User Experiences in a Digital Intervention to Support Total Skin Self-examination by Melanoma Survivors: Nested Qualitative Evaluation Embedded in a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Melanoma is a relatively common cancer type with a high survival rate, but survivors risk recurrences or second primaries. Consequently, patients receive regular hospital follow-up, but this can be burdensome to attend and not optimally timed to detect arising problems. Total skin self-examination (TSSE) supports improved clinical outcomes from melanoma via earlier detection of recurrences and second primaries, and digital technology has the potential to support TSSE. Recent research with app-based interventions aimed at improving the well-being of older adults has found that they can use the technology and benefit from it, supporting the use of digital health care in diverse demographic groups. Thus, the Achieving Self-directed Integrated Cancer Aftercare (ASICA) digital health care intervention was developed. The intervention provided melanoma survivors with a monthly prompt to perform a TSSE as well as access to a dermatology nurse who provided them with feedback on photographs and descriptions of their skin. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore participants' attitudes, beliefs, and experiences regarding TSSE practices. Furthermore, we explored how participants experienced technology and how it influenced their practice of TSSE. Finally, we explored the practical and technical experiences of ASICA users. METHODS: This was a nested qualitative evaluation within a dual-center randomized controlled trial of the ASICA intervention. We conducted semistructured telephone interviews with the participants during a randomized controlled trial. The participants were purposively sampled to achieve a representative sample with representative proportions by age, sex, and residential geography. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a framework analysis approach applied within NVivo 12. RESULTS: A total of 22 interviews were conducted with participants from both groups. In total, 40% (9/22) of the interviewed participants were from rural areas, and 60% (13/22) were from urban areas; 60% (13/22) were from the intervention group, and 40% (9/22) were from the control group. Themes evolved around skin-checking behavior, other people's input into skin checking, contribution of health care professionals outside ASICA and its value, ideas around technology, practical experiences, and potential improvements. ASICA appeared to change participants' perceptions of skin checking. Users were more likely to report routinely performing TSSE thoroughly. There was some variation in beliefs about skin checking and using technology for health care. Overall, ASICA was experienced positively by participants. Several practical suggestions were made for the improvement of ASICA. CONCLUSIONS: The ASICA intervention appeared to have positively influenced the attitudes and TSSE practices of melanoma survivors. This study provides important qualitative information about how a digital health care intervention is an effective means of prompting, recording, and responding to structured TSSE by melanoma survivors. Technical improvements are required, but the app offers promise for technologically enhanced melanoma follow-up in future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03328247; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03328247?term=ASICA&rank=1. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s13063-019-3453-x.

Male sling is as good as more complex surgery for incontinence after prostate surgery.

The studyConstable L, Abrams P, Cooper D, et. Synthetic sling or artificial urinary sphincter for men with urodynamic stress incontinence after prostate surgery: the MASTER non-inferiority RCT. Health Technol Assess 2022;26:1-152To read the full NIHR Alert, go to: https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/alert/male-sling-is-as-good-as-more-complex-surgery-for-incontinence-after-prostate-surgery/.

