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.

Women's perspectives on caesarean section recovery, infection and the PREPS trial: a qualitative pilot study.

BACKGROUND: In England, 27.8% of all pregnant women undergo caesarean sections (CS) to deliver their babies. Women undergoing CS are at risk of developing sepsis and post-natal infections, which not only contribute significantly to maternal mortality and morbidity, but also negatively impact upon post-natal recovery and wellbeing. This study explores patients' priorities in relation to CS recovery, focusing on their knowledge and experiences of infection prevention. The study formed part of the PREPS (Vaginal Preparation at caesarean section to Reduce Endometritis and Prevent Sepsis - a feasibility study of chlorhexidine) Trial; patients' views on the PREPS Trial were also sought. METHODS: Using qualitative methodology, two focus groups and six telephone interviews were carried out between September and October 2017 with a total of 21 women who had undergone a CS within the preceding six months. Focus groups and individual telephone interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim; a thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo 11. RESULTS: Women's priorities around CS recovery centred on pain (or the lack thereof), mobility and the ability to resume everyday activities, including caregiving. Those undergoing a CS for the first time reported not feeling confident in their ability to identify signs of infection and sought visiting health professionals' expertise and reassurance. Women were unable to recall whether they had received information regarding infection prevention and felt that they had not received sufficient advice. Some reported receiving general information regarding CS recovery, which ranged in quality. Prevention of womb infection is a major goal of the PREPS trial, however, the majority of women were not aware that womb (as opposed to wound) infection was a post CS risk. CONCLUSIONS: Women undergoing a CS want more information on what constitutes a 'normal' post-operative recovery and specifically would welcome written information and infection prevention advice. This should be a key element of improving post-CS maternal experiences and potentially reducing sepsis and infection rates. CS stigma negatively impacts women's recovery experiences and possibly information provision. The PREPS team incorporated findings regarding consent pathways for recruiting women into intrapartum research and developed two patient reported outcomes to collect in the main trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PREPS trial has been registered with ISRCTN on the 10th July 2017 ( ISRCTN33435996 ).

Preventing recurrence of endometriosis-related pain by means of long-acting progestogen therapy: the PRE-EMPT RCT.

Background: Endometriosis affects 1 in 10 women, many of whom have surgery for persistent pain. Recurrence of symptoms following an operation is common. Although hormonal treatment can reduce this risk, there is uncertainty about the best option. Objectives: To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of long-acting progestogen therapy compared with the combined oral contraceptive pill in preventing recurrence of endometriosis-related pain and quality of life. Design: A multicentre, open, randomised trial with parallel economic evaluation. The final design was informed by a pilot study, qualitative exploration of women's lived experience of endometriosis and a pretrial economic model. Setting: Thirty-four United Kingdom hospitals. Participants: Women of reproductive age undergoing conservative surgery for endometriosis. Interventions: Long-acting progestogen reversible contraceptive (either 150 mg depot medroxyprogesterone acetate or 52 mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system) or combined oral contraceptive pill (30 µg ethinylestradiol, 150 µg levonorgestrel). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the pain domain of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 questionnaire at 36 months post randomisation. The economic evaluation estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Results: Four hundred and five women were randomised to receive either long-acting reversible contraceptive (N = 205) or combined oral contraceptive pill (N = 200). Pain scores improved in both groups (24 and 23 points on average) compared with preoperative values but there was no difference between the two (adjusted mean difference: -0.8, 95% confidence interval -5.7 to 4.2; p = 0.76). The long-acting reversible contraceptive group underwent fewer surgical procedures or second-line treatments compared with the combined oral contraceptive group (73 vs. 97; hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.00). The mean adjusted quality-adjusted life-year difference between two arms was 0.043 (95% confidence interval -0.069 to 0.152) in favour of the combined oral contraceptive pill, although this cost an additional £533 (95% confidence interval 52 to 983) per woman. Limitations: Limitations include the absence of a no-treatment group and the fact that many women changed treatments over the 3 years of follow-up. Use of telephone follow-up to collect primary outcome data in those who failed to return questionnaires resulted in missing data for secondary outcomes. The COVID pandemic may have affected rates of further surgical treatment. Conclusions: At 36 months, women allocated to either intervention had comparable levels of pain, with both groups showing around a 40% improvement from presurgical levels. Although the combined oral contraceptive was cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the difference between the two was marginal and lower rates of repeat surgery might make long-acting reversible contraceptives preferable to some women. Future work: Future research needs to focus on evaluating newer hormonal preparations, a more holistic approach to symptom suppression and identification of biomarkers to diagnose endometriosis and its recurrence. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN97865475. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN97865475. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 11/114/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 55. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. The NIHR recognises that people have diverse gender identities, and in this report, the word 'woman' is used to describe patients or individuals whose sex assigned at birth was female, whether they identify as female, male or non-binary.

