Patient and Public Involvement in Research Evaluating Integrated Care for People Experiencing Homelessness: Findings From the PHOENIx Community Pharmacy Pilot Randomised-Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: There is a paucity of research on and a limited understanding of patient and public involvement (PPI) in the context of research in homelessness and, in particular, direct involvement of people with lived and living experience of homelessness (PEH) as expert advisors. We aim to report on outcomes and reflections from lived experience advisory panel (LEAP) meetings and PPI activities, held throughout the study lifecycle of a pilot randomised-controlled trial (RCT) focused on evaluating integrated health and practical support for PEH. METHODS: Community Pharmacy Homeless Outreach Engagement Non-medical Independent prescribing Rx (PHOENIx Community Pharmacy RCT) is an integrated health and social care intervention for people experiencing homelessness who present to community pharmacy. Intervention includes weekly support from a pharmacist prescriber and a third sector support worker for up to 6 months. PPI activities undertaken throughout the study were documented, including outcomes of LEAP meetings. Outcome reporting followed Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2 Short Form (GRIPP2-SF). RESULTS: In total, 17 members were recruited into the LEAP; six meetings (three in two study sites) were held. PPI input was also received through representation from homelessness third sector organisation staff as study co-applicants and core membership in the trial steering committee. Together, the PPI activities helped shape the study proposal, design of study materials, data analysis and dissemination materials. LEAP panel members offered valuable input via their experience and expertise into the delivery and refinement of interventions. Although longitudinal input was received from some LEAP members, ensuring repeat attendance in the pre-planned meetings was challenging. CONCLUSION: People who face social exclusion and marginalisation can provide highly valuable input as equal partners in co-design and delivery of interventions seeking to improve their health and well-being. Fluid membership and flexible methods of seeking and incorporating advice can offer pragmatic approaches to minimising barriers to continued involvement in research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study reports findings and learning relevant to involvement of people with lived and living experience of homelessness as advisors in a research study. It is important for researchers to offer fluid memberships and use diverse methods to receive input from lived experience members, as traditional PPI methodology may be insufficient to ensure inclusivity. Staff and volunteers from third sector organisations were important PPI partners who bring their experience based on frontline service provision, often as the first port of call for people experiencing severe and multiple disadvantage. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN88146807.

Preventing recurrence of endometriosis-related pain by means of long-acting progestogen therapy: the PRE-EMPT RCT.

Background: Endometriosis affects 1 in 10 women, many of whom have surgery for persistent pain. Recurrence of symptoms following an operation is common. Although hormonal treatment can reduce this risk, there is uncertainty about the best option. Objectives: To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of long-acting progestogen therapy compared with the combined oral contraceptive pill in preventing recurrence of endometriosis-related pain and quality of life. Design: A multicentre, open, randomised trial with parallel economic evaluation. The final design was informed by a pilot study, qualitative exploration of women's lived experience of endometriosis and a pretrial economic model. Setting: Thirty-four United Kingdom hospitals. Participants: Women of reproductive age undergoing conservative surgery for endometriosis. Interventions: Long-acting progestogen reversible contraceptive (either 150 mg depot medroxyprogesterone acetate or 52 mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system) or combined oral contraceptive pill (30 µg ethinylestradiol, 150 µg levonorgestrel). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the pain domain of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 questionnaire at 36 months post randomisation. The economic evaluation estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Results: Four hundred and five women were randomised to receive either long-acting reversible contraceptive (N = 205) or combined oral contraceptive pill (N = 200). Pain scores improved in both groups (24 and 23 points on average) compared with preoperative values but there was no difference between the two (adjusted mean difference: -0.8, 95% confidence interval -5.7 to 4.2; p = 0.76). The long-acting reversible contraceptive group underwent fewer surgical procedures or second-line treatments compared with the combined oral contraceptive group (73 vs. 97; hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.00). The mean adjusted quality-adjusted life-year difference between two arms was 0.043 (95% confidence interval -0.069 to 0.152) in favour of the combined oral contraceptive pill, although this cost an additional £533 (95% confidence interval 52 to 983) per woman. Limitations: Limitations include the absence of a no-treatment group and the fact that many women changed treatments over the 3 years of follow-up. Use of telephone follow-up to collect primary outcome data in those who failed to return questionnaires resulted in missing data for secondary outcomes. The COVID pandemic may have affected rates of further surgical treatment. Conclusions: At 36 months, women allocated to either intervention had comparable levels of pain, with both groups showing around a 40% improvement from presurgical levels. Although the combined oral contraceptive was cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the difference between the two was marginal and lower rates of repeat surgery might make long-acting reversible contraceptives preferable to some women. Future work: Future research needs to focus on evaluating newer hormonal preparations, a more holistic approach to symptom suppression and identification of biomarkers to diagnose endometriosis and its recurrence. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN97865475. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN97865475. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 11/114/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 55. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. The NIHR recognises that people have diverse gender identities, and in this report, the word 'woman' is used to describe patients or individuals whose sex assigned at birth was female, whether they identify as female, male or non-binary.

Endometriosis is a condition where cells similar to ones that line the womb are found elsewhere in the body. Endometriosis affects 1 in 10 women, many of whom have surgery for persistent pain. Unfortunately, symptoms often return and some women will need repeat operations. Hormonal contraceptives can prevent the return of endometriosis-related pain: either long-acting reversible contraceptives (injections or a coil, fitted inside the womb) or the combined oral contraceptive pill (often called 'the pill'). We do not know which is the best option. The aim of this trial was to find out which of these two hormone treatments was more effective in terms of symptom relief, avoidance of further surgery and costs. Four hundred and five women with endometriosis, who were not intending to get pregnant, participated in a clinical trial. Half of the participants took long-acting reversible contraceptives, and the other half took the pill for 3 years following endometriosis surgery. The choice of treatment was made at random by a computer to ensure a fair comparison, although those allocated to the long-acting contraceptive could choose between injections or the coil. Participants completed questionnaires about their symptoms and life quality at intervals up to 3 years. Both treatments were equally good at reducing pain but more women using the pill had repeat operations. The pill was a little more costly overall but associated with a slightly higher quality of life. Both treatments are equally effective in reducing pain up to 3 years after surgery for endometriosis. The differences in costs are small and the choice of treatment should be based on personal preference.