The Achieving Self-directed Integrated Cancer Aftercare Intervention for Detection of Recurrent and Second Primary Melanoma in Survivors of Melanoma: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Melanoma is common with increasing incidence. Guidelines recommend monthly total skin self-examinations (TSSEs) by survivors to detect recurrent and new primary melanomas. TSSE is underperformed despite evidence of benefit. OBJECTIVE: This study compares the effect on psychological well-being and TSSE practice of a self-directed digital intervention with treatment as usual in patients treated for a first stage 0 to IIC primary cutaneous melanoma within the preceding 60 months. METHODS: This randomized clinical trial was conducted at 2 UK National Health Service hospitals (Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Grampian, and Addenbrooke's, Cambridge). Adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with a first 0 to IIC primary cutaneous melanoma were randomized to receive Achieving Self-directed Integrated Cancer Aftercare (ASICA), a tablet-based intervention prompting and supporting TSSE in survivors of melanoma, or to usual care. The hypothesis was that ASICA would increase TSSE practice in users affected by melanoma and compared with controls without affecting psychological well-being. The main primary outcomes were melanoma worry (Melanoma Worry Scale), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) as well as secondary outcomes collected using postal questionnaires 3, 6, and 12 months following randomization. RESULTS: A total of 240 recruits were randomized (1:1) into the ASICA (n=121, 50.4%) or control (n=119, 49.6%) groups. There were no significant differences between groups for melanoma worry at 12 months (mean difference: 0.12, 95% CI -0.6 to 0.84; P=.74), 3 months (0.23, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.78; P=.40), or 6 months (-0.1, 95% CI -0.7 to 0.51; P=.76). The ASICA group had lower anxiety scores at 12 months (-0.54, 95% CI -1.31 to 0.230; P=.17), 3 months (-0.13, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.54; P=.71), and significantly at 6 months (-1.00, 95% CI -1.74 to -0.26; P=.009). Depression scores were similar, being lower at 12 months (-0.44, 95% CI -1.11 to 0.23; P=.20) and 3 months (-0.24, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.35; P=.42) but only significantly lower at 6 months (-0.77, 95% CI -1.41 to -0.12; P=.02). The ASICA group had significantly higher quality of life scores at 12 months (0.044, 95% CI 0.003-0.085; P=.04) and 6 months (0.070, 95% CI 0.032-0.107; P<.001) and nonsignificantly at 3 months (0.024, 95% CI -0.006 to 0.054; P=.11). ASICA users reported significantly more regular (>5) TSSEs during the study year and significantly higher levels of self-efficacy in conducting TSSE. They also reported significantly higher levels of planning and intention to perform TSSE in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Using ASICA for 12 months does not increase melanoma worry, can reduce anxiety and depression, and may improve quality of life. ASICA has the potential to improve the well-being and vigilance of survivors of melanoma and enable the benefits of regular TSSE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03328247; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03328247. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s13063-019-3453-x.

