Factors associated with long-term pessary use in women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse

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.

Long-term adherence to pessary use in women with pelvic organ prolapse: A retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH

Vaginal pessary use is an established, non-surgical treatment option for pelvic organ prolapse. While satisfaction rates are initially high, they seem to decline over time. We aimed to determine the median duration of pessary use among our patients and to evaluate reasons for discontinuation.

METHODS

All patients who were treated with a vaginal pessary for pelvic organ prolapse between 2007 and 2022 at our institution (a maximum observation period of 15 years) were included in this retrospective cohort study. Data were collected from the in-house electronic databases and the date of pelvic floor surgery was defined as the primary endpoint. In case of no documented surgery, the date of the last follow-up visit (for patients lost to follow-up or who discontinued pessary use without subsequent surgery) or the date of final data collection (for those with presumed continued pessary use) was used as the primary endpoint. Duration of pessary use is represented by Kaplan-Meier curves. Effects of possible confounders were investigated by Cox regression models. A Cox regression model was evaluated for patients with the three most common types of pessary: ring, cube and shell. A chi-square test was performed to compare therapy adherence according to pessary type.

PRINCIPAL RESULTS

Data of 779 patients could be included in the statistical analysis. The estimated median duration of pessary use was 173 weeks (95 % CI 104-473) - approximately 3.3 years. Overall, 30 % of patients opted for surgical therapy and the majority of them did so within 4 months of initiation of pessary use (median time: 19 weeks, 95 % CI 16-26). In 5 % of cases a discontinuation of pessary use without subsequent surgery was documented and 18 % were lost to follow-up before a planned visit, thus leaving 47 % of our patients with presumed continued pessary use. Possible confounding factors for discontinuation of pessary use were tested but were found to be non-significant (body mass index, Pelvic Organ Prolapse - Quantification score, pelvic floor training, age, parity, menopausal status, nicotine consumption, incontinence or size of pessary). Reasons for discontinuation of pessary use were documented in 51 % of patients: unspecified patient wish (23 %), pessary use tiredness (10 %), general dissatisfaction with pessary therapy (7 %), unspecified reasons (5 %), pessary self-change not possible (1 %), erosion, bleeding, pain (2 %); none of the pessary types fitted (2 %).

CONCLUSIONS

According to our data, almost half of our patients with pelvic organ prolapse and pessary therapy continued pessary use until a maximum follow-up time of 15 years, whereas about one-third of patients finally opted for surgical repair (a majority of these within 4 months after pessary therapy initiation). The remaining patients were either lost to follow-up or discontinued pessary use without subsequent surgery. The stated reasons for discontinuation of pessary use were mostly non-specific, but only 1 % reported that pessary self-change was not possible. Erosion bleeding or pain was documented in only 2 % of cases as reason for discontinuation. This information helps clinicians to inform their patients with pelvic organ prolapse about expected pessary therapy success and strengthens individual counselling. Furthermore, our data indicates vaginal pessary use for pelvic organ prolapse is feasible and safe for all women and that therapy adherence can extend beyond 5 years.

Adverse events associated with pessary use over one year among women attending a pessary care clinic

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The primary objective was to determine the adverse event rate associated with pessary use. Secondary objectives were to determine discontinuation, patient satisfaction, and factors associated with adverse events.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study included patients attending a nurse-led pessary clinic with ≥ 1 year follow-up. Patients were fitted with a pessary by a urogynecologist and pessary care by a nurse was performed every 3-4 months. Demographic characteristics, pessary fitting, adverse events, their management and discontinuation were recorded. Pearson Chi-square and Fisher exact tests assessed the association between predetermined risk factors and pessary complications or discontinuation. Relative risk and 95% confidence intervals were computed.

RESULTS

215 women were followed for a mean (standard deviation) of 4.4 (1.9) years. Mean age was 73.8 (8.7) years. Adverse event rate was 83.7%; most commonly vaginal discharge, vaginal bleeding and erosions. Women with cardiovascular risk factors were less likely to develop pessary-related adverse events (79.7% vs. 91.9%, p = 0.03). Gellhorn and donut pessaries were more commonly associated with pessary erosions than ring with support pessaries or incontinence rings (RR 2.37 [1.67; 3.38]). Thirty-five (16.3%) women discontinued pessary use at a mean of 3.3 (1.7) years after initial fitting. Having a pessary erosion was not associated with discontinuation (p = 0.698), but recurrent erosions were (p = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

Adverse events were common among women continuing to use pessaries past 1 year, but adherence and satisfaction rates remained high after 4.4 years. Pessary type and absence of cardiovascular factors were associated with pessary-related adverse events.

How Satisfied Are Women 6 Months after a Pessary Fitting for Pelvic Organ Prolapse?

BACKGROUND

The non-surgical solution for Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) typically consists of a pessary fitting. We aimed to assess patient satisfaction and symptom improvement 6 months after a pessary fitting and to identify risk factors associated with pessary failure.

METHODS

Six months after a pessary fitting, patient satisfaction was assessed by the PGII score; symptoms and quality of life were assessed using validated questionnaires (PFDI-20, ICIQ-SF, PISQ-12, USP, and PFIQ-7).

