Septum resection versus expectant management in women with a septate uterus: an international multicentre open-label randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does septum resection improve reproductive outcomes in women with a septate uterus? SUMMARY ANSWER: Hysteroscopic septum resection does not improve reproductive outcomes in women with a septate uterus. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A septate uterus is a congenital uterine anomaly. Women with a septate uterus are at increased risk of subfertility, pregnancy loss and preterm birth. Hysteroscopic resection of a septum may improve the chance of a live birth in affected women, but this has never been evaluated in randomized clinical trials. We assessed whether septum resection improves reproductive outcomes in women with a septate uterus, wanting to become pregnant. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an international, multicentre, open-label, randomized controlled trial in 10 centres in The Netherlands, UK, USA and Iran between October 2010 and September 2018. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women with a septate uterus and a history of subfertility, pregnancy loss or preterm birth were randomly allocated to septum resection or expectant management. The primary outcome was conception leading to live birth within 12 months after randomization, defined as the birth of a living foetus beyond 24 weeks of gestational age. We analysed the data on an intention-to-treat basis and calculated relative risks with 95% CI. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We randomly assigned 80 women with a septate uterus to septum resection (n = 40) or expectant management (n = 40). We excluded one woman who underwent septum resection from the intention-to-treat analysis, because she withdrew informed consent for the study shortly after randomization. Live birth occurred in 12 of 39 women allocated to septum resection (31%) and in 14 of 40 women allocated to expectant management (35%) (relative risk (RR) 0.88 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.65)). There was one uterine perforation which occurred during surgery (1/39 = 2.6%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although this was a major international trial, the sample size was still limited and recruitment took a long period. Since surgical techniques did not fundamentally change over time, we consider the latter of limited clinical significance. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The trial generated high-level evidence in addition to evidence from a recently published large cohort study. Both studies unequivocally do not reveal any improvements in reproductive outcomes, thereby questioning any rationale behind surgery. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): There was no study funding. M.H.E. reports a patent on a surgical endoscopic cutting device and process for the removal of tissue from a body cavity licensed to Medtronic, outside the scope of the submitted work. H.A.v.V. reports personal fees from Medtronic, outside the submitted work. B.W.J.M. reports grants from NHMRC, personal fees from ObsEva, personal fees from Merck Merck KGaA, personal fees from Guerbet, personal fees from iGenomix, outside the submitted work. M.G. reports several research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring (location VUMC) outside the scope of the submitted work. The remaining authors have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch trial registry: NTR 1676. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 18 February 2009. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 20 October 2010.

Single- versus double-layer closure of the caesarean (uterine) scar in the prevention of gynaecological symptoms in relation to niche development - the 2Close study: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Double-layer compared to single-layer closure of the uterus after a caesarean section (CS) leads to a thicker myometrial layer at the site of the CS scar, also called residual myometrium thickness (RMT). It possibly decreases the development of a niche, which is an interruption of the myometrium at the site of the uterine scar. Thin RMT and a niche are associated with gynaecological symptoms, obstetric complications in a subsequent pregnancy and delivery and possibly with subfertility. METHODS: Women undergoing a first CS regardless of the gestational age will be asked to participate in this multicentre, double blinded randomised controlled trial (RCT). They will be randomised to single-layer closure or double-layer closure of the uterine incision. Single-layer closure (control group) is performed with a continuous running, unlocked suture, with or without endometrial saving technique. Double-layer closure (intervention group) is performed with the first layer in a continuous unlocked suture including the endometrial layer and the second layer is also continuous unlocked and imbricates the first. The primary outcome is the reported number of days with postmenstrual spotting during one menstrual cycle nine months after CS. Secondary outcomes include surgical data, ultrasound evaluation at three months, menstrual pattern, dysmenorrhea, quality of life, and sexual function at nine months. Structured transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) evaluation is performed to assess the uterine scar and if necessary saline infusion sonohysterography (SIS) or gel instillation sonohysterography (GIS) will be added to the examination. Women and ultrasound examiners will be blinded for allocation. Reproductive outcomes at three years follow-up including fertility, mode of delivery and complications in subsequent deliveries will be studied as well. Analyses will be performed by intention to treat. 2290 women have to be randomised to show a reduction of 15% in the mean number of spotting days. Additionally, a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed from a societal perspective. DISCUSSION: This RCT will provide insight in the outcomes of single- compared to double-layer closure technique after CS, including postmenstrual spotting and subfertility in relation to niche development measured by ultrasound. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register ( NTR5480 ). Registered 29 October 2015.