Synthetic sling or artificial urinary sphincter for men with urodynamic stress incontinence after prostate surgery: the MASTER non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Stress urinary incontinence is common in men after prostate surgery and can be difficult to improve. Implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter is the most common surgical procedure for persistent stress urinary incontinence, but it requires specialist surgical skills, and revisions may be necessary. In addition, the sphincter is relatively expensive and its operation requires adequate patient dexterity. New surgical approaches include the male synthetic sling, which is emerging as a possible alternative. However, robust comparable data, derived from randomised controlled trials, on the relative safety and efficacy of the male synthetic sling and the artificial urinary sphincter are lacking. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the male synthetic sling with those of the artificial urinary sphincter surgery in men with persistent stress urinary incontinence after prostate surgery. DESIGN: This was a multicentre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial, with a parallel non-randomised cohort and embedded qualitative component. Randomised controlled trial allocation was carried out by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1), minimised on previous prostate surgery (radical prostatectomy or transurethral resection of the prostate), radiotherapy (or not, in relation to prostate surgery) and centre. Surgeons and participants were not blind to the treatment received. Non-randomised cohort allocation was participant and/or surgeon preference. SETTING: The trial was set in 28 UK urological centres in the NHS. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were men with urodynamic stress incontinence after prostate surgery for whom surgery was deemed appropriate. Exclusion criteria included previous sling or artificial urinary sphincter surgery, unresolved bladder neck contracture or urethral stricture after prostate surgery, and an inability to give informed consent or complete trial documentation. INTERVENTIONS: We compared male synthetic sling with artificial urinary sphincter. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The clinical primary outcome measure was men's reports of continence (assessed from questions 3 and 4 of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form) at 12 months post randomisation (with a non-inferiority margin of 15%). The primary economic outcome was cost-effectiveness (assessed as the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year at 24 months post randomisation). RESULTS: In total, 380 men were included in the randomised controlled trial (n = 190 in each group), and 99 out of 100 men were included in the non-randomised cohort. In terms of continence, the male sling was non-inferior to the artificial urinary sphincter (intention-to-treat estimated absolute risk difference -0.034, 95% confidence interval -0.117 to 0.048; non-inferiority p = 0.003), indicating a lower success rate in those randomised to receive a sling, but with a confidence interval excluding the non-inferiority margin of -15%. In both groups, treatment resulted in a reduction in incontinence symptoms (as measured by the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form). Between baseline and 12 months' follow-up, the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form score fell from 16.1 to 8.7 in the male sling group and from 16.4 to 7.5 in the artificial urinary sphincter group (mean difference for the time point at 12 months 1.30, 95% confidence interval 0.11 to 2.49; p = 0.032). The number of serious adverse events was small (male sling group, n = 8; artificial urinary sphincter group, n = 15; one man in the artificial urinary sphincter group experienced three serious adverse events). Quality-of-life scores improved and satisfaction was high in both groups. Secondary outcomes that showed statistically significant differences favoured the artificial urinary sphincter over the male sling. Outcomes of the non-randomised cohort were similar. The male sling cost less than the artificial sphincter but was associated with a smaller quality-adjusted life-year gain. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for male slings compared with an artificial urinary sphincter suggests that there is a cost saving of £425,870 for each quality-adjusted life-year lost. The probability that slings would be cost-effective at a £30,000 willingness-to-pay threshold for a quality-adjusted life-year was 99%. LIMITATIONS: Follow-up beyond 24 months is not available. More specific surgical/device-related pain outcomes were not included. CONCLUSIONS: Continence rates improved from baseline, with the male sling non-inferior to the artificial urinary sphincter. Symptoms and quality of life significantly improved in both groups. Men were generally satisfied with both procedures. Overall, secondary and post hoc analyses favoured the artificial urinary sphincter over the male sling. FUTURE WORK: Participant reports of any further surgery, satisfaction and quality of life at 5-year follow-up will inform longer-term outcomes. Administration of an additional pain questionnaire would provide further information on pain levels after both surgeries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN49212975. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 36. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Leakage of urine associated with physical exertion (e.g. sporting activities, sneezing or coughing) is common in men who have undergone prostate surgery, but it is difficult to improve. Many men still leak urine 12 months after their prostate surgery and may continue to wear protective pads or sheaths. The most common operation to improve incontinence is implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter. An artificial urinary sphincter is an inflatable cuff that is placed around the urethra, the tube that drains urine from the bladder. The cuff is inflated and compresses the urethra to prevent leaking. When the man needs to pass urine, he must deflate the cuff by squeezing a pump placed in his scrotum, which releases the compression on the urethra and allows the bladder to empty. Recently, a new device, the male sling (made from non-absorbable plastic mesh), has been developed. The sling, which is surgically inserted under the urethra, supports the bladder, but, in contrast to the artificial sphincter, it does not need to be deactivated by a pump and, therefore, the patient does not need to do anything to operate it. A sling is also easier for the surgeon to insert than a sphincter. However, in some men, the sling does not provide enough improvement in incontinence symptoms and another operation, to place an artificial urinary sphincter, is needed. The aim of this study was to determine if the male sling was as effective as the artificial urinary sphincter in treating men with bothersome incontinence after prostate surgery. The study took the form of a randomised controlled trial (the gold standard and most reliable way to compare treatments) in which men were randomised (allocated at random to one of two groups using a computer) to either a male sling or an artificial urinary sphincter operation. We asked men how they got on in the first 2 years after their operation. Regardless of which operation they had, incontinence and quality of life significantly improved and complications were rare. A small number of men did require another operation to improve their incontinence, and it was more likely that an artificial urinary sphincter was needed, rather than another sling operation, if a male sling was not successful. Satisfaction was high in both groups, but it was significantly higher in the artificial urinary sphincter group than in the male sling group. Those who received a male sling were less likely than those who received an artificial urinary sphincter to say that they would recommend their surgery to a friend.

Randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of various washout policies versus no washout policy in preventing catheter associated complications in adults living with long-term catheters: study protocol for the CATHETER II study.

