Clinical and cost-effectiveness of pessary self-management versus clinic-based care for pelvic organ prolapse in women: the TOPSY RCT with process evaluation.

Background: Pelvic organ prolapse is common, causes unpleasant symptoms and negatively affects women's quality of life. In the UK, most women with pelvic organ prolapse attend clinics for pessary care. Objectives: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management on prolapse-specific quality of life for women with prolapse compared with clinic-based care; and to assess intervention acceptability and contextual influences on effectiveness, adherence and fidelity. Design: A multicentre, parallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial with a mixed-methods process evaluation. Participants: Women attending UK NHS outpatient pessary services, aged ≥ 18 years, using a pessary of any type/material (except shelf, Gellhorn or Cube) for at least 2 weeks. Exclusions: women with limited manual dexterity, with cognitive deficit (prohibiting consent or self-management), pregnant or non-English-speaking. Intervention: The self-management intervention involved a 30-minute teaching appointment, an information leaflet, a 2-week follow-up telephone call and a local clinic telephone helpline number. Clinic-based care involved routine appointments determined by centres' usual practice. Allocation: Remote web-based application; minimisation was by age, pessary user type and centre. Blinding: Participants, those delivering the intervention and researchers were not blinded to group allocation. Outcomes: The patient-reported primary outcome (measured using the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7) was prolapse-specific quality of life, and the cost-effectiveness outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (a specifically developed health Resource Use Questionnaire was used) at 18 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included self-efficacy and complications. Process evaluation data were collected by interview, audio-recording and checklist. Analysis was by intention to treat. Results: Three hundred and forty women were randomised (self-management, n = 169; clinic-based care, n = 171). At 18 months post randomisation, 291 questionnaires with valid primary outcome data were available (self-management, n = 139; clinic-based care, n = 152). Baseline economic analysis was based on 264 participants (self-management, n = 125; clinic-based care, n = 139) with valid quality of life and resource use data. Self-management was an acceptable intervention. There was no group difference in prolapse-specific quality of life at 18 months (adjusted mean difference -0.03, 95% confidence interval -9.32 to 9.25). There was fidelity to intervention delivery. Self-management was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, with an estimated incremental net benefit of £564.32 and an 80.81% probability of cost-effectiveness. At 18 months, more pessary complications were reported in the clinic-based care group (adjusted mean difference 3.83, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 6.86). There was no group difference in general self-efficacy, but self-managing women were more confident in pessary self-management activities. In both groups, contextual factors impacted on adherence and effectiveness. There were no reported serious unexpected serious adverse reactions. There were 32 serious adverse events (self-management, n = 17; clinic-based care, n = 14), all unrelated to the intervention. Skew in the baseline data for the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7, the influence of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the potential effects of crossover and the lack of ethnic diversity in the recruited sample were possible limitations. Conclusions: Self-management was acceptable and cost-effective, led to fewer complications and did not improve or worsen quality of life for women with prolapse compared with clinic-based care. Future research is needed to develop a quality-of-life measure that is sensitive to the changes women desire from treatment. Study registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN62510577. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/82/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 23. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Pelvic organ prolapse is a common and distressing condition experienced by large numbers of women. Prolapse is when the organs that are usually in the pelvis drop down into the vagina. Women experience a feeling of something coming down into the vagina, along with bowel, bladder and sexual problems. One possible treatment is a vaginal pessary. The pessary is a device that is inserted into the vagina and holds the pelvic organs back in their usual place. Women who use a vaginal pessary usually come back to clinic every 6 months to have their pessary removed and replaced; this is called clinic-based care. However, it is possible for a woman to look after the pessary herself; this is called self-management. This study compared self-management with clinic-based care. Three hundred and forty women with prolapse took part; 171 received clinic-based care and 169 undertook self-management. Each woman had an equal chance of being in either group. Women in the self-management group received a 30-minute teaching appointment, an information leaflet, a 2-week follow-up telephone call and a telephone number for their local centre. Women in the clinic-based care group returned to clinic as advised by the treating healthcare professional. Self-management was found to be acceptable. Women self-managed their pessary in ways that suited their lifestyle. After 18 months, there was no difference between the groups in women's quality of life. Women in the self-management group experienced fewer pessary complications than women who received clinic-based care. Self-management costs less to deliver than clinic-based care. In summary, self-management did not improve women's quality of life more than clinic-based care, but it did lead to women experiencing fewer complications and cost less to deliver in the NHS. The findings support self-management as a treatment pathway for women using a pessary for prolapse.

