Accelerated partner therapy contact tracing for people with chlamydia (LUSTRUM): a crossover cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Accelerated partner therapy has shown promise in improving contact tracing. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of accelerated partner therapy in addition to usual contact tracing compared with usual practice alone in heterosexual people with chlamydia, using a biological primary outcome measure. METHODS: We did a crossover cluster-randomised controlled trial in 17 sexual health clinics (clusters) across England and Scotland. Participants were heterosexual people aged 16 years or older with a positive Chlamydia trachomatis test result, or a clinical diagnosis of conditions for which presumptive chlamydia treatment and contact tracing are initially provided, and their sexual partners. We allocated phase order for clinics through random permutation within strata. In the control phase, participants received usual care (health-care professional advised the index patient to tell their sexual partner[s] to attend clinic for sexually transmitted infection screening and treatment). In the intervention phase, participants received usual care plus an offer of accelerated partner therapy (health-care professional assessed sexual partner[s] by telephone, then sent or gave the index patient antibiotics and sexually transmitted infection self-sampling kits for their sexual partner[s]). Each phase lasted 6 months, with a 2-week washout at crossover. The primary outcome was the proportion of index patients with a positive C trachomatis test result at 12-24 weeks after contact tracing consultation. Secondary outcomes included proportions and types of sexual partners treated. Analysis was done by intention-to-treat, fitting random effects logistic regression models. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 15996256. FINDINGS: Between Oct 24, 2018, and Nov 17, 2019, 1536 patients were enrolled in the intervention phase and 1724 were enrolled in the control phase. All clinics completed both phases. In total, 4807 sexual partners were reported, of whom 1636 (34%) were steady established partners. Overall, 293 (19%) of 1536 index patients chose accelerated partner therapy for a total of 305 partners, of whom 248 (81%) accepted. 666 (43%) of 1536 index patients in the intervention phase and 800 (46%) of 1724 in the control phase were tested for C trachomatis at 12-24 weeks after contact tracing consultation; 31 (4·7%) in the intervention phase and 53 (6·6%) in the control phase had a positive C trachomatis test result (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·41 to 1·04]; p=0·071; marginal absolute difference -2·2% [95% CI -4·7 to 0·3]). Among index patients with treatment status recorded, 775 (88·0%) of 881 patients in the intervention phase and 760 (84·6%) of 898 in the control phase had at least one treated sexual partner at 2-4 weeks after contact tracing consultation (adjusted OR 1·27 [95% CI 0·96 to 1·68]; p=0·10; marginal absolute difference 2·7% [95% CI -0·5 to 6·0]). No clinically significant harms were reported. INTERPRETATION: Although the evidence that the intervention reduces repeat infection was not conclusive, the trial results suggest that accelerated partner therapy can be safely offered as a contact tracing option and is also likely to be cost saving. Future research should find ways to increase uptake of accelerated partner therapy and develop alternative interventions for one-off sexual partners. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Mifepristone and misoprostol versus placebo and misoprostol for resolution of miscarriage in women diagnosed with missed miscarriage: the MifeMiso RCT.