BACKGROUND: Various washout policies are widely used in adults living with long-term catheters (LTC). There is currently insufficient evidence on the benefits and potential harms of prophylactic LTC washout policies in the prevention of blockages and other LTC-related adverse events, such as urinary tract infections. CATHETER II tests the hypothesis that weekly prophylactic LTC washouts (normal saline or citric acid) in addition to standard LTC care reduce the incidence of catheter blockage requiring intervention compared to standard LTC care only in adults living with LTC. METHODS: CATHETER II is a pragmatic three-arm open multi-centre superiority randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot, economic analysis, and embedded qualitative study. Eligible participants are adults aged ≥ 18 years, who have had a LTC in use for ≥ 28 days, have no plans to discontinue the use of the catheter, are able to undertake the catheter washouts, and complete trial documentation or have a carer able to help them. Participants are identified from general practitioner practices, secondary/tertiary care, community healthcare, care homes, and via public advertising strategies. Participants are randomised 1:1:1 to receive a weekly saline (0.9%) washout in addition to standard LTC care, a weekly citric acid (3.23%) washout in addition to standard LTC care or standard LTC care only. Participants and/or carers will receive training to administer the washouts. Patient-reported outcomes are collected at baseline and for 24 months post-randomisation. The primary clinical outcome is catheter blockage requiring intervention up to 24 months post-randomisation expressed per 1000 catheter days. Secondary outcomes include symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infection requiring antibiotics, catheter change, adverse events, NHS/ healthcare use, and impact on quality of life. DISCUSSION: This study will guide treatment decision-making and clinical practice guidelines regarding the effectiveness of various prophylactic catheter washout policies in men and women living with LTC. This research has received ethical approval from Wales Research Ethics Committee 6 (19/WA/0015). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN17116445 . Registered prospectively on 06 November 2019.

Providing trial results to participants in phase III pragmatic effectiveness RCTs: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: There is an ethical imperative to offer the results of trials to those who participated. Existing research highlights that less than a third of trials do so, despite the desire of participants to receive the results of the trials they participated in. This scoping review aimed to identify, collate, and describe the available evidence relating to any aspect of disseminating trial results to participants. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted employing a search of key databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from January 2008 to August 2019) to identify studies that had explored any aspect of disseminating results to trial participants. The search strategy was based on that of a linked existing review. The evidence identified describes the characteristics of included studies using narrative description informed by analysis of relevant data using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Thirty-three eligible studies, including 12,700 participants (which included patients, health care professionals, trial teams), were identified and included. Reporting of participant characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity) across the studies was poor. The majority of studies investigated dissemination of aggregate trial results. The most frequently reported mode of disseminating of results was postal. Overall, the results report that participants evaluated receipt of trial results positively, with reported benefits including improved communication, demonstration of appreciation, improved retention, and engagement in future research. However, there were also some concerns about how well the dissemination was resourced and done, worries about emotional effects on participants especially when reporting unfavourable results, and frustration about the delay between the end of the trial and receipt of results. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review has highlighted that few high-quality evaluative studies have been conducted that can provide evidence on the best ways to deliver results to trial participants. There have been relatively few qualitative studies that explore perspectives from diverse populations, and those that have been conducted are limited to a handful of clinical areas. The learning from these studies can be used as a platform for further research and to consider some core guiding principles of the opportunities and challenges when disseminating trial results to those who participated.

Outcomes of a Noninferiority Randomised Controlled Trial of Surgery for Men with Urodynamic Stress Incontinence After Prostate Surgery (MASTER).

BACKGROUND: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is common after radical prostatectomy and likely to persist despite conservative treatment. The sling is an emerging operation for persistent SUI, but randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparison with the established artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of surgery in men with bothersome urodynamic SUI after prostate surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A noninferiority RCT was conducted among men with bothersome urodynamic SUI from 27 UK centres. Blinding was not possible due the surgeries. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to the male transobturator sling (n = 190) or the AUS (n = 190) group. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was patient-reported SUI 12 mo after randomisation, collected from postal questionnaire using a composite outcome from two items in validated International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form questionnaire (ICIQ-UI SF). Noninferiority margin was 15%, thought to be of acceptable lower effectiveness, in return for reduced adverse events (AEs) and easier operation, for the sling. Secondary outcomes were operative and postoperative details, patient-reported measures, and AEs, up to 12 mo after surgery. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 380 participants were included. At 12 mo after randomisation, incontinence rates were 134/154 (87.0%) for male sling versus 133/158 (84.2%) for AUS (difference 3.6% [95% confidence interval {CI} -11.6 to 4.6], pNI = 0.003), showing noninferiority. Incontinence symptoms (ICIQ-UI SF) reduced from scores of 16.1 and 16.4 at baseline to 8.7 and 7.5 for male sling and AUS, respectively (mean difference 1.4 [95% CI 0.2-2.6], p =  0.02). Serious AEs (SAEs) were few: n = 6 and n = 13 for male sling and AUS (one man had three SAEs), respectively. Quality of life scores improved, and satisfaction was high in both groups. All other secondary outcomes that show statistically significant differences favour the AUS. CONCLUSIONS: Using a strict definition, urinary incontinence rates remained high, with no evidence of difference between male sling and AUS. Symptoms and quality of life improved significantly in both groups, and men were generally satisfied with both procedures. Overall, secondary and post hoc analyses were in favour of AUS. PATIENT SUMMARY: Urinary incontinence after prostatectomy has considerable effect on men's quality of life. MASTER shows that if surgery is needed, both surgical options result in fewer symptoms and high satisfaction, despite most men not being completely dry. However, most other results indicate that men having an artificial urinary sphincter have better outcomes than those who have a sling.