Endometriosis is a condition where cells similar to ones that line the womb are found elsewhere in the body. Endometriosis affects 1 in 10 women, many of whom have surgery for persistent pain. Unfortunately, symptoms often return and some women will need repeat operations. Hormonal contraceptives can prevent the return of endometriosis-related pain: either long-acting reversible contraceptives (injections or a coil, fitted inside the womb) or the combined oral contraceptive pill (often called 'the pill'). We do not know which is the best option. The aim of this trial was to find out which of these two hormone treatments was more effective in terms of symptom relief, avoidance of further surgery and costs. Four hundred and five women with endometriosis, who were not intending to get pregnant, participated in a clinical trial. Half of the participants took long-acting reversible contraceptives, and the other half took the pill for 3 years following endometriosis surgery. The choice of treatment was made at random by a computer to ensure a fair comparison, although those allocated to the long-acting contraceptive could choose between injections or the coil. Participants completed questionnaires about their symptoms and life quality at intervals up to 3 years. Both treatments were equally good at reducing pain but more women using the pill had repeat operations. The pill was a little more costly overall but associated with a slightly higher quality of life. Both treatments are equally effective in reducing pain up to 3 years after surgery for endometriosis. The differences in costs are small and the choice of treatment should be based on personal preference.

Addressing Challenges in Endometriosis Pain Communication Between Patients and Doctors: The Role of Language.

Introduction: In the context of the complex medical, social, and economic factors that contribute to endometriosis diagnosis delay and its consequent impact on quality of life, this report focuses on patient-practitioner pain communication and examines the role of language in doctor-patient communication. Our study explored what patients and doctors consider challenging and effective in endometriosis pain communication. It further examined what commonly used metaphors by patients could be suggestive, or not, of endometriosis to doctors. Method: A United Kingdom-based qualitative (open-ended question) survey with women with endometriosis (n131) and semi-structured telephone interviews with general practitioners (GPs) (n11). Survey and interview data were analyzed thematically. Results: Both women and GPs reported the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) to be insufficient as a standalone tool for communicating endometriosis related pain. Both also found descriptions of the quality, location, and impact on daily life of pain to more effective means of communicating pain symptoms. When presented with common metaphorical expressions surveyed women used to describe their pain, not all GPs recognized such metaphors as indicative of possible endometriosis. Further, some GPs reported some of the expressions to be indicative of other pathologies. Conclusion: Findings reveal the importance of language in pain communication and the need for additional tools to help women and doctors find the most effective way to communicate the experience and elicit appropriate investigative care. They also show the need for further investigation into how metaphor can be effectively used to improve patient-practitioner communication of endometriosis related pain.

Women's experiences of medical treatment for endometriosis and its impact on PRE-EMPT trial participation: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis is a common cause of chronic pelvic pain which can relapse after surgery, yet little research has been conducted on women's experience of medical treatments for prevention of recurrence and the influence of this on participation in clinical trials. METHODS: This study explored women's past experiences with medical treatments for endometriosis symptoms and the impact this has on their motivation to enter the pilot phase of a post-conservative surgery clinical trial, PRE-EMPT: Preventing Recurrence of Endometriosis by Means of long acting Progestogen Therapy. Qualitative methodology was adopted, involving semi-structured interviews in three UK cities, and one focus group was used to collect data from women with a diagnosis of endometriosis participating in the PRE-EMPT trial. RESULTS: Ten women were interviewed individually and four took part in the focus group discussion. Women's willingness to enter the PRE-EMPT trial was bound up with their previous experiences, present situation and future expectations of medication, as well as the control offered by flexible randomisation which allows the option to reject a particular treatment post-surgery. CONCLUSION: Women were strongly influenced by previous experience and personal circumstances in their decision to enter the PRE-EMPT trial. This decision was facilitated by the ability to 'opt out' of the treatment arm(s) they found unacceptable. This element of choice offered patients a sense of control in the randomisation process and has important implications for clinical trial design and recruitment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN97865475. EUDRACT number 2013-001984-21.