The randomised uterine septum transsection trial (TRUST): design and protocol.

BACKGROUND: A septate uterus is a uterine anomaly that may affect reproductive outcome, and is associated with an increased risk for miscarriage, subfertility and preterm birth. Resection of the septum is subject of debate. There is no convincing evidence concerning its effectiveness and safety. This study aims to assess whether hysteroscopic septum resection improves reproductive outcome in women with a septate uterus. METHODS/DESIGN: A multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing hysteroscopic septum resection and expectant management in women with recurrent miscarriage or subfertility and diagnosed with a septate uterus. The primary outcome is live birth, defined as the birth of a living foetus beyond 24 weeks of gestational age. Secondary outcomes are ongoing pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and complications following hysteroscopic septum resection. The analysis will be performed according to the intention to treat principle. Kaplan-Meier curves will be constructed, estimating the cumulative probability of conception leading to live birth rate over time. Based on retrospective studies, we anticipate an improvement of the live birth rate from 35% without surgery to 70% with surgery. To demonstrate this difference, 68 women need to be randomised. DISCUSSION: Hysteroscopic septum resection is worldwide considered as a standard procedure in women with a septate uterus. Solid evidence for this recommendation is lacking and data from randomised trials is urgently needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch trial registry ( NTR1676 , 18th of February 2009).

Hysteroscopic resection of a uterine caesarean scar defect (niche) in women with postmenstrual spotting: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of a hysteroscopic niche resection versus no treatment in women with postmenstrual spotting and a uterine caesarean scar defect. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Eleven hospitals collaborating in a consortium for women's health research in the Netherlands. POPULATION: Women reporting postmenstrual spotting after a caesarean section who had a niche with a residual myometrium of ≥3 mm, measured during sonohysterography. METHODS: Women were randomly allocated to hysteroscopic niche resection or expectant management for 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the number of days of postmenstrual spotting 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were spotting at the end of menstruation, intermenstrual spotting, dysuria, sonographic niche measurements, surgical parameters, quality of life, women's satisfaction, sexual function, and additional therapy. Outcomes were measured at 3 months and, except for niche measurements, also at 6 months after randomisation. RESULTS: We randomised 52 women to hysteroscopic niche resection and 51 women to expectant management. The median number of days of postmenstrual spotting at baseline was 8 days in both groups. At 6 months after randomisation, the median number of days of postmenstrual spotting was 4 days (interquartile range, IQR 2-7 days) in the intervention group and 7 days (IQR 3-10 days) in the control group (P = 0.04); on a scale of 0-10, discomfort as a result of spotting had a median score of 2 (IQR 0-7) in the intervention group, compared with 7 (IQR 0-8) in the control group (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In women with a niche with a residual myometrium of ≥3 mm, hysteroscopic niche resection reduced postmenstrual spotting and spotting-related discomfort. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: A hysteroscopic niche resection is an effective treatment to reduce niche-related spotting.

The HysNiche trial: hysteroscopic resection of uterine caesarean scar defect (niche) in patients with abnormal bleeding, a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A caesarean section (CS) can cause a defect or disruption of the myometrium at the site of the uterine scar, called a niche. In recent years, an association between a niche and postmenstrual spotting after a CS has been demonstrated. Hysteroscopic resection of these niches is thought to reduce spotting and menstrual pain. However, there are no randomised trials assessing the effectiveness of a hysteroscopic niche resection. METHODS/DESIGN: We planned a multicentre randomised trial comparing hysteroscopic niche resection to no intervention. We study women with postmenstrual spotting after a CS and a niche with a residual myometrium of at least 3 mm during sonohysterography. After informed consent is obtained, eligible women will be randomly allocated to hysteroscopic resection of the niche or expectant management for 6 months. The primary outcome is the number of days with postmenstrual spotting during one menstrual cycle 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes are menstrual characteristics, menstruation related pain and experienced discomfort due to spotting or menstrual pain, quality of life, patient satisfaction, sexual function, urological symptoms, medical consultations, medication use, complications, lost productivity and medical costs. Measurements will be performed at baseline and at 3 and 6 months after randomisation. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed from a societal perspective at 6 months after randomisation. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide insight in the (cost)effectiveness of hysteroscopic resection of a niche versus expectant management in women who have postmenstrual spotting and a niche with sufficient residual myometrium to perform a hysteroscopic niche resection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register NTR3269 . Registered 1 February 2012. ZonMw Grant number 80-82305-97-12030.

