Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial to investigate the effectiveness of thoracic epidural and paravertebral blockade in reducing chronic post-thoracotomy pain: 2 (TOPIC 2).

BACKGROUND: Thoracotomy is considered one of the most painful surgical procedures and can cause debilitating chronic post-surgical pain lasting months or years postoperatively. Aggressive management of acute pain resulting from thoracotomy may reduce the likelihood of developing chronic pain. This trial compares the two most commonly used modes of acute analgesia provision at the time of thoracotomy (thoracic epidural blockade (TEB) and paravertebral blockade (PVB)) in terms of their clinical and cost-effectiveness in preventing chronic post-thoracotomy pain. METHODS: TOPIC 2 is a multi-centre, open-label, parallel group, superiority, randomised controlled trial, with an internal pilot investigating the use of TEB and PVB in 1026 adult (≥ 18 years old) patients undergoing thoracotomy in up to 20 thoracic centres throughout the UK. Patients (N = 1026) will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either TEB or PVB. During the first year, the trial will include an integrated QuinteT (Qualitative Research Integrated into Trials) Recruitment Intervention (QRI) with the aim of optimising recruitment and informed consent. The primary outcome is the incidence of chronic post-surgical pain at 6 months post-randomisation defined as 'worst chest pain over the last week' equating to a visual analogue score greater than or equal to 40 mm indicating at least a moderate level of pain. Secondary outcomes include acute pain, complications of regional analgesia and surgery, health-related quality of life, mortality and a health economic analysis. DISCUSSION: Both TEB and PVB have been demonstrated to be effective in the prevention of acute pain following thoracotomy and nationally practice is divided. Identification of which mode of analgesia is both clinically and cost-effective in preventing chronic post-thoracotomy pain could ameliorate the debilitating effects of chronic pain, improving health-related quality of life, facilitating return to work and caring responsibilities and resulting in a cost saving to the NHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03677856 [ClinicalTrials.gov] registered September 19, 2018. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03677856 . First patient recruited 8 January 2019.

LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy (LAVA): protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: There is uncertainty about the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with abdominal hysterectomy, particularly the relative rate of complications of the two procedures. While uptake of laparoscopic hysterectomy has been slow, the situation is changing with greater familiarity, better training, better equipment and increased proficiency in the technique. Thus, a large, robust, multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed to compare contemporary laparoscopic hysterectomy with abdominal hysterectomy to determine the safest and most cost-effective technique. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A parallel, open, non-inferiority, multicentre, randomised controlled, expertise-based surgery trial with integrated health economic evaluation and an internal pilot with an embedded qualitative process evaluation. A within trial-based economic evaluation will explore the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with open abdominal hysterectomy. We will aim to recruit 3250 women requiring a hysterectomy for a benign gynaecological condition and who were suitable for either laparoscopic or open techniques. The primary outcome is major complications up to six completed weeks postsurgery and the key secondary outcome is time from surgery to resumption of usual activities using the personalised Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function questionnaire. The principal outcome for the economic evaluation is to be cost per QALY at 12 months' postsurgery. A secondary analysis is to be undertaken to generate costs per major surgical complication avoided and costs per return to normal activities. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the West Midlands-Edgbaston Research Ethics Committee, 18 February 2021 (Ethics ref: 21/WM/0019). REC approval for the protocol version 2.0 dated 2 February 2021 was issued on 18 February 2021.We will present the findings in national and international conferences. We will also aim to publish the findings in high impact peer-reviewed journals. We will disseminate the completed paper to the Department of Health, the Scientific Advisory Committees of the RCOG, the Royal College of Nurses (RCN) and the BSGE. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14566195.

