-
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2015Vulvovaginal candidiasis is estimated to be the second most common cause of vaginitis after bacterial vaginosis. Candida albicans accounts for 85% to 90% of cases. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Vulvovaginal candidiasis is estimated to be the second most common cause of vaginitis after bacterial vaginosis. Candida albicans accounts for 85% to 90% of cases.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of drug treatments for acute vulvovaginal candidiasis in non-pregnant symptomatic women? What are the effects of alternative or complementary treatments for acute vulvovaginal candidiasis in non-pregnant symptomatic women? What are the effects of treating asymptomatic non-pregnant women with a positive swab for candidiasis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to October 2013 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 23 studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: alternative or complementary treatments; douching; drug treatments; garlic; intravaginal preparations (nystatin, imidazoles, tea tree oil); oral fluconazole; oral itraconazole; and yoghurt containing Lactobacillus acidophilus (oral or intravaginal).
Topics: Antifungal Agents; Candidiasis, Vulvovaginal; Complementary Therapies; Female; Fluconazole; Humans; Itraconazole; Yogurt
PubMed: 25775428
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (RVVC) affects up to 5% of women. No comprehensive systematic review of treatments for RVVC has been published. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (RVVC) affects up to 5% of women. No comprehensive systematic review of treatments for RVVC has been published.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective was to assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for RVVC. The secondary objective was to assess patient preference of treatment options.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted electronic searches of bibliographic databases, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL (search date 6 October 2021). We also handsearched reference lists of identified trials and contacted authors of identified trials, experts in RVVC, and manufacturers of products for vulvovaginal candidiasis.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials evaluating RVVC treatments for at least six months, in women with four or more symptomatic episodes of vulvovaginal candidiasis in the past year. We excluded women with immunosuppressive disorders or taking immunosuppressant medication. We included women with diabetes mellitus and pregnant women. Diagnosis of RVVC must have been confirmed by presence of symptoms and a positive culture and/or microscopy. We included all drug and non-drug therapies and partner treatment, assessing the following primary outcomes: • number of clinical recurrences per participant per year (recurrence defined as clinical signs and positive culture/microscopy); • proportion of participants with at least one clinical recurrence during the treatment and follow-up period; and • adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts to identify eligible trials. Duplicate data extraction was completed independently by two authors. We assessed risk of bias as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used the fixed-effects model for pooling and expressed the results as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where important statistical heterogeneity was present we either did not pool data (I > 70%) or used a random-effects model (I 40-70%). We used the GRADE tool to assess overall certainty of the evidence for the pooled primary outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
Studies: Twenty-three studies involving 2212 women aged 17 to 67 years met the inclusion criteria. Most studies excluded pregnant women and women with diabetes or immunosuppression. The predominant species found on culture at study entry was Candida albicans. Overall, the included studies were small (<100 participants). Six studies compared antifungal treatment with placebo (607 participants); four studies compared oral versus topical antifungals (543 participants); one study compared different oral antifungals (45 participants); two studies compared different dosing regimens for antifungals (100 participants); one study compared two different dosing regimens of the same topical agent (23 participants); one study compared short versus longer treatment duration (26 participants); two studies assessed the effect of partner treatment (98 participants); one study compared a complementary treatment (Lactobacillus vaginal tablets and probiotic oral tablets) with placebo (34 participants); three studies compared complementary medicine with antifungals (354 participants); two studies compared 'dermasilk' briefs with cotton briefs (130 participants); one study examined Lactobacillus vaccination versus heliotherapy versus ciclopyroxolamine (90 participants); one study compared CAM treatments to an antifungal treatment combined with CAM treatments (68 participants). We did not find any studies comparing different topical antifungals. Nine studies reported industry funding, three were funded by an independent source and eleven did not report their funding source. Risk of bias: Overall, the risk of bias was high or unclear due to insufficient blinding of allocation and participants and poor reporting. Primary outcomes: Meta-analyses comparing drug treatments (oral and topical) with placebo or no treatment showed there may be a clinically relevant reduction in clinical recurrence at 6 months (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.63; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 2; participants = 607; studies = 6; I² = 82%; low-certainty evidence) and 12 months (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.89; NNTB = 6; participants = 585; studies = 6; I² = 21%; low-certainty evidence). No study reported on the number of clinical recurrences per participant per year. We are very uncertain whether oral drug treatment compared to topical treatment increases the risk of clinical recurrence at 6 months (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.83 to 3.31; participants = 206; studies = 3; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence) and reduces the risk of clinical recurrence at 12 months (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.27; participants = 206; studies = 3; I² = 10%; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported on the number of clinical recurrences per participant per year. Adverse events were scarce across both treatment and control groups in both comparisons. The reporting of adverse events varied amongst studies, was generally of very low quality and could not be pooled. Overall the adverse event rate was low for both placebo and treatment arms and ranged from less than 5% to no side effects or complications.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In women with RVVC, treatment with oral or topical antifungals may reduce symptomatic clinical recurrences when compared to placebo or no treatment. We were unable to find clear differences between different treatment options (e.g. oral versus topical treatment, different doses and durations). These findings are not applicable to pregnant or immunocompromised women and women with diabetes as the studies did not include or report on them. More research is needed to determine the optimal medication, dose and frequency.
Topics: Antifungal Agents; Candidiasis, Oral; Candidiasis, Vulvovaginal; Female; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Pregnancy
PubMed: 35005777
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009151.pub2 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Apr 2021The use of probiotics in reproductive-related dysbiosis is an area of continuous progress due to the growing interest from clinicians and patients suffering from... (Review)
Review
The use of probiotics in reproductive-related dysbiosis is an area of continuous progress due to the growing interest from clinicians and patients suffering from recurrent reproductive microbiota disorders. An imbalance in the natural colonization sites related to reproductive health-vaginal, cervicovaginal, endometrial, and pregnancy-related altered microbiota-could play a decisive role in reproductive outcomes. Oral and vaginal administrations are in continuous discussion regarding the clinical effects pursued, but the oral route is used and studied more often despite the need for further transference to the colonization site. The aim of the present review was to retrieve the standardized protocols of vaginal probiotics commonly used for investigating their microbiota modulation capacities. Most of the studies selected focused on treating bacterial vaginosis (BV) as the most common dysbiosis; a few studies focused on vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) and on pretreatment during in vitro fertilization (IVF). Vaginal probiotic doses administered were similar to oral probiotics protocols, ranging from ≥10 CFU/day to 2.5 × 10 CFU/day, but were highly variable regarding the treatment duration timing. Moderate vaginal microbiota modulation was achieved; the relative abundance of abnormal microbiota decreased and species increased.
PubMed: 33918150
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10071461 -
Obstetrics and Gynecology Dec 2014To comprehensively review and critically assess the literature on vaginal estrogen and its alternatives for women with genitourinary syndrome of menopause and to provide... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To comprehensively review and critically assess the literature on vaginal estrogen and its alternatives for women with genitourinary syndrome of menopause and to provide clinical practice guidelines.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to April 2013. We included randomized controlled trials and prospective comparative studies. Interventions and comparators included all commercially available vaginal estrogen products. Placebo, no treatment, systemic estrogen (all routes), and nonhormonal moisturizers and lubricants were included as comparators.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
We double-screened 1,805 abstracts, identifying 44 eligible studies. Discrepancies were adjudicated by a third reviewer. Studies were individually and collectively assessed for methodologic quality and strength of evidence.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
Studies were extracted for participant, intervention, comparator, and outcomes data, including patient-reported atrophy symptoms (eg, vaginal dryness, dyspareunia, dysuria, urgency, frequency, recurrent urinary tract infection (UTI), and urinary incontinence), objective signs of atrophy, urodynamic measures, endometrial effects, serum estradiol changes, and adverse events. Compared with placebo, vaginal estrogens improved dryness, dyspareunia, urinary urgency, frequency, and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and urgency urinary incontinence (UUI). Urinary tract infection rates decreased. The various estrogen preparations had similar efficacy and safety; serum estradiol levels remained within postmenopausal norms for all except high-dose conjugated equine estrogen cream. Endometrial hyperplasia and adenocarcinoma were extremely rare among those receiving vaginal estrogen. Comparing vaginal estrogen with nonhormonal moisturizers, patients with two or more symptoms of vulvovaginal atrophy were substantially more improved using vaginal estrogens, but those with one or minor complaints had similar symptom resolution with either estrogen or nonhormonal moisturizer.
