Pelvic floor muscle training for secondary prevention of pelvic organ prolapse (PREVPROL): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic floor muscle training can reduce prolapse severity and symptoms in women seeking treatment. We aimed to assess whether this intervention could also be effective in secondary prevention of prolapse and the need for future treatment. METHODS: We did this multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial at three centres in New Zealand and the UK. Women from a longitudinal study of pelvic floor function after childbirth were potentially eligible for inclusion. Women of any age who had stage 1-3 prolapse, but had not sought treatment, were randomly assigned (1:1), via remote computer allocation, to receive either one-to-one pelvic floor muscle training (five physiotherapy appointments over 16 weeks, and annual review) plus Pilates-based pelvic floor muscle training classes and a DVD for home use (intervention group), or a prolapse lifestyle advice leaflet (control group). Randomisation was minimised by centre, parity (three or less vs more than three deliveries), prolapse stage (above the hymen vs at or beyond the hymen), and delivery method (any vaginal vs all caesarean sections). Women and intervention physiotherapists could not be masked to group allocation, but allocation was masked from data entry researchers and from the trial statistician until after database lock. The primary outcome was self-reported prolapse symptoms (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score [POP-SS]) at 2 years. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01171846. FINDINGS: Between Dec 21, 2008, and Feb 24, 2010, in New Zealand, and Oct 27, 2010, and Sept 5, 2011, in the UK, we randomly assigned 414 women to the intervention group (n=207) or the control group (n=207). One participant in each group was excluded after randomisation, leaving 412 women for analysis. At baseline, 399 (97%) women had prolapse above or at the level of the hymen. The mean POP-SS score at 2 years was 3·2 (SD 3·4) in the intervention group versus 4·2 (SD 4·4) in the control group (adjusted mean difference -1·01, 95% CI -1·70 to -0·33; p=0·004). The mean symptom score stayed similar across time points in the control group, but decreased in the intervention group. Three adverse events were reported, all of which were in the intervention group (one women had a fall, one woman had a pain in her tail bone, and one woman had chest pain and shortness of breath). INTERPRETATION: Our study shows that pelvic floor muscle training leads to a small, but probably important, reduction in prolapse symptoms. This finding will be important for women and caregivers considering preventive strategies. FUNDING: Wellbeing of Women charity, the New Zealand Continence Association, and the Dean's Bequest Fund of Dunedin School of Medicine.

Individualised pelvic floor muscle training in women with pelvic organ prolapse (POPPY): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic organ prolapse is common and is strongly associated with childbirth and increasing age. Women with prolapse are often advised to do pelvic floor muscle exercises, but evidence supporting the benefits of such exercises is scarce. We aimed to establish the effectiveness of one-to-one individualised pelvic floor muscle training for reducing prolapse symptoms. METHODS: We did a parallel-group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial at 23 centres in the UK, one in New Zealand, and one in Australia, between June 22, 2007, and April 9, 2010. Female outpatients with newly-diagnosed, symptomatic stage I, II, or III prolapse were randomly assigned (1:1), by remote computer allocation with minimsation, to receive an individualised programme of pelvic floor muscle training or a prolapse lifestyle advice leaflet and no muscle training (control group). Outcome assessors, and investigators who were gynaecologists at trial sites, were masked to group allocation; the statistician was masked until after data analysis. Our primary endpoint was participants' self-report of prolapse symptoms at 12 months. Analysis was by intention-to-treat analysis. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN35911035. FINDINGS: 447 eligible patients were randomised to the intervention group (n=225) or the control group (n=222). 377 (84%) participants completed follow-up for questionnaires at 6 months and 295 (66%) for questionnaires at 12 months. Women in the intervention group reported fewer prolapse symptoms (ie, a significantly greater reduction in the pelvic organ prolapse symptom score [POP-SS]) at 12 months than those in the control group (mean reduction in POP-SS from baseline 3.77 [SD 5.62] vs 2.09 [5.39]; adjusted difference 1.52, 95% CI 0.46-2.59; p=0.0053). Findings were robust to missing data. Eight adverse events (six vaginal symptoms, one case of back pain, and one case of abdominal pain) and one unexpected serious adverse event, all in women from the intervention group, were regarded as unrelated to the intervention or to participation in the study. INTERPRETATION: One-to-one pelvic floor muscle training for prolapse is effective for improvement of prolapse symptoms. Long-term benefits should be investigated, as should the effects in specific subgroups. FUNDING: Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, New Zealand Lottery Board, and National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia).

