A Randomized Trial of Prophylactic Antibiotics for Miscarriage Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Surgical intervention is needed in some cases of spontaneous abortion to remove retained products of conception. Antibiotic prophylaxis may reduce the risk of pelvic infection, which is an important complication of this surgery, particularly in low-resource countries. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial investigating whether antibiotic prophylaxis before surgery to complete a spontaneous abortion would reduce pelvic infection among women and adolescents in low-resource countries. We randomly assigned patients to a single preoperative dose of 400 mg of oral doxycycline and 400 mg of oral metronidazole or identical placebos. The primary outcome was pelvic infection within 14 days after surgery. Pelvic infection was defined by the presence of two or more of four clinical features (purulent vaginal discharge, pyrexia, uterine tenderness, and leukocytosis) or by the presence of one of these features and the clinically identified need to administer antibiotics. The definition of pelvic infection was changed before the unblinding of the data; the original strict definition was two or more of the clinical features, without reference to the administration of antibiotics. RESULTS: We enrolled 3412 patients in Malawi, Pakistan, Tanzania, and Uganda. A total of 1705 patients were assigned to receive antibiotics and 1707 to receive placebo. The risk of pelvic infection was 4.1% (68 of 1676 pregnancies) in the antibiotics group and 5.3% (90 of 1684 pregnancies) in the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 1.04; P = 0.09). Pelvic infection according to original strict criteria was diagnosed in 1.5% (26 of 1700 pregnancies) and 2.6% (44 of 1704 pregnancies), respectively (risk ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.96). There were no significant between-group differences in adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prophylaxis before miscarriage surgery did not result in a significantly lower risk of pelvic infection, as defined by pragmatic broad criteria, than placebo. (Funded by the Medical Research Council and others; AIMS Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN97143849.).

A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Safety, Efficacy, and Cost-effectiveness of the Surgisis Anal Fistula Plug Versus Surgeon's Preference for Transsphincteric Fistula-in-Ano: The FIAT Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To undertake a randomized comparison of the Biodesign Surgisis anal fistula plug against surgeon's preference in treating cryptoglandular transsphincteric fistula-in-ano. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The efficacy of the Biodesign Surgisis anal fistula plug in healing anal fistulae is uncertain. METHODS: Participants were randomized to the fistula plug with surgeon's preference (advancement flap, cutting seton, fistulotomy, Ligation of the Intersphincteric Fistula Tract procedure). The primary outcome was faecal incontinence quality of life (FIQoL) at 12-months. Secondary outcomes were fistula healing, incontinence rates, and complication and reintervention rates. RESULTS: Between May 2011 and March 2016, 304 participants were randomized to fistula plug or surgeon's preference. No differences were seen in FIQoL between the 2 groups at 12 months. Clinical fistula healing was reported in 66/122 (54%) of the fistula plug and 66/119 (55%) of the surgeon's preference groups at 12 months. Fecal incontinence rates improved marginally in both the groups. Complications and reinterventions were frequent, with significantly more complications in the fistula plug group at 6-weeks (49/142, 35% vs 25/137, 18%; P=0.002). The mean total costs were £2738 (s.d. £1151) for the fistula plug and £2308 (s.d. £1228) for the surgeon's preference group (mean difference +£430, P=0.0174). The average total quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained was marginally higher in the fistula plug group. The fistula plug was 35% to 45% likely to be cost-effective across a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 to £30,000 / QALY. CONCLUSIONS: The Biodesign Surgisis anal fistula plug is associated with similar FIQoL and healing rates to surgeon's preference at 12 months. Higher costs and highly uncertain gains in QALYs mean that the fistula plug may not be considered as a cost-effective treatment in the UK NHS.