CONCLUSION
All commercially available vaginal estrogens effectively relieve common vulvovaginal atrophy-related complaints and have additional utility in patients with urinary urgency, frequency or nocturia, SUI and UUI, and recurrent UTIs. Nonhormonal moisturizers are a beneficial alternative for those with few or minor atrophy-related symptoms and in patients at risk for estrogen-related neoplasia.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews, http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, CRD42013006656.
Topics: Administration, Intravaginal; Atrophic Vaginitis; Estrogens; Female; Humans; Menopause; Urologic Diseases
PubMed: 25415166
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000526 -
Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2023(1) Background: Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) is a medical condition that can affect breast cancer survivors (BCS). This is a complication that often can... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) is a medical condition that can affect breast cancer survivors (BCS). This is a complication that often can occur as a result of breast cancer treatment, causing symptoms such as vaginal dryness, itching, burning, dyspareunia, dysuria, pain, discomfort, and impairment of sexual function. BCS who experience these symptoms negatively impact multiple aspects of their quality of life to the point that some of them fail to complete adjuvant hormonal treatment; (2) Methods: In this systematic review of the literature, we have analyzed possible pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for GSM in BCS. We reviewed systemic hormone therapy, local hormone treatment with estrogens and androgens, the use of vaginal moisturizers and lubricants, ospemifene, and physical therapies such as radiofrequency, electroporation, and vaginal laser; (3) Results: The data available to date demonstrate that the aforementioned treatments are effective for the therapy of GSM and, in particular, vulvovaginal atrophy in BCS. Where possible, combination therapy often appears more useful than using a single line of treatment; (4) Conclusions: We analyzed the efficacy and safety data of each of these options for the treatment of GSM in BCS, emphasizing how often larger clinical trials with longer follow-ups are needed.
PubMed: 37111307
DOI: 10.3390/ph16040550 -
BMC Women's Health Mar 2023Vulvovaginal yeast infections in pregnancy are common and can cause extensive inflammation, which could contribute to adverse pregnancy outcomes. Symptomatic yeast... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Vulvovaginal yeast infections in pregnancy are common and can cause extensive inflammation, which could contribute to adverse pregnancy outcomes. Symptomatic yeast infections are likely to cause more inflammation than asymptomatic. The objective of this study was to investigate associations between symptomatic and asymptomatic vulvovaginal yeast infections in pregnancy and perinatal outcomes.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and searched eight databases until 01 July 2022. We included studies reporting on pregnant women with and without laboratory confirmed vulvovaginal yeast infection and preterm birth or eight other perinatal outcomes. We used random effects meta-analysis to calculate summary odds ratios (OR), 95% confidence intervals (CI) and prediction intervals for the association between yeast infection and outcomes. We described findings from studies with multivariable analyses. We assessed the risk of bias using published tools.
