Is it possible to prevent recurrent vulvovaginitis? The role of Lactobacillus plantarum I1001 (CECT7504)

The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the impact of the use of L. plantarum I1001 applied vaginally on Vulvovaginal Candidiasis (VVC) time-until-recurrence after treatment with single-dose vaginal clotrimazole. This was a clinical open-label, prospective study of two non-randomized parallel cohorts with symptomatic acute VVC: (1) 33 sexually active women 18–50 years old, prescribed a standard single-dose 500 mg vaginal tablet of clotrimazole followed by vaginal tablets with L. plantarum I1001 as adjuvant therapy, and (2) 22 women of similar characteristics but prescribed single-dose clotrimazole only. Use of the probiotic and factors that might influence recurrence risk (age, recurrent VVC within previous year, antibiotic prior to study enrolment, diaphragm or IUD contraception, among others) were included in a multivariate Cox regression model to adjust for potential between-cohort differences. Probiotic use was associated with a three-fold reduction in the adjusted risk of recurrence (HR [95 %CI]: 0.30 [0.10–0.91]; P = 0.033). Adjusted free-survival recurrence was 72.83 % and 34.88 % for the probiotic and control groups, respectively. A higher cumulative recurrence was also observed in cases with use of antibiotics prior to enrolment (HR [95 %CI]: 10.46 [2.18–50.12]; P = 0.003). Similar findings were found at six months after azole treatment in women with RVVC. Overall, good compliance with the probiotic was reported for 91.3 % of women. The study suggests that follow-up therapy with vaginal tablets with L. plantarum I1001 could increase the effectiveness of single-dose 500 mg clotrimazole at preventing recurrence of VVC, an effect that was also observed in women with recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (RVVC) after six months of azole treatment.

Individualizing HT considering metabolic risk factors and breast cancer

Despite the time and evidence from observational studies, the balance between risk and benefit of using hormone therapy (HT) in postmenopausal women without comorbidities remains uncertain. HT for menopausal symptoms remains in use mainly to relieve vasomotor symptoms, but still leaves questions about its effect in preventing chronic diseases. The Women Health Initiative researched how to focus on defining and identifying the risks and benefits of HT with estrogen only and estrogen plus progestin on the risk of chronic diseases and other diseases such as coronary heart disease, breast and colorectal cancer and fractures in postmenopausal women, determining its safety and effectiveness. However, there is great concern about the increased risk found in breast cancer and cardiovascular disease using estrogen and progestin combined therapies versus estrogen only therapies, so an added risk to the use of progestin is awarded. For this reason there are new options to new treatment alternatives.

Vulvar and vaginal atrophy in four European countries: evidence from the European REVIVE Survey

Objectives The aim of the European REVIVE survey was to achieve a better understanding of vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA), a chronic and progressive condition after menopause. We investigated perceptions, experiences and needs in terms of sexual and vaginal health in a sample of European postmenopausal women.

Methods An online internet based survey was conducted in Italy, Germany, Spain and the UK with a total surveyed sample of 3768 postmenopausal women (age: 45–75 years).

Results The most common VVA symptom was vaginal dryness (70%). VVA has a significant impact on the ability to be intimate (62%), to enjoy sexual intercourse (72%) and to feel sexual spontaneity (66%). Postmenopausal women with VVA are sexually active (51%), but their sexual drive is reduced. Health-care professionals (HCPs) have discussed VVA with postmenopausal women (62%), but they initiated the conversation only in 10% of the cases. The most common treatments for VVA are over-the-counter, non-hormonal, local vaginal products. Thirty-two per cent of postmenopausal women were naïve to any kind of treatment, whereas discussion with the HCP was relevant to be on current treatment (60% of postmenopausal women that discussed VVA with a HCP vs. 23% who did not). The top reasons for poor compliance with vaginal treatments were: not bothersome enough symptoms (18%); vaginal changes not therapeutically reversed (18%); relief from VVA symptoms (17%). Approximately 45% were satisfied with treatment. The most frequent disliked aspects of treatment were the route of administration or the messiness. The fear of hormones was common in postmenopausal women using vaginal prescription products.

