Single-Incision Mini-Slings for Stress Urinary Incontinence in Women.

BACKGROUND: Until recently, synthetic midurethral slings (made of mesh or tape) were the standard surgical treatment worldwide for female stress urinary incontinence, if conservative management failed. Data comparing the effectiveness and safety of newer single-incision mini-slings with those of standard midurethral slings are limited. METHODS: We performed a pragmatic, noninferiority, randomized trial comparing mini-slings with midurethral slings among women at 21 U.K. hospitals during 36 months of follow-up. The primary outcome was patient-reported success (defined as a response of very much or much improved on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement questionnaire) at 15 months after randomization (approximately 1 year after surgery). The noninferiority margin was 10 percentage points. RESULTS: A total of 298 women were assigned to receive mini-slings and 298 were assigned to receive midurethral slings. At 15 months, success was reported by 212 of 268 patients (79.1%) in the mini-sling group and by 189 of 250 patients (75.6%) in the midurethral-sling group (adjusted risk difference, 4.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.7 to 11.8; P<0.001 for noninferiority). At the 36-month follow-up, success was reported by 177 of 246 patients (72.0%) and by 157 of 235 patients (66.8%) in the respective groups (adjusted risk difference, 5.7 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.3 to 12.8). At 36 months, the percentage of patients with groin or thigh pain was 14.1% with mini-slings and 14.9% with midurethral slings. Over the 36-month follow-up period, the percentage of patients with tape or mesh exposure was 3.3% with mini-slings and 1.9% with midurethral slings, and the percentage who underwent further surgery for stress urinary incontinence was 2.5% and 1.1%, respectively. Outcomes with respect to quality of life and sexual function were similar in the two groups, with the exception of dyspareunia; among 290 women responding to a validated questionnaire, dyspareunia was reported by 11.7% in the mini-sling group and 4.8% in the midurethral-sling group. CONCLUSIONS: Single-incision mini-slings were noninferior to standard midurethral slings with respect to patient-reported success at 15 months, and the percentage of patients reporting success remained similar in the two groups at the 36-month follow-up. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research.).

Cost-utility analysis of shockwave lithotripsy vs ureteroscopic stone treatment in adults.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness, resource use implications, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost per QALY of care pathways starting with either extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) or with ureteroscopic retrieval (ureteroscopy [URS]) for the management of ureteric stones. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data on quality of life and resource use for 613 patients, collected prospectively in the Therapeutic Interventions for Stones of the Ureter (TISU) randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN 92289221), were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of two care pathways, SWL and URS. A health provider (UK National Health Service) perspective was adopted to estimate the costs of the interventions and subsequent resource use. Quality-of-life data were calculated using a generic instrument, the EuroQol EQ-5D-3L. Results are expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: The mean QALY difference (SWL vs URS) was -0.021 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.033 to -0.010) and the mean cost difference was -£809 (95% CI -£1061 to -£551). The QALY difference translated into approximately 10 more healthy days over the 6-month period for the patients on the URS care pathway. The probabaility that SWL is cost-effective is 79% at a society's willingness to pay (WTP) threshold for 1 QALY of £30,000 and 98% at a WTP threshold of £20,000. CONCLUSION: The SWL pathway results in lower QALYs than URS but costs less. The incremental cost per QALY is £39 118 cost saving per QALY lost, with a 79% probability that SWL would be considered cost-effective at a WTP threshold for 1 QALY of £30 000 and 98% at a WTP threshold of £20 000. Decision-makers need to determine if costs saved justify the loss in QALYs.

PROSPECT: 4- and 6-year follow-up of a randomised trial of surgery for vaginal prolapse.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Our aim was to compare the mid-term results of native tissue, biological xenograft and polypropylene mesh surgery for women with vaginal wall prolapse. METHODS: A total of 1348 women undergoing primary transvaginal repair of an anterior and/or posterior prolapse were recruited between January 2010 and August 2013 from 35 UK centres. They were randomised by remote allocation to native tissue surgery, biological xenograft or polypropylene mesh. We performed both 4- and 6-year follow-up using validated patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS: At 4 and 6 years post-operation, there was no clinically important difference in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score for any of the treatments. Using a strict composite outcome to assess functional cure at 6 years, we found no difference in cure among the three types of surgery. Half the women were cured at 6 years but only 10.3 to 12% of women had undergone further surgery for prolapse. However, 8.4% of women in the mesh group had undergone further surgery for mesh complications. There was no difference in the incidence of chronic pain or dyspareunia between groups. CONCLUSIONS: At the mid-term outcome of 6 years, there is no benefit from augmenting primary prolapse repairs with polypropylene mesh inlays or biological xenografts. There was no evidence that polypropylene mesh inlays caused greater pain or dyspareunia than native tissue repairs.

Development of an intervention to manage benzodiazepine dependence and high-risk use in the context of escalating drug related deaths in Scotland: an application of the MRC framework.

