Editor's Choice - Bypass versus Angioplasty for Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL) Prospective Cohort Study and the Generalisability of the BASIL-2 Randomised Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg-2 (BASIL-2) randomised controlled trial has shown that, for patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia (CLTI) who require an infrapopliteal (IP) revascularisation a vein bypass (VB) first revascularisation strategy led to a 35% increased risk of major amputation or death when compared with a best endovascular treatment (BET) first revascularisation strategy. The study aims are to place the BASIL-2 trial within the context of the CLTI patient population as a whole and to investigate the generalisability of the BASIL-2 outcome data. METHODS: This was an observational, single centre prospective cohort study. Between 24 June 2014 and 31 July 2018, the BASIL Prospective Cohort Study (PCS) was performed which used BASIL-2 trial case record forms to document the characteristics, initial and subsequent management, and outcomes of 471 consecutive CLTI patients admitted to an academic vascular centre. Ethical approval was obtained, and all patients provided fully informed written consent. Follow up data were censored on 14 December 2022. RESULTS: Of the 238 patients who required an infrainguinal revascularisation, 75 (32%) had either IP bypass (39 patients) or IP BET (36 patients) outside BASIL-2. Seventeen patients were initially randomised to BASIL-2. A further three patients who did not have an IP revascularisation as their initial management were later randomised in BASIL-2. Therefore, 95/471 (20%) of patients had IP revascularisation (16% outside, 4% inside BASIL-2). Differences in amputation free survival, overall survival, and limb salvage between IP bypass and IP BET performed outside BASIL-2 were not subject to hypothesis testing due to the small sample size. Reasons for non-randomisation into the trial were numerous, but often due to anatomical and technical considerations. CONCLUSION: CLTI patients who required an IP revascularisation procedure and were subsequently randomised into BASIL-2 accounted for a small subset of the CLTI population as a whole. For a wide range of patient, limb, anatomical and operational reasons, most patients in this cohort were deemed unsuitable for randomisation in BASIL-2. The results of BASIL-2 should be interpreted in this context.

Subsequent pregnancy outcomes among women with tubal ectopic pregnancy treated with methotrexate.

Lay summary: An ectopic pregnancy occurs when an embryo implants outside of the uterus, usually in a fallopian tube. When detected early, treatment is often with a medication called methotrexate. When methotrexate does not work, surgery is required. A recent clinical trial of ectopic pregnancy treatment (called GEM3) found that adding a drug called gefitinib to methotrexate did not reduce the need for surgery. We have used data from the GEM3 trial, combined with data collected 12 months after the trial finished, to investigate post-methotrexate pregnancy outcomes. We found no difference in pregnancy rates, pregnancy loss rates and recurrent ectopic pregnancy rates between those treated medically only and those who subsequently also needed surgery. The surgical technique used also did not affect pregnancy rates. This research provides reassurance that women with ectopic pregnancies treated medically who need surgery have similar post-treatment pregnancy outcomes to those treated successfully medically.

Early (Days 1-4) post-treatment serum hCG level changes predict single-dose methotrexate treatment success in tubal ectopic pregnancy.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the capacity of the change between Day 1 and Day 4 post-treatment serum human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) levels for predicting single-dose methotrexate treatment success in tubal ectopic pregnancy? SUMMARY ANSWER: Any fall in Days 1-4 serum hCG signified an 85% (95% CI 76.8-90.6) likelihood of treatment success for women with tubal ectopic pregnancy (initial hCG of ≥1000 and ≤5000 IU/l) managed with single-dose methotrexate. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: For those with tubal ectopic pregnancy managed by single-dose methotrexate, current guidelines advocate intervention if Days 4-7 hCG fails to fall by >15%. The trajectory of hCG over Days 1-4 has been proposed as an early indicator that predicts treatment success, allowing early reassurance for women. However, almost all prior studies of Days 1-4 hCG changes have been retrospective. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This was a prospective cohort study of women with tubal ectopic pregnancy (pre-treatment hCG of ≥1000 and ≤5000 IU/l) managed with single-dose methotrexate. The data were derived from a UK multicentre randomized controlled trial of methotrexate and gefitinib versus methotrexate and placebo for treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy (GEM3). For this analysis, we include data from both treatment arms. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants were categorized according to single-dose methotrexate treatment success or failure. Treatment success for this analysis was defined as complete and uneventful resolution of tubal ectopic pregnancy to serum hCG <30 IU/l following single-dose methotrexate treatment without additional treatment. Patient characteristics of the treatment success and failure groups were compared. Changes in Days 1-4, 1-7, and 4-7 serum hCG were evaluated as predictors of treatment success through receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Test performance characteristics were calculated for percentage change ranges and thresholds including optimal classification thresholds. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 322 women with tubal ectopic pregnancy were treated with single-dose methotrexate. The overall single-dose methotrexate treatment success rate was 59% (n = 189/322). For any fall in serum hCG on Days 1-4, likelihood ratios were >3, while for any fall of serum hCG >20% on Days 1-7, likelihood ratios reached 5. Any rise of serum hCG on Days 1-7 and 4-7 strongly reduced the chance of success. Any fall in Days 1-4 hCG predicted single-dose methotrexate treatment success with a sensitivity of 58% and specificity 84%, resulting in positive and negative predictive values of 85% and 57%, respectively. Any rise in Days 1-4 serum hCG <18% was identified as an optimal test threshold that predicted treatment success with 79% sensitivity and 74% specificity, resulting in 82% positive predictive value and 69% negative predictive value. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our findings may be limited by intervention bias resulting from existing guidelines which influences evaluation of hCG changes reliant on Day 7 serum hCG levels. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Examining a large prospective cohort, we show the value of Days 1-4 serum hCG changes in predicting single-dose methotrexate treatment success in tubal ectopic pregnancy. We recommend that clinicians provide early reassurance to women who have a fall or only a modest (<18%) rise in Days 1-4 serum hCG levels, that their treatment will likely be effective. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This project was supported by funding from the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research partnership (grant reference number 14/150/03). A.W.H. has received honoraria for consultancy for Ferring, Roche, Nordic Pharma and AbbVie. W.C.D. has received honoraria from Merck and Guerbet and research funding from Galvani Biosciences. L.H.R.W. has received research funding from Roche Diagnostics. B.W.M. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437). B.W.M. also reports consultancy for ObsEva and Merck and travel support from Merck. The other authors declare no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study is a secondary analysis of the GEM3 trial (ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN67795930).