Gabapentin for chronic pelvic pain in women (GaPP2): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pelvic pain affects 2-24% of women worldwide and evidence for medical treatments is scarce. Gabapentin is effective in treating some chronic pain conditions. We aimed to measure the efficacy and safety of gabapentin in women with chronic pelvic pain and no obvious pelvic pathology. METHODS: We performed a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in 39 UK hospital centres. Eligible participants were women with chronic pelvic pain (with or without dysmenorrhoea or dyspareunia) of at least 3 months duration. Inclusion criteria were 18-50 years of age, use or willingness to use contraception to avoid pregnancy, and no obvious pelvic pathology at laparoscopy, which must have taken place at least 2 weeks before consent but less than 36 months previously. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive gabapentin (titrated to a maximum dose of 2700 mg daily) or matching placebo for 16 weeks. The online randomisation system minimised allocations by presence or absence of dysmenorrhoea, psychological distress, current use of hormonal contraceptives, and hospital centre. The appearance, route, and administration of the assigned intervention were identical in both groups. Patients, clinicians, and research staff were unaware of the trial group assignments throughout the trial. Participants were unmasked once they had provided all outcome data at week 16-17, or sooner if a serious adverse event requiring knowledge of the study drug occurred. The dual primary outcome measures were worst and average pain scores assessed separately on a numerical rating scale in weeks 13-16 after randomisation, in the intention-to-treat population. Self-reported adverse events were assessed according to intention-to-treat principles. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISCRTN77451762. FINDINGS: Participants were screened between Nov 30, 2015, and March 6, 2019, and 306 were randomly assigned (153 to gabapentin and 153 to placebo). There were no significant between-group differences in both worst and average numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores at 13-16 weeks after randomisation. The mean worst NRS pain score was 7·1 (standard deviation [SD] 2·6) in the gabapentin group and 7·4 (SD 2·2) in the placebo group. Mean change from baseline was -1·4 (SD 2·3) in the gabapentin group and -1·2 (SD 2·1) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference -0·20 [97·5% CI -0·81 to 0·42]; p=0·47). The mean average NRS pain score was 4·3 (SD 2·3) in the gabapentin group and 4·5 (SD 2·2) in the placebo group. Mean change from baseline was -1·1 (SD 2·0) in the gabapentin group and -0·9 (SD 1·8) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference -0·18 [97·5% CI -0·71 to 0·35]; p=0·45). More women had a serious adverse event in the gabapentin group than in the placebo group (10 [7%] of 153 in the gabapentin group compared with 3 [2%] of 153 in the placebo group; p=0·04). Dizziness, drowsiness, and visual disturbances were more common in the gabapentin group. INTERPRETATION: This study was adequately powered, but treatment with gabapentin did not result in significantly lower pain scores in women with chronic pelvic pain, and was associated with higher rates of side-effects than placebo. Given the increasing reports of abuse and evidence of potential harms associated with gabapentin use, it is important that clinicians consider alternative treatment options to off-label gabapentin for the management of chronic pelvic pain and no obvious pelvic pathology. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Management of fatigue with physical activity and behavioural change support in vasculitis: a feasibility study.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) experience high levels of fatigue, despite disease remission. This study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of a definitive randomized controlled trial of a behavioural-based physical activity intervention to support fatigue self-management in AAV patients. METHODS: AAV patients in disease remission with fatigue (Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory-20 general fatigue domain ≥14) were randomly allocated to intervention or standard care in this single-centre open-label randomized controlled feasibility study. The intervention lasted 12 weeks and comprised eight face-to-face physical activity sessions with a facilitator and 12 weekly telephone calls. Participants were encouraged to monitor their physical activity using a tracker device (Fitbit). Standard care involved sign-posting to fatigue websites. The primary outcome was feasibility of a phase III trial assessed against three stop/go traffic light criteria, (recruitment, intervention adherence and study withdrawal). A qualitative study assessed participant views about the intervention. RESULTS: A total of 248 patients were screened and 134 were eligible to participate (54%). Stop/go criteria were amber for recruitment; 43/134 (32%, 95% CI: 24, 40) eligible participants randomized, amber for adherence; 73% of participants attended all eight physical activity sessions, but only 11/22 (50%, 95% CI: 29, 71%) completed the intervention as per the intended schedule, and green for study withdrawal; 2/43 participants withdrew before 24 weeks (5%, 95% CI: 0, 11). Qualitative results suggested the intervention was acceptable. CONCLUSION: This study suggests a behavioural-based physical activity intervention targeting fatigue self-management was acceptable to patients with AAV, although recruitment and protocol adherence will need modification prior to a definitive trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11929227.