AntiEpileptic drug Monitoring in PREgnancy (EMPiRE): a double-blind randomised trial on effectiveness and acceptability of monitoring strategies.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant women with epilepsy on antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) may experience a reduction in serum AED levels. This has the potential to worsen seizure control. OBJECTIVE: To determine if, in pregnant women with epilepsy on AEDs, additional therapeutic drug monitoring reduces seizure deterioration compared with clinical features monitoring after a reduction in serum AED levels. DESIGN: A double-blind, randomised trial nested within a cohort study was conducted and a qualitative study of acceptability of the two strategies was undertaken. Stratified block randomisation with a 1 : 1 allocation method was carried out. SETTING: Fifty obstetric and epilepsy clinics in secondary and tertiary care units in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Pregnant women with epilepsy on one or more of the following AEDs: lamotrigine, carbamazepine, phenytoin or levetiracetam. Women with a ≥ 25% decrease in serum AED level from baseline were randomised to therapeutic drug monitoring or clinical features monitoring strategies. INTERVENTIONS: In the therapeutic drug monitoring group, clinicians had access to clinical findings and monthly serum AED levels to guide AED dosage adjustment for seizure control. In the clinical features monitoring group, AED dosage adjustment was based only on clinical features. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome - seizure deterioration, defined as time to first seizure and to all seizures after randomisation per woman until 6 weeks post partum. Secondary outcomes - pregnancy complications in mother and offspring, maternal quality of life, seizure rates in cohorts with stable serum AED level, AED dose exposure and adverse events related to AEDs. ANALYSIS: Analysis of time to first and to all seizures after randomisation was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model, and multivariate failure time analysis by the Andersen-Gill model. The effects were reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Secondary outcomes were reported as mean differences (MDs) or odds ratios. RESULTS: A total of 130 women were randomised to the therapeutic drug monitoring group and 133 to the clinical features monitoring group; 294 women did not have a reduction in serum AED level. A total of 127 women in the therapeutic drug monitoring group and 130 women in the clinical features monitoring group (98% of complete data) were included in the primary analysis. There were no significant differences in the time to first seizure (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.2) or timing of all seizures after randomisation (HR 1.3, 95% CI 0.7 to 2.5) between both trial groups. In comparison with the group with stable serum AED levels, there were no significant increases in seizures in the clinical features monitoring (odds ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.5) or therapeutic drug monitoring group (odds ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.5) associated with a reduction in serum AED levels. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar in both groups, except for higher cord blood levels of lamotrigine (MD 0.55 mg/l, 95% CI 0.11 to 1 mg/l) or levetiracetam (MD 7.8 mg/l, 95% CI 0.86 to 14.8 mg/l) in the therapeutic drug monitoring group than in the clinical features monitoring group. There were no differences between the groups on daily AED exposure or quality of life. An increase in exposure to lamotrigine, levetiracetam and carbamazepine significantly increased the cord blood levels of the AEDs, but not maternal or fetal complications. Women with epilepsy perceived the need for weighing up their increased vulnerability to seizures during pregnancy against the side effects of AEDs. LIMITATIONS: Fewer women than the original target were recruited. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence to suggest that regular monitoring of serum AED levels in pregnancy improves seizure control or affects maternal or fetal outcomes. FUTURE WORK RECOMMENDATIONS: Further evaluation of the risks of seizure deterioration for various threshold levels of reduction in AEDs and the long-term neurodevelopment of infants born to mothers in both randomised groups is needed. An individualised prediction model will help to identify those women who need close monitoring in pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN01253916. 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. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Re-working biographies: Women's narratives of pregnancy whilst living with epilepsy.

