Trial of Selective Early Treatment of Patent Ductus Arteriosus with Ibuprofen.

BACKGROUND: The cyclooxygenase inhibitor ibuprofen may be used to treat patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) in preterm infants. Whether selective early treatment of large PDAs with ibuprofen would improve short-term outcomes is not known. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluating early treatment (≤72 hours after birth) with ibuprofen for a large PDA (diameter of ≥1.5 mm with pulsatile flow) in extremely preterm infants (born between 23 weeks 0 days' and 28 weeks 6 days' gestation). The primary outcome was a composite of death or moderate or severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia evaluated at 36 weeks of postmenstrual age. RESULTS: A total of 326 infants were assigned to receive ibuprofen and 327 to receive placebo; 324 and 322, respectively, had data available for outcome analyses. A primary-outcome event occurred in 220 of 318 infants (69.2%) in the ibuprofen group and 202 of 318 infants (63.5%) in the placebo group (adjusted risk ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98 to 1.20; P = 0.10). A total of 44 of 323 infants (13.6%) in the ibuprofen group and 33 of 321 infants (10.3%) in the placebo group died (adjusted risk ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.90). Among the infants who survived to 36 weeks of postmenstrual age, moderate or severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia occurred in 176 of 274 (64.2%) in the ibuprofen group and 169 of 285 (59.3%) in the placebo group (adjusted risk ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.23). Two unforeseeable serious adverse events occurred that were possibly related to ibuprofen. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of death or moderate or severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia at 36 weeks of postmenstrual age was not significantly lower among infants who received early treatment with ibuprofen than among those who received placebo. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme; Baby-OSCAR ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN84264977.).

Techniques to increase lumbar puncture success in newborn babies: the NeoCLEAR RCT.

Background: Lumbar puncture is an essential tool for diagnosing meningitis. Neonatal lumbar puncture, although frequently performed, has low success rates (50-60%). Standard technique includes lying infants on their side and removing the stylet 'late', that is, after the needle is thought to have entered the cerebrospinal fluid. Modifications to this technique include holding infants in the sitting position and removing the stylet 'early', that is, following transection of the skin. To the best of our knowledge, modified techniques have not previously been tested in adequately powered trials. Objectives: The aim of the Neonatal Champagne Lumbar punctures Every time - An RCT (NeoCLEAR) trial was to compare two modifications to standard lumbar puncture technique, that is, use of the lying position rather than the sitting position and of 'early' rather than 'late' stylet removal, in terms of success rates and short-term clinical, resource and safety outcomes. Methods: This was a multicentre 2 × 2 factorial pragmatic non-blinded randomised controlled trial. Infants requiring lumbar puncture (with a working weight ≥ 1000 g and corrected gestational age from 27+0 to 44+0 weeks), and whose parents provided written consent, were randomised by web-based allocation to lumbar puncture (1) in the sitting or lying position and (2) with early or late stylet removal. The trial was powered to detect a 10% absolute risk difference in the primary outcome, that is, the percentage of infants with a successful lumbar puncture (cerebrospinal fluid containing < 10,000 red cells/mm3). The primary outcome was analysed by modified intention to treat. Results: Of 1082 infants randomised (sitting with early stylet removal, n = 275; sitting with late stylet removal, n = 271; lying with early stylet removal, n = 274; lying with late stylet removal, n = 262), 1076 were followed up until discharge. Most infants were term born (950/1076, 88.3%) and were aged < 3 days (936/1076, 87.0%) with a working weight > 2.5 kg (971/1076, 90.2%). Baseline characteristics were balanced across groups. In terms of the primary outcome, the sitting position was significantly more successful than lying [346/543 (63.7%) vs. 307/533 (57.6%), adjusted risk ratio 1.10 (95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.21); p = 0.029; number needed to treat = 16 (95% confidence interval 9 to 134)]. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between early stylet removal and late stylet removal [338/545 (62.0%) vs. 315/531 (59.3%), adjusted risk ratio 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.94 to 1.15); p = 0.447]. Resource consumption was similar in all groups, and all techniques were well tolerated and safe. Limitations: This trial predominantly recruited term-born infants who were < 3 days old, with working weights > 2.5 kg. The impact of practitioners' seniority and previous experience of different lumbar puncture techniques was not investigated. Limited data on resource use were captured, and parent/practitioner preferences were not assessed. Conclusion: Lumbar puncture success rate was higher with infants in the sitting position but was not affected by timing of stylet removal. Lumbar puncture is a safe, well-tolerated and simple technique without additional cost, and is easily learned and applied. The results support a paradigm shift towards sitting technique as the standard position for neonatal lumbar puncture, especially for term-born infants during the first 3 days of life. Future work: The superiority of the sitting lumbar puncture technique should be tested in larger populations of premature infants, in those aged > 3 days and outside neonatal care settings. The effect of operators' previous practice and the impact on family experience also require further investigation, alongside in-depth analyses of healthcare resource utilisation. Future studies should also investigate other factors affecting lumbar puncture success, including further modifications to standard technique. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN14040914 and as Integrated Research Application System registration 223737. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 15/188/106) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 33. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Newborn babies are more susceptible to getting meningitis, and this can be fatal or have lifelong complications. A lumbar puncture is an essential test for diagnosing meningitis. Lumbar puncture involves taking a small amount of spinal fluid from the lower back using a needle. Analysing the fluid confirms or excludes meningitis, allowing the right treatment to be given. Lumbar punctures are commonly performed in newborns, but are technically difficult. In 50­60% of lumbar punctures in newborns, either no fluid is obtained or the sample is mixed with blood, making analysis less reliable. No-one knows which is the best technique, and so practice varies. The baby can be held lying on their side or sat up, and the 'stylet', which is a thin piece of metal that sits inside (and aids insertion of) the needle, can be removed either soon after passing through the skin (i.e. 'early stylet removal') or once the tip is thought to have reached the spinal fluid (i.e. 'late stylet removal'). We wanted to find the best technique for lumbar puncture in newborns. Therefore, we compared sitting with lying position, and 'early' with 'late' stylet removal. We carried out a large trial in newborn care and maternity wards in 21 UK hospitals. With parental consent, we recruited 1082 full-term and premature babies who needed a lumbar puncture. Our results demonstrated that the sitting position was more successful than lying position, but the timing of stylet removal did not affect success. In summary, the sitting position is an inexpensive, safe, well-tolerated and easily learned way to improve lumbar puncture success rates in newborns. Our results strongly support using this technique in newborn babies worldwide.

Frenotomy with breastfeeding support versus breastfeeding support alone for infants with tongue-tie and breastfeeding difficulties: the FROSTTIE RCT.