It is unprecedented: trial management during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented unique challenges for the clinical trial community, both in the rapid establishment of COVID-19 clinical trials and many existing non-COVID-19 studies either being temporarily paused (whether that is a complete pause or pause in some activities) and/or adapting their processes. Trial managers have played a key role in decision-making, undertaking risk assessments and adapting trial processes, working closely with other members of the research team. This article presents some of the ways in which trial management processes have been altered and the key role that trial managers have played. It has been born out of discussions between trial managers in the UK who are members of the UK Trial Managers' Network (UKTMN), a national network of trial management professionals managing non-commercial trials.In these unprecedented times, clinical trials have faced many uncertainties and broad-ranging challenges encompassing a range of activities including prioritising patient safety amidst the pandemic, consenting and recruiting new participants into trials, data collection and management and intervention delivery. In many cases, recruitment has been paused whilst mitigations have been put in place to continue data collection. Innovative solutions have been implemented to ensure we continue, where possible, to deliver high-quality clinical trials. Technology has provided many solutions to these challenges, and trial managers have adapted to new ways of working whilst continuing to deliver their clinical trials. Trial management groups are now faced with new uncertainties around re-starting clinical trials, and it is unclear currently how this will go, though working together with sponsors, funders and site teams is clearly a priority.Clinical trial teams have worked together to ensure their trials have adapted quickly whilst ensuring participant safety is given utmost importance. There are clear examples where the trial community have come together to share experiences and expertise, and this should continue in the future to ensure the innovative practices developed become embedded in the design and conduct of clinical trials in the future.

How to deal with a temporary suspension and restarting your trial: our experiences and lessons learnt.

Whilst the issues around early termination of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are well documented in the literature, trials can also be temporarily suspended with the real prospect that they may subsequently restart. There is little guidance in the literature as to how to manage such a temporary suspension. In this paper, we describe the temporary suspension of a trial within our clinical trials unit because of concerns over the safety of transvaginal synthetic mesh implants. We also describe the challenges, considerations, and lessons learnt during the suspension that we are now applying in the current COVID-19 pandemic which has led to activities in many RCTs across the world undergoing a temporary suspension.There were three key phases within the temporary suspension: the decision to suspend, implementation of the suspension, and restarting. Each of these phases presented individual challenges which are discussed within this paper, along with the lessons learnt. There were obvious challenges around recruitment, delivery of the intervention, and follow-up. Additional challenges included communication between stakeholders, evolving risk assessment, updates to trial protocol and associated paperwork, maintaining site engagement, data-analysis, and workload within the trial team and Sponsor organisation.Based on our experience of managing a temporary suspension, we developed an action plan and guidance (see Additional File 1) for managing a significant trial event, such as a temporary suspension. We have used this document to help us manage the suspension of activities within our portfolio of trials during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Using systematic data categorisation to quantify the types of data collected in clinical trials: the DataCat project.