Thyroid function, activated protein C resistance and the risk of venous thrombosis in users of hormonal contraceptives.

INTRODUCTION: Use of combined hormonal contraceptives is associated with a three- to eight-fold increased risk of venous thrombosis compared with non-use. The thrombotic risk depends on the estrogen dose as well as the progestogen type. Use of hormonal contraceptives leads to resistance to activated protein C (APC), which may serve as marker for the risk of venous thrombosis. Hyperthyroidism is also associated with an increased risk of venous thrombosis, due to increased free Thyroxine (FT4) levels which cause a hypercoagulable state. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of hormonal contraceptives on levels of FT4, thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) and thyroxine binding globulin (TBG), and to investigate the effects on APC resistance per contraceptive group. We measured FT4, TBG and TSH levels and APC resistance in 231 users of oral contraceptives. RESULTS: Users of the most thrombogenic hormonal contraceptives, i.e. containing desogestrel, cyproterone acetate or drospirenone, had higher TBG levels than users of less thrombogenic hormonal contraceptives, i.e. the levonorgestrel-containing intrauterine device. TSH levels were not significantly elevated and FT4 levels did not change. TBG levels were also associated with APC resistance. CONCLUSION: Use of hormonal contraceptives lead to elevated TBG levels, slightly elevated TSH levels and unchanged FT4 levels without causing a hyperthyroid state. Thus, the increased thrombotic risk during the use of hormonal contraceptives cannot be explained by a hyperthyroid state caused by use of these hormonal contraceptives.

Resistance to APC and SHBG levels during use of a four-phasic oral contraceptive containing dienogest and estradiol valerate: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of combined oral contraceptives is associated with a 3- to 6-fold increased risk of venous thrombosis. This increased risk depends on the estrogen dose as well as the progestogen type of combined oral contraceptives. Thrombin generation-based activated protein C resistance (APC resistance) and sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) levels predict the thrombotic risk of a combined hormonal contraceptive. Recently, a four-phasic oral contraceptive containing dienogest (DNG) and estradiol valerate (E2V) has been marketed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the thrombotic risk of the DNG/E2V oral contraceptive by comparing APC resistance by measuring normalized APC sensitivity ratios (nAPCsr) and SHBG levels in users of oral contraceptives containing dienogest and estradiol valerate (DNG/E2V) and oral contraceptives containing levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol (LNG/EE). METHODS: We conducted a single-center, randomized, open label, parallel-group study in 74 women using DNG/E2V or LNG/EE, and measured nAPCsr and SHBG levels in every phase of the regimen of DNG/E2V. RESULTS: During the pill cycle SHBG levels did not differ between DNG/E2V users and LNG/EE users. nAPCsr levels were overall slightly lower in DNG/E2V users than in LNG/EE users, mean difference -0.44 (95% CI, -1.04 to 0.17) for day 2, -0.20 (95% CI, -0.76 to 0.37) for day 7, -0.27 (95% CI, -0.81 to 0.28) for day 24 and -0.34 (95% CI, -0.91 to 0.24) for day 26. CONCLUSION: No statistical significant differences in nAPCsr and SHBG levels were found between users of the oral contraceptive containing DNG/E2V and LNG/EE, suggesting a comparable thrombotic risk.

Sex hormone-binding globulin as a marker for the thrombotic risk of hormonal contraceptives.

