(017) At-Home Therapeutic Ultrasound Treatment for Vulvovaginal Atrophy (VVA): A Pilot Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction VVA symptoms affect 50% of post-menopausal women and can be progressive without treatment. Hormonal therapies (HT) are the only FDA approved treatments for VVA, but many women prefer not to use or are not candidates for HT. As an alternative, an at-home therapeutic ultrasound system was developed to help women manage their VVA symptoms. Objective To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of therapeutic ultrasound compared with sham after 12 weeks of treatment for VVA. Methods This pilot study was a double-blind, multi-site, randomized, controlled trial (RCT) that assessed the effectiveness and safety of home-use therapeutic ultrasound applied to the vaginal introitus for 8 minutes/day on post-menopausal vaginal symptoms (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04887701). Thirty-one women were screened between July 2021 and February 2022 at three sites, of which 26 (ages 54-65 yrs.) were randomized 1:1 to active treatment or sham. The intent-to-treat population included women with moderate to severe vaginal dryness and dyspareunia who were ≤15 yrs. postmenopausal. The primary outcome was change from baseline to week 12 in clinician-reported Vaginal Health Index (VHI) giving a numerical score (1-5) for each of the 5 parameters (tissue elasticity, vaginal fluid, pH, mucosa, and vaginal moisture). Women reported change in vaginal symptoms (dryness, soreness, irritation, and dyspareunia) measured by the Vaginal Assessment Scale (VAS), with a 4-level response score ranging from none (0), mild (1), moderate (2), to severe (3). VHI and VAS changes were assessed using mixed model analysis of variance. Women also rated their vaginal symptoms using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score with a 7-level response scale ranging from “very much better” (1) to “very much worse” (7). Results VHI increased with ultrasound treatment after the 12-week blinded period (least squares mean change ± SEM) 1.48 ± 0.77 (P=0.06) but less with sham 0.69 ± 0.75 (P=0.37). The empirical cumulative distribution functions for the change from baseline in the VHI score for the baseline severe population revealed that treatment showed a greater positive change in VHI at each percentile than sham (e.g., at the 50th percentile treatment had an improvement in VHI of 2.0 vs 0.0 for sham). Treatment also showed a greater negative change in VAS at each percentile than sham (e.g., at the 50th percentile treatment had an improved symptom reduction in VAS of -0.75 vs 0.0 for sham). The PGI-I showed more women experienced a clinically meaningful improvement to therapeutic ultrasound compared with sham (P=0.04). The ultrasound device was well tolerated without any safety signals. There were no differences in treatment-emergent adverse events between active treatment and sham and no serious adverse events. Conclusions This is the second pilot RCT to support a new and safe, non-HT treatment of VVA with therapeutic ultrasound. Improved vaginal dryness and dyspareunia scores are similar to pharmaceutical treatments (Bachmann 2010; Constantine 2017; Labrie 2016) but did not reach statistical significance due to the small sample size. These pilot RCTs, along with the open-label extension of this study, now form the basis for the anticipated FDA approved pivotal RCT. Disclosure Yes, this is sponsored by industry/sponsor: Madorra, Inc. Clarification: Industry initiated, executed and funded study Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Madorra, Inc.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».