Real-world characteristics of women with endometriosis-related pain entering a multidisciplinary endometriosis program.

BACKGROUND: Women with endometriosis are commonly treated by their sole provider. In this single-provider model of care, women frequently report long diagnostic delays, unresolved pelvic pain, multiple laparoscopic surgeries, sequential consultations with numerous providers, and an overall dissatisfaction with care. The emergence of multidisciplinary endometriosis centers aims to reduce diagnostic delays, improve pain management, and promote patient satisfaction; however, baseline data at the time of presentation to a multidisciplinary center are lacking. METHODS: A real-world, retrospective, single-site, cross-sectional study of women with surgically confirmed and/or clinically diagnosed endometriosis generated baseline data for a planned longitudinal assessment of multidisciplinary care of endometriosis. The primary objective was to determine the proportion of patients experiencing mild, moderate, or severe pain for dysmenorrhea, non-menstrual pelvic pain (NMPP), and dyspareunia at entry into a multidisciplinary endometriosis clinic. Also explored were relationships between pain scores and clinical endpoints obtained from electronic medical records. RESULTS: More than half (59%) of the study participants (n = 638) reported experiencing pelvic pain for ≥ 5 years. Pain intensity was highest for patients reporting dysmenorrhea, followed by NMPP, and dyspareunia. Significant correlations were observed between total pelvic pain and patient age (r = -0.22, p < 0.001, n = 506) and number of previous healthcare providers (r = 0.16, p = 0.006, n = 292); number of previous providers and duration of pain (r = 0.21, p = < 0.0001, n = 279); and duration of pain and years since diagnosis (r = 0.60, p < 0.001, n = 302). Mean pain scores differed significantly by age group for dysmenorrhea (p < 0.001), NMPP (p = 0.005), and total pelvic pain (p < 0.001), but not for dyspareunia (p = 0.06), with the highest mean pain scores reported among those < 30 years of age. CONCLUSION: These real-world data indicate that in the single-provider model of care, unresolved pelvic pain is common among women with endometriosis. Alternative care models, including a multidisciplinary approach, need to be evaluated for improvements in clinical outcomes. These data also highlight the importance of addressing NMPP, which may be particularly troublesome for patients.

Safety and efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir during pregnancy: a systematic review.

The co-formulated, ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor lopinavir is a frequently used component of HAART for treatment of HIV-infected women during pregnancy and prevention of mother-to-child transmission. We performed a systematic review to assess the effects of lopinavir/ritonavir on maternal and infant clinical and safety outcomes in HIV-infected pregnant women. PubMed, EMBASE, and select congresses were searched for studies published through May 31, 2012. Studies were selected that included HIV-infected pregnant mothers treated with a lopinavir/ritonavir-based regimen and described relevant maternal and infant outcomes. Ten articles or presentations describing nine studies were identified, comprising 2,675 lopinavir/ritonavir-treated women. In studies reporting HIV-1 RNA at delivery, HIV-1 RNA < 200 to < 1,000 copies/ml was achieved in 64-97% of subjects. Preterm delivery (< 37 weeks gestation) rates ranged from 8.3 to 25%; low birth weight (< 2,500 g) rates ranged from 11 to 20.3%. In one study, preterm delivery rates and low birth weight were similar between women who received standard or increased doses of lopinavir/ritonavir. In five studies reporting stillbirths and live births, 38 stillbirths occurred versus 2,058 live births (1.8%) among women receiving lopinavir/ritonavir. In eight studies reporting mother-to-child transmission at different time points, rates ranged from 0 to 3.3% and appeared to be similar in the one study comparing pregnant women who received standard or higher doses of lopinavir/ritonavir. The results from this systematic review suggest no unique safety or efficacy concerns with use of standard dose lopinavir/ritonavir as part of HAART in pregnant women.

Sex differences in lopinavir and ritonavir pharmacokinetics among HIV-infected women and men.

The authors compared the pharmacokinetics of lopinavir (LPV) and ritonavir (RTV) between women and men. This 2-step, multicenter, pharmacokinetic study enrolled human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected adults on lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) capsules (400/100 mg bid) plus 1 or more nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. All participants underwent 12-hour pharmacokinetic sampling. The pharmacokinetic sampling was repeated in participants receiving the LPV/r tablet formulation. Step 1 enrolled 37 women and 40 men; step 2 included 42 participants from step 1 plus 35 new participants (39 women and 38 men). LPV pharmacokinetics in women and men were not significantly different with either formulation. Women had significantly higher median RTV AUC(0-12 h) with both the soft-gel capsule (SGC) and tablet formulations (SGC: 5395 vs 4119 ng·h/mL, P = .026; tablet: 5310 vs 3941 ng·h/mL, P = .012), higher median C(max) (SGC: 802 vs 635 ng/mL, P = .032; tablet: 773 vs 570 ng/mL, P = .006), and lower median CL/F (SGC: 18.54 vs 24.31 L/h, P = .026; tablet: 18.83 vs 25.37 L/h, P = .012). RTV CL/F was slower in women after weight adjustment with both formulations. The pharmacokinetics of LPV in the SGC and tablet formulations are comparable in HIV-infected patients. Women had higher RTV AUC(0-12 h) and lower CL/F with both formulations. The mechanism of the sex difference in RTV CL/F warrants elucidation.

An updated systematic overview of triple combination therapy in antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected adults.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of three drug combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) in treatment-naive HIV-infected persons, and identify the predictors of responses. DESIGN AND METHODS: Overview of trials identified by searching public domain publications and conference presentations. The three-drug combination therapy was defined as two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) or nucleotide and NRTI, and either: (1) a protease inhibitor (PI); (2) a non-nucleoside RTI (NNRTI); (3) a third NRTI; or (4) a ritonavir-boosted PI (BPI). Week 24 and 48 results for the proportions of patients with plasma HIV RNA levels < 400 and < 50 copies/ml, and change in CD4(+) cell counts were recorded. RESULTS: Fifty-three trials met the entry criteria, and enrolled 14 264 patients into 90 treatment arms. Overall 55% of patients had plasma HIV RNA levels < 50 copies/ml at week 48 and this percentage increased with later publication dates. In unadjusted pairwise comparisons at week 48, significantly greater percentages of patients receiving NNRTI (64%) and BPI (64%) had RNA < 50 copies/ml than NRTI (54%) or PI (43%), and CD4(+) cell count increases were significantly greater in the BPI group (+200 cells/microl) than the PI (+179), NNRTI (+173), or NRTI (+161) groups. Pill count and percentage of patients with week 48 plasma HIV RNA levels < 50 copies/ml were correlated in the univariate analysis (P = 0.0053; r = -0.323), but pill count was not a significant predictor in the multivariate analyses. Drug class and baseline CD4(+) cell counts were significant predictors, but explained only a modest amount of the treatment effect, (R(2) = 0.355). CONCLUSIONS: NNRTI and BPI-containing regimens offer superior virologic suppression over 48 weeks, supporting existing guidelines for the choice of initial ART. Pill count was not a consistent predictor of virologic suppression.