Nitroglycerin for treatment of retained placenta: A randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre, double-blind trial in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Retained placenta following vaginal delivery is a major cause of postpartum haemorrhage. Currently, the only effective treatments for a retained placenta are the surgical procedures of manual removal of placenta (MROP) and uterine curettage, which are not universally available, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The objective of the trial was to determine whether sublingual nitroglycerin spray was clinically effective and cost-effective for medical treatment of retained placenta following vaginal delivery. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial was undertaken between October 2014 and July 2017 at 29 delivery units in the UK (Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester, Newcastle, Preston, Warrington, Chesterfield, Crewe, Durham, West Middlesex, Aylesbury, Furness, Southampton, Bolton, Sunderland, Oxford, Nottingham [2 units], Burnley, Chertsey, Stockton-on-Tees, Middlesborough, Chester, Darlington, York, Reading, Milton Keynes, Telford, Frimley). In total, 1,107 women with retained placenta following vaginal delivery were recruited. The intervention was self-administered 2 puffs of sublingual nitroglycerin (800 µg; intervention, N = 543) or placebo spray (control, N = 564). The primary clinical outcome was the need for MROP, assessed at 15 minutes following administration of the intervention. Analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle. The primary safety outcome was measured blood loss between study drug administration and transfer to the postnatal ward or other clinical area. The primary patient-sided outcomes were satisfaction with treatment and side-effect profile, assessed by questionnaires pre-discharge and 6 weeks post-delivery. Secondary clinical outcomes were measured at 5 and 15 minutes after study drug administration and prior to hospital discharge. There was no statistically significant or clinically meaningful difference in need for MROP by 15 minutes (primary clinical outcome, 505 [93.3%] for nitroglycerin versus 518 [92.0%] for placebo, odds ratio [OR] 1.01 [95% CI 0.98-1.04], p = 0.393) or blood loss (<500 ml: nitroglycerin, 238 [44.3%], versus placebo, 249 [44.5%]; 500 ml-1,000 ml: nitroglycerin, 180 [33.5%], versus placebo, 224 [40.0%]; >1,000 ml: nitroglycerin, 119 [22.2%], versus placebo, 87 [15.5%]; ordinal OR 1.14 [95% CI 0.88-1.48], p = 0.314) or satisfaction with treatment (nitroglycerin, 288 [75.4%], versus placebo, 303 [78.1%]; OR 0.87 [95% CI 0.62-1.22], p = 0.411) or health service costs (mean difference [£] 55.3 [95% CI -199.20 to 309.79]). Palpitations following drug administration were reported more often in the nitroglycerin group (36 [9.8%] versus 15 [4.0%], OR 2.60 [95% CI 1.40-4.84], p = 0.003). There were 52 serious adverse events during the trial, with no statistically significant difference in likelihood between groups (nitroglycerin, 27 [5.0%], versus placebo, 26 [4.6%]; OR 1.13 [95% CI 0.54-2.38], p = 0.747). The main limitation of our study was the low return rate for the 6-week postnatal questionnaire. There were, however, no differences in questionnaire return rates between study groups or between women who did and did not have MROP, with the patient-reported use of outpatient and primary care services at 6 weeks accounting for only a small proportion (approximately 5%) of overall health service costs. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that nitroglycerin is neither clinically effective nor cost-effective as a medical treatment for retained placenta, and has increased side effects, suggesting it should not be used. Further research is required to identify an effective medical treatment for retained placenta to reduce the morbidity caused by this condition, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where surgical management is not available. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN.com ISRCTN88609453 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02085213.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basic versus biofeedback-mediated intensive pelvic floor muscle training for female stress or mixed urinary incontinence: protocol for the OPAL randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: Accidental urine leakage is a distressing problem that affects around one in three women. The main types of urinary incontinence (UI) are stress, urgency and mixed, with stress being most common. Current UK guidelines recommend that women with UI are offered at least 3 months of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT). There is evidence that PFMT is effective in treating UI, however it is not clear how intensively women have to exercise to give the maximum sustained improvement in symptoms, and how we enable women to achieve this. Biofeedback is an adjunct to PFMT that may help women exercise more intensively for longer, and thus may improve continence outcomes when compared with PFMT alone. A Cochrane review was inconclusive about the benefit of biofeedback, indicating the need for further evidence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multicentre randomised controlled trial will compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PFMT versus biofeedback-mediated PFMT for women with stress UI or mixed UI. The primary outcome is UI severity at 24 months after randomisation. The primary economic outcome measure is incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year at 24 months. Six hundred women from UK community, outpatient and primary care settings will be randomised and followed up via questionnaires, diaries and pelvic floor assessment. All participants are offered six PFMT appointments over 16 weeks. The use of clinic and home biofeedback is added to PFMT for participants in the biofeedback group. Group allocation could not be masked from participants and healthcare staff. An intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome will estimate the mean difference between the trial groups at 24 months using a general linear mixed model adjusting for minimisation covariates and other important prognostic covariates, including the baseline score. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval granted by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 4 (16/LO/0990). Written informed consent will be obtained from participants by the local research team. Serious adverse events will be reported to the data monitoring and ethics committee, the ethics committee and trial centres as required. A Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials checklist and figure are available for this protocol. The results will be published in international journals and included in the relevant Cochrane review. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN57746448; Pre-results.

Glyceryl trinitrate to reduce the need for manual removal of retained placenta following vaginal delivery: the GOT-IT RCT.

