Pentoxifylline for endometriosis

Measuring What Matters-A Holistic Approach to Measuring Well-Being in Endometriosis

Endometriosis is a common condition which affects women in a number of ways and impairs their ability to live a full and meaningful life. Evaluative research has traditionally taken its cue from a medical approach which has forced women to choose one area of functioning as their primary concern, and tended to use a narrow definition of treatment success which ignores general well-being. While recent trials have included quality of life (QOL) measures as outcomes, these have not been able to capture the totality of the impact of the disease and its treatment on a woman's capability to do what she might want to do and be who she might want to be. A capability approach might overcome this barrier, but the available tools will need to be refined and validated in women with endometriosis before this can be integrated within everyday clinical and research practice.

Pentoxifylline for the treatment of endometriosis-associated pain and infertility

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is a chronic inflammatory condition that occurs during the reproductive years. It is characterised by endometrium-like tissue developing outside the uterine cavity. This endometriotic tissue development is dependent on oestrogen produced primarily by the ovaries and partially by the endometriotic tissue itself, therefore traditional management has focused on ovarian suppression. In this review we considered the role of modulation of the immune system as an alternative approach. This is an update of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of pentoxifylline in the management of endometriosis.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and AMED on 16 December 2020, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pentoxifylline with placebo or no treatment, other medical treatment, or surgery in women with endometriosis. The primary outcomes were live birth rate and overall pain (as measured by a visual analogue scale (VAS) of pain, other validated scales, or dichotomous outcomes) per woman randomised. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, rate of recurrence, and adverse events resulting from the pentoxifylline intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies against the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias, consulting a third review author where required. We contacted study authors as needed. We analysed dichotomous outcomes using Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (RRs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and a fixed-effect model. For small numbers of events, we used a Peto odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI instead. We analysed continuous outcomes using the mean difference (MD) between groups presented with 95% CIs. We used the I2 statistic to evaluate heterogeneity amongst studies. We employed the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five parallel-design RCTs involving a total of 415 women. We included one additional RCT in this update. Three studies did not specify details relating to allocation concealment, and two studies were not blinded. There were also considerable loss to follow-up, with four studies not conducting intention-to-treat analysis. We judged the quality of the evidence as very low. Pentoxifylline versus placebo No trials reported on our primary outcomes of live birth rate and overall pain. We are uncertain as to whether pentoxifylline treatment affects clinical pregnancy rate when compared to placebo (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.10; 3 RCTs, n = 285; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the clinical pregnancy rate with placebo is estimated to be 20%, then the rate with pentoxifylline is estimated as between 18% and 43%. We are also uncertain as to whether pentoxifylline affects the recurrence rate of endometriosis (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.36; 1 RCT, n = 121; very low-quality evidence) or miscarriage rate (Peto OR 1.99, 95% CI 0.20 to 19.37; 2 RCTs, n = 164; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). No trials reported on the effect of pentoxifylline on improvement of endometriosis-related symptoms other than pain or adverse events. Pentoxifylline versus no treatment No trials reported on live birth rate. We are uncertain as to whether pentoxifylline treatment affects overall pain when compared to no treatment at one month (MD -0.36, 95% CI -2.12 to 1.40; 1 RCT, n = 34; very low-quality evidence), two months (MD -1.25, 95% CI  -2.67 to 0.17; 1 RCT, n = 34; very low-quality evidence), or three months (MD -1.60, 95% CI -3.32 to 0.12; 1 RCT, n = 34; very low-quality evidence). No trials reported on adverse events caused by pentoxifylline or any of our other secondary outcomes. Pentoxifylline versus other medical therapies One study (n = 83) compared pentoxifylline to the combined oral contraceptive pill after laparoscopic surgery to treat endometriosis, but could not be included in the meta-analysis as it was unclear if the data were presented as +/- standard deviation and what the duration of treatment was. No trials reported on adverse events caused by pentoxifylline or any of our other secondary outcomes. Pentoxifylline versus conservative surgical treatment  No study reported on this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No studies reported on our primary outcome of live birth rate. Due to the very limited evidence, we are uncertain of the effects of pentoxifylline on clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, or overall pain. There is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of pentoxifylline in the management of women with endometriosis with respect to subfertility and pain relief outcomes.