Reflecting on the methodological challenges of recruiting to a United Kingdom-wide, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial in gynaecology outpatient settings.

BACKGROUND: Successful recruitment of participants to any trial is central to its success. Trial results are routinely published, and recruitment is often cited to be slower and more difficult than anticipated. This article reflects on the methodological challenges of recruiting women with prolapse attending United Kingdom (UK) gynaecology outpatient clinics to a multi-centre randomised controlled trial (RCT) of physiotherapy, and the systems put in place in an attempt to address them. METHODS: Gynaecology outpatients with symptomatic prolapse were to be recruited over a 16-month period from 14 UK hospitals and one New Zealand hospital. Eligible women were informed about the trial by their gynaecologist and informed consent was obtained by the central trial office. Recruitment difficulties were encountered early on, and a number of strategies were employed to try to improve recruitment. RESULTS: Some strategies were more successful than others and they differed in the resources required. Actions that facilitated recruitment included increasing recruiting centres to 23 UK and two international hospitals, good centre support, using processes embedded in clinical practice, and good communication between the trial office, collaborators and participants. Collaborator incentives, whereby staff involved received the benefit immediately, were more successful than a nominal monetary payment per woman randomised. Barriers to recruitment included fewer eligible women than anticipated, patient's preference to receive active treatment rather than allocation to the control group, lack of support staff and high staff turnover. Geographical variations in Primary Care Trust Research Management and Governance approval systems and general practitioner (GP) referral procedures also impacted negatively on recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: Our article reflects on the methodological challenges of recruiting to a multi-centre RCT in a UK gynaecology setting. Effective interventions included increasing the number of recruiting centres and providing collaborator incentives. Barriers to recruitment included fewer eligible women than anticipated, patient's preference to be allocated to the treatment group, lack of support staff, and variations in approval systems and GP referral procedures. To improve the evidence base on clinical trial recruitment, trialists need to publish their experiences and lessons learned. Future RCTs should evaluate, where possible, the effect of strategies designed to improve recruitment and retention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN35911035.

A process for Decision-making after Pilot and feasibility Trials (ADePT): development following a feasibility study of a complex intervention for pelvic organ prolapse.

BACKGROUND: Current Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance on complex interventions advocates pilot trials and feasibility studies as part of a phased approach to the development, testing, and evaluation of healthcare interventions. In this paper we discuss the results of a recent feasibility study and pilot trial for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of pelvic floor muscle training for prolapse (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01136889). The ways in which researchers decide to respond to the results of feasibility work may have significant repercussions for both the nature and degree of tension between internal and external validity in a definitive trial. METHODS: We used methodological issues to classify and analyze the problems that arose in the feasibility study. Four centers participated with the aim of randomizing 50 women. Women were eligible if they had prolapse of any type, of stage I to IV, and had a pessary successfully fitted. Postal questionnaires were administered at baseline, 6 months, and 7 months post-randomization. After identifying problems arising within the pilot study we then sought to locate potential solutions that might minimize the trade-off between a subsequent explanatory versus pragmatic trial. RESULTS: The feasibility study pointed to significant potential problems in relation to participant recruitment, features of the intervention, acceptability of the intervention to participants, and outcome measurement. Finding minimal evidence to support our decision-making regarding the transition from feasibility work to a trial, we developed a systematic process (A process for Decision-making after Pilot and feasibility Trials (ADePT)) which we subsequently used as a guide. The process sought to: 1) encourage the systematic identification and appraisal of problems and potential solutions; 2) improve the transparency of decision-making processes; and 3) reveal the tensions that exist between pragmatic and explanatory choices. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a process that may aid researchers in their attempt to identify the most appropriate solutions to problems identified within future pilot and feasibility RCTs. The process includes three key steps: a decision about the type of problem, the identification of all solutions (whether addressed within the intervention, trial design or clinical context), and a systematic appraisal of these solutions.