Background: Tongue-tie can be diagnosed in 3-11% of babies, with some studies reporting almost universal breastfeeding difficulties, and others reporting very few feeding difficulties that relate to the tongue-tie itself, instead noting that incorrect positioning and attachment are the primary reasons behind the observed breastfeeding difficulties and not the tongue-tie itself. The only existing trials of frenotomy are small and underpowered and/or include only very short-term or subjective outcomes. Objective: To investigate whether frenotomy is clinically and cost-effective to promote continuation of breastfeeding at 3 months in infants with breastfeeding difficulties diagnosed with tongue-tie. Design: A multicentre, unblinded, randomised, parallel group controlled trial. Setting: Twelve infant feeding services in the UK. Participants: Infants aged up to 10 weeks referred to an infant feeding service (by a parent, midwife or other breastfeeding support service) with breastfeeding difficulties and judged to have tongue-tie. Interventions: Infants were randomly allocated to frenotomy with standard breastfeeding support or standard breastfeeding support without frenotomy. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome was any breastmilk feeding at 3 months according to maternal self-report. Secondary outcomes included mother's pain, exclusive breastmilk feeding, exclusive direct breastfeeding, frenotomy, adverse events, maternal anxiety and depression, maternal and infant NHS health-care resource use, cost-effectiveness, and any breastmilk feeding at 6 months of age. Results: Between March 2019 and November 2020, 169 infants were randomised, 80 to the frenotomy with breastfeeding support arm and 89 to the breastfeeding support arm from a planned sample size of 870 infants. The trial was stopped in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic due to withdrawal of breastfeeding support services, slow recruitment and crossover between arms. In the frenotomy with breastfeeding support arm 74/80 infants (93%) received their allocated intervention, compared to 23/89 (26%) in the breastfeeding support arm. Primary outcome data were available for 163/169 infants (96%). There was no evidence of a difference between the arms in the rate of breastmilk feeding at 3 months, which was high in both groups (67/76, 88% vs. 75/87, 86%; adjusted risk ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.16). Adverse events were reported for three infants after surgery [bleeding (n = 1), salivary duct damage (n = 1), accidental cut to the tongue and salivary duct damage (n = 1)]. Cost-effectiveness could not be determined with the information available. Limitations: The statistical power of the analysis was extremely limited due to not achieving the target sample size and the high proportion of infants in the breastfeeding support arm who underwent frenotomy. Conclusions: This trial does not provide sufficient information to assess whether frenotomy in addition to breastfeeding support improves breastfeeding rates in infants diagnosed with tongue-tie. Future work: There is a clear lack of equipoise in the UK concerning the use of frenotomy, however, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the procedure still need to be established. Other study designs will need to be considered to address this objective. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN 10268851. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme (project number 16/143/01) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The funder had no role in study design or data collection, analysis and interpretation. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Many mothers and babies experience difficulties in establishing breastfeeding. In some babies it is thought that their difficulties may be linked to a condition called tongue-tie, in which a piece of skin tightly joins the middle part of the underside of the tongue to the base of the baby's mouth. This can be treated by an operation to divide the tight part/skin in the middle of the underneath of the tongue. We planned to carry out a trial of 870 babies to find out whether an operation together with breastfeeding support helps more mothers and babies with tongue-tie to continue breastfeeding until the baby is 3 months old compared to breastfeeding support on its own and whether the costs were different between the two groups of mothers and babies. We were only able to recruit 169 babies as the trial was stopped because of slow recruitment, changes to services in the COVID-19 pandemic and a high proportion of the babies in the breastfeeding support group going on to have an operation. There were no differences in the rate of breastfeeding at 3 months between the babies in the group who had an operation straightaway and those in the group that had breastfeeding support alone, or had an operation later. More than four in every five babies in both groups were still breastmilk feeding at 3 months. Three babies who had an operation, around 1 in 50 babies, had a complication of the operation (bleeding, scarring or a cut to the tube that makes saliva). Because of the small size of the study, we cannot say whether an operation to divide a tongue-tie along with breastfeeding support helps babies with tongue-tie and breastfeeding difficulties or has different costs. We will need to try different types of research to answer the question.

Planned delivery for pre-eclampsia between 34 and 37 weeks of gestation: the PHOENIX RCT.

BACKGROUND: In women with late preterm pre-eclampsia (i.e. at 34+0 to 36+6 weeks' gestation), the optimal delivery time is unclear because limitation of maternal-fetal disease progression needs to be balanced against infant complications. The aim of this trial was to determine whether or not planned earlier initiation of delivery reduces maternal adverse outcomes without substantial worsening of perinatal or infant outcomes, compared with expectant management, in women with late preterm pre-eclampsia. METHODS: We undertook an individually randomised, triple non-masked controlled trial in 46 maternity units across England and Wales, with an embedded health economic evaluation, comparing planned delivery and expectant management (usual care) in women with late preterm pre-eclampsia. The co-primary maternal outcome was a maternal morbidity composite or recorded systolic blood pressure of ≥ 160 mmHg (superiority hypothesis). The co-primary short-term perinatal outcome was a composite of perinatal deaths or neonatal unit admission (non-inferiority hypothesis). Analyses were by intention to treat, with an additional per-protocol analysis for the perinatal outcome. The primary 2-year infant neurodevelopmental outcome was measured using the PARCA-R (Parent Report of Children's Abilities-Revised) composite score. The planned sample size of the trial was 900 women; the trial is now completed. We undertook two linked substudies. RESULTS: Between 29 September 2014 and 10 December 2018, 901 women were recruited; 450 women [448 women (two withdrew consent) and 471 infants] were allocated to planned delivery and 451 women (451 women and 475 infants) were allocated to expectant management. The incidence of the co-primary maternal outcome was significantly lower in the planned delivery group [289 (65%) women] than in the expectant management group [338 (75%) women] (adjusted relative risk 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 0.94; p = 0.0005). The incidence of the co-primary perinatal outcome was significantly higher in the planned delivery group [196 (42%) infants] than in the expectant management group [159 (34%) infants] (adjusted relative risk 1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.47; p = 0.0034), but indicators of neonatal morbidity were similar in both groups. At 2-year follow-up, the mean PARCA-R scores were 89.5 points (standard deviation 18.2 points) for the planned delivery group (290 infants) and 91.9 points (standard deviation 18.4 points) for the expectant management group (256 infants), both within the normal developmental range (adjusted mean difference -2.4 points, 95% confidence interval -5.4 to 0.5 points; non-inferiority p = 0.147). Planned delivery was significantly cost-saving (-£2711, 95% confidence interval -£4840 to -£637) compared with expectant management. There were nine serious adverse events in the planned delivery group and 12 in the expectant management group. CONCLUSION: In women with late preterm pre-eclampsia, planned delivery reduces short-term maternal morbidity compared with expectant management, with more neonatal unit admissions related to prematurity but no indicators of greater short-term neonatal morbidity (such as need for respiratory support). At 2-year follow-up, around 60% of parents reported follow-up scores. Average infant development was within the normal range for both groups; the small between-group mean difference in PARCA-R scores is unlikely to be clinically important. Planned delivery was significantly cost-saving to the health service. These findings should be discussed with women with late preterm pre-eclampsia to allow shared decision-making on timing of delivery. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of the trial include the challenges of finding a perinatal outcome that adequately represented the potential risks of both groups and a maternal outcome that reflects the multiorgan manifestations of pre-eclampsia. The incidences of maternal and perinatal primary outcomes were higher than anticipated on the basis of previous studies, but this did not limit interpretation of the analysis. The trial was limited by a higher loss to follow-up rate than expected, meaning that the extent and direction of bias in outcomes (between responders and non-responders) is uncertain. A longer follow-up period (e.g. up to 5 years) would have enabled us to provide further evidence on long-term infant outcomes, but this runs the risk of greater attrition and increased expense. FUTURE WORK: We identified a number of further questions that could be prioritised through a formal scoping process, including uncertainties around disease-modifying interventions, prognostic factors, longer-term follow-up, the perspectives of women and their families, meta-analysis with other studies, effect of a similar intervention in other health-care settings, and clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of other related policies around neonatal unit admission in late preterm birth. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was prospectively registered as ISRCTN01879376. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in Health Technology Assessment. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Transfer of thawed frozen embryo versus fresh embryo to improve the healthy baby rate in women undergoing IVF: the E-Freeze RCT.