Nonhormonal Treatment for Endometriosis Focusing on Redox Imbalance

The aim of this review is to investigate the oxidant/antioxidant status and its regulatory mechanisms in patients with endometriosis and to summarize the antioxidant therapy as an alternative to hormonal therapy for endometriosis. Each keyword alone or in combination was used to search from PubMed and Embase by applying the filters of the title and the publication years between January 2000 and March 2020. Endometriosis is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by repeated episodes of hemorrhage. Methemoglobin in repeated hemorrhage produces large amounts of superoxide anion via the autoxidation of hemoglobin. Excessive free-radical production causes redox imbalance, leading to inadequate antioxidant defenses and damage to endometrial cells, but may contribute to endometrial cell growth and survival through activation of various signaling pathways. In addition, to overcome excessive oxidative stress, estradiol participates in the induction of antioxidants such as superoxide dismutase in mitochondria. Several antioxidants that suppress free radicals may be effective in endometriosis-related pain. We searched for 23 compounds and natural substances that could reduce the pain caused by superoxide/reactive oxygen species in basic research and animal models. Next, we built a list of 16 drugs that were suggested to be effective against endometriosis other than hormone therapy in preclinical studies and clinical trials. Of the 23 and 16 drugs, 4 overlapping drugs could be potential candidates for clinically reducing endometriosis-related pain caused by superoxide anion/reactive oxygen species. These drugs include polyphenols (resveratrol and polydatin), dopamine agonists (cabergoline), and statins (simvastatin). However, no randomized controlled trials have evaluated the efficacy of these drugs. In conclusion, this review summarizes the following 2 points: superoxide anion generation by methemoglobin is enhanced in endometriosis, resulting in redox imbalance; and some compounds and natural substances that can suppress free radicals may be effective in endometriosis-related pain. Further randomized clinical trials based on larger series are mandatory to confirm the promising role of antioxidants in the nonhormonal management of endometriosis.

Endometriosis with infertility: A comprehensive review on the role of immune deregulation and immunomodulation therapy

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is a multifactorial pathology dependent on intrinsic and extrinsic factors, but the immune deregulation seems to play a pivotal role. In endometriosis-associated infertility, this could raise the benefit of immunomodulatory strategies to improve the results of ART. In this review, we will describe (1) sera and peritoneal fluid cytokines and immune markers; (2) autoantibodies; and (3) immunomodulatory treatments in endometriosis with infertility.

METHODS

The literature research was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library with the following keywords: "endometriosis", "unexplained miscarriage", "implantation failure", "recurrent implantation failure » and « IVF-ICSI », « biomarkers of autoimmunity", "TNF-α", "TNF-α antagonists", "infliximab", "adalimumab", "etanercept", "immunomodulatory treatment", "steroids", "intralipids", "intravenous immunoglobulins", "G-CSF", "pentoxyfylline".

RESULTS

Several studies analyzed the levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines in sera and peritoneal fluid of endometriosis-associated infertility, in particular TNF-α. Various autoantibodies have been found in peritoneal fluid and sera of infertile endometriosis women even in the absence of clinically defined autoimmune disease, as antinuclear, anti-SSA, and antiphospholipid autoantibodies. In few uncontrolled studies, steroids and TNF-α antagonists could increase the pregnancy rates in endometriosis-associated infertility, but well-designed trials are lacking.

CONCLUSION

Endometriosis is characterized by increased levels of cytokines and autoantibodies. This suggests the role of inflammation and immune cell deregulation in infertility associated with endometriosis. The strategies of immunomodulation to regulate these immune deregulations are poorly studied, and well-designed studies are necessary.

Laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is associated with pain and infertility. Surgical interventions aim to remove visible areas of endometriosis and restore the anatomy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of pain and infertility associated with endometriosis.