BACKGROUND: It takes many years to obtain reliable values for the risk of venous thrombosis of hormonal contraceptive users from clinical data. Measurement of activated protein C (APC) resistance via thrombin generation is a validated test for determining the thrombogenicity of hormonal contraceptives. Sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) might serve as a marker for the risk of venous thrombosis, and can be easily and rapidly measured in routine laboratories. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether SHBG is a useful marker for the thrombotic risk of hormonal contraceptive users by comparing plasma SHBG levels with normalized APC sensitivity ratio (nAPCsr) values and thrombosis risks reported in the recent literature. METHODS: We conducted an observational study in 262 users of different contraceptives, and measured nAPCsr and SHBG levels. RESULTS: Users of contraceptives with a higher risk of causing venous thrombosis, i.e. combined hormonal contraceptives containing desogestrel, cyproterone acetate or drospirenone, and the transdermal patch, had higher SHBG levels than users of combined hormonal contraceptives containing levonorgestrel, which carry a lower thrombosis risk. Users of the patch had the highest SHBG levels, with a mean difference of 246 nmol L(-1) (95% confidence interval 179-349) from that in users of levonorgestrel-containing combined hormonal contraceptives. SHBG levels were positively associated with both the nAPCsr and the risks of venous thrombosis reported in the recent literature. CONCLUSION: SHBG is a useful marker with which to estimate the thrombotic safety of a preparation.

Effects of the contraceptive patch, the vaginal ring and an oral contraceptive on APC resistance and SHBG: a cross-over study.

INTRODUCTION: The transdermal patch (20 microg ethinylestradiol+150 microg norelgestromin daily) and the vaginal ring (15 microg ethinylestradiol+120 microg etonogestrel daily) are new contraceptives, designed to deliver a low dose of hormones, suggesting a low exposure. However, few data are available about their risk of venous thrombosis. The objective was to investigate the effect of the patch, the ring, and an oral contraceptive (30 microg ethinylestradiol+150 microg levonorgestrel daily) on activated protein C sensitivity ratio (APC-sr) and on sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) levels in plasma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After a two month wash-out, 13 volunteers were randomly assigned to either the patch followed by the oral contraceptive or vice versa, or the ring followed by the oral contraceptive or vice versa. All treatments lasted two cycles and were separated by a wash-out of two cycles. APC-sr and SHBG levels were determined on day 18-21 of the second cycle of the wash-out and of each treatment period. RESULTS: Compared to the oral contraceptive, both the patch and the ring led to higher APC resistance (mean difference APC-sr 1.1; 95% CI 0.67-1.52 and 0.55; 95% CI 0.11-1.00, respectively) and higher SHBG levels (mean difference 210 nmol/l; 95% CI 134-286 and 148 nmol/l; 95% CI 48-248, respectively). CONCLUSION: The activity of the protein C system in plasma was impaired more by contraceptive patch and vaginal ring than by an oral contraceptive containing the second generation progestagen levonorgestrel.

Different effects of oral contraceptives containing different progestogens on protein S and tissue factor pathway inhibitor.

BACKGROUND: Oral contraceptives (OC) containing different types of progestogens induce different sensitivities to activated protein C (APC) measured with the thrombin generation-based APC-resistance test. These differences in APC resistance may be the biological explanation for the differences in thrombotic risk of the various pills. The mechanistic basis of APC resistance observed in OC users is unknown. Our objective was to study the effect of OC on the two main determinants of the APC-resistance test, free protein S and free tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI). PATIENTS/METHODS: We measured free protein S and free TFPI in 156 users of various types of OC. RESULTS: Users of desogestrel-containing OC, known to double the risk of thrombosis compared with levonorgestrel-containing OC, had lower free protein S (24 vs. 33 U dL(-1)) and TFPI free antigen (2.9 vs. 3.6 ng mL(-1)) levels than users of OC containing levonorgestrel. Women using cyproterone acetate-containing OC, known to confer a high thrombotic risk, had the lowest free protein S (19 U dL(-1)) and free TPFI antigen (2.5 ng mL(-1)) levels. Users of OC containing drospirenone had lower free protein S (23 U dL(-1)) and TFPI antigen levels (3.2 ng mL(-1)) than users of levonorgestrel-containing OC. Low free protein S and low free TFPI antigen levels were associated with an increased resistance to APC, an established risk factor for thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: This study observed that the differences in APC resistance induced by OC containing different progestogens can at least in part be explained by different effects of OC on free protein S and TFPI.