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.

Intravenous remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia versus intramuscular pethidine for pain relief in labour (RESPITE): an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: About a third of women receiving pethidine for labour pain subsequently require an epidural, which provides effective pain relief but increases the risk of instrumental vaginal delivery. Remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) in labour is an alternative to pethidine, but is not widely used. We aimed to evaluate epidural analgesia progression among women using remifentanil PCA compared with pethidine. METHODS: We did an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial in 14 UK maternity units. We included women aged 16 years or older, beyond 37 weeks' gestation, in labour with a singleton cephalic presentation, and who requested opioid pain relief. We randomly assigned eligible participants (1:1) to either the intravenous remifentanil PCA group (40 µg bolus on demand with a 2 min lockout) or the intramuscular pethidine group (100 mg every 4 h, up to 400 mg in 24 h), using a web-based or telephone randomisation service with a minimisation algorithm for parity, maternal age, ethnicity, and mode of labour onset. Because of the differences in routes of drug administration, study participants and health-care providers were not masked to the group allocation. The primary outcome was the proportion of women who received epidural analgesia after enrolment for pain relief in labour. Primary analyses were unadjusted and analysed by the intention-to-treat principle. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN29654603. FINDINGS: Between May 13, 2014, and Sept 2, 2016, 201 women were randomly assigned to the remifentanil PCA group and 200 to the pethidine group. One participant in the pethidine group withdrew consent, leaving 199 for analyses. The proportions of epidural conversion were 19% (39 of 201) in the remifentanil PCA group and 41% (81 of 199) in the pethidine group (risk ratio 0·48, 95% CI 0·34-0·66; p<0·0001). There were no serious adverse events or drug reactions directly attributable to either analgesic during the study. INTERPRETATION: Intravenous remifentanil PCA halved the proportion of epidural conversions compared with intramuscular pethidine. This finding challenges routine pethidine use as standard of care in labour. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Clinician Scientist Award.

Comparison of Immediate and Long-term Outcomes in Men and Women Undergoing Revascularisation for Chronic Limb Threatening Ischaemia in the Bypass vs. Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL-1) Trial.

BACKGROUND: The reports from cohort studies comparing outcomes after revascularisation for chronic limb threatening ischaemia (CLTI) between men and women remain controversial. Anatomical and clinical disease severity is often heterogeneous, and treatment choice influenced by a variety of clinician and patient factors. The aim was to compare outcomes in men and women entered into the only randomised study comparing bypass and angioplasty for infra-inguinal disease causing severe limb ischaemia. METHODS: Data were obtained from BASIL-1 trial case record forms. Baseline demographics were compared, and Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the relationship between sex and amputation free survival (AFS), overall survival (OS), and freedom from major adverse limb events (FF-MALE) using a per-protocol analysis. Data were analysed using a per-protocol analysis. RESULTS: A total of 452 patients were randomised into the BASIL-1 trial from 1999 to 2004. At randomisation, women were older and less likely to be smokers, to have diabetes, or to be on recommended best medical therapy. Men were more likely to present with gangrene. Ankle brachial pressure index (ABPI), post-revascularisation length of hospital stay, and 30 day morbidity and mortality were similar for men and women. At three years, female sex was associated with significantly better AFS (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.47-0.89, p < .01), OS (HR 0.66 95% CI 0.46-0.95, p = .02) and FF-MALE (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.57-0.96, p = .02). CONCLUSION: In the BASIL-1 trial, women had similar short term but better long term outcomes after revascularisation. Sex is an important consideration when developing early, evidence based treatment pathway and revascularisation strategies for CLTI, and is an independent risk factor for outcomes following revascularisation as well as development of symptomatic PAD.

