Single-incision mini-slings versus standard synthetic mid-urethral slings for surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women: The SIMS RCT.

BACKGROUND: Stress urinary incontinence is the most common type of urinary incontinence in premenopausal women. Until recently, synthetic mid-urethral slings (mesh/tape) were the standard surgical treatment, if conservative management failed. Adjustable anchored single-incision mini-slings are newer, use less mesh and may reduce perioperative morbidity, but it is unclear how their success rates and safety compare with those of standard tension-free mid-urethral slings. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare tension-free standard mid-urethral slings with adjustable anchored single-incision mini-slings among women with stress urinary incontinence requiring surgical intervention, in terms of patient-reported effectiveness, health-related quality of life, safety and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. Allocation was by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1 ratio). SETTING: The trial was set in 21 UK hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were women aged ≥ 18 years with predominant stress urinary incontinence, undergoing a mid-urethral sling procedure. INTERVENTIONS: Single-incision mini-slings, compared with standard mid-urethral slings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was patient-reported success rates on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale at 15 months post randomisation (≈ 1 year post surgery), with success defined as outcomes of 'very much improved' or 'much improved'. The primary economic outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, impact on other urinary symptoms, quality of life and sexual function. RESULTS: A total of 600 participants were randomised. At 15 months post randomisation, adjustable anchored single-incision mini-slings were non-inferior to tension-free standard mid-urethral slings at the 10% margin for the primary outcome [single-incision mini-sling 79% (212/268) vs. standard mid-urethral sling 76% (189/250), risk difference 4.6, 95% confidence interval -2.7 to 11.8; p non-inferiority < 0.001]. Similarly, at 3 years' follow-up, patient-reported success rates in the single-incision mini-sling group were non-inferior to those of the standard mid-urethral sling group at the 10% margin [single-incision mini-sling 72% (177/246) vs. standard mid-urethral sling 67% (157/235), risk difference 5.7, 95% confidence interval -1.3 to 12.8; p non-inferiority < 0.001]. Tape/mesh exposure rates were higher for single-incision mini-sling participants, with 3.3% (9/276) [compared with 1.9% (5/261) in the standard mid-urethral sling group] reporting tape exposure over the 3 years of follow-up. The rate of groin/thigh pain was slightly higher in the single-incision mini-sling group at 15 months [single-incision mini-sling 15% (41/276) vs. standard mid-urethral sling 12% (31/261), risk difference 3.0%, 95% confidence interval -1.1% to 7.1%]; however, by 3 years, the rate of pain was slightly higher among the standard mid-urethral sling participants [single-incision mini-sling 14% (39/276) vs. standard mid-urethral sling 15% (39/261), risk difference -0.8, 95% confidence interval -4.1 to 2.5]. At the 3-year follow-up, quality of life and sexual function outcomes were similar in both groups: for the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Quality of Life, the mean difference in scores was -1.1 (95% confidence interval -3.1 to 0.8; p = 0.24), and for the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, International Urogynecological Association-Revised, it was 0 (95% confidence interval -0.1, 0.1; p = 0.92). However, more women in the single-incision mini-sling group reported dyspareunia [12% (17/145), compared with 4.8% (7/145) in the standard mid-urethral sling group, risk difference 7.0%, 95% confidence interval 1.9% to 12.1%]. The base-case economics results showed no difference in costs (-£6, 95% confidence interval -£228 to £208) or quality-adjusted life-years (0.005, 95% confidence interval -0.068 to 0.073) between the groups. There is a 56% probability that single-incision mini-slings will be considered cost-effective at the £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold value for a quality-adjusted life-year. LIMITATIONS: Follow-up data beyond 3 years post randomisation are not available to inform longer-term safety and cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Single-incision mini-slings were non-inferior to standard mid-urethral slings in patient-reported success rates at up to 3 years' follow-up. FUTURE WORK: Success rates, adverse events, retreatment rates, symptoms, and quality-of-life scores at 10 years' follow-up will help inform long-term effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered as ISRCTN93264234. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 47. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Stress urinary incontinence, the involuntary leakage of urine, is a common and distressing condition, particularly for women aged > 40 years. In the UK, it is estimated that 6 million (40%) of this age group have symptoms bothersome enough for doctors to investigate. It causes embarrassment, low self-esteem and even social isolation. Standard surgical treatment used to be a mid-urethral sling made of mesh, inserted, in most cases, under general anaesthetic. Recently, a single-incision mini-sling, using less mesh, has been available under local anaesthetic. A number of small studies have shown that mini-slings have similar success rates to those of standard slings, necessitate shorter hospital stays and are less painful immediately after surgery. However, these results were uncertain and the potential longer-term benefits and disadvantages of both types of sling treatments were unknown. We compared the two types of sling treatments in a randomised trial of 600 women to see if they were equally effective. Success was measured by asking women to report on their symptoms and experiences. We also collected information on safety, quality of life, sexual function, and costs to women and the NHS. Every participant had an equal chance of starting treatment with the standard sling or the mini-sling. Participants were followed up for 3 years. Women allocated to each treatment reported similar success rates, quality of life and sexual function at 3 years. Women who received the new mini-sling had more mesh exposure (3% for the mini-sling vs. 2% for the standard sling) and were more likely to report pain during intercourse (12% vs. 5%) than women who received the standard sling. Both treatments had similar costs. Follow-up to 10 years is under way to establish the long-term benefits and disadvantages.

Photodynamic versus white-light-guided resection of first-diagnosis non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: PHOTO RCT.