BACKGROUND: Retained placenta is associated with postpartum haemorrhage and can lead to significant maternal morbidity if untreated. The only effective treatment is the surgical procedure of manual removal of placenta, which is costly, requires skilled staff, requires an operative environment and is unpleasant for women. Small studies suggest that glyceryl trinitrate may be an effective medical alternative. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sublingual glyceryl trinitrate spray compared with placebo in reducing the need for manual removal of placenta in women with retained placenta after vaginal delivery following the failure of current management. DESIGN: A group-sequential randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial with a cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: There were 29 obstetric units in the UK involved in the study. PARTICIPANTS: There were 1107 women (glyceryl trinitrate group, n = 543; placebo group, n = 564) randomised between October 2014 and July 2017. INTERVENTIONS: Glyceryl trinitrate spray was administered to 541 women in the intervention group, and a placebo was administered to 563 women in the control group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Four primary outcomes were defined: (1) clinical - the need for manual removal of placenta, (2) safety - measured blood loss, (3) patient sided - satisfaction with treatment and side effects and (4) economic - cost-effectiveness of both treatments using the UK NHS perspective. Secondary clinical outcomes included a > 15% decrease in haemoglobin level, time from randomisation to delivery of placenta in theatre, the need for earlier manual removal of placenta than planned, increase in heart rate or decrease in blood pressure, requirement for blood transfusion, requirement for general anaesthesia, maternal pyrexia, and sustained uterine relaxation requiring additional uterotonics. RESULTS: No difference was observed between the glyceryl trinitrate group and the control group for the placenta remaining undelivered within 15 minutes of study treatment (93.3% vs. 92%; odds ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.04; p = 0.393). There was no difference in blood loss of > 1000 ml between the glyceryl trinitrate group and the control group (22.2% vs. 15.5%; odds ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.88 to 1.48; p = 0.314). Palpitations were more common in the glyceryl trinitrate group than in the control group after taking the study drug (9.8% vs. 4.0%; odds ratio 2.60, 95% confidence interval 1.40 to 4.84; p = 0.003). There was no difference in any other measures of patient satisfaction between the groups. There was no difference in costs to the health service between groups (mean difference £55.30, 95% confidence interval -£199.20 to £309.79). Secondary outcomes revealed that a fall in systolic or diastolic blood pressure, or an increase in heart rate, was more common in the glyceryl trinitrate group than in the control group (odds ratio 4.9, 95% confidence interval 3.7 to 6.4; p < 0.001). The need for a blood transfusion was also more common in the glyceryl trinitrate group than in the control group (odds ratio 1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 2.25; p = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: Glyceryl trinitrate spray did not increase the delivery of retained placenta within 15 minutes of administration when compared with the placebo, and was not cost-effective for medical management of retained placenta. More participants reported palpitations and required a blood transfusion in the glyceryl trinitrate group. Further research into alternative methods of medical management of retained placenta is required. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN88609453. 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. 23, No. 70. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A retained placenta is diagnosed when, following the birth of a baby, the placenta is not delivered. When this situation occurs, women are at risk of bleeding heavily. The only way to treat a retained placenta is for a trained doctor to remove it by an operation in theatre. This procedure can be painful and upsetting. Furthermore, the timing of the operation can interrupt mother­baby bonding immediately after giving birth. The study tested if the use of glyceryl trinitrate spray, given as two puffs under the woman's tongue following the diagnosis of retained placenta, may help the placenta to deliver without an operation. The study also tested if glyceryl trinitrate was safe, assessed what women thought about the treatment and compared the costs of glyceryl trinitrate with those of current operative management. This study included 1107 women diagnosed with retained placenta following the birth of their baby. Half of the women were treated with glyceryl trinitrate spray and the other half were treated with a dummy spray, which looked identical but did not contain the active treatment. If the placenta delivered within 15 minutes of the study treatment being taken, this was considered a success. However, if the placenta did not deliver within 15 minutes and the woman had to have her placenta removed by an operation, then this was viewed as unsuccessful. Neither the woman nor the clinical staff knew if the treatment given was the glyceryl trinitrate spray or the dummy spray. The results indicate that, although women were happy to be involved in the trial and the treatment was safe, the use of glyceryl trinitrate spray did not reduce the need for the placenta to be manually removed by an operation in theatre. Furthermore, glyceryl trinitrate spray was not cost-effective.

A pragmatic group sequential, placebo-controlled, randomised trial to determine the effectiveness of glyceryl trinitrate for retained placenta (GOT-IT): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: A retained placenta is diagnosed when the placenta is not delivered following delivery of the baby. It is a major cause of postpartum haemorrhage and treated by the operative procedure of manual removal of placenta (MROP). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The aim of this pragmatic, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind UK-wide trial, with an internal pilot and nested qualitative research to adjust strategies to refine delivery of the main trial, is to determine whether sublingual glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) is (or is not) clinically and cost-effective for (medical) management of retained placenta. The primary clinical outcome is need for MROP, defined as the placenta remaining undelivered 15 min poststudy treatment and/or being required within 15 min of treatment due to safety concerns. The primary safety outcome is measured blood loss between administration of treatment and transfer to the postnatal ward or other clinical area. The primary patient-sided outcome is satisfaction with treatment and a side effect profile. The primary economic outcome is net incremental costs (or cost savings) to the National Health Service of using GTN versus standard practice. Secondary outcomes are being measured over a range of clinical and economic domains. The primary outcomes will be analysed using linear models appropriate to the distribution of each outcome. Health service costs will be compared with multiple trial outcomes in a cost-consequence analysis of GTN versus standard practice. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the North-East Newcastle & North Tyneside 2 Research Ethics Committee (13/NE/0339). Dissemination plans for the trial include the Health Technology Assessment Monograph, presentation at international scientific meetings and publication in high-impact, peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISCRTN88609453; Pre-results.

Mesh, graft, or standard repair for women having primary transvaginal anterior or posterior compartment prolapse surgery: two parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled trials (PROSPECT).