TRIAL DESIGN: A randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentre study with health economic and nested qualitative studies to determine if mifepristone (Mifegyne®, Exelgyn, Paris, France) plus misoprostol is superior to misoprostol alone for the resolution of missed miscarriage. METHODS: Women diagnosed with missed miscarriage in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy were randomly assigned (1 : 1 ratio) to receive 200 mg of oral mifepristone or matched placebo, followed by 800 µg of misoprostol 2 days later. A web-based randomisation system allocated the women to the two groups, with minimisation for age, body mass index, parity, gestational age, amount of bleeding and randomising centre. The primary outcome was failure to pass the gestational sac within 7 days after randomisation. The prespecified key secondary outcome was requirement for surgery to resolve the miscarriage. A within-trial cost-effectiveness study and a nested qualitative study were also conducted. Women who completed the trial protocol were purposively approached to take part in an interview to explore their satisfaction with and the acceptability of medical management of missed miscarriage. RESULTS: A total of 711 women, from 28 hospitals in the UK, were randomised to receive either mifepristone plus misoprostol (357 women) or placebo plus misoprostol (354 women). The follow-up rate for the primary outcome was 98% (696 out of 711 women). The risk of failure to pass the gestational sac within 7 days was 17% (59 out of 348 women) in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, compared with 24% (82 out of 348 women) in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 0.98; p = 0.04). Surgical intervention to resolve the miscarriage was needed in 17% (62 out of 355 women) in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, compared with 25% (87 out of 353 women) in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 0.94; p = 0.02). There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. A total of 42 women, 19 in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group and 23 in the placebo plus misoprostol group, took part in an interview. Women appeared to have a preference for active management of their miscarriage. Overall, when women experienced care that supported their psychological well-being throughout the care pathway, and information was delivered in a skilled and sensitive manner such that women felt informed and in control, they were more likely to express satisfaction with medical management. The use of mifepristone and misoprostol showed an absolute effect difference of 6.6% (95% confidence interval 0.7% to 12.5%). The average cost per woman was lower in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, with a cost saving of £182 (95% confidence interval £26 to £338). Therefore, the use of mifepristone and misoprostol for the medical management of a missed miscarriage dominated the use of misoprostol alone. LIMITATIONS: The results from this trial are not generalisable to women diagnosed with incomplete miscarriage and the study does not allow for a comparison with expectant or surgical management of miscarriage. FUTURE WORK: Future work should use existing data to assess and rank the relative clinical effectiveness and safety profiles for all methods of management of miscarriage. CONCLUSIONS: Our trial showed that pre-treatment with mifepristone followed by misoprostol resulted in a higher rate of resolution of missed miscarriage than misoprostol treatment alone. Women were largely satisfied with medical management of missed miscarriage and would choose it again. The mifepristone and misoprostol intervention was shown to be cost-effective in comparison to misoprostol alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17405024. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 68. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Miscarriage is a common complication of pregnancy, affecting approximately one in four women. Sometimes, medical treatment (i.e. tablets) may be offered to start or speed up the miscarriage process in order for the womb to empty itself. A drug called misoprostol (a tablet that makes the womb contract) is currently recommended for this treatment. However, the addition of another drug called mifepristone [a tablet that reduces pregnancy hormones (Mifegyne^®, Exelgyn, Paris, France)] might help the miscarriage to resolve more quickly. Therefore, we carried out the MifeMiso trial to test if mifepristone plus misoprostol is more effective than misoprostol alone in resolving miscarriage within 7 days. Women were randomly allocated by a computer to receive either mifepristone or placebo, followed by misoprostol 2 days later. Neither the women nor their health-care professionals knew which treatment they received. Some women also talked to the researchers about their experiences of taking part in the study. In total, 711 women were randomised to receive either mifepristone plus misoprostol or placebo plus misoprostol. Overall, 83% of women who received mifepristone plus misoprostol had miscarriage resolution within 7 days, compared with 76% of the women who received a placebo plus misoprostol. Surgery was required less often in women who received mifepristone plus misoprostol: 17% of women who received it required surgery, compared with 25% of women who received the placebo. Treatment with mifepristone did not appear to have any negative effects. Treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol was more cost-effective than misoprostol alone, with an average saving of £182 per woman. Having taken part in the study, most women would choose medical management again and would recommend it to someone they knew who was experiencing a miscarriage.

Progesterone to prevent miscarriage in women with early pregnancy bleeding: the PRISM RCT.