BACKGROUND: Scotland has the highest rate of drug related deaths (DRD) in Europe. These are deaths in people who use drugs such as heroin, cocaine, benzodiazepines and gabapentinoids. It is a feature of deaths in Scotland that people use combinations of drugs which increases the chance of a DRD. Many deaths involve 'street' benzodiazepines, especially a drug called etizolam. Many of the 'street' benzodiazepines are not licensed in the UK so come from illegal sources. People who use opiates can be prescribed a safer replacement medication (e.g., methadone). While guidance on management of benzodiazepines use highlights that there is little evidence to support replacement prescribing, practice and evidence are emerging. AIM: To develop an intervention to address 'street' benzodiazepines use in people who also use opiates. METHODS: The MRC Framework for Complex Interventions was used to inform research design. Co-production of the intervention was achieved through three online workshops with clinicians, academics working in the area of substance use, and people with lived experience (PWLE). Each workshop was followed by a PWLE group meeting. Outputs from workshops were discussed and refined by the PWLE group and then further explored at the next workshop. RESULTS: After these six sessions, a finalised logic model for the intervention was successfully achieved that was acceptable to clinicians and PWLE. Key components of the intervention were: prescribing of diazepam; anxiety management, sleep, and pain; and harm reduction resources (locked box and a range of tips), personal safety conversations, as well as a virtual learning environment. CONCLUSION: A co-produced intervention was developed for next stage clinical feasibility testing.

Economic evaluation of interventions for the treatment of asthma in children: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to identify and critique full economic evaluations (EEs) of childhood asthma treatments with the intention to guide researchers and commissioners of pediatric asthma services toward potentially cost-effective strategies. METHODS: "MEDLINE," "Embase," "EconLit," "NHS EED," and "CEA" databases were searched to identify relevant EEs published between 2005 and May 2017. Quality of included studies was assessed with a published checklist. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were identified and comprised one cost-benefit analysis, 11 cost-effectiveness analyses, one cost-minimization analysis, and six cost-utility analyses. Treatments included pharmaceutical (n = 11) and non-pharmaceutical (n = 7) interventions. Fourteen studies identified cost-effective strategies. The quality of the studies varied and there were uncertainties due to the methods and relevance of data used. CONCLUSION: Good-quality economic evaluation studies of pediatric asthma treatments are lacking. EE of new technologies adapted to local settings is recommended and can result in cost savings.

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.

Comparison of stapled haemorrhoidopexy with traditional excisional surgery for haemorrhoidal disease (eTHoS): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Two commonly performed surgical interventions are available for severe (grade II-IV) haemorrhoids; traditional excisional surgery and stapled haemorrhoidopexy. Uncertainty exists as to which is most effective. The eTHoS trial was designed to establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of stapled haemorrhoidopexy compared with traditional excisional surgery. METHODS: The eTHoS trial was a large, open-label, multicentre, parallel-group, pragmatic randomised controlled trial done in adult participants (aged 18 years or older) referred to hospital for surgical treatment for grade II-IV haemorrhoids. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either traditional excisional surgery or stapled haemorrhoidopexy. Randomisation was minimised according to baseline EuroQol 5 dimensions 3 level score (EQ-5D-3L), haemorrhoid grade, sex, and centre with an automated system to stapled haemorrhoidopexy or traditional excisional surgery. The primary outcome was area under the quality of life curve (AUC) measured with the EQ-5D-3L descriptive system over 24 months, assessed according to the randomised groups. The primary outcome measure was analysed using linear regression with adjustment for the minimisation variables. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80061723. FINDINGS: Between Jan 13, 2011, and Aug 1, 2014, 777 patients were randomised (389 to receive stapled haemorrhoidopexy and 388 to receive traditional excisional surgery). Stapled haemorrhoidopexy was less painful than traditional excisional surgery in the short term and surgical complication rates were similar between groups. The EQ-5D-3L AUC score was higher in the traditional excisional surgery group than the stapled haemorrhoidopexy group over 24 months; mean difference -0·073 (95% CI -0·140 to -0·006; p=0·0342). EQ-5D-3L was higher for stapled haemorrhoidopexy in the first 6 weeks after surgery, the traditional excisional surgery group had significantly better quality of life scores than the stapled haemorrhoidopexy group. 24 (7%) of 338 participants who received stapled haemorrhoidopexy and 33 (9%) of 352 participants who received traditional excisional surgery had serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: As part of a tailored management plan for haemorrhoids, traditional excisional surgery should be considered over stapled haemorrhoidopexy as the surgical treatment of choice. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

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.

Systematic review of the clinical and cost effectiveness of cholecystectomy versus observation/conservative management for uncomplicated symptomatic gallstones or cholecystitis.

