Search

Background: Endometriosis affects 190 million women and those assigned female at birth worldwide. For some, it is associated with debilitating chronic pelvic pain. Diagnosis of endometriosis is often achieved through diagnostic laparoscopy. However, when isolated superficial peritoneal endometriosis (SPE), the most common endometriosis subtype, is identified during laparoscopy, limited evidence exists to support the common decision to surgically remove it via excision or ablation. Improved understanding of the impact of surgical removal of isolated SPE for the management of chronic pelvic pain in women is required. Here, we describe our protocol for a multi-centre trial to determine the effectiveness of surgical removal of isolated SPE for the management of endometriosis-associated pain. Methods: We plan to undertake a multi-centre participant-blind parallel-group randomised controlled clinical and cost-effectiveness trial with internal pilot. We plan to randomise 400 participants from up to 70 National Health Service Hospitals in the UK. Participants with chronic pelvic pain awaiting diagnostic laparoscopy for suspected endometriosis will be consented by the clinical research team. If isolated SPE is identified at laparoscopy, and deep or ovarian endometriosis is not seen, participants will be randomised intraoperatively (1:1) to surgical removal (by excision or ablation or both, according to surgeons' preference) versus diagnostic laparoscopy alone. Randomisation with block-stratification will be used. Participants will be given a diagnosis but will not be informed of the procedure they received until 12 months post-randomisation, unless required. Post-operative medical treatment will be according to participants' preference. Participants will be asked to complete validated pain and quality of life questionnaires at 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Our primary outcome is the pain domain of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 (EHP-30), via a between randomised group comparison of adjusted means at 12 months. Assuming a standard deviation of 22 points around the pain score, 90% power, 5% significance and 20% missing data, 400 participants are required to be randomised to detect an 8-point pain score difference. Discussion: This trial aims to provide high quality evidence of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical removal of isolated SPE. Trial registration: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN27244948. Registered 6 April 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION What is the risk of miscarriage among pregnant women who received any of the COVID-19 vaccines? SUMMARY ANSWER There is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are associated with an increased risk of miscarriage. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the mass roll-out of vaccines helped to boost herd immunity and reduced hospital admissions, morbidity, and mortality. Still, many were concerned about the safety of vaccines for pregnancy, which may have limited their uptake among pregnant women and those planning a pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception until June 2022 using a combination of keywords and MeSH terms. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS We included observational and interventional studies that enrolled pregnant women and evaluated any of the available COVID-19 vaccines compared to placebo or no vaccination. We primarily reported on miscarriage in addition to ongoing pregnancy and/or live birth. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE We included data from 21 studies (5 randomized trials and 16 observational studies) reporting on 149 685 women. The pooled rate of miscarriage among women who received a COVID-19 vaccine was 9% (n = 14 749/123 185, 95% CI 0.05–0.14). Compared to those who received a placebo or no vaccination, women who received a COVID-19 vaccine did not have a higher risk of miscarriage (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% CI 0.89–1.28, I 2 35.8%) and had comparable rates for ongoing pregnancy or live birth (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97–1.03, I 2 10.72%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Our analysis was limited to observational evidence with varied reporting, high heterogeneity and risk of bias across included studies, which may limit the generalizability and confidence in our findings. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS COVID-19 vaccines are not associated with an increase in the risk of miscarriage or reduced rates of ongoing pregnancy or live birth among women of reproductive age. The current evidence remains limited and larger population studies are needed to further evaluate the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) No direct funding was provided to support this work. M.P.R. was funded by the Medical Research Council Centre for Reproductive Health Grant No: MR/N022556/1. B.H.A.W. hold a personal development award from the National Institute of Health Research in the UK. All authors declare no conflict of interest. REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42021289098. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vaginal lubricants are commonly used by couples trying-to-conceive. However, most vaginal lubricants are sperm toxic and therefore should not be used by couples trying-to-conceive. Despite this, lubricant sperm toxicity is insufficiently reported and guidance for healthcare professionals (HCPs) is absent. In this study, lubricant-related practices of fertility-based HCPs in Scotland were sampled via an online survey. Lubricants identified as being utilised in the fertility setting were subsequently incubated with prepared sperm samples to establish effects on sperm motility. HCP recommendations (n = 32) on lubricant use were varied although knowledge related to sperm toxicity was generally poor. HCPs infrequently asked about lubricant use and were unaware of guidance in this area. Aquagel, the only prescribed lubricant identified in this study, reduced sperm progressive motility to 49% of control after 10 minutes, even at concentrations as low as 5%. Vitality testing suggested the deterioration in progressive motility with Aquagel was not as a result of cell death. Conversely, Pré Vaginal Lubricant, a ‘sperm-safe’ lubricant, did not significantly affect any markers of sperm function assessed. Development of clinical guidance in this area is recommended to ensure HCPs deliver informed advice as lubricant use in couples trying-to-conceive may inadvertently contribute to delay in conception. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]