Bisoprolol in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease at High Risk of Exacerbation: The BICS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Observational studies report that ß-blocker use may be associated with reduced risk of COPD exacerbations. However, a recent trial reported that metoprolol did not reduce COPD exacerbations and increased COPD exacerbations requiring hospital admission. Objective: To test whether bisoprolol decreased COPD exacerbations in people with COPD at high risk of exacerbations. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Bisoprolol in COPD Study (BICS) was a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial conducted in 76 UK sites (45 primary care clinics and 31 secondary clinics). Patients with COPD who had at least moderate airflow obstruction on spirometry (ratio of forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration [FEV1] to forced vital capacity <0.7; FEV1 <80% predicted) and at least 2 COPD exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both in the prior 12 months were enrolled from October 17, 2018, to May 31, 2022. Follow-up concluded on April 18, 2023. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to bisoprolol (n = 261) or placebo (n = 258). Bisoprolol was started at 1.25 mg orally daily and was titrated as tolerated during 4 sessions to a maximum dose of 5 mg/d, using a standardized protocol. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary clinical outcome was the number of patient-reported COPD exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both during the 1-year treatment period. Safety outcomes included serious adverse events and adverse reactions. Results: Although the trial planned to enroll 1574 patients, recruitment was suspended from March 16, 2020, to July 31, 2021, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Two patients in each group were excluded postrandomization. Among the 515 patients (mean [SD] age, 68 [7.9] years; 274 men [53%]; mean FEV1, 50.1%), primary outcome data were available for 514 patients (99.8%) and 371 (72.0%) continued taking the study drug. The primary outcome of patient-reported COPD exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both was 526 in the bisoprolol group, with a mean exacerbation rate of 2.03/y, vs 513 exacerbations in the placebo group, with a mean exacerbation rate of 2.01/y. The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.84-1.13; P = .72). Serious adverse events occurred in 37 of 255 patients in the bisoprolol group (14.5%) vs 36 of 251 in the placebo group (14.3%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.62-1.66; P = .96). Conclusions and Relevance: Among people with COPD at high risk of exacerbation, treatment with bisoprolol did not reduce the number of self-reported COPD exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN10497306.

Cost-effectiveness of 2 Models of Pessary Care for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Findings From the TOPSY Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Pelvic organ prolapse is the descent of one or more reproductive organs from their normal position, causing associated negative symptoms. One conservative treatment option is pessary management. This study aimed to to investigate the cost-effectiveness of pessary self-management (SM) when compared with clinic-based care (CBC). A decision analytic model was developed to extend the economic evaluation. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial with health economic evaluation. The SM group received a 30-minute SM teaching session, information leaflet, 2-week follow-up call, and a local helpline number. The CBC group received routine outpatient pessary appointments, determined by usual practice. The primary outcome for the cost-effectiveness analysis was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), 18 months post-randomization. Uncertainty was handled using nonparametric bootstrap analysis. In addition, a simple decision analytic model was developed using the trial data to extend the analysis over a 5-year period. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the mean number of QALYs gained between SM and CBC (1.241 vs 1.221), but mean cost was lower for SM (£578 vs £728). The incremental net benefit estimated at a willingness to pay of £20 000 per QALY gained was £564, with an 80.8% probability of cost-effectiveness. The modeling results were consistent with the trial analysis: the incremental net benefit was estimated as £4221, and the probability of SM being cost-effective at 5 years was 69.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that pessary SM is likely to be cost-effective. The decision analytic model suggests that this result is likely to persist over longer durations.

Three-year cost utility analysis of mini versus standard slings: A trial based economic evaluation.