RESULTS
We screened 3909 references and included 57 studies. Only 22/57 studies reported information about participant vulvovaginal symptoms. Preterm birth was an outcome in 35/57 studies (49,161 women). In 32/35 studies with available data, the summary OR from univariable analyses was 1.01 (95% CI 0.84-1.21, I 60%, prediction interval 0.45-2.23). In analyses stratified by symptom status, we found ORs of 1.44 (95% CI 0.92-2.26) in two studies with ≥ 50% symptomatic participants, 0.84 (95% CI 0.45-1.58) in seven studies with < 50% symptomatic participants, and 1.12 (95% CI 0.94-1.35) in four studies with asymptomatic participants. In three studies with multivariable analysis, adjusted ORs were greater than one but CIs were compatible with there being no association. We did not find associations between vulvovaginal yeast infection and any secondary outcome. Most studies were at high risk of bias in at least one domain and only three studies controlled for confounding.
CONCLUSIONS
We did not find strong statistical evidence of an increased risk for preterm birth or eight other adverse perinatal outcomes, in pregnant women with either symptomatic or asymptomatic vulvovaginal yeast infection. The available evidence is insufficient to make recommendations about testing and treatment of vulvovaginal yeast infection in pregnancy. Future studies should assess vulvovaginal symptoms, yeast organism loads, concomitant vaginal or cervical infections, and microbiota using state-of-the-art diagnostics.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42020197564.
Topics: Pregnancy; Infant, Newborn; Female; Humans; Premature Birth; Saccharomyces cerevisiae; Pregnancy Outcome; Vagina; Inflammation
PubMed: 36944953
DOI: 10.1186/s12905-023-02258-7 -
Imiquimod for Cervical and Vaginal Intraepithelial Neoplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Obstetrics and Gynecology Aug 2023To evaluate the treatment efficacy and the risk of adverse events of imiquimod for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VAIN),... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the treatment efficacy and the risk of adverse events of imiquimod for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VAIN), compared with placebo or no intervention.
DATA SOURCES
We searched Cochrane, PubMed, ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov , and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to November 23, 2022.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
We included randomized controlled trials and prospective nonrandomized studies with control arms that investigated the efficacy of imiquimod for histologically confirmed CIN or VAIN. The primary outcomes were histologic regression of the disease (primary efficacy outcome) and treatment discontinuation due to side effects (primary safety outcome). We estimated pooled odds ratios (ORs) of imiquimod, compared with placebo or no intervention. We also conducted a meta-analysis of the proportions of patients with adverse events in the imiquimod arms.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
Four studies contributed to the pooled OR for the primary efficacy outcome. An additional four studies were available for meta-analyses of proportions in the imiquimod arm. Imiquimod was associated with increased probability of regression (pooled OR 4.05, 95% CI 2.08-7.89). Pooled OR for CIN in the three studies was 4.27 (95% CI 2.11-8.66); results of one study were available for VAIN (OR, 2.67, 95% CI 0.36-19.71). Pooled probability for primary safety outcome in the imiquimod arm was 0.07 (95% CI 0.03-0.14). The pooled probabilities (95% CI) of secondary outcomes were 0.51 (0.20-0.81) for fever, 0.53 (0.31-0.73) for arthralgia or myalgia, 0.31 (0.18-0.47) for abdominal pain, 0.28 (0.09-0.61) for abnormal vaginal discharge or genital bleeding, 0.48 (0.16-0.82) for vulvovaginal pain, and 0.02 (0.01-0.06) for vaginal ulceration.
CONCLUSION
Imiquimod was found to be effective for CIN, whereas data on VAIN were limited. Although local and systemic complications are common, treatment discontinuation is infrequent. Thus, imiquimod is potentially an alternative therapy to surgery for CIN.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO, CRD42022377982.
Topics: Female; Humans; Imiquimod; Antineoplastic Agents; Prospective Studies; Aminoquinolines; Uterine Cervical Dysplasia; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 37411024
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005256 -
Menopause (New York, N.Y.) Aug 2023Ospemifene is a novel selective estrogen receptor modulator developed for the treatment of moderate to severe postmenopausal vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy, tolerability, and endometrial safety of ospemifene compared with current therapies for the treatment of vulvovaginal atrophy: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.