SEARCH METHODS

This review has drawn on the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group including searching the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, reference lists for relevant trials, and trial registries from inception to April 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic surgery with any other laparoscopic or robotic intervention, holistic or medical treatment, or diagnostic laparoscopy only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed selection of studies, assessment of trial quality and extraction of relevant data with disagreements resolved by a third review author. We collected data for the core outcome set for endometriosis. Primary outcomes included overall pain and live birth. We evaluated the quality of evidence using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 RCTs. The studies randomised 1563 women with endometriosis. Four RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with diagnostic laparoscopy only. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic excision with diagnostic laparoscopy only. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with laparoscopic ablation or excision and uterine suspension. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection with diagnostic laparoscopy only. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation with diagnostic laparoscopy and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation with laparoscopic excision. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with helium thermal coagulator with laparoscopic ablation or excision with electrodiathermy. One RCT compared conservative laparoscopic surgery with laparoscopic colorectal resection of deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectum. Common limitations in the primary studies included lack of clearly described blinding, failure to fully describe methods of randomisation and allocation concealment, and poor reporting of outcome data. Laparoscopic treatment versus diagnostic laparoscopy We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment on overall pain scores compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only at six months (mean difference (MD) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 1.49; 1 RCT, 16 participants; very low quality evidence) and at 12 months (MD 1.65, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.19; 1 RCT, 16 participants; very low quality evidence), where a positive value means pain relief (the higher the score, the more pain relief) and a negative value reflects pain increase (the lower the score, the worse the increase in pain). No studies looked at live birth. We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment on quality of life compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only: EuroQol-5D index summary at six months (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.18; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence), 12-item Short Form (SF-12) mental health component (MD 2.30, 95% CI -4.50 to 9.10; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence) and SF-12 physical health component (MD 2.70, 95% CI -2.90 to 8.30; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence). Laparoscopic treatment probably improves viable intrauterine pregnancy rate compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only (odds ratio (OR) 1.89, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.86; 3 RCTs, 528 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only on ectopic pregnancy (MD 1.18, 95% CI 0.10 to 13.48; 1 RCT, 100 participants; low quality evidence) and miscarriage (MD 0.94, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.54; 2 RCTs, 112 participants; low quality evidence). There was limited reporting of adverse events. No conversions to laparotomy were reported in both groups (1 RCT, 341 participants). Laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection versus diagnostic laparoscopy We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection on adverse events (more specifically vascular injury) compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.32; 1 RCT, 141 participants; low quality evidence). No studies looked at overall pain scores (at six and 12 months), live birth, quality of life, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage. Laparoscopic ablation versus laparoscopic excision There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in overall pain, measured at 12 months, for laparoscopic ablation compared with laparoscopic excision (MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.22 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 103 participants; very low quality evidence). No studies looked at overall pain scores at six months, live birth, quality of life, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage and adverse events. Helium thermal coagulator versus electrodiathermy We are uncertain whether helium thermal coagulator compared to electrodiathermy improves quality of life using the 30-item Endometriosis Health Profile (EHP-30) at nine months, when considering the components: pain (MD 6.68, 95% CI -3.07 to 16.43; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence), control and powerlessness (MD 4.79, 95% CI -6.92 to 16.50; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence), emotional well-being (MD 6.17, 95% CI -3.95 to 16.29; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence) and social support (MD 5.62, 95% CI -6.21 to 17.45; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence). Adverse events were not estimable. No studies looked at overall pain scores (at six and 12 months), live birth, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis. No data were reported on live birth. There is moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic surgery increases viable intrauterine pregnancy rates confirmed by ultrasound compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only. No studies were found that looked at live birth for any of the comparisons. Further research is needed considering the management of different subtypes of endometriosis and comparing laparoscopic interventions with lifestyle and medical interventions. There was insufficient evidence on adverse events to allow any conclusions to be drawn regarding safety.