Objective: To report on the cost-effectiveness of adjustable anchored single-incision mini-slings (mini-slings) compared with tension-free standard mid-urethral slings (standard slings) in the surgical management of female stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Patients and Methods: Data on resource use and quality were collected from women aged ≥18 years with predominant SUI undergoing mid-urethral sling procedures in 21 UK hospitals. Resource use and quality of life (QoL) data were prospectively collected alongside the Single-Incision Mini-Slings versus standard synthetic mid-urethral slings Randomised Control Trial (SIMS RCT), for surgical treatment of SUI in women. A health service provider's (National Health Service [NHS]) perspective with 3-year follow-up was adopted to estimate the costs of the intervention and all subsequent resource use. A generic instrument, EuroQol EQ-5D-3L, was used to estimate the QoL. Results are reported as incremental costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost per QALY. Results: Base case analysis results show that although mini-slings cost less, there was no significant difference in costs: mini-slings versus standard slings: £-6 [95% CI -228-208] or in QALYs: 0.005 [95% CI -0.068-0.073] over the 3-year follow-up. There is substantial uncertainty, with a 56% and 44% probability that mini-slings and standard slings are the most cost-effective treatment, respectively, at a £20 000 willingness-to-pay threshold value for a QALY. Conclusions: At 3 years, there is no significant difference between mini-slings and standard slings in costs and QALYs. There is still some uncertainty over the long-term complications and failure rates of the devices used in the treatment of SUI; therefore, it is important to establish the long-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of these procedures.

Evaluating pharmacological THRomboprophylaxis in Individuals undergoing superficial endoVEnous treatment across NHS and private clinics in the UK: a multi-centre, assessor-blind, randomised controlled trial-THRIVE trial.

INTRODUCTION: Endovenous therapy is the first choice management for symptomatic varicose veins in NICE guidelines, with 56-70 000 procedures performed annually in the UK. Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a known complication of endovenous therapy, occurring at a rate of up to 3.4%. Despite 73% of UK practitioners administering pharmacological thromboprophylaxis to reduce VTE, no high-quality evidence supporting this practice exists. Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis may have clinical and cost benefit in preventing VTE; however, further evidence is needed. This study aims to establish whether when endovenous therapy is undertaken: a single dose or course of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alters the risk of VTE; pharmacological thromboprophylaxis is associated with an increased rate of bleeding events; pharmacological prophylaxis is cost effective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multi-centre, assessor-blind, randomised controlled trial (RCT) will recruit 6660 participants from 40 NHS and private sites across the UK. Participants will be randomised to intervention (single dose or extended course of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis plus compression) or control (compression alone). Participants will undergo a lower limb venous duplex ultrasound scan at 21-28 days post-procedure to identify asymptomatic DVT. The duplex scan will be conducted locally by blinded assessors. Participants will be contacted remotely for follow-up at 7 days and 90 days post-procedure. The primary outcome is imaging-confirmed lower limb DVT with or without symptoms or PE with symptoms within 90 days of treatment. The main analysis will be according to the intention-to-treat principle and will compare the rates of VTE at 90 days, using a repeated measures analysis of variance, adjusting for any pre-specified strongly prognostic baseline covariates using a mixed effects logistic regression. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by Brent Research Ethics Committee (22/LO/0261). Results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18501431.

A preoperative package of care for osteoarthritis, consisting of weight loss, orthotics, rehabilitation, and topical and oral analgesia (OPPORTUNITY): a two-centre, open-label, randomised controlled feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis of the knee is a major cause of disability worldwide. Non-operative treatments can reduce the morbidity but adherence is poor. We hypothesised that adherence could be optimised if behavioural change was established in the preoperative period. Therefore, we aimed to assess feasibility, acceptability, and recruitment and retention rates of a preoperative package of non-operative care in patients awaiting knee replacement surgery. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised controlled, feasibility trial in two secondary care centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 15-85 years, on the waiting list for a knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis, and met at least one of the thresholds for one of the four components of the preoperative package of non-operative care intervention (ie, weight loss, exercise therapy, use of insoles, and analgesia adjustment). Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to either the intervention group or the standard of care (ie, control) group. All four aspects of the intervention were delivered weekly over 12 weeks. Participants in the intervention group were reviewed regularly to assess adherence. The primary outcome was acceptability and feasibility of delivering the intervention, as measured by recruitment rate, retention rate at follow-up review after planned surgery, health-related quality of life, joint-specific scores, and adherence (weight change and qualitative interviews). This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN96684272. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3 2018, and Aug 30, 2019, we screened 233 patients, of whom 163 (73%) were excluded and 60 (27%) were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n=40) or the control group (n=20). 34 (57%) of 60 participants were women, 26 (43%) were men, and the mean age was 66·8 years (SD 8·6). Uptake of the specific intervention components varied: 31 (78%) of 40 had exercise therapy, 28 (70%) weight loss, 22 (55%) analgesia adjustment, and insoles (18 [45%]). Overall median adherence was 94% (IQR 79·5-100). At the final review, the intervention group lost a mean of 11·2 kg (SD 5·6) compared with 1·3 kg (3·8) in the control group (estimated difference -9·8 kg [95% CI -13·4 to -6·3]). A clinically significant improvement in health-related quality o life (mean change 0·078 [SD 0·195]) were reported, and joint-specific scores showed greater improvement in the intervention group than in the control group. No adverse events attributable to the intervention occurred. INTERPRETATION: Participants adhered well to the non-operative interventions and their health-related quality of life improved. Participant and health professional feedback were extremely positive. These findings support progression to a full-scale effectiveness trial. FUNDING: Versus Arthritis.