Long acting progestogens versus combined oral contraceptive pill for preventing recurrence of endometriosis related pain: the PRE-EMPT pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of long acting progestogens compared with the combined oral contraceptive pill in preventing recurrence of endometriosis related pain. DESIGN: The PRE-EMPT (preventing recurrence of endometriosis) pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 34 UK hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 405 women of reproductive age undergoing conservative surgery for endometriosis. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised in a 1:1 ratio using a secure internet facility to a long acting progestogen (depot medroxyprogesterone acetate or levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system) or the combined oral contraceptive pill. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was pain measured three years after randomisation using the pain domain of the Endometriosis Health Profile 30 (EHP-30) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes (evaluated at six months, one, two, and three years) included the four core and six modular domains of the EHP-30, and treatment failure (further therapeutic surgery or second line medical treatment). RESULTS: 405 women were randomised to receive a long acting progestogen (n=205) or combined oral contraceptive pill (n=200). At three years, there was no difference in pain scores between the groups (adjusted mean difference -0.8, 95% confidence interval -5.7 to 4.2, P=0.76), which had improved by around 40% in both groups compared with preoperative values (an average of 24 and 23 points for long acting progestogen and combined oral contraceptive pill groups, respectively). Most of the other domains of the EHP-30 also showed improvement at all time points compared with preoperative scores, without evidence of any differences between groups. Women randomised to a long acting progestogen underwent fewer surgical procedures or second line treatments compared with those randomised to the combined oral contraceptive pill group (73 v 97; hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative prescription of a long acting progestogen or the combined oral contraceptive pill results in similar levels of improvement in endometriosis related pain at three years, with both groups showing around a 40% improvement compared with preoperative levels. While women can be reassured that both options are effective, the reduced risk of repeat surgery for endometriosis and hysterectomy might make long acting reversible progestogens preferable for some. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN97865475.

Surgical evacuation with intraoperative ultrasound (SEE U): A randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To test whether intraoperative ultrasound can reduce the incidence of early and late complications following surgical removal of products of conception. DESIGN: This was a prospective, multicentre, randomised, open clinical trial to assess feasibility. It was performed in two University Teaching hospitals in the West Midlands, England. The population consisted of women aged 16 years or over who were referred for surgical management of miscarriage. Patients were randomised to surgical management of miscarriage with either continuous intraoperative ultrasound or without intraoperative ultrasound. Process outcomes included the proportion of eligible women screened and proportion of eligible women randomised, attrition rates, evaluation of outcome measurement tools and acceptability. The primary clinical outcome was a composite outcome of unsuccessful procedure or a complication. RESULTS: Fifty-nine women requiring surgical management of miscarriage were randomised. The conversion rate for entry into the trial was 59/79(75 %; 95 %CI = 64-84 %). The composite clinical outcome was attained in 5/27(19 %) patients who had surgery without ultrasound and 7/28(25 %) patients who had surgery with ultrasound (RR = 0.74;95 %CI = 0.26, 2.10). When we excluded the patients that could not attend their hysteroscopy appointment, due to COVID-19 pandemic, 5/27(19 %) of patients who had surgery without ultrasound and 5/25(20 %) of patients who had surgery with ultrasound attained the composite clinical outcome (RR = 0.93;95 %CI = 0.30, 2.90). CONCLUSIONS: This multicentre pilot study showed that a large RCT comparing surgical management of miscarriage with and without intraoperative ultrasound is feasible.

Ulipristal acetate versus levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for heavy menstrual bleeding (UCON): a randomised controlled phase III trial.

Background: Heavy menstrual bleeding affects one in four women and negatively impacts quality of life. Ulipristal acetate is prescribed to treat symptoms associated with uterine fibroids. We compared the effectiveness of ulipristal acetate and the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system at reducing the burden of heavy menstrual bleeding, irrespective of the presence of fibroids. Methods: This randomised, open-label, parallel group phase III trial enrolled women over 18 years with heavy menstrual bleeding from 10 UK hospitals. Participants were centrally randomised, in a 1:1 ratio, to either three, 12-week treatment cycles of 5 mg ulipristal acetate daily, separated by 4-week treatment-free intervals, or a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. The primary outcome, analysed by intention-to-treat, was quality of life measured by the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included menstrual bleeding and liver function. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 20426843. Findings: Between June 5th, 2015 and February 26th, 2020, 236 women were randomised, either side of a recruitment suspension due to concerns of ulipristal acetate hepatoxicity. Subsequent withdrawal of ulipristal acetate led to early cessation of recruitment but the trial continued in follow-up. The primary outcome substantially improved in both groups, and was 89, (interquartile range [IQR] 65 to 100, n = 53) and 94, (IQR 70 to 100, n = 50; adjusted odds ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26-1.17; p = 0.12) in the ulipristal and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system groups. Rates of amenorrhoea at 12 months were higher in those allocated ulipristal acetate compared to levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (64% versus 25%, adjusted odds ratio 7.12, 95% CI 2.29-22.2). Other outcomes were similar between the two groups and there were no cases of endometrial malignancy or hepatotoxicity due to ulipristal acetate use. Interpretation: Our findings suggested that both treatments improved quality of life. Ulipristal was more effective at inducing amenorrhoea. Ulipristal has been demonstrated to be an effective medical therapeutic option but currently its use has restrictions and requires liver function monitoring. Funding: UK Medical Research Council and National Institute of Health Research EME Programme (12/206/52).

Protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial to evaluate integrated support from pharmacist independent prescriber and third sector worker for people experiencing homelessness: the PHOENIx community pharmacy study.

BACKGROUND: People experiencing homelessness (PEH) have complex health and social care needs and most die in their early 40 s. PEH frequently use community pharmacies; however, evaluation of the delivery of structured, integrated, holistic health and social care intervention has not been previously undertaken in community pharmacies for PEH. PHOENIx (Pharmacy Homeless Outreach Engagement Non-medical Independent prescribing Rx) has been delivered and tested in Glasgow, Scotland, by NHS pharmacist independent prescribers and third sector homelessness support workers offering health and social care intervention in low threshold homeless drop-in venues, emergency accommodation and emergency departments, to PEH. Building on this work, this study aims to test recruitment, retention, intervention adherence and fidelity of community pharmacy-based PHOENIx intervention. METHODS: Randomised, multi-centre, open, parallel-group external pilot trial. A total of 100 PEH aged 18 years and over will be recruited from community pharmacies in Glasgow and Birmingham. PHOENIx intervention includes structured assessment in the community pharmacy of health, housing, benefits and activities, in addition to usual care, through weekly visits lasting up to six months. A primary outcome is whether to proceed to a definitive trial based on pre-specified progression criteria. Secondary outcomes include drug/alcohol treatment uptake and treatment retention; overdose rates; mortality and time to death; prison/criminal justice encounters; healthcare utilisation; housing tenure; patient-reported measures and intervention acceptability. Analysis will include descriptive statistics of recruitment and retention rates. Process evaluation will be conducted using Normalisation Process Theory. Health, social care and personal resource use data will be identified, measured and valued. DISCUSSION: If the findings of this pilot study suggest progression to a definitive trial, and if the definitive trial offers positive outcomes, it is intended that PHOENIx will be a publicly funded free-to-access service in community pharmacy for PEH. The study results will be shared with wider stakeholders and patients in addition to dissemination through medical journals and scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Clinical Trial Registration ISRCTN88146807. Approved protocol version 2.0 dated July 19, 2022.

Effects on heavy menstrual bleeding and pregnancy of uterine artery embolization (UAE) or myomectomy for women with uterine fibroids wishing to avoid hysterectomy: The FEMME randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine treatment options (myomectomy vs. uterine artery embolization (UAE)) for women wishing to avoid hysterectomy. METHODS: A multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted on 254 women and data were collected on fibroid-specific quality of life (UFS-QOL), loss of menstrual blood, and pregnancy. RESULTS: At 4 years, the mean difference in the UFS-QOL was 5.0 points (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.4 to 11.5; P = 0.13) in favor of myomectomy. This was not statistically significant as it was at 2 years. There were no differences in bleeding scores, rates of amenorrhea, or heavy bleeding. Of those who were still menstruating, the majority reported regular or fairly regular periods: 36 of 48 (75%) in the UAE group and 30 of 39 (77%) in the myomectomy group. Twelve women after UAE and six women after myomectomy became pregnant (4 years) with seven and five live births, respectively (hazard ratio 0.48, 95% CI 0.18-1.28). There was no difference between the levels of hormones associated with the uterine reserve in each group. CONCLUSION: Leiomyoma are common in reproductive-aged women, causing heavy menses and subfertility. Among women with uterine fibroids, myomectomy resulted in better fibroid-related quality of life at 4 years, compared with UAE but the treatments decreased menstrual bleeding equally. There was also no significant difference in the impact of treatment on ovarian reserve.

Evaluating the Progression to Hypothyroidism in Preconception Euthyroid Thyroid Peroxidase Antibody-Positive Women.

CONTEXT: Thyroid peroxidase antibody (TPOAb) positivity is prevalent in women of reproductive age and predisposes to thyroid dysfunction, particularly hypothyroidism, which has adverse effects on pregnancy. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to report the rate of development of abnormal thyroid function among initially euthyroid TPOAb-positive women recruited into the TABLET trial, to identify factors associated with the development of hypothyroidism, and to compare outcomes between euthyroid and treated hypothyroid individuals. METHODS: This observational cohort study, conducted at 49 UK hospitals between 2011 and 2016, included euthyroid TPOAb-positive women 16 to 40 years of age with a history of miscarriage or subfertility, planning pregnancy, randomized to levothyroxine 50 mcg daily or placebo. Abnormal thyroid function, conception rate, and live birth rate (LBR) ≥34 weeks were analyzed. RESULTS: Among the women, 70/940 (7.4%) developed subclinical (SCH) or overt (OH) hypothyroidism: 27/470 taking levothyroxine and 43/470 placebo (relative risk [RR] 0.63; 95% CI, 0.39-1.00; P = 0.05); 83% of cases emerged prepregnancy. Baseline median serum TSH concentrations and TPOAb titers were significantly higher in those who developed hypothyroidism vs those who did not (P < 0.001). Treated SCH/OH demonstrated a higher failure-to-conceive rate compared with euthyroid women (adjusted RR 2.02 [1.56-2.62]; P < 0.001). The LBR ≥ 34 weeks was similar in the treated SCH/OH and euthyroid groups (adjusted RR 1.09 [0.77-1.55]; P = 0.6). CONCLUSION: Approximately 7% of euthyroid TPOAb-positive women will develop hypothyroidism within 1 year preconception or in pregnancy. Conception rates are lower in women with treated SCH/OH compared with euthyroid women, but LBR are comparable. Thyroid function in TPOAb-positive women should be monitored regularly, when trying to conceive, to ensure prompt diagnosis and appropriate treatment initiation.