Conclusions The European REVIVE survey confirmed that VVA symptoms are frequent in postmenopausal women and demonstrates a significant impact on quality of life and sexual life. However, the condition is still under-diagnosed and under-treated, with a high rate of dissatisfaction for actual available treatments in the four European countries surveyed. The discussion of symptoms with HCPs seems the most critical factor for diagnosis and treatment of VVA.

Treatment with denosumab reduces secondary fracture risk in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis

OBJECTIVES

A history of prior fracture is one of the strongest predictors of a future fragility fracture. In FREEDOM, denosumab significantly reduced the risk of new vertebral, non-vertebral, and hip fractures. We carried out a post-hoc analysis of FREEDOM to characterize the efficacy of denosumab in preventing secondary fragility fractures in subjects with a prior fracture.

METHODS

A total of 7808 women aged 60-90 years with a bone mineral density T-score of less than - 2.5 but not less than - 4.0 at either the lumbar spine or total hip were randomized to subcutaneous denosumab 60 mg or placebo every 6 months for 36 months. The anti-fracture efficacy of denosumab was analyzed by prior fracture status, to assess secondary fragility fracture, and by subject age, prior fracture site and history of prior osteoporosis medication use.

RESULTS

A prior fragility fracture was reported for 45% of the overall study population. Compared with placebo, denosumab significantly reduced the risk of a secondary fragility fracture by 39% (incidence, 17.3% vs. 10.5%; p < 0.0001). Similar results were observed regardless of age or prior fracture site. In the overall population, denosumab significantly reduced the risk of a fragility fracture by 40% (13.3% vs. 8.0%; p < 0.0001), with similar results observed regardless of history of prior osteoporotic medication use.

CONCLUSIONS

Denosumab reduced the risk of fragility fractures to a similar degree in all risk subgroups examined, including those with prior fragility fractures. Identifying and treating high-risk individuals could help to close the current care gap in secondary fracture prevention.

Individualising HT considering metabolic risk factors and breast cancer

Despite the time and evidence from observational studies, the balance between risk and benefit of using hormone therapy in postmenopausal women without comorbidities remains uncertain. Hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms remains in use mainly to relieve vasomotor symptoms but still leaves questions about its effect in preventing chronic diseases. The Women Health Initiative researched how to focus on defining and identifying the risks and benefits of hormone therapy with estrogen only and estrogen plus progestin on the risk of chronic diseases and other diseases such as coronary heart disease, breast and colorectal cancer and fractures in postmenopausal women, determining its safety and effectiveness. However there is great concern about the increased risk found in breast cancer and cardiovascular disease using estrogen and progestin combined therapies versus estrogen only therapies, so an added risk to the use of progestin is awarded. For this reason there are new options to new treatment alternatives.

The position of strontium ranelate in today's management of osteoporosis

Osteoporosis accounts for about 3 % of total European health-care spending. The low proportion of costs for the pharmacological prevention of osteoporotic fracture means that it is highly cost saving, especially in patient with severe osteoporosis or patients who cannot take certain osteoporosis medications due to issues of contraindications or tolerability. Following recent regulatory changes, strontium ranelate is now indicated in patients with severe osteoporosis for whom treatment with other osteoporosis treatments is not possible, and without contraindications including uncontrolled hypertension, established, current or past history of ischaemic heart disease, peripheral arterial disease, and/or cerebrovascular disease. We review here today's evidence for the safety and efficacy of strontium ranelate. The efficacy of strontium ranelate in patients complying with the new prescribing information (i.e. severe osteoporosis without contraindications) has been explored in a multivariate analysis of clinical trial data, which concluded that the antifracture efficacy of strontium ranelate is maintained in patients with severe osteoporosis without contraindications and also demonstrated how the new target population mitigates risk. Strontium ranelate is therefore an important alternative in today's management of osteoporosis, with a positive benefit-risk balance, provided that the revised indication and contraindications are followed and cardiovascular risk is monitored. The bone community should be reassured that there remain viable alternatives in patients in whom treatment with other agents is not possible and protection against the debilitating effects of fracture is still feasible in patients with severe osteoporosis.

