Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate versus transurethral resection of the prostate for men with lower urinary tract symptoms or urinary retention (UNBLOCS): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the standard operation for benign prostatic obstruction. Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) is a technique with suggested advantages over TURP, including reduced complications and hospital stay. We aimed to investigate TURP versus ThuVARP in men with lower urinary tract symptoms or urinary retention secondary to benign prostatic obstruction. METHODS: In this randomised, blinded, parallel-group, pragmatic equivalence trial, men in seven UK hospitals with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms or urinary retention secondary to benign prostatic obstruction were randomly assigned (1:1) at the point of surgery to receive ThuVARP or TURP. Patients were masked until follow-up completion. Centres used their usual TURP procedure (monopolar or bipolar). All trial surgeons underwent training on the ThuVARP technique. Co-primary outcomes were maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 12-months post-surgery. Equivalence was defined as a difference of 2·5 points or less for IPSS and 4 mL per s or less for Qmax. Analysis was done according to the intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN00788389. FINDINGS: Between July 23, 2014, and Dec 30, 2016, 410 men were randomly assigned to ThuVARP or TURP, 205 per study group. TURP was superior for Qmax (mean 23·2 mL per s for TURP and 20·2 mL per s for ThuVARP; adjusted difference in means -3·12, 95% CI -5·79 to -0·45). Equivalence was shown for IPSS (mean 6·3 for TURP and 6·4 for ThuVARP; adjusted difference in means 0·28, -0·92 to 1·49). Mean hospital stay was 48 h in both study groups. 91 (45%) of 204 patients in the TURP group and 96 (47%) of 203 patients in the ThuVARP group had at least one complication. INTERPRETATION: TURP and ThuVARP were equivalent for urinary symptom improvement (IPSS) 12-months post-surgery, and TURP was superior for Qmax. Anticipated laser benefits for ThuVARP of reduced hospital stay and complications were not observed. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Content of Health Economics Analysis Plans (HEAPs) for Trial-Based Economic Evaluations: Expert Delphi Consensus Survey.

OBJECTIVES: Health economics analysis plans (HEAPs) currently lack consistency, with uncertainty surrounding appropriate content. We aimed to develop a list of essential items that should be included in HEAPs for economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized trials. METHODS: A list of potential items for inclusion was developed by examining existing HEAPs. An electronic Delphi survey was conducted among professional health economists. Respondents were asked to rate potential items from 1 (least important) to 9 (most important), suggest additional items, and comment on proposed items (round 1). A second survey (round 2) was emailed to participants, including the participant's own scores from round 1 along with summary results from the whole panel; participants were asked to rerate each item. Consensus criteria for inclusion in the final list were predefined as >70% of participants rating an item 7-9 and <15% rating it 1-3 after round 2. A final item selection meeting was held to scrutinize the results and adjudicate on items lacking consensus. RESULTS: 62 participants completed round 1 of the survey. The initial list included 72 potential items; all 72 were carried forward to round 2, and no new items were added. 48 round 1 respondents (77.4%) completed round 2 and reached consensus on 53 items. At the final meeting, the expert panel (n = 9) agreed that 58 items should be included in the essential list, moved 9 items to an optional list, and dropped 5 items. CONCLUSIONS: Via expert consensus opinion, this study identified 58 items that are considered essential in a HEAP.

The cost-effectiveness of transurethral resection of the prostate vs thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate in the UNBLOCS randomised controlled trial for benign prostatic obstruction.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of the current 'gold standard' operation of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) compared to the new laser technique of thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) in men with benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) within the UK National Health Service (NHS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The trial was conducted across seven UK centres (four university teaching hospitals and three district general hospitals). A total of 410 men aged ≥18 years presenting with either bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) or urinary retention secondary to BPO, and suitable for surgery, were randomised (whilst under anaesthetic) 1:1 to receive the TURP or ThuVARP procedure. Resource use in relation to the operation, initial inpatient stay, and subsequent use of NHS services was collected for 12 months from randomisation (equivalent to primary effectiveness outcome) using hospital records and patient questionnaires. Resources were valued using UK reference costs. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated from the EuroQoL five Dimensions five Levels (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire completed at baseline, 3- and 12-months. Total adjusted mean costs, QALYs and incremental Net Monetary Benefit statistics were calculated: cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty. RESULTS: The total adjusted mean secondary care cost over the 12 months in the TURP arm (£4244) was £9 (95% CI -£376, £359) lower than the ThuVARP arm (£4253). The ThuVARP operation took on average 21 min longer than TURP. The adjusted mean difference of QALYs (0.01 favouring TURP, 95% CI -0.01, 0.04) was similar between the arms. There is a 76% probability that TURP is the cost-effective option compared with ThuVARP at the £20 000 per QALY willingness to pay threshold used by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). CONCLUSION: One of the anticipated benefits of the laser surgery, reduced length of hospital stay with an associated reduction in cost, did not materialise within the study. The longer duration of the ThuVARP procedure is important to consider, both from a patient perspective in terms of increased time under anaesthetic, and from a service delivery perspective. TURP remains a highly cost-effective treatment for men with BPO.