BACKGROUND: Around 7500 people are diagnosed with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer in the UK annually. Recurrence following transurethral resection of bladder tumour is common, and the intensive monitoring schedule required after initial treatment has associated costs for patients and the NHS. In photodynamic diagnosis, before transurethral resection of bladder tumour, a photosensitiser that is preferentially absorbed by tumour cells is instilled intravesically. Transurethral resection of bladder tumour is then conducted under blue light, causing the photosensitiser to fluoresce. Photodynamic diagnosis-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour offers better diagnostic accuracy than standard white-light-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour, potentially reducing the chance of subsequent recurrence. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of photodynamic diagnosis-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour. DESIGN: This was a multicentre, pragmatic, open-label, parallel-group, non-masked, superiority randomised controlled trial. Allocation was by remote web-based service, using a 1 : 1 ratio and a minimisation algorithm balanced by centre and sex. SETTING: The setting was 22 NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥ 16 years with a suspected first diagnosis of high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, no contraindications to photodynamic diagnosis and written informed consent were eligible. INTERVENTIONS: Photodynamic diagnosis-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour and standard white-light cystoscopy transurethral resection of bladder tumour. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary clinical outcome measure was the time to recurrence from the date of randomisation to the date of pathologically proven first recurrence (or intercurrent bladder cancer death). The primary health economic outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 3 years. RESULTS: We enrolled 538 participants from 22 UK hospitals between 11 November 2014 and 6 February 2018. Of these, 269 were allocated to photodynamic diagnosis and 269 were allocated to white light. A total of 112 participants were excluded from the analysis because of ineligibility (n = 5), lack of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer diagnosis following transurethral resection of bladder tumour (n = 89) or early cystectomy (n = 18). In total, 209 photodynamic diagnosis and 217 white-light participants were included in the clinical end-point analysis population. All randomised participants were included in the cost-effectiveness analysis. Over a median follow-up period of 21 months for the photodynamic diagnosis group and 22 months for the white-light group, there were 86 recurrences (3-year recurrence-free survival rate 57.8%, 95% confidence interval 50.7% to 64.2%) in the photodynamic diagnosis group and 84 recurrences (3-year recurrence-free survival rate 61.6%, 95% confidence interval 54.7% to 67.8%) in the white-light group (hazard ratio 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 1.28; p = 0.70). Adverse event frequency was low and similar in both groups [12 (5.7%) in the photodynamic diagnosis group vs. 12 (5.5%) in the white-light group]. At 3 years, the total cost was £12,881 for photodynamic diagnosis-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour and £12,005 for white light. There was no evidence of differences in the use of health services or total cost at 3 years. At 3 years, the quality-adjusted life-years gain was 2.094 in the photodynamic diagnosis transurethral resection of bladder tumour group and 2.087 in the white light group. The probability that photodynamic diagnosis-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour was cost-effective was never > 30% over the range of society's cost-effectiveness thresholds. LIMITATIONS: Fewer patients than anticipated were correctly diagnosed with intermediate- to high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer before transurethral resection of bladder tumour and the ratio of intermediate- to high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer was higher than expected, reducing the number of observed recurrences and the statistical power. CONCLUSIONS: Photodynamic diagnosis-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour did not reduce recurrences, nor was it likely to be cost-effective compared with white light at 3 years. Photodynamic diagnosis-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour is not supported in the management of primary intermediate- to high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. FUTURE WORK: Further work should include the modelling of appropriate surveillance schedules and exploring predictive and prognostic biomarkers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN84013636. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Around 7500 people are diagnosed with early-stage bladder cancer in the UK each year. Early bladder cancer is contained within the bladder and has not yet invaded the bladder's muscle wall or spread elsewhere in the body. The cancer will return (recur) in around half of people after initial treatment and they have to attend hospital for regular check-ups, with costs to both them and the NHS. The first step in treating early bladder cancer is surgery to remove the tumour. This surgery is normally performed under white light. Photodynamic diagnosis is a new technique in which a liquid is put into the patient's bladder before surgery and a blue light is used during the operation. This causes the bladder cancer to fluoresce so that it can be seen more easily by the surgeon. The Photodynamic versus white-light-guided resection of first diagnosis non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer ( PHOTO ) trial aimed to find out whether or not using photodynamic diagnosis at initial surgery would reduce how often the cancer recurred and whether or not this could reduce the cost of treating early bladder cancer. A total of 538 people with early bladder cancer who had a medium to high chance of their cancer returning after treatment were enrolled in the PHOTO trial. They were included in one of two treatment groups, at random: 269 had photodynamic surgery and 269 had standard white-light surgery. People in both groups were monitored regularly for any recurrences, with further treatment as appropriate. After 3 years, 4 out of 10 people in each group had a recurrence of their bladder cancer. We found no difference between the treatment groups in the number of people with recurrences. We found no evidence of a benefit to patients, and the total costs of photodynamic surgery were higher than those of standard white light. We therefore recommend that it is no longer used in the treatment of this group of patients.

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

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

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

Assessment of Walking Speed and Distance Post-Stroke Increases After Providing a Theory-Based Toolkit.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: While underutilized, poststroke administration of the 10-m walk test (10mWT) and 6-minute walk test (6MWT) can improve care and is considered best practice. We aimed to evaluate provision of a toolkit designed to increase use of these tests by physical therapists (PTs). METHODS: In a before-and-after study, 54 PTs and professional leaders in 9 hospitals were provided a toolkit and access to a clinical expert over a 5-month period. The toolkit comprised a guide, smartphone app, and video, and described how to set up walkways, implement learning sessions, administer walk tests, and interpret and apply test results clinically. The proportion of hospital visits for which each walk test score was documented at least once (based on abstracted health records of ambulatory patients) were compared over 8-month periods pre- and post-intervention using generalized mixed models. RESULTS: Data from 347 and 375 pre- and postintervention hospital visits, respectively, were analyzed. Compared with preintervention, the odds of implementing the 10mWT were 12 times greater (odds ratio [OR] = 12.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.8, 26.3), and of implementing the 6MWT were approximately 4 times greater (OR = 3.9, 95% CI 2.3, 6.7), post-intervention, after adjusting for hospital setting, ambulation ability, presence of aphasia and cognitive impairment, and provider-level clustering. Unadjusted change in the percentage of visits for which the 10mWT/6MWT was documented at least once was smallest in acute care settings (2.0/3.8%), and largest in inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation settings (28.0/19.9% and 29.4/23.4%, respectively). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Providing a comprehensive toolkit to hospitals with professional leaders likely contributed to increasing 10mWT and 6MWT administration during inpatient and outpatient stroke rehabilitation.Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see the Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A390 ).

Shockwave lithotripsy compared with ureteroscopic stone treatment for adults with ureteric stones: the TISU non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Urinary stone disease affects 2-3% of the general population. Ureteric stones are associated with severe pain and can have a significant impact on a patient's quality of life. Most ureteric stones are expected to pass spontaneously with supportive care; however, between one-fifth and one-third of patients require an active intervention. The two standard interventions are shockwave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic stone treatment. Both treatments are effective, but they differ in terms of invasiveness, anaesthetic requirement, treatment setting, number of procedures, complications, patient-reported outcomes and cost. There is uncertainty around which is the more clinically effective and cost-effective treatment. OBJECTIVES: To determine if shockwave lithotripsy is clinically effective and cost-effective compared with ureteroscopic stone treatment in adults with ureteric stones who are judged to require active intervention. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial of shockwave lithotripsy as a first-line treatment option compared with primary ureteroscopic stone treatment for ureteric stones. SETTING: Urology departments in 25 NHS hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 16 years presenting with a single ureteric stone in any segment of the ureter, confirmed by computerised tomography, who were able to undergo either shockwave lithotripsy or ureteroscopic stone treatment and to complete trial procedures. INTERVENTION: Eligible participants were randomised 1 : 1 to shockwave lithotripsy (up to two sessions) or ureteroscopic stone treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary clinical outcome measure was resolution of the stone episode (stone clearance), which was operationally defined as 'no further intervention required to facilitate stone clearance' up to 6 months from randomisation. This was determined from 8-week and 6-month case report forms and any additional hospital visit case report form that was completed by research staff. The primary economic outcome measure was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 6 months from randomisation. We estimated costs from NHS resources and calculated quality-adjusted life-years from participant completion of the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version, at baseline, pre intervention, 1 week post intervention and 8 weeks and 6 months post randomisation. RESULTS: In the shockwave lithotripsy arm, 67 out of 302 (22.2%) participants needed further treatment. In the ureteroscopic stone treatment arm, 31 out of 302 (10.3%) participants needed further treatment. The absolute risk difference was 11.4% (95% confidence interval 5.0% to 17.8%); the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval ruled out the prespecified margin of non-inferiority (which was 20%). The mean quality-adjusted life-year difference (shockwave lithotripsy vs. ureteroscopic stone treatment) was -0.021 (95% confidence interval 0.033 to -0.010) and the mean cost difference was -£809 (95% confidence interval -£1061 to -£551). The probability that shockwave lithotripsy is cost-effective is 79% at a threshold of society's willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year of £30,000. The CEAC is derived from the joint distribution of incremental costs and incremental effects. Most of the results fall in the south-west quadrant of the cost effectiveness plane as SWL always costs less but is less effective. LIMITATIONS: A limitation of the trial was low return and completion rates of patient questionnaires. The study was initially powered for 500 patients in each arm; however, the total number of patients recruited was only 307 and 306 patients in the ureteroscopic stone treatment and shockwave lithotripsy arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving shockwave lithotripsy needed more further interventions than those receiving primary ureteroscopic retrieval, although the overall costs for those receiving the shockwave treatment were lower. The absolute risk difference between the two clinical pathways (11.4%) was lower than expected and at a level that is acceptable to clinicians and patients. The shockwave lithotripsy pathway is more cost-effective in an NHS setting, but results in lower quality of life. FUTURE WORK: (1) The generic health-related quality-of-life tools used in this study do not fully capture the impact of the various treatment pathways on patients. A condition-specific health-related quality-of-life tool should be developed. (2) Reporting of ureteric stone trials would benefit from agreement on a core outcome set that would ensure that future trials are easier to compare. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN92289221. 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. 26, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Approximately 1 in 20 people suffers from kidney stones that pass down the urine drainage tube (ureter) into the urinary bladder and cause episodes of severe pain (ureteric colic). People with ureteric colic attend hospital for pain relief and diagnosis. Although most stones smaller than 10 mm eventually reach the bladder and are passed during urination, some get stuck and have to be removed using telescopic surgery (called ureteroscopic stone treatment) or shockwave therapy (called shockwave lithotripsy). Ureteroscopic stone treatment involves passing a telescope-containing instrument through the bladder and into the ureter to fragment and/or remove the stone. This is usually carried out under general anaesthetic as a day case. For shockwave lithotripsy, the patient lies flat on a couch and the apparatus underneath them generates shockwaves that pass through the skin to the ureter and break the stones into smaller fragments, which can be passed naturally in the urine. This involves using X-ray or ultrasound to locate the stone, but can be carried out on an outpatient basis and without general anaesthetic. Telescopic surgery is known to be more successful at removing stones after just one treatment, but it requires more time in hospital and has a higher risk of complications than shockwave lithotripsy (however, shockwave lithotripsy may require more than one session of treatment). Our study, the Therapeutic Interventions for Stones of the Ureter trial, was designed to establish if treatment for ureteric colic should start with telescopic surgery or shockwave therapy. Over 600 NHS patients took part and they were split into two groups. Each patient had an equal chance of their treatment starting with either telescopic surgery or shockwave lithotripsy, which was decided by a computer program (via random allocation). We counted how many patients in each group had further procedures to remove their stone. We found that telescopic surgery was 11% more effective overall, with an associated slightly better quality of life (10 more healthy days over the 6-month period), but was more expensive in an NHS setting. The finding of a lack of any significant additional clinical benefit leads to the conclusion that the more cost-effective treatment pathway is shockwave lithotripsy with telescopic surgery used only in those patients in whom shockwave lithotripsy is unsuccessful.

Primary trabeculectomy versus primary glaucoma eye drops for newly diagnosed advanced glaucoma: TAGS RCT.

BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with advanced primary open-angle glaucoma are at a high risk of lifetime blindness. Uncertainty exists about whether primary medical management (glaucoma eye drops) or primary surgical treatment (augmented trabeculectomy) provide the best and safest patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To compare primary medical management with primary surgical treatment (augmented trabeculectomy) in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma presenting with advanced disease in terms of health-related quality of life, clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: This was a two-arm, parallel, multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Secondary care eye services. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients presenting with advanced primary open-angle glaucoma in at least one eye, as defined by the Hodapp-Parrish-Anderson classification of severe glaucoma. INTERVENTION: Primary medical treatment - escalating medical management with glaucoma eye drops. Primary trabeculectomy treatment - trabeculectomy augmented with mitomycin C. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was health-related quality of life measured with the Visual Function Questionnaire-25 at 2 years post randomisation. Secondary outcomes were mean intraocular pressure; EQ-5D-5L; Health Utilities Index 3; Glaucoma Utility Index; cost and cost-effectiveness; generic, vision-specific and disease-specific health-related quality of life; clinical effectiveness; and safety. RESULTS: A total of 453 participants were recruited. The mean age of the participants was 67 years (standard deviation 12 years) in the trabeculectomy arm and 68 years (standard deviation 12 years) in the medical management arm. Over 65% of participants were male and more than 80% were white. At 24 months, the mean difference in Visual Function Questionnaire-25 score was 1.06 (95% confidence interval -1.32 to 3.43; p = 0.383). There was no evidence of a difference between arms in the EQ-5D-5L score, the Health Utilities Index or the Glaucoma Utility Index. At 24 months, the mean intraocular pressure was 12.40 mmHg in the trabeculectomy arm and 15.07 mmHg in the medical management arm (mean difference -2.75 mmHg, 95% confidence interval -3.84 to -1.66 mmHg; p < 0.001). Fewer types of glaucoma eye drops were required in the trabeculectomy arm. LogMAR visual acuity was slightly better in the medical management arm (mean difference 0.07, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.11; p = 0.006) than in the trabeculectomy arm. There was no evidence of difference in safety between the two arms. A discrete choice experiment updated the utility values for the Glaucoma Utility Index. The within-trial economic analysis found a small increase in the mean EQ-5D-5L score (0.04) and that trabeculectomy has a higher probability of being cost-effective than medical management. The incremental cost of trabeculectomy per quality-adjusted life-year was £45,456. Therefore, at 2 years, surgery is unlikely to be considered cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. When extrapolated over a patient's lifetime in a model-based analysis, trabeculectomy, compared with medical treatment, was associated with higher costs (average £2687), a larger number of quality-adjusted life-years (average 0.28) and higher incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained (average £9679). The likelihood of trabeculectomy being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained was 73%. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested that there was no difference between treatment arms in health-related quality of life, as measured with the Visual Function Questionnaire-25 at 24 months. Intraocular pressure was better controlled in the trabeculectomy arm, and this may reduce visual field progression. Modelling over the patient's lifetime suggests that trabeculectomy may be cost-effective over the range of values of society's willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year. FUTURE WORK: Further follow-up of participants will allow us to estimate the long-term differences of disease progression, patient experience and cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56878850. 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. 72. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Glaucoma is an eye condition in which the intraocular pressure is too high, causing damage to the optic nerve and loss of vision. Patients with severe vision loss at diagnosis are the most at risk of blindness in their lifetime. Lowering pressure in the eye is the only way to prevent further vision loss. Two treatments to lower pressure are commonly used: using eye drops or having an operation known as a trabeculectomy. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends surgery as the first treatment. However, we do not know which treatment is best for preventing vision loss or which is safest, has the best patient experience or provides the best value for money for the NHS. Therefore, surgery is not usually carried out in the first instance and patients start with eye drops instead. This study compared whether starting treatment with eye drops affected the quality of life of patients with advanced glaucoma more or less than starting treatment with trabeculectomy. We also investigated if initial treatment with surgery and initial treatment with eye drops were equally good at controlling pressure and were equally safe, and how much each treatment cost the NHS. Every patient had an equal chance of starting treatment with surgery or eye drops and they participated in the study for 2 years. We found that quality of life was similar regardless of treatment. Those starting with surgery had lower pressure and needed far fewer types of eye drops than those starting with eye drops. Thirty-nine patients in the eye drop arm required surgery to control their glaucoma. Initial treatment with eye drops was cheaper over 2 years' follow-up. Our study suggests that, over a 2-year period, having surgery in the first instance lowers intraocular pressure more than eye drops and is equally as safe as eye drops. Although eye drops are a cheaper treatment option for the NHS, if the effects of surgery on intraocular pressure are lasting, then the increased cost may be justified.

Experiences of Physical Therapists and Professional Leaders With Implementing a Toolkit to Advance Walking Assessment Poststroke: A Realist Evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: The iWalk study showed significant increase in use of the 10-Meter Walk Test (10MWT) and 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) poststroke following provision of a toolkit. This paper examined the influence of contextual circumstances on use of the toolkit and implementation strategy across acute care and inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation settings. METHODS: A theory-based toolkit and implementation strategy was designed to support guideline recommendations to use standardized tools for evaluation of walking, education, and goal-setting poststroke. The toolkit comprised a mobile app, video, and educational guide outlining instructions for 3 learning sessions. After completing learning sessions, 33 physical therapists and 7 professional leaders participated in focus groups or interviews. As part of a realist evaluation, the study compared and synthesized site-specific context-mechanism-outcome descriptions across sites to refine an initial theory of how the toolkit would influence practice. RESULTS: Analysis revealed 3 context-mechanism-outcomes: (1) No onsite facilitator? No practice change in acute care: Without an onsite facilitator, participants lacked authority to facilitate and coordinate the implementation strategy; (2) Onsite facilitation fostered integration of select practices in acute care: When onsite facilitation occurred in acute care, walk test administration and use of reference values for patient education were adopted variably with high functioning patients; (3) Onsite facilitation fostered integration of most practices in rehabilitation settings: When onsite facilitation occurred, many participants incorporated 1 or both tests to evaluate and monitor walking capacity, and reference values were applied for inpatient and outpatient education and goal setting. Participants preferentially implemented the 10MWT over the 6MWT because set-up and administration were easier and a greater proportion of patients could walk 10 m. CONCLUSION: Findings underscore contextual factors and activities essential to eliciting change in assessment practice in stroke rehabilitation across care settings. IMPACT: This study shows that to foster recommended walking assessment practices, an onsite facilitator should be present to enable learning sessions and toolkit use.

Primary trabeculectomy for advanced glaucoma: pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (TAGS).

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether primary trabeculectomy or primary medical treatment produces better outcomes in term of quality of life, clinical effectiveness, and safety in patients presenting with advanced glaucoma. DESIGN: Pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 27 secondary care glaucoma departments in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 453 adults presenting with newly diagnosed advanced open angle glaucoma in at least one eye (Hodapp classification) between 3 June 2014 and 31 May 2017. INTERVENTIONS: Mitomycin C augmented trabeculectomy (n=227) and escalating medical management with intraocular pressure reducing drops (n=226) MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: vision specific quality of life measured with Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (VFQ-25) at 24 months. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: general health status, glaucoma related quality of life, clinical effectiveness (intraocular pressure, visual field, visual acuity), and safety. RESULTS: At 24 months, the mean VFQ-25 scores in the trabeculectomy and medical arms were 85.4 (SD 13.8) and 84.5 (16.3), respectively (mean difference 1.06, 95% confidence interval -1.32 to 3.43; P=0.38). Mean intraocular pressure was 12.4 (SD 4.7) mm Hg for trabeculectomy and 15.1 (4.8) mm Hg for medical management (mean difference -2.8 (-3.8 to -1.7) mm Hg; P<0.001). Adverse events occurred in 88 (39%) patients in the trabeculectomy arm and 100 (44%) in the medical management arm (relative risk 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.17; P=0.37). Serious side effects were rare. CONCLUSION: Primary trabeculectomy had similar quality of life and safety outcomes and achieved a lower intraocular pressure compared with primary medication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Health Technology Assessment (NIHR-HTA) Programme (project number: 12/35/38). ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN56878850.

Provision of the progestogen-only pill by community pharmacies as bridging contraception for women receiving emergency contraception: the Bridge-it RCT.

INTRODUCTION: Unless women start effective contraception after using emergency contraception, they remain at risk of unintended pregnancy. Most women in the UK obtain emergency contraception from community pharmacies that are unable to provide ongoing contraception (apart from barrier methods which have high failure rates). This means that women need an appointment with a general practitioner or at a sexual and reproductive health clinic. We conducted a pragmatic cluster randomised cohort crossover trial to determine whether or not pharmacist provision of a bridging supply of a progestogen-only pill plus the invitation to attend a sexual and reproductive health clinic resulted in increased subsequent use of effective contraception (hormonal or intrauterine). METHODS: Twenty-nine pharmacies in three UK cities recruited women receiving emergency contraception (levonorgestrel). In the intervention, women received a 3-month supply of the progestogen-only pill (75 µg of desogestrel) plus a card that provided rapid access to a local sexual and reproductive health clinic. In the control arm, pharmacists advised women to attend their usual contraceptive provider. The primary outcome was reported use of an effective contraception (hormonal and intrauterine methods) at 4 months. Process evaluation was also conducted to inform any future implementation. RESULTS: The study took place December 2017 and June 2019 and recruited 636 women to the intervention (n = 316) and control groups (n = 320). There were no statistically significant differences in demographic characteristics between the groups. Four-month follow-up data were available for 406 participants: 63% (198/315) of the control group and 65% (208/318) of the intervention group. The proportion of participants reporting use of effective contraception was 20.1% greater (95% confidence interval 5.2% to 35.0%) in the intervention group (58.4%, 95% confidence interval 48.6% to 68.2%) than in the control group (40.5%, 95% confidence interval 29.7% to 51.3%) (adjusted for recruitment period, treatment arm and centre; p = 0.011). The proportion of women using effective contraception remained statistically significantly larger, when adjusted for age, current sexual relationship and history of past use of effective contraception, and was robust to the missing data. There were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: Provision of a bridging supply of the progestogen-only pill with emergency contraception from a pharmacist and the invitation to a sexual and reproductive health clinic resulted in a significant increase in self-reported subsequent use of effective contraception. This simple intervention has the potential to prevent more unintended pregnancies for women after emergency contraception. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70616901. 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. 27. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The emergency contraceptive pill can prevent pregnancy following unprotected sex or a burst condom; however, unless women start a regular method of contraception they remain at risk of pregnancy. Most women obtain emergency contraception from a community pharmacy (chemist), but then require an appointment with a general practitioner or at a sexual and reproductive health clinic for ongoing contraception. Getting an appointment can take time and unintended pregnancies can occur during this time. If a pharmacist could give women a small supply of a progestogen-only pill or 'mini-pill' with their emergency contraception, together with help to get an appointment at a clinic, then this might help more women to start effective contraception. We undertook a study in 29 pharmacies in Lothian, Tayside and London among women receiving emergency contraception. Pharmacists provided either their standard advice about contraception (control group) or the intervention. The intervention was a 3-month supply of the progestogen-only pill plus a rapid-access card, which, if presented at a sexual and reproductive health clinic, would help women get an appointment for contraception. The order in which the pharmacy provided either control or intervention was randomised. We conducted telephone interviews with the women 4 months later to find out what contraception they were using. A total of 636 women took part in the study, 316 in the intervention group and 320 in the control group. The proportion who said that they were using an effective method of contraception was around 20% larger in the intervention group. In addition, fewer women in this group said that they had used emergency contraception again. This study shows that community pharmacy provision of a small supply of progestogen-only pills and the invitation to attend a sexual and reproductive health clinic results in a large increase in the use of effective contraception after emergency contraception. If this became routine practice then it could help prevent unintended pregnancies.

Protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy with observation/conservative management for preventing recurrent symptoms and complications in adults with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstones (C-Gall trial).

BACKGROUND: Gallstone disease (cholelithiasis) is common. In most people it is asymptomatic and does not require treatment, but in about 20% it can become symptomatic, causing pain and other complications requiring medical attention and/or surgery. A proportion of symptomatic people with uncomplicated gallstone disease do not experience further episodes of pain and, therefore, could be treated conservatively. Moreover, surgery carries risks of perioperative and postoperative complications. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: C-Gall is a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation to assess whether cholecystectomy is cost-effective compared with observation/ conservative management (here after referred to as medical management) at 18 months post-randomisation (with internal pilot). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Patient-reported quality of life (QoL) (36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) bodily pain domain) up to 18 months after randomisation.The primary economic outcome is incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained at 18 months. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Secondary outcome measures include condition-specific QoL, SF-36 domains, complications, further treatment, persistent symptoms, healthcare resource use, and costs assessed at 18 and 24 months after randomisation. The bodily pain domain of the SF-36 will also be assessed at 24 months after randomisation.A sample size of 430 participants was calculated. Computer-generated 1:1 randomisation was used.The C-Gall Study is currently in follow-up in 20 UK research centres. The first patient was randomised on 1 August 2016, with follow-up to be completed by 30 November 2021. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statistical analysis of the primary outcome will be intention-to-treat and a per-protocol analysis. The primary outcome, area under the curve (AUC) for the SF-36 bodily pain up to 18 months, will be generated using the Trapezium rule and analysed using linear regression with adjustment for the minimisation variables (recruitment site, sex and age). For the secondary outcome, SF-36 bodily pain, AUC up to 24 months will be analysed in a similar way. Other secondary outcomes will be analysed using generalised linear models with adjustment for minimisation and baseline variables, as appropriate. Statistical significance will be at the two-sided 5% level with corresponding CIs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The North of Scotland Research Ethics Committee approved this study (16/NS/0053). The dissemination plans include Health Technology Assessment monograph, international scientific meetings and publications in high-impact, open-access journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN55215960; pre-results.

Examining the effectiveness of different dental recall strategies on maintenance of optimum oral health: the INTERVAL dental recalls randomised controlled trial.

Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness of different frequencies of dental recall over a four-year period.Design A multi-centre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinded clinical outcome assessment. Participants were randomised to receive a dental check-up at six-monthly, 24-monthly or risk-based recall intervals. A two-strata trial design was used, with participants randomised within the 24-month stratum if the recruiting dentist considered them clinically suitable. Participants ineligible for 24-month recall were randomised to a risk-based or six-month recall interval.Setting UK primary dental care.Participants Practices providing NHS care and adults who had received regular dental check-ups.Main outcome measures The percentage of sites with gingival bleeding on probing, oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), cost-effectiveness.Results In total, 2,372 participants were recruited from 51 dental practices. Of those, 648 were eligible for the 24-month recall stratum and 1,724 participants were ineligible. There was no evidence of a significant difference in the mean percentage of sites with gingival bleeding on probing between intervention arms in any comparison. For those eligible for 24-month recall stratum: the 24-month versus six-month group had an adjusted mean difference of -0.91%, 95% CI (-5.02%, 3.20%); the 24-month group versus risk-based group had an adjusted mean difference of 0.07%, 95% CI (-3.99%, 4.12%). For the overall sample, the risk-based versus six-month adjusted mean difference was 0.78%, 95% CI (-1.17%, 2.72%). There was no evidence of a difference in OHRQoL (0-56 scale, higher score for poorer OHRQoL) between intervention arms in any comparison. For the overall sample, the risk-based versus six-month effect size was -0.35, 95% CI (-1.02, 0.32). There was no evidence of a clinically meaningful difference between the groups in any comparison in either eligibility stratum for any of the secondary clinical or patient-reported outcomes.Conclusion Over a four-year period, we found no evidence of a difference in oral health for participants allocated to a six-month or a risk-based recall interval, nor between a 24-month, six-month or risk-based recall interval for participants eligible for a 24-month recall. However, patients greatly value and are willing to pay for frequent dental check-ups.

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.

Use of effective contraception following provision of the progestogen-only pill for women presenting to community pharmacies for emergency contraception (Bridge-It): a pragmatic cluster-randomised crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Unless women start effective contraception after oral emergency contraception, they remain at risk of unintended pregnancy. Most women in the UK obtain emergency contraception from community pharmacies. We hypothesised that pharmacist provision of the progestogen-only pill as a bridging interim method of contraception with emergency contraception plus an invitation to a sexual and reproductive health clinic, in which all methods of contraception are available, would result in increased subsequent use of effective contraception. METHODS: We did a pragmatic cluster-randomised crossover trial in 29 UK pharmacies among women receiving levonorgestrel emergency contraception. Women aged 16 years or older, not already using hormonal contraception, not on medication that could interfere with the progestogen-only pill, and willing to give contact details for follow-up were invited to participate. In the intervention group, women received a 3-month supply of the progestogen-only pill (75 µg desogestrel) plus a rapid access card to a participating sexual and reproductive health clinic. In the control group, pharmacists advised women to attend their usual contraceptive provider. The order in which each pharmacy provided the intervention or control was randomly assigned using a computer software algorithm. The primary outcome was the use of effective contraception (hormonal or intrauterine) at 4 months. This study is registered, ISRCTN70616901 (complete). FINDINGS: Between Dec 19, 2017, and June 26, 2019, 636 women were recruited to the intervention group (316 [49·6%], mean age 22·7 years [SD 5·7]) or the control group (320 [50·3%], 22·6 years [5·1]). Three women (one in the intervention group and two in the control group) were excluded after randomisation. 4-month follow-up data were available for 406 (64%) participants, 25 were lost to follow-up, and two participants no longer wanted to participate in the study. The proportion of women using effective contraception was 20·1% greater (95% CI 5·2-35·0) in the intervention group (mean 58·4%, 48·6-68·2), than in the control group (mean 40·5%, 29·7-51·3 [adjusted for recruitment period, treatment group, and centre]; p=0·011).The difference remained significant after adjusting for age, current sexual relationship, and history of effective contraception use, and was robust to the effect of missing data (assuming missingness at random). No serious adverse events occurred. INTERPRETATION: Provision of a supply of the progestogen-only pill with emergency contraception from a community pharmacist, along with an invitation to a sexual and reproductive health clinic, results in a clinically meaningful increase in subsequent use of effective contraception. Widely implemented, this practice could prevent unintended pregnancies after use of emergency contraception. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (Health Technology Assessment Programme project 15/113/01).

Risk-based, 6-monthly and 24-monthly dental check-ups for adults: the INTERVAL three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, patients are encouraged to attend dental recall appointments at regular 6-month intervals, irrespective of their risk of developing dental disease. Stakeholders lack evidence of the relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different recall strategies and the optimal recall interval for maintenance of oral health. OBJECTIVES: To test effectiveness and assess the cost-benefit of different dental recall intervals over a 4-year period. DESIGN: Multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinded clinical outcome assessment at 4 years and a within-trial cost-benefit analysis. NHS and participant perspective costs were combined with benefits estimated from a general population discrete choice experiment. A two-stratum trial design was used, with participants randomised to the 24-month interval if the recruiting dentist considered them clinically suitable. Participants ineligible for 24-month recall were randomised to a risk-based or 6-month recall interval. SETTING: UK primary care dental practices. PARTICIPANTS: Adult, dentate, NHS patients who had visited their dentist in the previous 2 years. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to attend for a dental check-up at one of three dental recall intervals: 6-month, risk-based or 24-month recall. MAIN OUTCOMES: Clinical - gingival bleeding on probing; patient - oral health-related quality of life; economic - three analysis frameworks: (1) incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained, (2) incremental net (societal) benefit and (3) incremental net (dental health) benefit. RESULTS: A total of 2372 participants were recruited from 51 dental practices; 648 participants were eligible for the 24-month recall stratum and 1724 participants were ineligible. There was no evidence of a significant difference in the mean percentage of sites with gingival bleeding between intervention arms in any comparison. For the eligible for 24-month recall stratum: the 24-month (n = 138) versus 6-month group (n = 135) had an adjusted mean difference of -0.91 (95% confidence interval -5.02 to 3.20); the risk-based (n = 143) versus 6-month group had an adjusted mean difference of -0.98 (95% confidence interval -5.05 to 3.09); the 24-month versus risk-based group had an adjusted mean difference of 0.07 (95% confidence interval -3.99 to 4.12). For the overall sample, the risk-based (n = 749) versus 6-month (n = 737) adjusted mean difference was 0.78 (95% confidence interval -1.17 to 2.72). There was no evidence of a difference in oral health-related quality of life between intervention arms in any comparison. For the economic evaluation, under framework 1 (cost per quality-adjusted life-year) the results were highly uncertain, and it was not possible to identify the optimal recall strategy. Under framework 2 (net societal benefit), 6-month recalls were the most efficient strategy with a probability of positive net benefit ranging from 78% to 100% across the eligible and combined strata, with findings driven by the high value placed on more frequent recall services in the discrete choice experiment. Under framework 3 (net dental health benefit), 24-month recalls were the most likely strategy to deliver positive net (dental health) benefit among those eligible for 24-month recall, with a probability of positive net benefit ranging from 65% to 99%. For the combined group, the optimal strategy was less clear. Risk-based recalls were more likely to be the most efficient recall strategy in scenarios where the costing perspective was widened to include participant-incurred costs, and in the Scottish subgroup. LIMITATIONS: Information regarding factors considered by dentists to inform the risk-based interval and the interaction with patients to determine risk and agree the interval were not collected. CONCLUSIONS: Over a 4-year period, we found no evidence of a difference in oral health for participants allocated to a 6-month or a risk-based recall interval, nor between a 24-month, 6-month or risk-based recall interval for participants eligible for a 24-month recall. However, people greatly value and are willing to pay for frequent dental check-ups; therefore, the most efficient recall strategy depends on the scope of the cost and benefit valuation that decision-makers wish to consider. FUTURE WORK: Assessment of the impact of risk assessment tools in informing risk-based interval decision-making and techniques for communicating a variable recall interval to patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN95933794. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme [project numbers 06/35/05 (Phase I) and 06/35/99 (Phase II)] and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 60. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Traditionally, dentists have encouraged both patients at low risk and patients at high risk of developing dental disease to attend their dental practices for regular 6-month 'check-ups'. There is, however, little evidence available for either patients or dentists to use when deciding on the best dental recall interval (i.e. time between dental check-ups) for maintaining oral health. In this study, we wanted to find out, for adult patients who regularly attend the dentist, what interval of time between dental check-ups maintains optimum oral health and represents value for money. A total of 2372 adults who regularly attended 51 different dental practices across Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales were involved. Patients aged 18 years or over who received all or part of their care as NHS patients were randomly allocated to groups to receive a check-up either every 6 months, at an individualised recall interval based on their own risk of oral disease (risk-based recall), or every 24 months (if considered at low risk by their dentist). The recruited adults completed questionnaires at their first trial appointment and then every year of the 4-year study. Their attendance at recall appointments was recorded and they received a clinical assessment taken by study staff at the end of their involvement at year 4. After 4 years, there was no evidence of a difference in the oral health of patients allocated to a 6-month or variable risk-based recall interval. For patients considered by their dentists to be suitable for a 24-month recall interval, there was no difference between those in the 24-month, 6-month or risk-based recall intervals. However, people greatly value and are willing to pay for frequent dental check-ups. The recall strategy that offers the best value for money to patients and the NHS, therefore, depends on what people and decision-makers wish to value within a health-care system.

The clinical and cost effectiveness of surgical interventions for stones in the lower pole of the kidney: the percutaneous nephrolithotomy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower pole kidney stones randomised controlled trial (PUrE RCT) protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Renal stones are common, with a lifetime prevalence of 10% in adults. Global incidence is increasing due to increases in obesity and diabetes, with these patient populations being more likely to suffer renal stone disease. Flank pain from stones (renal colic) is the most common cause of emergency admission to UK urology departments. Stones most commonly develop in the lower pole of the kidney (in ~35% of cases) and here are least likely to pass without intervention. Currently there are three technologies available within the UK National Health Service to remove lower pole kidney stones: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and flexible ureterorenoscopy (FURS) with laser lithotripsy. Current evidence indicates there is uncertainty regarding the management of lower pole stones, and each treatment has advantages and disadvantages. The aim of this trial is to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of FURS compared with ESWL or PCNL in the treatment of lower pole kidney stones. METHODS: The PUrE (PCNL, FURS and ESWL for lower pole kidney stones) trial is a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating FURS versus ESWL or PCNL for lower pole kidney stones. Patients aged ≥16 years with a stone(s) in the lower pole of either kidney confirmed by non-contrast computed tomography of the kidney, ureter and bladder (CTKUB) and requiring treatment for a stone ≤10 mm will be randomised to receive FURS or ESWL (RCT1), and those requiring treatment for a stone >10 mm to ≤25 mm will be randomised to receive FURS or PCNL (RCT2). Participants will undergo follow-up by questionnaires every week up to 12 weeks post-intervention and at 12 months post-randomisation. The primary clinical outcome is health status measured by the area under the curve calculated from multiple measurements of the EuroQol five dimensions five-level version (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire up to 12 weeks post-intervention. The primary economic outcome is the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained at 12 months post-randomisation. DISCUSSION: The PUrE trial aims to provide robust evidence on health status, quality of life, clinical outcomes and resource use to directly inform choice and National Health Service provision of the three treatment options. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN98970319. Registered on 11 November 2015.

Where do we go from here? - Opportunities and barriers to the career development of trial managers: a survey of UK-based trial management professionals.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials commonly have a dedicated trial manager and effective trial management is essential to the successful delivery of high-quality trials. Trial managers have diverse experience and currently there is no standardised structured career pathway. The UK Trial Managers' Network (UKTMN) surveyed its members to understand what is important to them with respect to career development since this would be important in the development of any initiative intended to develop a skilled workforce. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of UKTMN members, who are trial management professionals, working on academic-led trials in the UK. Members were asked what they perceive as opportunities and barriers to career development. Two reminders were sent to facilitate completion of the survey, and responders were offered the opportunity to enter a prize draw for waived fees at the UKTMN annual meeting. Data were analysed descriptively by using Stata (version 15.1), and free-text responses were reviewed for themes. RESULTS: The survey was sent to 819 UKTMN members; 433 responses were received, although 13 were from non-UKTMN members; thus 420 respondents' data were included in analyses. Respondents were representative of UKTMN membership; however, more responses were received by trial managers based in registered clinical trials units (CTUs). The top three opportunities for career development were (i) training, (ii) helping design trials and (iii) undertaking relevant qualifications. The top three barriers were (i) funding, (ii) few opportunities to get involved in development activities aside from managing a trial and (iii) unclear organisational career pathway. Almost all respondents (401/420, 95.4%) considered career development either very or quite important. Although all respondents had a day-to-day role in managing trials, there was huge disparity between job titles. CONCLUSION: Career development is important to trial managers yet there is a lack of a structured pathway. The enablers and disablers to career development for trial managers should be clearly considered by the clinical trial community and, in particular, employers, sponsors and funders in order to develop a highly skilled workforce of trial managers, who are key to the delivery of trials.

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

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

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

Photodynamic versus white light-guided treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: a study protocol for a randomised trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness.

INTRODUCTION: Bladder cancer is the most frequently occurring tumour of the urinary system. Ta, T1 tumours and carcinoma in situ (CIS) are grouped as non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), which can be effectively treated by transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT). There are limitations to the visualisation of tumours with conventional TURBT using white light illumination within the bladder. Incomplete resections occur from the failure to identify satellite lesions or the full extent of the tumour leading to recurrence and potential risk of disease progression. To improve complete resection, photodynamic diagnosis (PDD) has been proposed as a method that can enhance tumour detection and guide resection. The objective of the current research is to determine whether PDD-guided TURBT is better than conventional white light surgery and whether it is cost-effective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PHOTO is a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (open parallel group, non-masked and superiority trial) comparing the intervention of PDD-guided TURBT with standard white light resection in newly diagnosed intermediate and high risk NMIBC within the UK National Health Service setting. Clinical effectiveness is measured with time to recurrence. Cost-effectiveness is assessed within trial via the calculation of incremental cost per recurrence avoided and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life per year gained over 3 years and over long term through a modelling exercise over patients' lifetime. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethics review was undertaken with a favourable opinion, in line with UK regulatory procedures (REC reference number: 14/NE/1062). If reductions in time to recurrence is associated with long-term patient benefits, the cost-effectiveness evaluation will provide further evidence to inform adoption of the technology. Findings will be shared in lay media such as patient and charity forums and will be presented at key meetings and published in academic literature.Trial registration number ISRCTN84013636.

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.

Improving the Quality of Dentistry (IQuaD): a cluster factorial randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-benefit of oral hygiene advice and/or periodontal instrumentation with routine care for the prevention and management of periodontal disease in dentate adults attending dental primary care.

BACKGROUND: Periodontal disease is preventable but remains the most common oral disease worldwide, with major health and economic implications. Stakeholders lack reliable evidence of the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different types of oral hygiene advice (OHA) and the optimal frequency of periodontal instrumentation (PI). OBJECTIVES: To test clinical effectiveness and assess the economic value of the following strategies: personalised OHA versus routine OHA, 12-monthly PI (scale and polish) compared with 6-monthly PI, and no PI compared with 6-monthly PI. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic split-plot, randomised open trial with a cluster factorial design and blinded outcome evaluation with 3 years' follow-up and a within-trial cost-benefit analysis. NHS and participant costs were combined with benefits [willingness to pay (WTP)] estimated from a discrete choice experiment (DCE). SETTING: UK dental practices. PARTICIPANTS: Adult dentate NHS patients, regular attenders, with Basic Periodontal Examination (BPE) scores of 0, 1, 2 or 3. INTERVENTION: Practices were randomised to provide routine or personalised OHA. Within each practice, participants were randomised to the following groups: no PI, 12-monthly PI or 6-monthly PI (current practice). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical - gingival inflammation/bleeding on probing at the gingival margin (3 years). Patient - oral hygiene self-efficacy (3 years). Economic - net benefits (mean WTP minus mean costs). RESULTS: A total of 63 dental practices and 1877 participants were recruited. The mean number of teeth and percentage of bleeding sites was 24 and 33%, respectively. Two-thirds of participants had BPE scores of ≤ 2. Under intention-to-treat analysis, there was no evidence of a difference in gingival inflammation/bleeding between the 6-monthly PI group and the no-PI group [difference 0.87%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.6% to 3.3%; p = 0.481] or between the 6-monthly PI group and the 12-monthly PI group (difference 0.11%, 95% CI -2.3% to 2.5%; p = 0.929). There was also no evidence of a difference between personalised and routine OHA (difference -2.5%, 95% CI -8.3% to 3.3%; p = 0.393). There was no evidence of a difference in self-efficacy between the 6-monthly PI group and the no-PI group (difference -0.028, 95% CI -0.119 to 0.063; p = 0.543) and no evidence of a clinically important difference between the 6-monthly PI group and the 12-monthly PI group (difference -0.097, 95% CI -0.188 to -0.006; p = 0.037). Compared with standard care, no PI with personalised OHA had the greatest cost savings: NHS perspective -£15 (95% CI -£34 to £4) and participant perspective -£64 (95% CI -£112 to -£16). The DCE shows that the general population value these services greatly. Personalised OHA with 6-monthly PI had the greatest incremental net benefit [£48 (95% CI £22 to £74)]. Sensitivity analyses did not change conclusions. LIMITATIONS: Being a pragmatic trial, we did not deny PIs to the no-PI group; there was clear separation in the mean number of PIs between groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no additional benefit from scheduling 6-monthly or 12-monthly PIs over not providing this treatment unless desired or recommended, and no difference between OHA delivery for gingival inflammation/bleeding and patient-centred outcomes. However, participants valued, and were willing to pay for, both interventions, with greater financial value placed on PI than on OHA. FUTURE WORK: Assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of providing multifaceted periodontal care packages in primary dental care for those with periodontitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56465715. 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. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.