Antiresorptives and anabolic therapy in sequence or combination for postmenopausal osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is a chronic disease which may require treatment for many years and requires not only individual management but often sequential or combination treatments. Monotherapy with antiresorptives is usually the first choice. Sometimes, it is necessary to modify this option for therapeutic failure or for the time of use and risk of side-effects. Due to their different mode of action, therapy with anabolic drugs has increased our options in the treatment of osteoporosis. Postmenopausal women and men with severe and progressive osteoporosis despite antiresorptive treatment ('therapeutic failure') should be evaluated for treatment with an anabolic option. Moreover, anabolic agents are indicated for 18-24 months in patients at high risk. Then, sequential antiresorptive therapy is recommended to maintain drug increases in bone mass and support secondary mineralization of the newly formed bone. Combination therapies of antiresorptives and anabolic agents have shown a significant increase in bone mineral density compared to monotherapies. However, none of the combinations have been studied for the prevention of fractures. Combination therapy may not be recommended because of the possible increase in cost.

Ospemifene, a non-oestrogen selective oestrogen receptor modulator for the treatment of vaginal dryness associated with postmenopausal vulvar and vaginal atrophy: a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase III trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ospemifene, a novel selective oestrogen receptor modulator, in the treatment of vaginal dryness in postmenopausal women with vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA).

STUDY DESIGN

A 12 week, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group phase III study of women (40-80 years) with VVA and self-reported vaginal dryness as their most bothersome symptom.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The co-primary efficacy endpoints were the change from baseline to Week 12 in (1) percentage of parabasal cells in the maturation index (MI), (2) percentage of superficial cells in the MI, (3) vaginal pH, and (4) severity of vaginal dryness. Safety assessments included physical examination, cervical Papanicolaou test and clinical laboratory analyses. Endometrial thickness and histology was also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 314 women were randomised to once-daily ospemifene 60 mg/day (n=160) or placebo (n=154). Significant improvements in the percentages of parabasal and superficial cells in the MI and vaginal pH were observed with ospemifene compared with placebo (p<0.001 for all parameters). The mean change from baseline in severity score of vaginal dryness reported by women receiving ospemifene compared with those receiving placebo approached statistical significance (p=0.080). Improvements in each of the four co-primary endpoints with ospemifene were statistically significant compared to placebo in the per protocol population. The majority of treatment-emergent adverse events were considered mild to moderate in severity.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily oral ospemifene 60 mg was effective for the treatment of VVA in postmenopausal women with vaginal dryness.

The efficacy and safety of bazedoxifene in postmenopausal women by baseline kidney function status

INTRODUCTION

Two global, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, phase-3 studies (2-year prevention (n = 1583) and 3-year treatment (n = 7492)) have shown that bazedoxifene (BZA) is safe and effective for prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy/safety of BZA according to baseline kidney function.

METHODS

Data for the BZA 20- and 40-mg and placebo groups from both studies were integrated for assessment of bone turnover markers (BTMs), bone mineral density (BMD), and fracture incidence (treatment study only). Safety was assessed using integrated data for the BZA, placebo, and raloxifene 60-mg groups from both studies. Baseline glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was estimated by the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study equation; among subjects with baseline GFR, renal function categories were defined by GFR (ml/min per 1.73 m(2)): normal (GFR ≥ 90; n = 1982), mild impairment (60 ≤ GFR < 90; n = 6032), or moderate/severe impairment (GFR < 60; n = 723).