Management of multimorbidity using a patient-centred care model: a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial of the 3D approach.

BACKGROUND: The management of people with multiple chronic conditions challenges health-care systems designed around single conditions. There is international consensus that care for multimorbidity should be patient-centred, focus on quality of life, and promote self-management towards agreed goals. However, there is little evidence about the effectiveness of this approach. Our hypothesis was that the patient-centred, so-called 3D approach (based on dimensions of health, depression, and drugs) for patients with multimorbidity would improve their health-related quality of life, which is the ultimate aim of the 3D intervention. METHODS: We did this pragmatic cluster-randomised trial in general practices in England and Scotland. Practices were randomly allocated to continue usual care (17 practices) or to provide 6-monthly comprehensive 3D reviews, incorporating patient-centred strategies that reflected international consensus on best care (16 practices). Randomisation was computer-generated, stratified by area, and minimised by practice deprivation and list size. Adults with three or more chronic conditions were recruited. The primary outcome was quality of life (assessed with EQ-5D-5L) after 15 months' follow-up. Participants were not masked to group assignment, but analysis of outcomes was blinded. We analysed the primary outcome in the intention-to-treat population, with missing data being multiply imputed. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN06180958. FINDINGS: Between May 20, 2015, and Dec 31, 2015, we recruited 1546 patients from 33 practices and randomly assigned them to receive the intervention (n=797) or usual care (n=749). In our intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference between trial groups in the primary outcome of quality of life (adjusted difference in mean EQ-5D-5L 0·00, 95% CI -0·02 to 0·02; p=0·93). 78 patients died, and the deaths were not considered as related to the intervention. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this trial is the largest investigation of the international consensus about optimal management of multimorbidity. The 3D intervention did not improve patients' quality of life. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Development of a Core Outcome Set for Clinical Effectiveness Trials in Esophageal Cancer Resection Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Development of a core outcome set (COS) for clinical effectiveness trials in esophageal cancer resection surgery. BACKGROUND: Inconsistency and heterogeneity in outcome reporting after esophageal cancer resection surgery hampers comparison of trial results and undermines evidence synthesis. COSs provide an evidence-based approach to these challenges. METHODS: A long list of clinical and patient-reported outcomes was identified and categorized into outcome domains. Domains were operationalized into a questionnaire and patients and health professionals rated the importance of items from 1 (not important) to 9 (extremely important) in 2 Delphi survey rounds. Retained items were discussed at a consensus meeting and a final COS proposed. Professionals were surveyed to request endorsement of the COS. RESULTS: A total of 68 outcome domains were identified and operationalized into a questionnaire; 116 (91%) of consenting patients and 72 (77%) of health professionals completed round 1. Round 2 response rates remained high (87% patients, 93% professionals). Rounds 1 and 2 prioritized 43 and 19 items, respectively. Retained items were discussed at a patient consensus meeting and a final 10-item COS proposed, endorsed by 61/67 (91%) professionals and including: overall survival; in-hospital mortality; inoperability; need for another operation; respiratory complications; conduit necrosis and anastomotic leak; severe nutritional problems; ability to eat/drink; problems with acid indigestion or heartburn; and overall quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The COS is recommended for all pragmatic clinical effectiveness trials in esophageal cancer resection surgery. Further work is needed to delineate the definitions and parameters and explore best methods for measuring the individual outcomes.

Core Items for a Standardized Resource Use Measure: Expert Delphi Consensus Survey.

