Study protocol for a Randomised controlled trial of EArly transjugular intrahepatiC porTosystemic stent-shunt in Acute Variceal Bleeding (REACT-AVB trial).

INTRODUCTION: In liver cirrhosis, acute variceal bleeding (AVB) is associated with a 1-year mortality rate of up to 40%. Data on early or pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent-shunt (TIPSS) in AVB is inconclusive and may not reflect current management strategies. Randomised controlled trial of EArly transjugular intrahepatiC porTosystemic stent-shunt in AVB (REACT-AVB) aims to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of early TIPSS in patients with cirrhosis and AVB after initial bleeding control. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: REACT-AVB is a multicentre, randomised controlled, open-label, superiority, two-arm, parallel-group trial with an internal pilot. The two interventions allocated randomly 1:1 are early TIPSS within 4 days of diagnostic endoscopy or secondary prophylaxis with endoscopic therapy in combination with non-selective beta blockers. Patients aged ≥18 years with cirrhosis and Child-Pugh Score 7-13 presenting with AVB with endoscopic haemostasis are eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome is transplant-free survival at 1 year post randomisation. Secondary endpoints include transplant-free survival at 6 weeks, rebleeding, serious adverse events, other complications of cirrhosis, Child-Pugh and Model For End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores at 6 and 12 months, health-related quality of life, use of healthcare resources, cost-effectiveness and use of cross-over therapies. The sample size is 294 patients over a 4-year recruitment period, across 30 hospitals in the UK. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics committee of National Health Service has approved REACT-AVB (reference number: 23/WM/0085). The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. A lay summary will also be emailed or posted to participants before publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN85274829; protocol version 3.0, 1 July 2023.

The impact of obstructive sleep apnea treatment on microvascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes: a feasibility randomized controlled trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with an increased risk of diabetes-related complications. Hence, it is plausible that continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) could have a favorable impact on these complications. We assessed the feasibility of conducting a randomized control trial in patients with type 2 diabetes and OSA over 2 years. METHODS: We conducted an open-label multicenter feasibility randomized control trial of CPAP vs no CPAP in patients with type 2 diabetes and OSA. Patients with resting oxygen saturation < 90%, central apnea index > 15 events/h, or Epworth Sleepiness Scale ≥ 11 were excluded. OSA was diagnosed using a multichannel portable device (ApneaLink Air, ResMed). The primary outcome measures were related to feasibility and the secondary outcomes were changes in various clinical and biochemical parameters related to diabetes outcomes. RESULTS: Eighty-three (40 CPAP vs 43 no CPAP) patients were randomly assigned, with a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 645 (545, 861) days. CPAP compliance was inadequate, with a median usage of approximately 3.5 hours/night. Early CPAP use predicted longer-term compliance. The adjusted analysis showed a possible favorable association between being randomly assigned to CPAP and several diabetes-related end points (chronic kidney disease, neuropathy, and quality of life). CONCLUSIONS: It was feasible to recruit, randomly assign, and achieve a high follow-up rate over 2 years in patients with OSA and type 2 diabetes. CPAP compliance might improve by a run-in period before randomization. A full randomized control trial is necessary to assess the observed favorable association between CPAP and chronic kidney disease , neuropathy, and quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry: ISRCTN; Name: The impact of sleep disorders in patients with type 2 diabetes; URL: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12361838; Identifier: ISRCTN12361838. CITATION: Makhdom EA, Maher A, Ottridge R, et al. The impact of obstructive sleep apnea treatment on microvascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes: a feasibility randomized controlled trial. J Clin Sleep Med. 2024;20(6):947-957.

A treatment strategy with nifedipine versus labetalol for women with pregnancy hypertension: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (Giant PANDA).

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.

A randomized trial of synthetic osmotic cervical dilator for induction of labor vs dinoprostone vaginal insert.

BACKGROUND: Induction of labor is a commonly performed obstetrical intervention. Vaginal prostaglandin E2 (dinoprostone) is a first-choice agent. Mechanical methods of induction are slower in achieving cervical ripening but have a lower risk of adverse effects. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the efficacy, maternal and neonatal safety, and maternal satisfaction of a synthetic osmotic cervical dilator (Dilapan-S) with those of dinoprostone. STUDY DESIGN: This was an open-label superiority randomized controlled trial in 4 English hospitals. Eligible participants were women ≥16 years of age undergoing induction of labor for a singleton pregnancy at ≥37 weeks' gestation with vertex presentation and intact membranes. The women were randomly assigned to receive either Dilapan-S or dinoprostone using a telephone randomization system minimized by hospital, parity, body mass index, and maternal age. The induction agent was replaced as required until the cervix was assessed as favorable for labor by the Bishop score. The primary outcome was failure to achieve vaginal delivery (ieor a cesarean delivery being performed). The secondary outcome measures included maternal and neonatal adverse events. Analysis was by intention-to-treat, adjusting for design variables where possible. RESULTS: Between December 19, 2017 and January 26, 2021, 674 women were randomized (337 to Dilapan-S, and 337 to dinoprostone). The trial did not reach its planned sample size of 860 participants because of restrictions on research during the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary outcome was missing for 2 women in the dinoprostone group. Failure to achieve vaginal delivery (or a cesarean delivery being performed) occurred in 126 women (37.4%) allocated to Dilapan-S and in 115 (34.3%) women allocated to dinoprostone (adjusted risk difference, 0.02; 95% confidence interval, -0.05 to 0.10). There were similar maternal and neonatal adverse events between the groups. CONCLUSION: Women undergoing induction of labor with Dilapan-S have similar rates of cesarean delivery and maternal and neonatal adverse events compared with dinoprostone.