Antioxidants for female subfertility

BACKGROUND

A couple may be considered to have fertility problems if they have been trying to conceive for over a year with no success. This may affect up to a quarter of all couples planning a child. It is estimated that for 40% to 50% of couples, subfertility may result from factors affecting women. Antioxidants are thought to reduce the oxidative stress brought on by these conditions. Currently, limited evidence suggests that antioxidants improve fertility, and trials have explored this area with varied results. This review assesses the evidence for the effectiveness of different antioxidants in female subfertility.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether supplementary oral antioxidants compared with placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant improve fertility outcomes for subfertile women.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases (from their inception to September 2019), with no language or date restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED. We checked reference lists of relevant studies and searched the trial registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment or treatment with another antioxidant, among women attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded trials comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and trials that only included fertile women attending a fertility clinic because of male partner infertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 63 trials involving 7760 women. Investigators compared oral antioxidants, including: combinations of antioxidants, N-acetylcysteine, melatonin, L-arginine, myo-inositol, carnitine, selenium, vitamin E, vitamin B complex, vitamin C, vitamin D+calcium, CoQ10, and omega-3-polyunsaturated fatty acids versus placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant. Only 27 of the 63 included trials reported funding sources. Due to the very low-quality of the evidence we are uncertain whether antioxidants improve live birth rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (odds ratio (OR) 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 2.43; P < 0.001, I2 = 29%; 13 RCTs, 1227 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live birth rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 24% and 36%. Low-quality evidence suggests that antioxidants may improve clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.89; P < 0.001, I2 = 63%; 35 RCTs, 5165 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 25% and 30%. Heterogeneity was moderately high. Overall 28 trials reported on various adverse events in the meta-analysis. The evidence suggests that the use of antioxidants makes no difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.55; P = 0.46, I2 = 0%; 24 RCTs, 3229 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of multiple pregnancy (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.56; P = 0.99, I2 = 0%; 9 RCTs, 1886 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of gastrointestinal disturbances (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.10; P = 0.47, I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, 343 women; low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence showed that there was also no difference between the groups in rates of ectopic pregnancy (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.27 to 7.20; P = 0.69, I2 = 0%; 4 RCTs, 404 women). In the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison, low-quality evidence shows no difference in a lower dose of melatonin being associated with an increased live-birth rate compared with higher-dose melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live-birth rate of 24%, the rate among women using a lower dose of melatonin compared to a higher dose would be between 12% and 40%. Similarly with clinical pregnancy, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates between a lower and a higher dose of melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). Three trials reported on miscarriage in the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison (two used doses of melatonin and one compared N-acetylcysteine versus L-carnitine). There were no miscarriages in either melatonin trial. Multiple pregnancy and gastrointestinal disturbances were not reported, and ectopic pregnancy was reported by only one trial, with no events. The study comparing N-acetylcysteine with L-carnitine did not report live birth rate. Very low-quality evidence shows no evidence of a difference in clinical pregnancy (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.00; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). Low quality evidence shows no difference in miscarriage (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.67; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). The study did not report multiple pregnancy, gastrointestinal disturbances or ectopic pregnancy. The overall quality of evidence was limited by serious risk of bias associated with poor reporting of methods, imprecision and inconsistency.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this review, there was low- to very low-quality evidence to show that taking an antioxidant may benefit subfertile women. Overall, there is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, multiple births, gastrointestinal effects or ectopic pregnancies, but evidence was of very low quality. At this time, there is limited evidence in support of supplemental oral antioxidants for subfertile women.

Chronic Niche Inflammation in Endometriosis-Associated Infertility: Current Understanding and Future Therapeutic Strategies

Endometriosis is an estrogen-dependent inflammatory disease that affects up to 10% of women of reproductive age and accounts for up to 50% of female infertility cases. It has been highly associated with poorer outcomes of assisted reproductive technology (ART), including decreased oocyte retrieval, lower implantation, and pregnancy rates. A better understanding of the pathogenesis of endometriosis-associated infertility is crucial for improving infertility treatment outcomes. Current theories regarding how endometriosis reduces fertility include anatomical distortion, ovulatory dysfunction, and niche inflammation-associated peritoneal or implantation defects. This review will survey the latest evidence on the role of inflammatory niche in the peritoneal cavity, ovaries, and uterus of endometriosis patients. Nonhormone treatment strategies that target these inflammation processes are also included. Furthermore, mesenchymal stem cell-based therapies are highlighted for potential endometriosis treatment because of their immunomodulatory effects and tropism toward inflamed lesion foci. Potential applications of stem cell therapy in treatment of endometriosis-associated infertility in particular for safety and efficacy are discussed.

Medical Management of Endometriosis

Endometriosis is a chronic medical condition that affects around 6% to 10% of reproductive age women. Pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, and infertility are the most common presenting symptoms. The disease is characterized by estrogen-dependent growth of the endometrial glands and stroma outside the endometrial cavity. The diagnosis requires a high degree of suspicion and can be only confirmed on histopathology. Treatment includes medical and surgical options. Both hormonal and nonhormonal medical options are available and are tried at first with a goal to control pain and stop the growth of the endometriotic lesions. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, oral contraceptive pills, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, aromatase inhibitors are some of the commonly used medications. With more research on the molecular and biochemical aspects of endometriosis, newer targets of therapy are being developed like selective progesterone receptor modulators, antiangiogenic factors and immunomodulators. In women who do not respond to medical therapy or have severe symptoms, surgical excision of the endometrial lesions and adhesions is often helpful and offers confirmatory diagnosis by histopathology.