BACKGROUND: Resource use measurement by patient recall is characterized by inconsistent methods and a lack of validation. A validated standardized resource use measure could increase data quality, improve comparability between studies, and reduce research burden. OBJECTIVES: To identify a minimum set of core resource use items that should be included in a standardized adult instrument for UK health economic evaluation from a provider perspective. METHODS: Health economists with experience of UK-based economic evaluations were recruited to participate in an electronic Delphi survey. Respondents were asked to rate 60 resource use items (e.g., medication names) on a scale of 1 to 9 according to the importance of the item in a generic context. Items considered less important according to predefined consensus criteria were dropped and a second survey was developed. In the second round, respondents received the median score and their own score from round 1 for each item alongside summarized comments and were asked to rerate items. A final project team meeting was held to determine the recommended core set. RESULTS: Forty-five participants completed round 1. Twenty-six items were considered less important and were dropped, 34 items were retained for the second round, and no new items were added. Forty-two respondents (93.3%) completed round 2, and greater consensus was observed. After the final meeting, 10 core items were selected, with further items identified as suitable for "bolt-on" questionnaire modules. CONCLUSIONS: The consensus on 10 items considered important in a generic context suggests that a standardized instrument for core resource use items is feasible.

Effect of Oral Prednisolone on Symptom Duration and Severity in Nonasthmatic Adults With Acute Lower Respiratory Tract Infection: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Acute lower respiratory tract infection is common and often treated inappropriately in primary care with antibiotics. Corticosteroids are increasingly used but without sufficient evidence. Objective: To assess the effects of oral corticosteroids for acute lower respiratory tract infection in adults without asthma. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized trial (July 2013 to final follow-up October 2014) conducted in 54 family practices in England among 401 adults with acute cough and at least 1 lower respiratory tract symptom not requiring immediate antibiotic treatment and with no history of chronic pulmonary disease or use of asthma medication in the past 5 years. Interventions: Two 20-mg prednisolone tablets (n = 199) or matched placebo (n = 202) once daily for 5 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were duration of moderately bad or worse cough (0 to 28 days; minimal clinically important difference, 3.79 days) and mean severity of symptoms on days 2 to 4 (scored from 0 [not affected] to 6 [as bad as it could be]; minimal clinically important difference, 1.66 units). Secondary outcomes were duration and severity of acute lower respiratory tract infection symptoms, duration of abnormal peak flow, antibiotic use, and adverse events. Results: Among 401 randomized patients, 2 withdrew immediately after randomization, and 1 duplicate patient was identified. Among the 398 patients with baseline data (mean age, 47 [SD, 16.0] years; 63% women; 17% smokers; 77% phlegm; 70% shortness of breath; 47% wheezing; 46% chest pain; 42% abnormal peak flow), 334 (84%) provided cough duration and 369 (93%) symptom severity data. Median cough duration was 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3-8 days) in the prednisolone group and 5 days (IQR, 3-10 days) in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89-1.39; P = .36 at an α = .05). Mean symptom severity was 1.99 points in the prednisolone group and 2.16 points in the placebo group (adjusted difference, -0.20; 95% CI, -0.40 to 0.00; P = .05 at an α = .001). No significant treatment effects were observed for duration or severity of other acute lower respiratory tract infection symptoms, duration of abnormal peak flow, antibiotic use, or nonserious adverse events. There were no serious adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance: Oral corticosteroids should not be used for acute lower respiratory tract infection symptoms in adults without asthma because they do not reduce symptom duration or severity. Trial Registration: ISRCTN.com Identifier: ISRCTN57309858.

A Core Outcome Set for the Benefits and Adverse Events of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery: The BARIACT Project.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric and metabolic surgery is used as a treatment for patients with severe and complex obesity. However, there is a need to improve outcome selection and reporting in bariatric surgery trials. A Core Outcome Set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes reported in all studies of a specific condition, may achieve this. Here, we present the development of a COS for BARIAtric and metabolic surgery Clinical Trials-the BARIACT Study. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Outcomes identified from systematic reviews and patient interviews informed a questionnaire survey. Patients and health professionals were surveyed three times and asked to rate the importance of each item on a 1-9 scale. Delphi methods provided anonymised feedback to participants. Items not meeting predefined criteria were discarded between rounds. Remaining items were discussed at consensus meetings, held separately with patients and professionals, where the COS was agreed. Data sources identified 2,990 outcomes, which were used to develop a 130-item questionnaire. Round 1 response rates were moderate but subsequently improved to above 75% for other rounds. After rounds 2 and 3, 81 and 14 items were discarded, respectively, leaving 35 items for discussion at consensus meetings. The final COS included nine items: "weight," "diabetes status," "cardiovascular risk," "overall quality of life (QOL)," "mortality," "technical complications of the specific operation," "any re-operation/re-intervention," "dysphagia/regurgitation," and "micronutrient status." The main limitation of this study was that it was based in the United Kingdom only. CONCLUSIONS: The COS is recommended to be used as a minimum in all trials of bariatric and metabolic surgery. Adoption of the COS will improve data synthesis and the value of research data. Future work will establish methods for the measurement of the outcomes in the COS.

