Search

Study Question: What is the global consensus on the classification of endometriosis that considers the views of women with endometriosis?, Summary Answer: We have produced an international consensus statement on the classification of endometriosis through systematic appraisal of evidence and a consensus process that included representatives of national and international, medical and non-medical societies, patient organizations, and companies with an interest in endometriosis., What Is Known Already: Classification systems of endometriosis, developed by several professional organizations, traditionally have been based on lesion appearance, pelvic adhesions, and anatomic location of disease. One system predicts fertility outcome and none predicts pelvic pain, response to medications, disease recurrence, risks for associated disorders, quality of life measures, and other endpoints important to women and health care providers for guiding appropriate therapeutic options and prognosis., Study Design, Size, Duration: A consensus meeting, in conjunction with pre- and post-meeting processes, was undertaken., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: A consensus meeting was held on 30 April 2014 in conjunction with the World Endometriosis Society's 12th World Congress on Endometriosis. Rigorous pre- and post-meeting processes, involving 55 representatives of 29 national and international, medical and non-medical organizations from a range of disciplines, led to this consensus statement., Main Results and the Role of Chance: A total of 28 consensus statements were made. Of all, 10 statements had unanimous consensus, however none of the statements was made without expression of a caveat about the strength of the statement or the statement itself. Two statements did not achieve majority consensus. The statements covered women's priorities, aspects of classification, impact of low resources, as well as all the major classification systems for endometriosis. Until better classification systems are developed, we propose a classification toolbox (that includes the revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine and, where appropriate, the Enzian and Endometriosis Fertility Index staging systems), that may be used by all surgeons in each case of surgery undertaken for women with endometriosis. We also propose wider use of the World Endometriosis Research Foundation Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonisation Project surgical and clinical data collection tools for research to improve classification of endometriosis in the future, of particular relevance when surgery is not undertaken., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: This consensus process differed from that of formal guideline development, although based on the same available evidence. A different group of international experts from those participating in this process may have yielded subtly different consensus statements., Wider Implications of the Findings: This is the first time that a large, global, consortium-representing 29 major stake-holding organizations, from 19 countries - has convened to systematically evaluate the best available evidence on the classification of endometriosis and reach consensus. In addition to 21 international medical organizations and companies, representatives from eight national endometriosis organizations were involved, including lay support groups, thus generating and including input from women who suffer from endometriosis in an endeavour to keep uppermost the goal of optimizing quality of life for women with endometriosis., Study Funding/competing Interests: The World Endometriosis Society convened and hosted the consensus meeting. Financial support for participants to attend the meeting was provided by the organizations that they represented. There was no other specific funding for this consensus process. Mauricio Abrao is an advisor to Bayer Pharma, and a consultant to AbbVie and AstraZeneca; G David Adamson is the Owner of Advanced Reproductive Care Inc and Ziva and a consultant to Bayer Pharma, Ferring, and AbbVie; Deborah Bush has received travel grants from Fisher & Paykel Healthcare and Bayer Pharmaceuticals; Linda Giudice is a consultant to AbbVie, Juniper Pharmaceutical, and NextGen Jane, holds research grant from the NIH, is site PI on a clinical trial sponsored by Bayer, and is a shareholder in Merck and Pfizer; Lone Hummelshoj is an unpaid consultant to AbbVie; Neil Johnson has received conference expenses from Bayer Pharma, Merck-Serono, and MSD, research funding from AbbVie, and is a consultant to Vifor Pharma and Guerbet; Jörg Keckstein has received a travel grant from AbbVie; Ludwig Kiesel is a consultant to Bayer Pharma, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gedeon Richter, and Shionogi, and holds a research grant from Bayer Pharma; Luk Rombauts is an advisor to MSD, Merck Serono, and Ferring, and a shareholder in Monash IVF. The following have declared that they have nothing to disclose: Kathy Sharpe Timms; Rulla Tamimi; Hugh Taylor., Trial Registration Number: N/A., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Study Question: To what extent are outcome measures in endometriosis-related quality of life studies influenced by the setting in which patient recruitment is performed?, Summary Answer: Quality of life outcomes in women with endometriosis are highly influenced by recruitment strategies., What Is Known Already: Most studies on quality of life in women with endometriosis are conducted in tertiary care centres or patient associations. It is conceivable that the setting in which patient recruitment is performed influences the quality of life results. This has not been investigated before., Study Design, Size, Duration: Retrospective questionnaire based cohort study (part of the World Endometriosis Research Foundation (WERF) EndoCost study). The investigated women were recruited in three settings: a tertiary care centre for endometriosis (n = 135); five secondary care centres (n = 63); an endometriosis