BACKGROUND: The use of transvaginal mesh and biological graft material in prolapse surgery is controversial and has led to a number of enquiries into their safety and efficacy. Existing trials of these augmentations are individually too small to be conclusive. We aimed to compare the outcomes of prolapse repair involving either synthetic mesh inlays or biological grafts against standard repair in women. METHODS: We did two pragmatic, parallel-group, multicentre, randomised controlled trials for our study (PROSPECT [PROlapse Surgery: Pragmatic Evaluation and randomised Controlled Trials]) in 35 centres (a mix of secondary and tertiary referral hospitals) in the UK. We recruited women undergoing primary transvaginal anterior or posterior compartment prolapse surgery by 65 gynaecological surgeons in these centres. We randomly assigned participants by a remote web-based randomisation system to one of the two trials: comparing standard (native tissue) repair alone with standard repair augmented with either synthetic mesh (the mesh trial) or biological graft (the graft trial). We assigned women (1:1:1 or 1:1) within three strata: assigned to one of the three treatment options, comparison of standard repair with mesh, and comparison of standard repair with graft. Participants, ward staff, and outcome assessors were masked to randomisation where possible; masking was obviously not possible for the surgeon. Follow-up was for 2 years after the surgery; the primary outcomes, measured at 1 year and 2 years, were participant-reported prolapse symptoms (i.e. the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score [POP-SS]) and condition-specific (ie, prolapse-related) quality-of-life scores, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN60695184. FINDINGS: Between Jan 8, 2010, and Aug 30, 2013, we randomly allocated 1352 women to treatment, of whom 1348 were included in the analysis. 865 women were included in the mesh trial (430 to standard repair alone, 435 to mesh augmentation) and 735 were included in the graft trial (367 to standard repair alone, 368 to graft augmentation). Because the analyses were carried out separately for each trial (mesh trial and graft trial) some women in the standard repair arm assigned to all treatment options were included in the standard repair group of both trials. 23 of these women did not receive any surgery (15 in the mesh trial, 13 in the graft trial; five were included in both trials) and were included in the baseline analyses only. Mean POP-SS at 1 year did not differ substantially between comparisons (standard 5·4 [SD 5·5] vs mesh 5·5 [5·1], mean difference 0·00, 95% CI -0·70 to 0·71; p=0·99; standard 5·5 [SD 5·6] vs graft 5·6 [5·6]; mean difference -0·15, -0·93 to 0·63; p=0·71). Mean prolapse-related quality-of-life scores also did not differ between groups at 1 year (standard 2·0 [SD 2·7] vs mesh 2·2 [2·7], mean difference 0·13, 95% CI -0·25 to 0·51; p=0·50; standard 2·2 [SD 2·8] vs graft 2·4 [2·9]; mean difference 0·13, -0·30 to 0·56; p=0·54). Mean POP-SS at 2 years were: standard 4·9 (SD 5·1) versus mesh 5·3 (5·1), mean difference 0·32, 95% CI -0·39 to 1·03; p=0·37; standard 4·9 (SD 5·1) versus graft 5·5 (5·7); mean difference 0·32, -0·48 to 1·12; p=0·43. Prolapse-related quality-of-life scores at 2 years were: standard 1·9 (SD 2·5) versus mesh 2·2 (2·6), mean difference 0·15, 95% CI -0·23 to 0·54; p=0·44; standard 2·0 (2·5) versus graft 2·2 (2·8); mean difference 0·10, -0·33 to 0·52; p=0·66. Serious adverse events such as infection, urinary retention, or dyspareunia or other pain, excluding mesh complications, occurred with similar frequency in the groups over 1 year (mesh trial: 31/430 [7%] with standard repair vs 34/435 [8%] with mesh, risk ratio [RR] 1·08, 95% CI 0·68 to 1·72; p=0·73; graft trial: 23/367 [6%] with standard repair vs 36/368 [10%] with graft, RR 1·57, 0·95 to 2·59; p=0·08). The cumulative number of women with a mesh complication over 2 years in women actually exposed to synthetic mesh was 51 (12%) of 434. INTERPRETATION: Augmentation of a vaginal repair with mesh or graft material did not improve women's outcomes in terms of effectiveness, quality of life, adverse effects, or any other outcome in the short term, but more than one in ten women had a mesh complication. Therefore, follow-up is vital to identify any longer-term potential benefits and serious adverse effects of mesh or graft reinforcement in vaginal prolapse surgery. FUNDING: UK National Institute of Health Research.

Two parallel, pragmatic, UK multicentre, randomised controlled trials comparing surgical options for upper compartment (vault or uterine) pelvic organ prolapse (the VUE Study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: One in three women who have a prolapse operation will go on to have another operation, though not necessarily in the same compartment. Surgery can result in greater impairment of quality of life than the original prolapse itself (such as the development of new-onset urinary incontinence, or prolapse at a different site). Anterior and posterior prolapse surgery is most common (90 % of operations), but around 43 % of women also have a uterine (34 %) or vault (9 %) procedure at the same time. There is not enough evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to guide management of vault or uterine prolapse. The Vault or Uterine prolapse surgery Evaluation (VUE) study aims to assess the surgical management of upper compartment pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in terms of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and adverse events. METHODS/DESIGN: VUE is two parallel, pragmatic, UK multicentre, RCTs (Uterine Trial and Vault Trial). Eligible for inclusion are women with vault or uterine prolapse: requiring a surgical procedure, suitable for randomisation and willing to be randomised. Randomisation will be computer-allocated separately for each trial, minimised on: requiring concomitant anterior and/or posterior POP surgery or not, concomitant incontinence surgery or not, age (under 60 years or 60 years and older) and surgeon. Participants will be randomly assigned, with equal probability to intervention or control arms in either the Uterine Trial or the Vault Trial. Uterine Trial participants will receive either a vaginal hysterectomy or a uterine preservation procedure. Vault Trial participants will receive either a vaginal sacrospinous fixation or an abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Participants will be followed up by postal questionnaires (6 months post surgery and 12 months post randomisation) and also reviewed in clinic 12 months post surgery. The primary outcome is the participant-reported Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score (POP-SS) at 12 months post randomisation. DISCUSSION: Demonstrating the efficacy of vault and uterine prolapse surgeries is relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to health care providers, both in the UK and globally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN86784244 (assigned 19 October 2012), and the first subject was randomly assigned on 1 May 2013.

Automated imaging technologies for the diagnosis of glaucoma: a comparative diagnostic study for the evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy, performance as triage tests and cost-effectiveness (GATE study).

