Cost-effectiveness of 2 Models of Pessary Care for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Findings From the TOPSY Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Pelvic organ prolapse is the descent of one or more reproductive organs from their normal position, causing associated negative symptoms. One conservative treatment option is pessary management. This study aimed to to investigate the cost-effectiveness of pessary self-management (SM) when compared with clinic-based care (CBC). A decision analytic model was developed to extend the economic evaluation. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial with health economic evaluation. The SM group received a 30-minute SM teaching session, information leaflet, 2-week follow-up call, and a local helpline number. The CBC group received routine outpatient pessary appointments, determined by usual practice. The primary outcome for the cost-effectiveness analysis was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), 18 months post-randomization. Uncertainty was handled using nonparametric bootstrap analysis. In addition, a simple decision analytic model was developed using the trial data to extend the analysis over a 5-year period. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the mean number of QALYs gained between SM and CBC (1.241 vs 1.221), but mean cost was lower for SM (£578 vs £728). The incremental net benefit estimated at a willingness to pay of £20 000 per QALY gained was £564, with an 80.8% probability of cost-effectiveness. The modeling results were consistent with the trial analysis: the incremental net benefit was estimated as £4221, and the probability of SM being cost-effective at 5 years was 69.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that pessary SM is likely to be cost-effective. The decision analytic model suggests that this result is likely to persist over longer durations.

Clinical effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management vs clinic-based care for pelvic organ prolapse (TOPSY): a randomised controlled superiority trial.

Background: Prolapse affects 30-40% of women. Those using a pessary for prolapse usually receive care as an outpatient. This trial determined effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pessary self-management (SM) vs clinic-based care (CBC) in relation to condition-specific quality of life (QoL). Methods: Parallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial, recruiting from 16 May 2018 to 7 February 2020, with follow-up to 17 September 2021. Women attending pessary clinics, ≥18 years, using a pessary (except Shelf, Gellhorn or Cube), with pessary retained ≥2 weeks were eligible. Limited manual dexterity; cognitive deficit; pregnancy; or requirement for non-English teaching were exclusions. SM group received a 30-min teaching session; information leaflet; 2-week follow-up call; and telephone support. CBC group received usual routine appointments. The primary clinical outcome was pelvic floor-specific QoL (PFIQ-7), and incremental net monetary benefit for cost-effectiveness, 18 months post-randomisation. Group allocation was by remote web-based application, minimised on age, user type (new/existing) and centre. Participants, intervention deliverers, researchers and the statistician were not blinded. The primary analysis was intention-to-treat based. Trial registration: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN62510577. Findings: The requisite 340 women were randomised (169 SM, 171 CBC) across 21 centres. There was not a statistically significant difference between groups in PFIQ-7 at 18 months (mean SM 32.3 vs CBC 32.5, adjusted mean difference SM-CBC -0.03, 95% CI -9.32 to 9.25). SM was less costly than CBC. The incremental net benefit of SM was £564 (SE £581, 95% CI -£576 to £1704). A lower percentage of pessary complications was reported in the SM group (mean SM 16.7% vs CBC 22.0%, adjusted mean difference -3.83%, 95% CI -6.86% to -0.81%). There was no meaningful difference in general self-efficacy. Self-managing women were more confident in self-management activities. There were no reported suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions, and 31 unrelated serious adverse events (17 SM, 14 CBC). Interpretation: Pessary self-management is cost-effective, does not improve or worsen QoL compared to CBC, and has a lower complication rate. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme (16/82/01).

