Search

Objectives: To evaluate the association between treatments for vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA) and symptom frequency and severity, quality of life (QoL) and sexual functioning in postmenopausal women., Study Design: Cross-sectional survey conducted in postmenopausal women aged 45-75 years. Data on demographic and clinical variables, as well as vaginal, vulvar and urinary symptoms were collected. The EuroQoL questionnaire (EQ5D3L), the Day-to-Day Impact of Vaginal Aging (DIVA), the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and the Female Sexual Distress Scale - revised (FSDS-R) were filled out., Main Outcome Measures: Association between treatments for VVA and symptom frequency., Results: Women on VVA treatment presented with more severe symptoms. The sexual function score was higher in the treated women (FSFI: 15.6 vs 16.7; p = 0.010), as was the score for sexual distress (FSDS-R: 9.2 vs 12.3, p < 0.0005). The systemic hormone group presented with fewer VVA symptoms, lower vaginal impact (DIVA), and better sexual function (FSFI and FSDS-R) and vaginal health. The rates of sexual distress and vulvar atrophy were higher in the non-hormonal treatment group. No significant differences were found according to treatment duration., Conclusions: Postmenopausal women with VVA receiving treatment complained of more severe symptoms than those untreated. Women on systemic treatment had fewer and milder VVA symptoms and presented with better vaginal and vulvar health than women on other treatments. Many women request effective local treatment too late, when VVA symptoms are already severe. Our data suggest that VVA treatments should ideally be initiated when symptoms commence and cause distress, rather than later, when symptoms may have become more severe and even a cause of intolerable distress for the woman., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objective: This subanalysis of the European Vulvovaginal Epidemiology Survey study aimed to assess the correlation of vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA) symptoms and severity, when confirmed by objective gynecologic examination, with the quality of life of postmenopausal women., Methods: Women aged 45 to 75 years with confirmation of last menstrual period more than 12 months before, who attended menopause or gynecology centers, were included. Those women had at least one VVA symptom filled in a group of questionnaires, including EuroQol-EQ-5D-3L and Day-to-Day Impact of Vaginal Aging (DIVA). To confirm the VVA diagnosis, an objective gynecologic examination was also performed., Results: Of a total of 2,160 evaluable women, 66.3%, 30.5%, and 11.2% suffered from severe vaginal, vulvar, and urinary symptoms, respectively. VVA was confirmed in more than 90% of the participants. Mean (±SD) EQ-5D-3L score was 0.892 ± 0.144 and mean (±SD) score on the associated visual analog scale was 71.7 ± 16.0. Mean (±SD) DIVA score was 0.922 ± 0.653. For both EQ-5D-3L and DIVA, the overall scores and most of the dimensions/components were statistically significantly worse for women with severe VVA symptoms (vulvar and urinary) compared with women not affected by severe symptoms. Quality of life questionnaires showed worse scores in women where the diagnosis of VVA was confirmed by gynecologic examination., Conclusions: Severe VVA symptoms showed a direct association with worse quality of life in postmenopausal women. This important effect on the quality of life of many women should be recognized as equivalent to those from other conditions and pathologies of which there is greater awareness.