BACKGROUND: Data collection consumes a large proportion of clinical trial resources. Each data item requires time and effort for collection, processing and quality control procedures. In general, more data equals a heavier burden for trial staff and participants. It is also likely to increase costs. Knowing the types of data being collected, and in what proportion, will be helpful to ensure that limited trial resources and participant goodwill are used wisely. AIM: The aim of this study is to categorise the types of data collected across a broad range of trials and assess what proportion of collected data each category represents. METHODS: We developed a standard operating procedure to categorise data into primary outcome, secondary outcome and 15 other categories. We categorised all variables collected on trial data collection forms from 18, mainly publicly funded, randomised superiority trials, including trials of an investigational medicinal product and complex interventions. Categorisation was done independently in pairs: one person having in-depth knowledge of the trial, the other independent of the trial. Disagreement was resolved through reference to the trial protocol and discussion, with the project team being consulted if necessary. KEY RESULTS: Primary outcome data accounted for 5.0% (median)/11.2% (mean) of all data items collected. Secondary outcomes accounted for 39.9% (median)/42.5% (mean) of all data items. Non-outcome data such as participant identifiers and demographic data represented 32.4% (median)/36.5% (mean) of all data items collected. CONCLUSION: A small proportion of the data collected in our sample of 18 trials was related to the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes accounted for eight times the volume of data as the primary outcome. A substantial amount of data collection is not related to trial outcomes. Trialists should work to make sure that the data they collect are only those essential to support the health and treatment decisions of those whom the trial is designed to inform.

Surgical interventions for uterine prolapse and for vault prolapse: the two VUE RCTs.

BACKGROUND: New surgical approaches for apical prolapse have gradually been introduced, with few prospective randomised controlled trial data to evaluate their safety and efficacy compared with traditional methods. OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical uterine preservation with vaginal hysterectomy in women with uterine prolapse and abdominal procedures with vaginal procedures in women with vault prolapse in terms of clinical effectiveness, adverse events, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: Two parallel randomised controlled trials (i.e. Uterine and Vault). Allocation was by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1 ratio), minimised on the need for concomitant anterior and/or posterior procedure, concomitant incontinence procedure, age and surgeon. SETTING: UK hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Uterine trial - 563 out of 565 randomised women had uterine prolapse surgery. Vault trial - 208 out of 209 randomised women had vault prolapse surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Uterine trial - uterine preservation or vaginal hysterectomy. Vault trial - abdominal or vaginal vault suspension. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measures were women's prolapse symptoms (as measured using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score), prolapse-specific quality of life and cost-effectiveness (as assessed by incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year). RESULTS: Uterine trial - adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, the mean Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score at 12 months for uterine preservation was 4.2 (standard deviation 4.9) versus vaginal hysterectomy with a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score of 4.2 (standard deviation 5.3) (mean difference -0.05, 95% confidence interval -0.91 to 0.81). Serious adverse event rates were similar between the groups (uterine preservation 5.4% vs. vaginal hysterectomy 5.9%; risk ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.38 to 1.75). There was no difference in overall prolapse stage. Significantly more women would recommend vaginal hysterectomy to a friend (odds ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.83). Uterine preservation was £235 (95% confidence interval £6 to £464) more expensive than vaginal hysterectomy and generated non-significantly fewer quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference -0.004, 95% confidence interval -0.026 to 0.019). Vault trial - adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, the mean Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score at 12 months for an abdominal procedure was 5.6 (standard deviation 5.4) versus vaginal procedure with a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score of 5.9 (standard deviation 5.4) (mean difference -0.61, 95% confidence interval -2.08 to 0.86). The serious adverse event rates were similar between the groups (abdominal 5.9% vs. vaginal 6.0%; risk ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.27 to 3.44). The objective anterior prolapse stage 2b or more was higher in the vaginal group than in the abdominal group (odds ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.79). There was no difference in the overall prolapse stage. An abdominal procedure was £570 (95% confidence interval £459 to £682) more expensive than a vaginal procedure and generated non-significantly more quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference 0.004, 95% confidence interval -0.031 to 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: Uterine trial - in terms of efficacy, quality of life or adverse events in the short term, no difference was identified between uterine preservation and vaginal hysterectomy. Vault trial - in terms of efficacy, quality of life or adverse events in the short term, no difference was identified between an abdominal and a vaginal approach. FUTURE WORK: Long-term follow-up for at least 6 years is ongoing to identify recurrence rates, need for further prolapse surgery, adverse events and cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86784244. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 13. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