BACKGROUND: Many glaucoma referrals from the community to hospital eye services are unnecessary. Imaging technologies can potentially be useful to triage this population. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic performance and cost-effectiveness of imaging technologies as triage tests for identifying people with glaucoma. DESIGN: Within-patient comparative diagnostic accuracy study. Markov economic model comparing the cost-effectiveness of a triage test with usual care. SETTING: Secondary care. PARTICIPANTS: Adults referred from the community to hospital eye services for possible glaucoma. INTERVENTIONS: Heidelberg Retinal Tomography (HRT), including two diagnostic algorithms, glaucoma probability score (HRT-GPS) and Moorfields regression analysis (HRT-MRA); scanning laser polarimetry [glaucoma diagnostics (GDx)]; and optical coherence tomography (OCT). The reference standard was clinical examination by a consultant ophthalmologist with glaucoma expertise including visual field testing and intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Diagnostic performance of imaging, using data from the eye with most severe disease. (2) Composite triage test performance (imaging test, IOP measurement and visual acuity measurement), using data from both eyes, in correctly identifying clinical management decisions, that is 'discharge' or 'do not discharge'. Outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: Data from 943 of 955 participants were included in the analysis. The average age was 60.5 years (standard deviation 13.8 years) and 51.1% were females. Glaucoma was diagnosed by the clinician in at least one eye in 16.8% of participants; 37.9% of participants were discharged after the first visit. Regarding diagnosing glaucoma, HRT-MRA had the highest sensitivity [87.0%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 80.2% to 92.1%] but the lowest specificity (63.9%, 95% CI 60.2% to 67.4%) and GDx had the lowest sensitivity (35.1%, 95% CI 27.0% to 43.8%) but the highest specificity (97.2%, 95% CI 95.6% to 98.3%). HRT-GPS had sensitivity of 81.5% (95% CI 73.9% to 87.6%) and specificity of 67.7% (95% CI 64.2% to 71.2%) and OCT had sensitivity of 76.9% (95% CI 69.2% to 83.4%) and specificity of 78.5% (95% CI 75.4% to 81.4%). Regarding triage accuracy, triage using HRT-GPS had the highest sensitivity (86.0%, 95% CI 82.8% to 88.7%) but the lowest specificity (39.1%, 95% CI 34.0% to 44.5%), GDx had the lowest sensitivity (64.7%, 95% CI 60.7% to 68.7%) but the highest specificity (53.6%, 95% CI 48.2% to 58.9%). Introducing a composite triage station into the referral pathway to identify appropriate referrals was cost-effective. All triage strategies resulted in a cost reduction compared with standard care (consultant-led diagnosis) but with an associated reduction in effectiveness. GDx was the least costly and least effective strategy. OCT and HRT-GPS were not cost-effective. Compared with GDx, the cost per QALY gained for HRT-MRA is £22,904. The cost per QALY gained with current practice is £156,985 compared with HRT-MRA. Large savings could be made by implementing HRT-MRA but some benefit to patients will be forgone. The results were sensitive to the triage costs. CONCLUSIONS: Automated imaging can be effective to aid glaucoma diagnosis among individuals referred from the community to hospital eye services. A model of care using a triage composite test appears to be cost-effective. FUTURE WORK: There are uncertainties about glaucoma progression under routine care and the cost of providing health care. The acceptability of implementing a triage test needs to be explored. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical options for the management of anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall prolapse: two randomised controlled trials within a comprehensive cohort study - results from the PROSPECT Study.

BACKGROUND: The use of mesh in prolapse surgery is controversial, leading to a number of enquiries into its safety and efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To compare synthetic non-absorbable mesh inlay, biological graft and mesh kit with a standard repair in terms of clinical effectiveness, adverse effects, quality of life (QoL), costs and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: Two randomised controlled trials within a comprehensive cohort (CC) study. Allocation was by a remote web-based randomisation system in a 1 :1 : 1 ratio (Primary trial) or 1 : 1 : 2 ratio (Secondary trial), and was minimised on age, type of prolapse repair planned, need for a concomitant continence procedure, need for a concomitant upper vaginal prolapse procedure and surgeon. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to randomisation; participants were unblinded if they requested the information. Surgeons were not blinded to allocated procedure. SETTING: Thirty-five UK hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Primary study: 2474 women in the analysis (including 1348 randomised) having primary anterior or posterior prolapse surgery. Secondary study: 398 in the analysis (including 154 randomised) having repeat anterior or posterior prolapse surgery. CC3: 215 women having either uterine or vault prolapse repair. INTERVENTIONS: Anterior or posterior repair alone, or with mesh inlay, biological graft or mesh kit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prolapse symptoms [Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score (POP-SS)]; prolapse-specific QoL; cost-effectiveness [incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)]. RESULTS: Primary trials: adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, mean POP-SS was similar for each comparison {standard 5.4 [standard deviation (SD) 5.5] vs. mesh 5.5 (SD 5.1), mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to 0.71; standard 5.5 (SD 5.6) vs. graft 5.6 (SD 5.6), MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.93 to 0.63}. Serious non-mesh adverse effects rates were similar between the groups in year 1 [standard 7.2% vs. mesh 7.8%, risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.72; standard 6.3% vs. graft 9.8%, RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.59]. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in any other outcome measure. The cumulative mesh complication rates over 2 years were 2 of 430 (0.5%) for standard repair (trial 1), 46 of 435 (10.6%) for mesh inlay and 2 of 368 (0.5%) for biological graft. The CC findings were comparable. Incremental costs were £363 (95% CI -£32 to £758) and £565 (95% CI £180 to £950) for mesh and graft vs. standard, respectively. Incremental QALYs were 0.071 (95% CI -0.004 to 0.145) and 0.039 (95% CI -0.041 to 0.120) for mesh and graft vs. standard, respectively. A Markov decision model extrapolating trial results over 5 years showed standard repair had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness, but results were surrounded by considerable uncertainty. Secondary trials: there were no statistically significant differences between the randomised groups in any outcome measure, but the sample size was too small to be conclusive. The cumulative mesh complication rates over 2 years were 7 of 52 (13.5%) for mesh inlay and 4 of 46 (8.7%) for mesh kit, with no mesh exposures for standard repair. CONCLUSIONS: In women who were having primary repairs, there was evidence of no benefit from the use of mesh inlay or biological graft compared with standard repair in terms of efficacy, QoL or adverse effects (other than mesh complications) in the short term. The Secondary trials were too small to provide conclusive results. LIMITATIONS: Women in the Primary trials included some with a previous repair in another compartment. Follow-up is vital to identify any long-term potential benefits and serious adverse effects. FUTURE WORK: Long-term follow-up to at least 6 years after surgery is ongoing to identify recurrence rates, need for further prolapse surgery, adverse effects and cost-effectiveness. TRIAI REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60695184. 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. 95. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Use of drug therapy in the management of symptomatic ureteric stones in hospitalised adults: a multicentre, placebo-controlled, randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis of a calcium channel blocker (nifedipine) and an alpha-blocker (tamsulosin) (the SUSPEND trial).

BACKGROUND: Ureteric colic, the term used to describe the pain felt when a stone passes down the ureter from the kidney to the bladder, is a frequent reason for people to seek emergency health care. Treatment with the muscle-relaxant drugs tamsulosin hydrochloride (Petyme, TEVA UK Ltd) and nifedipine (Coracten(®), UCB Pharma Ltd) as medical expulsive therapy (MET) is increasingly being used to improve the likelihood of spontaneous stone passage and lessen the need for interventional procedures. However, there remains considerable uncertainty around the effectiveness of these drugs for routine use. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not treatment with either tamsulosin 400 µg or nifedipine 30 mg for up to 4 weeks increases the rate of spontaneous stone passage for people with ureteric colic compared with placebo, and whether or not it is cost-effective for the UK NHS. DESIGN: A pragmatic, randomised controlled trial comparing two active drugs, tamsulosin and nifedipine, against placebo. Participants, clinicians and trial staff were blinded to treatment allocation. A cost-utility analysis was performed using data gathered during trial participation. SETTING: Urology departments in 24 UK NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged between 18 and 65 years admitted as an emergency with a single ureteric stone measuring ≤ 10 mm, localised by computerised tomography, who were able to take trial medications and complete trial procedures. INTERVENTIONS: Eligible participants were randomised 1 : 1 : 1 to take tamsulosin 400 µg, nifedipine 30 mg or placebo once daily for up to 4 weeks to make the following comparisons: tamsulosin or nifedipine (MET) versus placebo and tamsulosin versus nifedipine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary effectiveness outcome was the proportion of participants who spontaneously passed their stone. This was defined as the lack of need for active intervention for ureteric stones at up to 4 weeks after randomisation. This was determined from 4- and 12-week case-report forms completed by research staff, and from the 4-week participant self-reported questionnaire. The primary economic outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over 12 weeks. We estimated costs from NHS sources and calculated QALYs from participant completion of the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions health status questionnaire 3-level response (EQ-5D-3L™) at baseline, 4 weeks and 12 weeks. RESULTS: Primary outcome analysis included 97% of the 1167 participants randomised (378/391 tamsulosin, 379/387 nifedipine and 379/399 placebo participants). The proportion of participants who spontaneously passed their stone did not differ between MET and placebo [odds ratio (OR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.43; absolute difference 0.8%, 95% CI -4.1% to 5.7%] or between tamsulosin and nifedipine [OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.53; absolute difference 1%, 95% CI -4.6% to 6.6%]. There was no evidence of a difference in QALYs gained or in cost between the trial groups, which means that the use of MET would be very unlikely to be considered cost-effective. These findings were unchanged by extensive sensitivity analyses around predictors of stone passage, including sex, stone size and stone location. CONCLUSIONS: Tamsulosin and nifedipine did not increase the likelihood of stone passage over 4 weeks for people with ureteric colic, and use of these drugs is very unlikely to be cost-effective for the NHS. Further work is required to investigate the phenomenon of large, high-quality trials showing smaller effect size than meta-analysis of several small, lower-quality studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN69423238. European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT) number 2010-019469-26. 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. 19, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

SMS text pre-notification and delivery of reminder e-mails to increase response rates to postal questionnaires in the SUSPEND trial: a factorial design, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes are vital in informing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and health-care interventions and policies from the patient's perspective. However, participant non-response may introduce bias and can affect the generalisability of the trial. This study evaluates two interventions aimed at increasing response rates to postal questionnaires within a large, UK-wide RCT: pre-notification via short messenger service (SMS) text prior to sending the initial mailing of trial questionnaires versus no pre-notification; for non-responders to the initial mailing of the questionnaires, an e-mail reminder (containing a hyperlink to complete the questionnaire online) versus a postal reminder. METHODS: This study is a 2 × 2 partial factorial design RCT nested within an RCT of medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stone disease. Participants who supplied a mobile telephone number were randomly assigned to receive an SMS text pre-notification of questionnaire delivery or no pre-notification. Those who supplied an e-mail address were randomly assigned to receive a questionnaire reminder by e-mail or post. Participants could be randomly assigned to the pre-notification comparison or the reminder comparison or both. The primary outcome measure was response rate at each questionnaire time point. RESULTS: Four hundred eighteen participants were randomly assigned to the SMS pre-notification comparison (80% were male, and the mean age was 41 years with a standard deviation (SD) of 11.1). The intervention had no effect on response rate at either questionnaire time point. In subgroup analyses, SMS pre-notification increased response rates in women but only at the first questionnaire time point. One hundred nineteen participants were randomly assigned to the reminder comparison (80% were male, and the mean age was 42 years with an SD of 12.1). There was no difference in response rate in those who received an e-mail reminder compared with those who received a postal reminder. CONCLUSIONS: SMS text pre-notification of questionnaire delivery and email delivery of questionnaire reminders did not improve response rates. There was some evidence to suggest that SMS text pre-notification may be effective in women, and further studies to investigate this may be warranted. E-mail reminders for participants to return their postal questionnaire could be advantageous given that response rates were similar following either type of reminder and the low cost of delivering an e-mail compared with a postal reminder. This is a substudy of the SUSPEND trial (ISCTRN69423238) (18 Nov. 2010).

