RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Approximately one in ten women have high blood pressure during pregnancy. Hypertension is associated with adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes, and as treatment improves maternal outcomes, antihypertensive treatment is recommended. Previous trials have been unable to provide a definitive answer on which antihypertensive treatment is associated with optimal maternal and neonatal outcomes and the need for robust evidence evaluating maternal and infant benefits and risks remains an important, unanswered question for research and clinical communities. METHODS: The Giant PANDA study is a pragmatic, open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of a treatment initiation strategy with nifedipine (calcium channel blocker), versus labetalol (mixed alpha/beta blocker) in 2300 women with pregnancy hypertension. The primary objective is to evaluate if treatment with nifedipine compared to labetalol in women with pregnancy hypertension reduces severe maternal hypertension without increasing fetal or neonatal death or neonatal unit admission. Subgroup analyses will be undertaken by hypertension type (chronic, gestational, pre-eclampsia), diabetes (yes, no), singleton (yes, no), self-reported ethnicity (Black, all other), and gestational age at randomisation categories (11 + 0 to 19 + 6, 20 + 0 to 27 + 6, 28 + 0 to 34 + 6 weeks). A cost-effectiveness analysis using an NHS perspective will be undertaken using a cost-consequence analysis up to postnatal hospital discharge and an extrapolation exercise with a lifetime horizon conditional on the results of the cost-consequence analysis. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to address the uncertainty of which antihypertensive treatment is associated with optimal maternal and neonatal outcomes. The trial results are intended to provide definitive evidence to inform guidelines and linked, shared decision-making tools, thus influencing clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number: 2020-003410-12, ISRCTN: 12,792,616 registered on 18 November 2020.
Asunto(s)
Hipertensión , Labetalol , Preeclampsia , Ursidae , Embarazo , Lactante , Recién Nacido , Animales , Femenino , Humanos , Labetalol/efectos adversos , Nifedipino/efectos adversos , Antihipertensivos/efectos adversos , Hipertensión/diagnóstico , Hipertensión/tratamiento farmacológico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Estudios Multicéntricos como AsuntoRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Aborto Espontáneo , Cerclaje Cervical , Nacimiento Prematuro , Aborto Espontáneo/diagnóstico , Aborto Espontáneo/etiología , Aborto Espontáneo/prevención & control , Cuello del Útero , Niño , Femenino , Humanos , Recién Nacido , Estudios Multicéntricos como Asunto , Estudios Observacionales como Asunto , Embarazo , Nacimiento Prematuro/etiología , Nacimiento Prematuro/prevención & control , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , MortinatoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) negatively affects many women's quality of life. The ability to develop improved therapeutic approaches for POP patients is hampered by low patient recruitment and retention rates in clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to explore the motivational factors and barriers to recruitment and participation in clinical trials among postmenopausal women with POP who are intending to have surgical management. DESIGN: Qualitative study based on in-depth face-to-face interviews with postmenopausal women attending urogynaecology clinics in the UK intending to have surgical management for pelvic organ prolapse. These women were eligible to participate in the on-going clinical trial on the use of local vaginal oestrogen as an adjunct to surgical treatment. Twenty-two postmenopausal women aged 52-76 years were interviewed. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis method. RESULTS: Many women participated because of altruistic motivations; however, we found that clarity of information provided, timing of approach and acceptability of study design played a pivotal role in women. Of the women who declined participation, the following themes emerged: uncertainty of the investigational product, fear of experimentation, logistical concerns and regret that their condition was trivialised at an early stage. CONCLUSION: We have gained a valuable insight into women's views and experience in the decision making process. Understanding the elements that will enhance trial participation such as clarity of information provided, balance between professional guidance whilst maintaining equipoise, easy access to trial teams and timing of approach will ultimately enable us to improve our recruitment to clinical trials.
Asunto(s)
Prolapso de Órgano Pélvico , Calidad de Vida , Estrógenos , Femenino , Humanos , Prolapso de Órgano Pélvico/cirugía , Posmenopausia , Investigación CualitativaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing oestrogen treatment with no oestrogen supplementation in women undergoing pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery. DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomised, parallel, open, external pilot trial involving six UK urogynaecology centres (July 2015-August 2016). PARTICIPANTS: Postmenopausal women with POP opting for surgery, unless involving mesh or for recurrent POP in same compartment. INTERVENTION: Women were randomised (1:1) to preoperative and postoperative oestrogen or no treatment. Oestrogen treatment (oestradiol hemihydrate 10 µg vaginal pessaries) commenced 6 weeks prior to surgery (once daily for 2 weeks, twice weekly for 4 weeks) and twice weekly for 26 weeks from 6 weeks postsurgery. OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes were assessment of eligibility and recruitment rates along with compliance and data completion. To obtain estimates for important aspects of the protocol to allow development of a definitive trial. RESULTS: 325 women seeking POP surgery were screened over 13 months and 157 (48%) were eligible. Of these, 100 (64%) were randomised, 50 to oestrogen and 50 to no oestrogen treatment, with 89 (44/45 respectively) ultimately having surgery. Of these, 89% (79/89) returned complete questionnaires at 6 months and 78% (32/41) reported good compliance with oestrogen. No serious adverse events were attributable to oestrogen use. CONCLUSIONS: A large multicentre RCT of oestrogen versus no treatment is feasible, as it is possible to randomise and follow up participants with high fidelity. Four predefined feasibility criteria were met. Compliance with treatment regimens is not a barrier. A larger trial is required to definitively address the role of perioperative oestrogen supplementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN46661996.