Uterine artery embolisation versus myomectomy for premenopausal women with uterine fibroids wishing to avoid hysterectomy: the FEMME RCT.

BACKGROUND: Uterine fibroids are the most common tumour in women of reproductive age and are associated with heavy menstrual bleeding, abdominal discomfort, subfertility and reduced quality of life. For women wishing to retain their uterus and who do not respond to medical treatment, myomectomy and uterine artery embolisation are therapeutic options. OBJECTIVES: We examined the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of uterine artery embolisation compared with myomectomy in the treatment of symptomatic fibroids. DESIGN: A multicentre, open, randomised trial with a parallel economic evaluation. SETTING: Twenty-nine UK hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Premenopausal women who had symptomatic uterine fibroids amenable to myomectomy or uterine artery embolisation were recruited. Women were excluded if they had significant adenomyosis, any malignancy or pelvic inflammatory disease or if they had already had a previous open myomectomy or uterine artery embolisation. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to myomectomy or embolisation in a 1 : 1 ratio using a minimisation algorithm. Myomectomy could be open abdominal, laparoscopic or hysteroscopic. Embolisation of the uterine arteries was performed under fluoroscopic guidance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Uterine Fibroid Symptom Quality of Life questionnaire (with scores ranging from 0 to 100 and a higher score indicating better quality of life) at 2 years, adjusted for baseline score. The economic evaluation estimated quality-adjusted life-years (derived from EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version, and costs from the NHS perspective). RESULTS: A total of 254 women were randomised - 127 to myomectomy (105 underwent myomectomy) and 127 to uterine artery embolisation (98 underwent embolisation). Information on the primary outcome at 2 years was available for 81% (n = 206) of women. Primary outcome scores at 2 years were 84.6 (standard deviation 21.5) in the myomectomy group and 80.0 (standard deviation 22.0) in the uterine artery embolisation group (intention-to-treat complete-case analysis mean adjusted difference 8.0, 95% confidence interval 1.8 to 14.1, p = 0.01; mean adjusted difference using multiple imputation for missing responses 6.5, 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 11.9). The mean difference in the primary outcome at the 4-year follow-up time point was 5.0 (95% CI -1.4 to 11.5; p = 0.13) in favour of myomectomy. Perioperative and postoperative complications from all initial procedures occurred in similar percentages of women in both groups (29% in the myomectomy group vs. 24% in the UAE group). Twelve women in the uterine embolisation group and six women in the myomectomy group reported pregnancies over 4 years, resulting in seven and five live births, respectively (hazard ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 1.28). Over a 2-year time horizon, uterine artery embolisation was associated with higher costs than myomectomy (mean cost £7958, 95% confidence interval £6304 to £9612, vs. mean cost £7314, 95% confidence interval £5854 to £8773), but with fewer quality-adjusted life-years gained (0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 0.78, vs. 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 0.87). The differences in costs (difference £645, 95% confidence interval -£1381 to £2580) and quality-adjusted life-years (difference -0.09, 95% confidence interval -0.11 to -0.04) were small. Similar results were observed over the 4-year time horizon. At a threshold of willingness to pay for a gain of 1 QALY of £20,000, the probability of myomectomy being cost-effective is 98% at 2 years and 96% at 4 years. LIMITATIONS: There were a substantial number of women who were not recruited because of their preference for a particular treatment option. CONCLUSIONS: Among women with symptomatic uterine fibroids, myomectomy resulted in greater improvement in quality of life than did uterine artery embolisation. The differences in costs and quality-adjusted life-years are very small. Future research should involve women who are desiring pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN70772394. FUNDING: This study 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. 22. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?: Uterine fibroids are the most common non-cancerous tumour in women of childbearing age. Uterine fibroids are associated with heavy bleeding, lower chances of having children and reduced quality of life. Traditional surgical options were either to remove the fibroids (via myomectomy) or to completely remove the womb. A newer approach, known as uterine artery embolisation, involves blocking the blood supply to the fibroids in the womb. WHAT DID WE PLAN TO DO?: We compared myomectomy with uterine artery embolisation in women with fibroids who wanted to keep their womb. We wanted to see which treatment improved quality of life, was associated with the fewest complications and was the best value for money for the NHS. We also wanted to see if either treatment had an impact on women's ability to get pregnant and give birth. We included 254 women in a clinical trial. Women were assigned to have myomectomy or uterine artery embolisation at random to ensure a fair comparison. Women completed questionnaires about their symptoms and quality of life at intervals up to 4 years after treatment. WHAT DID WE FIND?: We found that myomectomy improved women's quality of life more than uterine artery embolisation. Complications from the treatments occurred in a similar proportion of women. There appeared to be no difference on reproductive hormone levels between treatments. Too few women in the trial got pregnant for any difference in the numbers of women having children to be seen. The differences in costs and overall disease burden were small. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?: Both treatments improve quality of life and cost about the same to the NHS but, on average, myomectomy will provide greater benefit to women. There is no evidence to suggest that either treatment is unsuitable for women wanting to get pregnant, but more research is needed in younger women.