Basic versus biofeedback-mediated intensive pelvic floor muscle training for women with urinary incontinence: the OPAL RCT.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence affects one in three women worldwide. Pelvic floor muscle training is an effective treatment. Electromyography biofeedback (providing visual or auditory feedback of internal muscle movement) is an adjunct that may improve outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of biofeedback-mediated intensive pelvic floor muscle training (biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training) compared with basic pelvic floor muscle training for treating female stress urinary incontinence or mixed urinary incontinence. DESIGN: A multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training compared with basic pelvic floor muscle training, with a mixed-methods process evaluation and a longitudinal qualitative case study. Group allocation was by web-based application, with minimisation by urinary incontinence type, centre, age and baseline urinary incontinence severity. Participants, therapy providers and researchers were not blinded to group allocation. Six-month pelvic floor muscle assessments were conducted by a blinded assessor. SETTING: This trial was set in UK community and outpatient care settings. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged ≥ 18 years, with new stress urinary incontinence or mixed urinary incontinence. The following women were excluded: those with urgency urinary incontinence alone, those who had received formal instruction in pelvic floor muscle training in the previous year, those unable to contract their pelvic floor muscles, those pregnant or < 6 months postnatal, those with prolapse greater than stage II, those currently having treatment for pelvic cancer, those with cognitive impairment affecting capacity to give informed consent, those with neurological disease, those with a known nickel allergy or sensitivity and those currently participating in other research relating to their urinary incontinence. INTERVENTIONS: Both groups were offered six appointments over 16 weeks to receive biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training or basic pelvic floor muscle training. Home biofeedback units were provided to the biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training group. Behaviour change techniques were built in to both interventions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was urinary incontinence severity at 24 months (measured using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Urinary Incontinence Short Form score, range 0-21, with a higher score indicating greater severity). The secondary outcomes were urinary incontinence cure/improvement, other urinary and pelvic floor symptoms, urinary incontinence-specific quality of life, self-efficacy for pelvic floor muscle training, global impression of improvement in urinary incontinence, adherence to the exercise, uptake of other urinary incontinence treatment and pelvic floor muscle function. The primary health economic outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted-life-year gained at 24 months. RESULTS: A total of 300 participants were randomised per group. The primary analysis included 225 and 235 participants (biofeedback and basic pelvic floor muscle training, respectively). The mean 24-month International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Urinary Incontinence Short Form score was 8.2 (standard deviation 5.1) for biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training and 8.5 (standard deviation 4.9) for basic pelvic floor muscle training (adjusted mean difference -0.09, 95% confidence interval -0.92 to 0.75; p = 0.84). A total of 48 participants had a non-serious adverse event (34 in the biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training group and 14 in the basic pelvic floor muscle training group), of whom 23 (21 in the biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training group and 2 in the basic pelvic floor muscle training group) had an event related/possibly related to the interventions. In addition, there were eight serious adverse events (six in the biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training group and two in the basic pelvic floor muscle training group), all unrelated to the interventions. At 24 months, biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training was not significantly more expensive than basic pelvic floor muscle training, but neither was it associated with significantly more quality-adjusted life-years. The probability that biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training would be cost-effective was 48% at a £20,000 willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year threshold. The process evaluation confirmed that the biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training group received an intensified intervention and both groups received basic pelvic floor muscle training core components. Women were positive about both interventions, adherence to both interventions was similar and both interventions were facilitated by desire to improve their urinary incontinence and hindered by lack of time. LIMITATIONS: Women unable to contract their muscles were excluded, as biofeedback is recommended for these women. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of a difference between biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training and basic pelvic floor muscle training. FUTURE WORK: Research should investigate other ways to intensify pelvic floor muscle training to improve continence outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trial ISRCTN57746448. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 70. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Urinary incontinence (accidental leakage of urine) is a common and embarrassing problem for women. Pregnancy and childbirth may contribute by leading to less muscle support and bladder control. Pelvic floor exercises and 'biofeedback' equipment (a device that lets women see the muscles working as they exercise) are often used in treatment. There is good evidence that exercises (for the pelvic floor) can help, but less evidence about whether or not adding biofeedback provides better results. This trial compared pelvic floor exercises alone with pelvic floor exercises plus biofeedback. Six hundred women with urinary incontinence participated. Three hundred women were randomly assigned to the exercise group and 300 women were randomised to the exercise plus biofeedback group. Each woman had an equal chance of being in either group. Women were offered six appointments with a therapist over 16 weeks to receive their allocated treatment. After 2 years, there was no difference between the groups in the severity of women's urinary incontinence. Women in both groups varied in how much exercise they managed to do. Some managed to exercise consistently over the 2 years and others less so. There were many factors (other than the treatment received) that affected a woman's ability to exercise. Notably, women viewed the therapists' input very positively. The therapists reported some problems fitting biofeedback into the appointments, but, overall, they delivered both treatments as intended. Women carried out exercises at home and many in the biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training group also used biofeedback at home; however, for both groups, time issues, forgetting and other health problems affected their adherence. There were no serious complications related to either treatment. Overall, exercise plus biofeedback was not significantly more expensive than exercise alone and the quality of life associated with exercise plus biofeedback was not better than the quality of life for exercise alone. In summary, exercises plus biofeedback was no better than exercise alone. The findings do not support using biofeedback routinely as part of pelvic floor exercise treatment for women with urinary incontinence.