BACKGROUND: Gallstone disease is a common gastrointestinal disorder in industrialised countries. Although symptoms can be severe, some people can be symptom free for many years after the original attack. Surgery is the current treatment of choice, but evidence suggests that observation is also feasible and safe. We reviewed the evidence on cholecystectomy versus observation for uncomplicated symptomatic gallstones and conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: We searched six electronic databases (last search April 2014). We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised comparative studies where adults received either cholecystectomy or observation/conservative management for the first episode of symptomatic gallstone disease (biliary pain or cholecystitis) being considered for surgery in secondary care. Meta-analysis was used to combine results. A de novo Markov model was developed to assess the cost effectiveness of the interventions. RESULTS: Two RCTs (201 participants) were included. Eighty-eight percent of people randomised to surgery and 45 % of people randomised to observation underwent cholecystectomy during the 14-year follow-up period. Participants randomised to observation were significantly more likely to experience gallstone-related complications (RR = 6.69, 95 % CI = 1.57-28.51, p = 0.01), in particular acute cholecystitis (RR = 9.55, 95 % CI = 1.25-73.27, p = 0.03), and less likely to undergo surgery (RR = 0.50, 95 % CI = 0.34-0.73, p = 0.0004) or experience surgery-related complications (RR = 0.36, 95 % CI = 0.16-0.81, p = 0.01) than those randomised to surgery. Fifty-five percent of people randomised to observation did not require surgery, and 12 % of people randomised to cholecystectomy did not undergo surgery. On average, surgery costs £1,236 more per patient than conservative management, but was more effective. CONCLUSIONS: Cholecystectomy is the preferred treatment for symptomatic gallstones. However, approximately half the observation group did not require surgery or suffer complications indicating that it may be a valid alternative to surgery. A multicentre trial is needed to establish the effects, safety and cost effectiveness of observation/conservative management relative to cholecystectomy.

Three-year cost utility analysis of mini versus standard slings: A trial based economic evaluation.

Objective: To report on the cost-effectiveness of adjustable anchored single-incision mini-slings (mini-slings) compared with tension-free standard mid-urethral slings (standard slings) in the surgical management of female stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Patients and Methods: Data on resource use and quality were collected from women aged ≥18 years with predominant SUI undergoing mid-urethral sling procedures in 21 UK hospitals. Resource use and quality of life (QoL) data were prospectively collected alongside the Single-Incision Mini-Slings versus standard synthetic mid-urethral slings Randomised Control Trial (SIMS RCT), for surgical treatment of SUI in women. A health service provider's (National Health Service [NHS]) perspective with 3-year follow-up was adopted to estimate the costs of the intervention and all subsequent resource use. A generic instrument, EuroQol EQ-5D-3L, was used to estimate the QoL. Results are reported as incremental costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost per QALY. Results: Base case analysis results show that although mini-slings cost less, there was no significant difference in costs: mini-slings versus standard slings: £-6 [95% CI -228-208] or in QALYs: 0.005 [95% CI -0.068-0.073] over the 3-year follow-up. There is substantial uncertainty, with a 56% and 44% probability that mini-slings and standard slings are the most cost-effective treatment, respectively, at a £20 000 willingness-to-pay threshold value for a QALY. Conclusions: At 3 years, there is no significant difference between mini-slings and standard slings in costs and QALYs. There is still some uncertainty over the long-term complications and failure rates of the devices used in the treatment of SUI; therefore, it is important to establish the long-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of these procedures.

Antimicrobial catheters for reduction of symptomatic urinary tract infection in adults requiring short-term catheterisation in hospital: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) is a major preventable cause of harm for patients in hospital. We aimed to establish whether short-term routine use of antimicrobial catheters reduced risk of CAUTI compared with standard polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) catheterisation. METHODS: In our parallel, three group, multicentre, randomised controlled superiority trial, we enrolled adults (aged ≥16 years) requiring short-term (≤14 days) catheterisation at 24 hospitals in the UK. Participants were randomly allocated 1:1:1 with a remote computer allocation to receive a silver alloy-coated catheter, a nitrofural-impregnated catheter, or a PTFE-coated catheter (control group). Patients undergoing unplanned catheterisation were also included and consent for participation was obtained retrospectively. Participants and trial staff were unmasked to treatment assignment. Data were collected by trial staff and by patient-reported questionnaires for 6 weeks after randomisation. The primary outcome was incidence of symptomatic urinary tract infection for which an antibiotic was prescribed by 6 weeks. We postulated that a 3·3% absolute reduction in CAUTI would represent sufficient benefit to recommend routine use of antimicrobial catheters. This study is registered, number ISRCTN75198618. FINDINGS: 708 (10%) of 7102 randomly allocated participants were not catheterised, did not confirm consent, or withdrew, and were not included in the primary analyses. Compared with 271 (12·6%) of 2144 participants in the control group, 263 (12·5%) of 2097 participants allocated a silver alloy catheter had the primary outcome (difference -0·1% [95% CI -2·4 to 2·2]), as did 228 (10·6%) of 2153 participants allocated a nitrofural catheter (-2·1% [-4·2 to 0·1]). Rates of catheter-related discomfort were higher in the nitrofural group than they were in the other groups. INTERPRETATION: Silver alloy-coated catheters were not effective for reduction of incidence of symptomatic CAUTI. The reduction we noted in CAUTI associated with nitrofural-impregnated catheters was less than that regarded as clinically important. Routine use of antimicrobial-impregnated catheters is not supported by this trial. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Comparison of an adjustable anchored single-incision mini-sling, Ajust(®) , with a standard mid-urethral sling, TVT-O(TM) : a health economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost, quality of life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness of a single-incision mini-sling (SIMS; Ajust(®) , C. R. Bard Inc., New Providence, NJ, USA) compared with a standard mid-urethral sling (SMUS; TVT-O™, Ethicon Inc., Somerville, NJ, USA) in the surgical management of female stress urinary incontinence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 137 women, in a secondary care setting, were randomized between October 2009 and October 2011 to undergo SIMS placement (n = 69) under local anaesthesia as an opt-out policy or SMUS placement (n = 68) under general anaesthesia. Clinical outcome measures included the patient-reported success rate (Patient Global Impression of Improvement [PGI-I]) and the impact on the patients' QoL (King's Health Questionnaire [KHQ]). Health economic data (cost and quality-adjusted life year [QALY] data) were compared using linear regression models to generate an incremental cost per QALY estimate, in order to determine a measure of cost-effectiveness. Deterministic sensitivity analyses investigated uncertainty in the results, and non-parametric bootstrapping techniques were used to estimate a probability of cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the KHQ total score (P = 0.27) or the patient-reported success rate (P = 1.00, odds ratio: 0.895; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.344 to 2.330). There was no significant difference in QALYs for the SIMS group compared with the SMUS group (mean difference: -0.003; 95% CI: -0.008 to +0.002). The SIMS was on average less costly, -£142.41 95% CI: (-316.99 to 32.17) and generated cost savings of £48 419 per QALY loss with 94% probability of cost savings to the health services. Taking a wider perspective on the costing analysis by including the wider community benefit associated with the significantly earlier return to work observed in the SIMS group (P = 0.006, 95% CI: 11.756 to 17.217), there was an increase in cost savings to -£477, (95% CI: -823.65 to -129.63), with a probability of 100% of cost savings to the wider economy. CONCLUSIONS: The adjustable anchored SIMS (Ajust), performed under local anaesthesia as an opt-out policy, delivers cost savings to the health service provider when compared with the SMUS (TVT-O), and is likely to be cost-effective up to 1 year after placement. Further research should be undertaken to confirm the results of our study over longer follow-up and should explore patient preferences alongside an adequately powered non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.