Uterine artery embolization or myomectomy for women with uterine fibroids: Four-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the quality of life experienced by women with symptomatic uterine fibroids who had been treated with UAE in comparison to myomectomy. We report the four-year follow-up of the FEMME randomised trial. Two-year follow-up data has been previously reported. STUDY DESIGN: Premenopausal women who had symptomatic uterine fibroids amenable to myomectomy or uterine artery embolization were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Women were excluded if they had significant adenomyosis, any malignancy, pelvic inflammatory disease or had had a previous open myomectomy or uterine artery embolization.Participants were randomised to myomectomy or embolization in a 1:1 ratio using a minimisation algorithm. Myomectomy could be open abdominal, laparoscopic or hysteroscopic, according to clinician preference. Embolization of the uterine arteries was performed according to local practice, under fluoroscopic guidance.The primary outcome measure was the Uterine Fibroid Symptom Quality of Life questionnaire, adjusted for baseline score and reported here at four years post-randomisation. Subsequent procedures for fibroids, pregnancy and outcome were amongst secondary outcomes.Trial registration ISRCTN70772394 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN70772394. RESULTS: 254 women were randomized, 127 to myomectomy (105 underwent myomectomy) and 127 to uterine artery embolization (98 underwent embolization). At four years, 67 (53%) and 81 (64%) completed UFS-QoL quality of life scores. Mean difference in the UFS-QoL at 4 years was 5.0 points (95% CI -1.4 to 11.5; p = 0.13) in favour of myomectomy. There were 15 pregnancies in the UAE group and 7 in the myomectomy group, with a cumulative pregnancy rate to four years of 15% and 6% respectively (hazard ratio: 0.48; 95% CI 0.18-1.28). The cumulative repeat procedure rate to four years was 24% in the UAE group and 13% in the myomectomy group (hazard ratio: 0.53; 95% CI 0.27-1.05). CONCLUSIONS: Myomectomy resulted in greater improvement in quality of life compared with uterine artery embolization, although by four years, this difference was not statistically significant. Missing data may limit the generalisability of this result. The numbers of women becoming pregnant were too small draw a conclusion on the effect of the procedures on fertility.

Mifepristone and misoprostol versus placebo and misoprostol for resolution of miscarriage in women diagnosed with missed miscarriage: the MifeMiso RCT.

TRIAL DESIGN: A randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentre study with health economic and nested qualitative studies to determine if mifepristone (Mifegyne®, Exelgyn, Paris, France) plus misoprostol is superior to misoprostol alone for the resolution of missed miscarriage. METHODS: Women diagnosed with missed miscarriage in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy were randomly assigned (1 : 1 ratio) to receive 200 mg of oral mifepristone or matched placebo, followed by 800 µg of misoprostol 2 days later. A web-based randomisation system allocated the women to the two groups, with minimisation for age, body mass index, parity, gestational age, amount of bleeding and randomising centre. The primary outcome was failure to pass the gestational sac within 7 days after randomisation. The prespecified key secondary outcome was requirement for surgery to resolve the miscarriage. A within-trial cost-effectiveness study and a nested qualitative study were also conducted. Women who completed the trial protocol were purposively approached to take part in an interview to explore their satisfaction with and the acceptability of medical management of missed miscarriage. RESULTS: A total of 711 women, from 28 hospitals in the UK, were randomised to receive either mifepristone plus misoprostol (357 women) or placebo plus misoprostol (354 women). The follow-up rate for the primary outcome was 98% (696 out of 711 women). The risk of failure to pass the gestational sac within 7 days was 17% (59 out of 348 women) in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, compared with 24% (82 out of 348 women) in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 0.98; p = 0.04). Surgical intervention to resolve the miscarriage was needed in 17% (62 out of 355 women) in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, compared with 25% (87 out of 353 women) in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 0.94; p = 0.02). There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. A total of 42 women, 19 in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group and 23 in the placebo plus misoprostol group, took part in an interview. Women appeared to have a preference for active management of their miscarriage. Overall, when women experienced care that supported their psychological well-being throughout the care pathway, and information was delivered in a skilled and sensitive manner such that women felt informed and in control, they were more likely to express satisfaction with medical management. The use of mifepristone and misoprostol showed an absolute effect difference of 6.6% (95% confidence interval 0.7% to 12.5%). The average cost per woman was lower in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, with a cost saving of £182 (95% confidence interval £26 to £338). Therefore, the use of mifepristone and misoprostol for the medical management of a missed miscarriage dominated the use of misoprostol alone. LIMITATIONS: The results from this trial are not generalisable to women diagnosed with incomplete miscarriage and the study does not allow for a comparison with expectant or surgical management of miscarriage. FUTURE WORK: Future work should use existing data to assess and rank the relative clinical effectiveness and safety profiles for all methods of management of miscarriage. CONCLUSIONS: Our trial showed that pre-treatment with mifepristone followed by misoprostol resulted in a higher rate of resolution of missed miscarriage than misoprostol treatment alone. Women were largely satisfied with medical management of missed miscarriage and would choose it again. The mifepristone and misoprostol intervention was shown to be cost-effective in comparison to misoprostol alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17405024. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 68. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Miscarriage is a common complication of pregnancy, affecting approximately one in four women. Sometimes, medical treatment (i.e. tablets) may be offered to start or speed up the miscarriage process in order for the womb to empty itself. A drug called misoprostol (a tablet that makes the womb contract) is currently recommended for this treatment. However, the addition of another drug called mifepristone [a tablet that reduces pregnancy hormones (Mifegyne^®, Exelgyn, Paris, France)] might help the miscarriage to resolve more quickly. Therefore, we carried out the MifeMiso trial to test if mifepristone plus misoprostol is more effective than misoprostol alone in resolving miscarriage within 7 days. Women were randomly allocated by a computer to receive either mifepristone or placebo, followed by misoprostol 2 days later. Neither the women nor their health-care professionals knew which treatment they received. Some women also talked to the researchers about their experiences of taking part in the study. In total, 711 women were randomised to receive either mifepristone plus misoprostol or placebo plus misoprostol. Overall, 83% of women who received mifepristone plus misoprostol had miscarriage resolution within 7 days, compared with 76% of the women who received a placebo plus misoprostol. Surgery was required less often in women who received mifepristone plus misoprostol: 17% of women who received it required surgery, compared with 25% of women who received the placebo. Treatment with mifepristone did not appear to have any negative effects. Treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol was more cost-effective than misoprostol alone, with an average saving of £182 per woman. Having taken part in the study, most women would choose medical management again and would recommend it to someone they knew who was experiencing a miscarriage.