Antioxidants for female subfertility

BACKGROUND

A couple may be considered to have fertility problems if they have been trying to conceive for over a year with no success. This may affect up to a quarter of all couples planning a child. It is estimated that for 40% to 50% of couples, subfertility may result from factors affecting women. Antioxidants are thought to reduce the oxidative stress brought on by these conditions. Currently, limited evidence suggests that antioxidants improve fertility, and trials have explored this area with varied results. This review assesses the evidence for the effectiveness of different antioxidants in female subfertility.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether supplementary oral antioxidants compared with placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant improve fertility outcomes for subfertile women.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases (from their inception to September 2016) with no language or date restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) specialised register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies (CENTRAL CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED. We checked reference lists of appropriate studies and searched for ongoing trials in the clinical trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment or treatment with another antioxidant, among women attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded trials comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and trials that only included fertile women attending a fertility clinic because of male partner infertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. The primary review outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates and adverse events. We pooled studies using a fixed-effect model, and calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the dichotomous outcomes of live birth, clinical pregnancy and adverse events. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence by applying GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 50 trials involving 6510 women. Investigators compared oral antioxidants, including combinations of antioxidants, N-acetyl-cysteine, melatonin, L-arginine, myo-inositol, D-chiro-inositol, carnitine, selenium, vitamin E, vitamin B complex, vitamin C, vitamin D+calcium, CoQ10, pentoxifylline and omega-3-polyunsaturated fatty acids versus placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant.Very low-quality evidence suggests that antioxidants may be associated with an increased live birth rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.45 to 3.12, P > 0.001, 8 RCTs, 651 women, I2 = 47%). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live birth rate of 20%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 26% and 43%.Very low-quality evidence suggests that antioxidants may be associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.76, P < 0.001, 26 RCTs, 4271 women, I2 = 66%). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 22%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 27% and 33%. Heterogeneity was moderately high.There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.08, P = 0.14, 18 RCTs, 2834 women, I2 = 23%, very low quality evidence). This suggests that, among subfertile women with an expected miscarriage rate of 7%, use of antioxidants would be expected to result in a miscarriage rate of between 4% and 7%. There was also insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in rates of multiple pregnancy (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.38, P = 0.98, 8 RCTs, 2163 women, I2 = 4%, very low quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected multiple pregnancy rate of 8%, use of antioxidants would be expected to result in a multiple pregnancy rate between 6% and 11%. Likewise, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in rates of gastrointestinal disturbances (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.10, P = 0.47, 3 RCTs, 343 women, I2 = 0%, very low quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected gastrointestinal disturbance rate of 2%, use of antioxidants would be expected to result in a rate between 1% and 11%. Overall adverse events were reported by 35 trials in the meta-analysis, but there was insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions.Only one trial reported on live birth, clinical pregnancy or adverse effects in the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison, and no conclusions could be drawn.Very low-quality evidence suggests that pentoxifylline may be associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.56, P = 0.009, 3 RCTs, 276 women, I2 = 0%). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 25%, the rate among women using pentoxifylline would be between 28% and 53%.There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.46 to 3.90, P = 0.58, 3 RCTs, 276 women, I2 = 0%) or multiple pregnancy (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.09, one RCT, 112 women, very low quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected miscarriage rate of 4%, the rate among women using pentoxifylline would be between 2% and 15%. For multiple pregnancy, the data suggest that among subfertile women with an expected multiple pregnancy rate of 9%, the rate among women using pentoxifylline would be between 2% and 23%.The overall quality of evidence was limited by serious risk of bias associated with poor reporting of methods, imprecision and inconsistency.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this review, there was very low-quality evidence to show that taking an antioxidant may provide benefit for subfertile women, but insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions about adverse events. At this time, there is limited evidence in support of supplemental oral antioxidants for subfertile women.

Study of pentoxifylline effects on motility and viability of spermatozoa from infertile asthenozoospermic males

BACKGROUND

The quality of semen is one of the major parameters in male infertility. Pentoxifylline, a methylxanthine derivative, is an agent primarily used in the treatment of intermittent claudication and other vascular disorders. Studies have shown that pentoxifylline enhances the quality and quantity of sperms. In this study, we have investigated the in vitro effects of pentoxifylline on viability and motility of spermatozoa in samples of infertile oligoasthenozoospermic males.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this observer-blinded clinical trial, semen samples of 25 infertile oligoasthenozoospermic males were collected in Alzahra Educational Medical Center of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences from August 2010 to August 2012. After the isolation of spermatozoa by the swim-up method, they were randomized into four groups in ISM1 environment: The controls treated normally: Group 1 treated by pentoxifylline at a dose of 50 μg/ml, Group 2 treated by pentoxifylline at a dose of 100 μg/ml, and Group 3 treated by pentoxifylline at a dose of 200 μg/ml. Sperm viability and motility were compared among the groups on 45 min, 24 h, 36 h, and 48 h intervals.