C-STICH: Cerclage Suture Type for an Insufficient Cervix and its effect on Health outcomes-a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is associated with significant mortality and morbidity for mothers and babies. Women are identified as high risk for preterm birth based on either previous medical/pregnancy history or on ultrasound assessment of the cervix. Women identified as high risk can be offered a cervical cerclage (a purse string stitch) around the cervix (neck of the womb) to reduce the risk of preterm birth. In women who have a cervical cerclage, the procedure can be performed using either a monofilament (single-stranded) or braided (woven) suture material. Both suture materials are routinely used for cervical cerclage and there is uncertainty as to which is superior. METHODS: A multicentre, open, randomised controlled superiority trial of 2050 women presenting at obstetric units, deemed to be at risk of preterm birth and already scheduled to have a cervical cerclage as part of their standard care. Inclusion criteria include singleton pregnancies and an indication for cervical cerclage for either a history of three or more previous mid-trimester losses or premature births (≤ 28 weeks), insertion of cervical sutures in previous pregnancies, a history of mid trimester loss or premature birth with a (current) shortened (≤ 25 mm) cervix, or women whom clinicians deem to be at risk of preterm birth either by history or the results of an ultrasound scan. Exclusion criteria include women who have taken part in C-STICH previously, are aged less than 18 years old at the time of presentation, require a rescue cerclage, and are unwilling or unable to give informed consent and in whom a cerclage will be placed by any route other than vaginally (e.g. via an abdominal route). Following informed consent, women are randomised on a 1:1 basis to either monofilament or braided suture, by minimisation. The primary outcome is pregnancy loss (miscarriage and perinatal mortality, including any stillbirth or neonatal death in the first week of life), and secondary outcomes include the core outcome set for preterm birth trials. DISCUSSION: Optimising established interventions to prevent preterm birth is important in reducing perinatal mortality rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 15373349 . Registered before recruitment on 03 December 2014 prior to first recruit.

C-STICH2: emergency cervical cerclage to prevent miscarriage and preterm birth-study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cerclage is a recognised treatment to prevent late miscarriage and pre-term birth (PTB). Emergency cervical cerclage (ECC) for cervical dilatation with exposed unruptured membranes is less common and the potential benefits of cerclage are less certain. A randomised control trial is needed to accurately assess the effectiveness of ECC in preventing pregnancy loss compared to an expectant approach. METHODS: C-STICH2 is a multicentre randomised controlled trial in which women presenting with cervical dilatation and unruptured exposed membranes at 16 + 0 to 27 + 6 weeks gestation are randomised to ECC or expectant management. Trial design includes 18 month internal pilot with embedded qualitative process evaluation, minimal data set and a within-trial health economic analysis. Inclusion criteria are ≥16 years, singleton pregnancy, exposed membranes at the external os, gestation 16 + 0-27 + 6 weeks, and informed consent. Exclusion criteria are contraindication to cerclage, cerclage in situ or previous cerclage in this pregnancy. Randomisation occurs via an online service in a 1:1 ratio, using a minimisation algorithm to reduce chance imbalances in key prognostic variables (site, gestation and dilatation). Primary outcome is pregnancy loss; a composite including miscarriage, termination of pregnancy and perinatal mortality defined as stillbirth and neonatal death in the first week of life. Secondary outcomes include all core outcomes for PTB. Two-year development outcomes will be assessed using general health and Parent Report of Children's Abilities-Revised (PARCA-R) questionnaires. Intended sample size is 260 participants (130 each arm) based on 60% rate of pregnancy loss in the expectant management arm and 40% in the ECC arm, with 90% power and alpha 0.05. Analysis will be by intention-to-treat. DISCUSSION: To date there has been one small trial of ECC in 23 participants which included twin and singleton pregnancies. This small trial along with the largest observational study (n = 161) found ECC to prolong pregnancy duration and reduce deliveries before 34 weeks gestation. It is important to generate high quality evidence on the effectiveness of ECC in preventing pregnancy loss, and improve understanding of the prevalence of the condition and frequency of complications associated with ECC. An adequately powered RCT will provide the highest quality evidence regarding optimum care for these women and their babies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN12981869 . Registered on 13th June 2018.