About 1 in 10 women has pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery, and around three of these women require a further operation. The aim of this study was to identify the most appropriate surgery for two different types of POP found in women: (1) when the uterus itself has come down ­ the Uterine trial ­ and (2) when a previous hysterectomy has resulted in the top of the vagina coming down ­ the Vault trial. In the Uterine trial, preserving the uterus was compared with removing it vaginally. In the Vault trial, uplifting and supporting the vault prolapse using an abdominal approach was compared with a vaginal approach. Women were asked about their prolapse and other symptoms affecting their quality of life (QoL). The majority of women reported that their prolapse symptoms and QoL improved after surgery. The women's prolapse was also measured by clinical examination before and 12 months after their operation. All of these results were compared between the different procedures. It was found that all the surgical procedures were successful within the 12-month review period. Abdominal surgery in the Vault trial as well as any that was required in the Uterine trial, was, however, slightly less cost-effective. Serious complications and the need for further prolapse surgery were similar in all groups. A small number of women did require additional surgery for prolapse recurrence or for small mesh exposure when additional or prolapse procedures had involved mesh. Women in both trials will be followed up for at least 6 years to determine longer-term costs and consequences.

Verifying participant-reported clinical outcomes: challenges and implications.

BACKGROUND: Researchers often rely on trial participants to self-report clinical outcomes (for example, fractures, re-operations). Little information exists as to the 'accuracy' of participant-reported clinical outcomes, particularly in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). To help address this evidence gap, we report four case studies, nested within different RCTs where participant-reported clinical outcome data were compared with those reported by clinicians or extracted from medical notes. METHODS: Four publicly-funded RCTs with different methods of verifying participant-reported outcomes were identified. In KAT, the participants were asked about hospital admissions for any reason. Where it was thought to be relevant to the trial knee, further information was sought from the lead surgeon at the admitting site to confirm whether or not the admission was relevant to the trial knee. In REFLUX, participants were asked about hospital admissions for any reason. For participants who reported a re-operation, further information was sought from the lead surgeon at the admitting site to confirm this. In RECORD, participants were asked three questions regarding broken bones. Where low-trauma fractures were reported, clinical verification was sought, initially from the research nurse at the site. In CATHETER, participants were asked about urinary tract infections (UTIs), and a prescription of antibiotics was provided for the treatment of UTIs following urethral catheterisation. The GPs of those who reported a UTI were contacted to confirm that an antibiotic prescription had been issued for the suspected UTI. RESULTS: In KAT, 397 of 6882 (6%) participant-reported hospital admissions were confirmed as relevant to the trial knee. In REFLUX, 16 of 19 participants (84%) who appeared to have had a re-operation were confirmed as having had one. In RECORD, 473 of 781 (61%) fractures reported by participants were confirmed as being low-trauma fractures. In CATHETER, 429 of 830 participant-reported UTIs (52%) were confirmed as such by the GPs. CONCLUSIONS: We used different approaches in our verification of participant-reported outcomes in clinical trials, and we believe there is no one optimal solution. Consideration of issues such as what information is sought from participants, the phrasing of questions, whether the medical records are a true 'gold standard' and costs and benefits to the RCT may help determine the appropriate approach.

Caspase-independence and characterization of bisnaphthalimidopropyl spermidine induced cytotoxicity in HL60 cells.

Bisnaphthalimides are DNA intercalators of potential use as chemotherapeutics but for which the range of mechanism of action is only gradually being elucidated. Using human promyelocytic HL-60 cells, we extend characterization of the cytotoxicity of bisnaphthalimidopropylspermidine (BNIPSpd) and examine the relationship with caspase-activity. Within 4 h exposure, BNIPSpd (1-10 µM) induced significant DNA strand breakage. Evidence of apoptosis was progressive through the experimental period. Within 6 h, BNIPSpd increased the proportion of cells exhibiting plasma membrane phosphatidylserine exposure. Within 12 h, active caspase expression increased and was sustained with 5 and 10 µM BNIPSpd. Flow cytometric analysis revealed caspase activity in cells with and without damaged membranes. By 24 h, 5 and 10 µM BNIPSpd increased hypodiploid DNA content and internucleosomal DNA fragmentation (DNA ladders) typical of the later stages of apoptosis. 1 µM BNIPSpd exposure also increased hypodiploid DNA content by 48 h. Polyamine levels decreased by 24 h BNIPSpd exposure. The pan-caspase inhibitor, z-VAD-fmk, significantly decreased DNA degradation (hypodiploid DNA and DNA ladders) and cytotoxicity. Despite this, cell growth and viability remained significantly impaired. We propose that BNIPSpd cytotoxicity arises through DNA damage and not polyamine depletion and that cytotoxicity is dominated by but not dependent upon caspase driven apoptosis.

