Theoretical and practical development of the TOPSY self-management intervention for women who use a vaginal pessary for pelvic organ prolapse

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

BACKGROUND

Pessaries are an effective treatment for pelvic organ prolapse, yet currently available pessaries can cause discomfort during removal and insertion. An early feasibility trial of an investigational, collapsible pessary previously demonstrated mechanical feasibility during a brief 15-minute office trial. Longer-term, patient-centered safety and efficacy data are needed.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of the investigational vaginal pessary for pelvic organ prolapse at 3 months.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a prospective, 7-center, open-label equivalence study with participants serving as their own controls. Subjects were current users of a Gellhorn or ring pessary with ≥stage 2 prolapse. Subjective and objective data were collected at baseline for 1 month while subjects used their current pessary. Data were then collected throughout a 3-month treatment phase with the study pessary. The primary outcome was change in Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 score. Secondary outcome measures included objective assessment of prolapse support, changes in the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7, and pain with insertion and removal, measured using a visual analog scale. Data from subjects fitted with the study pessary were analyzed using an intention-to-treat approach, and those who dropped out were assigned scores at the upper limit of the predefined equivalence limits. Secondary per protocol analyses included subjects who completed treatment. The study was powered to 80% with a minimal important change equivalence limit of 18.3 points on the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 scale. Square root transformations were used for nonparametric data, and P values were adjusted for multiple comparisons.

RESULTS

A total of 78 subjects were enrolled, however, 16 withdrew before study pessary placement. The study pessary was fitted in 62 subjects (50 ring and 12 Gellhorn pessary users), and 48 (62%) completed the 3-month intervention. The change in Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 scores at 3 months demonstrated equivalence when compared with the subjects' baseline scores (mean difference, -3.96 [improvement]; 90% confidence interval, -11.99 to 4.08; P=.002). Among those completing study, the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 scores, equivalence was not demonstrated and scores favored the study pessary (mean difference, -10.45; 90% confidence interval, -20.35 to 0.54; P=.095). Secondary outcomes included objective measures of support, which were similar (mean difference: Ba, 0.54 cm; Bp, 0.04 cm, favoring study pessary; improvement in mean Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 scores for those who completed the trial: before, 32.23; after, 16.86; P=.019), and pain with insertion and removal, which was lower with the study pessary than with the subject's own pessary (mean difference visual analog scale score insertion, 9.91 mm; P=.019; removal, 11.23 mm; P=.019). No serious adverse events related to the pessary were reported.

CONCLUSION

Equivalence was demonstrated in the primary outcome of the study pessary when compared with current, noncollapsible pessaries in terms of change in severity and bother of pelvic floor symptoms. Among participants who completed the trial, the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 improved with study pessary use and change in Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 scores were nonequivalent, favoring the study pessary. Subjects reported significantly lower pain scores with both pessary insertion and removal with the novel collapsible pessary when compared with their standard pessary.

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

OBJECTIVES

Pelvic organ prolapse is the descent of one or more reproductive organs from their normal position, causing associated negative symptoms. One conservative treatment option is pessary management. This study aimed to to investigate the cost-effectiveness of pessary self-management (SM) when compared with clinic-based care (CBC). A decision analytic model was developed to extend the economic evaluation.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial with health economic evaluation. The SM group received a 30-minute SM teaching session, information leaflet, 2-week follow-up call, and a local helpline number. The CBC group received routine outpatient pessary appointments, determined by usual practice. The primary outcome for the cost-effectiveness analysis was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), 18 months post-randomization. Uncertainty was handled using nonparametric bootstrap analysis. In addition, a simple decision analytic model was developed using the trial data to extend the analysis over a 5-year period.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the mean number of QALYs gained between SM and CBC (1.241 vs 1.221), but mean cost was lower for SM (£578 vs £728). The incremental net benefit estimated at a willingness to pay of £20 000 per QALY gained was £564, with an 80.8% probability of cost-effectiveness. The modeling results were consistent with the trial analysis: the incremental net benefit was estimated as £4221, and the probability of SM being cost-effective at 5 years was 69.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that pessary SM is likely to be cost-effective. The decision analytic model suggests that this result is likely to persist over longer durations.

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

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

Analysis of questions by patients with pelvic organ prolapse about vaginal pessaries resulting in a checklist for their physicians

OBJECTIVE

International guidelines recommend vaginal pessaries as a first-choice treatment of symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Gynecologists rarely receive systematic training or just do not take the time to communicate with their patients. We hypothesized that we could identify key deficits and limitations of counseling before or during pessary therapy from questions directed to manufacturers with the aim to improve and promote health literacy of women with POP.

METHODS

We approached five manufacturers to provide anonymized inquiries related to pessary use. After exclusion of duplicates and questions about obstetric pessaries, 174 data sets from 145 patients remained.

RESULTS

In 19/145 patients (13.1%), a 2nd degree, and in 94/145 (64.8%), a 3rd-4th degree of POP was identified. Four patients had additional urinary incontinence. In 32/145 (22.1%), the severity of POP could not be identified. The age of patients ranged from 27 to 98 (mean = 63.7) years. Most inquiries were related to the selected pessary models or sizes (40/174; 22.9%), self-management (20/174; 11.5%), and technical aspects such as shelf life or appropriate cleaning (26/174; 14.9%). Pain or voiding dysfunction was present in 17/174 remarks (9.7%). Lifestyle questions related to the use of pessaries during sport, menstruation, or mechanical anticonception. The cube pessary was in the focus of interest followed by the sieve bowl, urethra, ring, and Gellhorn device. The list of questions was summarized as a checklist stratified according to priorities.

CONCLUSION

The checklist should help improve counseling and self-management of patients to optimize the benefit/risk ratio of conservative treatment of pelvic floor diseases.