Pessaries (mechanical devices) for managing pelvic organ prolapse in women.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic organ prolapse is a common problem in women. About 40% of women will experience prolapse in their lifetime, with the proportion expected to rise in line with an ageing population. Women experience a variety of troublesome symptoms as a consequence of prolapse, including a feeling of 'something coming down' into the vagina, pain, urinary symptoms, bowel symptoms and sexual difficulties. Treatment for prolapse includes surgery, pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) and vaginal pessaries. Vaginal pessaries are passive mechanical devices designed to support the vagina and hold the prolapsed organs back in the anatomically correct position. The most commonly used pessaries are made from polyvinyl-chloride, polythene, silicone or latex. Pessaries are frequently used by clinicians with high numbers of clinicians offering a pessary as first-line treatment for prolapse.  This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2003 and last published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pessaries (mechanical devices) for managing pelvic organ prolapse in women; and summarise the principal findings of relevant economic evaluations of this intervention. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 28 January 2020). We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted the authors of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials which included a pessary for pelvic organ prolapse in at least one arm of the study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed abstracts, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and carried out GRADE assessments with arbitration from a third review author if necessary. MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies involving a total of 478 women with various stages of prolapse, all of which took place in high-income countries. In one trial, only six of the 113 recruited women consented to random assignment to an intervention and no data are available for those six women. We could not perform any meta-analysis because each of the trials addressed a different comparison. None of the trials reported data about perceived resolution of prolapse symptoms or about psychological outcome measures. All studies reported data about perceived improvement of prolapse symptoms. Generally, the trials were at high risk of performance bias, due to lack of blinding, and low risk of selection bias. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for imprecision resulting from the low numbers of women participating in the trials. Pessary versus no treatment: at 12 months' follow-up, we are uncertain about the effect of pessaries compared with no treatment on perceived improvement of prolapse symptoms (mean difference (MD) in questionnaire scores -0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.61 to 0.55; 27 women; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), and cure or improvement of sexual problems (MD -0.29, 95% CI -1.67 to 1.09; 27 women; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). In this comparison we did not find any evidence relating to prolapse-specific quality of life or to the number of women experiencing adverse events (abnormal vaginal bleeding or de novo voiding difficulty). Pessary versus pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT): at 12 months' follow-up, we are uncertain if there is a difference between pessaries and PFMT in terms of women's perceived improvement in prolapse symptoms (MD -9.60, 95% CI -22.53 to 3.33; 137 women; low-certainty evidence), prolapse-specific quality of life (MD -3.30, 95% CI -8.70 to 15.30; 1 study; 116 women; low-certainty evidence), or cure or improvement of sexual problems (MD -2.30, 95% -5.20 to 0.60; 1 study; 48 women; low-certainty evidence). Pessaries may result in a large increase in risk of adverse events compared with PFMT (RR 75.25, 95% CI 4.70 to 1205.45; 1 study; 97 women; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events included increased vaginal discharge, and/or increased urinary incontinence and/or erosion or irritation of the vaginal walls. Pessary plus PFMT versus PFMT alone: at 12 months' follow-up, pessary plus PFMT probably leads to more women perceiving improvement in their prolapse symptoms compared with PFMT alone (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.94; 1 study; 260 women; moderate-certainty evidence). At 12 months' follow-up, pessary plus PFMT probably improves women's prolapse-specific quality of life compared with PFMT alone (median (interquartile range (IQR)) POPIQ score: pessary plus PFMT 0.3 (0 to 22.2); 132 women; PFMT only 8.9 (0 to 64.9); 128 women; P = 0.02; moderate-certainty evidence). Pessary plus PFMT may slightly increase the risk of abnormal vaginal bleeding compared with PFMT alone (RR 2.