Male synthetic sling versus artificial urinary sphincter trial for men with urodynamic stress incontinence after prostate surgery (MASTER): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a frequent adverse effect for men undergoing prostate surgery. A large proportion (around 8% after radical prostatectomy and 2% after transurethral resection of prostate (TURP)) are left with severe disabling incontinence which adversely effects their quality of life and many are reliant on containment measures such as pads (27% and 6% respectively). Surgery is currently the only option for active management of the problem. The overwhelming majority of surgeries for persistent bothersome SUI involve artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) insertion. However, this is expensive, and necessitates manipulation of a pump to enable voiding. More recently, an alternative to AUS has been developed - a synthetic sling for men which elevates the urethra, thus treating SUI. This is thought, by some, to be less invasive, more acceptable and less expensive than AUS but clear evidence for this is lacking. The MASTER trial aims to determine whether the male synthetic sling is non-inferior to implantation of the AUS for men who have SUI after prostate surgery (for cancer or benign disease), judged primarily on clinical effectiveness but also considering relative harms and cost-effectiveness. METHODS/DESIGN: Men with urodynamic stress incontinence (USI) after prostate surgery, for whom surgery is judged appropriate, are the target population. We aim to recruit men from secondary care urological centres in the UK NHS who carry out surgery for post-prostatectomy incontinence. Outcomes will be assessed by participant-completed questionnaires and 3-day urinary bladder diaries at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months. The 24-h urinary pad test will be used at baseline as an objective assessment of urine loss. Clinical data will be completed at the time of surgery to provide details of the operative procedures, complications and resource use in hospital. At 12 months, men will also have a clinical review to evaluate the results of surgery (including another 24-h pad test) and to identify problems or need for further treatment. DISCUSSION: A robust examination of the comparative effectiveness of the male synthetic sling will provide high-quality evidence to determine whether or not it should be adopted widely in the NHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry: Number ISRCTN49212975 . Registered on 22 July 2013. First patient randomised on 29 January 2014.

Two parallel, pragmatic, UK multicentre, randomised controlled trials comparing surgical options for upper compartment (vault or uterine) pelvic organ prolapse (the VUE Study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: One in three women who have a prolapse operation will go on to have another operation, though not necessarily in the same compartment. Surgery can result in greater impairment of quality of life than the original prolapse itself (such as the development of new-onset urinary incontinence, or prolapse at a different site). Anterior and posterior prolapse surgery is most common (90 % of operations), but around 43 % of women also have a uterine (34 %) or vault (9 %) procedure at the same time. There is not enough evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to guide management of vault or uterine prolapse. The Vault or Uterine prolapse surgery Evaluation (VUE) study aims to assess the surgical management of upper compartment pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in terms of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and adverse events. METHODS/DESIGN: VUE is two parallel, pragmatic, UK multicentre, RCTs (Uterine Trial and Vault Trial). Eligible for inclusion are women with vault or uterine prolapse: requiring a surgical procedure, suitable for randomisation and willing to be randomised. Randomisation will be computer-allocated separately for each trial, minimised on: requiring concomitant anterior and/or posterior POP surgery or not, concomitant incontinence surgery or not, age (under 60 years or 60 years and older) and surgeon. Participants will be randomly assigned, with equal probability to intervention or control arms in either the Uterine Trial or the Vault Trial. Uterine Trial participants will receive either a vaginal hysterectomy or a uterine preservation procedure. Vault Trial participants will receive either a vaginal sacrospinous fixation or an abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Participants will be followed up by postal questionnaires (6 months post surgery and 12 months post randomisation) and also reviewed in clinic 12 months post surgery. The primary outcome is the participant-reported Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score (POP-SS) at 12 months post randomisation. DISCUSSION: Demonstrating the efficacy of vault and uterine prolapse surgeries is relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to health care providers, both in the UK and globally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN86784244 (assigned 19 October 2012), and the first subject was randomly assigned on 1 May 2013.