Randomised placebo-controlled trial of antenatal corticosteroids for planned birth in twins (STOPPIT-3): study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the STOPPIT-3 study is to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) prior to planned birth of twins in a multicentre placebo-controlled trial with internal pilot. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will comprise a multicentre, double-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in at least 50 UK obstetric units. The target population is 1552 women with a twin pregnancy and a planned birth between 35 and 38+6 weeks' gestation recruited from antenatal clinics. Women will be randomised to Dexamethasone Phosphate (24 mg) or saline administered via two intramuscular injections 24 hours apart, 24-120 hours prior to scheduled birth. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is need for respiratory support within 72 hours of birth. Secondary and safety outcomes will be included. Cognitive and language development at age 2 years will be assessed in a subset of participants using the Parent report of Children's Abilities-Revised questionnaire. We will also determine the cost effectiveness of the treatment with ACS compared with placebo. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: STOPPIT-3 has been funded and approved by the National Institute of Healthcare Research. It has been approved by the West Midlands Research Ethics Committee (22/WM/0018). The results will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentation and will also be communicated to the public via links with charity partners and social media. TRIAL SPONSOR: The University of Edinburgh and Lothian Health Board ACCORD, The Queen's Medical Research Institute, 47 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, EH16 4TJ. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN59959611.

Evaluating Primary Treatment for People with Advanced Glaucoma: Five-Year Results of the Treatment of Advanced Glaucoma Study.

PURPOSE: To determine whether primary trabeculectomy or medical treatment produces better outcomes in terms of quality of life (QoL), clinical effectiveness, and safety in patients with advanced glaucoma. DESIGN: Multicenter randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Between June 3, 2014, and May 31, 2017, 453 adults with newly diagnosed advanced open-angle glaucoma in at least 1 eye (Hodapp classification) were recruited from 27 secondary care glaucoma departments in the United Kingdom. Two hundred twenty-seven were allocated to trabeculectomy, and 226 were allocated medical management. METHODS: Participants were randomized on a 1:1 basis to have either mitomycin C-augmented trabeculectomy or escalating medical management with intraocular pressure (IOP)-reducing drops as the primary intervention and were followed up for 5 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was vision-specific QoL measured with the 25-item Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25) at 5 years. Secondary outcomes were general health status, glaucoma-related QoL, clinical effectiveness (IOP, visual field, and visual acuity), and safety. RESULTS: At 5 years, the mean ± standard deviation VFQ-25 scores in the trabeculectomy and medication arms were 83.3 ± 15.5 and 81.3 ± 17.5, respectively, and the mean difference was 1.01 (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.99 to 4.00; P = 0.51). The mean IOPs were 12.07 ± 5.18 mmHg and 14.76 ± 4.14 mmHg, respectively, and the mean difference was -2.56 (95% CI, -3.80 to -1.32; P < 0.001). Glaucoma severity measured with visual field mean deviation were -14.30 ± 7.14 dB and -16.74 ± 6.78 dB, respectively, with a mean difference of 1.87 (95% CI, 0.87-2.87 dB; P < 0.001). Safety events occurred in 115 (52.2%) of patients in the trabeculectomy arm and 124 (57.9%) of patients in the medication arm (relative risk, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.72-1.19; P = 0.54). Serious adverse events were rare. CONCLUSIONS: At 5 years, the Treatment of Advanced Glaucoma Study demonstrated that primary trabeculectomy surgery is more effective in lowering IOP and preventing disease progression than primary medical treatment in patients with advanced disease and has a similar safety profile. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Clinical effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management vs clinic-based care for pelvic organ prolapse (TOPSY): a randomised controlled superiority trial.