Core Outcomes for Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Consensus Study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality. Surgical treatment is common, and there is a great need to improve the delivery of such care. The gold standard for evaluating surgery is within well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, the impact of RCTs is diminished by a lack of coordinated outcome measurement and reporting. A solution to these issues is to develop an agreed standard "core" set of outcomes to be measured in all trials to facilitate cross-study comparisons, meta-analysis, and minimize outcome reporting bias. This study defines a core outcome set for CRC surgery. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The scope of this COS includes clinical effectiveness trials of surgical interventions for colorectal cancer. Excluded were nonsurgical oncological interventions. Potential outcomes of importance to patients and professionals were identified through systematic literature reviews and patient interviews. All outcomes were transcribed verbatim and categorized into domains by two independent researchers. This informed a questionnaire survey that asked stakeholders (patients and professionals) from United Kingdom CRC centers to rate the importance of each domain. Respondents were resurveyed following group feedback (Delphi methods). Outcomes rated as less important were discarded after each survey round according to predefined criteria, and remaining outcomes were considered at three consensus meetings; two involving international professionals and a separate one with patients. A modified nominal group technique was used to gain the final consensus. Data sources identified 1,216 outcomes of CRC surgery that informed a 91 domain questionnaire. First round questionnaires were returned from 63 out of 81 (78%) centers, including 90 professionals, and 97 out of 267 (35%) patients. Second round response rates were high for all stakeholders (>80%). Analysis of responses lead to 45 and 23 outcome domains being retained after the first and second surveys, respectively. Consensus meetings generated agreement on a 12 domain COS. This constituted five perioperative outcome domains (including anastomotic leak), four quality of life outcome domains (including fecal urgency and incontinence), and three oncological outcome domains (including long-term survival). CONCLUSION: This study used robust consensus methodology to develop a core outcome set for use in colorectal cancer surgical trials. It is now necessary to validate the use of this set in research practice.

Reporting of short-term clinical outcomes after esophagectomy: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This review summarizes reporting of complications of esophageal cancer surgery. BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment of morbidity and mortality after surgery for cancer is essential to compare centers, allow data synthesis, and inform clinical decision-making. A lack of defined standards may distort clinically relevant treatment effects. METHODS: Systematic literature searches identified articles published between 2005 and 2009 reporting morbidity and mortality after esophagectomy for cancer. Data were analyzed for frequency of complication reporting and to check whether outcomes were defined and classified for severity and whether a validated system for grading complications was used. Information about reporting outcomes adjusting for baseline risk factors was collated, and a descriptive summary of the results of included outcomes was undertaken. RESULTS: Of 3458 abstracts, 224 full papers were reviewed and 122 were included (17 randomized trials and 105 observational studies), reporting outcomes of 57,299 esophagectomies. No single complication was reported in all papers, and 60 (60.6%) did not define any of the measured complications. Anastomotic leak was the most commonly reported morbidity, assessed in 80 (80.1%) articles, defined in 28 (28.3%), but 22 different descriptions were used. Five papers (5.1%) categorized morbidity with a validated grading system. One hundred fifteen papers reported postoperative mortality rates, 25 defining the term using 10 different definitions. In-hospital mortality was the most commonly used term for postoperative death, with 6 different interpretations of this phrase. Eighteen papers adjusted outcomes for baseline risk factors and 60 presented baseline measures of comorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Outcome reporting after esophageal cancer surgery is heterogeneous and inconsistent, and it lacks methodological rigor. A consensus approach to reporting clinical outcomes should be considered, and at the minimum it is recommended that a "core outcome set" is defined and used in all studies reporting outcomes of esophageal cancer surgery. This will allow meaningful cross study comparisons and analyses to evaluate surgery.