RESULTS

Demographics were similar across treatment groups and within GFR subgroups. Across GFR subgroups, BZA 20 and 40 mg reduced BTM levels and improved lumbar spine and total hip BMD versus placebo. At month 24, there were significant treatment-by-GFR (p = 0.003) and treatment-by-serum creatinine (p = 0.034) interactions for the increase in lumbar spine BMD versus placebo. Fracture incidence was lower with BZA than placebo across all GFR categories, with no treatment-by-GFR interaction. There were no significant differences among treatment groups in incidences of overall, serious, or renal-related adverse events across GFR subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Mild to moderate kidney impairment did not affect the efficacy and safety of BZA in postmenopausal women.

An evaluation of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®) as an indicator of treatment efficacy: the effects of bazedoxifene and raloxifene on vertebral, nonvertebral, and all clinical fractures as a function of baseline fracture risk assessed by FRAX®

SUMMARY

The relationship between baseline Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®) and treatment efficacy was evaluated using data from a pivotal phase 3 study. Relative risk of vertebral, nonvertebral, and all clinical fractures decreased with increasing probability of fracture for bazedoxifene (BZA) versus placebo but remained generally constant for raloxifene (RLX).

INTRODUCTION

To determine whether the FRAX® predicts osteoporosis treatment efficacy, we evaluated reductions in fracture incidence associated with BZA and RLX according to baseline fracture risk determined by FRAX® using data from a phase 3 osteoporosis treatment study.

METHODS

Hazard ratios (HRs) for effects of BZA and RLX versus placebo on incidence of vertebral, nonvertebral, and all clinical fractures were calculated using a Cox regression model. Cox regression analyses were performed in subgroups at or above 10-year fracture probability thresholds determined by FRAX®.

RESULTS

HRs for the risk of vertebral, nonvertebral, and all clinical fractures versus placebo decreased with increasing 10-year fracture probability for BZA, while those for RLX remained stable. In all 10-year fracture probability subgroups, all BZA doses significantly reduced vertebral fracture risk versus placebo (HR = 0.22-0.66). BZA at 20, 40, and 20/40 mg significantly reduced risk of nonvertebral fractures (HR = 0.45, 0.44, and 0.45, respectively) and all clinical fractures (HR = 0.38, 0.41, and 0.40, respectively) for ≥20.0 % fracture probability. Vertebral fracture risk reductions for RLX 60 mg versus placebo were significant in subgroups at lower fracture probabilities (≥2.5- ≥ 10.0 %), but not higher (≥12.5 %), and in no subgroups for nonvertebral or all clinical fractures.

CONCLUSION

The antifracture efficacy of BZA increased with increasing baseline FRAX® score, but there was no clear relationship between RLX and baseline FRAX®. These findings provide independent confirmation of current literature, suggesting that the relationship between FRAX® and treatment efficacy varies for different agents.

Impact of osteoporosis and bone fracture on health-related quality of life in postmenopausal women

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is responsible for fragility fractures, which are associated with decreased physical and social function. The GINERISK study was a cross-sectional epidemiological study conducted in 4157 Spanish postmenopausal women initially diagnosed with osteoporosis according to WHO criteria within the last 2 years.

AIM

The aim of the study was to explore the impact of osteoporosis on health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

METHOD

Menopause-specific and generic HRQoL were assessed, respectively, with the specific Cervantes Scale and the generic SF-12v2 Health Survey. The impact of osteoporosis on HRQoL was ultimately evaluated in 3328 (80.1%) women who had measurements for both bone mineral densitometry (BMD) and HRQoL.