Background: Prolapse affects 30-40% of women. Those using a pessary for prolapse usually receive care as an outpatient. This trial determined effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pessary self-management (SM) vs clinic-based care (CBC) in relation to condition-specific quality of life (QoL). Methods: Parallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial, recruiting from 16 May 2018 to 7 February 2020, with follow-up to 17 September 2021. Women attending pessary clinics, ≥18 years, using a pessary (except Shelf, Gellhorn or Cube), with pessary retained ≥2 weeks were eligible. Limited manual dexterity; cognitive deficit; pregnancy; or requirement for non-English teaching were exclusions. SM group received a 30-min teaching session; information leaflet; 2-week follow-up call; and telephone support. CBC group received usual routine appointments. The primary clinical outcome was pelvic floor-specific QoL (PFIQ-7), and incremental net monetary benefit for cost-effectiveness, 18 months post-randomisation. Group allocation was by remote web-based application, minimised on age, user type (new/existing) and centre. Participants, intervention deliverers, researchers and the statistician were not blinded. The primary analysis was intention-to-treat based. Trial registration: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN62510577. Findings: The requisite 340 women were randomised (169 SM, 171 CBC) across 21 centres. There was not a statistically significant difference between groups in PFIQ-7 at 18 months (mean SM 32.3 vs CBC 32.5, adjusted mean difference SM-CBC -0.03, 95% CI -9.32 to 9.25). SM was less costly than CBC. The incremental net benefit of SM was £564 (SE £581, 95% CI -£576 to £1704). A lower percentage of pessary complications was reported in the SM group (mean SM 16.7% vs CBC 22.0%, adjusted mean difference -3.83%, 95% CI -6.86% to -0.81%). There was no meaningful difference in general self-efficacy. Self-managing women were more confident in self-management activities. There were no reported suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions, and 31 unrelated serious adverse events (17 SM, 14 CBC). Interpretation: Pessary self-management is cost-effective, does not improve or worsen QoL compared to CBC, and has a lower complication rate. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme (16/82/01).

Alpha 2 agonists for sedation to produce better outcomes from critical illness (A2B Trial): protocol for a multicentre phase 3 pragmatic clinical and cost-effectiveness randomised trial in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Almost all patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV) in intensive care units (ICUs) require analgesia and sedation. The most widely used sedative drug is propofol, but there is uncertainty whether alpha2-agonists are superior. The alpha 2 agonists for sedation to produce better outcomes from critical illness (A2B) trial aims to determine whether clonidine or dexmedetomidine (or both) are clinically and cost-effective in MV ICU patients compared with usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Adult ICU patients within 48 hours of starting MV, expected to require at least 24 hours further MV, are randomised in an open-label three arm trial to receive propofol (usual care) or clonidine or dexmedetomidine as primary sedative, plus analgesia according to local practice. Exclusions include patients with primary brain injury; postcardiac arrest; other neurological conditions; or bradycardia. Unless clinically contraindicated, sedation is titrated using weight-based dosing guidance to achieve a Richmond-Agitation-Sedation score of -2 or greater as early as considered safe by clinicians. The primary outcome is time to successful extubation. Secondary ICU outcomes include delirium and coma incidence/duration, sedation quality, predefined adverse events, mortality and ICU length of stay. Post-ICU outcomes include mortality, anxiety and depression, post-traumatic stress, cognitive function and health-related quality of life at 6-month follow-up. A process evaluation and health economic evaluation are embedded in the trial.The analytic framework uses a hierarchical approach to maximise efficiency and control type I error. Stage 1 tests whether each alpha2-agonist is superior to propofol. If either/both interventions are superior, stages 2 and 3 testing explores which alpha2-agonist is more effective. To detect a mean difference of 2 days in MV duration, we aim to recruit 1437 patients (479 per group) in 40-50 UK ICUs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Scotland A REC approved the trial (18/SS/0085). We use a surrogate decision-maker or deferred consent model consistent with UK law. Dissemination will be via publications, presentations and updated guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03653832.

Evaluation of feasibility phase of adaptive version of locally made bubble continuous positive airway pressure oxygen therapy for the treatment of COVID-19 positive and negative adults with severe pneumonia and hypoxaemia.