Anal fistula plug versus surgeon's preference for surgery for trans-sphincteric anal fistula: the FIAT RCT.

BACKGROUND: The aim of fistula surgery is to eradicate the disease while preserving anal sphincter function. The efficacy of the Surgisis® anal fistula plug (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA) in the treatment of trans-sphincteric fistula-in-ano has been variably reported. OBJECTIVES: To undertake a randomised comparison of the safety and efficacy of the Surgisis anal fistula plug in comparison with surgeon's preference for the treatment of trans-sphincteric anal fistulas. DESIGN: A randomised, unblinded, parallel-arm, prospective, multicentre clinical trial. SETTING: Hospitals in the UK NHS involving colorectal surgeons accredited by the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients suffering from trans-sphincteric fistula-in-ano of cryptoglandular origin. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis to either the fistula plug or the surgeon's preference [e.g. fistulotomy, cutting seton, advancement flap or ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) procedure]. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was quality of life as measured by the Faecal Incontinence Quality of Life (FIQoL) questionnaire at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcome measures included clinical and radiological fistula healing rates, faecal incontinence rates, complications rates, reintervention rates and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Between May 2011 and March 2016, 304 participants were recruited (152 fistula plug vs. 152 surgeon's preference). No difference in FIQoL score between the two trial groups was seen at the 6-week, 6-month or 12-month follow-up. Clinical evidence of fistula healing was reported in 66 of 122 (54%) participants in the fistula plug group and in 66 of 119 (55%) participants in the surgeon's preference group at 12 months. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed fistula healing in 54 of 110 (49%) participants in the fistula plug group and in 63 of 112 (56%) participants in the surgeon's preference group. Variation in 12-month clinical healing rates was observed: 55%, 64%, 75%, 53% and 42% for fistula plug, cutting seton, fistulotomy, advancement flap and LIFT procedure, respectively. Faecal incontinence rates were low at baseline, with small improvement in both groups post treatment. Complications and reinterventions were frequent. The mean total costs were £2738 [standard deviation (SD) £1151] in the fistula plug group and £2308 (SD £1228) in the surgeon's preference group. The average total quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gain was much smaller in the fistula plug group (0.829, SD 0.174) than in the surgeon's preference group (0.790, SD 0.212). Using multiple imputation and probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and adjusting for differences in baseline EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version utility, there was a 35-45% chance that the fistula plug was as cost-effective as surgeon's preference over a range of thresholds of willingness to pay for a single QALY of £20,000-30,000. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include a smaller sample size than originally calculated, a lack of blinding that perhaps biased patient-reported outcomes and a lower compliance rate with MRI at 12-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The Surgisis anal fistula plug is associated with similar FIQoL score to surgeon's preference at 12-month follow-up. The higher costs and highly uncertain and small gains in QALYs associated with the fistula plug mean that this technology is unlikely to be considered a cost-effective use of resources in the UK NHS. FUTURE WORK: Further in-depth analysis should consider the clinical and MRI characteristics of fistula-in-ano in an attempt to identify predictors of fistula response to treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN78352529. 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. 23, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Fistula-in-ano is a common condition in which the inside of the anus is in communication with the outside skin. It is a cause of long-term suffering owing to recurrent infection. Many surgical operations have been proposed to treat fistula-in-ano, with varying degrees of success. These carry the risk of faecal incontinence. The aim of the Fistula-In-Ano Trial (FIAT) was to assess the benefits of a new technology, the Surgisis^® anal fistula plug (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA), compared with other surgical techniques. The FIAT involved 304 participants; 152 participants were treated with the fistula plug and 152 participants were treated with an alternative surgical technique. There were no differences in quality of life (QoL) among participants treated with the fistula plug compared with those receiving other treatments when assessed 12 months following the operation. Successful fistula healing was achieved in 54% of fistula plug-treated participants and in 55% of participants treated with an alternative technique at 12 months following the operation. Few patients suffered from faecal incontinence before their operation and there was a slight improvement following treatment with the fistula plug and other surgical treatments. The only difference seen between the group treated with the fistula plug and those receiving other surgical treatments was in the complication rate at the 6-week assessment time, with the fistula plug group having higher rates of unexpected pain. Economic analysis of the fistula plug compared with the other surgical treatments showed that the fistula plug was more expensive and only produced very small improvements in QoL. On this basis, it is unlikely that decision-makers in the NHS will support the routine use of the fistula plug.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in the surgical management of miscarriage in low-income countries: a cost-effectiveness analysis of the AIMS trial.