BACKGROUND: Freezing all embryos, followed by thawing and transferring them into the uterine cavity at a later stage (freeze-all), instead of fresh-embryo transfer may lead to improved pregnancy rates and fewer complications during in vitro fertilisation and pregnancies resulting from it. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate if a policy of freeze-all results in a higher healthy baby rate than the current policy of transferring fresh embryos. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, non-blinded, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Eighteen in vitro fertilisation clinics across the UK participated from February 2016 to April 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of in vitro fertilisation treatment in which the female partner was aged < 42 years. INTERVENTIONS: If at least three good-quality embryos were present on day 3 of embryo development, couples were randomly allocated to either freeze-all (intervention) or fresh-embryo transfer (control). OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was a healthy baby, defined as a live, singleton baby born at term, with an appropriate weight for their gestation. Secondary outcomes included ovarian hyperstimulation, live birth and clinical pregnancy rates, complications of pregnancy and childbirth, health economic outcome, and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory scores. RESULTS: A total of 1578 couples were consented and 619 couples were randomised. Most non-randomisations were because of the non-availability of at least three good-quality embryos (n = 476). Of the couples randomised, 117 (19%) did not adhere to the allocated intervention. The rate of non-adherence was higher in the freeze-all arm, with the leading reason being patient choice. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a healthy baby rate of 20.3% in the freeze-all arm and 24.4% in the fresh-embryo transfer arm (risk ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 1.15). Similar results were obtained using complier-average causal effect analysis (risk ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.10), per-protocol analysis (risk ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.26) and as-treated analysis (risk ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 1.29). The risk of ovarian hyperstimulation was 3.6% in the freeze-all arm and 8.1% in the fresh-embryo transfer arm (risk ratio 0.44, 99% confidence interval 0.15 to 1.30). There were no statistically significant differences between the freeze-all and the fresh-embryo transfer arms in the live birth rates (28.3% vs. 34.3%; risk ratio 0.83, 99% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.06) and clinical pregnancy rates (33.9% vs. 40.1%; risk ratio 0.85, 99% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.11). There was no statistically significant difference in anxiety scores for male participants (mean difference 0.1, 99% confidence interval -2.4 to 2.6) and female participants (mean difference 0.0, 99% confidence interval -2.2 to 2.2) between the arms. The economic analysis showed that freeze-all had a low probability of being cost-effective in terms of the incremental cost per healthy baby and incremental cost per live birth. LIMITATIONS: We were unable to reach the original planned sample size of 1086 and the rate of non-adherence to the allocated intervention was much higher than expected. CONCLUSION: When efficacy, safety and costs are considered, freeze-all is not better than fresh-embryo transfer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN61225414. FUNDING: This project 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. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

During in vitro fertilisation, eggs and sperm are mixed in a laboratory to create embryos. An embryo is placed in the womb 2­5 days later (fresh-embryo transfer) and the remaining embryos are frozen for future use. Initial research suggested that freezing all embryos followed by thawing and replacing them a few weeks later could improve treatment safety and success. Although these data were promising, the data came from small studies and were not enough to change practice and policy. We conducted a large, multicentre, clinical trial to evaluate the two strategies: fresh-embryo transfer compared with later transfer of frozen embryos. We also compared the costs of both strategies during in vitro fertilisation treatment, pregnancy and delivery. This study was conducted across 18 clinics in the UK from 2016 to 2019, and 619 couples participated. Couples were allocated to one of two strategies: immediate fresh-embryo transfer or freezing of all embryos followed later by transfer of frozen embryo. The study's aim was to find out which type of embryo transfer gave participants a higher chance of having a healthy baby. We found that freezing all embryos followed by frozen-embryo transfer did not lead to a higher chance of having a healthy baby. There were no differences between strategies in the number of live births, the miscarriage rate or the number of pregnancy complications. Fresh-embryo transfer was less costly from both a health-care and a patient perspective. A routine strategy of freezing all embryos is not justified given that there was no increase in success rates but there were extra costs and delays to embryo transfer.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of an incentive strategy on the questionnaire response rate in parents of premature babies: a randomised controlled Study Within A Trial (SWAT) nested within SIFT.

BACKGROUND: Loss to follow-up resulting in missing outcomes compromises the validity of trial results by reducing statistical power, negatively affecting generalisability and undermining assumptions made at analysis, leading to potentially biased and misleading results. Evidence that incentives are effective at improving response rates exists, but there is little evidence regarding the best approach, especially in the field of perinatal medicine. The NIHR-funded SIFT trial follow-up of infants at 2 years of age provided an ideal opportunity to address this remaining uncertainty. METHODS: Participants: parents of infants from participating neonatal units in the UK and Ireland followed up for SIFT (multicentre RCT investigating two speeds of feeding in babies with gestational age at birth < 32 weeks and/or birthweight < 1500 g). INTERVENTIONS: parents were randomly allocated to receive incentives (£15 gift voucher) before or after questionnaire return. The objective was to establish whether offering an unconditional incentive in advance or promising an incentive on completion of a questionnaire (conditional) improved the response rate in parents of premature babies. The primary outcome was questionnaire response rate. Permuted block randomisation was performed (variable size blocks), stratified by SIFT allocation (slower/faster feeds) and single/multiple birth. Multiple births were given the same incentives allocation. Parents were unaware that they were in an incentives SWAT; SIFT office staff were not blinded to allocation. RESULTS: Parents of 923 infants were randomised: 459 infants allocated to receive incentive before, 464 infants allocated to receive incentive after; analysis was by intention to treat. Allocation to the incentive before completion led to a significantly higher response rate, 83.0% (381/459) compared to the after-completion group, 76.1% (353/464); adjusted absolute difference of 6.8% (95% confidence interval 1.6% to 12.0%). Giving an incentive in advance is the more costly approach, but the mean difference of ~£3 per infant is small given the higher return. CONCLUSIONS: An unconditional incentive in advance led to a significantly higher response rate compared to the promise of an incentive on completion. Against a backdrop of falling response rates to questionnaires, incentives can be an effective way to increase returns. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SIFT ( ISRCTN76463425 ). Registered on March 5, 2013.; SWAT registration (SWAT 69 available from http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/TheNorthernIrelandNetworkforTrialsMethodologyResearch/FileStore/Filetoupload,864297,en.pdf ). Registered on June 27, 2016.