BACKGROUND: Progesterone is essential for a healthy pregnancy. Several small trials have suggested that progesterone therapy may rescue a pregnancy in women with early pregnancy bleeding, which is a symptom that is strongly associated with miscarriage. OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess the effects of vaginal micronised progesterone in women with vaginal bleeding in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. (2) To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of progesterone in women with early pregnancy bleeding. DESIGN: A multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of progesterone in women with early pregnancy vaginal bleeding. SETTING: A total of 48 hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 16-39 years with early pregnancy bleeding. INTERVENTIONS: Women aged 16-39 years were randomly assigned to receive twice-daily vaginal suppositories containing either 400 mg of progesterone or a matched placebo from presentation to 16 weeks of gestation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was live birth at ≥ 34 weeks. In addition, a within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from an NHS and NHS/Personal Social Services perspective. RESULTS: A total of 4153 women from 48 hospitals in the UK received either progesterone (n = 2079) or placebo (n = 2074). The follow-up rate for the primary outcome was 97.2% (4038 out of 4153 participants). The live birth rate was 75% (1513 out of 2025 participants) in the progesterone group and 72% (1459 out of 2013 participants) in the placebo group (relative rate 1.03, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.07; p = 0.08). A significant subgroup effect (interaction test p = 0.007) was identified for prespecified subgroups by the number of previous miscarriages: none (74% in the progesterone group vs. 75% in the placebo group; relative rate 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.04; p = 0.72); one or two (76% in the progesterone group vs. 72% in the placebo group; relative rate 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.12; p = 0.07); and three or more (72% in the progesterone group vs. 57% in the placebo group; relative rate 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.51; p = 0.004). A significant post hoc subgroup effect (interaction test p = 0.01) was identified in the subgroup of participants with early pregnancy bleeding and any number of previous miscarriage(s) (75% in the progesterone group vs. 70% in the placebo group; relative rate 1.09, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.15; p = 0.003). There were no significant differences in the rate of adverse events between the groups. The results of the health economics analysis show that progesterone was more costly than placebo (£7655 vs. £7572), with a mean cost difference of £83 (adjusted mean difference £76, 95% confidence interval -£559 to £711) between the two arms. Thus, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of progesterone compared with placebo was estimated as £3305 per additional live birth at ≥ 34 weeks of gestation. CONCLUSIONS: Progesterone therapy in the first trimester of pregnancy did not result in a significantly higher rate of live births among women with threatened miscarriage overall, but an important subgroup effect was identified. A conclusion on the cost-effectiveness of the PRISM trial would depend on the amount that society is willing to pay to increase the chances of an additional live birth at ≥ 34 weeks. For future work, we plan to conduct an individual participant data meta-analysis using all existing data sets. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14163439, EudraCT 2014-002348-42 and Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) 158326. 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. 24, No. 33. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Miscarriage is a common complication of pregnancy that affects one in five pregnancies. Several small studies have suggested that progesterone, a hormone essential for maintaining a pregnancy, may reduce the risk of miscarriage in women presenting with early pregnancy bleeding. This research was undertaken to test whether or not progesterone given to pregnant women with early pregnancy bleeding would increase the number of live births when compared with placebo (dummy treatment). The women participating in the study had an equal chance of receiving progesterone or placebo, as determined by a computer; one group received progesterone (400 mg twice daily as vaginal pessaries) and the other group received placebo with an identical appearance. Treatment began when women presented with vaginal bleeding, were < 12 weeks of gestation and were found to have at least a pregnancy sac on an ultrasound scan. Treatment was stopped at 16 weeks of gestation, or earlier if the pregnancy ended before 16 weeks. Neither the participants nor their health-care professionals knew which treatment was being received. In total, 23,775 women were screened and 4153 women were randomised to receive either progesterone or placebo pessaries. Altogether, 2972 participants had a live birth after at least 34 weeks of gestation. Overall, the live birth rate in the progesterone group was 75% (1513 out of 2025 participants), compared with 72% (1459 out of 2013 participants) in the placebo group. Although the live birth rate was 3% higher in the progesterone group than in the placebo group, there was statistical uncertainty about this finding. However, it was observed that women with a history of one or more previous miscarriages and vaginal bleeding in their current pregnancy may benefit from progesterone. For women with no previous miscarriages, our analysis showed that the live birth rate was 74% (824 out of 1111 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 75% (840 out of 1127 participants) in the placebo group. For women with one or more previous miscarriages, the live birth rate was 75% (689 out of 914 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 70% (619 out of 886 participants) in the placebo group. The potential benefit appeared to be most strong for women with three or more previous miscarriages, who had a live birth rate of 72% (98 out of 137 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 57% (85 out of 148 participants) in the placebo group. Treatment with progesterone did not appear to have any negative effects.