Randomized Trial of Early Detection and Treatment of Postpartum Hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Delays in the detection or treatment of postpartum hemorrhage can result in complications or death. A blood-collection drape can help provide objective, accurate, and early diagnosis of postpartum hemorrhage, and delayed or inconsistent use of effective interventions may be able to be addressed by a treatment bundle. METHODS: We conducted an international, cluster-randomized trial to assess a multicomponent clinical intervention for postpartum hemorrhage in patients having vaginal delivery. The intervention included a calibrated blood-collection drape for early detection of postpartum hemorrhage and a bundle of first-response treatments (uterine massage, oxytocic drugs, tranexamic acid, intravenous fluids, examination, and escalation), supported by an implementation strategy (intervention group). Hospitals in the control group provided usual care. The primary outcome was a composite of severe postpartum hemorrhage (blood loss, ≥1000 ml), laparotomy for bleeding, or maternal death from bleeding. Key secondary implementation outcomes were the detection of postpartum hemorrhage and adherence to the treatment bundle. RESULTS: A total of 80 secondary-level hospitals across Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, and Tanzania, in which 210,132 patients underwent vaginal delivery, were randomly assigned to the intervention group or the usual-care group. Among hospitals and patients with data, a primary-outcome event occurred in 1.6% of the patients in the intervention group, as compared with 4.3% of those in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.50; P<0.001). Postpartum hemorrhage was detected in 93.1% of the patients in the intervention group and in 51.1% of those in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.41 to 1.76), and the treatment bundle was used in 91.2% and 19.4%, respectively (rate ratio, 4.94; 95% CI, 3.88 to 6.28). CONCLUSIONS: Early detection of postpartum hemorrhage and use of bundled treatment led to a lower risk of the primary outcome, a composite of severe postpartum hemorrhage, laparotomy for bleeding, or death from bleeding, than usual care among patients having vaginal delivery. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; E-MOTIVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04341662.).

Ulipristal acetate versus levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for heavy menstrual bleeding (UCON): a randomised controlled phase III trial.

Background: Heavy menstrual bleeding affects one in four women and negatively impacts quality of life. Ulipristal acetate is prescribed to treat symptoms associated with uterine fibroids. We compared the effectiveness of ulipristal acetate and the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system at reducing the burden of heavy menstrual bleeding, irrespective of the presence of fibroids. Methods: This randomised, open-label, parallel group phase III trial enrolled women over 18 years with heavy menstrual bleeding from 10 UK hospitals. Participants were centrally randomised, in a 1:1 ratio, to either three, 12-week treatment cycles of 5 mg ulipristal acetate daily, separated by 4-week treatment-free intervals, or a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. The primary outcome, analysed by intention-to-treat, was quality of life measured by the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included menstrual bleeding and liver function. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 20426843. Findings: Between June 5th, 2015 and February 26th, 2020, 236 women were randomised, either side of a recruitment suspension due to concerns of ulipristal acetate hepatoxicity. Subsequent withdrawal of ulipristal acetate led to early cessation of recruitment but the trial continued in follow-up. The primary outcome substantially improved in both groups, and was 89, (interquartile range [IQR] 65 to 100, n = 53) and 94, (IQR 70 to 100, n = 50; adjusted odds ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26-1.17; p = 0.12) in the ulipristal and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system groups. Rates of amenorrhoea at 12 months were higher in those allocated ulipristal acetate compared to levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (64% versus 25%, adjusted odds ratio 7.12, 95% CI 2.29-22.2). Other outcomes were similar between the two groups and there were no cases of endometrial malignancy or hepatotoxicity due to ulipristal acetate use. Interpretation: Our findings suggested that both treatments improved quality of life. Ulipristal was more effective at inducing amenorrhoea. Ulipristal has been demonstrated to be an effective medical therapeutic option but currently its use has restrictions and requires liver function monitoring. Funding: UK Medical Research Council and National Institute of Health Research EME Programme (12/206/52).

Combination of gefitinib and methotrexate to treat tubal ectopic pregnancy (GEM3): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Tubal ectopic pregnancies can cause substantial morbidity or even death. Current treatment is with methotrexate or surgery. Methotrexate treatment fails in approximately 30% of women who subsequently require rescue surgery. Gefitinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor, might improve the effects of methotrexate. We assessed the efficacy of oral gefitinib with methotrexate, versus methotrexate alone, to treat tubal ectopic pregnancy. METHODS: We performed a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across 50 UK hospitals. Participants diagnosed with tubal ectopic pregnancy were administered a single dose of intramuscular methotrexate (50 mg/m2) and randomised (1:1 ratio) to 7 days of additional oral gefitinib (250 mg daily) or placebo. The primary outcome, analysed by intention to treat, was surgical intervention to resolve the ectopic pregnancy. Secondary outcomes included time to resolution of ectopic pregnancy and serious adverse events. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, ISCRTN 67795930. FINDINGS: Between Nov 2, 2016, and Oct 6, 2021, 328 participants were allocated to methotrexate and gefitinib (n=165) or methotrexate and placebo (n=163). Three participants in the placebo group withdrew. Surgical intervention occurred in 50 (30%) of 165 participants in the gefitinib group and in 47 (29%) of 160 participants in the placebo group (adjusted risk ratio 1·15, 95% CI 0·85 to 1·58; adjusted risk difference -0·01, 95% CI -0·10 to 0·09; p=0·37). Without surgical intervention, median time to resolution was 28·0 days in the gefitinib group and 28·0 days in the placebo group (subdistribution hazard ratio 1·03, 95% CI 0·75 to 1·40). Serious adverse events occurred in five (3%) of 165 participants in the gefitinib group and in six (4%) of 162 participants in the placebo group. Diarrhoea and rash were more common in the gefitinib group. INTERPRETATION: In women with a tubal ectopic pregnancy, adding oral gefitinib to parenteral methotrexate does not offer clinical benefit over methotrexate and increases minor adverse reactions. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research.

Protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial to evaluate integrated support from pharmacist independent prescriber and third sector worker for people experiencing homelessness: the PHOENIx community pharmacy study.

BACKGROUND: People experiencing homelessness (PEH) have complex health and social care needs and most die in their early 40 s. PEH frequently use community pharmacies; however, evaluation of the delivery of structured, integrated, holistic health and social care intervention has not been previously undertaken in community pharmacies for PEH. PHOENIx (Pharmacy Homeless Outreach Engagement Non-medical Independent prescribing Rx) has been delivered and tested in Glasgow, Scotland, by NHS pharmacist independent prescribers and third sector homelessness support workers offering health and social care intervention in low threshold homeless drop-in venues, emergency accommodation and emergency departments, to PEH. Building on this work, this study aims to test recruitment, retention, intervention adherence and fidelity of community pharmacy-based PHOENIx intervention. METHODS: Randomised, multi-centre, open, parallel-group external pilot trial. A total of 100 PEH aged 18 years and over will be recruited from community pharmacies in Glasgow and Birmingham. PHOENIx intervention includes structured assessment in the community pharmacy of health, housing, benefits and activities, in addition to usual care, through weekly visits lasting up to six months. A primary outcome is whether to proceed to a definitive trial based on pre-specified progression criteria. Secondary outcomes include drug/alcohol treatment uptake and treatment retention; overdose rates; mortality and time to death; prison/criminal justice encounters; healthcare utilisation; housing tenure; patient-reported measures and intervention acceptability. Analysis will include descriptive statistics of recruitment and retention rates. Process evaluation will be conducted using Normalisation Process Theory. Health, social care and personal resource use data will be identified, measured and valued. DISCUSSION: If the findings of this pilot study suggest progression to a definitive trial, and if the definitive trial offers positive outcomes, it is intended that PHOENIx will be a publicly funded free-to-access service in community pharmacy for PEH. The study results will be shared with wider stakeholders and patients in addition to dissemination through medical journals and scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Clinical Trial Registration ISRCTN88146807. Approved protocol version 2.0 dated July 19, 2022.

Minimisation for the design of parallel cluster-randomised trials: An evaluation of balance in cluster-level covariates and numbers of clusters allocated to each arm.

BACKGROUND: Cluster-randomised trials often use some form of restricted randomisation, such as stratified- or covariate-constrained randomisation. Minimisation has the potential to balance on more covariates than blocked stratification and can be implemented sequentially unlike covariate-constrained randomisation. Yet, unlike stratification, minimisation has no inbuilt guard to maintain close to a 1:1 allocation. A departure from a 1:1 allocation can be unappealing in a setting with a small number of allocation units such as cluster randomisation which typically include about 30 clusters. METHODS: Using simulation (10,000 per scenario), we evaluate the performance of a range of minimisation procedures on the likelihood of a 1:1 allocation of clusters (10-80 clusters) to treatment arms, along with its performance on covariate imbalance. The range of minimisation procedures includes varying: the proportion of clusters allocated to the least imbalanced arm (known as the stochastic element) - between 0.7 and 1, percentage of first clusters allocated completely at random (known as the bed-in period) - between 0% and 20% and adding 'number of clusters allocated to each arm' as a covariate in the minimisation algorithm. We additionally include a comparison of stratifying and then minimising within key strata (such as country within a multi country cluster trial) as a potential aid to increasing balance. RESULTS: Minimisation is unlikely to result in an exact 1:1 allocation unless the stochastic element is set higher than 0.9. For example, with 20 clusters, 2 binary covariates and setting the stochastic element to 0.7: only 41% of the possible randomisations over the 10,000 simulations achieved a 1:1 allocation. While typical sizes of imbalance were small (a difference of two clusters per arm), allocations as extreme as of 10:10 were observed. Adding the 'number of clusters' into the minimisation algorithm reduces this risk slightly, but covariate imbalance increases slightly. Stratifying and then minimising within key strata improve balance within strata but increase imbalance across all clusters, both on the number of clusters and covariate imbalance. CONCLUSION: In cluster trials, where there are typically about 30 allocation units, when using minimisation, unless the stochastic element is set very high, there is a high risk of not achieving a 1:1 allocation, and a small but nonetheless real risk of an extreme departure from a 1:1 allocation. Stratification with minimisation within key strata (such as country) improves the balance within strata although compromises overall balance.