RESULTS

Mean percentages of live sperms were 98.40%, 51.40%, 20.60%, and 6.00% in control group and 98.40%, 69.20%, 38.60%, and 14.60% in Group 3 on the mentioned intervals, respectively. This mean percentage decrease of live sperms was significantly lower in Group 3 comparing with that of other groups (P = 0.01). Mean percentages of motile sperms were 54%, 8.40%, 2.80%, and 0% in control group; and 54%, 16%, 4.80%, and 1.40% in Group 3 on the mentioned intervals, respectively. There was not a significant difference between the four groups in this regard (P = 0.19).

CONCLUSION

Pentoxifylline can enhance the viability of sperm of infertile oligoasthenozoospermic males with no significant effect on its motility.

Endometriosis: alternative methods of medical treatment

Endometriosis is an inflammatory estrogen-dependent disease defined by the presence of endometrial glands and stroma at extrauterine sites. The main purpose of endometriosis management is alleviating pain associated to the disease. This can be achieved surgically or medically, although in most women a combination of both treatments is required. Long-term medical treatment is usually needed in most women. Unfortunately, in most cases, pain symptoms recur between 6 months and 12 months once treatment is stopped. The authors conducted a literature search for English original articles, related to new medical treatments of endometriosis in humans, including articles published in PubMed, Medline, and the Cochrane Library. Keywords included "endometriosis" matched with "medical treatment", "new treatment", "GnRH antagonists", "Aromatase inhibitors", "selective progesterone receptor modulators", "anti-TNF α", and "anti-angiogenic factors". Hormonal treatments currently available are effective in the relief of pain associated to endometriosis. Among new hormonal drugs, association to aromatase inhibitors could be effective in the treatment of women who do not respond to conventional therapies. GnRH antagonists are expected to be as effective as GnRH agonists, but with easier administration (oral). There is a need to find effective treatments that do not block the ovarian function. For this purpose, antiangiogenic factors could be important components of endometriosis therapy in the future. Upcoming researches and controlled clinical trials should focus on these drugs.

Medical treatments for endometriosis-associated pelvic pain

The main sequelae of endometriosis are represented by infertility and chronic pelvic pain. Chronic pelvic pain causes disability and distress with a very high economic impact. In the last decades, an impressive amount of pharmacological agents have been tested for the treatment of endometriosis-associated pelvic pain. However, only a few of these have been introduced into clinical practice. Following the results of the controlled studies available, to date, the first-line treatment for endometriosis associated pain is still represented by oral contraceptives used continuously. Progestins represent an acceptable alternative. In women with rectovaginal lesions or colorectal endometriosis, norethisterone acetate at low dosage should be preferred. GnRH analogues may be used as second-line treatment, but significant side effects should be taken into account. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are widely used, but there is inconclusive evidence for their efficacy in relieving endometriosis-associated pelvic pain. Other agents such as GnRH antagonist, aromatase inhibitors, immunomodulators, selective progesterone receptor modulators, and histone deacetylase inhibitors seem to be very promising, but there is not enough evidence to support their introduction into routine clinical practice. Some other agents, such as peroxisome proliferator activated receptors-γ ligands, antiangiogenic agents, and melatonin have been proven to be efficacious in animal studies, but they have not yet been tested in clinical studies.

Endometriosis: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

This overview reports on interventions for pain relief and for subfertility in pre-menopausal women with clinically diagnosed endometriosis.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this overview was to summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on treatment options for women with pain or subfertility associated with endometriosis.

