No abstract

IMPORTANCE 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.OBJECTIVE To determine the efficacy of fractional carbon dioxide laser for treatment of vaginal symptoms associated with menopause. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA 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.INTERVENTIONS 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. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe 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). RESULTSOf 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.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among women with postmenopausal vaginal symptoms, treatment with fractional carbon dioxide laser vs sham treatment did not significantly improve vaginal symptoms after 12 months.

This systematic review examined energy-based treatments of the vagina for postmenopausal vaginal symptoms. Data Sources: We performed a systematic review from April 2017 (the end date of our previous review) to April 2020, searching Medline, Embase, and Scopus. Methods of Study Selection: The inclusion criteria were all randomized studies, prospective studies with >10 cases, and retrospective studies with >20 cases published in English or French that assessed change in postmenopausal vaginal symptoms and/or sexual function in women after energy-based vaginal treatments. Meta-analyses were performed on randomized data. Tabulation, Integration, and Results: Of the 989 results retrieved, 3 randomized studies, 16 prospective studies, and 7 retrospective studies were included in the review, representing data from 2678 participants. Pooled data from 3 randomized controlled trials show no difference between vaginal laser and topical hormonal treatments for change in vaginal symptoms (−0.14, 95% confidence interval −1.07 to 0.80) or sexual function scores (2.22, 95% confidence interval −0.56 to 5.00). Furthermore, no difference among vaginal laser, topical hormone, and lubricant was demonstrated in sexual function (p = .577). As in our previous review, non-randomized data support energy-based treatments in improving vaginal symptoms, sexual function, and clinician-reported outcomes. No severe adverse events were reported in the included studies. Significant heterogeneity of data arising from differing measures and reported outcomes continues to be an issue, with data remaining low quality, with high risk of bias, and no double-blind or placebo-controlled randomized trials yet reported, although 1 has now completed recruitment. Conclusion: There are 3 randomized trials comparing energy-based systems with hormonal treatment, with no clinical difference in these 2 approaches. Although prospective data continue to show promising outcomes, without strong evidence from well-powered, double-blind placebo-controlled trials to determine the efficacy of treatment compared with placebo, the use of energy-based treatments should continue to be undertaken in research studies only, with high-quality studies essentially free from bias (International Prospective Register of Systematic Review registration number: 178346).

No abstract