Study protocol: NeoCLEAR: Neonatal Champagne Lumbar punctures Every time - An RCT: a multicentre, randomised controlled 2 × 2 factorial trial to investigate techniques to increase lumbar puncture success.

BACKGROUND: The neonatal period carries the highest risk of bacterial meningitis (~ 1 in 5000 births), bearing high mortality (~ 10%) and morbidity (20-50%) rates. Lumbar puncture (LP) remains essential to the diagnosis of meningitis. Though LP is a common procedure in neonates, success rates are lower (50-60%) than in other patient populations. None of the currently-practised neonatal LP techniques are supported by evidence from adequately-powered, randomised controlled trials (RCTs). NeoCLEAR aims to compare two modifications to the traditional technique which are free, accessible, and commonly practised: sitting (as opposed to lying) position, and 'early' (as opposed to 'late') stylet removal. METHODS/DESIGN: Written parental informed consent permitting, infants in neonatal/maternity wards, of 27+ 0 to 44+ 0 weeks corrected gestational age and weighing ≥1000 g, who require an LP, will be randomly allocated to sitting or lying position, and to early or late stylet removal. The co-primary objectives are to compare success rates (the proportion of infants with cerebrospinal fluid red cell count < 10,000/mm3 on first LP procedure) in 1020 infants between the two positions, and between the two methods of stylet removal. Secondary outcomes relate to LP procedures, complications, diagnoses of meningitis, duration of antibiotics and hospital stay. A modified intention-to-treat analysis will be conducted. DISCUSSION: Two modifications to the traditional LP technique (sitting vs lying position; and early vs late stylet removal) will be simultaneously investigated in an efficient and appropriately-powered 2 × 2 factorial RCT design. Analysis will identify the optimal techniques (in terms of obtaining easily-interpretable cerebrospinal fluid), as well as the impact on infants, parents and healthcare systems whilst providing robust safety data. Using a pragmatic RCT design, all practitioners will be trained in all LP techniques, but there will inevitably be variation between unit practice guidelines and other aspects of individual care. An improved LP technique would result in: • Fewer uninterpretable samples, repeated attempts and procedures • Reduced distress for infants and families • Decreased antibiotic use and risk of antibiotic resistance • Reduced healthcare costs due to fewer procedures, reduced length of stay, shorter antibiotic courses, and minimised antibiotic-associated complications TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14040914. Date assigned: 26/06/2018.

Economic evaluation alongside the Speed of Increasing milk Feeds Trial (SIFT).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of two rates of enteral feed advancement (18 vs 30 mL/kg/day) in very preterm and very low birth weight infants. DESIGN: Within-trial economic evaluation alongside a multicentre, two-arm parallel group, randomised controlled trial (Speed of Increasing milk Feeds Trial). SETTING: 55 UK neonatal units from May 2013 to June 2015. PATIENTS: Infants born <32 weeks' gestation or <1500 g, receiving less than 30 mL/kg/day of milk at trial enrolment. Infants with a known severe congenital anomaly, no realistic chance of survival, or unlikely to be traceable for follow-up, were ineligible. INTERVENTIONS: When clinicians were ready to start advancing feed volumes, infants were randomised to receive daily increments in feed volume of 30 mL/kg (intervention) or 18 mL/kg (control). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Cost per additional survivor without moderate to severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months of age corrected for prematurity. RESULTS: Average costs per infant were slightly higher for faster feeds compared with slower feeds (mean difference £267, 95% CI -6928 to 8117). Fewer infants achieved the principal outcome of survival without moderate to severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months in the faster feeds arm (802/1224 vs 848/1246). The stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis showed a likelihood of worse outcomes for faster feeds compared with slower feeds. CONCLUSIONS: The stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis shows faster feeds are broadly equivalent on cost grounds. However, in terms of outcomes at 24 months age (corrected for prematurity), faster feeds are harmful. Faster feeds should not be recommended on either cost or effectiveness grounds to achieve the primary outcome.

Two speeds of increasing milk feeds for very preterm or very low-birthweight infants: the SIFT RCT.

BACKGROUND: Observational data suggest that slowly advancing enteral feeds in preterm infants may reduce necrotising enterocolitis but increase late-onset sepsis. The Speed of Increasing milk Feeds Trial (SIFT) compared two rates of feed advancement. OBJECTIVE: To determine if faster (30 ml/kg/day) or slower (18 ml/kg/day) daily feed increments improve survival without moderate or severe disability and other morbidities in very preterm or very low-birthweight infants. DESIGN: This was a multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Randomisation was via a web-hosted minimisation algorithm. It was not possible to safely and completely blind caregivers and parents. SETTING: The setting was 55 UK neonatal units, from May 2013 to June 2015. PARTICIPANTS: The participants were infants born at < 32 weeks' gestation or a weight of < 1500 g, who were receiving < 30 ml/kg/day of milk at trial enrolment. INTERVENTIONS: When clinicians were ready to start advancing feed volumes, the infant was randomised to receive daily feed increments of either 30 ml/kg/day or 18 ml/kg/day. In total, 1400 infants were allocated to fast feeds and 1404 infants were allocated to slow feeds. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months of age, corrected for gestational age. The secondary outcomes were mortality; moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months corrected for gestational age; death before discharge home; microbiologically confirmed or clinically suspected late-onset sepsis; necrotising enterocolitis (Bell's stage 2 or 3); time taken to reach full milk feeds (tolerating 150 ml/kg/day for 3 consecutive days); growth from birth to discharge; duration of parenteral feeding; time in intensive care; duration of hospital stay; diagnosis of cerebral palsy by a doctor or other health professional; and individual components of the definition of moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability. RESULTS: The results showed that survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months occurred in 802 out of 1224 (65.5%) infants allocated to faster increments and 848 out of 1246 (68.1%) infants allocated to slower increments (adjusted risk ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 1.01). There was no significant difference between groups in the risk of the individual components of the primary outcome or in the important hospital outcomes: late-onset sepsis (adjusted risk ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.07) or necrotising enterocolitis (adjusted risk ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.16). Cost-consequence analysis showed that the faster feed increment rate was less costly but also less effective than the slower rate in terms of achieving the primary outcome, so was therefore found to not be cost-effective. Four unexpected serious adverse events were reported, two in each group. None was assessed as being causally related to the intervention. LIMITATIONS: The study could not be blinded, so care may have been affected by knowledge of allocation. Although well powered for comparisons of all infants, subgroup comparisons were underpowered. CONCLUSIONS: No clear advantage was identified for the important outcomes in very preterm or very low-birthweight infants when milk feeds were advanced in daily volume increments of 30 ml/kg/day or 18 ml/kg/day. In terms of future work, the interaction of different milk types with increments merits further examination, as may different increments in infants at the extremes of gestation or birthweight. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN76463425. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Some infants who are born early need to be fed through a tube into their stomach. A small volume of milk is given to begin with, which is gradually increased. To determine whether infants do better if they are fed faster or slower, this study compared increasing the milk feeds by 30 ml/kg/day with increasing the milk feeds by 18 ml/kg/day, aiming to get to full feeds (when other fluids are not needed) in 5 or 9 days. We compared results from the two groups at discharge from hospital and at 24 months of age, after correcting for prematurity. We also assessed the economic impact of the two daily feed increments, interviewed parents about taking part in multiple studies and tested methods for improving questionnaire returns. The faster-fed group reached full milk feeds sooner and needed less intravenous nutrition, and the proportion of infants developing bowel inflammation or bloodstream infection were similar. At 24 months of age, we found an unexpected increase in the risk of moderate or severe motor impairment in the faster-fed group, which is difficult to explain. We also saw that other types of disability were more frequent in the faster group, although this was not significantly different mathematically. This means that no clear advantage of increasing feeds at faster or slower rates was identified and health professionals will need to carefully consider how to increase feeds. After accepting the increased risk of disability, an economic evaluation showed that increasing milk feed volumes at a faster rate was not a cost-effective strategy. Interviews with parents showed that they valued opportunities for their infant to take part in studies, but this interaction is complex and difficult to remember at a stressful and confusing time and made worse by considering multiple studies. More questionnaires were returned when vouchers were given before rather than after receiving them.