METHODS

Published Cochrane systematic reviews reporting pain or fertility outcomes in women with clinically diagnosed endometriosis were eligible for inclusion in the overview. We also identified Cochrane reviews in preparation (protocols and titles) for future inclusion. The reviews, protocols and titles were identified by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Archie (the Cochrane information management system) in March 2014.Pain-related outcomes of the overview were pain relief, clinical improvement or resolution and pain recurrence. Fertility-related outcomes were live birth, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage and adverse events.Selection of systematic reviews, data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken in duplicate. Review quality was assessed using the AMSTAR tool. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was assessed using GRADE methods. Review findings were summarised in the text and the data for each outcome were reported in 'Additional tables'.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen systematic reviews published in The Cochrane Library were included. All the reviews were high quality. The quality of the evidence for specific comparisons ranged from very low to moderate. Limitations in the evidence included risk of bias in the primary studies, inconsistency between the studies, and imprecision in effect estimates. Pain relief (14 reviews) Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues One systematic review reported low quality evidence of an overall benefit for GnRH analogues compared with placebo or no treatment. Ovulation suppression Five systematic reviews reported on medical treatment using ovulation suppression. There was moderate quality evidence that the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUD) was more effective than expectant management, and very low quality evidence that danazol was more effective than placebo. There was no consistent evidence of a difference in effectiveness between oral contraceptives and goserelin, estrogen plus progestogen and placebo, or progestogens and placebo, though in all cases the relevant evidence was of low or very low quality. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS)A review of NSAIDs reported inconclusive evidence of a benefit in symptom relief compared with placebo. Surgical interventions There were two reviews of surgical interventions. One reported moderate quality evidence of a benefit in pain relief following laparoscopic surgery compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only. The other reported very low quality evidence that recurrence rates of endometriomata were lower after excisional surgery than after ablative surgery. Post-surgical medical interventions Two reviews reported on post-surgical medical interventions. Neither found evidence of an effect on pain outcomes, though in both cases the evidence was of low or very low quality. Alternative medicine There were two systematic reviews of alternative medicine. One reported evidence of a benefit from auricular acupuncture compared to Chinese herbal medicine, and the other reported no evidence of a difference between Chinese herbal medicine and danazol. In both cases the evidence was of low or very low quality. Anti-TNF-α drugs One review found no evidence of a difference in effectiveness between anti-TNF-α drugs and placebo. However, the evidence was of low quality. Reviews reporting fertility outcomes (8 reviews) Medical interventions Four reviews reported on medical interventions for improving fertility in women with endometriosis. One compared three months of GnRH agonists with a control in women undergoing assisted reproduction and found very low quality evidence of an increase in clinical pregnancies in the treatment group. There was no evidence of a difference in effectiveness between the interventions in the other three reviews, which compared GnRH agonists versus antagonists, ovulation suppression versus placebo or no treatment, and pre-surgical medical therapy versus surgery alone. In all cases the evidence was of low or very low quality. Surgical interventions Three reviews reported on surgical interventions. There was moderate quality evidence that both live births or ongoing pregnancy rates and clinical pregnancy rates were higher after laparoscopic surgery than after diagnostic laparoscopy alone. There was low quality evidence of no difference in effectiveness between surgery and expectant management for endometrioma. One review found low quality evidence that excisional surgery resulted in higher clinical pregnancy rates than drainage or ablation of endometriomata. Post-surgical interventions Two reviews reported on post-surgical medical interventions. They found no evidence of an effect on clinical pregnancy rates. The evidence was of low or very low quality. Alternative medicine A review of Chinese herbal medicine in comparison with gestrinone found no evidence of a difference between the groups in clinical pregnancy rates. However, the evidence was of low quality. Adverse events Reviews of GnRH analogues and of danazol reported that the interventions were associated with higher rates of adverse effects than placebo; and depot progestagens were associated with higher rates of adverse events than other treatments. Chinese herbal medicine was associated with fewer side effects than gestrinone or danazol.Three reviews reported miscarriage as an outcome. No difference was found between surgical and diagnostic laparoscopy, between GnRH agonists and antagonists, or between aspiration of endometrioma and expectant management. However, in all cases the quality of the evidence was of low quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For women with pain and endometriosis, suppression of menstrual cycles with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues, the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUD) and danazol were beneficial interventions. Laparoscopic treatment of endometriosis and excision of endometriomata were also associated with improvements in pain. The evidence on NSAIDs was inconclusive. There was no evidence of benefit with post-surgical medical treatment.In women with endometriosis undergoing assisted reproduction, three months of treatment with GnRH agonist improved pregnancy rates. Excisional surgery improved spontaneous pregnancy rates in the nine to 12 months after surgery compared to ablative surgery. Laparoscopic surgery improved live birth and pregnancy rates compared to diagnostic laparoscopy alone. There was no evidence that medical treatment improved clinical pregnancy rates.Evidence on harms was scanty, but GnRH analogues, danazol and depot progestagens were associated with higher rates than other interventions.