Vasectomy occlusion techniques for male sterilization.

BACKGROUND: Vasectomy is an increasingly popular and effective family planning method. A variety of vasectomy techniques are used worldwide, including various vas occlusion techniques (excision and ligation, thermal or electrocautery, and mechanical and chemical occlusion methods), as well as vasectomy with vas irrigation or with fascial interposition. Vasectomy guidelines largely rely on information from observational studies. Ideally, the choice of vasectomy techniques should be based on the best available evidence from randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to compare the effectiveness, safety, acceptability and costs of vasectomy techniques for male sterilization. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the computerized databases of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE and LILACS. In addition, we searched the reference lists of relevant articles and book chapters. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing vasectomy techniques. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed all titles and abstracts located in the literature searches. Two reviewers independently extracted data from articles identified for inclusion. Outcome measures include contraceptive efficacy, safety, discontinuation, and acceptability. MAIN RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria. One trial compared vas occlusion with clips versus a conventional vasectomy technique. No difference was found in failure to reach azoospermia. Three trials examined vasectomy with vas irrigation. Two studies looked at irrigation with water versus no irrigation, while one examined irrigation with water versus the spermicide euflavine. None found a difference between the groups for time to azoospermia. However, one trial reported that the median number of ejaculations to azoospermia was lower in the euflavine group compared to the water irrigation group. One high-quality trial compared vasectomy with fascial interposition versus vasectomy without fascial interposition. The fascial interposition group was less likely to have vasectomy failure. Fascial interposition had more surgical difficulties, but the groups were similar in side effects. Lastly, one trial found that an intra-vas was less likely to produce azoospermia than was no-scalpel vasectomy. More men were satisfied with the intra-vas device, however. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For vas occlusion with clips or vasectomy with vas irrigation, no conclusions can be made as those studies were of low quality and underpowered. Fascial interposition reduced vasectomy failure. An intra-vas device was less effective in reducing sperm count than was no-scalpel vasectomy. Randomized controlled trials examining other vasectomy techniques were not available. More and better quality research is needed to examine vasectomy techniques.

Scalpel versus no-scalpel incision for vasectomy.

BACKGROUND: Currently, the two most common surgical techniques for approaching the vas during vasectomy are the incisional method and the no-scalpel technique. Whereas the conventional incisional technique involves the use of a scalpel to make one or two incisions, the no-scalpel technique uses a sharp-pointed, forceps-like instrument to puncture the skin. The no-scalpel technique aims to reduce adverse events, especially bleeding, bruising, hematoma, infection and pain and to shorten the operating time. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to compare the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of the incisional versus no-scalpel approach to the vas. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the computerized databases of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE and LILACS in May 2006. In addition, we searched the reference lists of relevant articles and book chapters. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials were included in this review. No language restrictions were placed on the reporting of the trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed all titles and abstracts located in the literature searches and two authors independently extracted data from the articles identified for inclusion. Outcome measures included safety, acceptability, operating time, contraceptive efficacy, and discontinuation. MAIN RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials evaluated the no-scalpel technique and differed in their findings. The larger trial demonstrated less perioperative bleeding (Odds ratio (OR) 0.49; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.89) and pain during surgery (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93), scrotal pain (OR 0.63; 95% 0.50 to 0.80), and incisional infection (OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.78) during follow up than the standard incisional group. Both studies found less hematoma with the no-scalpel technique (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.36). Operations using the no-scalpel approach were faster and had a quicker resumption of sexual activity. The smaller study did not find these differences; however, the study could have failed to detect differences due to a small sample size as well as a high loss to follow up. Neither trial found differences in vasectomy effectiveness between the two approaches to the vas. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The no-scalpel approach to the vas resulted in less bleeding, hematoma, infection, and pain as well as a shorter operation time than the traditional incision technique. No difference in effectiveness was found between the two approaches.

Hormonal versus non-hormonal contraceptives in women with diabetes mellitus type 1 and 2.

