MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377968470 · doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdad061.017

(017) At-Home Therapeutic Ultrasound Treatment for Vulvovaginal Atrophy (VVA): A Pilot Study

2023· article· en· W4377968470 on OpenAlexaff
Rod Baber, James Brennan, Martha Hickey, Darlene M. Dreon, Sherrie H. Kaplan, H Rockweiler, Harvey Kushner, Mindy Goldman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntroitusRandomized controlled trialVaginal diseasePopulationVaginal atrophyVaginaGynecologyPhysical therapyMenopauseInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.172
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207