CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03288883Updated Feb 12, 2021

RCT of Laser Therapy for GSM

An interventional study of Photothermal Non-ablative Erbium:YAG-laser and Fractional Microablative CO2-laser in Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause, sponsored by King's College Hospital NHS Trust. Completed at 1 site in United Kingdom. Open to female participants, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-02-12.

Sponsored by King's College Hospital NHS Trust · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
88
Allocation
Randomized
Sex
Female
01

Study summary

The aim of the current study is to assess whether the CO2-laser results in superior alleviation of GSM symptoms compare to Er:YAG-laser. Specifically, we will compare objective and subjective measurements of symptoms and clinical signs of GSM, between groups of postmenopausal women with GSM receiving treatment with CO2-laser or Er:YAG-laser.

Read the detailed description

Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause (GSM) is the new terminology for "vulvovaginal (VVA)". Although women may present with some or all of the clinical signs and symptoms, the most common symptom of VVA/GSM is vaginal dryness. Vaginal dryness appears early at menopause with a subsequent increase of prevalence as postmenopausal years' progresses and is associated with rising occurrence of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS).

The therapeutic management of GSM includes lubricants and moisturizers as a first line therapy and low-dose vaginal estrogens as a second one, especially for women with a history of estrogen dependent cancer. However, lubricants and moisturizers can only be used for symptoms relief during sexual intercourse. They do not restore the local pathophysiology and they are inefficacious when LUTS are present. However, the quality of evidence is low or very-low when estrogens efficacy is compared to placebo, while the risk to the endometrial thickness with sustained vaginal estrogen use is not clear.

Recently, intravaginal laser therapy has been proposed for the management of GSM. There are currently two lasers available. All available studies consistently suggest that both lasers (CO2-laser and Er:YAG-laser) are safe and have a high efficacy on alleviating vaginal dryness and dyspareunia, as well as restoring the local pathophysiology. Additionally, data regarding CO2-laser indicate LUTS improvement, as well as sexual function-satisfaction and quality of women's life. Relevant published data are not available for the Er:YAG-laser. Moreover, there is lack of studies comparing the 2 laser-technologies for the management of postmenopausal women with GSM.

The aim of the current study is to assess whether the CO2-laser results in superior alleviation of GSM symptoms compare to Er:YAG-laser. Specifically, we will compare objective and subjective measurements of symptoms and clinical signs of GSM, between groups of postmenopausal women with GSM receiving treatment with CO2-laser or Er:YAG-laser.

02

Conditions studied

  • Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause

Browse trials for

03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
Child (0–17), Adult (18–64), Older adult (65+)
Sexes eligible
Female
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  1. Dryness and dyspareunia with moderate to severe intensity
  2. Vaginal Health Index \<15
  3. Absence of menstruation for at least 12 months
  4. Recent Negative Pap-smear test (For women over 65 years old a negative pap smear test up to the age of 65).

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Not willing to abstain from vaginal intercourse for one week following the laser-therapy
  2. Use of hormonal therapy within 6 months prior to study inclusion (systemic or local)
  3. Acute urinary tract infections (UTIs)
  4. History of a genital fistula, a thin recto-vaginal septum as determined by the investigator or history of a fourth-degree laceration during screening physical exam (e.g., perineal body)
  5. Active sexually transmitted disease upon vaginal exam (as determined by the investigator) that precludes treatment or any other vaginal infection
  6. Active or history of genital herpes
  7. Prolapse stages > II (according to the POP-Q system)
  8. History of radiotherapy for cervical or uterine cancer
  9. Medical condition that may interfere with participants' compliance to the protocol
04

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Participant, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
88 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Fractional Microablative CO2-laser

    Device: Fractional Microablative CO2-laser

  • Active comparator
    Photothermal Non-ablative Erbium:YAG-laser

    Device: Photothermal Non-ablative Erbium:YAG-laser

Interventions

  • DevicePhotothermal Non-ablative Erbium:YAG-laser

    Laser treatment of the vagina for GSM

  • DeviceFractional Microablative CO2-laser

    Laser treatment of the vagina for GSM

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Dryness - 10cm visual analogue scale

    Time frame: 1 year

  2. Dyspareunia- 10cm visual analogue scale

    Time frame: 1 year

  3. Itching- 10cm visual analogue scale

    Time frame: 1 year

  4. Burning- 10cm visual analogue scale

    Time frame: 1 year

  5. Dysuria- 10cm visual analogue scale

    Time frame: 1 year

  6. Frequency- 10cm visual analogue scale,

    Time frame: 1 year

  7. Urgency-10cm visual analogue scale

    Time frame: 1 year

  8. Urinary incontinence- 10cm visual analogue scale

    Time frame: 1 year

  9. Overall sexual satisfaction- Female sexual function index

    Time frame: 1 year

  10. Frequency- 3 day voiding diary

    Time frame: 1 year

  11. Urgency- 3 day voiding diary,

    Time frame: 1 year

  12. Urinary incontinence- 3 day voiding diary

    Time frame: 1 year

  13. Overall sexual satisfaction- 10cm visual analogue scale

    Time frame: 1 year

  14. Overall sexual satisfaction- frequency of sexual intercourse,

    Time frame: 1 year

Secondary outcomes

  1. Quality of life- patients global impression of improvement questionnaire

    Time frame: 1 year

  2. Quality of life- day to day impact of vaginal ageing questionnaire

    Time frame: 1 year

  3. Quality of life- kings health questionnaire

    Time frame: 1 year

  4. Global impression of improvement- day to day impact of vaginal ageing questionnaire

    Time frame: 1 year

  5. Global impression of improvement- patients global impression of improvement questionnaire

    Time frame: 1 year

  6. Global impression of improvement- kings health questionnaire

    Time frame: 1 year

  7. Vaginal health index score- 5 components, elasticity, epithelial integrity, pH, moisture and fluid volume

    Time frame: 1 year

  8. Vaginal maturation value- vaginal smear stained with papanicolaou technique and VMI value is evaluated by defining the percentage of superficial, intermediate and paranasal epithelial cells on smear.

    VMV = ((1x%superficial)+(0.5x%intermediate)+0xparabasal))

    Time frame: 1 year

06

Study locations

1 site
  • Urogynaecology Department, King's College Hospital
    London, SE5 9RS, United Kingdom
07

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

08

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03288883
Lead sponsor
King's College Hospital NHS Trust
Collaborators
Alexandra Hospital, Athens, Greece
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Sep 20, 2017
Start date
Jul 1, 2018
Primary completion
Feb 11, 2021
Completion
Feb 11, 2021
Last update
Feb 12, 2021

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Feb 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion