Trial of Selective Early Treatment of Patent Ductus Arteriosus with Ibuprofen.

BACKGROUND: The cyclooxygenase inhibitor ibuprofen may be used to treat patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) in preterm infants. Whether selective early treatment of large PDAs with ibuprofen would improve short-term outcomes is not known. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluating early treatment (≤72 hours after birth) with ibuprofen for a large PDA (diameter of ≥1.5 mm with pulsatile flow) in extremely preterm infants (born between 23 weeks 0 days' and 28 weeks 6 days' gestation). The primary outcome was a composite of death or moderate or severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia evaluated at 36 weeks of postmenstrual age. RESULTS: A total of 326 infants were assigned to receive ibuprofen and 327 to receive placebo; 324 and 322, respectively, had data available for outcome analyses. A primary-outcome event occurred in 220 of 318 infants (69.2%) in the ibuprofen group and 202 of 318 infants (63.5%) in the placebo group (adjusted risk ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98 to 1.20; P = 0.10). A total of 44 of 323 infants (13.6%) in the ibuprofen group and 33 of 321 infants (10.3%) in the placebo group died (adjusted risk ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.90). Among the infants who survived to 36 weeks of postmenstrual age, moderate or severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia occurred in 176 of 274 (64.2%) in the ibuprofen group and 169 of 285 (59.3%) in the placebo group (adjusted risk ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.23). Two unforeseeable serious adverse events occurred that were possibly related to ibuprofen. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of death or moderate or severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia at 36 weeks of postmenstrual age was not significantly lower among infants who received early treatment with ibuprofen than among those who received placebo. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme; Baby-OSCAR ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN84264977.).

Lactation-focused audio relaxation versus standard care for mothers of very preterm infants (the EXPRESS randomised clinical trial).

BACKGROUND: Mothers of very premature newborns often have low milk supply. Systematic review has shown increased milk quantity with relaxation interventions. We hypothesised that a self-directed audio relaxation and lactation-specific visualisation would increase milk quantity after a very premature birth. METHODS: Unmasked, randomised, controlled trial, recruiting 132 participants in four United Kingdom neonatal units. Eligible women had given birth to one or two infants between 23+0 and 31+6 weeks of gestation. The intervention was a 12-min voice recording including breathing exercises, muscle relaxation and lactation-specific visualisation. Primary outcome was the highest 24-h breastmilk weight expressed on any of day 4, day 14 or day 21 after birth. RESULTS: Mean birth gestation was 27.8 weeks (SD 2.4), with 26% of participants giving birth under 26 weeks (34/132). Adjusted mean difference in primary outcome was 73.9 g (95% CI -61.7 to 209.5, p = 0.28). Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Index adjusted mean difference was -1.9 (-8.2 to 4.3, p = 0.54). The majority of relaxation group participants felt the intervention was relaxing (32/42, 76%). CONCLUSIONS: There was no beneficial effect of this relaxation intervention on milk quantity. Mothers of very premature infants may value relaxation interventions but they are unlikely to have a large effect on milk quantity. IMPACT: This randomised trial did not show a beneficial effect of a self-directed audio relaxation and visualisation on mothers' own milk quantity expressed after very preterm birth. Mothers of very and extremely preterm infants may value relaxation interventions, but they are unlikely to have a large effect on milk quantity. Prior systematic review of mixed populations has shown an increase in mothers' own milk quantity with relaxation interventions. Combining this study with existing meta-analysis could result in a new hypothesis that the lower the gestation at birth, the smaller the impact of relaxation on milk quantity.

The effectiveness of a primary care-based collaborative care model to improve quality of life in people with severe mental illness: PARTNERS2 cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals living with severe mental illness can have significant emotional, physical and social challenges. Collaborative care combines clinical and organisational components. AIMS: We tested whether a primary care-based collaborative care model (PARTNERS) would improve quality of life for people with diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or other psychoses, compared with usual care. METHOD: We conducted a general practice-based, cluster randomised controlled superiority trial. Practices were recruited from four English regions and allocated (1:1) to intervention or control. Individuals receiving limited input in secondary care or who were under primary care only were eligible. The 12-month PARTNERS intervention incorporated person-centred coaching support and liaison work. The primary outcome was quality of life as measured by the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA). RESULTS: We allocated 39 general practices, with 198 participants, to the PARTNERS intervention (20 practices, 116 participants) or control (19 practices, 82 participants). Primary outcome data were available for 99 (85.3%) intervention and 71 (86.6%) control participants. Mean change in overall MANSA score did not differ between the groups (intervention: 0.25, s.d. 0.73; control: 0.21, s.d. 0.86; estimated fully adjusted between-group difference 0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.31; P = 0.819). Acute mental health episodes (safety outcome) included three crises in the intervention group and four in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life, as measured with the MANSA, between those receiving the PARTNERS intervention and usual care. Shifting care to primary care was not associated with increased adverse outcomes.

Elective freezing of embryos versus fresh embryo transfer in IVF: a multicentre randomized controlled trial in the UK (E-Freeze).

STUDY QUESTION: Does a policy of elective freezing of embryos, followed by frozen embryo transfer result in a higher healthy baby rate, after first embryo transfer, when compared with the current policy of transferring fresh embryos? SUMMARY ANSWER: This study, although limited by sample size, provides no evidence to support the adoption of a routine policy of elective freeze in preference to fresh embryo transfer in order to improve IVF effectiveness in obtaining a healthy baby. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The policy of freezing all embryos followed by frozen embryo transfer is associated with a higher live birth rate for high responders but a similar/lower live birth after first embryo transfer and cumulative live birth rate for normal responders. Frozen embryo transfer is associated with a lower risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), preterm delivery and low birthweight babies but a higher risk of large babies and pre-eclampsia. There is also uncertainty about long-term outcomes, hence shifting to a policy of elective freezing for all remains controversial given the delay in treatment and extra costs involved in freezing all embryos. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A pragmatic two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial (E-Freeze) was conducted across 18 clinics in the UK from 2016 to 2019. A total of 619 couples were randomized (309 to elective freeze/310 to fresh). The primary outcome was a healthy baby after first embryo transfer (term, singleton live birth with appropriate weight for gestation); secondary outcomes included OHSS, live birth, clinical pregnancy, pregnancy complications and cost-effectiveness. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of IVF/ICSI treatment, with at least three good quality embryos on Day 3 where the female partner was ≥18 and <42 years of age were eligible. Those using donor gametes, undergoing preimplantation genetic testing or planning to freeze all their embryos were excluded. IVF/ICSI treatment was carried out according to local protocols. Women were followed up for pregnancy outcome after first embryo transfer following randomization. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 619 couples randomized, 307 and 309 couples in the elective freeze and fresh transfer arms, respectively, were included in the primary analysis. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in outcomes in the elective freeze group compared to the fresh embryo transfer group: healthy baby rate {20.3% (62/307) versus 24.4% (75/309); risk ratio (RR), 95% CI: 0.84, 0.62 to 1.15}; OHSS (3.6% versus 8.1%; RR, 99% CI: 0.44, 0.15 to 1.30); live birth rate (28.3% versus 34.3%; RR, 99% CI 0.83, 0.65 to 1.06); and miscarriage (14.3% versus 12.9%; RR, 99% CI: 1.09, 0.72 to 1.66). Adherence to allocation was poor in the elective freeze group. The elective freeze approach was more costly and was unlikely to be cost-effective in a UK National Health Service context. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We have only reported on first embryo transfer after randomization; data on the cumulative live birth rate requires further follow-up. Planned target sample size was not obtained and the non-adherence to allocation rate was high among couples in the elective freeze arm owing to patient preference for fresh embryo transfer, but an analysis which took non-adherence into account showed similar results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Results from the E-Freeze trial do not lend support to the policy of electively freezing all for everyone, taking both efficacy, safety and costs considerations into account. This method should only be adopted if there is a definite clinical indication. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (13/115/82). This research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (NIHR unique award identifier) using UK aid from the UK Government to support global health research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. J.L.B., C.C., E.J., P.H., J.J.K., L.L. and G.S. report receipt of funding from NIHR, during the conduct of the study. J.L.B., E.J., P.H., K.S. and L.L. report receipt of funding from NIHR, during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. A.M. reports grants from NIHR personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees for lectures from Merck Serono, Ferring and Cooks outside the submitted work; travel/meeting support from Ferring and Pharmasure and participation in a Ferring advisory board. S.B. reports receipt of royalties and licenses from Cambridge University Press, a board membership role for NHS Grampian and other financial or non-financial interests related to his roles as Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and Editor and Contributing Author of Reproductive Medicine for the MRCOG, Cambridge University Press. D.B. reports grants from NIHR, during the conduct of the study; grants from European Commission, grants from Diabetes UK, grants from NIHR, grants from ESHRE, grants from MRC, outside the submitted work. Y.C. reports speaker fees from Merck Serono, and advisory board role for Merck Serono and shares in Complete Fertility. P.H. reports membership of the HTA Commissioning Committee. E.J. reports membership of the NHS England and NIHR Partnership Programme, membership of five Data Monitoring Committees (Chair of two), membership of six Trial Steering Committees (Chair of four), membership of the Northern Ireland Clinical Trials Unit Advisory Group and Chair of the board of Oxford Brain Health Clinical Trials Unit. R.M. reports consulting fees from Gedeon Richter, honorarium from Merck, support fees for attendance at educational events and conferences for Merck, Ferring, Bessins and Gedeon Richter, payments for participation on a Merck Safety or Advisory Board, Chair of the British Fertility Society and payments for an advisory role to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. G.S. reports travel and accommodation fees for attendance at a health economic advisory board from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. N.R.-F. reports shares in Nurture Fertility. Other authors' competing interests: none declared. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN: 61225414. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 29 December 2015. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 16 February 2016.

Two-year follow-up of infant and maternal outcomes after planned early delivery or expectant management for late preterm pre-eclampsia (PHOENIX): A randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the best time to initiate delivery in late preterm pre-eclampsia in order to optimise long-term infant and maternal outcomes. DESIGN: Parallel-group, non-masked, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Forty-six maternity units in the UK. POPULATION: Women with pre-eclampsia between 34+0 and 36+6  weeks of gestation, without severe disease, were randomised to planned delivery or expectant management. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Infant neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years of age, using the Parent Report of Children's Abilities - Revised (PARCA-R) composite score. RESULTS: Between 29 September 2014 and 10 December 2018, 901 women were enrolled in the trial, with 450 women allocated to planned delivery and 451 women allocated to expectant management. At the 2-year follow-up, the intention-to-treat analysis population included 276 women (290 infants) allocated to planned delivery and 251 women (256 infants) allocated to expectant management. The mean composite standardised PARCA-R scores were 89.5 (SD 18.2) in the planned delivery group and 91.9 (SD 18.4) in the expectant management group, with an adjusted mean difference of -2.4 points (95% CI -5.4 to 0.5 points). CONCLUSIONS: In infants of women with late preterm pre-eclampsia, the average neurodevelopmental assessment at 2 years lies within the normal range, regardless of whether planned delivery or expectant management was pursued. With the lower than anticipated follow-up rate there was limited power to demonstrate that these scores did not differ, but the small between-group difference in PARCA-R scores is unlikely to be clinically important.

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

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

Bifidobacterium breve BBG-001 and intestinal barrier function in preterm babies: Exploratory Studies from the PiPS Trial.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty remains about the role of probiotics to prevent necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) some of which arises from the variety of probiotic interventions used in different trials, many with no prior evidence of potential efficacy. Mechanistic studies of intestinal barrier function embedded in a large probiotic trial could provide evidence about which properties of probiotics might be important for NEC prevention thus facilitating identification of strains with therapeutic potential. METHODS: Intestinal permeability, stool microbiota, SCFAs and mucosal inflammation were assessed from the second postnatal week in babies enrolled to a randomised controlled trial of B. breve BBG-001 (the PiPS trial). Results were compared by allocation and by stool colonisation with the probiotic. RESULTS: Ninety-four preterm babies were recruited across six nested studies. B. breve BBG-001 content was higher by allocation and colonisation; Enterobacteriaceae and acetic acid levels were higher by colonisation. No measure of intestinal barrier function showed differences. The PiPS trial found no evidence of efficacy to reduce NEC. CONCLUSIONS: That the negative results of the PiPS trial were associated with failure of this probiotic to modify intestinal barrier function supports the possibility that the tests described here have the potential to identify strains to progress to large clinical trials. IMPACT: Uncertainty about the therapeutic role of probiotics to prevent necrotising enterocolitis is in part due to the wide range of bacterial strains with no previous evidence of efficacy used in clinical trials. We hypothesised that mechanistic studies embedded in a probiotic trial would provide evidence about which properties of probiotics might be important for NEC prevention. The finding that the probiotic strain tested, Bifidobacterium breve BBG-001, showed neither effects on intestinal barrier function nor clinical efficacy supports the possibility that these tests have the potential to identify strains to progress to large clinical trials.

Study protocol: baby-OSCAR trial: Outcome after Selective early treatment for Closure of patent ductus ARteriosus in preterm babies, a multicentre, masked, randomised placebo-controlled parallel group trial.

BACKGROUND: The question of whether to treat patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) early or wait until symptoms appear remains high on the research agenda for neonatal medicine. Around 7000 extremely preterm babies under 29 weeks' gestation are born in the UK every year. In 40% of cases the PDA will fail to close spontaneously, even by 4 months of age. Untreated PDA can be associated with several serious and life-threatening short and long-term complications. Reliable data to support clinical decisions about PDA treatment are needed to prevent serious complications in high risk babies, while minimising undue exposure of infants. With the availability of routine bedside echocardiography, babies with a large PDA can be diagnosed before they become symptomatic. METHODS: This is a multicentre, masked, randomised, placebo-controlled parallel group trial to determine if early-targeted treatment of a large PDA with parenteral ibuprofen in extremely preterm babies (23+ 0-28+ 6 weeks' gestation) improves short and long-term health and economic outcomes. With parental informed consent, extremely preterm babies (born between 23+ 0-28+ 6 weeks' gestation) admitted to tertiary neonatal units are screened using echocardiography. Babies with a large PDA on echocardiography, defined by diameter of at least 1.5 mm and unrestricted pulsatile PDA flow pattern, are randomly allocated to either ibuprofen or placebo within 72 h of birth. The primary endpoint is the composite outcome of death by 36 weeks' postmenstrual age or moderate or severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) at 36 weeks postmenstrual age. DISCUSSION: Prophylactic pharmacological treatment of all preterm babies unnecessarily exposes them to potentially serious side effects of drug treatment, when their PDA may have closed spontaneously. However, delaying treatment until babies become symptomatic could result in loss of treatment benefit as irreversible damage may have already been done. Targeted, early pharmacological treatment of PDA in asymptomatic babies has the potential to overcome the disadvantages of both prophylactic (overtreatment) and symptomatic approaches (potentially too late). This could result in improvements in the clinically important short-term clinical (mortality and moderate or severe BPD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age) and long-term health outcomes (moderate or severe neurodevelopment disability and respiratory morbidity) measured at 2 years corrected age. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN84264977 . Date assigned: 15/09/2010.

A randomised controlled trial of extended anticoagulation treatment versus standard treatment for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) and post-thrombotic syndrome in patients being treated for a first episode of unprovoked VTE (the ExACT study).

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is prevalent and impactful, with a risk of death, morbidity and recurrence. Post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a common consequence and associated with impaired quality of life (QoL). The ExACT study was a non-blinded, prospective, multicentred randomised controlled trial comparing extended versus limited duration anticoagulation following a first unprovoked VTE (proximal deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism). Adults were eligible if they had completed ≥3 months anticoagulation (remaining anticoagulated). The primary outcome was time to first recurrent VTE from randomisation. The secondary outcomes included PTS severity, bleeding, QoL and D-dimers. Two-hundred and eighty-one patients were recruited, randomised and followed up for 24 months (mean age 63, male:female 2:1). There was a significant reduction in recurrent VTE for patients receiving extended anticoagulation [2·75 vs. 13·54 events/100 patient years, adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0·20 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0·09 to 0·46, P < 0·001)] with a non-significant increase in major bleeding [3·54 vs. 1·18 events/100 patient years, aHR 2·99 (95% CI: 0·81-11·05, P = 0·10)]. Outcomes of PTS and QoL were no different between groups. D-dimer results (on anticoagulation) did not predict VTE recurrence. In conclusion, extended anticoagulation reduced VTE recurrence but did not reduce PTS or improve QoL and was associated with a non-significant increase in bleeding. Results also suggest very limited clinical utility of D-dimer testing on anticoagulated patients.

Planned early delivery or expectant management for late preterm pre-eclampsia (PHOENIX): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In women with late preterm pre-eclampsia, the optimal time to initiate delivery is unclear because limitation of maternal disease progression needs to be balanced against infant complications. The aim of this trial was to determine whether planned earlier initiation of delivery reduces maternal adverse outcomes without substantial worsening of neonatal or infant outcomes, compared with expectant management (usual care) in women with late preterm pre-eclampsia. METHODS: In this parallel-group, non-masked, multicentre, randomised controlled trial done in 46 maternity units across England and Wales, we compared planned delivery versus expectant management (usual care) with individual randomisation in women with late preterm pre-eclampsia from 34 to less than 37 weeks' gestation and a singleton or dichorionic diamniotic twin pregnancy. The co-primary maternal outcome was a composite of maternal morbidity or recorded systolic blood pressure of at least 160 mm Hg with a superiority hypothesis. The co-primary perinatal outcome was a composite of perinatal deaths or neonatal unit admission up to infant hospital discharge with a non-inferiority hypothesis (non-inferiority margin of 10% difference in incidence). Analyses were by intention to treat, together with a per-protocol analysis for the perinatal outcome. The trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN01879376. The trial is closed to recruitment but follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Sept 29, 2014, and Dec 10, 2018, 901 women were recruited. 450 women (448 women and 471 infants analysed) were allocated to planned delivery and 451 women (451 women and 475 infants analysed) to expectant management. The incidence of the co-primary maternal outcome was significantly lower in the planned delivery group (289 [65%] women) compared with the expectant management group (338 [75%] women; adjusted relative risk 0·86, 95% CI 0·79-0·94; p=0·0005). The incidence of the co-primary perinatal outcome by intention to treat was significantly higher in the planned delivery group (196 [42%] infants) compared with the expectant management group (159 [34%] infants; 1·26, 1·08-1·47; p=0·0034). The results from the per-protocol analysis were similar. There were nine serious adverse events in the planned delivery group and 12 in the expectant management group. INTERPRETATION: There is strong evidence to suggest that planned delivery reduces maternal morbidity and severe hypertension compared with expectant management, with more neonatal unit admissions related to prematurity but no indicators of greater neonatal morbidity. This trade-off should be discussed with women with late preterm pre-eclampsia to allow shared decision making on timing of delivery. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Neurodevelopmental outcome at 5 years of age after general anaesthesia or awake-regional anaesthesia in infancy (GAS): an international, multicentre, randomised, controlled equivalence trial.

BACKGROUND: In laboratory animals, exposure to most general anaesthetics leads to neurotoxicity manifested by neuronal cell death and abnormal behaviour and cognition. Some large human cohort studies have shown an association between general anaesthesia at a young age and subsequent neurodevelopmental deficits, but these studies are prone to bias. Others have found no evidence for an association. We aimed to establish whether general anaesthesia in early infancy affects neurodevelopmental outcomes. METHODS: In this international, assessor-masked, equivalence, randomised, controlled trial conducted at 28 hospitals in Australia, Italy, the USA, the UK, Canada, the Netherlands, and New Zealand, we recruited infants of less than 60 weeks' postmenstrual age who were born at more than 26 weeks' gestation and were undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy, without previous exposure to general anaesthesia or risk factors for neurological injury. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by use of a web-based randomisation service to receive either awake-regional anaesthetic or sevoflurane-based general anaesthetic. Anaesthetists were aware of group allocation, but individuals administering the neurodevelopmental assessments were not. Parents were informed of their infants group allocation upon request, but were told to mask this information from assessors. The primary outcome measure was full-scale intelligence quotient (FSIQ) on the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, third edition (WPPSI-III), at 5 years of age. The primary analysis was done on a per-protocol basis, adjusted for gestational age at birth and country, with multiple imputation used to account for missing data. An intention-to-treat analysis was also done. A difference in means of 5 points was predefined as the clinical equivalence margin. This completed trial is registered with ANZCTR, number ACTRN12606000441516, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00756600. FINDINGS: Between Feb 9, 2007, and Jan 31, 2013, 4023 infants were screened and 722 were randomly allocated: 363 (50%) to the awake-regional anaesthesia group and 359 (50%) to the general anaesthesia group. There were 74 protocol violations in the awake-regional anaesthesia group and two in the general anaesthesia group. Primary outcome data for the per-protocol analysis were obtained from 205 children in the awake-regional anaesthesia group and 242 in the general anaesthesia group. The median duration of general anaesthesia was 54 min (IQR 41-70). The mean FSIQ score was 99·08 (SD 18·35) in the awake-regional anaesthesia group and 98·97 (19·66) in the general anaesthesia group, with a difference in means (awake-regional anaesthesia minus general anaesthesia) of 0·23 (95% CI -2·59 to 3·06), providing strong evidence of equivalence. The results of the intention-to-treat analysis were similar to those of the per-protocol analysis. INTERPRETATION: Slightly less than 1 h of general anaesthesia in early infancy does not alter neurodevelopmental outcome at age 5 years compared with awake-regional anaesthesia in a predominantly male study population. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health, US Food and Drug Administration, Thrasher Research Fund, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Health Technologies Assessment-National Institute for Health Research (UK), Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canadian Anesthesiologists Society, Pfizer Canada, Italian Ministry of Health, Fonds NutsOhra, UK Clinical Research Network, Perth Children's Hospital Foundation, the Stan Perron Charitable Trust, and the Callahan Estate.

Vaginal preparation with chlorhexidine at cesarean section to reduce endometritis and prevent sepsis: A randomized pilot trial (PREPS).

INTRODUCTION: Cesarean sections are the most common major operation worldwide. One in 10 women develops a surgical-site infection after cesarean section. The PREPS pilot trial was developed to assess the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial of vaginal cleansing with chlorhexidine before cesarean section, to reduce infectious morbidity. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multi-center, open-label, parallel-group pilot randomized controlled trial across 4 UK maternity units. Women aged ≥16 years, undergoing elective or emergency cesarean section, ≥34 weeks of gestation, and able to give informed consent were eligible. Women were randomized 1:1 to chlorhexidine 0.05% or no cleansing and were followed up until 6 weeks after cesarean section. The feasibility of a larger randomized controlled trial was assessed by the pilot trial's recruitment, ability to use verbal consent in an emergency, adherence, follow-up and withdrawal rates. The main clinical outcome collected was Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) classification of endometritis at 30 days. Trial registration number is ISRCTN33435996. RESULTS: A total of 320 women (128% of target) were randomized. Of these, 93% (95% CI 89%-95%) received their allocated intervention. Of the 88 women who had an emergency cesarean section, verbal consent was initially given by 32 (36%) women, with the remainder having sufficient time to give written consent. Endometritis (CDC definition) was collected from medical notes of 96% of women, 68% (95% CI 63%-73%) were followed up at both 14 and 30 days by telephone, and we were able to collect patient-reported outcomes. In the vaginal cleansing arm 2/152 (1.3%) women had endometritis compared with 1/155 (0.7%) in the no cleansing arm (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.19-22.31). CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to perform a randomized controlled trial in women undergoing an elective or emergency cesarean section, using a verbal-followed-by-written consent process, while maintaining high adherence and retaining women in the trial.

Effects of repeat prenatal corticosteroids given to women at risk of preterm birth: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Infants born preterm compared with infants born at term are at an increased risk of dying and of serious morbidities in early life, and those who survive have higher rates of neurological impairments. It remains unclear whether exposure to repeat courses of prenatal corticosteroids can reduce these risks. This individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis (MA) assessed whether repeat prenatal corticosteroid treatment given to women at ongoing risk of preterm birth in order to benefit their infants is modified by participant or treatment factors. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Trials were eligible for inclusion if they randomised women considered at risk of preterm birth who had already received an initial, single course of prenatal corticosteroid seven or more days previously and in which corticosteroids were compared with either placebo or no placebo. The primary outcomes for the infants were serious outcome, use of respiratory support, and birth weight z-scores; for the children, they were death or any neurosensory disability; and for the women, maternal sepsis. Studies were identified using the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth search strategy. Date of last search was 20 January 2015. IPD were sought from investigators with eligible trials. Risk of bias was assessed using criteria from the Cochrane Collaboration. IPD were analysed using a one-stage approach. Eleven trials, conducted between 2002 and 2010, were identified as eligible, with five trials being from the United States, two from Canada, and one each from Australia and New Zealand, Finland, India, and the United Kingdom. All 11 trials were included, with 4,857 women and 5,915 infants contributing data. The mean gestational age at trial entry for the trials was between 27.4 weeks and 30.2 weeks. There was no significant difference in the proportion of infants with a serious outcome (relative risk [RR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82 to 1.04, 5,893 infants, 11 trials, p = 0.33 for heterogeneity). There was a reduction in the use of respiratory support in infants exposed to repeat prenatal corticosteroids compared with infants not exposed (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.97, 5,791 infants, 10 trials, p = 0.64 for heterogeneity). The number needed to treat (NNT) to benefit was 21 (95% CI 14 to 41) women/fetus to prevent one infant from needing respiratory support. Birth weight z-scores were lower in the repeat corticosteroid group (mean difference -0.12, 95%CI -0.18 to -0.06, 5,902 infants, 11 trials, p = 0.80 for heterogeneity). No statistically significant differences were seen for any of the primary outcomes for the child (death or any neurosensory disability) or for the woman (maternal sepsis). The treatment effect varied little by reason the woman was considered to be at risk of preterm birth, the number of fetuses in utero, the gestational age when first trial treatment course was given, or the time prior to birth that the last dose was given. Infants exposed to between 2-5 courses of repeat corticosteroids showed a reduction in both serious outcome and the use of respiratory support compared with infants exposed to only a single repeat course. However, increasing numbers of repeat courses of corticosteroids were associated with larger reductions in birth z-scores for weight, length, and head circumference. Not all trials could provide data for all of the prespecified subgroups, so this limited the power to detect differences because event rates are low for some important maternal, infant, and childhood outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that repeat prenatal corticosteroids given to women at ongoing risk of preterm birth after an initial course reduced the likelihood of their infant needing respiratory support after birth and led to neonatal benefits. Body size measures at birth were lower in infants exposed to repeat prenatal corticosteroids. Our findings suggest that to provide clinical benefit with the least effect on growth, the number of repeat treatment courses should be limited to a maximum of three and the total dose to between 24 mg and 48 mg.

Recommendations for the design of therapeutic trials for neonatal seizures.

Although seizures have a higher incidence in neonates than any other age group and are associated with significant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability, treatment is largely guided by physician preference and tradition, due to a lack of data from well-designed clinical trials. There is increasing interest in conducting trials of novel drugs to treat neonatal seizures, but the unique characteristics of this disorder and patient population require special consideration with regard to trial design. The Critical Path Institute formed a global working group of experts and key stakeholders from academia, the pharmaceutical industry, regulatory agencies, neonatal nurse associations, and patient advocacy groups to develop consensus recommendations for design of clinical trials to treat neonatal seizures. The broad expertise and perspectives of this group were invaluable in developing recommendations addressing: (1) use of neonate-specific adaptive trial designs, (2) inclusion/exclusion criteria, (3) stratification and randomization, (4) statistical analysis, (5) safety monitoring, and (6) definitions of important outcomes. The guidelines are based on available literature and expert consensus, pharmacokinetic analyses, ethical considerations, and parental concerns. These recommendations will ultimately facilitate development of a Master Protocol and design of efficient and successful drug trials to improve the treatment and outcome for this highly vulnerable population.

Study protocol: E-freeze - freezing of embryos in assisted conception: a randomised controlled trial evaluating the clinical and cost effectiveness of a policy of freezing embryos followed by thawed frozen embryo transfer compared with a policy of fresh embryo transfer, in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation.

BACKGROUND: Infertility affects one in seven couples; many of these need in vitro fertilisation (IVF). IVF involves external hormones to stimulate a woman's ovaries to produce eggs which are harvested surgically. Embryos, created in the laboratory by mixing eggs with sperm, are grown in culture for a few days before being replaced within the uterus (fresh embryo transfer). Spare embryos are usually frozen with a view to transfer at a later point in time - especially if the initial fresh transfer does not result in a pregnancy. Despite improvements in technology, IVF success rates remain low with an overall live birth rate of 25-30% per treatment. Additionally, there are concerns about health outcomes for mothers and babies conceived through IVF, particularly after fresh embryo transfer, including maternal ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and preterm delivery. It is believed that high levels of hormones during ovarian stimulation could create a relatively hostile environment for embryo implantation whilst increasing the risk of OHSS. It has been suggested that freezing all embryos with the intention of thawing and replacing them within the uterus at a later stage (thawed frozen embryo transfer) instead of fresh embryo transfer, may lead to improved pregnancy rates and fewer complications. We aim to compare the clinical and cost effectiveness of fresh and thawed frozen embryo transfer, with the primary aim of identifying any difference in the chance of having a healthy baby. METHODS: E-Freeze is a pragmatic, multicentre two-arm parallel group randomised controlled trial where women aged ≥18 and < 42 years, with at least three good quality embryos are randomly allocated to receive either a fresh or thawed frozen embryo transfer. The primary outcome is a healthy baby, defined as a term, singleton, live birth with appropriate weight for gestation. Cost effectiveness will be calculated from a healthcare and societal perspective. DISCUSSION: E-Freeze will determine the relative benefits of fresh and thawed frozen embryo transfer in terms of improving the chance of having a healthy baby. The results of this pragmatic study have the potential to be directly transferred to clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN61225414 . Date assigned 29/12/2015.

Bifidobacterium breve BBG-001 in very preterm infants: a randomised controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Probiotics may reduce necrotising enterocolitis and late-onset sepsis after preterm birth. However, there has been concern about the rigour and generalisability of some trials and there is no agreement about whether or not they should be used routinely. We aimed to test the effectiveness of the probiotic Bifidobacterium breve BBG-001 to reduce necrotising enterocolitis, late-onset sepsis, and death in preterm infants. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised controlled phase 3 study (the PiPS trial), we recruited infants born between 23 and 30 weeks' gestational age within 48 h of birth from 24 hospitals in southeast England. Infants were randomly assigned (1:1) to probiotic or placebo via a minimisation algorithm randomisation programme. The probiotic intervention was B breve BBG-001 suspended in dilute elemental infant formula given enterally in a daily dose of 8·2 to 9·2 log10 CFU; the placebo was dilute infant formula alone. Clinicians and families were masked to allocation. The primary outcomes were necrotising enterocolitis (Bell stage 2 or 3), blood culture positive sepsis more than 72 h after birth; and death before discharge from hospital. All primary analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 05511098 and EudraCT, number 2006-003445-17. FINDINGS: Between July 1, 2010, and July 31, 2013, 1315 infants were recruited; of whom 654 were allocated to probiotic and 661 to placebo. Five infants had consent withdrawn after randomisation, thus 650 were analysed in the probiotic group and 660 in the placebo group. Rates of the primary outcomes did not differ significantly between the probiotic and placebo groups. 61 infants (9%) in the probiotic group had necrotising enterocolitis compared with 66 (10%) in the placebo group (adjusted risk ratio 0·93 (95% CI 0·68-1·27); 73 (11%) infants in the probiotics group had sepsis compared with 77 (12%) in the placebo group (0·97 (0·73-1·29); and 54 (8%) deaths occurred before discharge home in the probiotic group compared with 56 (9%) in the placebo group (0·93 [0·67-1·30]). No probiotic-associated adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: There is no evidence of benefit for this intervention in this population; this result does not support the routine use of B breve BBG-001 for prevention of necrotising enterocolitis and late-onset sepis in very preterm infants. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years of age after general anaesthesia and awake-regional anaesthesia in infancy (GAS): an international multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical data suggest that general anaesthetics affect brain development. There is mixed evidence from cohort studies that young children exposed to anaesthesia can have an increased risk of poor neurodevelopmental outcome. We aimed to establish whether general anaesthesia in infancy has any effect on neurodevelopmental outcome. Here we report the secondary outcome of neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years of age in the General Anaesthesia compared to Spinal anaesthesia (GAS) trial. METHODS: In this international assessor-masked randomised controlled equivalence trial, we recruited infants younger than 60 weeks postmenstrual age, born at greater than 26 weeks' gestation, and who had inguinal herniorrhaphy, from 28 hospitals in Australia, Italy, the USA, the UK, Canada, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. Infants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either awake-regional anaesthesia or sevoflurane-based general anaesthesia. Web-based randomisation was done in blocks of two or four and stratified by site and gestational age at birth. Infants were excluded if they had existing risk factors for neurological injury. The primary outcome of the trial will be the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence Third Edition (WPPSI-III) Full Scale Intelligence Quotient score at age 5 years. The secondary outcome, reported here, is the composite cognitive score of the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development III, assessed at 2 years. The analysis was as per protocol adjusted for gestational age at birth. A difference in means of five points (1/3 SD) was predefined as the clinical equivalence margin. This trial is registered with ANZCTR, number ACTRN12606000441516 and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00756600. FINDINGS: Between Feb 9, 2007, and Jan 31, 2013, 363 infants were randomly assigned to receive awake-regional anaesthesia and 359 to general anaesthesia. Outcome data were available for 238 children in the awake-regional group and 294 in the general anaesthesia group. In the as-per-protocol analysis, the cognitive composite score (mean [SD]) was 98.6 (14.2) in the awake-regional group and 98.2 (14.7) in the general anaesthesia group. There was equivalence in mean between groups (awake-regional minus general anaesthesia 0.169, 95% CI -2.30 to 2.64). The median duration of anaesthesia in the general anaesthesia group was 54 min. INTERPRETATION: For this secondary outcome, we found no evidence that just less than 1 h of sevoflurane anaesthesia in infancy increases the risk of adverse neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years of age compared with awake-regional anaesthesia. FUNDING: Australia National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Health Technologies Assessment-National Institute for Health Research UK, National Institutes of Health, Food and Drug Administration, Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Canadian Institute of Health Research, Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society, Pfizer Canada, Italian Ministry of Heath, Fonds NutsOhra, and UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN).

Evaluation of the effects of an offer of a monetary incentive on the rate of questionnaire return during follow-up of a clinical trial: a randomised study within a trial.

BACKGROUND: A systematic review on the use of incentives to promote questionnaire return in clinical trials suggest they are effective, but not all studies have sufficient funds to use them. Promising an incentive once data are returned can reduce the cost-burden of this approach, with possible further cost-savings if the offer were restricted to reminder letters only. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of promising a monetary incentive at first mailout versus a promise on reminder letters only. METHODS: This was a randomised Study Within A Trial (SWAT) nested within BUMPES, a multicentre randomised controlled trial of maternal position in the late stage of labour in women with an epidural. The follow-up questionnaire asked for information on the women's health, wellbeing and health service use one year following the birth of their baby. Women who consented to be contacted were randomised to a promise of a monetary incentive at first mailout or a promise on reminder letters only. Women were given an option of completing the questionnaire on paper or on online. The incentive was posted out on receipt of a completed questionnaire. The primary outcome was the overall return rate, and secondary outcomes were the return rate without any chasing from the study office, and the total cost of the vouchers. RESULTS: A total of 1,029 women were randomised, 508 to the first mailout group and 518 to the reminder group. There was no evidence to suggest a difference between groups in the overall return rate (adjusted RR 1.03 (95 % CI 0.96 to 1.11), however the proportion returned without chasing was higher in the first mailout group (adjusted RR 1.22, 95 % CI 1.07 to 1.39). The total cost of the vouchers per participant was higher in the first mailout group (mean difference £4.56, 95 % CI £4.02 to £5.11). CONCLUSIONS: Offering a monetary incentive when a reminder is required could be cost-effective depending on the sample size of the study and the resources available to administer the reminder letters. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The BUMPES Trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN35706297 , 26(th) August 2009.