BACKGROUND: There is ongoing debate on the clinical benefits of antibiotic prophylaxis for reducing pelvic infection after miscarriage surgery. We aimed to study the cost-effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in the surgical management of miscarriage in low-income countries. METHODS: We did an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis using data from 3412 women recruited to the AIMS trial, a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial designed to evaluate the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in the surgical management of miscarriage in Malawi, Pakistan, Tanzania, and Uganda. Economic evaluation was done from a health-care-provider perspective on the basis of the outcome of cost per pelvic infection avoided within 2 weeks of surgery. Pelvic infection was broadly defined by the presence of clinical features or the clinically identified need to administer antibiotics. We used non-parametric bootstrapping and multilevel random effects models to estimate incremental mean costs and outcomes. Decision uncertainty was shown via cost-effectiveness acceptability frontiers. The AIMS trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN97143849. FINDINGS: Between June 2, 2014, and April 26, 2017, 3412 women were assigned to receive either antibiotic prophylaxis (1705 [50%] of 3412) or placebo (1707 [50%] of 3412) in the AIMS trial. 158 (5%) of 3412 women developed pelvic infection within 2 weeks of surgery, of whom 68 (43%) were in the antibiotic prophylaxis group and 90 (57%) in the placebo group. There is 97-98% probability that antibiotic prophylaxis is a cost-effective intervention at expected thresholds of willingness-to-pay per additional pelvic infection avoided. In terms of post-surgery antibiotics, the antibiotic prophylaxis group was US$0·27 (95% CI -0·49 to -0·05) less expensive per woman than the placebo group. A secondary analysis, a sensitivity analysis, and all subgroup analyses supported these findings. Antibiotic prophylaxis, if implemented routinely before miscarriage surgery, could translate to an annual total cost saving of up to $1·4 million across the four participating countries and up to $8·5 million across the two regions of sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia. INTERPRETATION: Antibiotic prophylaxis is more effective and less expensive than no antibiotic prophylaxis. Policy makers in various settings should be confident that antibiotic prophylaxis in miscarriage surgery is cost-effective. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, and the UK Department for International Development.