Patient preferences for stress urinary incontinence treatments: a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVES: To elicit and value patient preferences for the processes and outcomes of surgical management of stress urinary incontinence in women. DESIGN: A discrete choice experiment survey to elicit preferences for type of anaesthesia, postoperative recovery time, treatment success, adverse events, impact on daily activities and cost. An experimental design generated 40 choice tasks, and each respondent completed 1 block of 10 and 2 validity tests. Analysis was by multinomial logistical regression. SETTING: N=21 UK hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: N=325 adult women who were a subsample of those randomised to the single-incision mini-slings clinical trial. OUTCOMES: Patient preferences; valuation obtained using willingness to pay. RESULTS: N=227 of 325 (70%) returned a questionnaire, and 94% of those completed all choice tasks. Respondents preferred general anaesthesia, shorter recovery times, improved stress urinary incontinence symptoms and avoidance of adverse events. Women were willing to pay (mean (95% CI)) £76 (£33 to £119) per day of reduction in recovery time following surgery. They valued increases in Patient Global Impression of Improvement, ranging from £8173 (£5459 to £10 887) for 'improved' to £11 706 (£8267 to £15 144) for 'very much improved' symptoms, compared with no symptom improvement. This was offset by negative values attached to the avoidance of complications ranging between £-8022 (£-10 661 to £-5383) and £-10 632 (£-14 077 to £-7187) compared to no complications. Women valued treatments that reduced the need to avoid daily activities, with willingness to pay ranging from £-967 (£-2199 to £266) for rarely avoiding activities to £-5338 (£-7258 to £-3417) for frequently avoiding daily activities compared with no avoidance. CONCLUSION: This discrete choice experiment demonstrates that patients place considerable value on improvement in stress urinary incontinence symptoms and avoidance of treatment complications. Trade-offs between symptom improvement and adverse event risk should be considered within shared decision-making. The willingness to pay values from this study can be used in future cost-benefit analyses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN: 93264234; Post-results.

Urinary incontinence in men after formal one-to-one pelvic-floor muscle training following radical prostatectomy or transurethral resection of the prostate (MAPS): two parallel randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence is common immediately after prostate surgery. Men are often advised to do pelvic-floor exercises, but evidence to support this is inconclusive. Our aim was to establish if formal one-to-one pelvic floor muscle training reduces incontinence. METHODS: We undertook two randomised trials in men in the UK who were incontinent 6 weeks after radical prostatectomy (trial 1) or transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP; trial 2) to compare four sessions with a therapist over 3 months with standard care and lifestyle advice only. Randomisation was by remote computer allocation. Our primary endpoints, collected via postal questionnaires, were participants' reports of urinary incontinence and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) after 12 months. Group assignment was masked from outcome assessors, but this masking was not possible for participants or caregivers. We used intention-to-treat analyses to compare the primary outcome at 12 months. This study is registered, number ISRCTN87696430. FINDINGS: In the intervention group in trial 1, the rate of urinary incontinence at 12 months (148 [76%] of 196) was not significantly different from the control group (151 [77%] of 195; absolute risk difference [RD] -1·9%, 95% CI -10 to 6). In trial 2, the difference in the rate of urinary incontinence at 12 months (126 [65%] of 194) from the control group was not significant (125 [62%] of 203; RD 3·4%, 95% CI -6 to 13). Adjusting for minimisation factors or doing treatment-received analyses did not change these results in either trial. No adverse effects were reported. In both trials, the intervention resulted in higher mean costs per patient (£180 and £209 respectively) but we did not identify evidence of an economically important difference in QALYs (0·002 [95% CI -0·027 to 0·023] and -0·00003 [-0·026 to 0·026]). INTERPRETATION: In settings where information about pelvic-floor exercise is widely available, one-to-one conservative physical therapy for men who are incontinent after prostate surgery is unlikely to be effective or cost effective. The high rates of persisting incontinence after 12 months suggest a substantial unrecognised and unmet need for management in these men. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research, Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programme.

