"You can't always get what you want": from doctrine to practicability of study designs for clinical investigation in endometriosis

Is There a Correlation between the Second-to-Four Digit Ratio (2D:4D) and Endometriosis? Results of a Case-Control Study

The second-to-four digit ratio (2D:4D) has been proposed as a marker of prenatal hormonal exposure. It is suggested that prenatal exposure to androgens results in a shorter 2D:4D ratio, whereas a prenatal oestrogenic environment results in a longer one. In addition, previous research has shown an association between exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals and 2D:4D in animals and humans. On the endometriosis side, hypothetically, a longer 2D:4D ratio, reflecting a lower androgenic intrauterine milieu, could represent an indicator of the presence of the disease. In this light, we have designed a case-control study to compare 2D:4D measurements between women with and without endometriosis. Exclusion criteria included the presence of PCOS and previous trauma on the hand that could impact the measurement of the digit ratio. The 2D:4D ratio of the right hand was measured using a digital calliper. A total of 424 participants (endometriosis n = 212; controls n = 212) were recruited. The group of cases included 114 women with endometriomas and 98 patients with deep infiltrating endometriosis. The 2D:4D ratio was significantly higher in women with endometriosis compared to controls (p = 0.002). There is an association between a higher 2D:4D ratio and the presence of endometriosis. Our results support the hypothesis claiming potential influences of intrauterine hormonal and endocrine disruptors exposure on the onset of the disease.

Anogenital Distance and Endometriosis: Results of a Case-Control Study

AGD is the distance measured from the anus to the genital tubercle. Recent evidence suggests that a shorter AGD, a sensitive biomarker of the prenatal hormonal environment, could be associated with higher endometriosis risk. However, studies investigating AGD in affected women are scanty. We have set up a case-control study recruiting nulliparous women (aged 18-40 years) with endometriosis between 2017 and 2018. Cases were 90 women with a surgical or with a current nonsurgical diagnosis of endometriosis (n = 45 deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE), and n = 45 ovarian endometrioma (OMA)). Controls were 45 asymptomatic women referring for periodical gynaecological care and without a previous diagnosis of endometriosis. They were matched to cases for age and BMI. For each woman, two measures were obtained using a digital calliper: AGD_AC, from the clitoral surface to the upper verge of the anus, and AGD_AF, from the posterior fourchette to the upper verge of the anus. Each distance was derived from the mean of six measurements acquired from two different gynaecologists. The mean ± SD AGD_AC in women with DIE, OMA and without a diagnosis of endometriosis was 76.0 ± 12.1, 76.1 ± 11.1 and 77.8 ± 11.4 mm, respectively (p = 0.55). The mean ± SD AGD_AF in women with DIE, OMA and without a diagnosis of endometriosis was 22.8 ± 5.0, 21.7 ± 9.0 and 23.7 ± 7.8 mm, respectively (p = 0.38). Our study failed to find an association between AGD and the presence of endometriosis. AGD does not seem to represent a reliable indicator of the presence of endometriosis to be used in clinical practice.

Surgery versus IVF for the treatment of infertility associated to ovarian and deep endometriosis (SVIDOE: Surgery Versus IVF for Deep and Ovarian Endometriosis). Clinical protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial

The management of endometriosis-related infertility is still a challenging issue. Women can be managed with either surgery or in vitro fertilization (IVF). The decision is tailored to the patients considering pros and cons of both approaches. Surgery might increase the chances of natural conception and relieve symptoms. IVF may be more effective, but costs are higher and unoperated women face some peculiar additional risks during the procedure and pregnancy. The unavailability of randomized trials comparing the two strategies hampers the possibility to provide precise estimates. This Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) aims at filling this gap. This is a multicenter, non-blinded, randomized controlled trial with parallel groups and allocation 1:1. Three Italian Academic Infertility Units will be involved. Main inclusion criteria are infertility for more than one year, age less than 40 years and a sonographic diagnosis of endometriosis (ovarian endometriomas or deep peritoneal lesions). Previous IVF and previous surgery for endometriosis are exclusion criteria. Women will be randomized to either surgery and then natural pregnancy seeking or a standard program of three IVF cycles. The primary aim is the comparison of live birth rate between the two groups (IVF versus surgery) within one year of randomization. The secondary aim is the evaluation of cost-effective profile of the two interventions. The present study can influence the clinical practice of infertility treatment in women with endometriosis. From a public health perspective, information on the more cost-effective clinical management strategy would consent a wiser allocation of resources.

Trial registration:NCT04743167, registered on 8 February 2021.

Patients' and relatives' perspectives on best possible care in the context of developing a multidisciplinary center for endometriosis and adenomyosis: findings from a national survey

Background

Endometriosis and adenomyosis are common benign conditions compromising both physical and psychological health, with a negative impact on quality of life. This survey aimed to establish what the users’ perspectives are on best possible care in the context of developing a multidisciplinary center for endometriosis and adenomyosis in Norway.