A Randomized Trial of Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation Versus Alternative Forms of Surgical Cartilage Management in Patients With a Failed Primary Treatment for Chondral or Osteochondral Defects in the Knee.

BACKGROUND: There are limited randomized controlled trials with long-term outcomes comparing autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) versus alternative forms of surgical cartilage management within the knee. PURPOSE: To determine at 5 years after surgery whether ACI was superior to alternative forms of cartilage management in patients after a failed previous treatment for chondral or osteochondral defects in the knee. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: In total, 390 participants were randomly assigned to receive either ACI or alternative management. Patients aged 18 to 55 years with one or two symptomatic cartilage defects who had failed 1 previous therapeutic surgical procedure in excess of 6 months prior were included. Dual primary outcome measures were used: (1) patient-completed Lysholm knee score and (2) time from surgery to cessation of treatment benefit. Secondary outcome measures included International Knee Documentation Committee and Cincinnati Knee Rating System scores, as well as number of serious adverse events. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: Lysholm scores were improved by 1 year in both groups (15.4 points [95% CI, 11.9 to 18.8] and 15.2 points [95% CI, 11.6 to 18.9]) for ACI and alternative, with this improvement sustained over the duration of the trial. However, no evidence of a difference was found between the groups at 5 years (2.9 points; 95% CI, -1.8 to 7.5; P = .46). Approximately half of the participants (55%; 95% CI, 47% to 64% with ACI) were still experiencing benefit at 5 years, with time to cessation of treatment benefit similar in both groups (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.32; P > .99). There was a differential effect on Lysholm scores in patients without previous marrow stimulation compared with those with marrow stimulation (P = .03; 6.4 points in favor of ACI; 95% CI, -0.4 to 13.1). More participants experienced a serious adverse event with ACI (P = .02). CONCLUSION: Over 5 years, there was no evidence of a difference in Lysholm scores between ACI and alternative management in patients who had previously failed treatment. Previous marrow stimulation had a detrimental effect on the outcome of ACI. REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: 48911177.

Effects on heavy menstrual bleeding and pregnancy of uterine artery embolization (UAE) or myomectomy for women with uterine fibroids wishing to avoid hysterectomy: The FEMME randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine treatment options (myomectomy vs. uterine artery embolization (UAE)) for women wishing to avoid hysterectomy. METHODS: A multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted on 254 women and data were collected on fibroid-specific quality of life (UFS-QOL), loss of menstrual blood, and pregnancy. RESULTS: At 4 years, the mean difference in the UFS-QOL was 5.0 points (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.4 to 11.5; P = 0.13) in favor of myomectomy. This was not statistically significant as it was at 2 years. There were no differences in bleeding scores, rates of amenorrhea, or heavy bleeding. Of those who were still menstruating, the majority reported regular or fairly regular periods: 36 of 48 (75%) in the UAE group and 30 of 39 (77%) in the myomectomy group. Twelve women after UAE and six women after myomectomy became pregnant (4 years) with seven and five live births, respectively (hazard ratio 0.48, 95% CI 0.18-1.28). There was no difference between the levels of hormones associated with the uterine reserve in each group. CONCLUSION: Leiomyoma are common in reproductive-aged women, causing heavy menses and subfertility. Among women with uterine fibroids, myomectomy resulted in better fibroid-related quality of life at 4 years, compared with UAE but the treatments decreased menstrual bleeding equally. There was also no significant difference in the impact of treatment on ovarian reserve.

