Search

Introduction: Chronic pelvic pain affects up to 24% of women worldwide and for up to 55% of these there is no associated pathology. Despite this there are no established treatments in this cohort. This is a secondary analysis of a randomised-controlled trial (GaPP2) to explore if there are measures which enable us to predict treatment outcome. Methods: GaPP2 recruited women with chronic pelvic pain and no identified pathology and compared the response to gabapentin and placebo. This analysis used variables collected at baseline including validated questionnaires. Binary logistic regression was used to create models to explore whether baseline variables predicted treatment response. Treatment response was determined using 30% reduction in average pain intensity, 30% reduction in worst pain intensity and the Patient Global Impression of Change ('marked' or 'very marked' improvement) individually. We also explored whether baseline variables predicted the occurrence of side-effects (dizziness, visual disturbances and drowsiness). Results: Using the Patient Global Impression of Change questionnaire, we found a significant binary logistic regression (p = 0.029, explaining 31% of the variance), with those with lower worst pain intensity (odds ratio (OR) of 0.393, 95% CI [0.217, 0.712]), lower bladder symptom score (OR = 0.788, CI [0.628, 0.989]), and higher mental component quality of life score (OR = 0.911, CI [0.840, 0.988]), more likely to have 'marked' or 'very marked' improvement when treated with gabapentin. We could not identify predictors of experiencing side-effects to gabapentin. However, we did find predictors of these in the placebo group (binary logistic regression (p = 0.009) and explained 33% of the variance). Worse mental health (OR = 1.247, CI [1.019, 1.525]) and lower baseline pain interference (OR = 0.687, CI [0.483, 0.978]) were associated with having side effects, whilst the use of hormones reduced the risk of experiencing side effects (OR = 0.239, CI [0.084, 0.676]). Discussion: Researchers and clinicians are increasingly aware of the importance of personalised medicine and treatment decisions being driven by knowledge of what treatments work for whom. Our data suggests an important role of the Patient Global Impression of Change in clinical trials as it may better reflect balance between symptoms reduction and side-effects and therefore be more useful in clinician-patients joint decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To quantify the variation, triggers and impact on quality of life of symptom flares in women with chronic pelvic pain (CPP). Design: Cross‐sectional questionnaire within the Translational Research in Pelvic Pain clinical cohort study. Setting: Women with CPP, with subgroups of women with endometriosis (EAP), interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (BPS), comorbid endometriosis and interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (EABP), and those with pelvic pain without endometriosis or interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (PP). Population or Sample: A total of 100 participants. Methods: Descriptive and comparative analysis from flares questionnaire. Main Outcome Measures: The prevalence, characteristics and triggers of short, medium and long symptom flares in CPP. Results: We received 100 responses of 104 questionnaires sent. Seventy‐six per cent of women with CPP have ever experienced symptom flares of at least one length (short, medium and/or long). Flares are associated with painful and non‐painful symptoms. There is large variation for the frequency, duration, symptoms and triggers for flares. Over 60% of participants reported flares as stopping them from doing things they would usually do, >80% reported thinking about symptoms of flares and >80% reported flares being bothersome. Conclusions: Flares are prevalent and clinically very important in CPP. More research is needed to elucidate the mechanisms and characteristics underlying flares. Clinical practice should include an enquiry into flares with the aim of finding strategies to lessen their burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is a common condition affecting up to 26.6% of women, with many suffering for several years before diagnosis and/or treatment. Its clinical presentation is varied and there are frequently comorbid conditions both within and outside the pelvis. We aim to explore whether specific subgroups of women with CPP report different clinical symptoms and differing impact of pain on their quality of life (QoL). Methods: The study is part of the Translational Research in Pelvic Pain (TRiPP) project which is a cross-sectional observational cohort study. The study includes 769 female participants of reproductive age who completed an extensive set of questions derived from standardised WERF EPHect questionnaires. Within this population we defined a control group (reporting no pelvic pain, no bladder pain syndrome, and no endometriosis diagnosis, N = 230) and four pain groups: endometriosis-associated pain (EAP, N = 237), interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (BPS, N = 72), comorbid endometriosis-associated pain and BPS (EABP, N = 120), and pelvic pain only (PP, N = 127). Results: Clinical profiles of women with CPP (13-50 years old) show variability of clinical symptoms. The EAP and EABP groups scored higher than the PP group (p < 0.001) on the pain intensity scales for non-cyclical pelvic pain and higher than both the BPS and PP groups (p < 0.001) on the dysmenorrhoea scale. The EABP group also had significantly higher scores for dyspareunia (p < 0.001), even though more than 50% of sexually active participants in each pain group reported interrupting and/or avoiding sexual intercourse due to pain in the last 12 months. Scores for the QoL questionnaire (SF-36) reveal that CPP patients had significantly lower QoL across all SF-36 subscales (p < 0.001). Significant effects were also observed between the pain groups for pain interference with their work (p < 0.001) and daily lives (p < 0.001), with the EABP suffering more compared to the EAP and PP groups (p < 0.001). Discussion: Our results demonstrate the negative impact that chronic pain has on CPP patients' QoL and reveal an increased negative impact of pain on the comorbid EABP group. Furthermore, it demonstrates the importance of dyspareunia in women with CPP. Overall, our results demonstrate the need for further exploration of interventions targeting QoL more broadly and suggest that novel approaches to classifying women with CPP are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pain is one of the primary symptoms of endometriosis, a chronic inflammatory condition characterised by the presence of endometrial tissue outside the uterus. Endometriosis-associated pain is commonly considered as nociceptive in nature, but its clinical presentation suggests that it might have neuropathic-like properties in a subgroup of patients. Methods: This is a cross sectional study using an online survey. The survey was distributed by patient support websites. The survey was composed of validated questionnaires assessing pain symptoms, psychological measures and questions about number of surgeries. Main Results: We had 1,417 responses which met the inclusion criteria. Using standard painDETECT cut-off scores, we found that pain was classified as neuropathic in 40% of patients and as mixed neuropathic/nociceptive in a further 35%. In line with observations in other neuropathic conditions, the neuropathic subgroup reported higher pain intensities, greater psychological distress and cognitive impairment. Neuropathic pain was also more likely in those with more surgeries to the abdomen and a longer history of pain. As revealed by a cluster analysis, those with a neuropathic pain component could further be divided into two subgroups based on their sensory profile. Conclusions: The data presented here indicate that endometriosis-associated pain includes a neuropathic-like component in a substantial proportion of women. Although further investigation is required, our finding challenges the current conceptualisation of endometriosis-associated pain as nociceptive and advocates for a new perspective on this type of pain, which is so debilitating to a large number of women., Competing Interests: KW has received Consultancy fees from P&G Health, Germany. KV declares that she has received research funding from Bayer AG, Honoraria from Eli Lilly and Honoraria and Consultancy fees from Bayer AG, Grünenthal GmBH and AbbeVie. The remaining author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Coxon, Wiech and Vincent.)