RESULTS

Of the 190 patients included in the study (mean age of 66.7 years), 141 (74%) and 113 (59%) completed the follow-up questionnaires at 1 and 6 months, respectively. Nearly all the women were menopausal (94.6%) and 45.2% declared being sexually active at inclusion. The satisfaction rate was 84.3% and 87.4% at 1 and 6 months, respectively. The global symptom score PFDI-20 had significantly improved at 6 months. A high body mass index (RR = 1.06, CI_95%: [1.02-1.09]), as well as high PFDI-20 (1.05 [1.01-1.09]), PFIQ7 (1.04 [1.01, 1.08]), and PISQ12 scores at inclusion (0.75 [0.60, 0.93]), as well as higher GH and GH/TVL measurements (1.49 [1.25-1.78] and 1.39 [1.23-1.57], respectively) were associated with pessary failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Pessary seems to be an effective treatment for POP with high patient satisfaction. Higher BMI, higher symptom scores, and greater genital hiatus measurements before insertion are risk factors for failure at 6 months.

Vaginal pessary for pelvic organ prolapse: A survey among french gynecological surgeons

OBJECTIVE

Because pessaries may offer symptomatic improvement for women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP), the study aimed to assess the opinion and knowledge of participants to a french general surgical gynecological congress, about this device.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An anonymous survey was carried out near 150 surgeons attending a congress by handing them a questionnaire.

RESULTS

The average age of the 70 respondents was 50 years. 87.7 % were comfortable with fitting and monitoring pessary, 54.3 % think that a pessary can be offered as a first-line treatment in the management of POP. However, main indications of vaginal device are still old women and contraindications to surgery ; 31.4 % do not associate local estrogen therapy with a pessary for postmenopausal women.

CONCLUSION

The majority declares to be comfortable with pessaries, is ready to prescribe it as a first-line treatment and use local estrogen if necessary. Even if change of ideas seems to emerge about pessary, a change in beliefs and habits is still necessary. This progress can be achieved through doctors fully informed.

[The use of pessaries for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: A survey from gynecologists and urologists residents]

INTRODUCTION

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition responsible for symptoms that significantly affect the quality of life in women. Despite its effectiveness, low cost and minor side effects, the pessary is little used in France. The objective of our study was to assess the knowledge, training and practices of residents regarding pessaries.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This survey was conducted among residents in obstetrics gynecology, medical gynecology and urology in France between March and September 2020.

RESULTS

During the study period, 328 interns responded to the questionnaires. The majority of residents (52.1%) reported never having attended a consultation specializing in pelvicperineology. Only 31.7% felt comfortable having a pessary inserted. According to them, the pessary was indicated in 3 main situations: in case of contraindication to surgery (80%), while awaiting surgery (79%) and in women over 70 years old (62%). The pessary could be offered to all women for only 46.9% of them. Almost 53% of residents reported ignoring the main complications of pessaries and 83.5% felt they needed further training on the subject.

CONCLUSION

Interns seem to be generally aware of the use of the pessary. Their knowledge of the indications, complications or even monitoring leads us to believe that it is essential to promote their training so that the pessary becomes an integral part of the first-line therapeutic arsenal in the event of POPs.

Vaginal pessary continuation in symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse patients with prior hysterectomy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the success rate of pessary fitting and continuation rate for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP) patients with a hysterectomy and to explore potential predictors.

METHODS

In this prospective observational study, 119 symptomatic POP patients with a prior hysterectomy received pessary treatment between April 2015 and February 2019. A successful pessary fitting was defined as a patient who was fitted with a pessary and continued to use it 2 weeks later. Patients with successful pessary fitting were followed until February 2020. Data analysis was performed with t tests, nonparametric tests, chi-square tests, and logistic regression.

RESULTS

The success rate of pessary fitting was 63.2%. A history of POP reconstructive surgery (OR = 2.6, 95% CI 1.0-6.7, P = 0.043) and a short total vaginal length <7.3 cm, (OR = 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.9, P = 0.014) were potential risk factors for unsuccessful pessary fitting. A total of 78.1% of the patients continued pessary use for a median duration of 26 months. Among patients who discontinued, 75% ceased within 1 year. Older age (OR = 1.1, 95% CI 1.0-1.2, P = 0.038) and prolapse score improvement at 3 months less than 50% (OR = 2.8, 95% CI 1.1-7.2, P = 0.035) were potential risk factors for discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

Pessaries remain a useful approach to treat prolapse in women who had a hysterectomy. Patients with POP reconstructive surgery and total vaginal length<7.3 cm should be informed that they might have lower success rate of pessary fitting. Age and prolapse score improvement at 3 months were potential predictors for continuation.

The extended pessary interval for care (EPIC) study: a failed randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

To describe study design flaws and limited outcomes of a randomized trial that intended to compare satisfaction and complication rates between patients managing their pelvic organ prolapse with a pessary at different maintenance intervals.

METHODS

A randomized clinical trial was conducted at two tertiary pessary clinics. After a successful fitting, patients were randomly allocated to follow-up at 3-month or 6-month intervals and followed for 12 months. Symptoms, complications, and pelvic examination characteristics were recorded at each visit. At 6 and 12 months, patient satisfaction with the pessary was also recorded. Sample size calculation was based on the minimal relevant difference in Pessary Satisfaction score (created for this study). With a power of 0.8 and an alpha of 0.05, the minimum number of patients required in each group was 28.

RESULTS

We were unable to reach our sample size as most patients did not meet inclusion criteria. After 2 years we were only able to recruit 20/56 patients, with 9 patients in the 3-month group and 11 patients in the 6-month group. Additionally, seven patients dropped out of the study. Overall satisfaction was high and similar between groups at 6- and 12-month follow-up visits. Pessary complications were noted in both groups but in low numbers.

CONCLUSIONS

Pessary use is associated with high patient satisfaction and low complication rates, regardless of the follow-up interval. The recruitment failure demonstrated that a randomized trial is not feasible for this research question. Optimally, pessary follow-up should be based on patient symptoms and scheduling preference.