RESULTS

Menopause-specific or generic HRQoL, respectively, were worse in women with current osteoporosis and prior osteoporotic bone fracture (BF) in comparison with current osteoporosis without BF or whose T-score had increased above -2.5 on the BMD after receiving osteoporosis drug therapy. Impaired HRQoL was found both in Spanish postmenopausal female populations and the Spanish general female population. Women with osteoporosis with BF had physical and mental summary component scores in the 20th and 30th percentiles, respectively, of the Spanish general population. Higher risk for cardiovascular death was also associated with greater HRQoL impairment. The use of selective estrogen receptor modulators in women with a BMD T-score ≤ -2.5 was associated with lower impact of osteoporosis on HRQoL, particularly in the domains of physical health and sexuality.

CONCLUSION

The HRQoL analysis results in this study demonstrated a loss of quality of life in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and confirmed that this loss is greater in women with prior osteoporotic fracture.

A large prospective European cohort study of patients treated with strontium ranelate and followed up over 3 years

Strontium ranelate has been available as an osteoporosis treatment in Europe since 2004. This article describes a large European observational survey of the use of strontium ranelate in clinical daily practice. A retrospective observational registry included 32,446 women consulting for postmenopausal osteoporosis in seven countries. Within the registry, 12,046 women were receiving strontium ranelate and were followed up over 3 years. The baseline characteristics of the follow-up cohort were similar to those of the whole registry cohort (age, 68.9 ± 10.3 years; body mass index, 25.6 ± 4.3 kg/m(2); lumbar spine T-score, -2.57 ± 0.85 SD; femoral neck T-score, -2.11 ± 0.86 SD). At baseline, 77 % of patients had at least one risk factor for osteoporosis, and 46 % had a previous history of osteoporotic fracture. Mean duration of follow-up was 32.0 ± 9.7 months, and treatment duration was 25.2 ± 13.7 months (24,956 patient-years of treatment). Persistence with strontium ranelate was 80 % at 1 year, 68 % at 2 years, and 64 % at 32 months; most patients (about 80 %) reported rarely omitting a dose. At least one emergent adverse event was reported in 2,674 (22 %) patients, most frequently gastrointestinal side effects. The crude incidence of venous thromboembolic events was 2.1/1,000 patient-years. No cases of hypersensitivity reactions, such as drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), Steven-Johnson syndrome, or toxic epidermal necrolysis, were reported. During follow-up, a fracture occurred in 890 patients (7 %); 429 of the fractures were nonvertebral fractures. Our observational survey over 32 months indicated good rates of adherence with strontium ranelate and confirmed its good safety profile in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Efficacy and safety of strontium ranelate in the treatment of osteoporosis in men

CONTEXT

Strontium ranelate reduces vertebral and nonvertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of strontium ranelate in osteoporosis in men over 2 years (main analysis after 1 year).

DESIGN

This was an international, unbalanced (2:1), double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial (MALEO [MALE Osteoporosis]).

SETTING

This international study included 54 centers in 14 countries.

PARTICIPANTS

PARTICIPANTS were 261 white men with primary osteoporosis.

INTERVENTION

Strontium ranelate at 2 g/d (n = 174) or placebo (n = 87) was administered.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Lumbar spine (L2-L4), femoral neck, and total hip bone mineral density (BMD), biochemical bone markers, and safety were measured.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups in the whole population (age, 72.9 ± 6.0 years; lumbar spine BMD T-score, -2.7 ± 1.0; femoral neck BMD T-score, -2.3 ± 0.7). Men who received strontium ranelate over 2 years had greater increases in lumbar spine BMD than those who received placebo (relative change from baseline to end, 9.7% ± 7.5% vs 2.0% ± 5.5%; between-group difference estimate (SE), 7.7% (0.9%); 95% confidence interval, 5.9%-9.5%; P < .001). There were also significant between-group differences in relative changes in femoral neck BMD (P < .001) and total hip BMD (P < .001). At the end of treatment, mean levels of serum cross-linked telopeptides of type I collagen, a marker of bone resorption, were increased in both the strontium ranelate group (10.7% ± 58.0%; P = .022) and the placebo group (34.9% ± 65.8%; P < .001). The corresponding mean changes of bone alkaline phosphatase, a marker of bone formation, were 6.4% ± 28.5% (P = .005) and 1.9% ± 25.4% (P = .505), respectively. After 2 years, the blood strontium level (129 ± 66 μmol/L) was similar to that in trials of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Strontium ranelate was generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

The effects of strontium ranelate on BMD in osteoporotic men were similar to those in postmenopausal osteoporotic women, supporting its use in the treatment of osteoporosis in men.