Use of low-dose oral theophylline as an adjunct to inhaled corticosteroids in preventing exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with high morbidity, mortality, and health-care costs. An incomplete response to the anti-inflammatory effects of inhaled corticosteroids is present in COPD. Preclinical work indicates that 'low dose' theophylline improves steroid responsiveness. The Theophylline With Inhaled Corticosteroids (TWICS) trial investigates whether the addition of 'low dose' theophylline to inhaled corticosteroids has clinical and cost-effective benefits in COPD. METHOD/DESIGN: TWICS is a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial conducted in primary and secondary care sites in the UK. The inclusion criteria are the following: an established predominant respiratory diagnosis of COPD (post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in first second/forced vital capacity [FEV1/FVC] of less than 0.7), age of at least 40 years, smoking history of at least 10 pack-years, current inhaled corticosteroid use, and history of at least two exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics or oral corticosteroids in the previous year. A computerised randomisation system will stratify 1424 participants by region and recruitment setting (primary and secondary) and then randomly assign with equal probability to intervention or control arms. Participants will receive either 'low dose' theophylline (Uniphyllin MR 200 mg tablets) or placebo for 52 weeks. Dosing is based on pharmacokinetic modelling to achieve a steady-state serum theophylline of 1-5 mg/l. A dose of theophylline MR 200 mg once daily (or placebo once daily) will be taken by participants who do not smoke or participants who smoke but have an ideal body weight (IBW) of not more than 60 kg. A dose of theophylline MR 200 mg twice daily (or placebo twice daily) will be taken by participants who smoke and have an IBW of more than 60 kg. Participants will be reviewed at recruitment and after 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is the total number of participant-reported COPD exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids or antibiotics during the 52-week treatment period. DISCUSSION: The demonstration that 'low dose' theophylline increases the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD by reducing the incidence of exacerbations is relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to health-care providers, both in the UK and globally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27066620 was registered on Sept. 19, 2013, and the first subject was randomly assigned on Feb. 6, 2014.

Making randomised trials more efficient: report of the first meeting to discuss the Trial Forge platform.

Randomised trials are at the heart of evidence-based healthcare, but the methods and infrastructure for conducting these sometimes complex studies are largely evidence free. Trial Forge ( www.trialforge.org ) is an initiative that aims to increase the evidence base for trial decision making and, in doing so, to improve trial efficiency.This paper summarises a one-day workshop held in Edinburgh on 10 July 2014 to discuss Trial Forge and how to advance this initiative. We first outline the problem of inefficiency in randomised trials and go on to describe Trial Forge. We present participants' views on the processes in the life of a randomised trial that should be covered by Trial Forge.General support existed at the workshop for the Trial Forge approach to increase the evidence base for making randomised trial decisions and for improving trial efficiency. Agreed upon key processes included choosing the right research question; logistical planning for delivery, training of staff, recruitment, and retention; data management and dissemination; and close down. The process of linking to existing initiatives where possible was considered crucial. Trial Forge will not be a guideline or a checklist but a 'go to' website for research on randomised trials methods, with a linked programme of applied methodology research, coupled to an effective evidence-dissemination process. Moreover, it will support an informal network of interested trialists who meet virtually (online) and occasionally in person to build capacity and knowledge in the design and conduct of efficient randomised trials.Some of the resources invested in randomised trials are wasted because of limited evidence upon which to base many aspects of design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of clinical trials. Trial Forge will help to address this lack of evidence.

Medical expulsive therapy in adults with ureteric colic: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses of previous randomised controlled trials concluded that the smooth muscle relaxant drugs tamsulosin and nifedipine assisted stone passage for people managed expectantly for ureteric colic, but emphasised the need for high-quality trials with wide inclusion criteria. We aimed to fulfil this need by testing effectiveness of these drugs in a standard clinical care setting. METHODS: For this multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, we recruited adults (aged 18-65 years) undergoing expectant management for a single ureteric stone identified by CT at 24 UK hospitals. Participants were randomly assigned by a remote randomisation system to tamsulosin 400 µg, nifedipine 30 mg, or placebo taken daily for up to 4 weeks, using an algorithm with centre, stone size (≤5 mm or >5 mm), and stone location (upper, mid, or lower ureter) as minimisation covariates. Participants, clinicians, and trial personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who did not need further intervention for stone clearance within 4 weeks of randomisation, analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population defined as all eligible patients for whom we had primary outcome data. This trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT number 2010-019469-26, and as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 69423238. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11, 2011, and Dec 20, 2013, we randomly assigned 1167 participants, 1136 (97%) of whom were included in the primary analysis (17 were excluded because of ineligibility and 14 participants were lost to follow-up). 303 (80%) of 379 participants in the placebo group did not need further intervention by 4 weeks, compared with 307 (81%) of 378 in the tamsulosin group (adjusted risk difference 1·3% [95% CI -5·7 to 8·3]; p=0·73) and 304 (80%) of 379 in the nifedipine group (0·5% [-5·6 to 6·5]; p=0·88). No difference was noted between active treatment and placebo (p=0·78), or between tamsulosin and nifedipine (p=0·77). Serious adverse events were reported in three participants in the nifedipine group (one had right loin pain, diarrhoea, and vomiting; one had malaise, headache, and chest pain; and one had severe chest pain, difficulty breathing, and left arm pain) and in one participant in the placebo group (headache, dizziness, lightheadedness, and chronic abdominal pain). INTERPRETATION: Tamsulosin 400 µg and nifedipine 30 mg are not effective at decreasing the need for further treatment to achieve stone clearance in 4 weeks for patients with expectantly managed ureteric colic. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

STOPPIT Baby Follow-up Study: the effect of prophylactic progesterone in twin pregnancy on childhood outcome.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the long-term effects of in utero progesterone exposure in twin children. METHODS: This study evaluated the health and developmental outcomes of all surviving children born to mothers who participated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of progesterone given for the prevention of preterm birth in twin pregnancies (STOPPIT, ISRCTN35782581). Follow-up was performed via record linkage and two parent-completed validated questionnaires, the Child Development Inventory and the Health Utilities Index. RESULTS: Record linkage was successfully performed on at least one record in 759/781 (97%) children eligible for follow-up. There were no differences between progesterone-exposed and placebo-exposed twins with respect to incidence of death, congenital anomalies and hospitalisation, nor on routine national child health assessments. Questionnaire responses were received for 324/738 (44%) children. The mean age at questionnaire follow-up was 55.5 months. Delay in at least one developmental domain on the Child Development Inventory was observed in 107/324 (33%) children, with no evidence of difference between progesterone-exposed and placebo-exposed twins. There was no evidence of difference between the progesterone and placebo groups in global health status assessed using the Health Utilities Index: 89% of children were rated as having 'excellent' health and a further 8% as having 'very good' health. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of twin children there was no evidence of a detrimental or beneficial impact on health and developmental outcomes at three to six years of age due to in utero exposure to progesterone.