patient association (n = 291)., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: The secondary and tertiary care population included women with a laparoscopic and/or histological diagnosis of endometriosis. The patient association population consisted of women with a self-reported diagnosis of surgically confirmed endometriosis., Main Results and the Role of Chance: The populations did not differ in terms of age, co-morbidities and education level. Delay of diagnosis was the longest in the patient association (median 7 years) (tertiary care 2 years; secondary care 1.5 years) (P < 0.001). The tertiary care population reported more laparotomies (64%) than the other populations (secondary care 43%; patient association 47%) (P = 0.002). Affected job was least prevalent in the secondary care setting (35%) (patient association 64%; tertiary care 56%) (P < 0.001). Affected relationships were most prevalent in the patient association setting (52%) (tertiary care 38%; secondary care 22%) (P < 0.001). Chronic pain was least prevalent in patients in secondary care (44%) (tertiary care 65%; patient association 61%) (P = 0.009). Substantial differences in quality of life were detected between secondary care (median physical component 50.4, mental component 49.6); tertiary care (physical component 46.2, mental component 46.2) and the patient association (physical component 45.0, mental component 44.6) (P < 0.001, P = 0.018)., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: The response rate was relatively low (35%). Analysis of the hospital populations revealed that non-responders and responders did not differ with respect to age or revised American Fertility Society classification, indicating that the non-responder bias is limited. However, other factors, such as social and marital status or symptomatology, might be different for non-responders. Missing values were analysed as if the symptom was not present. Missing values never exceeded 10%, except for one value. Therefore, it can be expected that the effect of missing data on the outcome is negligible. Twenty-five patients belonged to more than one category. A sensitivity analysis showed that the influence of assigning patients to another category was limited., Wider Implications of the Findings: Outcomes regarding quality of life are highly influenced by recruitment strategy. None of the groups appeared to be a representative selection of the total population of women with endometriosis. An alternative strategy for creating a representative population for cost and quality of life studies is probably to recruit women who live in a specific geographic area rather than women that visit a specific hospital or are a member of a patient association., Study Funding/competing Interests: The WERF EndoCost study was funded by the World Endometriosis Research Foundation. The sponsors did not have a role in the design and conduct of this study: collection, management, analysis, interpretation of the data; preparation, review, approval of the manuscript. L.H. is the chief executive and T.M.D. was a board member of WERF at the time of funding. T.M.D holds the Merck-Serono Chair and the Ferring Chair in Reproductive Medicine in Leuven, Belgium and has served as consultant for Merck-Serono, Schering-Plough, Astellas, and Arresto., Trial Registration Number: Not applicable., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Study Question: To what extent do the management of endometriosis and the symptoms that remain after treatment affect the quality of life in women with the disease?, Summary Answer: Many women with endometriosis had impaired quality of life and continued to suffer from endometriosis-associated symptoms even though their endometriosis has been managed in tertiary care centres., What Is Known Already: The existing literature indicates that quality of life and work productivity is reduced in women with endometriosis. However, most studies have small sample sizes, are treatment related or examine newly diagnosed patients only., Study Design, Size, Duration: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey among 931 women with endometriosis treated in 12 tertiary care centres in 10 countries., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Women diagnosed with endometriosis who had at least one contact related to endometriosis-associated symptoms during 2008 with a participating centre were enrolled into the study. The study investigated the effect of endometriosis on education, work and social wellbeing, endometriosis-associated symptoms and health-related quality of life, by using questions obtained from the World Endometriosis Research Foundation (WERF) GSWH instrument (designed and validated for the WERF Global Study on Women's Health) and the Short Form 36 version 2 (SF-36v2)., Main Results and the Role of Chance: Of 3216 women invited to participate in the study, 1450 (45%) provided informed consent and out of these, 931 (931/3216 = 29%) returned the questionnaires. Endometriosis had affected work in 51% of the women and affected relationships in 50% of the women at some time during their life. Dysmenorrhoea was reported by 59%, dyspareunia by 56% and chronic pelvic pain by 60% of women. Quality of life was decreased in all eight dimensions of the SF-36v2 compared with norm-based scores from a general US population (all P < 0.01). Multivariate regression analysis showed that number of co-morbidities, chronic pain and dyspareunia had an independent negative effect on both the physical and mental component of the SF-36v2., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: The fact that women were enrolled in tertiary care centres could lead to a possible over-representation of women with moderate-to-severe endometriosis, because the participating centres typically treat more complex and referred cases of endometriosis. The response rate was relatively low. Since there was no Institute Review Board approval to do a non-responder investigation on basic characteristics, some uncertainty remains regarding the