Monofilament suture versus braided suture thread to improve pregnancy outcomes after vaginal cervical cerclage (C-STICH): a pragmatic randomised, controlled, phase 3, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Miscarriage in the second trimester and preterm birth are significant global problems. Vaginal cervical cerclage is performed to prevent pregnancy loss and preterm birth. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of a monofilament suture thread compared with braided suture thread on pregnancy loss rates in women undergoing a cervical cerclage. METHODS: C-STICH was a pragmatic, randomised, controlled, superiority trial done at 75 obstetric units in the UK. Women with a singleton pregnancy who received a vaginal cervical cerclage due to a history of pregnancy loss or premature birth, or if indicated by ultrasound, were centrally randomised (1:1) using minimisation to receive a monofilament suture or braided suture thread for their cervical cerclage. Women and outcome assessors were masked to allocation as far as possible. The primary outcome was pregnancy loss, defined as miscarriage, stillbirth, or neonatal death in the first week of life, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all women who were randomly assigned). Safety was also assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial was registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN15373349. FINDINGS: Between Aug 21, 2015, and Jan 28, 2021, 2049 women were randomly assigned to receive a monofilament suture (n=1025) or braided suture (n=1024). The primary outcome was ascertained in 1003 women in the monofilament suture group and 993 women in the braided suture group. Pregnancy loss occurred in 80 (8·0%) of 1003 women in the monofilament suture group and 75 (7·6%) of 993 women in the braided suture group (adjusted risk ratio 1·05 [95% CI 0·79 to 1·40]; adjusted risk difference 0·002 [95% CI -0·02 to 0·03]). INTERPRETATION: Monofilament suture did not reduce rate of pregnancy loss when compared with a braided suture. Clinicians should use the results of this trial to facilitate discussions around the choice of suture thread to optimise outcomes. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Uterine artery embolisation versus myomectomy for premenopausal women with uterine fibroids wishing to avoid hysterectomy: the FEMME RCT.

BACKGROUND: Uterine fibroids are the most common tumour in women of reproductive age and are associated with heavy menstrual bleeding, abdominal discomfort, subfertility and reduced quality of life. For women wishing to retain their uterus and who do not respond to medical treatment, myomectomy and uterine artery embolisation are therapeutic options. OBJECTIVES: We examined the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of uterine artery embolisation compared with myomectomy in the treatment of symptomatic fibroids. DESIGN: A multicentre, open, randomised trial with a parallel economic evaluation. SETTING: Twenty-nine UK hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Premenopausal women who had symptomatic uterine fibroids amenable to myomectomy or uterine artery embolisation were recruited. Women were excluded if they had significant adenomyosis, any malignancy or pelvic inflammatory disease or if they had already had a previous open myomectomy or uterine artery embolisation. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to myomectomy or embolisation in a 1 : 1 ratio using a minimisation algorithm. Myomectomy could be open abdominal, laparoscopic or hysteroscopic. Embolisation of the uterine arteries was performed under fluoroscopic guidance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Uterine Fibroid Symptom Quality of Life questionnaire (with scores ranging from 0 to 100 and a higher score indicating better quality of life) at 2 years, adjusted for baseline score. The economic evaluation estimated quality-adjusted life-years (derived from EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version, and costs from the NHS perspective). RESULTS: A total of 254 women were randomised - 127 to myomectomy (105 underwent myomectomy) and 127 to uterine artery embolisation (98 underwent embolisation). Information on the primary outcome at 2 years was available for 81% (n = 206) of women. Primary outcome scores at 2 years were 84.6 (standard deviation 21.5) in the myomectomy group and 80.0 (standard deviation 22.0) in the uterine artery embolisation group (intention-to-treat complete-case analysis mean adjusted difference 8.0, 95% confidence interval 1.8 to 14.1, p = 0.01; mean adjusted difference using multiple imputation for missing responses 6.5, 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 11.9). The mean difference in the primary outcome at the 4-year follow-up time point was 5.0 (95% CI -1.4 to 11.5; p = 0.13) in favour of myomectomy. Perioperative and postoperative complications from all initial procedures occurred in similar percentages of women in both groups (29% in the myomectomy group vs. 24% in the UAE group). Twelve women in the uterine embolisation group and six women in the myomectomy group reported pregnancies over 4 years, resulting in seven and five live births, respectively (hazard ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 1.28). Over a 2-year time horizon, uterine artery embolisation was associated with higher costs than myomectomy (mean cost £7958, 95% confidence interval £6304 to £9612, vs. mean cost £7314, 95% confidence interval £5854 to £8773), but with fewer quality-adjusted life-years gained (0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 0.78, vs. 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 0.87). The differences in costs (difference £645, 95% confidence interval -£1381 to £2580) and quality-adjusted life-years (difference -0.09, 95% confidence interval -0.11 to -0.04) were small. Similar results were observed over the 4-year time horizon. At a threshold of willingness to pay for a gain of 1 QALY of £20,000, the probability of myomectomy being cost-effective is 98% at 2 years and 96% at 4 years. LIMITATIONS: There were a substantial number of women who were not recruited because of their preference for a particular treatment option. CONCLUSIONS: Among women with symptomatic uterine fibroids, myomectomy resulted in greater improvement in quality of life than did uterine artery embolisation. The differences in costs and quality-adjusted life-years are very small. Future research should involve women who are desiring pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN70772394. FUNDING: This study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 22. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?: Uterine fibroids are the most common non-cancerous tumour in women of childbearing age. Uterine fibroids are associated with heavy bleeding, lower chances of having children and reduced quality of life. Traditional surgical options were either to remove the fibroids (via myomectomy) or to completely remove the womb. A newer approach, known as uterine artery embolisation, involves blocking the blood supply to the fibroids in the womb. WHAT DID WE PLAN TO DO?: We compared myomectomy with uterine artery embolisation in women with fibroids who wanted to keep their womb. We wanted to see which treatment improved quality of life, was associated with the fewest complications and was the best value for money for the NHS. We also wanted to see if either treatment had an impact on women's ability to get pregnant and give birth. We included 254 women in a clinical trial. Women were assigned to have myomectomy or uterine artery embolisation at random to ensure a fair comparison. Women completed questionnaires about their symptoms and quality of life at intervals up to 4 years after treatment. WHAT DID WE FIND?: We found that myomectomy improved women's quality of life more than uterine artery embolisation. Complications from the treatments occurred in a similar proportion of women. There appeared to be no difference on reproductive hormone levels between treatments. Too few women in the trial got pregnant for any difference in the numbers of women having children to be seen. The differences in costs and overall disease burden were small. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?: Both treatments improve quality of life and cost about the same to the NHS but, on average, myomectomy will provide greater benefit to women. There is no evidence to suggest that either treatment is unsuitable for women wanting to get pregnant, but more research is needed in younger women.