Single-incision mini-slings versus standard synthetic mid-urethral slings for surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women: The SIMS RCT.

BACKGROUND: Stress urinary incontinence is the most common type of urinary incontinence in premenopausal women. Until recently, synthetic mid-urethral slings (mesh/tape) were the standard surgical treatment, if conservative management failed. Adjustable anchored single-incision mini-slings are newer, use less mesh and may reduce perioperative morbidity, but it is unclear how their success rates and safety compare with those of standard tension-free mid-urethral slings. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare tension-free standard mid-urethral slings with adjustable anchored single-incision mini-slings among women with stress urinary incontinence requiring surgical intervention, in terms of patient-reported effectiveness, health-related quality of life, safety and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. Allocation was by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1 ratio). SETTING: The trial was set in 21 UK hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were women aged ≥ 18 years with predominant stress urinary incontinence, undergoing a mid-urethral sling procedure. INTERVENTIONS: Single-incision mini-slings, compared with standard mid-urethral slings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was patient-reported success rates on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale at 15 months post randomisation (≈ 1 year post surgery), with success defined as outcomes of 'very much improved' or 'much improved'. The primary economic outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, impact on other urinary symptoms, quality of life and sexual function. RESULTS: A total of 600 participants were randomised. At 15 months post randomisation, adjustable anchored single-incision mini-slings were non-inferior to tension-free standard mid-urethral slings at the 10% margin for the primary outcome [single-incision mini-sling 79% (212/268) vs. standard mid-urethral sling 76% (189/250), risk difference 4.6, 95% confidence interval -2.7 to 11.8; p non-inferiority < 0.001]. Similarly, at 3 years' follow-up, patient-reported success rates in the single-incision mini-sling group were non-inferior to those of the standard mid-urethral sling group at the 10% margin [single-incision mini-sling 72% (177/246) vs. standard mid-urethral sling 67% (157/235), risk difference 5.7, 95% confidence interval -1.3 to 12.8; p non-inferiority < 0.001]. Tape/mesh exposure rates were higher for single-incision mini-sling participants, with 3.3% (9/276) [compared with 1.9% (5/261) in the standard mid-urethral sling group] reporting tape exposure over the 3 years of follow-up. The rate of groin/thigh pain was slightly higher in the single-incision mini-sling group at 15 months [single-incision mini-sling 15% (41/276) vs. standard mid-urethral sling 12% (31/261), risk difference 3.0%, 95% confidence interval -1.1% to 7.1%]; however, by 3 years, the rate of pain was slightly higher among the standard mid-urethral sling participants [single-incision mini-sling 14% (39/276) vs. standard mid-urethral sling 15% (39/261), risk difference -0.8, 95% confidence interval -4.1 to 2.5]. At the 3-year follow-up, quality of life and sexual function outcomes were similar in both groups: for the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Quality of Life, the mean difference in scores was -1.1 (95% confidence interval -3.1 to 0.8; p = 0.24), and for the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, International Urogynecological Association-Revised, it was 0 (95% confidence interval -0.1, 0.1; p = 0.92). However, more women in the single-incision mini-sling group reported dyspareunia [12% (17/145), compared with 4.8% (7/145) in the standard mid-urethral sling group, risk difference 7.0%, 95% confidence interval 1.9% to 12.1%]. The base-case economics results showed no difference in costs (-£6, 95% confidence interval -£228 to £208) or quality-adjusted life-years (0.005, 95% confidence interval -0.068 to 0.073) between the groups. There is a 56% probability that single-incision mini-slings will be considered cost-effective at the £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold value for a quality-adjusted life-year. LIMITATIONS: Follow-up data beyond 3 years post randomisation are not available to inform longer-term safety and cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Single-incision mini-slings were non-inferior to standard mid-urethral slings in patient-reported success rates at up to 3 years' follow-up. FUTURE WORK: Success rates, adverse events, retreatment rates, symptoms, and quality-of-life scores at 10 years' follow-up will help inform long-term effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered as ISRCTN93264234. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 47. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Stress urinary incontinence, the involuntary leakage of urine, is a common and distressing condition, particularly for women aged > 40 years. In the UK, it is estimated that 6 million (40%) of this age group have symptoms bothersome enough for doctors to investigate. It causes embarrassment, low self-esteem and even social isolation. Standard surgical treatment used to be a mid-urethral sling made of mesh, inserted, in most cases, under general anaesthetic. Recently, a single-incision mini-sling, using less mesh, has been available under local anaesthetic. A number of small studies have shown that mini-slings have similar success rates to those of standard slings, necessitate shorter hospital stays and are less painful immediately after surgery. However, these results were uncertain and the potential longer-term benefits and disadvantages of both types of sling treatments were unknown. We compared the two types of sling treatments in a randomised trial of 600 women to see if they were equally effective. Success was measured by asking women to report on their symptoms and experiences. We also collected information on safety, quality of life, sexual function, and costs to women and the NHS. Every participant had an equal chance of starting treatment with the standard sling or the mini-sling. Participants were followed up for 3 years. Women allocated to each treatment reported similar success rates, quality of life and sexual function at 3 years. Women who received the new mini-sling had more mesh exposure (3% for the mini-sling vs. 2% for the standard sling) and were more likely to report pain during intercourse (12% vs. 5%) than women who received the standard sling. Both treatments had similar costs. Follow-up to 10 years is under way to establish the long-term benefits and disadvantages.