BACKGROUND: Adequate contraceptive advice is important in women with diabetes mellitus type 1 and 2 to reduce the risk of maternal and infant morbidity and mortality in unplanned pregnancies. A wide variety of contraceptives are available for these women. However hormonal contraceptives might influence carbohydrate and lipid metabolism and increase micro- and macrovascular complications. So caution in selecting a contraceptive method is required. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether progestogen-only, combined estrogen/progestogen or non-hormonal contraceptives differ in terms of effectiveness in preventing pregnancy, in their side effects on carbohydrate and lipid metabolism and in long-term complications such as micro- and macrovascular disease, when used in women with diabetes mellitus. SEARCH STRATEGY: The search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, POPLINE, CINAHL, WorldCat, ECO, ArticleFirst, the Science Citation Index, the British Library Inside, and reference lists of relevant articles. Last search was performed in May 2005. In addition, experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies marketing contraceptives were contacted to identify published, unpublished or ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that studied women with diabetes mellitus comparing: 1. hormonal versus non-hormonal contraceptives. 2. progestogen-only versus estrogen/progestogen contraceptives. 3. contraceptives containing <50 microg estrogen versus contraceptives containing > or = 50 microg estrogen. 4. contraceptives containing 'first'-, 'second'- and 'third'-generation progestogens, drospirenone and cyproterone acetate. Principal outcomes were contraceptive effectiveness, diabetes control, lipid metabolism and micro- and macrovascular complications. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two investigators evaluated the titles and abstracts from the literature search. Quality assessment was performed independently with discrepancies resolved by discussion or consulting a third reviewer. Because the trials differed in studied contraceptives, participant characteristics and methodological quality, we could not combine the data in a meta-analysis. The trials were therefore examined on an individual basis and narrative summaries were provided. MAIN RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials were included. Only one was of good methodological quality. It compared the influence of levonorgestrel-releasing IUD versus copper-IUD on carbohydrate metabolism in women with type 1 diabetes mellitus. No difference was found in daily insulin requirement, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) or fasting blood sugar after twelve months. The other two trials were of limited methodological quality. Both compared progestogen-only pills with different estrogen/progestogen combinations. The trials reported blood glucose levels to remain stable during treatment with most regimens. Only high-dose combined oral contraceptives were found to slightly impair glucose homeostasis. Combined oral contraceptives also appeared to have a minor adverse effect on lipid metabolism whereas progestogen-only contraceptives slightly improved lipid-metabolism. Only one study reported on micro- and macrovascular complications. No signs or symptoms of thromboembolic incidents or visual disturbances were observed. However study duration was short. Minor adverse effects were reported in one study. The trial found progestogen-only pills to cause more bleeding irregularities when compared with combined oral contraceptives. Unintended pregnancies were not observed during any of the studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The three included randomised controlled trials in this systematic review provided insufficient evidence to assess whether progestogen-only and combined contraceptives differ from non-hormonal contraceptives in diabetes control, lipid metabolism and complications. Two of the three studies were of limited methodological quality, sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and described surrogate outcomes. Ideally, an adequately reported, high-quality randomised controlled trial analysing both intermediate outcomes (i.e. glucose and lipid metabolism) and true clinical endpoints (micro- and macrovascular disease) in users of combined, progestogen-only and non-hormonal contraceptives should be conducted. However, due to the low incidence of micro- and macrovascular disease and accordingly the large sample size and follow-up period needed to observe differences in risk, a randomised controlled trial might not be the ideal design.

Scalpel versus no-scalpel incision for vasectomy.