Assessing readiness for transition from paediatric to adult health care: Revision and psychometric evaluation of the Am I ON TRAC for Adult Care questionnaire.

AIM: To refine and psychometrically test the Am I ON TRAC for Adult Care questionnaire. BACKGROUND: Inadequate transition to adult care for adolescents with special healthcare needs has been associated with greater risk of treatment non-adherence, lack of medical follow-up, increased morbidity and mortality. Presently, there are no well-validated measures assessing adolescents' readiness to transition from paediatric to adult medical care. DESIGN: Descriptive cross-sectional study. METHODS: The Am I ON TRAC for Adult Care questionnaire was refined to improve the instrument's methodological soundness. A literature review informed the revisions. A convenience sample of 200 adolescents, 12-19 years, was recruited from four outpatient clinics at a paediatric hospital in Western Canada between April-June 2012. Construct validity was evaluated by Exploratory Factory Analysis; concurrent validity was assessed using the Psychosocial Maturity Index. Internal consistency was evaluated by computing Cronbach's alpha estimates. RESULTS: Factor analysis of the knowledge items identified a 14-item unidimensional scale. Knowledge and behaviour sub-scale scores increased with age, with a stronger relationship between knowledge and age. Psychosocial maturity correlated with both sub-scale scores, but had a stronger association with behaviour. Psychosocial maturity and age had a weak but significant correlation suggesting age is a loose proxy for maturity. Only 27% of 17-year olds, but 62% 18-year olds, scored above the behaviour cut-off for transition readiness. CONCLUSION: The revised Am I ON TRAC for Adult Care questionnaire is a psychometrically sound measure that has potential to be used as a readiness assessment tool in both clinical practice and research.

Open urethroplasty versus endoscopic urethrotomy--clarifying the management of men with recurrent urethral stricture (the OPEN trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Urethral stricture is a common cause of difficulty passing urine in men with prevalence of 0.5 %; about 62,000 men in the UK. The stricture is usually sited in the bulbar part of the urethra causing symptoms such as reduced urine flow. Initial treatment is typically by endoscopic urethrotomy but recurrence occurs in about 60% of men within 2 years. The best treatment for men with recurrent bulbar stricture is uncertain. Repeat endoscopic urethrotomy opens the narrowing but it usually scars up again within 2 years requiring repeated procedures. The alternative of open urethroplasty involves surgically reconstructing the urethra, which may need an oral mucosal graft. It is a specialist procedure with a longer recovery period but may give lower risk of recurrence. In the absence of firm evidence as to which is best, individual men have to trade off the invasiveness and possible benefit of each option. Their preference will be influenced by individual social circumstances, availability of local expertise and clinician guidance. The open urethroplasty versus endoscopic urethrotomy (OPEN) trial aims to better guide the choice of treatment for men with recurrent urethral strictures by comparing benefit over 2 years in terms of symptom control and need for further treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: OPEN is a pragmatic, UK multicentre, randomised trial. Men with recurrent bulbar urethral strictures (at least one previous treatment) will be randomised to undergo endoscopic urethrotomy or open urethroplasty. Participants will be followed for 24 months after randomisation, measuring symptoms, flow rate, the need for re-intervention, health-related quality of life, and costs. The primary clinical outcome is the difference in symptom control over 24 months measured by the area under the curve (AUC) of a validated score. The trial has been powered at 90% with a type I error rate of 5% to detect a 0.1 difference in AUC measured on a 0-1 scale. The analysis will be based on all participants as randomised (intention-to-treat). The primary economic outcome is the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year. A qualitative study will assess willingness to be randomised and hence ability to recruit to the trial. DISCUSSION: The OPEN Trial seeks to clarify relative benefit of the current options for surgical treatment of recurrent bulbar urethral stricture which differ in their invasiveness and resources required. Our feasibility study identified that participation would be limited by patient preference and differing recruitment styles of general and specialist urologists. We formulated and implemented effective strategies to address these issues in particular by inviting participation as close as possible to diagnosis. In addition re-calculation of sample size as recruitment progressed allowed more efficient design given the limited target population and funding constraints. Recruitment is now to target. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN98009168 Date of registration: 29 November 2012.

A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing stapled haemorrhoidopexy to traditional excisional surgery for haemorrhoidal disease (eTHoS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Current interventions for haemorrhoidal disease include traditional haemorrhoidectomy (TH) and stapled haemorrhoidopexy (SH) surgery. However, uncertainty remains as to how they compare from a clinical, quality of life (QoL) and economic perspective. The study is therefore designed to determine whether SH is more effective and more cost-effective, compared with TH. METHODS/DESIGN: eTHoS (either Traditional Haemorrhoidectomy or Stapled Haemorrhoidopexy for Haemorrhoidal Disease) is a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Currently, 29 secondary care centres are open to recruitment. Patients, aged 18 year or older, with circumferential haemorrhoids grade II to IV, are eligible to take part. The primary clinical and economic outcomes are QoL profile (area under the curve derived from the EuroQol Group's 5 Dimension Health Status Questionnaire (EQ-5D) at all assessment points) and incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) based on the responses to the EQ-5D at 24 months. The secondary outcomes include a comparison of the SF-36 scores, pain and symptoms sub-domains, disease recurrence, complication rates and direct and indirect costs to the National Health Service (NHS). A sample size of n =338 per group has been calculated to provide 90% power to detect a difference in the mean area under the curve (AUC) of 0.25 standard deviations derived from EQ-5D score measurements, with a two-sided significance level of 5%. Allowing for non-response, 400 participants will be randomised per group. Randomisation will utilise a minimisation algorithm that incorporates centre, grade of haemorrhoidal disease, baseline EQ-5D score and gender. Blinding of participants and outcome assessors is not attempted. DISCUSSION: This is one of the largest trials of its kind. In the United Kingdom alone, 29,000 operations for haemorrhoidal disease are done annually. The trial is therefore designed to give robust evidence on which clinicians and health service managers can base management decisions and, more importantly, patients can make informed choices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN80061723 (assigned 8 March 2010).