Uterine artery embolization or myomectomy for women with uterine fibroids: Four-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the quality of life experienced by women with symptomatic uterine fibroids who had been treated with UAE in comparison to myomectomy. We report the four-year follow-up of the FEMME randomised trial. Two-year follow-up data has been previously reported. STUDY DESIGN: Premenopausal women who had symptomatic uterine fibroids amenable to myomectomy or uterine artery embolization were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Women were excluded if they had significant adenomyosis, any malignancy, pelvic inflammatory disease or had had a previous open myomectomy or uterine artery embolization.Participants were randomised to myomectomy or embolization in a 1:1 ratio using a minimisation algorithm. Myomectomy could be open abdominal, laparoscopic or hysteroscopic, according to clinician preference. Embolization of the uterine arteries was performed according to local practice, under fluoroscopic guidance.The primary outcome measure was the Uterine Fibroid Symptom Quality of Life questionnaire, adjusted for baseline score and reported here at four years post-randomisation. Subsequent procedures for fibroids, pregnancy and outcome were amongst secondary outcomes.Trial registration ISRCTN70772394 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN70772394. RESULTS: 254 women were randomized, 127 to myomectomy (105 underwent myomectomy) and 127 to uterine artery embolization (98 underwent embolization). At four years, 67 (53%) and 81 (64%) completed UFS-QoL quality of life scores. Mean difference in the UFS-QoL at 4 years was 5.0 points (95% CI -1.4 to 11.5; p = 0.13) in favour of myomectomy. There were 15 pregnancies in the UAE group and 7 in the myomectomy group, with a cumulative pregnancy rate to four years of 15% and 6% respectively (hazard ratio: 0.48; 95% CI 0.18-1.28). The cumulative repeat procedure rate to four years was 24% in the UAE group and 13% in the myomectomy group (hazard ratio: 0.53; 95% CI 0.27-1.05). CONCLUSIONS: Myomectomy resulted in greater improvement in quality of life compared with uterine artery embolization, although by four years, this difference was not statistically significant. Missing data may limit the generalisability of this result. The numbers of women becoming pregnant were too small draw a conclusion on the effect of the procedures on fertility.