Controlled Trial of Two Incremental Milk-Feeding Rates in Preterm Infants.

BACKGROUND: Observational data have shown that slow advancement of enteral feeding volumes in preterm infants is associated with a reduced risk of necrotizing enterocolitis but an increased risk of late-onset sepsis. However, data from randomized trials are limited. METHODS: We randomly assigned very preterm or very-low-birth-weight infants to daily milk increments of 30 ml per kilogram of body weight (faster increment) or 18 ml per kilogram (slower increment) until reaching full feeding volumes. The primary outcome was survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months. Secondary outcomes included components of the primary outcome, confirmed or suspected late-onset sepsis, necrotizing enterocolitis, and cerebral palsy. RESULTS: Among 2804 infants who underwent randomization, the primary outcome could be assessed in 1224 (87.4%) assigned to the faster increment and 1246 (88.7%) assigned to the slower increment. Survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months occurred in 802 of 1224 infants (65.5%) assigned to the faster increment and 848 of 1246 (68.1%) assigned to the slower increment (adjusted risk ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.01; P = 0.16). Late-onset sepsis occurred in 414 of 1389 infants (29.8%) in the faster-increment group and 434 of 1397 (31.1%) in the slower-increment group (adjusted risk ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.07). Necrotizing enterocolitis occurred in 70 of 1394 infants (5.0%) in the faster-increment group and 78 of 1399 (5.6%) in the slower-increment group (adjusted risk ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.16). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months in very preterm or very-low-birth-weight infants with a strategy of advancing milk feeding volumes in daily increments of 30 ml per kilogram as compared with 18 ml per kilogram. (Funded by the Health Technology Assessment Programme of the National Institute for Health Research; SIFT Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN76463425.).

Intravenous co-amoxiclav to prevent infection after operative vaginal delivery: the ANODE RCT.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a leading cause of direct and indirect maternal death in both the UK and globally. All forms of operative delivery are associated with an increased risk of sepsis, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's guidance recommends the use of prophylactic antibiotics at all caesarean deliveries, based on substantial randomised controlled trial evidence of clinical effectiveness. A Cochrane review, updated in 2017 (Liabsuetrakul T, Choobun T, Peeyananjarassri K, Islam QM. Antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;8:CD004455), identified only one small previous trial of prophylactic antibiotics following operative vaginal birth (forceps or ventouse/vacuum extraction) and, given the small study size and extreme result, suggested that further robust evidence is needed. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether or not a single dose of prophylactic antibiotic following operative vaginal birth is clinically effective for preventing confirmed or presumed maternal infection, and to investigate the associated impact on health-care costs. DESIGN: A multicentre, randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Twenty-seven maternity units in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Women who had an operative vaginal birth at ≥ 36 weeks' gestation, who were not known to be allergic to penicillin or constituents of co-amoxiclav and who had no indication for ongoing antibiotics. INTERVENTIONS: A single dose of intravenous co-amoxiclav (1 g of amoxicillin/200 mg of clavulanic acid) or placebo (sterile saline) allocated through sealed, sequentially numbered, indistinguishable packs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome - confirmed or suspected infection within 6 weeks of giving birth. Secondary outcomes - severe sepsis, perineal wound infection, perineal pain, use of pain relief, hospital bed stay, hospital/general practitioner visits, need for additional perineal care, dyspareunia, ability to sit comfortably to feed the baby, maternal general health, breastfeeding, wound breakdown, occurrence of anaphylaxis and health-care costs. RESULTS: Between March 2016 and June 2018, 3427 women were randomised: 1719 to the antibiotic arm and 1708 to the placebo arm. Seven women withdrew, leaving 1715 women in the antibiotic arm and 1705 in the placebo arm for analysis. Primary outcome data were available for 3225 out of 3420 women (94.3%). Women randomised to the antibiotic arm were significantly less likely to have confirmed or suspected infection within 6 weeks of giving birth (180/1619, 11%) than women randomised to the placebo arm (306/1606, 19%) (relative risk 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.49 to 0.69). Three serious adverse events were reported: one in the placebo arm and two in the antibiotic arm (one was thought to be causally related to the intervention). LIMITATIONS: The follow-up rate achieved for most secondary outcomes was 76%. CONCLUSIONS: This trial has shown clear evidence of benefit of a single intravenous dose of prophylactic co-amoxiclav after operative vaginal birth. These results may lead to reconsideration of official policy/guidance. Further analysis of the mechanism of action of this single dose of antibiotic is needed to investigate whether earlier, pre-delivery or repeated administration could be more effective. Until these analyses are completed, there is no indication for administration of more than a single dose of prophylactic antibiotic, or for pre-delivery administration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11166984. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 54. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Maternal infection is a common problem after women have had a baby with the assistance of forceps or ventouse (vacuum/suction cup). We estimate that up to 1 in 10 women will have an infection around their birth canal, and almost 1 in 20 may have a more severe infection, such as an infection in the bloodstream (sepsis). A single dose of antibiotics at the time of giving birth has been shown to be effective in preventing maternal infection after caesarean birth. The aim of this trial was to investigate whether or not a single dose of preventative antibiotics was similarly effective at preventing maternal infection after giving birth with the assistance of forceps or ventouse. Women who were giving birth at > 36 weeks of pregnancy with the assistance of forceps or ventouse were randomly allocated (i.e. by chance, like tossing a coin) to receive an injection of antibiotics into a vein (intravenous) or an injection of salt solution without any antibiotics after their baby was born. Around 11 in 100 new mothers who received antibiotics had an infection within 6 weeks of delivery, compared with 19 out of 100 who did not receive antibiotics. Women receiving antibiotics also reported better healing and less discomfort from the wounds around the birth canal [either from tears or from the cut (episiotomy) used to help delivery] at 6 weeks after giving birth, and had fewer outpatient or general practitioner visits because of concerns about the wounds around the birth canal. This trial, therefore, showed that a single dose of antibiotics was very effective at preventing maternal infection after giving birth with the assistance of forceps or ventouse, as well as leading to better healing and less pain, and suggests that a single dose of antibiotics could become part of normal care.