Methods

An electronic questionnaire was developed in collaboration between the Norwegian Patient’s Endometriosis Society (NPES) and gynecologists with special interest in endometriosis and adenomyosis. The questionnaire was distributed digitally to the members of NPES in May 2021.

Results

938 participants answered the questionnaire. Better patient information, long term therapeutic plans and integration of their partners into their care were the main concerns. Multidisciplinary care was a key issue for the majority, with (n = 775) 89% stating a need for a consultation with a psychologist, (n = 744) 86% at least one consultation with a nutritionist, (n = 733) 85% a physiotherapist, and (n = 676) 78% needing a sex therapist and (n = 935) 99,7% consider research and (n = 934) 99,8% consider quality assurance initiated by the endometriosis center to be important. The qualitative analysis of free text answers revealed a great need for updated and easily accessible information, meeting competent health care professionals and being taken seriously/listened to.

Conclusions

This survey shows similar perceptions and a high level of agreement regarding their needs amongst people with endometriosis and/or adenomyosis. This survey supports recommendations by the experts that endometriosis/adenomyosis care should be centralized in specialized, multidisciplinary centers. The results of the present work will be valuable for the future planning and development of a multidisciplinary endometriosis center.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12905-022-01798-8.

Risk for and consequences of endometriosis: A critical epidemiologic review

Endometriosis affects approximately 10% of women of reproductive age. Characteristics robustly associated with a greater risk for endometriosis include early age at menarche, short menstrual cycle length, and lean body size, whereas greater parity has been associated with a lower risk. Relationships with other potential characteristics including physical activity, dietary factors, and lactation have been less consistent, partially because of the need for rigorous data collection and a longitudinal study design. Critical methodologic complexities include the need for a clear case definition; valid selection of comparison/control groups; and consideration of diagnostic bias and reverse causation when exploring demographic characteristics, medical history, and lifestyle factors. Reviewers and editors must demand a detailed description of rigorous methods to facilitate comparison and replication to advance our understanding of endometriosis.

Shifting from Oral Contraceptives to Norethisterone Acetate, or Vice Versa, because of Drug Intolerance: Does the Change Benefit Women with Endometriosis?

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Oral contraceptives (OC) and norethisterone acetate (NETA) are among first-line medical therapies for symptomatic endometriosis, but their use is sometimes associated with intolerable side effects. We investigated whether shifting from low-dose OC to NETA (2.5 mg/day), or vice versa, improved tolerability.

METHODS

Sixty-seven women willing to discontinue their treatment because of intolerable side effects despite good pain relief, were enrolled in a self-controlled study, and shifted from OC to NETA (n = 35) or from NETA to OC (n = 32). The main study outcome was satisfaction with treatment 12 months after the change. Tolerability, pain symptoms, health-related quality of life, psychological status, and sexual functioning were also evaluated.

RESULTS

After treatment change, good tolerability was reported by 37% of participants who shifted to NETA, and by 52% of those who shifted to OC. At 12-month assessment, 51% of women intolerant to OC were satisfied with NETA, and 65% of those intolerant to NETA were satisfied with OC (intention-to-treat analysis). Other study variables did not vary substantially.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected endometriosis patients, shifting from OC to NETA, or vice versa, because of side effects, improved tolerability. Better results were observed when substituting NETA with OC rather than the other way round.

Is Shifting to a Progestin Worthwhile When Estrogen-Progestins Are Inefficacious for Endometriosis-Associated Pain?

The purpose of this study was to assess the proportion of patients satisfied with their treatment after a change from a low-dose oral contraceptive (OC) to norethisterone acetate (NETA) because of inefficacy of OC on pain symptoms. To this end, prospective, self-controlled study was conducted on 153 women using OC as a treatment for endometriosis and with persistence of one or more moderate or severe pain symptoms. At baseline and during 12 months after a shift from OC to oral NETA, 2.5 mg/d, pelvic pain was measured by means of a 0- to 10-point numerical rating scale and a multidimensional categorical rating scale. Variations in health-related quality of life, psychological status, and sexual function were also evaluated with validated scales. At the end of the study period, participants indicated the degree of satisfaction with their treatment according to a 5-degree scale from very satisfied to very dissatisfied. A total of 28 women dropped out of the study, the main reason was intolerable side effects (n = 15). At 12-month assessment, 70% of participants were very satisfied or satisfied with NETA treatment (intention-to-treat analysis). Statistically significant improvements were observed in health-related quality of life, psychological status, and sexual function. At per-protocol analysis, almost half of the patients (58/125) reported suboptimal drug tolerability. However, complaints were not severe enough to cause dissatisfaction, drug discontinuation, or request for surgery. These encouraging results could be used to counsel women with symptomatic endometriosis not responding to OC and to inform their decisions on modifications of disease management.