IMPORTANCE
Ospemifene is a novel selective estrogen receptor modulator developed for the treatment of moderate to severe postmenopausal vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA).
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the study is to perform a systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the efficacy and safety of ospemifene compared with other therapies used in the treatment of VVA in North America and Europe.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
Electronic database searches were conducted in November 2021 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized or nonrandomized controlled trials targeting postmenopausal women with moderate to severe dyspareunia and/or vaginal dryness and involving ospemifene or at least one VVA local treatment were considered. Efficacy data included changes from baseline in superficial and parabasal cells, vaginal pH, and the most bothersome symptom of vaginal dryness or dyspareunia, as required for regulatory approval. Endometrial outcomes were endometrial thickness and histologic classifications, including endometrial polyp, hyperplasia, and cancer. For efficacy and safety outcomes, a Bayesian NMA was performed. Endometrial outcomes were compared in descriptive analyses.
FINDINGS
A total of 44 controlled trials met the eligibility criteria ( N = 12,637 participants). Network meta-analysis results showed that ospemifene was not statistically different from other active therapies in most efficacy and safety results. For all treatments, including ospemifene, the posttreatment endometrial thickness values (up to 52 wk of treatment) were under the recognized clinical threshold value of 4 mm for significant risk of endometrial pathology. Specifically, for women treated with ospemifene, endometrial thickness ranged between 2.1 and 2.3 mm at baseline and 2.5 and 3.2 mm after treatment. No cases of endometrial carcinoma or hyperplasia were observed in ospemifene trials, nor polyps with atypical hyperplasia or cancer after up to 52 weeks of treatment.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Ospemifene is an efficacious, well-tolerated, and safe therapeutic option for postmenopausal women with moderate to severe symptoms of VVA. Efficacy and safety outcomes with ospemifene are similar to other VVA therapies in North America and Europe.
Topics: Female; Humans; Dyspareunia; Vagina; Hyperplasia; Bayes Theorem; Network Meta-Analysis; Vulva; Atrophy; Tamoxifen; Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators; Vaginal Diseases; Endometrial Neoplasms
PubMed: 37369079
DOI: 10.1097/GME.0000000000002211 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2017Vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) is estimated to be the second most common form of infection after bacterial vaginosis. The ability of probiotics in maintaining and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) is estimated to be the second most common form of infection after bacterial vaginosis. The ability of probiotics in maintaining and recovering the normal vaginal microbiota, and their potential ability to resist Candidas give rise to the concept of using probiotics for the treatment of VVC.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of probiotics for the treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis in non-pregnant women.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases to October 2017: Sexually Transmitted Infections Cochrane Review Group's Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and eight other databases. We searched in following international resources: World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, Web of Science and OpenGrey. We checked specialty journals, reference lists of published articles and conference proceedings. We collected information from pharmaceutical companies and experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCT) using probiotics, alone or as adjuvants to conventional antifungal drugs, to treat VVC in non-pregnant women. Trials recruiting women with recurrent VVC, coinfection with other vulvovaginal infections, diabetes mellitus, immunosuppressive disorders or taking immunosuppressant medication were ineligible for inclusion. Probiotics were included if they were made from single or multiple species and in any preparation type/dosage/route of administration.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and quality and extracted data. We resolved any disagreements through consensus. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Ten RCTs (1656 participants) met our inclusion criteria, and pharmaceutical industry funded none of these trials. All trials used probiotics as adjuvant therapy to antifungal drugs. Probiotics increased the rate of short-term clinical cure (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.24, 695 participants, 5 studies, low quality evidence) and mycological cure (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.10, 969 participants, 7 studies, low quality evidence) and decreased relapse rate at one month (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.68, 388 participants, 3 studies, very low quality evidence). However, this effect did not translate into a higher frequency of long-term clinical cure (one month after treatment: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.33, 172 participants, 1 study, very low quality evidence; three months after treatment: RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70, 172 participants, one study, very low quality evidence) or mycological cure (one month after treatment: RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.71, 627 participants, 3 studies, very low quality evidence; three months after treatment: RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.35, 172 participants, one study, very low quality evidence). Probiotics use did not increase the frequency of serious (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.94; 440 participants, 2 studies, low quality evidence). We found no eligible RCTs for outcomes as time to first relapse, need for additional treatment at the end of therapy, patient satisfaction and cost effectiveness.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low and very low quality evidence shows that, compared with conventional treatment, the use of probiotics as an adjuvant therapy could increases the rate of short-term clinical and mycological cure and decrease the relapse rate at one month but this did not translate into a higher frequency of long-term clinical or mycological cure. Probiotics use does not seem to increase the frequency of serious or non-serious adverse events. There is a need for well-designed RCTs with standardized methodologies, longer follow-up and larger sample size.