Background: Bubble continuous positive airway pressure (bCPAP) oxygen therapy has been shown to be safe and effective in treating children with severe pneumonia and hypoxaemia in Bangladesh. Due to lack of adequate non-invasive ventilatory support during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis, we aimed to evaluate whether bCPAP was safe and feasible when adapted for use in adults with similar indications. Methods: Adults (18-64 years) with severe pneumonia and moderate hypoxaemia (80 to <90% oxygen saturation (SpO2) in room air) were provided bCPAP via nasal cannula at a flow rate of 10 litres per minute (l/min) oxygen at 10 centimetres (cm) H2O pressure, in two tertiary hospitals in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Qualitative interviews and focus group discussions, using a descriptive phenomenological approach, were performed with patients and staff (n = 39) prior to and after the introduction (n = 12 and n = 27 respectively) to understand the operational challenges to the introduction of bCPAP. Results: We enrolled 30 adults (median age 52, interquartile range (IQR) 40-60 years) with severe pneumonia and hypoxaemia and/or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) irrespective of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) test results to receive bCPAP. At baseline mean SpO2 on room air was 87% (±2) which increased to 98% (±2), after initiation of bCPAP. The mean duration of bCPAP oxygen therapy was 14.4 ± 24.8 hours. There were no adverse events of note, and no treatment failure or deaths. Operational challenges to the clinical introduction of bCPAP were lack of functioning pulse oximeters, difficult nasal interface fixation among those wearing nose pin, occasional auto bubbling or lack of bubbling in water-filled plastic bottle, lack of holder for water-filled plastic bottle, rapid turnover of trained clinicians at the hospitals, and limited routine care of patients by hospital clinicians particularly after official hours. Discussion: If the tertiary hospitals in Bangladesh are supplied with well-functioning good quality pulse oximeters and enhanced training of the doctors and nurses on proper use of adapted version of bCPAP, in treating adults with severe pneumonia and hypoxaemia with or without ARDS, the bCPAP was found to be safe, well tolerated and not associated with treatment failure across all study participants. These observations increase the confidence level of the investigators to consider a future efficacy trial of adaptive bCPAP oxygen therapy compared to WHO standard low flow oxygen therapy in such patients. Conclusion: s Although bCPAP oxygen therapy was found to be safe and feasible in this pilot study, several challenges were identified that need to be taken into account when planning a definitive clinical trial.

Pilot study of a ketogenic diet in bipolar disorder.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence from case reports suggests that a ketogenic diet may be effective for bipolar disorder. However, no clinical trials have been conducted to date. AIMS: To assess the recruitment and feasibility of a ketogenic diet intervention in bipolar disorder. METHOD: Euthymic individuals with bipolar disorder were recruited to a 6-8 week trial of a modified ketogenic diet, and a range of clinical, economic and functional outcome measures were assessed. Study registration number: ISRCTN61613198. RESULTS: Of 27 recruited participants, 26 commenced and 20 completed the modified ketogenic diet for 6-8 weeks. The outcomes data-set was 95% complete for daily ketone measures, 95% complete for daily glucose measures and 95% complete for daily ecological momentary assessment of symptoms during the intervention period. Mean daily blood ketone readings were 1.3 mmol/L (s.d. = 0.77, median = 1.1) during the intervention period, and 91% of all readings indicated ketosis, suggesting a high degree of adherence to the diet. Over 91% of daily blood glucose readings were within normal range, with 9% indicating mild hypoglycaemia. Eleven minor adverse events were recorded, including fatigue, constipation, drowsiness and hunger. One serious adverse event was reported (euglycemic ketoacidosis in a participant taking SGLT2-inhibitor medication). CONCLUSIONS: The recruitment and retention of euthymic individuals with bipolar disorder to a 6-8 week ketogenic diet intervention was feasible, with high completion rates for outcome measures. The majority of participants reached and maintained ketosis, and adverse events were generally mild and modifiable. A future randomised controlled trial is now warranted.