C-STICH: Cerclage Suture Type for an Insufficient Cervix and its effect on Health outcomes-a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is associated with significant mortality and morbidity for mothers and babies. Women are identified as high risk for preterm birth based on either previous medical/pregnancy history or on ultrasound assessment of the cervix. Women identified as high risk can be offered a cervical cerclage (a purse string stitch) around the cervix (neck of the womb) to reduce the risk of preterm birth. In women who have a cervical cerclage, the procedure can be performed using either a monofilament (single-stranded) or braided (woven) suture material. Both suture materials are routinely used for cervical cerclage and there is uncertainty as to which is superior. METHODS: A multicentre, open, randomised controlled superiority trial of 2050 women presenting at obstetric units, deemed to be at risk of preterm birth and already scheduled to have a cervical cerclage as part of their standard care. Inclusion criteria include singleton pregnancies and an indication for cervical cerclage for either a history of three or more previous mid-trimester losses or premature births (≤ 28 weeks), insertion of cervical sutures in previous pregnancies, a history of mid trimester loss or premature birth with a (current) shortened (≤ 25 mm) cervix, or women whom clinicians deem to be at risk of preterm birth either by history or the results of an ultrasound scan. Exclusion criteria include women who have taken part in C-STICH previously, are aged less than 18 years old at the time of presentation, require a rescue cerclage, and are unwilling or unable to give informed consent and in whom a cerclage will be placed by any route other than vaginally (e.g. via an abdominal route). Following informed consent, women are randomised on a 1:1 basis to either monofilament or braided suture, by minimisation. The primary outcome is pregnancy loss (miscarriage and perinatal mortality, including any stillbirth or neonatal death in the first week of life), and secondary outcomes include the core outcome set for preterm birth trials. DISCUSSION: Optimising established interventions to prevent preterm birth is important in reducing perinatal mortality rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 15373349 . Registered before recruitment on 03 December 2014 prior to first recruit.

C-STICH2: emergency cervical cerclage to prevent miscarriage and preterm birth-study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

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.

Gabapentin for chronic pelvic pain in women (GaPP2): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pelvic pain affects 2-24% of women worldwide and evidence for medical treatments is scarce. Gabapentin is effective in treating some chronic pain conditions. We aimed to measure the efficacy and safety of gabapentin in women with chronic pelvic pain and no obvious pelvic pathology. METHODS: We performed a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in 39 UK hospital centres. Eligible participants were women with chronic pelvic pain (with or without dysmenorrhoea or dyspareunia) of at least 3 months duration. Inclusion criteria were 18-50 years of age, use or willingness to use contraception to avoid pregnancy, and no obvious pelvic pathology at laparoscopy, which must have taken place at least 2 weeks before consent but less than 36 months previously. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive gabapentin (titrated to a maximum dose of 2700 mg daily) or matching placebo for 16 weeks. The online randomisation system minimised allocations by presence or absence of dysmenorrhoea, psychological distress, current use of hormonal contraceptives, and hospital centre. The appearance, route, and administration of the assigned intervention were identical in both groups. Patients, clinicians, and research staff were unaware of the trial group assignments throughout the trial. Participants were unmasked once they had provided all outcome data at week 16-17, or sooner if a serious adverse event requiring knowledge of the study drug occurred. The dual primary outcome measures were worst and average pain scores assessed separately on a numerical rating scale in weeks 13-16 after randomisation, in the intention-to-treat population. Self-reported adverse events were assessed according to intention-to-treat principles. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISCRTN77451762. FINDINGS: Participants were screened between Nov 30, 2015, and March 6, 2019, and 306 were randomly assigned (153 to gabapentin and 153 to placebo). There were no significant between-group differences in both worst and average numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores at 13-16 weeks after randomisation. The mean worst NRS pain score was 7·1 (standard deviation [SD] 2·6) in the gabapentin group and 7·4 (SD 2·2) in the placebo group. Mean change from baseline was -1·4 (SD 2·3) in the gabapentin group and -1·2 (SD 2·1) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference -0·20 [97·5% CI -0·81 to 0·42]; p=0·47). The mean average NRS pain score was 4·3 (SD 2·3) in the gabapentin group and 4·5 (SD 2·2) in the placebo group. Mean change from baseline was -1·1 (SD 2·0) in the gabapentin group and -0·9 (SD 1·8) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference -0·18 [97·5% CI -0·71 to 0·35]; p=0·45). More women had a serious adverse event in the gabapentin group than in the placebo group (10 [7%] of 153 in the gabapentin group compared with 3 [2%] of 153 in the placebo group; p=0·04). Dizziness, drowsiness, and visual disturbances were more common in the gabapentin group. INTERPRETATION: This study was adequately powered, but treatment with gabapentin did not result in significantly lower pain scores in women with chronic pelvic pain, and was associated with higher rates of side-effects than placebo. Given the increasing reports of abuse and evidence of potential harms associated with gabapentin use, it is important that clinicians consider alternative treatment options to off-label gabapentin for the management of chronic pelvic pain and no obvious pelvic pathology. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Randomised controlled trial to investigate the effectiveness of local oestrogen treatment in postmenopausal women undergoing pelvic organ prolapse surgery (LOTUS): a pilot study to assess feasibility of a large multicentre trial.