The WHEAT pilot trial-WithHolding Enteral feeds Around packed red cell Transfusion to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in preterm neonates: a multicentre, electronic patient record (EPR), randomised controlled point-of-care pilot trial.

INTRODUCTION: Necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) is a potentially devastating neonatal disease. A temporal association between red cell transfusion and NEC is well described. Observational data suggest that withholding enteral feeds around red cell transfusions may reduce the risk of NEC but this has not been tested in randomised trials; current UK practice varies. Prevention of NEC is a research priority but no appropriately powered trials have addressed this question. The use of a simplified opt-out consent model and embedding trial processes within existing electronic patient record (EPR) systems provide opportunities to increase trial efficiency and recruitment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will undertake a randomised, controlled, multicentre, unblinded, pilot trial comparing two care pathways: continuing milk feeds (before, during and after red cell transfusions) and withholding milk feeds (for 4 hours before, during and for 4 hours after red cell transfusions), with infants randomly assigned with equal probability. We will use opt-out consent. A nested qualitative study will explore parent and health professional views. Infants will be eligible if born at <30+0 gestational weeks+days. Primary feasibility outcomes will be rate of recruitment, opt-out, retention, compliance, data completeness and data accuracy; clinical outcomes will include mortality and NEC. The trial will recruit in two neonatal networks in England for 9 months. Data collection will continue until all infants have reached 40+0 corrected gestational weeks or neonatal discharge. Participant identification and recruitment, randomisation and all trial data collection will be embedded within existing neonatal EPR systems (BadgerNet and BadgerEPR); outcome data will be extracted from routinely recorded data held in the National Neonatal Research Database. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study holds Research Ethics Committee approval to use an opt-out approach to consent. Results will inform future EPR-embedded and data-enabled trials and will be disseminated through conferences, publications and parent-centred information. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN62501859; Pre-results.

Study protocol: E-freeze - freezing of embryos in assisted conception: a randomised controlled trial evaluating the clinical and cost effectiveness of a policy of freezing embryos followed by thawed frozen embryo transfer compared with a policy of fresh embryo transfer, in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation.

BACKGROUND: Infertility affects one in seven couples; many of these need in vitro fertilisation (IVF). IVF involves external hormones to stimulate a woman's ovaries to produce eggs which are harvested surgically. Embryos, created in the laboratory by mixing eggs with sperm, are grown in culture for a few days before being replaced within the uterus (fresh embryo transfer). Spare embryos are usually frozen with a view to transfer at a later point in time - especially if the initial fresh transfer does not result in a pregnancy. Despite improvements in technology, IVF success rates remain low with an overall live birth rate of 25-30% per treatment. Additionally, there are concerns about health outcomes for mothers and babies conceived through IVF, particularly after fresh embryo transfer, including maternal ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and preterm delivery. It is believed that high levels of hormones during ovarian stimulation could create a relatively hostile environment for embryo implantation whilst increasing the risk of OHSS. It has been suggested that freezing all embryos with the intention of thawing and replacing them within the uterus at a later stage (thawed frozen embryo transfer) instead of fresh embryo transfer, may lead to improved pregnancy rates and fewer complications. We aim to compare the clinical and cost effectiveness of fresh and thawed frozen embryo transfer, with the primary aim of identifying any difference in the chance of having a healthy baby. METHODS: E-Freeze is a pragmatic, multicentre two-arm parallel group randomised controlled trial where women aged ≥18 and < 42 years, with at least three good quality embryos are randomly allocated to receive either a fresh or thawed frozen embryo transfer. The primary outcome is a healthy baby, defined as a term, singleton, live birth with appropriate weight for gestation. Cost effectiveness will be calculated from a healthcare and societal perspective. DISCUSSION: E-Freeze will determine the relative benefits of fresh and thawed frozen embryo transfer in terms of improving the chance of having a healthy baby. The results of this pragmatic study have the potential to be directly transferred to clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN61225414 . Date assigned 29/12/2015.

Safety and efficacy of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate aqueous versus 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol for skin disinfection prior to percutaneous central venous catheter insertion in preterm neonates: the ARCTIC randomised-controlled feasibility trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Catheter-related sepsis is one of the most dangerous complications of neonatal intensive care and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Use of catheter-care 'bundles' has reduced the incidence of catheter-related sepsis, although individual components have not been well studied. Better evidence is needed to guide selection of the most appropriate antiseptic solution for skin disinfection in preterm neonates. This study will inform the feasibility and design of the first randomised controlled trial to examine the safety and efficacy of alcohol-based versus aqueous-based chlorhexidine antiseptic formulations for skin disinfection prior to percutaneous central venous catheterisation in preterm neonates. The antiseptics to be compared are 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) aqueous and 2% CHG in 70% isopropyl alcohol. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Antiseptic Randomised Controlled Trial for Insertion of Catheters (ARCTIC) is a two-centre randomised-controlled feasibility trial. At least 100 preterm infants born at <34 weeks' gestation and due to undergo percutaneous insertion of a central venous catheter will be randomly allocated to receive prior skin disinfection with one of the two antiseptic solutions. Outcomes include: i) recruitment and retention rates; ii) completeness of data collection; iii) numbers of enrolled infants meeting case definitions for definite catheter-related sepsis, catheter-associated sepsis and catheter colonisation and iv) safety outcomes of skin morbidity scores recorded daily from catheter insertion until 48 hours post removal. The key feasibility metrics will be reported as proportions with 95% CIs. Estimated prevalence of catheter colonisation will allow calculation of sample size for the large-scale trial. The data will inform whether it will be feasible to progress to a large-scale trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: ARCTIC has been approved by the National Health Service Health Research Authority National Research Ethics Service Committee East of England (Cambridge South) (IRAS ID 163868), was adopted onto the National Institute of Health Research Clinical Research Network portfolio (CPMS ID 19899) and is registered with an International Standard Randomised Control Trials Number (ISRCTN: 82571474; Pre-results) and European Clinical Trials Database number 2015-000874-36. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications and sharing of the findings with parents via the support of Bliss baby charity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN82571474; Pre-results.