Synthetic sling or artificial urinary sphincter for men with urodynamic stress incontinence after prostate surgery: the MASTER non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Stress urinary incontinence is common in men after prostate surgery and can be difficult to improve. Implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter is the most common surgical procedure for persistent stress urinary incontinence, but it requires specialist surgical skills, and revisions may be necessary. In addition, the sphincter is relatively expensive and its operation requires adequate patient dexterity. New surgical approaches include the male synthetic sling, which is emerging as a possible alternative. However, robust comparable data, derived from randomised controlled trials, on the relative safety and efficacy of the male synthetic sling and the artificial urinary sphincter are lacking. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the male synthetic sling with those of the artificial urinary sphincter surgery in men with persistent stress urinary incontinence after prostate surgery. DESIGN: This was a multicentre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial, with a parallel non-randomised cohort and embedded qualitative component. Randomised controlled trial allocation was carried out by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1), minimised on previous prostate surgery (radical prostatectomy or transurethral resection of the prostate), radiotherapy (or not, in relation to prostate surgery) and centre. Surgeons and participants were not blind to the treatment received. Non-randomised cohort allocation was participant and/or surgeon preference. SETTING: The trial was set in 28 UK urological centres in the NHS. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were men with urodynamic stress incontinence after prostate surgery for whom surgery was deemed appropriate. Exclusion criteria included previous sling or artificial urinary sphincter surgery, unresolved bladder neck contracture or urethral stricture after prostate surgery, and an inability to give informed consent or complete trial documentation. INTERVENTIONS: We compared male synthetic sling with artificial urinary sphincter. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The clinical primary outcome measure was men's reports of continence (assessed from questions 3 and 4 of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form) at 12 months post randomisation (with a non-inferiority margin of 15%). The primary economic outcome was cost-effectiveness (assessed as the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year at 24 months post randomisation). RESULTS: In total, 380 men were included in the randomised controlled trial (n = 190 in each group), and 99 out of 100 men were included in the non-randomised cohort. In terms of continence, the male sling was non-inferior to the artificial urinary sphincter (intention-to-treat estimated absolute risk difference -0.034, 95% confidence interval -0.117 to 0.048; non-inferiority p = 0.003), indicating a lower success rate in those randomised to receive a sling, but with a confidence interval excluding the non-inferiority margin of -15%. In both groups, treatment resulted in a reduction in incontinence symptoms (as measured by the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form). Between baseline and 12 months' follow-up, the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form score fell from 16.1 to 8.7 in the male sling group and from 16.4 to 7.5 in the artificial urinary sphincter group (mean difference for the time point at 12 months 1.30, 95% confidence interval 0.11 to 2.49; p = 0.032). The number of serious adverse events was small (male sling group, n = 8; artificial urinary sphincter group, n = 15; one man in the artificial urinary sphincter group experienced three serious adverse events). Quality-of-life scores improved and satisfaction was high in both groups. Secondary outcomes that showed statistically significant differences favoured the artificial urinary sphincter over the male sling. Outcomes of the non-randomised cohort were similar. The male sling cost less than the artificial sphincter but was associated with a smaller quality-adjusted life-year gain. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for male slings compared with an artificial urinary sphincter suggests that there is a cost saving of £425,870 for each quality-adjusted life-year lost. The probability that slings would be cost-effective at a £30,000 willingness-to-pay threshold for a quality-adjusted life-year was 99%. LIMITATIONS: Follow-up beyond 24 months is not available. More specific surgical/device-related pain outcomes were not included. CONCLUSIONS: Continence rates improved from baseline, with the male sling non-inferior to the artificial urinary sphincter. Symptoms and quality of life significantly improved in both groups. Men were generally satisfied with both procedures. Overall, secondary and post hoc analyses favoured the artificial urinary sphincter over the male sling. FUTURE WORK: Participant reports of any further surgery, satisfaction and quality of life at 5-year follow-up will inform longer-term outcomes. Administration of an additional pain questionnaire would provide further information on pain levels after both surgeries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN49212975. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 36. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Leakage of urine associated with physical exertion (e.g. sporting activities, sneezing or coughing) is common in men who have undergone prostate surgery, but it is difficult to improve. Many men still leak urine 12 months after their prostate surgery and may continue to wear protective pads or sheaths. The most common operation to improve incontinence is implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter. An artificial urinary sphincter is an inflatable cuff that is placed around the urethra, the tube that drains urine from the bladder. The cuff is inflated and compresses the urethra to prevent leaking. When the man needs to pass urine, he must deflate the cuff by squeezing a pump placed in his scrotum, which releases the compression on the urethra and allows the bladder to empty. Recently, a new device, the male sling (made from non-absorbable plastic mesh), has been developed. The sling, which is surgically inserted under the urethra, supports the bladder, but, in contrast to the artificial sphincter, it does not need to be deactivated by a pump and, therefore, the patient does not need to do anything to operate it. A sling is also easier for the surgeon to insert than a sphincter. However, in some men, the sling does not provide enough improvement in incontinence symptoms and another operation, to place an artificial urinary sphincter, is needed. The aim of this study was to determine if the male sling was as effective as the artificial urinary sphincter in treating men with bothersome incontinence after prostate surgery. The study took the form of a randomised controlled trial (the gold standard and most reliable way to compare treatments) in which men were randomised (allocated at random to one of two groups using a computer) to either a male sling or an artificial urinary sphincter operation. We asked men how they got on in the first 2 years after their operation. Regardless of which operation they had, incontinence and quality of life significantly improved and complications were rare. A small number of men did require another operation to improve their incontinence, and it was more likely that an artificial urinary sphincter was needed, rather than another sling operation, if a male sling was not successful. Satisfaction was high in both groups, but it was significantly higher in the artificial urinary sphincter group than in the male sling group. Those who received a male sling were less likely than those who received an artificial urinary sphincter to say that they would recommend their surgery to a friend.