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.

Uterine-Artery Embolization or Myomectomy for Uterine Fibroids.

BACKGROUND: Uterine fibroids, the most common type of tumor among women of reproductive age, are associated with heavy menstrual bleeding, abdominal discomfort, subfertility, and a reduced quality of life. For women who wish to preserve their uterus and who have not had a response to medical treatment, myomectomy and uterine-artery embolization are therapeutic options. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial to evaluate myomectomy, as compared with uterine-artery embolization, in women who had symptomatic uterine fibroids and did not want to undergo hysterectomy. Procedural options included open abdominal, laparoscopic, or hysteroscopic myomectomy. The primary outcome was fibroid-related quality of life, as assessed by the score on the health-related quality-of-life domain of the Uterine Fibroid Symptom and Quality of Life (UFS-QOL) questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating a better quality of life) at 2 years; adjustment was made for the baseline score. RESULTS: A total of 254 women, recruited at 29 hospitals in the United Kingdom, were randomly assigned: 127 to the myomectomy group (of whom 105 underwent myomectomy) and 127 to the uterine-artery embolization group (of whom 98 underwent embolization). Data on the primary outcome were available for 206 women (81%). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean (±SD) score on the health-related quality-of-life domain of the UFS-QOL questionnaire at 2 years was 84.6±21.5 in the myomectomy group and 80.0±22.0 in the uterine-artery embolization group (mean adjusted difference with complete case analysis, 8.0 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8 to 14.1; P = 0.01; mean adjusted difference with missing responses imputed, 6.5 points; 95% CI, 1.1 to 11.9). Perioperative and postoperative complications from all initial procedures, irrespective of adherence to the assigned procedure, occurred in 29% of the women in the myomectomy group and in 24% of the women in the uterine-artery embolization group. CONCLUSIONS: Among women with symptomatic uterine fibroids, those who underwent myomectomy had a better fibroid-related quality of life at 2 years than those who underwent uterine-artery embolization. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment program; FEMME Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN70772394.).

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.

The Prevalence of Thyroid Dysfunction and Autoimmunity in Women With History of Miscarriage or Subfertility.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence of and factors associated with different thyroid dysfunction phenotypes in women who are asymptomatic preconception. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: A total of 49 hospitals across the United Kingdom between 2011 and 2016. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 16 to 41years with history of miscarriage or subfertility trying for a pregnancy. METHODS: Prevalences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using the binomial exact method. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify risk factors for thyroid disease. INTERVENTION: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Rates of thyroid dysfunction. RESULTS: Thyroid function and thyroid peroxidase antibody (TPOAb) data were available for 19213 and 19237 women, respectively. The prevalence of abnormal thyroid function was 4.8% (95% CI, 4.5-5.1); euthyroidism was defined as levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) of 0.44 to 4.50 mIU/L and free thyroxine (fT4) of 10 to 21 pmol/L. Overt hypothyroidism (TSH > 4.50 mIU/L, fT4 < 10 pmol/L) was present in 0.2% of women (95% CI, 0.1-0.3) and overt hyperthyroidism (TSH < 0.44 mIU/L, fT4 > 21 pmol/L) was present in 0.3% (95% CI, 0.2-0.3). The prevalence of subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH) using an upper TSH concentration of 4.50 mIU/L was 2.4% (95% CI, 2.1-2.6). Lowering the upper TSH to 2.50 mIU/L resulted in higher rates of SCH, 19.9% (95% CI, 19.3-20.5). Multiple regression analyses showed increased odds of SCH (TSH > 4.50 mIU/L) with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 35.0 kg/m2 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.71; 95% CI, 1.13-2.57; P = 0.01) and Asian ethnicity (aOR 1.76; 95% CI, 1.31-2.37; P < 0.001), and increased odds of SCH (TSH ≥ 2.50 mIU/L) with subfertility (aOR 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04-1.29; P = 0.008). TPOAb positivity was prevalent in 9.5% of women (95% CI, 9.1-9.9). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of undiagnosed overt thyroid disease is low. SCH and TPOAb are common, particularly in women with higher BMI or of Asian ethnicity. A TSH cutoff of 2.50 mIU/L to define SCH results in a significant proportion of women potentially requiring levothyroxine treatment.