Severity of menopausal symptoms and cardiovascular and osteoporosis risk factors

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether the severity of menopausal symptoms is related to increased cardiovascular and osteoporosis risk factors, and to determine whether women with more severe menopausal symptoms present a greater percentage of osteoporosis disease.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional, descriptive study encompassing women aged 45-65 years in the whole Spanish territory. The study population sample was collected through random sampling. A total of 10 514 women were included. Their sociodemographic, medical history and lifestyle data were assessed by means of a survey. The Kupperman Index was used to assess the severity of menopausal symptoms. Bone mineral density was measured by the dual X-ray absorptiometry method.

RESULTS

The prevalences of risk factors for osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease were 67.6% and 74.8%, respectively. Women with a higher intensity of symptoms also had a greater percentage of cardiovascular (p < 0.001) and osteoporosis (p < 0.001) risk factors and suffered more from osteoporosis disease (p < 0.001). In the logistic regression analysis, those variables that contributed to the severity of menopausal symptoms were: arterial hypertension (odds ratio (OR) 2.14; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49-2.79; p < 0.001), dyslipidemia (OR 1.94; 95% CI 1.48-2.4; p < 0.001), obesity (OR 2.23; 95% CI 1.55-2.91; p < 0.001), family history (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.17-1.59; p < 0.01), medication use (OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.52-1.72; p < 0.01) and osteoporosis disease (OR 3.71; 95% CI 2.9-4.52; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Women with more severe menopausal symptoms had a greater prevalence of cardiovascular and osteoporosis disease risk factors and suffered more from osteoporosis disease compared to those who had milder or no menopausal symptoms.

Arzoxifene versus raloxifene: effect on bone and safety parameters in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis

Arzoxifene increased bone mineral density and decreased bone turnover to a significantly greater extent than raloxifene. The hot flush incidence was lower with arzoxifene than raloxifene.

INTRODUCTION

To assess the effect of arzoxifene versus raloxifene on change in lumbar spine (LS) bone mineral density (BMD) in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

METHODS

In this 12-month study (NEXT trial), participants were randomly assigned to arzoxifene 20 mg/day (N = 158) or raloxifene 60 mg/day (N = 162). All received daily calcium and vitamin D. Change in LS BMD was assessed by DXA. Secondary objectives included assessment of femoral neck (FN) and total hip BMD, serum bone turnover markers, and safety.

RESULTS

Treatment groups were similar at baseline (mean age 63 years, mean LS BMD T-score -2.9). At 12 months, the increase in LS BMD with arzoxifene was greater than with raloxifene (+2.75% vs. +1.66%), as was FN and total hip BMD (P < 0.05). For LS and FN, this effect was also evident at 6 months. Arzoxifene reduced bone turnover to a greater extent than raloxifene at 3, 6, and 12 months (P < 0.05). The proportion of women reporting ≥ 1 adverse event did not differ between treatment groups, nor did vaginal bleeding. No cases of endometrial polyps, hyperplasia, or cancer were reported. Nasopharyngitis and bronchitis were reported more frequently with arzoxifene versus raloxifene (10.1% vs. 2.5%, and 5.1% vs. 0%, respectively) and new/worsening hot flushes were reported less frequently with arzoxifene (7.0% vs. 16.7%) (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Arzoxifene increased BMD and suppressed bone turnover to a greater extent than raloxifene and resulted in a lower incidence of new/worsening hot flushes. Based on subsequent findings from a fracture outcome study, this difference did not translate into improved fracture efficacy.