Antioxidants for female subfertility

BACKGROUND

A couple may be considered to have fertility problems if they have been trying to conceive for over a year with no success. This difficulty with conception may affect up to a quarter of all couples planning a child. The reported prevalence of subfertility has increased significantly over the past twenty years. It is estimated that for 40% to 50% of couples, subfertility may be a result of female problems, including ovulatory disorders, poor egg quality, fallopian tube damage and endometriosis. Antioxidants are thought to reduce the oxidative stress brought on by these conditions. Currently, limited evidence suggests that antioxidants improve fertility, and trials have explored this area with varied results. This review assessed the evidence for the effectiveness of different antioxidants in female subfertility.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether supplementary oral antioxidants compared with placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant improve fertility outcomes for subfertile women.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases (from inception to April 2013) with no language restrictions applied: Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS and OpenSIGLE. We also searched conference abstracts and citation lists in the ISI Web of Knowledge. Ongoing trials were searched in the Trials Registers. Reference lists were checked, and a search on Google was performed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment or treatment with another antioxidant, among women attending a reproductive clinic. Trials comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and trials that exclusively included fertile women attending a fertility clinic because of male partner infertility were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently screened 2127 titles and abstracts, and 67 of these potentially eligible trials were appraised for inclusion and quality through review of full texts and contact with authors. Three review authors were involved in data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. Review authors also collected data on adverse events as reported from the trials. Studies were pooled using fixed-effect models; however, if high heterogeneity was found, a random-effects model was used. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the dichotomous outcomes of live birth, clinical pregnancy and adverse events. Analyses were stratified by type of antioxidant, by indications for subfertility and by those women also undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection techniques (ICSIs). The overall quality of the evidence was assessed by applying GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 28 trials involving 3548 women were included in this review. Investigators compared oral antioxidants, including combinations of antioxidants, pentoxifylline, N-acetyl-cysteine, melatonin, L-arginine, vitamin E, myo-inositol, vitamin C, vitamin D+calcium and omega-3-polyunsaturated fatty acids with placebo, with no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant.Antioxidants were not associated with an increased live birth rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.19 to 8.26, P = 0.82, 2 RCTs, 97 women, I(2) = 75%, very low-quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live birth rate of 37%, the rate among women taking antioxidants would be between 10% and 83%.Antioxidants were not associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.85, P = 0.14, 13 RCTs, 2441 women, I(2)= 55%, very low-quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 23%, the rate among women taking antioxidants would be between 22% and 36%.Only one trial reported on live birth in the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison, and two trials reported on clinical pregnancy in this comparison. Only subtotals were used in this analysis, and meta-analysis was not possible as each trial used a different antioxidant.Pentoxifylline was associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.44, P = 0.009, 3 RCTs, 276 women, I(2) = 0%).Adverse events were reported by 14 trials in the meta-analysis and included miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy and gastrointestinal effects. No evidence revealed a difference in adverse effects between antioxidant groups and control groups, but these data were limited.The overall quality of evidence was 'very low' to 'low' because of poor reporting of outcomes, the number of small studies included, high risk of bias within studies and heterogeneity in the primary analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the evidence in the 'antioxidant versus placebo/no treatment' and in the 'antioxidant versus antioxidant' comparisons was assessed to be 'very low'. Antioxidants were not associated with an increased live birth rate or clinical pregnancy rate. There was some evidence of an association of pentoxifylline with an increased clinical pregnancy rate; however, there were only three trials included in this comparison. Future trials may change this result. Variation in the types of antioxidants given meant that we could not assess whether one antioxidant was better than another. There did not appear to be any association of antioxidants with adverse effects for women, but data for these outcomes were limited.

Defining future directions for endometriosis research: workshop report from the 2011 World Congress of Endometriosis In Montpellier, France

Endometriosis, defined as estrogen-dependent lesions containing endometrial glands and stroma outside the uterus, is a chronic and often painful gynecological condition that affects 6% to 10% of reproductive age women. Endometriosis has estimated annual costs of US $12 419 per woman (approximately €9579), comprising one-third of the direct health care costs with two-thirds attributed to loss of productivity. Decreased quality of life is the most important predictor of direct health care and total costs. It has been estimated that there is a mean delay of 6.7 years between onset of symptoms and a surgical diagnosis of endometriosis, and each affected woman loses on average 10.8 hours of work weekly, mainly owing to reduced effectiveness while working. To encourage and facilitate research into this debilitating disease, a consensus workshop to define future directions for endometriosis research was held as part of the 11th World Congress on Endometriosis in September 2011 in Montpellier, France. The objective of this workshop was to review and update the endometriosis research priorities consensus statement developed following the 10th World Congress on Endometriosis in 2008.(1) A total of 56 recommendations for research have been developed, grouped under 6 subheadings: (1) diagnosis, (2) classification and prognosis, (3) clinical trials, treatment, and outcomes, (4) epidemiology, (5) pathophysiology, and (6) research policy. By producing this consensus international research priorities statement, it is the hope of the workshop participants that researchers will be encouraged to develop new interdisciplinary research proposals that will attract increased funding support for work on endometriosis.