Effect of Fractional Carbon Dioxide Laser vs Sham Treatment on Symptom Severity in Women With Postmenopausal Vaginal Symptoms: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Journal
JAMA
ISSN: 1538-3598
Titre abrégé: JAMA
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7501160
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 10 2021
12 10 2021
Historique:
entrez:
12
10
2021
pubmed:
13
10
2021
medline:
29
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Postmenopausal vaginal symptoms are common and frequently detrimental to a woman's quality of life. Fractional carbon dioxide vaginal laser is increasingly offered as a treatment, but the efficacy remains unproven. To determine the efficacy of fractional carbon dioxide laser for treatment of vaginal symptoms associated with menopause. A double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial with 12-month follow-up was undertaken at a single tertiary referral hospital in Sydney, Australia. Enrollment commenced on September 19, 2016, with final follow-up on June 30, 2020. Participants were postmenopausal women with vaginal symptoms substantive enough to seek medical treatment. Of 232 participants approached, 85 were randomized. Three treatments using a fractional microablative carbon dioxide laser system performed 4 to 8 weeks apart, with 43 women randomized to the laser group and 42 to the sham group. The co-primary outcomes were symptom severity assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS; range, 0-100; 0 indicates no symptoms and 100 indicates the most severe symptoms) and the Vulvovaginal Symptom Questionnaire (VSQ; range, 0-20; 0 indicates no symptoms and 20 indicates the most severe symptoms) at 12 months. The minimal clinically important difference was specified as a 50% decrease in both VAS and VSQ severity scores. There were 5 prespecified secondary outcomes, including quality of life (range, 0-100; higher scores indicate better quality of life), the Vaginal Health Index Score (range, 5-25; higher scores indicate better health), and vaginal histology (premenopausal or postmenopausal status). Of 85 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 57 [8] years), 78 (91.7%) completed the 12-month follow-up. From baseline to 12 months, there was no significant difference between the carbon dioxide laser group and the sham group in change in symptom severity (VAS score for overall vaginal symptoms: -17.2 vs -26.6; difference, 9.4 [95% CI, -28.6 to 47.5]; VAS score for the most severe symptom: -24.5 vs -20.4; difference -4.1 [95% CI, -32.5 to 24.3]; VSQ score: -3.1 vs -1.6; difference, -1.5 [95% CI, -5.9 to 3.0]). There were no significant differences between the laser and sham group in the mean quality of life score (6.3 vs 1.4; difference, 4.8 [95% CI, -3.9 to 13.5]) and Vaginal Health Index Score (0.9 vs 1.3; difference, -0.4 [95% CI, -4.3 to 3.6]) or in histological comparisons between laser and sham treatment groups. There were 16 adverse events in the laser group and 17 in the sham group, including vaginal pain/discomfort (44% vs 68%), spotting, discharge, and lower urinary tract symptoms. No severe adverse events were reported in either group. Among women with postmenopausal vaginal symptoms, treatment with fractional carbon dioxide laser vs sham treatment did not significantly improve vaginal symptoms after 12 months. Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12616001403426.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34636862
pii: 2784960
doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.14892
pmc: PMC8511979
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1381-1389Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Références
Menopause. 2019 Apr;26(4):423-427
pubmed: 30640806
BJOG. 2021 May;128(6):1087-1096
pubmed: 33017509
Fertil Steril. 2004 Oct;82(4):878-84
pubmed: 15482763
Menopause. 2015 Aug;22(8):845-9
pubmed: 25608269
Menopause. 2013 Sep;20(9):973-9
pubmed: 23481118
JACC Basic Transl Sci. 2016 Jun 27;1(4):277-287
pubmed: 30167516
Menopause. 2021 Mar 15;28(6):706-716
pubmed: 33739315
Maturitas. 1995 Dec;22 Suppl:S1-S5
pubmed: 8775770
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Dec;223(6):890.e1-890.e12
pubmed: 32562659
JAMA Intern Med. 2018 May 1;178(5):681-690
pubmed: 29554173
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013 Apr 17;11:61
pubmed: 23590808
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018 Apr;58(2):148-162
pubmed: 29067688
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021 Mar;28(3):668-683
pubmed: 32791349
Lasers Surg Med. 2007 Feb;39(2):96-107
pubmed: 17311274
Lasers Med Sci. 2015 Jan;30(1):429-36
pubmed: 25410301
Climacteric. 2014 Aug;17(4):363-9
pubmed: 24605832
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Sep;66(9):1022-8
pubmed: 23790725
J Sex Med. 2008 Nov;5(11):2575-86
pubmed: 18778313
Menopause. 2020 Jan;27(1):50-56
pubmed: 31574047
Int Urogynecol J. 2015 Jan;26(1):15-28
pubmed: 25047897
Lasers Surg Med. 2019 Nov;51(9):757-759
pubmed: 31215051
Menopause. 2019 May;26(5):513-519
pubmed: 30516713
Am J Clin Dermatol. 2003;4(1):1-12
pubmed: 12477368
Aesthet Surg J. 2019 Jan 1;39(1):83-93
pubmed: 29726916
Menopause. 2018 Jan;25(1):21-28
pubmed: 28763401
Menopause. 2019 Aug;26(8):833-840
pubmed: 31246661
Endocrine. 2018 Jun;60(3):510-515
pubmed: 29138989