A vein bypass first versus a best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy for patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia who required an infra-popliteal, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal revascularisation procedure to restore limb perfusion (BASIL-2): an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic limb-threatening ischaemia is the severest manifestation of peripheral arterial disease and presents with ischaemic pain at rest or tissue loss (ulceration, gangrene, or both), or both. We compared the effectiveness of a vein bypass first with a best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy in terms of preventing major amputation and death in patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia who required an infra-popliteal, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal, revascularisation procedure to restore limb perfusion. METHODS: Bypass versus Angioplasty for Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL)-2 was an open-label, pragmatic, multicentre, phase 3, randomised trial done at 41 vascular surgery units in the UK (n=39), Sweden (n=1), and Denmark (n=1). Eligible patients were those who presented to hospital-based vascular surgery units with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia due to atherosclerotic disease and who required an infra-popliteal, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal, revascularisation procedure to restore limb perfusion. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either vein bypass (vein bypass group) or best endovascular treatment (best endovascular treatment group) as their first revascularisation procedure through a secure online randomisation system. Participants were excluded if they had ischaemic pain or tissue loss considered not to be primarily due to atherosclerotic peripheral artery disease. Most vein bypasses used the great saphenous vein and originated from the common or superficial femoral arteries. Most endovascular interventions comprised plain balloon angioplasty with selective use of plain or drug eluting stents. Participants were followed up for a minimum of 2 years. Data were collected locally at participating centres. In England, Wales, and Sweden, centralised databases were used to collect information on amputations and deaths. Data were analysed centrally at the Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit. The primary outcome was amputation-free survival defined as time to first major (above the ankle) amputation or death from any cause measured in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed by monitoring serious adverse events up to 30-days after first revascularisation. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN27728689. FINDINGS: Between July 22, 2014, and Nov 30, 2020, 345 participants (65 [19%] women and 280 [81%] men; median age 72·5 years [62·7-79·3]) with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia were enrolled in the trial and randomly assigned: 172 (50%) to the vein bypass group and 173 (50%) to the best endovascular treatment group. Major amputation or death occurred in 108 (63%) of 172 patients in the vein bypass group and 92 (53%) of 173 patients in the best endovascular treatment group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1·35 [95% CI 1·02-1·80]; p=0·037). 91 (53%) of 172 patients in the vein bypass group and 77 (45%) of 173 patients in the best endovascular treatment group died (adjusted HR 1·37 [95% CI 1·00-1·87]). In both groups the most common causes of morbidity and death, including that occurring within 30 days of their first revascularisation, were cardiovascular (61 deaths in the vein bypass group and 49 in the best endovascular treatment group) and respiratory events (25 deaths in the vein bypass group and 23 in the best endovascular treatment group; number of cardiovascular and respiratory deaths were not mutually exclusive). INTERPRETATION: In the BASIL-2 trial, a best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy was associated with a better amputation-free survival, which was largely driven by fewer deaths in the best endovascular treatment group. These data suggest that more patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia who required an infra-popliteal, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal, revascularisation procedure to restore limb perfusion should be considered for a best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy. FUNDING: UK National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Programme.