This paper explores the multiple ways experiences of pregnancy and early motherhood come to 'rework' the biographies of women living with epilepsy. Pregnancy is explored as a temporarily concurrent status alongside the long-term condition of epilepsy. Narrative interviews were conducted with 32 women from across the UK. Analysis of these narratives suggests that biographical disruption and continuity are both useful in the conceptualisation of women's diverse experiences of pregnancy and epilepsy. Such findings challenge the notion that the presence of a condition over a long period of time leads to the normalisation of illness. Participants' narratives demonstrate that, for some, pregnancy and early motherhood may be disruptive and can raise concerns regarding an ever present condition that may previously have been taken for granted. Findings also indicate the need for a greater consideration of gender and care responsibilities, as well explorations of concomitant conditions, in the theorising of biographies and chronic illness.

Preventing recurrence of endometriosis by means of long-acting progestogen therapy (PRE-EMPT): report of an internal pilot, multi-arm, randomised controlled trial incorporating flexible entry design and adaption of design based on feasibility of recruitment.

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis is associated with the growth of endometrium in ectopic sites mainly within the pelvis. This results in inflammation and scarring, causing pain and impaired quality of life. Endometriotic lesions can be excised or ablated surgically, but the risk of recurrence is high. A Heath Technology Assessment commissioning call in 2011 sought applications for trials aimed at evaluating long-term effectiveness of postoperative, long-acting, reversible contraceptives (LARCs) in preventing recurrence of endometriosis. A survey of gynaecologists indicated that there was no consensus about which LARC (Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System (LNG-IUS) or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate injection (DMPA)) or comparator (combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) or no treatment) should be evaluated. Hence, we designed a 'flexible-entry' internal pilot to assess whether a four-arm trial was feasible including a possible design adaption based on pilot findings. METHODS: In this pilot, women could be randomised to two, three or four treatment options provided that one was a LARC and one was a non-LARC. An assessment of feasibility based on recruitment to these options and a revised substantive trial design was considered by an independent oversight committee. RESULTS: The study ran for 1 year from April 2014 and 77 women were randomised. Only 5 (6%) women accepted randomisation to all groups, with 63 (82%) having a LARC preference and 55 (71%) a non-LARC preference. Four-way and three-way designs were ruled out with a two-way LARC versus COCP design, stratified by prerandomisation choice of LARC and optional subrandomisation to LNG-IUS versus DMPA considered a feasible substantive study. CONCLUSIONS: Multi-arm studies are potentially efficient as they can answer multiple questions simultaneously but are difficult to recruit to if there are strong patient or clinician preferences. A flexible approach to randomisation in a pilot phase can be used to assess feasibility of such studies and modify a trial design based on chosen recruitment options, but trialists should consider carefully any practical arrangements should groups need to be dropped during a study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number, ISRCTN97865475 . Registered on 20 March 2014.

Women living with epilepsy, experiences of pregnancy and reproductive health: a review of the literature.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the experiences of pregnancy in women living with epilepsy through a review and synthesis of existing literature. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the literature was conducted in medical and social science databases to identify qualitative research, and questionnaires that included open-ended questions, which reported on the impact of epilepsy on the lives of pregnant women from preconception to post-delivery. The search was widened to include qualitative studies on pregnancy and issues of reproduction with women living with chronic illness that had at least one woman with epilepsy in the sample. The systematic search, carried out from April to June 2012, identified 17 publications that met the inclusion criteria, and 24 publications that did not. Qualitative results from these studies were categorised into: stage of pregnancy (preconception, pregnancy, and postnatal); case studies of patients' experiences; and the reproductive health experiences of women living with chronic illness. RESULTS: One qualitative study was identified that directly investigated women's experiences of epilepsy during pregnancy. Many of the findings from the 16 remaining publications were found to be limited in generalisability due to small sample sizes and/or the poor quality of data. CONCLUSION: Qualitative research on women's experiences of pregnancy whilst living with epilepsy is needed to address this critical gap in knowledge. This paper calls for improved preconception, pregnancy and postnatal supports and information for women living with this condition.