Randomised controlled trial to investigate the effectiveness of local oestrogen treatment in postmenopausal women undergoing pelvic organ prolapse surgery (LOTUS): a pilot study to assess feasibility of a large multicentre trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing oestrogen treatment with no oestrogen supplementation in women undergoing pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery. DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomised, parallel, open, external pilot trial involving six UK urogynaecology centres (July 2015-August 2016). PARTICIPANTS: Postmenopausal women with POP opting for surgery, unless involving mesh or for recurrent POP in same compartment. INTERVENTION: Women were randomised (1:1) to preoperative and postoperative oestrogen or no treatment. Oestrogen treatment (oestradiol hemihydrate 10 µg vaginal pessaries) commenced 6 weeks prior to surgery (once daily for 2 weeks, twice weekly for 4 weeks) and twice weekly for 26 weeks from 6 weeks postsurgery. OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes were assessment of eligibility and recruitment rates along with compliance and data completion. To obtain estimates for important aspects of the protocol to allow development of a definitive trial. RESULTS: 325 women seeking POP surgery were screened over 13 months and 157 (48%) were eligible. Of these, 100 (64%) were randomised, 50 to oestrogen and 50 to no oestrogen treatment, with 89 (44/45 respectively) ultimately having surgery. Of these, 89% (79/89) returned complete questionnaires at 6 months and 78% (32/41) reported good compliance with oestrogen. No serious adverse events were attributable to oestrogen use. CONCLUSIONS: A large multicentre RCT of oestrogen versus no treatment is feasible, as it is possible to randomise and follow up participants with high fidelity. Four predefined feasibility criteria were met. Compliance with treatment regimens is not a barrier. A larger trial is required to definitively address the role of perioperative oestrogen supplementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN46661996.

Mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriage (MifeMiso): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The anti-progesterone drug mifepristone and the prostaglandin misoprostol can be used to treat missed miscarriage. However, it is unclear whether a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol is more effective than administering misoprostol alone. We investigated whether treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol would result in a higher rate of completion of missed miscarriage compared with misoprostol alone. METHODS: MifeMiso was a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial in 28 UK hospitals. Women were eligible for enrolment if they were aged 16 years and older, diagnosed with a missed miscarriage by pelvic ultrasound scan in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, chose to have medical management of miscarriage, and were willing and able to give informed consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a single dose of oral mifepristone 200 mg or an oral placebo tablet, both followed by a single dose of vaginal, oral, or sublingual misoprostol 800 µg 2 days later. Randomisation was managed via a secure web-based randomisation program, with minimisation to balance study group assignments according to maternal age (<30 years vs ≥30 years), body-mass index (<35 kg/m2vs ≥35 kg/m2), previous parity (nulliparous women vs parous women), gestational age (<70 days vs ≥70 days), amount of bleeding (Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart score; ≤2 vs ≥3), and randomising centre. Participants, clinicians, pharmacists, trial nurses, and midwives were masked to study group assignment throughout the trial. The primary outcome was failure to spontaneously pass the gestational sac within 7 days after random assignment. Primary analyses were done according to intention-to-treat principles. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN17405024. FINDINGS: Between Oct 3, 2017, and July 22, 2019, 2595 women were identified as being eligible for the MifeMiso trial. 711 women were randomly assigned to receive either mifepristone and misoprostol (357 women) or placebo and misoprostol (354 women). 696 (98%) of 711 women had available data for the primary outcome. 59 (17%) of 348 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group did not pass the gestational sac spontaneously within 7 days versus 82 (24%) of 348 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio [RR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·54-0·99; p=0·043). 62 (17%) of 355 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group required surgical intervention to complete the miscarriage versus 87 (25%) of 353 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (0·71, 0·53-0·95; p=0·021). We found no difference in incidence of adverse events between the study groups. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol was more effective than misoprostol alone in the management of missed miscarriage. Women with missed miscarriage should be offered mifepristone pretreatment before misoprostol to increase the chance of successful miscarriage management, while reducing the need for miscarriage surgery. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Uterine-Artery Embolization or Myomectomy for Uterine Fibroids.

BACKGROUND: Uterine fibroids, the most common type of tumor among women of reproductive age, are associated with heavy menstrual bleeding, abdominal discomfort, subfertility, and a reduced quality of life. For women who wish to preserve their uterus and who have not had a response to medical treatment, myomectomy and uterine-artery embolization are therapeutic options. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial to evaluate myomectomy, as compared with uterine-artery embolization, in women who had symptomatic uterine fibroids and did not want to undergo hysterectomy. Procedural options included open abdominal, laparoscopic, or hysteroscopic myomectomy. The primary outcome was fibroid-related quality of life, as assessed by the score on the health-related quality-of-life domain of the Uterine Fibroid Symptom and Quality of Life (UFS-QOL) questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating a better quality of life) at 2 years; adjustment was made for the baseline score. RESULTS: A total of 254 women, recruited at 29 hospitals in the United Kingdom, were randomly assigned: 127 to the myomectomy group (of whom 105 underwent myomectomy) and 127 to the uterine-artery embolization group (of whom 98 underwent embolization). Data on the primary outcome were available for 206 women (81%). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean (±SD) score on the health-related quality-of-life domain of the UFS-QOL questionnaire at 2 years was 84.6±21.5 in the myomectomy group and 80.0±22.0 in the uterine-artery embolization group (mean adjusted difference with complete case analysis, 8.0 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8 to 14.1; P = 0.01; mean adjusted difference with missing responses imputed, 6.5 points; 95% CI, 1.1 to 11.9). Perioperative and postoperative complications from all initial procedures, irrespective of adherence to the assigned procedure, occurred in 29% of the women in the myomectomy group and in 24% of the women in the uterine-artery embolization group. CONCLUSIONS: Among women with symptomatic uterine fibroids, those who underwent myomectomy had a better fibroid-related quality of life at 2 years than those who underwent uterine-artery embolization. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment program; FEMME Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN70772394.).