In the absence of a direct head-to-head study, we performed an indirect historical comparison of ospemifene 60 mg (Senshio ® ) vs. local vaginal estrogens in moderate or severe vulvar and vaginal atrophy (VVA). A literature search was carried out of clinical efficacy/safety trials of local vaginal estrogens in VVA approved in Europe. For efficacy comparison, studies had to be placebo-controlled and of 12 weeks' duration. For safety comparison, studies had to be ≥40 weeks' duration. Efficacy endpoints were the difference between active and placebo in change from baseline to week 12 for symptoms, vaginal pH, and maturation value (MV). Safety endpoints were endometrial safety, breast safety, thrombosis, and adverse events. The 12-week improvement over placebo in symptom score was not different for ospemifene 60 mg and 17β-estradiol 10 μg and for ospemifene 60 mg and estriol gel. After 12 weeks, the percentages with vaginal pH <5.0 and <5.5 were better for ospemifene 60 mg than 10 μg 17β-estradiol. Week-12 pH changes were comparable with estriol pessaries or gel and ospemifene 60 mg. The 12-week MV improvements over placebo were similar or better with ospemifene 60 mg compared with 10 μg 17β-estradiol and with estriol pessaries or gel. There was no increased vaginal bleeding, endometrial hyperplasia, or carcinoma (including breast cancer) relative to placebo and no signal for increased risk of venous thromboembolism with ospemifene 60 mg or 10 μg 17β-estradiol, but the confidence intervals for both products do not exclude an increased risk. This historical indirect comparison suggests that ospemifene 60 mg has an efficacy, safety, and tolerability profile comparable to or better than local vaginal estrogens in the treatment of VVA.

Objectives: To determine whether assessment of all moderate-to-severe symptoms at baseline gives a more accurate evaluation of the treatment effect of ospemifene in vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA) than the most bothersome symptom (MBS) approach., Methods: Data were pooled from two pivotal phase-III clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of oral ospemifene 60 mg/day for the treatment of symptoms of VVA (n = 1463 subjects). Symptoms of vaginal dryness, dyspareunia, and vaginal and/or vulvar irritation/itching reported as moderate or severe at baseline were evaluated. Clinically relevant differences between ospemifene and placebo were analyzed using a four-point severity scoring system and presented as improvement, substantial improvement, or relief., Results: Subjects in these studies reported statistically significant improvement, substantial improvement, and relief for vaginal dryness (p < 0.00001), dyspareunia (p < 0.001) and statistically significant improvement and relief for vaginal and/or vulvar irritation/itching (p < 0.01) from baseline to week 12 with ospemifene compared with placebo. A similar trend was observed for women who reported substantial improvement of vaginal and/or vulvar irritation/itching., Conclusions: For drug registration purposes, the use of the MBS model is appealing because of its simplicity and ease of scientific validation. However, the MBS model may underestimate the total magnitude of the clinical benefit of ospemifene treatment for symptomatic women suffering from VVA.

Objectives: To explore clinically relevant differences in severity of vulvar and vaginal atrophy (VVA) in postmenopausal women treated with ospemifene compared with placebo., Methods: Analysis of two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 12-week phase-III studies in postmenopausal women (40-80 years, with VVA, treated with ospemifene 60 mg/day or placebo (Study 310 and Study 821)). Severity of vaginal dryness and dyspareunia were evaluated using a four-point scoring system and clinically relevant differences between ospemifene and placebo were analyzed and are presented as improvement (reduction in ≥ 1 unit on four-point scoring system), substantial improvement (reduction in 2-3 units on four-point scoring system) and relief (severity score of mild/none after 12 weeks)., Results: In Study 310, significantly more women with a most bothersome symptom of dyspareunia had improvement (68.3% vs. 54.1%; p = 0.0255) or relief (57.5% vs. 41.8%; p = 0.0205) in the severity of dyspareunia from baseline to week 12 with ospemifene compared with placebo. For those with a most bothersome symptom of vaginal dryness, significantly more experienced improvement (74.6% vs. 57.7%; p = 0.0101), substantial improvement (42.4% vs. 26.9%; p = 0.0172) and relief (66.1% vs. 49.0%; p = 0.0140) of vaginal dryness from baseline to week 12 with ospemifene compared with placebo. Proportions of women with improvement/substantial improvement/relief of symptoms of vaginal dryness or dyspareunia were similar in Study 821. Clinically relevant differences were noticeable by week 4., Conclusions: Treatment with ospemifene was consistently associated with greater improvement, substantial improvement or relief in the severity of the most bothersome symptoms of vaginal dryness or dyspareunia compared with placebo.