Standards of outcome reporting in surgical oncology: a case study in esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal strategies before surgery are often used to improve outcomes, but disease progression (precluding surgical resection) and inoperability at planned surgery still occur following neoadjuvant treatment. The standards of reporting of these outcomes have not previously been considered. This study examined reporting of rates of progression to surgical resection and inoperability at planned surgery following neoadjuvant treatment in surgical oncology, using esophageal cancer as a case study. METHODS: A systematic review identified randomized trials and prospective nonrandomized studies reporting short-term outcomes of neoadjuvant treatment and surgery for esophageal cancer. RESULTS: Of 4,763 abstracts, 224 papers were retrieved and 76 studies included (8 randomized trials and 68 cohort studies of 19,441 esophagectomies). Articles reported outcomes of preoperative chemotherapy (n = 33, 43.4 %), chemoradiotherapy (n = 13, 17.1 %), or both within one paper (n = 18, 23.7 %) and 12 (15.8 %) did not specify the type of neoadjuvant treatment. Also, 20 papers (26.3 %) reported numbers of patients not progressing to surgery after neoadjuvant treatment (with rates of nonprogression ranging between 2.0 and 35.3 %). In addition, 24 papers (31.6 %) reported rates of inoperability at planned surgery (with inoperability rates ranging between 0 and 26.2 %). More randomized controlled trials (RCTs) than observational studies reported nonprogression (4 randomized and 16 nonrandomized studies, 95 % CI -9.6 to 62.6 %, p = 0.108) and inoperability (6 randomized trials and 18 observational studies, 95 % CI 16.8-80.3 %, p = 0.005). Some 17 and 10 articles provided reasons for the observed rates of nonprogression and inoperability, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting rates of progression to surgery after neoadjuvant treatment and inoperability at planned surgery for esophageal cancer were poor, limiting data synthesis and comparisons. It is suggested that core outcome sets for trials in surgical oncology are developed with inclusion of these important endpoints. Collaboration between medical and surgical oncologists is necessary to achieve this.

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for stillbirth care research (iCHOOSE Study).

INTRODUCTION: Stillbirth is associated with significant physical, psychosocial and economic consequences for parents, families, wider society and the healthcare system. There is emerging momentum to design and evaluate interventions for care after stillbirth and in subsequent pregnancies. However, there is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice compounded by inconsistent outcome reporting in research studies. To address this paucity of evidence, we plan to develop a core outcome set for stillbirth care research, through an international consensus process with key stakeholders including parents, healthcare professionals and researchers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The development of this core outcome set will be divided into five distinct phases: (1) Identifying potential outcomes from a mixed-methods systematic review and analysis of interviews with parents who have experienced stillbirth; (2) Creating a comprehensive outcome long-list and piloting of a Delphi questionnaire using think-aloud interviews; (3) Choosing the most important outcomes by conducting an international two-round Delphi survey including high-income, middle-income and low-income countries; (4) Deciding the core outcome set by consensus meetings with key stakeholders and (5) Dissemination and promotion of the core outcome set. A parent and public involvement panel and international steering committee has been convened to coproduce every stage of the development of this core outcome set. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the qualitative interviews has been approved by Berkshire Ethics Committee REC Reference 12/SC/0495. Ethical approval for the think-aloud interviews, Delphi survey and consensus meetings has been awarded from the University of Bristol Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee (Reference number: 116535). The dissemination strategy is being developed with the parent and public involvement panel and steering committee. Results will be published in peer-reviewed specialty journals, shared at national and international conferences and promoted through parent organisations and charities. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018087748.

Establishment of a core outcome set for burn care research: development and international consensus.

Objective: To develop a core outcome set for international burn research. Design: Development and international consensus, from April 2017 to November 2019. Methods: Candidate outcomes were identified from systematic reviews and stakeholder interviews. Through a Delphi survey, international clinicians, researchers, and UK patients prioritised outcomes. Anonymised feedback aimed to achieve consensus. Pre-defined criteria for retaining outcomes were agreed. A consensus meeting with voting was held to finalise the core outcome set. Results: Data source examination identified 1021 unique outcomes grouped into 88 candidate outcomes. Stakeholders in round 1 of the survey, included 668 health professionals from 77 countries (18% from low or low middle income countries) and 126 UK patients or carers. After round 1, one outcome was discarded, and 13 new outcomes added. After round 2, 69 items were discarded, leaving 31 outcomes for the consensus meeting. Outcome merging and voting, in two rounds, with prespecified thresholds agreed seven core outcomes: death, specified complications, ability to do daily tasks, wound healing, neuropathic pain and itch, psychological wellbeing, and return to school or work. Conclusions: This core outcome set caters for global burn research, and future trials are recommended to include measures of these outcomes.