Explaining why nurses remain in or leave bedside nursing: a critical ethnography.

AIM: To describe the application of critical ethnography to explain nurses' decisions to remain in or leave bedside nursing, and to describe researcher positioning and reflexivity. BACKGROUND: Enquiry into hospital nurses' decisions to remain in or leave bedside nursing positions has been conducted from a variety of theoretical perspectives by researchers adopting a range of methodological approaches. This research helps to explain how work environments can affect variables such as job satisfaction and turnover, but provides less insight into how personal and professional factors shape decisions to remain in or leave bedside nursing. REVIEW METHODS: A critical theoretical perspective was taken to examine the employment decisions made by nurses in a paediatric intensive care unit (PICU). DATA SOURCES: Data was collected from nurses (n=31) through semi-structured interviews and unobtrusive observation. DISCUSSION: The authors describe critical ethnography as a powerful research framework for enquiry that allowed them to challenge assumptions about why nurses remain in or leave their jobs, and to explore how issues of fairness and equity contribute to these decisions. CONCLUSION: Critical ethnography offers a powerful methodology for investigations into complex interactions, such as those between nurses in a PICU. In adopting this methodology, researchers should be sensitised to manifestations of power, attend to their stance and location, and reflexion. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE/RESEARCH: The greatest challenges from this research included how to make sense of the insider position, how to acknowledge assumptions and allow these to be challenged, and how to ensure that power relationships in the environment and in the research were attended to.

Use of drug therapy in the management of symptomatic ureteric stones in hospitalized adults (SUSPEND), a multicentre, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of a calcium-channel blocker (nifedipine) and an α-blocker (tamsulosin): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Urinary stone disease is common, with an estimated prevalence among the general population of 2% to 3%. Ureteric stones can cause severe pain and have a significant impact on quality of life, accounting for over 15,000 hospital admissions in England annually. Uncomplicated cases of smaller stones in the lower ureter are traditionally treated expectantly. Those who fail standard care or develop complications undergo active treatment, such as extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy with stone retrieval. Such interventions are expensive, require urological expertise and carry a risk of complications.Growing understanding of ureteric function and pathophysiology has led to the hypothesis that drugs causing relaxation of ureteric smooth muscle, such as the selective α-blocker tamsulosin and the calcium-channel blocker nifedipine, can enhance the spontaneous passage of ureteric stones. The use of drugs in augmenting stone passage, reducing the morbidity and costs associated with ureteric stone disease, is promising. However, the majority of clinical trials conducted to date have been small, poor to moderate quality and lacking in comprehensive economic evaluation.This trial aims to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of tamsulosin and nifedipine in the management of symptomatic urinary stones. METHODS/DESIGN: The SUSPEND (Spontaneous Urinary Stone Passage ENabled by Drugs) trial is a multicentre, double-blind, randomized controlled trial evaluating two medical expulsive therapy strategies (nifedipine or tamsulosin) versus placebo.Patients aged 18 to 65 with a ureteric stone confirmed by non-contrast computed tomography of the kidney, ureter and bladder will be randomized to receive nifedipine, tamsulosin or placebo (400 participants per arm) for a maximum of 28 days. The primary clinical outcome is spontaneous passage of ureteric stones at 4 weeks (defined as no further intervention required to facilitate stone passage). The primary economic outcome is a reduction in the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years, determined at 12 weeks. The analysis will be based on all participants as randomized (intention to treat). The trial has 90% power with a type I error rate of 5% to detect a 10% increase in primary outcome between the tamsulosin and nifedipine treatment groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN69423238; EudraCT number: 2010-019469-26.

Advance telephone calls ahead of reminder questionnaires increase response rate in non-responders compared to questionnaire reminders only: The RECORD phone trial.

BACKGROUND: Postal questionnaires are simple and economical for collecting outcome data for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) but are prone to non-response. In the RECORD trial (a large pragmatic publicly funded RCT in UK) non-responders were sent a reminder and another questionnaire at 1 year, of which 40% were returned. In subsequent years we investigated the effect of an advance telephone call to non-responders on responses rate to reminder questionnaires and the next questionnaire 4 months later. METHODS: Non-responders to annual questionnaires were randomised to receive a telephone call from the trial office ahead of the reminder questionnaire in addition to the usual reminder schedule (n=390) or to a control group that received the usual reminder schedule only (n=363). The primary outcome was response to the reminder questionnaire within 21 days; secondary outcomes were response to a questionnaire 4 months later; completeness of quality of life instruments; and the number of participants declining further follow-up. Results are presented as odds ratios from a logistic regression intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis and then percentage difference and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for both ITT and average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) analyses. RESULTS: The proportions that responded were 67.8% (265/390) in the intervention group compared to 62.5% (227/363) in the control group. The ITT estimate was a 5.4% increase (95% CI -1.4 to 12.2). Four months later percentages responding were 51.8% (202) and 42.7% (155). The ITT estimate was a 9.1% increase (95% CI 2.0 to 16.2). In the intervention group 12.3% (48/390) of participants were not telephoned because questionnaires were returned before the scheduled telephone call. ATT estimates adjusting for this were 6.2% (95% CI -1.6 to 14.0) and 10.4% (95% CI 2.2 to 18.5), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The telephone call resulted in a slight increase in response to the reminder questionnaire, however at 4 months later the proportion in the telephoned group responding was greater. This study suggests that pre-notification telephone calls may only be worthwhile if further questionnaires are to be sent out soon after reminder questionnaires. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Clinical Trials ISRCTN51647438.