Progesterone to prevent miscarriage in women with early pregnancy bleeding: the PRISM RCT.

BACKGROUND: Progesterone is essential for a healthy pregnancy. Several small trials have suggested that progesterone therapy may rescue a pregnancy in women with early pregnancy bleeding, which is a symptom that is strongly associated with miscarriage. OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess the effects of vaginal micronised progesterone in women with vaginal bleeding in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. (2) To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of progesterone in women with early pregnancy bleeding. DESIGN: A multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of progesterone in women with early pregnancy vaginal bleeding. SETTING: A total of 48 hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 16-39 years with early pregnancy bleeding. INTERVENTIONS: Women aged 16-39 years were randomly assigned to receive twice-daily vaginal suppositories containing either 400 mg of progesterone or a matched placebo from presentation to 16 weeks of gestation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was live birth at ≥ 34 weeks. In addition, a within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from an NHS and NHS/Personal Social Services perspective. RESULTS: A total of 4153 women from 48 hospitals in the UK received either progesterone (n = 2079) or placebo (n = 2074). The follow-up rate for the primary outcome was 97.2% (4038 out of 4153 participants). The live birth rate was 75% (1513 out of 2025 participants) in the progesterone group and 72% (1459 out of 2013 participants) in the placebo group (relative rate 1.03, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.07; p = 0.08). A significant subgroup effect (interaction test p = 0.007) was identified for prespecified subgroups by the number of previous miscarriages: none (74% in the progesterone group vs. 75% in the placebo group; relative rate 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.04; p = 0.72); one or two (76% in the progesterone group vs. 72% in the placebo group; relative rate 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.12; p = 0.07); and three or more (72% in the progesterone group vs. 57% in the placebo group; relative rate 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.51; p = 0.004). A significant post hoc subgroup effect (interaction test p = 0.01) was identified in the subgroup of participants with early pregnancy bleeding and any number of previous miscarriage(s) (75% in the progesterone group vs. 70% in the placebo group; relative rate 1.09, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.15; p = 0.003). There were no significant differences in the rate of adverse events between the groups. The results of the health economics analysis show that progesterone was more costly than placebo (£7655 vs. £7572), with a mean cost difference of £83 (adjusted mean difference £76, 95% confidence interval -£559 to £711) between the two arms. Thus, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of progesterone compared with placebo was estimated as £3305 per additional live birth at ≥ 34 weeks of gestation. CONCLUSIONS: Progesterone therapy in the first trimester of pregnancy did not result in a significantly higher rate of live births among women with threatened miscarriage overall, but an important subgroup effect was identified. A conclusion on the cost-effectiveness of the PRISM trial would depend on the amount that society is willing to pay to increase the chances of an additional live birth at ≥ 34 weeks. For future work, we plan to conduct an individual participant data meta-analysis using all existing data sets. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14163439, EudraCT 2014-002348-42 and Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) 158326. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 33. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Miscarriage is a common complication of pregnancy that affects one in five pregnancies. Several small studies have suggested that progesterone, a hormone essential for maintaining a pregnancy, may reduce the risk of miscarriage in women presenting with early pregnancy bleeding. This research was undertaken to test whether or not progesterone given to pregnant women with early pregnancy bleeding would increase the number of live births when compared with placebo (dummy treatment). The women participating in the study had an equal chance of receiving progesterone or placebo, as determined by a computer; one group received progesterone (400 mg twice daily as vaginal pessaries) and the other group received placebo with an identical appearance. Treatment began when women presented with vaginal bleeding, were < 12 weeks of gestation and were found to have at least a pregnancy sac on an ultrasound scan. Treatment was stopped at 16 weeks of gestation, or earlier if the pregnancy ended before 16 weeks. Neither the participants nor their health-care professionals knew which treatment was being received. In total, 23,775 women were screened and 4153 women were randomised to receive either progesterone or placebo pessaries. Altogether, 2972 participants had a live birth after at least 34 weeks of gestation. Overall, the live birth rate in the progesterone group was 75% (1513 out of 2025 participants), compared with 72% (1459 out of 2013 participants) in the placebo group. Although the live birth rate was 3% higher in the progesterone group than in the placebo group, there was statistical uncertainty about this finding. However, it was observed that women with a history of one or more previous miscarriages and vaginal bleeding in their current pregnancy may benefit from progesterone. For women with no previous miscarriages, our analysis showed that the live birth rate was 74% (824 out of 1111 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 75% (840 out of 1127 participants) in the placebo group. For women with one or more previous miscarriages, the live birth rate was 75% (689 out of 914 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 70% (619 out of 886 participants) in the placebo group. The potential benefit appeared to be most strong for women with three or more previous miscarriages, who had a live birth rate of 72% (98 out of 137 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 57% (85 out of 148 participants) in the placebo group. Treatment with progesterone did not appear to have any negative effects.