WILL (When to induce labour to limit risk in pregnancy hypertension): Protocol for a multicentre randomised trial.

OBJECTIVES: To address optimal timing of birth for women with chronic or gestational hypertension who reach term and remain well. STUDY DESIGN: Pragmatic, non-masked randomised trial. INCLUSION: maternal age ≥16 years, chronic or gestational hypertension, singleton pregnancy, live fetus, 36+0-37+6 weeks' gestation, and able to give documented informed consent. EXCLUSION: contraindication to either trial arm (e.g., pre-eclampsia or another indication for birth at term), blood pressure (BP) ≥ 160/110 mmHg until controlled, major fetal anomaly anticipated to require neonatal care unit admission, or participation in another timing of birth trial. Randomisation (1:1 ratio, minimised for key prognostic variables: site, hypertension type, and prior Caesarean) to 'planned early term birth at 38+0-3 weeks' or 'usual care at term' (revised from 'expectant care until at least 40+0 weeks', Aug 2022). OUTCOMES: Maternal co-primary: composite of 'poor maternal outcome' (severe hypertension, maternal death, or maternal morbidity). Neonatal co-primary: neonatal care unit admission for ≥4 h. Each co-primary is measured until primary hospital discharge or 28 days post-birth (whichever is earlier). Key secondary: Caesarean birth. ANALYSIS: Sample of 1080 participants (540/arm) will detect an 8% reduction in the maternal co-primary (90% power, superiority hypothesis), and give 94% power for a between-group non-inferiority margin of difference of 9% in the neonatal co-primary. Analysis will be by intention-to-treat. Ethics approval has been obtained (NHS Health Research Authority London Fulham Research Ethics Committee, 18/LO/2033). CONCLUSIONS: The study will provide data for women to make informed choices about their care and allow health systems to plan services.

Snacktivity™ to promote physical activity and reduce future risk of disease in the population: protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial and nested qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Many people do not regularly participate in physical activity, which may negatively impact their health. Current physical activity guidelines are focused on promoting weekly accumulation of at least 150 min of moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA). Whilst revised guidance now recognises the importance of making small changes to physical activity behaviour, guidance still focuses on adults needing to achieve at least 150 min of MVPA per week. An alternative 'whole day' approach that could motivate the public to be more physically active, is a concept called Snacktivity™. Instead of focusing on achieving 150 min per week of physical activity, for example 30 min of MVPA over 5 days, Snacktivity™ encourages the public to achieve this through small, but frequent, 2-5 min 'snacks' of MVPA throughout the whole day. METHODS: The primary aim is to undertake a feasibility trial with nested qualitative interviews to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the Snacktivity™ intervention to inform the design of a subsequent phase III randomised trial. A two-arm randomised controlled feasibility trial aiming to recruit 80 inactive adults will be conducted. Recruitment will be from health and community settings and social media. Participants will be individually randomised (1:1 ratio) to receive either the Snacktivity™ intervention or usual care. The intervention will last 12 weeks with assessment of outcomes completed before and after the intervention in all participants. We are interested in whether the Snacktivity™ trial is appealing to participants (assessed by the recruitment rate) and if the Snacktivity™ intervention and trial methods are acceptable to participants (assessed by Snacktivity™/physical activity adherence and retention rates). The intervention will be delivered by health care providers within health care consultations or by researchers. Participants' experiences of the trial and intervention, and health care providers' views of delivering the intervention within health consultations will be explored. DISCUSSION: The development of physical activity interventions that can be delivered at scale are needed. The findings from this study will inform the viability and design of a phase III trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Snacktivity™ to increase physical activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 64851242.

Combination of gefitinib and methotrexate to treat tubal ectopic pregnancy (GEM3): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Tubal ectopic pregnancies can cause substantial morbidity or even death. Current treatment is with methotrexate or surgery. Methotrexate treatment fails in approximately 30% of women who subsequently require rescue surgery. Gefitinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor, might improve the effects of methotrexate. We assessed the efficacy of oral gefitinib with methotrexate, versus methotrexate alone, to treat tubal ectopic pregnancy. METHODS: We performed a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across 50 UK hospitals. Participants diagnosed with tubal ectopic pregnancy were administered a single dose of intramuscular methotrexate (50 mg/m2) and randomised (1:1 ratio) to 7 days of additional oral gefitinib (250 mg daily) or placebo. The primary outcome, analysed by intention to treat, was surgical intervention to resolve the ectopic pregnancy. Secondary outcomes included time to resolution of ectopic pregnancy and serious adverse events. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, ISCRTN 67795930. FINDINGS: Between Nov 2, 2016, and Oct 6, 2021, 328 participants were allocated to methotrexate and gefitinib (n=165) or methotrexate and placebo (n=163). Three participants in the placebo group withdrew. Surgical intervention occurred in 50 (30%) of 165 participants in the gefitinib group and in 47 (29%) of 160 participants in the placebo group (adjusted risk ratio 1·15, 95% CI 0·85 to 1·58; adjusted risk difference -0·01, 95% CI -0·10 to 0·09; p=0·37). Without surgical intervention, median time to resolution was 28·0 days in the gefitinib group and 28·0 days in the placebo group (subdistribution hazard ratio 1·03, 95% CI 0·75 to 1·40). Serious adverse events occurred in five (3%) of 165 participants in the gefitinib group and in six (4%) of 162 participants in the placebo group. Diarrhoea and rash were more common in the gefitinib group. INTERPRETATION: In women with a tubal ectopic pregnancy, adding oral gefitinib to parenteral methotrexate does not offer clinical benefit over methotrexate and increases minor adverse reactions. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research.