Accelerated partner therapy (APT) partner notification for people with Chlamydia trachomatis: protocol for the Limiting Undetected Sexually Transmitted infections to RedUce Morbidity (LUSTRUM) APT cross-over cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Partner notification (PN) is a process aiming to identify, test and treat the sex partners of people (index patients) with sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Accelerated partner therapy (APT) is a PN method whereby healthcare professionals assess sex partners, by telephone consultation, before giving the index patient antibiotics and STI self-sampling kits to deliver to their sex partner(s). The Limiting Undetected Sexually Transmitted infections to RedUce Morbidity programme aims to determine the effectiveness of APT in heterosexual women and men with chlamydia and determine whether APT could affect Chlamydia trachomatis transmission at population level. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol describes a cross-over cluster randomised controlled trial of APT, offered as an additional PN method, compared with standard PN. The trial is accompanied by an economic evaluation, transmission dynamic modelling and a qualitative process evaluation involving patients, partners and healthcare professionals. Clusters are 17 sexual health clinics in areas of England and Scotland with contrasting patient demographics. We will recruit 5440 heterosexual women and men with chlamydia, aged ≥16 years.The primary outcome is the proportion of index patients testing positive for C. trachomatis 12-16 weeks after the PN consultation. Secondary outcomes include: proportion of sex partners treated; cost effectiveness; model-predicted chlamydia prevalence; experiences of APT.The primary outcome analysis will be by intention-to-treat, fitting random effects logistic regression models that account for clustering of index patients within clinics and trial periods. The transmission dynamic model will be used to predict change in chlamydia prevalence following APT. The economic evaluation will use mathematical modelling outputs, taking a health service perspective. Qualitative data will be analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis and framework analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol received ethical approval from London-Chelsea Research Ethics Committee (18/LO/0773). Findings will be published with open access licences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15996256.

A Systematic Review of the Techniques Used to Value Temporary Health States.

BACKGROUND: A broad literature on health state utility values exists, but compared with chronic health states (HSs), issues surrounding the valuation of temporary health states (THSs) have been poorly explored. OBJECTIVES: To assess the methods used by previous studies to value HSs that are considered temporary so as to determine the strengths and limitations associated with various approaches and to inform future study designs. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken to explore the methods used, assess how the valuation was conducted for diseases that might lead to HSs deemed as temporary, and identify the challenges encountered in the valuation of THSs. RESULTS: Of the 36 relevant studies, 22 were explicit that the HS being valued was temporary. Most of the studies used more than one technique (often incorporating both conventional and adapted approaches). In using adapted techniques, the primary challenge was identifying an appropriate intermediate "anchor" HS and the possibility of negative utilities. CONCLUSIONS: There is no agreement on the most methodologically robust approach to THS valuation. Valuation is complex and important issues relating to the validity, practicality, and reliability of the techniques used were not adequately covered by most of the studies identified.

Exploring the intangible economic costs of stillbirth.

BACKGROUND: Compared to other pregnancy-related events, the full cost of stillbirth remains poorly described. In the UK one in every 200 births ends in stillbirth. As a follow-up to a recent study which explored the direct costs of stillbirth, this study aimed to explore the intangible costs of stillbirth in terms of their duration and economic implication. METHODS: Systematic searches identified relevant papers on the psychological consequences of stillbirth. A narrative review of the quantitative studies was undertaken. This was followed by a qualitative synthesis using meta-ethnography to identify over-arching themes common to the papers. Finally, the themes were used to generate questions proposed for use in a questionnaire to capture the intangible costs of stillbirth. RESULTS: The narrative review revealed a higher level of anxiety and depression in couples with stillbirth compared to those without stillbirth. The qualitative synthesis identified a range of psychological effects common to families that have experienced stillbirth. Both methods revealed the persistent nature of these effects and the subsequent economic burden. CONCLUSIONS: The psychological effects of stillbirth adversely impacts on the daily functioning, relationships and employment of those affected with far-reaching economic implications. Knowledge of the intangible costs of stillbirth is therefore important to accurately estimate the size of the impact on families and health services and to inform policy and decision making.