The effect of local anaesthetic wound infiltration on chronic pain after lower limb joint replacement: a protocol for a double-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: For the majority of patients with osteoarthritis (OA), joint replacement is a successful intervention for relieving chronic joint pain. However, between 10-30% of patients continue to experience chronic pain after joint replacement. Evidence suggests that a risk factor for chronic pain after joint replacement is the severity of acute post-operative pain. The aim of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) is to determine if intra-operative local anaesthetic wound infiltration additional to a standard anaesthesia regimen can reduce the severity of joint pain at 12-months after total knee replacement (TKR) and total hip replacement (THR) for OA. METHODS: 300 TKR patients and 300 THR patients are being recruited into this single-centre double-blind RCT. Participants are recruited before surgery and randomised to either the standard care group or the intervention group. Participants and outcome assessors are blind to treatment allocation throughout the study. The intervention consists of an intra-operative local anaesthetic wound infiltration, consisting of 60 mls of 0.25% bupivacaine with 1 in 200,000 adrenaline. Participants are assessed on the first 5 days post-operative, and then at 3-months, 6-months and 12-months. The primary outcome is the WOMAC Pain Scale, a validated measure of joint pain at 12-months. Secondary outcomes include pain severity during the in-patient stay, post-operative nausea and vomiting, satisfaction with pain relief, length of hospital stay, joint pain and disability, pain sensitivity, complications and cost-effectiveness. A nested qualitative study within the RCT will examine the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention for both patients and healthcare professionals. DISCUSSION: Large-scale RCTs assessing the effectiveness of a surgical intervention are uncommon, particularly in orthopaedics. The results from this trial will inform evidence-based recommendations for both short-term and long-term pain management after lower limb joint replacement. If a local anaesthetic wound infiltration is found to be an effective and cost-effective intervention, implementation into clinical practice could improve long-term pain outcomes for patients undergoing lower limb joint replacement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN96095682.

Cost-effectiveness of a patient-centred approach to managing multimorbidity in primary care: a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with multiple chronic health conditions are often managed in a disjointed fashion in primary care, with annual review clinic appointments offered separately for each condition. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of the 3D intervention, which was developed to improve the system of care. DESIGN: Economic evaluation conducted alongside a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial. SETTING: General practices in three centres in England and Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 797 adults with three or more chronic conditions were randomised to the 3D intervention, while 749 participants were randomised to receive usual care. INTERVENTION: The 3D approach: comprehensive 6-monthly general practitioner consultations, supported by medication reviews and nurse appointments. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary economic evaluation assessed the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS). Costs were related to changes in a range of secondary outcomes (QALYs accrued by both participants and carers, and deaths) in a cost-consequences analysis from the perspectives of the NHS/PSS, patients/carers and productivity losses. RESULTS: Very small increases were found in both QALYs (adjusted mean difference 0.007 (-0.009 to 0.023)) and costs (adjusted mean difference £126 (£-739 to £991)) in the intervention arm compared with usual care after 15 months. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £18 499, with a 50.8% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY (55.8% at £30 000 per QALY). CONCLUSIONS: The small differences in costs and outcomes were consistent with chance, and the uncertainty was substantial; therefore, the evidence for the cost-effectiveness of the 3D approach from the NHS/PSS perspective should be considered equivocal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISCRTN06180958.

Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection versus transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic obstruction: the UNBLOCS RCT.