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 6.91; 1 study; 260 women; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain if pessary plus PFMT has any effect on the risk of de novo voiding difficulty compared with PFMT alone (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.19; 1 study; 189 women; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain if pessaries improve pelvic organ prolapse symptoms for women compared with no treatment or PFMT but pessaries in addition to PFMT probably improve women's pelvic organ prolapse symptoms and prolapse-specific quality of life. However, there may be an increased risk of adverse events with pessaries compared to PFMT. Future trials should recruit adequate numbers of women and measure clinically important outcomes such as prolapse specific quality of life and resolution of prolapse symptoms.   The review found two relevant economic evaluations. Of these, one assessed the cost-effectiveness of pessary treatment, expectant management and surgical procedures, and the other compared pessary treatment to PFMT.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management compared to clinic-based care for pelvic organ prolapse: protocol for the TOPSY randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic organ prolapse (or prolapse) is a common condition in women where the pelvic organs (bladder, bowel or womb) descend into the vagina and cause distressing symptoms that adversely affect quality of life. Many women will use a vaginal pessary to treat their prolapse symptoms. Clinic-based care usually consists of having a pessary fitted in a primary or secondary care setting, and returning approximately every 6 months for healthcare professional review and pessary change. However, it is possible that women could remove, clean and re-insert their pessary themselves; this is called self-management. This trial aims to assess if self-management of a vaginal pessary is associated with better quality of life for women with prolapse when compared to clinic-based care. METHODS: This is a multicentre randomised controlled trial in at least 17 UK centres. The intervention group will receive pessary self-management teaching, a self-management information leaflet, a follow-up phone call and access to a local telephone number for clinical support. The control group will receive the clinic-based pessary care which is standard at their centre. Demographic and medical history data will be collected from both groups at baseline. The primary outcome is condition-specific quality of life at 18 months' post-randomisation. Several secondary outcomes will also be assessed using participant-completed questionnaires. Questionnaires will be administered at baseline, 6, 12 and 18 months' post-randomisation. An economic evaluation will be carried out alongside the trial to evaluate cost-effectiveness. A process evaluation will run parallel to the trial, the protocol for which is reported in a companion paper. DISCUSSION: The results of the trial will provide robust evidence of the effectiveness of pessary self-management compared to clinic-based care in terms of improving women's quality of life, and of its cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN62510577 . Registered on June 10, 2017.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness randomised controlled trial of basic versus biofeedback-mediated intensive pelvic floor muscle training for female stress or mixed urinary incontinence: protocol for the OPAL (optimising pelvic floor exercises to achieve long-term benefits) trial mixed methods longitudinal qualitative case study and process evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Female urinary incontinence (UI) is common affecting up to 45% of women. Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is the first-line treatment but there is uncertainty whether intensive PFMT is better than basic PFMT for long-term symptomatic improvement. It is also unclear which factors influence women's ability to perform PFMT long term and whether this has impacts on long-term outcomes. OPAL (optimising PFMT to achieve long-term benefits) trial examines the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basic PFMT versus biofeedback-mediated PFMT and this evaluation explores women's experiences of treatment and the factors which influence effectiveness. This will provide data aiding interpretation of the trial findings; make recommendations for optimising the treatment protocol; support implementation in practice; and address gaps in the literature around long-term adherence to PFMT for women with stress or mixed UI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This evaluation comprises a longitudinal qualitative case study and process evaluation (PE). The case study aims to explore women's experiences of treatment and adherence and the PE will explore factors influencing intervention effectiveness. The case study has a two-tailed design and will recruit 40 women, 20 from each trial group; they will be interviewed four times over 2 years. Process data will be collected from women through questionnaires at four time-points, from health professionals through checklists and interviews and by sampling 100 audio recordings of appointments. Qualitative analysis will use case study methodology (qualitative study) and the framework technique (PE) and will interrogate for similarities and differences between the trial groups regarding barriers and facilitators to adherence. Process data analyses will examine fidelity, engagement and mediating factors using descriptive and interpretative statistics. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval from West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 4 (16/LO/0990). Findings will be published in journals, disseminated at conferences and through the final report. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN57746448.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basic versus biofeedback-mediated intensive pelvic floor muscle training for female stress or mixed urinary incontinence: protocol for the OPAL randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: Accidental urine leakage is a distressing problem that affects around one in three women. The main types of urinary incontinence (UI) are stress, urgency and mixed, with stress being most common. Current UK guidelines recommend that women with UI are offered at least 3 months of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT). There is evidence that PFMT is effective in treating UI, however it is not clear how intensively women have to exercise to give the maximum sustained improvement in symptoms, and how we enable women to achieve this. Biofeedback is an adjunct to PFMT that may help women exercise more intensively for longer, and thus may improve continence outcomes when compared with PFMT alone. A Cochrane review was inconclusive about the benefit of biofeedback, indicating the need for further evidence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multicentre randomised controlled trial will compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PFMT versus biofeedback-mediated PFMT for women with stress UI or mixed UI. The primary outcome is UI severity at 24 months after randomisation. The primary economic outcome measure is incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year at 24 months. Six hundred women from UK community, outpatient and primary care settings will be randomised and followed up via questionnaires, diaries and pelvic floor assessment. All participants are offered six PFMT appointments over 16 weeks. The use of clinic and home biofeedback is added to PFMT for participants in the biofeedback group. Group allocation could not be masked from participants and healthcare staff. An intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome will estimate the mean difference between the trial groups at 24 months using a general linear mixed model adjusting for minimisation covariates and other important prognostic covariates, including the baseline score. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval granted by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 4 (16/LO/0990). Written informed consent will be obtained from participants by the local research team. Serious adverse events will be reported to the data monitoring and ethics committee, the ethics committee and trial centres as required. A Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials checklist and figure are available for this protocol. The results will be published in international journals and included in the relevant Cochrane review. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN57746448; Pre-results.

Engagement: an indicator of difference in the perceptions of antenatal care for pregnant women from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomically deprived women are at greater risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Research tends to focus on access of services. Yet access may not equate with the equity of services for women from different socioeconomic backgrounds. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether pregnant women's perceptions of antenatal provision differed in relation to their socioeconomic deprivation ranking (determined by the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2006). DESIGN: A longitudinal, qualitative study with comparative antenatal case studies between January 2007 and April 2009. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Cases were primigravida women from 'least deprived' (n=9) and 'most deprived' (n=12) geographical areas within one local authority in Scotland. ANALYSIS: Data were analysed using case study replication analysis. RESULTS: There was little difference in access to antenatal services between the 'least' and 'most' deprived groups. Perception of care differed in relation to the level of 'engagement' (defined using constructs of: language and personalization of care; power and relationships; and health literacy). Engagement was evidenced in most of the 'least deprived' cases and almost none of the 'most deprived' cases. Specifically, socioeconomically deprived women described less evidence of personal connection to their own care, effective communication and the opportunity for shared decision making. CONCLUSION: In women from socioeconomically deprived areas, access may be a less useful indicator than engagement when assessing antenatal service quality. As engagement levels may be one method by which to predict and improve health outcomes, a more equitable antenatal service may need to be developed through the early identification of those women at risk of non-engagement.