Nasal Airway Obstruction Study (NAIROS): a phase III, open-label, mixed-methods, multicentre randomised controlled trial of septoplasty versus medical management of a septal deviation with nasal obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Septoplasty (surgery to straighten a deviation in the nasal septum) is a frequently performed operation worldwide, with approximately 250,000 performed annually in the US and 22,000 in the UK. Most septoplasties aim to improve diurnal and nocturnal nasal obstruction. The evidence base for septoplasty clinical effectiveness is hitherto very limited. AIMS: To establish, and inform guidance for, the best management strategy for individuals with nasal obstruction associated with a deviated septum. METHODS/DESIGN: A multicentre, mixed-methods, open label, randomised controlled trial of septoplasty versus medical management for adults with a deviated septum and a reduced nasal airway. Eligible patients will have septal deflection visible at nasendoscopy and a nasal symptom score ≥ 30 on the NOSE questionnaire. Surgical treatment comprises septoplasty with or without reduction of the inferior nasal turbinate on the anatomically wider side of the nose. Medical management comprises a nasal saline spray followed by a fluorinated steroid spray daily for six months. The recruitment target is 378 patients, recruited from up to 17 sites across Scotland, England and Wales. Randomisation will be on a 1:1 basis, stratified by gender and severity (NOSE score). Participants will be followed up for 12 months post randomisation. The primary outcome measure is the total SNOT-22 score at 6 months. Clinical and economic outcomes will be modelled against baseline severity (NOSE scale) to inform clinical decision-making. The study includes a recruitment enhancement process, and an economic evaluation. DISCUSSION: The NAIROS trial will evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of septoplasty versus medical management for adults with a deviated septum and symptoms of nasal blockage. Identifying those individuals most likely to benefit from surgery should enable more efficient and effective clinical decision-making, and avoid unnecessary operations where there is low likelihood of patient benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2017-000893-12, ISRCTN: 16168569. Registered on 24 March 2017.

Gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for chemoradiation patients with head and neck cancer: the TUBE pilot RCT.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 9000 new cases of head and neck squamous cell cancers (HNSCCs) are treated by the NHS each year. Chemoradiation therapy (CRT) is a commonly used treatment for advanced HNSCC. Approximately 90% of patients undergoing CRT require nutritional support via gastrostomy or nasogastric tube feeding. Long-term dysphagia following CRT is a primary concern for patients. The effect of enteral feeding routes on swallowing function is not well understood, and the two feeding methods have, to date (at the time of writing), not been compared. The aim of this pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) was to compare these two options. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods multicentre study to establish the feasibility of a RCT comparing oral feeding plus pre-treatment gastrostomy with oral feeding plus as-required nasogastric tube feeding in patients with HNSCC. Patients were recruited from four tertiary centres treating cancer and randomised to the two arms of the study (using a 1 : 1 ratio). The eligibility criteria were patients with advanced-staged HNSCC who were suitable for primary CRT with curative intent and who presented with no swallowing problems. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the willingness to be randomised. A qualitative process evaluation was conducted alongside an economic modelling exercise. The criteria for progression to a Phase III trial were based on a hypothesised recruitment rate of at least 50%, collection of outcome measures in at least 80% of those recruited and an economic value-of-information analysis for cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Of the 75 patients approached about the trial, only 17 consented to be randomised [0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.32]. Among those who were randomised, the compliance rate was high (0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.05). Retention rates were high at completion of treatment (0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.05), at the 3-month follow-up (0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04) and at the 6-month follow-up (0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04). No serious adverse events were recorded in relation to the trial. The qualitative substudy identified several factors that had an impact on recruitment, many of which are amenable to change. These included organisational factors, changing cancer treatments and patient and clinician preferences. A key reason for the differential recruitment between sites was the degree to which the multidisciplinary team gave a consistent demonstration of equipoise at all patient interactions at which supplementary feeding was discussed. An exploratory economic model generated from published evidence and expert opinion suggests that, over the 6-month model time horizon, pre-treatment gastrostomy tube feeding is not a cost-effective option, although this should be interpreted with caution and we recommend that this should not form the basis for policy. The economic value-of-information analysis indicates that additional research to eliminate uncertainty around model parameters is highly likely to be cost-effective. STUDY LIMITATIONS: The recruitment issues identified for this cohort may not be applicable to other populations undergoing CRT. There remains substantial uncertainty in the economic evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: The trial did not meet one of the three criteria for progression, as the recruitment rate was lower than hypothesised. Once patients were recruited to the trial, compliance and retention in the trial were both high. The implementation of organisational and operational measures can increase the numbers recruited. The economic analysis suggests that further research in this area is likely to be cost-effective. FUTURE WORK: The implementation of organisational and operational measures can increase recruitment. The appropriate research question and design of a future study needs to be identified. More work is needed to understand the experiences of nasogastric tube feeding in patients undergoing CRT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48569216. 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. 22, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Surveillance versus ablation for incidentally diagnosed small renal tumours: the SURAB feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty around the appropriate management of small renal tumours. Treatments include partial nephrectomy, ablation and active surveillance. OBJECTIVES: To explore the feasibility of a randomised trial of ablation versus active surveillance. DESIGN: Two-stage feasibility study: stage 1 - clinician survey and co-design work; and stage 2 - randomised feasibility study with qualitative and economic components. METHODS: Stage 1 - survey of radiologists and urologists, and development of patient information materials. Stage 2 - patients identified across eight UK centres with small renal tumours (< 4 cm) were randomised (1 : 1 ratio) to ablation or active surveillance in an unblinded manner. Randomisation was carried out by a central computer system. The primary objective was to determine willingness to participate and to randomise a target of 60 patients. The qualitative and economic data were collected separately. RESULTS: The trial was conducted across eight centres, with a site-specific period of recruitment ranging from 3 to 11 months. Of the 154 patients screened, 36 were eligible and were provided with study details. Seven agreed to be randomised and one patient was found ineligible following biopsy results. Six patients (17% of those eligible) were randomised: three patients received ablation and no serious adverse events were recorded. The 3- and 6-month data were collected for four (67%) and three (50%) out of the six patients, respectively. The qualitative substudy identified factors directly impacting on the recruitment of this trial. These included patient and clinician preferences, organisational factors (variation in clinical pathway) and standard treatment not included. The health economic questionnaire was designed and piloted; however, the sample size of recruited patients was insufficient to draw a conclusion on the feasibility of the health economics. CONCLUSIONS: The trial did not meet the criteria for progression and the recruitment rate was lower than hypothesised, demonstrating that a full trial is presently not possible. The qualitative study identified factors that led to variation in recruitment across the sites. Implementation of organisational and operational measures can increase recruitment in any future trial. There was insufficient information to conduct a full economic analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN31161700. 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. 21, No. 81. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.