP pessaries rather than capsules for LPS resulted in significantly fewer patients having suboptimal serum progesterone concentrations on the day of embryo transfer. Consequently, almost 50% fewer patients in the pessary group needed rescue treatment.

Utility of cervical pessary in the prevention of preterm birth in triplet pregnancies: A single-center observational retrospective study of 165 triplet pregnancies.

OBJECTIVE: Premature births are a health problem arising in triplet pregnancies, resulting in high levels of morbidity and mortality. The objective of this study is to evaluate the utility of cervical pessaries in reducing prematurity (<34 weeks) in triplet pregnancies. METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective case-control study regarding triplet pregnancies with follow-up at the La Paz University Hospital between 2000 and 2023. Maternal characteristics, obstetric and perinatal outcomes, and the use of cervical pessaries were examined. RESULTS: 165 triplet pregnancies were analyzed: 87 (52.7 %) in the case group (premature triplet pregnancies) and 78 in the control group (non-premature triplet pregnancies). A cervical pessary was inserted in 15 (17.2 %) triplet pregnancies in the case group and in 12 (16.7 %) triplet pregnancies in the control group (p = 0.92; OR = 1.04 (0.46-2.35)). A pessary was later inserted in the non-premature group (p = 0.01). The risk of preterm labor and the use of tocolytics ± glucocorticoids were found to be significantly more frequent in the premature group, with p = 0.01; OR = 2.30 (1.21-4.36) and p < 0.01; OR = 2.36 (1.23-4.44), respectively. Protocol-based cesarean sections were more frequent in the non-premature group (p < 0.01), while cesarean sections due to maternal complications (p < 0.01) and premature membrane rupture (p < 0.01) were more frequent in the premature group. CONCLUSION: The cervical pessary is not useful in preventing preterm births (< 34 weeks) in triplet pregnancies. It is likely that being pregnant with triplets is a powerful independent factor associated with prematurity, despite other pregnancy conditions. Women who are pregnant with triplets and at risk of preterm labor and those taking tocolytics ± glucocorticoids may benefit from pessary insertion.

The unmet needs in vaginal pessaries.

A pessary is a medical device that is inserted into the vagina to provide structural support to one or more of the descending vaginal compartments in women with pelvic organ prolapse. It is a common management option offered to women in the short and long term. This article will discuss the current use of vaginal pessaries for POP, the current challenges with their use and common complications seen in practise. It will also discuss the unmet needs in the current products available on the market and suggest ideas for product design, materials and considerations for future development.