Treatment of fatigue with physical activity and behavioural change support in vasculitis: study protocol for an open-label randomised controlled feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Fatigue is a major cause of morbidity, limiting quality of life, in patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis (AAV). The aetiology of fatigue is multifactorial; biological and psychosocial mediators, such as sleep deprivation, pain and anxiety and depression, are important and may be improved by increasing physical activity. Current self-management advice is based on expert opinion and is poorly adhered to. This study aims to investigate the feasibility of increasing physical activity using a programme of direct contact and telephone support, to provide patient education, encourage behaviour self-monitoring and the development of an individual change plan with defined goals and feedback to treat fatigue compared with standard of care to inform the design of a large randomised controlled trial to test the efficacy and cost effectiveness of this programme. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Patients with AAV and significant levels of fatigue (patient self-report using multidimensional fatigue index score questionnaire ≥14) will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to the physical activity programme supported by behavioural change techniques or standard of care. The intervention programme will consist of 8 visits of supervised activity sessions and 12 telephone support calls over 12 weeks with the aim of increasing physical activity to the level advised by government guidelines. Assessment visits will be performed at baseline, 12, 24 and 52 weeks. The study will assess the feasibility of recruitment, retention, the acceptability, adherence and safety of the intervention, and collect data on various assessment tools to inform the design of a large definitive trial. A nested qualitative study will explore patient experience of the trial through focus groups or interviews. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All required ethical and regulatory approvals have been obtained. Findings will be disseminated through conference presentations, patient networks and academic publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11929227.

GaPP2, a multicentre randomised controlled trial of the efficacy of gabapentin for the management of chronic pelvic pain in women: study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) affects more than 1 million UK women with associated healthcare costs of £158 million annually. Current evidence supporting interventions when no underlying pathology is identified is very limited and treatment is frequently inadequate. Gabapentin (a GABA analogue) is efficacious and often well tolerated in other chronic pain conditions. We have completed a successful pilot randomised controlled trial Gabapentin for Pelvic Pain 1 (GaPP1) and here describe the protocol for our definitive multicentre trial to assess the efficacy of gabapentin in the management of CPP in women Gabapentin for Pelvic Pain 2 (GaPP2). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We plan to perform a double-blind placebo-controlled randomised multicentre clinical trial, recruiting 300 women with CPP from up to 40 National Health Service hospitals within the UK. After randomisation, women will titrate their medication (gabapentin or placebo) over a 4-week period to a maximum of 2700 mg or placebo equivalent and will then maintain a stable dose for a 12-week period. Response to treatment will be monitored with validated questionnaires and coprimary outcome measures of average and worst pain scores will be employed. The primary objective is to test the hypothesis that treatment with gabapentin has the potential to provide an effective oral treatment to alleviate pain in women with CPP in the absence of any obvious pelvic pathology. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the Coventry and Warwick Research Ethics Committee (REC 15/WM/0036). Data will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. We will make the information obtained from the study available to the public through national bodies and charities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN77451762; Pre-results.

Self management of patients with mild COPD in primary care: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of telephone health coaching delivered by a nurse to support self management in a primary care population with mild symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 71 general practices in four areas of England. PARTICIPANTS: 577 patients with Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale scores of 1 or 2, recruited from primary care COPD registers with spirometry confirmed diagnosis. Patients were randomised to telephone health coaching (n=289) or usual care (n=288). INTERVENTIONS: Telephone health coaching intervention delivered by nurses, underpinned by Social Cognitive Theory. The coaching promoted accessing smoking cessation services, increasing physical activity, medication management, and action planning (4 sessions over 11 weeks; postal information at weeks 16 and 24). The nurses received two days of training. The usual care group received a leaflet about COPD. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was health related quality of life at 12 months using the short version of the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ-C). RESULTS: The intervention was delivered with good fidelity: 86% of scheduled calls were delivered; 75% of patients received all four calls. 92% of patients were followed-up at six months and 89% at 12 months. There was no difference in SGRQ-C total score at 12 months (mean difference -1.3, 95% confidence interval -3.6 to 0.9, P=0.23). Compared with patients in the usual care group, at six months follow-up, the intervention group reported greater physical activity, more had received a care plan (44% v 30%), rescue packs of antibiotics (37% v 29%), and inhaler use technique check (68% v 55%). CONCLUSIONS: A new telephone health coaching intervention to promote behaviour change in primary care patients with mild symptoms of dyspnoea did lead to changes in self management activities, but did not improve health related quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN 06710391.