representativeness of the investigated population., Wider Implications of the Findings: This international multicentre survey represents a large group of women with endometriosis, in all phases of the disease, which increases the generalizability of the data. Women still suffer from frequent symptoms, despite tertiary care management, in particular chronic pain and dyspareunia. As a result their quality of life is significantly decreased. A patient-centred approach with extensive collaboration across disciplines, such as pain specialists, psychologists, sexologists and social workers, may be a valuable strategy to improve the long-term care of women with endometriosis., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The WERF EndoCost study is funded by the World Endometriosis Research Foundation (WERF) through grants received from Bayer Schering Pharma AG, Takeda Italia Farmaceutici SpA, Pfizer Ltd and the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. The sponsors did not have a role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review or approval of the manuscript. L.H. is the chief executive and T.D. was a board member of WERF at the time of funding. T.D. holds the Merck-Serono Chair in Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, and the Ferring Chair in Reproductive Medicine at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium and has served as consultant/research collaborator for Merck-Serono, Schering-Plough, Astellas and Arresto.

Study Question: Is there a global consensus on the management of endometriosis that considers the views of women with endometriosis?, Summary Answer: It was possible to produce an international consensus statement on the current management of endometriosis through engagement of representatives of national and international, medical and non-medical societies with an interest in endometriosis., What Is Known Already: Management of endometriosis anywhere in the world has been based partially on evidence-based practices and partially on unsubstantiated therapies and approaches. Several guidelines have been developed by a number of national and international bodies, yet areas of controversy and uncertainty remain, not least due to a paucity of firm evidence., Study Design, Size, Duration: A consensus meeting, in conjunction with a pre- and post-meeting process, was undertaken., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: A consensus meeting was held on 8 September 2011, in conjunction with the 11th World Congress on Endometriosis in Montpellier, France. A rigorous pre- and post-meeting process, involving 56 representatives of 34 national and international, medical and non-medical organizations from a range of disciplines, led to this consensus statement., Main Results and the Role of Chance: A total of 69 consensus statements were developed. Seven statements had unanimous consensus; however, none of the statements were made without expression of a caveat about the strength of the statement or the statement itself. Only two statements failed to achieve majority consensus. The statements covered global considerations, the role of endometriosis organizations, support groups, centres or networks of expertise, the impact of endometriosis throughout a woman's life course, and a full range of treatment options for pain, infertility and other symptoms related to endometriosis., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: This consensus process differed from that of formal guideline development. A different group of international experts from those participating in this process would likely have yielded subtly different consensus statements., Wider Implications of the Findings: This is the first time that a large, global, consortium, representing 34 major stake-holding organizations from five continents, has convened to systematically evaluate the best available current evidence on the management of endometriosis, and to reach consensus. In addition to 18 international medical organizations, representatives from 16 national endometriosis organizations were involved, including lay support groups, thus generating input from women who suffer from endometriosis.

Background: This study aimed to calculate costs and health-related quality of life of women with endometriosis-associated symptoms treated in referral centres., Methods: A prospective, multi-centre, questionnaire-based survey measured costs and quality of life in ambulatory care and in 12 tertiary care centres in 10 countries. The study enrolled women with a diagnosis of endometriosis and with at least one centre-specific contact related to endometriosis-associated symptoms in 2008. The main outcome measures were health care costs, costs of productivity loss, total costs and quality-adjusted life years. Predictors of costs were identified using regression analysis., Results: Data analysis of 909 women demonstrated that the average annual total cost per woman was €9579 (95% confidence interval €8559-€10 599). Costs of productivity loss of €6298 per woman were double the health care costs of €3113 per woman. Health care costs were mainly due to surgery (29%), monitoring tests (19%) and hospitalization (18%) and physician visits (16%). Endometriosis-associated symptoms generated 0.809 quality-adjusted life years per woman. Decreased quality of life was the most important predictor of direct health care and total costs. Costs were greater with increasing severity of endometriosis, presence of pelvic pain, presence of infertility and a higher number of years since diagnosis., Conclusions: Our study invited women to report resource use based on endometriosis-associated symptoms only, rather than drawing on a control population of women without endometriosis. Our study showed that the economic burden associated with endometriosis treated in referral centres is high and is similar to other chronic diseases (diabetes, Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis). It arises predominantly from productivity loss, and is predicted by decreased quality of life.