BACKGROUND: Currently, the two most common surgical techniques for approaching the vas during vasectomy are the incisional method and the no-scalpel technique. Whereas the conventional incisional technique involves the use of a scalpel to make one or two incisions, the no-scalpel technique uses a sharp-pointed, forceps-like instrument to puncture the skin. The no-scalpel technique aims to reduce adverse events, especially bleeding, bruising, hematoma, infection and pain and to shorten the operating time. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to compare the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of the incisional versus no-scalpel vasectomy approach to the vas. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the computerized databases of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE and LILACS in May 2006. In addition, we searched the reference lists of relevant articles and book chapters. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials were included in this review. No language restrictions were placed on the reporting of the trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed all titles and abstracts located in the literature searches and two authors independently extracted data from the articles identified for inclusion. Outcome measures included safety, acceptability, operating time, contraceptive efficacy, and discontinuation. MAIN RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials evaluated the no-scalpel technique and differed in their findings. The larger trial demonstrated less perioperative bleeding (Odds ratio (OR) 0.49; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.89) and pain during surgery (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93), scrotal pain (OR 0.63; 95% 0.50 to 0.80), and incisional infection (OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.78) during follow up than the standard incisional group. Both studies found less hematoma with the no-scalpel technique (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.36). Operations using the no-scalpel approach were faster and had a quicker resumption of sexual activity. The smaller study did not find these differences; however, the study could have failed to detect differences due to a small sample size as well as a high loss to follow up. Neither trial found differences in vasectomy effectiveness between the two approaches to the vas. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The no-scalpel approach to the vas resulted in less bleeding, hematoma, infection, and pain as well as a shorter operation time than the traditional incision technique. Although no difference in effectiveness was found between the two approaches, the sample sizes might have been too small to detect actual differences. Additional well-conducted randomized trials would help answer this question.

[Anxiety disorders and epilepsy: not unknown, but sometimes unexpected. A case study]. / Angstklachten en epilepsie: niet onbekend, maar soms onverwacht.

Epileptic disorders can manifest themselves with symptoms of anxiety and panic. In clinical practice it is not always easy to achieve a correct diagnosis. The subject of this case study is an adult with symptoms of anxiety and panic who was referred to the mental health care service but who was diagnosed as having epilepsy when subjected to a supplementary examination. Psychological and in particular anxiety symptoms in epilepsy are discussed. The psychiatrist needs to consider the possibility of epilepsy in a patient presenting with anxiety symptoms.

Biphasic versus monophasic oral contraceptives for contraception.

BACKGROUND: Side effects caused by oral contraceptives discourage compliance with, and continuation of, oral contraceptives. Three approaches have been used to decrease these adverse effects: reduction of steroid dose, development of new steroids, and new formulas and schedules of administration. The third strategy led to the biphasic oral contraceptive pill. OBJECTIVES: To compare biphasic with monophasic oral contraceptives in terms of efficacy, cycle control, and discontinuation due to side effects. Our a priori hypotheses were: (a) biphasic oral contraceptives are less effective than monophasic oral contraceptives in preventing pregnancy; (b) biphasic oral contraceptives cause more side effects, give poorer cycle control, and have lower continuation rates. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the computerized databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, LILACS and CENTRAL. In addition, we searched the reference lists of all potentially relevant articles and book chapters. We also contacted the authors of relevant studies and pharmaceutical companies in Europe and the USA. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing any biphasic with any monophasic oral contraceptive when used to prevent pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We examined the studies found during the various literature searches for possible inclusion and assessed their methodology using Cochrane guidelines. We contacted the authors of all included studies and possibly randomized studies for supplemental information about methodology and outcome. We entered the data into RevMan, and calculated Peto odds ratios for the incidence of intermenstrual bleeding, absence of withdrawal bleeding, and study discontinuation due to intermenstrual bleeding. MAIN RESULTS: Only one trial of limited quality compared a biphasic and monophasic preparation. Percival-Smith 1990 examined 533 user cycles of a biphasic pill (500 microg norethindrone/35 microg ethinyl estradiol for 10 days, followed by 1000 microg norethindrone/35 microg ethinyl estradiol for 11 days; Ortho 10/11) and 481 user cycles of a monophasic contraceptive pill (1500 microg norethindrone acetate/30 microg ethinyl estradiol daily; Loestrin). The study found no significant differences in intermenstrual bleeding, amenorrhea and study discontinuation due to intermenstrual bleeding between the biphasic and monophasic oral contraceptive pills. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Conclusions are limited by the identification of only one trial, the methodological shortcomings of that trial, and the absence of data on accidental pregnancies. However, the trial found no important differences in bleeding patterns between the biphasic and monophasic preparations studied. Since no clear rationale exists for biphasic pills and since extensive evidence is available for monophasic pills, the latter are preferred.