Planned delivery or expectant management for late preterm pre-eclampsia: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (PHOENIX trial).

BACKGROUND: Pre-eclampsia is a pregnancy disorder, characterised by hypertension and multisystem complications in the mother. The adverse outcomes of pre-eclampsia include severe hypertension, stroke, renal and hepatic injury, haemorrhage, fetal growth restriction and even death. The optimal time to instigate delivery to prevent morbidity when pre-eclampsia occurs between 34 and 37 weeks' gestation, without increasing problems related to infant immaturity or complications, remains unclear. METHODS/DESIGN: The PHOENIX trial is a non-masked, randomised controlled trial, comparing planned early delivery (with initiation of delivery within 48 h of randomisation) with usual care (expectant management) in women with pre-eclampsia between 34+ 0 and 36+ 6 weeks' gestation. The primary objectives of the trial are to determine if planned delivery reduces adverse maternal outcomes, without increasing the short-term harm to infants (composite of perinatal deaths or neonatal unit admissions up to infant hospital discharge) or impacting long-term infant neurodevelopmental status at 2 years corrected age (Parent Report of Cognitive Abilities-Revised). DISCUSSION: Current practice in the UK at the time of trial commencement for management of pre-eclampsia varies by gestation. Previous trials have shown that in women with pre-eclampsia after 37 weeks of gestion, delivery is initiated, as maternal complications are reduced without increasing fetal risks. Prior to 34 weeks of gestation, usual management aims to prolong pregnancy for fetal benefit, unless severe complications occur, necessitating preterm delivery. This trial aims to address the uncertainty for women where the balance of benefits and risks of delivery compared to expectant management are uncertain. Previous trials in this area have been undertaken, but have not provided a definitive answer, and the research question remains active. The results of this trial are expected to influence clinical practice internationally, through direct adoption and by incorporation into guidelines in countries with similar settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN01879376 . Registered on 25 November 2013.

Enteral lactoferrin to prevent infection for very preterm infants: the ELFIN RCT.

BACKGROUND: Infections acquired in hospital are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in very preterm infants. Several small trials have suggested that supplementing the enteral diet of very preterm infants with lactoferrin, an antimicrobial protein processed from cow's milk, prevents infections and associated complications. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether or not enteral supplementation with bovine lactoferrin (The Tatua Cooperative Dairy Company Ltd, Morrinsville, New Zealand) reduces the risk of late-onset infection (acquired > 72 hours after birth) and other morbidity and mortality in very preterm infants. DESIGN: Randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial. Randomisation was via a web-based portal and used an algorithm that minimised for recruitment site, weeks of gestation, sex and single versus multiple births. SETTING: UK neonatal units between May 2014 and September 2017. PARTICIPANTS: Infants born at < 32 weeks' gestation and aged < 72 hours at trial enrolment. INTERVENTIONS: Eligible infants were allocated individually (1 : 1 ratio) to receive enteral bovine lactoferrin (150 mg/kg/day; maximum 300 mg/day) or sucrose (British Sugar, Peterborough, UK) placebo (same dose) once daily from trial entry until a postmenstrual age of 34 weeks. Parents, caregivers and outcome assessors were unaware of group assignment. OUTCOMES: Primary outcome - microbiologically confirmed or clinically suspected late-onset infection. Secondary outcomes - microbiologically confirmed infection; all-cause mortality; severe necrotising enterocolitis (NEC); retinopathy of prematurity (ROP); bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD); a composite of infection, NEC, ROP, BPD and mortality; days of receipt of antimicrobials until 34 weeks' postmenstrual age; length of stay in hospital; and length of stay in intensive care, high-dependency and special-care settings. RESULTS: Of 2203 enrolled infants, primary outcome data were available for 2182 infants (99%). In the intervention group, 316 out of 1093 (28.9%) infants acquired a late-onset infection versus 334 out of 1089 (30.7%) infants in the control group [adjusted risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.04]. There were no significant differences in any secondary outcomes: microbiologically confirmed infection (RR 1.05, 99% CI 0.87 to 1.26), mortality (RR 1.05, 99% CI 0.66 to 1.68), NEC (RR 1.13, 99% CI 0.68 to 1.89), ROP (RR 0.89, 99% CI 0.62 to 1.28), BPD (RR 1.01, 99% CI 0.90 to 1.13), or a composite of infection, NEC, ROP, BPD and mortality (RR 1.01, 99% CI 0.94 to 1.08). There were no differences in the number of days of receipt of antimicrobials, length of stay in hospital, or length of stay in intensive care, high-dependency or special-care settings. There were 16 reports of serious adverse events for infants in the lactoferrin group and 10 for infants in the sucrose group. CONCLUSIONS: Enteral supplementation with bovine lactoferrin does not reduce the incidence of infection, mortality or other morbidity in very preterm infants. FUTURE WORK: Increase the precision of the estimates of effect on rarer secondary outcomes by combining the data in a meta-analysis with data from other trials. A mechanistic study is being conducted in a subgroup of trial participants to explore whether or not lactoferrin supplementation affects the intestinal microbiome and metabolite profile of very preterm infants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN88261002. 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. 22, No. 74. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This trial was also sponsored by the University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. The funder provided advice and support and monitored study progress but did not have a role in study design or data collection, analysis and interpretation.

Ursodeoxycholic acid versus placebo in the treatment of women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) to improve perinatal outcomes: protocol for a randomised controlled trial (PITCHES).

BACKGROUND: Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) is the most common liver disorder specific to pregnancy and presents with maternal pruritus, raised concentrations of serum bile acids and abnormal liver function tests. ICP is associated with increased rates of spontaneous and iatrogenic preterm labour, fetal hypoxia, meconium-stained amniotic fluid and intrauterine death. Some clinicians treat ICP with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) to improve maternal pruritus and biochemical abnormalities. However, there are currently no data to support the use of UDCA to improve pregnancy outcome as none of the trials performed to date have been powered to address this question. METHODS: The PITCHES trial is a triple-masked, placebo-controlled randomised trial, to evaluate UDCA versus placebo in women with ICP between 20 + 0 to 40 + 6 weeks' gestation. The primary objective of the trial is to determine if UDCA treatment of women with ICP between 20 + 0 and 40 + 6 weeks' gestation reduces the primary perinatal outcome: a composite of perinatal death (as defined by in utero fetal death after randomisation or known neonatal death up to 7 days) or preterm delivery (less than 37 weeks' gestation) or neonatal unit admission for at least 4 h (from infant delivery until hospital discharge). The secondary objectives of the trial are (1) to investigate the effect of UDCA on other short-term outcomes for both mother and infant and (2) to assess the impact of UDCA on health care resource use, in terms of the total number of nights for mother and infant, together with level of care. DISCUSSION: Current practice in the UK at the time of trial commencement for the treatment of ICP is inconsistent, with some units routinely prescribing UDCA, others prescribing very little and the remainder offering it variably. Our previous pilot trial of UDCA in women with ICP demonstrated that the trial would be feasible, and the research question remains active and unanswered. Results are highly likely to influence clinical practice, through direct management and impact on national and international guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ID: ISRCTN91918806 . Prospectively registered on 27 August 2015.