In response to the pressing need for more efficacious and safer therapeutics for endometriosis, there have been numerous reports in the last decade of positive results from animal and in vitro studies of various compounds as potential therapeutics for endometriosis. A handful of these have undergone phase II/III clinical trials. Since the announcement of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors that mandated registration as a prerequisite for publication, 57 endometriosis-related clinical trials have been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, an Internet-based public depository for information on drug studies. Among them, 25 are listed as completed, and 2 as suspended. There are 15 completed phase II/III trials, which evaluated the efficacy of various promising compounds. Yet only three of the 15 trials (20%) have published their results. The remaining 12 (80%) studies so far have not published their findings. We argue that this apparent lack of transparency will actually not benefit the trial sponsors or the public, and will ultimately prove detrimental to research efforts attempting to develop more efficacious and safer therapeutics for endometriosis. Thus we call for more transparency of clinical trials on endometriosis.

Centres/networks of excellence are the only way forward to ensure that women with endometriosis receive consistent, evidence-based care, ensuring excellence, continuity of care, multi-disciplinarity, research, training and cost-effectiveness. Clinical excellence should be achieved by proper training, adherence to evidence-based guidelines, quality management and continuous measurement of patient outcome as a central focus. To ensure continuity of care, the first step is to assign to each patient a central gynaecologist who must have continuously updated knowledge regarding all diagnostic and management options for endometriosis and who must set priorities and realistic expectations together with the woman using a long-term multi-disciplinary treatment plan. Scientific research within and scientific collaboration between centres/networks of excellence will create the critical mass of patients and tissue samples that is needed to make progress. Centres/networks of excellence should be accredited as training centres by professional bodies. They should aim at improving the cost-effectiveness of the management of endometriosis by a reduction in the time to diagnosis, a reduction in the time before individualized specialist care is invoked, a reduction of expensive hit-and-miss treatments and a reduction in expensive fertility treatments, if the disease is under control before fertility is impaired.

The objective was to develop recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis and its associated symptoms. A working group was convened comprised of practising gynaecologists and experts in evidence-based medicine from Europe, as well as an endometriosis self-help group representative. After reviewing existing evidence-based guidelines and systematic reviews, the expert panel met on three occasions for a day during which the guideline was developed and refined. Recommendations based solely on the clinical experience of the panel were avoided as much as possible. The entire ESHRE Special Interest Group for Endometriosis and Endometrium was given the opportunity to comment on the draft guideline, after which it was available for comment on the ESHRE website for 3 months. The working group then ratified the guideline by unanimous or near-unanimous voting; finally, it was approved by the ESHRE Executive Committee. The guideline will be updated regularly, and will be made available at http://www.endometriosis.org/guidelines.html with hyperlinks to the supporting evidence, and the relevant references and abstracts. For women presenting with symptoms suggestive of endometriosis, a definitive diagnosis of most forms of endometriosis requires visual inspection of the pelvis at laparoscopy as the 'gold standard' investigation. However, pain symptoms suggestive of the disease can be treated without a definitive diagnosis using a therapeutic trial of a hormonal drug to reduce menstrual flow. In women with laparoscopically confirmed disease, suppression of ovarian function for 6 months reduces endometriosis-associated pain; all hormonal drugs studied are equally effective although their side-effects and cost profiles differ. Ablation of endometriotic lesions reduces endometriosis-associated pain and the smallest effect is seen in patients with minimal disease; there is no evidence that also performing laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation (LUNA) is necessary. In minimal-mild endometriosis, suppression of ovarian function to improve fertility is not effective, but ablation of endometriotic lesions plus adhesiolysis is effective compared to diagnostic laparoscopy alone. There is insufficient evidence available to determine whether surgical excision of moderate-severe endometriosis enhances pregnancy rates. IVF is appropriate treatment especially if there are coexisting causes of infertility and/or other treatments have failed, but IVF pregnancy rates are lower in women with endometriosis than in those with tubal infertility. The management of severe/deeply infiltrating endometriosis is complex and referral to a centre with the necessary expertise is strongly recommended. Patient self-help groups can provide invaluable counselling, support and advice.