BACKGROUND: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the standard operation for benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) vaporises and resects the prostate using a technique similar to TURP. The small amount of existing literature suggests that there may be potential advantages of ThuVARP over TURP. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether or not the outcomes from ThuVARP are equivalent to the outcomes from TURP in men with BPO treated in the NHS. DESIGN: A multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled parallel-group trial, with an embedded qualitative study and economic evaluation. SETTING: Seven UK centres - four university teaching hospitals and three district general hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Men aged ≥ 18 years who were suitable to undergo TURP, presenting with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) or urinary retention secondary to BPO. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised 1 : 1 to receive TURP or ThuVARP and remained blinded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Two co-primary outcomes - patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and clinical measure of maximum urine flow rate (Qmax) at 12 months post surgery. RESULTS: In total, 410 men were randomised, 205 to each arm. The two procedures were equivalent in terms of IPSS [adjusted mean difference 0.28 points higher for ThuVARP (favouring TURP), 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.92 to 1.49 points]. The two procedures were not equivalent in terms of Qmax (adjusted mean difference 3.12 ml/second in favour of TURP, 95% CI 0.45 to 5.79 ml/second), with TURP deemed superior. Surgical outcomes, such as complications and blood transfusion rates, and hospital stay were similar for both procedures. Patient-reported urinary and sexual symptoms were also similar between the arms. Qualitative interviews indicated similar patient experiences with both procedures. However, 25% of participants in the ThuVARP arm did not undergo their randomised allocation, compared with 2% of participants in the TURP arm. Prostate cancer was also detected less frequently from routine histology after ThuVARP (65% lower odds of detection) in an exploratory analysis. The adjusted mean differences between the arms were similar for secondary care NHS costs (£9 higher for ThuVARP, 95% CI -£359 to £376) and quality-adjusted life-years (0.01 favouring TURP, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.01). LIMITATIONS: Complications were recorded in prespecified categories; those not prespecified were excluded owing to variable reporting. Preoperative Qmax and IPSS data could not be collected for participants with indwelling catheters, making adjustment for baseline status difficult. CONCLUSIONS: TURP was superior to ThuVARP in terms of Qmax, although both operations resulted in a Qmax considered clinically successful. ThuVARP also potentially resulted in lower detection rates of prostate cancer as a result of the smaller volume of tissue available for histology. Length of hospital stay after ThuVARP, anticipated to be a key benefit, was equal to that after TURP in this trial. Overall, both ThuVARP and TURP were effective procedures for BPO, with minor benefits in favour of TURP. Therefore, the results suggest that it may be appropriate that new treatment alternatives continue to be compared with TURP. FUTURE WORK: Longer-term follow-up to assess reoperation rates over time, and research into the comparative effectiveness of ThuVARP and TURP in large prostates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN00788389. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

An enlarged prostate can make it difficult, or even impossible, for a man to pass urine by blocking the urine flow from the bladder. This can cause significant problems, and 25,000 men in the UK each year are treated with an operation to relieve their symptoms. The standard operation [transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)], which uses electricity to shave off the enlarged prostate, is successful, but it can have some complications. There is some evidence to suggest that laser surgery can lead to less blood loss and a shorter stay in hospital, but laser operations can be difficult for surgeons to carry out. This trial has looked at a procedure using a new type of laser called thulium, which uses a very similar surgical technique to TURP and has shown promising results so far. A total of 410 men needing a prostate operation received either TURP or a laser operation. Participants were unaware of which operation they received until the end of the study to ensure a fair comparison. Seven hospitals across the UK were involved over 4 years. The trial mainly assessed the benefits of the operations using a urinary symptom questionnaire completed by participants, and by measuring the speed of passing urine after surgery. Overall, both procedures achieved positive results, and participants expressed high levels of satisfaction with the outcomes. Participants who had either operation reported a similar improvement in urinary symptoms in their questionnaires. However, although both operations did a good job of improving the speed of passing urine, TURP was better. Participants experienced few complications, and the complications that did occur were similar after both operations, including levels of bleeding and time spent in hospital. The cost of the two operations to the NHS was also similar. Overall, we concluded that both operations are suitable for patients with prostate enlargement, with TURP showing some minor additional benefits.

Economic evaluation of the OSAC randomised controlled trial: oral corticosteroids for non-asthmatic adults with acute lower respiratory tract infection in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the costs and outcomes associated with treating non-asthmatic adults (nor suffering from other lung-disease) presenting to primary care with acute lower respiratory tract infection (ALRTI) with oral corticosteroids compared with placebo. DESIGN: Cost-consequence analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. Perspectives included the healthcare provider, patients and productivity losses associated with time off work. SETTING: Fifty-four National Health Service (NHS) general practices in England. PARTICIPANTS: 398 adults attending NHS primary practices with ALRTI but no asthma or other chronic lung disease, followed up for 28 days. INTERVENTIONS: 2× 20 mg oral prednisolone per day for 5 days versus matching placebo tablets. OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life years using the 5-level EuroQol-5D version measured weekly; duration and severity of symptom. Direct and indirect resources related to the disease and its treatment were also collected. Outcomes were measured for the 28-day follow-up. RESULTS: 198 (50%) patients received the intervention (prednisolone) and 200 (50%) received placebo. NHS costs were dominated by primary care contacts, higher with placebo than with prednisolone (£13.11 vs £10.38) but without evidence of a difference (95% CI £3.05 to £8.52). The trial medication cost of £1.96 per patient would have been recouped in prescription charges of £4.30 per patient overall (55% participants would have paid £7.85), giving an overall mean 'profit' to the NHS of £7.00 (95% CI £0.50 to £17.08) per patient. There was a quality adjusted life years gain of 0.03 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.05) equating to half a day of perfect health favouring the prednisolone patients; there was no difference in duration of cough or severity of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The use of prednisolone for non-asthmatic adults with ALRTI, provided small gains in quality of life and cost savings driven by prescription charges. Considering the results of the economic evaluation and possible side effects of corticosteroids, the short-term benefits may not outweigh the long-term harms. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EudraCT 2012-000851-15 and ISRCTN57309858; Pre-results.