Topics: Administration, Intravaginal; Antifungal Agents; Candidiasis, Vulvovaginal; Clotrimazole; Female; Fluconazole; Humans; Imidazoles; Miconazole; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 29168557
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010496.pub2 -
Frontiers in Surgery 2021To describe the available knowledge on vulvo-perineal endometriosis including its diagnosis, clinical management and recurrence rate. We followed the PRISMA guidelines...
To describe the available knowledge on vulvo-perineal endometriosis including its diagnosis, clinical management and recurrence rate. We followed the PRISMA guidelines for Systematic Reviews and our study was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020202441). The terms " and " or " were used as keywords. Cochrane Library, Medline/Pubmed, Embase and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched. Papers in English, Spanish, Portuguese, French or Italian from inception to July 30, 2020 were considered. Reference lists of included articles and other literature source such as Google Scholar were also manually scrutinized in order to identify other relevant studies. Two independent reviewers screened potentially eligible studies according to inclusion criteria. Out of 539 reports, 90 studies were eligible including a total of 283 patients. Their mean age was 32.7 ± 7.6 years. Two hundred sixty-three (95.3%) presenting with vulvo-perineal endometriosis have undergone either episiotomy, perineal trauma or vaginal injury or surgery. Only 13 patients (4.7%) developed vulvo-vaginal endometriosis spontaneously i.e., without any apparent condition favoring it. The reasons that motivated the patients to take medical advice were vulvo-perineal cyclical pain increasing during menstruations (98.2% of the patients, = 278). Out of the 281 patients for whom a clinical examination was described, 274 patients (97.5%) showed a vulvo-perineal nodule, mass or swelling while six presented with bluish cutaneous lesions (2.1%) and 1 with bilateral polyps of the labia minora (0.4%). All but one patients underwent surgical excision of their lesions but only 88 patients (28.1%) received additional hormonal therapy. The recurrence rate was 10.2% (29 patients) considering a median follow-up period of 10 months (based on 61 studies). In conclusion, vulvo-perineal endometriosis is a rare entity with approximately 300 cases reported in the literature since 1923. With the available knowledge shown in this systematic review, we encourage all practitioners to think about perineal endometriosis in case of perineal cyclical pain with or without previous perineal damage. Diagnosis should be done with clinical exam, perineal ultrasound and pelvic MRI when available. In case of anal sphincter involvement, perianal ultrasound should be performed. Surgical excision of the lesion should be realized in order to remove the lesion and to confirm the diagnosis histologically. Hormonal treatment could be proposed to attempt to decrease the size of a large lesion before surgery or to avoid recurrence of the lesion. As evidence-based approach to the diagnosis, treatment and recurrence rate of affected patients remains a challenge given its low prevalence, the variations in management found in the articles included and the limited quality of available studies, we suggest that a prospective database on vulvo-perineal endometriosis should be generated to increase knowledge but also awareness among healthcare professionals and optimize patients' care. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42020202441.
PubMed: 34046423
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.637180