Emergency Department Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta in Trauma Patients With Exsanguinating Hemorrhage: The UK-REBOA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Bleeding is the most common cause of preventable death after trauma. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) when used in the emergency department along with standard care vs standard care alone on mortality in trauma patients with exsanguinating hemorrhage. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, bayesian, randomized clinical trial conducted at 16 major trauma centers in the UK. Patients aged 16 years or older with exsanguinating hemorrhage were enrolled between October 2017 and March 2022 and followed up for 90 days. Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1 allocation) to a strategy that included REBOA and standard care (n = 46) or standard care alone (n = 44). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 90 days. Ten secondary outcomes included mortality at 6 months, while in the hospital, and within 24 hours, 6 hours, or 3 hours; the need for definitive hemorrhage control procedures; time to commencement of definitive hemorrhage control procedures; complications; length of stay; blood product use; and cause of death. Results: Of the 90 patients (median age, 41 years [IQR, 31-59 years]; 62 [69%] were male; and the median Injury Severity Score was 41 [IQR, 29-50]) randomized, 89 were included in the primary outcome analysis because 1 patient in the standard care alone group declined to provide consent for continued participation and data collection 4 days after enrollment. At 90 days, 25 of 46 patients (54%) had experienced all-cause mortality in the REBOA and standard care group vs 18 of 43 patients (42%) in the standard care alone group (odds ratio [OR], 1.58 [95% credible interval, 0.72-3.52]; posterior probability of an OR >1 [indicating increased odds of death with REBOA], 86.9%). Among the 10 secondary outcomes, the ORs for mortality and the posterior probabilities of an OR greater than 1 for 6-month, in-hospital, and 24-, 6-, or 3-hour mortality were all increased in the REBOA and standard care group, and the ORs were increased with earlier mortality end points. There were more deaths due to bleeding in the REBOA and standard care group (8 of 25 patients [32%]) than in standard care alone group (3 of 18 patients [17%]), and most occurred within 24 hours. Conclusions and Relevance: In trauma patients with exsanguinating hemorrhage, a strategy of REBOA and standard care in the emergency department does not reduce, and may increase, mortality compared with standard care alone. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16184981.

Using telemedicine to improve early medical abortion at home (UTAH): a randomised controlled trial to compare telemedicine with in-person consultation for early medical abortion.

OBJECTIVES: To compare telephone consultations with in-person consultations for the provision of medical abortion (using mifepristone 200 mg and misoprostol 800 µg). We hypothesised that telemedicine consultations would be non-inferior to in-person consultations with a non-inferiority limit of 3%. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial with 1:1 allocation. SETTING: Community abortion service housed within an integrated sexual and reproductive health service in Edinburgh, UK. PARTICIPANTS: The trial began on 13 January 2020, but was stopped early due to COVID-19; recruitment was suspended on 31 March 2020, and was formally closed on 31 August 2021. A total of 125 participants were randomised, approximately 10% of the total planned, with 63 assigned to telemedicine and 62 to in-person consultation. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: efficacy of medical abortion, defined as complete abortion without surgical intervention. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: satisfaction with consultation type, preparedness, unscheduled contact with care, complication rate, time spent in clinical contact and uptake of long-acting contraception. RESULTS: Primary outcome was available for 115 participants (lost-to-follow-up telemedicine=2, in-person=8), secondary outcomes were available for 110 participants (n=5 and n=10 in telemedicine and in-person groups did not complete questionnaires). There were no significant differences between groups in treatment efficacy (telemedicine 57/63 (90.5%), in-person 48/62 (77.4%)). However, non-inferiority was not demonstrated (+3.3% in favour of telemedicine, CI -6.6% to +13.3%, lower than non-inferiority margin). There were no significant differences in most secondary outcomes, however, there was more unscheduled contact with care in the telemedicine group (12 (19%) vs 3 (5%), p=0.01). The overall time spent in clinical contact was statistically significantly lower in the telemedicine group (mean 94 (SD 24) vs 111 (24) min, p=0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine for medical abortion appeared to be effective, safe and acceptable to women, with less time spent in the clinic. However, due to the small sample size resulting from early cessation, the study was underpowered to confirm this conclusion. These findings warrant further investigation in larger scale studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04139382.

Modified-release morphine or placebo for chronic breathlessness: the MABEL trial protocol.