Development of a 'universal-reporter' outcome measure (UROM) for patient and healthcare professional completion: a mixed methods study demonstrating a novel concept for optimal questionnaire design.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the novel concept of, and methods for developing, a 'universal-reporter' outcome measure (UROM); a single questionnaire for completion by patients and/or healthcare professionals (HCPs) when views on the same subject are required. DESIGN: A mixed methods study with three phases-phase I: identification of relevant content domains from existing clinical tools, patient questionnaires and in-depth interviews with multistakeholders; phase II: item development using a novel approach that considered plain language in conjunction with medical terminology; and phase III: pretesting with multistakeholders using cognitive interviews. SETTING: A case study in surgical wound assessment undertaken in two UK hospital trusts and one university setting. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who had recently undergone general abdominal surgery and healthcare professionals involved in post-surgical wound care. RESULTS: Phase I: In the example case study, 19 relevant content domains were identified from two clinical tools, two patient questionnaires and 19 multistakeholder interviews (nine patients, 10 HCPs). Phase II: Domains were operationalised into items and subitems (secondary components to collect further information, if relevant). The version after pretesting had 16 items, five of which included further subitems. Plain language in conjunction with medical terminology was applicable in nine (27%) items/subitems. Phase III: Pretesting with 28 patients and 14 HCPs found that the UROM was acceptable to both respondent groups. An unanticipated secondary finding of the study was that the combined use of plain language and medical terminology during questionnaire development may be a useful, novel technique for evaluating item interpretation and thereby identifying items with inadequate content validity. CONCLUSION: UROMs are a novel approach to outcome assessment that are acceptable to both patients and HCPs. Combining plain language and medical terminology during item development is a recommended technique to improve accuracy of item interpretation and content validity during questionnaire design. More work is needed to further validate this novel approach and explore the application of UROMs to other settings.

Systematic review of clinical outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of burn care.

INTRODUCTION: Systematic reviews collate trial data to provide evidence to support clinical decision-making. For effective synthesis, there must be consistency in outcome reporting. There is no agreed set of outcomes for reporting the effect of burn care interventions. Issues with outcome reporting have been identified, although not systematically investigated. This study gathers empirical evidence on any variation in outcome reporting and assesses the need for a core outcome set for burn care research. METHODS: Electronic searches of four search engines were undertaken from January 2012 to December 2016 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), using medical subject headings and free text terms including 'burn', 'scald' 'thermal injury' and 'RCT'. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted outcomes verbatim and recorded the timing of outcome measurement. Duplicate outcomes (exact wording ± different spelling), similar outcomes (albumin in blood, serum albumin) and identical outcomes measured at different times were removed. Variation in outcome reporting was determined by assessing the number of unique outcomes reported across all included trials. Outcomes were classified into domains. Bias was reduced using five researchers and a patient working independently and together. RESULTS: 147 trials were included, of which 127 (86.4%) were RCTs, 13 (8.8%) pilot studies and 7 (4.8%) RCT protocols. 1494 verbatim clinical outcomes were reported; 955 were unique. 76.8% of outcomes were measured within 6 months of injury. Commonly reported outcomes were defined differently. Numbers of unique outcomes per trial varied from one to 37 (median 9; IQR 5,13). No single outcome was reported across all studies demonstrating inconsistency of reporting. Outcomes were classified into 54 domains. Numbers of outcomes per domain ranged from 1 to 166 (median 11; IQR 3,24). CONCLUSIONS: This review has demonstrated heterogeneity in outcome reporting in burn care research which will hinder amalgamation of study data. We recommend the development of a Core Outcome Set. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017060908.