WILL (When to Induce Labour to Limit risk in pregnancy hypertension): a multicentre randomised controlled trial - adaptations to deliver a timing-of-birth trial during the COVID-19 international pandemic.

BACKGROUND: As a pragmatic randomised timing-of-birth trial, WILL adapted its trial procedures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These are reviewed here to inform post-pandemic trial methodology. METHODS: The trial (internal pilot) paused in March 2020, re-opened in July 2020, and is currently recruiting in 37 UK NHS consultant-led maternity units. We evaluated pandemic adaptations made to WILL processes and surveyed sites for their views of these changes (20 sites, videoconference). RESULTS: Despite 88% of sites favouring an electronic investigator site file (ISF), information technology requirements and clinical trial unit (CTU) operating procedures mandated the ongoing use of paper ISFs; site start-up delays resulted from restricted access to the CTU. Site initiation visits (SIVs) were conducted remotely; 50% of sites preferred remote SIVs and 44% felt that it was trial-dependent, while few preferred SIVs in-person as standard procedure. The Central team felt remote SIVs provided scheduling and attendance flexibility (for sites and trial staff), the option of recording discussions for missing or future staff, improved efficiency by having multiple sites attend, and time and cost savings; the negative impact on rapport-building and interaction was partially mitigated over time with more familiarity with technology and new ways-of-working. Two methods of remote consent were developed and used by 30/37 sites and for 54/156 recruits. Most (86%) sites using remote consenting felt it improved recruitment. For remote data monitoring (5 sites), advantages were primarily for the monitor (e.g. flexibility, no time constraints, reduced cost), and disadvantages primarily for the sites (e.g. document and access preparation, attendance at a follow-up meeting), but 81% of sites desired having the option of remote monitoring post-pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: COVID adaptations to WILL trial processes improved the flexibility of trial delivery, for Central and site staff, and participants. Flexibility to use these strategies should be retained post-pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN77258279. Registered on 05 December 2018.

Monofilament suture versus braided suture thread to improve pregnancy outcomes after vaginal cervical cerclage (C-STICH): a pragmatic randomised, controlled, phase 3, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Miscarriage in the second trimester and preterm birth are significant global problems. Vaginal cervical cerclage is performed to prevent pregnancy loss and preterm birth. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of a monofilament suture thread compared with braided suture thread on pregnancy loss rates in women undergoing a cervical cerclage. METHODS: C-STICH was a pragmatic, randomised, controlled, superiority trial done at 75 obstetric units in the UK. Women with a singleton pregnancy who received a vaginal cervical cerclage due to a history of pregnancy loss or premature birth, or if indicated by ultrasound, were centrally randomised (1:1) using minimisation to receive a monofilament suture or braided suture thread for their cervical cerclage. Women and outcome assessors were masked to allocation as far as possible. The primary outcome was pregnancy loss, defined as miscarriage, stillbirth, or neonatal death in the first week of life, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all women who were randomly assigned). Safety was also assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial was registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN15373349. FINDINGS: Between Aug 21, 2015, and Jan 28, 2021, 2049 women were randomly assigned to receive a monofilament suture (n=1025) or braided suture (n=1024). The primary outcome was ascertained in 1003 women in the monofilament suture group and 993 women in the braided suture group. Pregnancy loss occurred in 80 (8·0%) of 1003 women in the monofilament suture group and 75 (7·6%) of 993 women in the braided suture group (adjusted risk ratio 1·05 [95% CI 0·79 to 1·40]; adjusted risk difference 0·002 [95% CI -0·02 to 0·03]). INTERPRETATION: Monofilament suture did not reduce rate of pregnancy loss when compared with a braided suture. Clinicians should use the results of this trial to facilitate discussions around the choice of suture thread to optimise outcomes. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.