Chronic breathlessness, a persistent and disabling symptom despite optimal treatment of underlying causes, is a frightening symptom with serious and widespread impact on patients and their carers. Clinical guidelines support the use of morphine for the relief of chronic breathlessness in common long-term conditions, but questions remain around clinical effectiveness, safety and longer term (>7 days) administration. This trial will evaluate the effectiveness of low-dose oral modified-release morphine in chronic breathlessness. This is a multicentre, parallel group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Participants (n=158) will be opioid-naïve with chronic breathlessness due to heart or lung disease, cancer or post-coronavirus disease 2019. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to 5 mg oral modified-release morphine/placebo twice daily and docusate/placebo 100 mg twice daily for 56 days. Non-responders at Day 7 will dose escalate to 10 mg morphine/placebo twice daily at Day 15. The primary end-point (Day 28) measure will be worst breathlessness severity (previous 24 h). Secondary outcome measures include worst cough, distress, pain, functional status, physical activity, quality of life, and early identification and management of morphine-related side-effects. At Day 56, participants may opt to take open-label, oral modified-release morphine as part of usual care and complete quarterly breathlessness and toxicity questionnaires. The study is powered to be able to reject the null hypothesis and an embedded normalisation process theory-informed qualitative substudy will explore the adoption of morphine as a first-line pharmacological treatment for chronic breathlessness in clinical practice if effective.

Patient preferences for stress urinary incontinence treatments: a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVES: To elicit and value patient preferences for the processes and outcomes of surgical management of stress urinary incontinence in women. DESIGN: A discrete choice experiment survey to elicit preferences for type of anaesthesia, postoperative recovery time, treatment success, adverse events, impact on daily activities and cost. An experimental design generated 40 choice tasks, and each respondent completed 1 block of 10 and 2 validity tests. Analysis was by multinomial logistical regression. SETTING: N=21 UK hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: N=325 adult women who were a subsample of those randomised to the single-incision mini-slings clinical trial. OUTCOMES: Patient preferences; valuation obtained using willingness to pay. RESULTS: N=227 of 325 (70%) returned a questionnaire, and 94% of those completed all choice tasks. Respondents preferred general anaesthesia, shorter recovery times, improved stress urinary incontinence symptoms and avoidance of adverse events. Women were willing to pay (mean (95% CI)) £76 (£33 to £119) per day of reduction in recovery time following surgery. They valued increases in Patient Global Impression of Improvement, ranging from £8173 (£5459 to £10 887) for 'improved' to £11 706 (£8267 to £15 144) for 'very much improved' symptoms, compared with no symptom improvement. This was offset by negative values attached to the avoidance of complications ranging between £-8022 (£-10 661 to £-5383) and £-10 632 (£-14 077 to £-7187) compared to no complications. Women valued treatments that reduced the need to avoid daily activities, with willingness to pay ranging from £-967 (£-2199 to £266) for rarely avoiding activities to £-5338 (£-7258 to £-3417) for frequently avoiding daily activities compared with no avoidance. CONCLUSION: This discrete choice experiment demonstrates that patients place considerable value on improvement in stress urinary incontinence symptoms and avoidance of treatment complications. Trade-offs between symptom improvement and adverse event risk should be considered within shared decision-making. The willingness to pay values from this study can be used in future cost-benefit analyses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN: 93264234; Post-results.

Troponin in acute chest pain to risk stratify and guide effective use of computed tomography coronary angiography (TARGET-CTCA): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The majority of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome presenting to the emergency department will be discharged once myocardial infarction has been ruled out, although a proportion will have unrecognised coronary artery disease. In this setting, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin identifies those at increased risk of future cardiac events. In patients with intermediate cardiac troponin concentrations in whom myocardial infarction has been ruled out, this trial aims to investigate whether outpatient computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) reduces subsequent myocardial infarction or cardiac death. METHODS: TARGET-CTCA is a multicentre prospective randomised open label with blinded endpoint parallel group event driven trial. After myocardial infarction and clear alternative diagnoses have been ruled out, participants with intermediate cardiac troponin concentrations (5 ng/L to 99th centile upper reference limit) will be randomised 1:1 to outpatient CTCA plus standard of care or standard of care alone. The primary endpoint is myocardial infarction or cardiac death. Secondary endpoints include clinical, patient-centred, process and cost-effectiveness. Recruitment of 2270 patients will give 90% power with a two-sided P value of 0.05 to detect a 40% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint. Follow-up will continue until 97 primary outcome events have been accrued in the standard care arm with an estimated median follow-up of 36 months. DISCUSSION: This randomised controlled trial will determine whether high-sensitivity cardiac troponin-guided CTCA can improve outcomes and reduce subsequent major adverse cardiac events in patients presenting to the emergency department who do not have myocardial infarction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03952351. Registered on May 16, 2019.