A Randomized Trial of Progesterone in Women with Bleeding in Early Pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Bleeding in early pregnancy is strongly associated with pregnancy loss. Progesterone is essential for the maintenance of pregnancy. Several small trials have suggested that progesterone therapy may improve pregnancy outcomes in women who have bleeding in early pregnancy. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate progesterone, as compared with placebo, in women with vaginal bleeding in early pregnancy. Women were randomly assigned to receive vaginal suppositories containing either 400 mg of progesterone or matching placebo twice daily, from the time at which they presented with bleeding through 16 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome was the birth of a live-born baby after at least 34 weeks of gestation. The primary analysis was performed in all participants for whom data on the primary outcome were available. A sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome that included all the participants was performed with the use of multiple imputation to account for missing data. RESULTS: A total of 4153 women, recruited at 48 hospitals in the United Kingdom, were randomly assigned to receive progesterone (2079 women) or placebo (2074 women). The percentage of women with available data for the primary outcome was 97% (4038 of 4153 women). The incidence of live births after at least 34 weeks of gestation was 75% (1513 of 2025 women) in the progesterone group and 72% (1459 of 2013 women) in the placebo group (relative rate, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.07; P = 0.08). The sensitivity analysis, in which missing primary outcome data were imputed, resulted in a similar finding (relative rate, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.07; P = 0.08). The incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among women with bleeding in early pregnancy, progesterone therapy administered during the first trimester did not result in a significantly higher incidence of live births than placebo. (Funded by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment program; PRISM Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN14163439.).

Levothyroxine in Women with Thyroid Peroxidase Antibodies before Conception.

BACKGROUND: Thyroid peroxidase antibodies are associated with an increased risk of miscarriage and preterm birth, even when thyroid function is normal. Small trials indicate that the use of levothyroxine could reduce the incidence of such adverse outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to investigate whether levothyroxine treatment would increase live-birth rates among euthyroid women who had thyroid peroxidase antibodies and a history of miscarriage or infertility. A total of 19,585 women from 49 hospitals in the United Kingdom underwent testing for thyroid peroxidase antibodies and thyroid function. We randomly assigned 952 women to receive either 50 µg once daily of levothyroxine (476 women) or placebo (476 women) before conception through the end of pregnancy. The primary outcome was live birth after at least 34 weeks of gestation. RESULTS: The follow-up rate for the primary outcome was 98.7% (940 of 952 women). A total of 266 of 470 women in the levothyroxine group (56.6%) and 274 of 470 women in the placebo group (58.3%) became pregnant. The live-birth rate was 37.4% (176 of 470 women) in the levothyroxine group and 37.9% (178 of 470 women) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.14, P = 0.74; absolute difference, -0.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -6.6 to 5.8). There were no significant between-group differences in other pregnancy outcomes, including pregnancy loss or preterm birth, or in neonatal outcomes. Serious adverse events occurred in 5.9% of women in the levothyroxine group and 3.8% in the placebo group (P = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: The use of levothyroxine in euthyroid women with thyroid peroxidase antibodies did not result in a higher rate of live births than placebo. (Funded by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research; TABLET Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN15948785.).

A randomised controlled trial of Outpatient versus inpatient Polyp Treatment (OPT) for abnormal uterine bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Uterine polyps cause abnormal bleeding in women and conventional practice is to remove them in hospital under general anaesthetic. Advances in technology make it possible to perform polypectomy in an outpatient setting, yet evidence of effectiveness is limited. OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that in women with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) associated with benign uterine polyp(s), outpatient polyp treatment achieved as good, or no more than 25% worse, alleviation of bleeding symptoms at 6 months compared with standard inpatient treatment. The hypothesis that response to uterine polyp treatment differed according to the pattern of AUB, menopausal status and longer-term follow-up was tested. The cost-effectiveness and acceptability of outpatient polypectomy was examined. DESIGN: A multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial, incorporating a cost-effectiveness analysis and supplemented by a parallel patient preference study. Patient acceptability was evaluated by interview in a qualitative study. SETTING: Outpatient hysteroscopy clinics and inpatient gynaecology departments within UK NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Women with AUB - defined as heavy menstrual bleeding (formerly known as menorrhagia) (HMB), intermenstrual bleeding or postmenopausal bleeding - and hysteroscopically diagnosed uterine polyps. INTERVENTIONS: We randomly assigned 507 women, using a minimisation algorithm, to outpatient polypectomy compared with conventional inpatient polypectomy as a day case in hospital under general anaesthesia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was successful treatment at 6 months, determined by the woman's assessment of her bleeding. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, procedure feasibility, acceptability and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: At 6 months, 73% (166/228) of women who underwent outpatient polypectomy were successfully treated compared with 80% (168/211) following inpatient polypectomy [relative risk (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.02]. The lower end of the CIs showed that outpatient polypectomy was at most 18% worse, in relative terms, than inpatient treatment, within the 25% margin of non-inferiority set at the outset of the study. By 1 and 2 years the corresponding proportions were similar producing RRs close to unity. There was no evidence that the treatment effect differed according to any of the predefined subgroups when treatments by variable interaction parameters were examined. Failure to completely remove polyps was higher (19% vs. 7%; RR 2.5, 95% CI 1.5 to 4.1) with outpatient polypectomy. Procedure acceptability was reduced with outpatient compared with inpatient polyp treatment (83% vs. 92%; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97). There were no significant differences in quality of life. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios at 6 and 12 months for inpatient treatment were £1,099,167 and £668,800 per additional QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: When treating women with AUB associated with uterine polyps, outpatient polypectomy was non-inferior to inpatient polypectomy at 6 and 12 months, and relatively cost-effective. However, patients need to be aware that failure to remove a polyp is more likely with outpatient polypectomy and procedure acceptability lower. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 65868569. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 61. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.