The Speed of Increasing milk Feeds: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, 1-2% of infants are born very preterm (<32 weeks of gestation) or have very low birth weight (<1500 g). Very preterm infants are initially unable to be fed nutritional volumes of milk and therefore require intravenous nutrition. Milk feeding strategies influence several long and short term health outcomes including growth, survival, infection (associated with intravenous nutrition) and necrotising enterocolitis (NEC); with both infection and NEC being key predictive factors of long term disability. Currently there is no consistent strategy for feeding preterm infants across the UK. The SIFT trial will test two speeds of increasing milk feeds with the primary aim of determining effects on survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months of age, corrected for prematurity. The trial will also examine many secondary outcomes including infection, NEC, time taken to reach full feeds and growth. METHODS/DESIGN: Two thousand eight hundred very preterm or very low birth weight infants will be recruited from approximately 30 hospitals across the UK to a randomised controlled trial. Infants with severe congenital anomaly or no realistic chance of survival will be excluded. Infants will be randomly allocated to either a faster (30 ml/kg/day) or slower (18 ml/kg/day) rate of increase in milk feeds. Data will be collected during the neonatal hospital stay on weight, infection rates, episodes of NEC, length of stay and time to reach full milk feeds. Long term health outcomes comprising vision, hearing, motor and cognitive impairment will be assessed at 24 months of age (corrected for prematurity) using a parent report questionnaire. DISCUSSION: Extensive searches have found no active or proposed studies investigating the rate of increasing milk feeds. The results of this trial will have importance for optimising incremental milk feeding for very preterm and/or very low birth weight infants. No additional resources will be required to implement an optimal feeding strategy, and therefore if successful, the trial results could rapidly be adopted across the NHS at low cost. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry; ISRCTN76463425 on 5 March, 2013.

A randomised controlled trial of the probiotic Bifidobacterium breve BBG-001 in preterm babies to prevent sepsis, necrotising enterocolitis and death: the Probiotics in Preterm infantS (PiPS) trial.

BACKGROUND: Necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) and late-onset sepsis remain important causes of death and morbidity in preterm babies. Probiotic administration might strengthen intestinal barrier function and provide protection; this is supported by published meta-analyses, but there is a lack of large well-designed trials. OBJECTIVE: To test the use of the probiotic Bifidobacterium breve strain BBG-001 to prevent NEC, late-onset sepsis and death in preterm babies while monitoring probiotic colonisation of participants. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Recruitment was carried out in 24 hospitals, and the randomisation programme used a minimisation algorithm. Parents, clinicians and outcome assessors were blinded to the allocation. PARTICIPANTS: Babies born between 23 and 30 weeks' gestation and randomised within 48 hours of birth. Exclusions included life-threatening or any gastrointestinal malformation detected within 48 hours of birth and no realistic chance of survival. INTERVENTIONS: Active intervention: 1 ml of B. breve BBG-001 in one-eighth-strength infant formula Neocate(®) (Nutricia Ltd, Trowbridge, UK), (6.7 × 10(7) to 6.7 × 10(9) colony-forming units) per dose administered enterally. Placebo: 1 ml of one-eighth-strength infant formula Neocate. Started as soon as practicable and continued daily until 36 weeks' postmenstrual age. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were an episode of bloodstream infection, with any organism other than a skin commensal, in any baby between 72 hours and 46 weeks' postmenstrual age; an episode of NEC Bell stage ≥ 2 in any baby; and death before discharge from hospital. Secondary outcomes included stool colonisation with B. breve. RESULTS: In total, 654 babies were allocated to receive probiotic and 661 to receive placebo over 37 months from July 2010. Five babies were withdrawn; 650 babies from the probiotic group and 660 from the placebo group were included in the primary analysis. Baseline characteristics were well balanced. There was no evidence of benefit for the primary outcomes {sepsis: 11.2% vs. 11.7% [adjusted relative risk (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.29]; NEC Bell stage ≥ 2: 9.4% vs. 10.0% [adjusted RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.27]; and death: 8.3% vs. 8.5% [adjusted RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.30]}. B. breve colonisation status was available for 1186 (94%) survivors at 2 weeks' postnatal age, of whom 724 (61%) were positive: 85% of the probiotic group and 37% of the placebo group. There were no differences for subgroup analyses by minimisation criteria and by stool colonisation with B. breve at 2 weeks. No harms associated with the interventions were reported. LIMITATIONS: Cross-colonisation of the placebo arm could have reduced statistical power and confounded results; analyses suggest that this did not happen. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest trial to date of a probiotic intervention. It shows no evidence of benefit and does not support routine use of probiotics for preterm infants. FUTURE WORK RECOMMENDATIONS: The increasing understanding of the pathogenesis of NEC and sepsis will inform the choice of probiotics for testing and better define the target population. Future Phase III trials should incorporate monitoring of the quality and viability of the intervention and colonisation rates of participants; cluster design should be considered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN05511098 and EudraCT 2006-003445-17. 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. 20, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Oxygen saturation and outcomes in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: The clinically appropriate range for oxygen saturation in preterm infants is unknown. Previous studies have shown that infants had reduced rates of retinopathy of prematurity when lower targets of oxygen saturation were used. METHODS: In three international randomized, controlled trials, we evaluated the effects of targeting an oxygen saturation of 85 to 89%, as compared with a range of 91 to 95%, on disability-free survival at 2 years in infants born before 28 weeks' gestation. Halfway through the trials, the oximeter-calibration algorithm was revised. Recruitment was stopped early when an interim analysis showed an increased rate of death at 36 weeks in the group with a lower oxygen saturation. We analyzed pooled data from patients and now report hospital-discharge outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 2448 infants were recruited. Among the 1187 infants whose treatment used the revised oximeter-calibration algorithm, the rate of death was significantly higher in the lower-target group than in the higher-target group (23.1% vs. 15.9%; relative risk in the lower-target group, 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15 to 1.84; P=0.002). There was heterogeneity for mortality between the original algorithm and the revised algorithm (P=0.006) but not for other outcomes. In all 2448 infants, those in the lower-target group for oxygen saturation had a reduced rate of retinopathy of prematurity (10.6% vs. 13.5%; relative risk, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.00; P=0.045) and an increased rate of necrotizing enterocolitis (10.4% vs. 8.0%; relative risk, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.68; P=0.04). There were no significant between-group differences in rates of other outcomes or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting an oxygen saturation below 90% with the use of current oximeters in extremely preterm infants was associated with an increased risk of death. (Funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and others; BOOST II Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN00842661, and Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry numbers, ACTRN12605000055606 and ACTRN12605000253606.).