Shockwave lithotripsy compared with ureteroscopic stone treatment for adults with ureteric stones: the TISU non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Urinary stone disease affects 2-3% of the general population. Ureteric stones are associated with severe pain and can have a significant impact on a patient's quality of life. Most ureteric stones are expected to pass spontaneously with supportive care; however, between one-fifth and one-third of patients require an active intervention. The two standard interventions are shockwave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic stone treatment. Both treatments are effective, but they differ in terms of invasiveness, anaesthetic requirement, treatment setting, number of procedures, complications, patient-reported outcomes and cost. There is uncertainty around which is the more clinically effective and cost-effective treatment. OBJECTIVES: To determine if shockwave lithotripsy is clinically effective and cost-effective compared with ureteroscopic stone treatment in adults with ureteric stones who are judged to require active intervention. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial of shockwave lithotripsy as a first-line treatment option compared with primary ureteroscopic stone treatment for ureteric stones. SETTING: Urology departments in 25 NHS hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 16 years presenting with a single ureteric stone in any segment of the ureter, confirmed by computerised tomography, who were able to undergo either shockwave lithotripsy or ureteroscopic stone treatment and to complete trial procedures. INTERVENTION: Eligible participants were randomised 1 : 1 to shockwave lithotripsy (up to two sessions) or ureteroscopic stone treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary clinical outcome measure was resolution of the stone episode (stone clearance), which was operationally defined as 'no further intervention required to facilitate stone clearance' up to 6 months from randomisation. This was determined from 8-week and 6-month case report forms and any additional hospital visit case report form that was completed by research staff. The primary economic outcome measure was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 6 months from randomisation. We estimated costs from NHS resources and calculated quality-adjusted life-years from participant completion of the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version, at baseline, pre intervention, 1 week post intervention and 8 weeks and 6 months post randomisation. RESULTS: In the shockwave lithotripsy arm, 67 out of 302 (22.2%) participants needed further treatment. In the ureteroscopic stone treatment arm, 31 out of 302 (10.3%) participants needed further treatment. The absolute risk difference was 11.4% (95% confidence interval 5.0% to 17.8%); the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval ruled out the prespecified margin of non-inferiority (which was 20%). The mean quality-adjusted life-year difference (shockwave lithotripsy vs. ureteroscopic stone treatment) was -0.021 (95% confidence interval 0.033 to -0.010) and the mean cost difference was -£809 (95% confidence interval -£1061 to -£551). The probability that shockwave lithotripsy is cost-effective is 79% at a threshold of society's willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year of £30,000. The CEAC is derived from the joint distribution of incremental costs and incremental effects. Most of the results fall in the south-west quadrant of the cost effectiveness plane as SWL always costs less but is less effective. LIMITATIONS: A limitation of the trial was low return and completion rates of patient questionnaires. The study was initially powered for 500 patients in each arm; however, the total number of patients recruited was only 307 and 306 patients in the ureteroscopic stone treatment and shockwave lithotripsy arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving shockwave lithotripsy needed more further interventions than those receiving primary ureteroscopic retrieval, although the overall costs for those receiving the shockwave treatment were lower. The absolute risk difference between the two clinical pathways (11.4%) was lower than expected and at a level that is acceptable to clinicians and patients. The shockwave lithotripsy pathway is more cost-effective in an NHS setting, but results in lower quality of life. FUTURE WORK: (1) The generic health-related quality-of-life tools used in this study do not fully capture the impact of the various treatment pathways on patients. A condition-specific health-related quality-of-life tool should be developed. (2) Reporting of ureteric stone trials would benefit from agreement on a core outcome set that would ensure that future trials are easier to compare. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN92289221. 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. 26, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Approximately 1 in 20 people suffers from kidney stones that pass down the urine drainage tube (ureter) into the urinary bladder and cause episodes of severe pain (ureteric colic). People with ureteric colic attend hospital for pain relief and diagnosis. Although most stones smaller than 10 mm eventually reach the bladder and are passed during urination, some get stuck and have to be removed using telescopic surgery (called ureteroscopic stone treatment) or shockwave therapy (called shockwave lithotripsy). Ureteroscopic stone treatment involves passing a telescope-containing instrument through the bladder and into the ureter to fragment and/or remove the stone. This is usually carried out under general anaesthetic as a day case. For shockwave lithotripsy, the patient lies flat on a couch and the apparatus underneath them generates shockwaves that pass through the skin to the ureter and break the stones into smaller fragments, which can be passed naturally in the urine. This involves using X-ray or ultrasound to locate the stone, but can be carried out on an outpatient basis and without general anaesthetic. Telescopic surgery is known to be more successful at removing stones after just one treatment, but it requires more time in hospital and has a higher risk of complications than shockwave lithotripsy (however, shockwave lithotripsy may require more than one session of treatment). Our study, the Therapeutic Interventions for Stones of the Ureter trial, was designed to establish if treatment for ureteric colic should start with telescopic surgery or shockwave therapy. Over 600 NHS patients took part and they were split into two groups. Each patient had an equal chance of their treatment starting with either telescopic surgery or shockwave lithotripsy, which was decided by a computer program (via random allocation). We counted how many patients in each group had further procedures to remove their stone. We found that telescopic surgery was 11% more effective overall, with an associated slightly better quality of life (10 more healthy days over the 6-month period), but was more expensive in an NHS setting. The finding of a lack of any significant additional clinical benefit leads to the conclusion that the more cost-effective treatment pathway is shockwave lithotripsy with telescopic surgery used only in those patients in whom shockwave lithotripsy is unsuccessful.

Randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of various washout policies versus no washout policy in preventing catheter associated complications in adults living with long-term catheters: study protocol for the CATHETER II study.

BACKGROUND: Various washout policies are widely used in adults living with long-term catheters (LTC). There is currently insufficient evidence on the benefits and potential harms of prophylactic LTC washout policies in the prevention of blockages and other LTC-related adverse events, such as urinary tract infections. CATHETER II tests the hypothesis that weekly prophylactic LTC washouts (normal saline or citric acid) in addition to standard LTC care reduce the incidence of catheter blockage requiring intervention compared to standard LTC care only in adults living with LTC. METHODS: CATHETER II is a pragmatic three-arm open multi-centre superiority randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot, economic analysis, and embedded qualitative study. Eligible participants are adults aged ≥ 18 years, who have had a LTC in use for ≥ 28 days, have no plans to discontinue the use of the catheter, are able to undertake the catheter washouts, and complete trial documentation or have a carer able to help them. Participants are identified from general practitioner practices, secondary/tertiary care, community healthcare, care homes, and via public advertising strategies. Participants are randomised 1:1:1 to receive a weekly saline (0.9%) washout in addition to standard LTC care, a weekly citric acid (3.23%) washout in addition to standard LTC care or standard LTC care only. Participants and/or carers will receive training to administer the washouts. Patient-reported outcomes are collected at baseline and for 24 months post-randomisation. The primary clinical outcome is catheter blockage requiring intervention up to 24 months post-randomisation expressed per 1000 catheter days. Secondary outcomes include symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infection requiring antibiotics, catheter change, adverse events, NHS/ healthcare use, and impact on quality of life. DISCUSSION: This study will guide treatment decision-making and clinical practice guidelines regarding the effectiveness of various prophylactic catheter washout policies in men and women living with LTC. This research has received ethical approval from Wales Research Ethics Committee 6 (19/WA/0015). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN17116445 . Registered prospectively on 06 November 2019.

Outcomes of a Noninferiority Randomised Controlled Trial of Surgery for Men with Urodynamic Stress Incontinence After Prostate Surgery (MASTER).

BACKGROUND: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is common after radical prostatectomy and likely to persist despite conservative treatment. The sling is an emerging operation for persistent SUI, but randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparison with the established artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of surgery in men with bothersome urodynamic SUI after prostate surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A noninferiority RCT was conducted among men with bothersome urodynamic SUI from 27 UK centres. Blinding was not possible due the surgeries. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to the male transobturator sling (n = 190) or the AUS (n = 190) group. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was patient-reported SUI 12 mo after randomisation, collected from postal questionnaire using a composite outcome from two items in validated International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form questionnaire (ICIQ-UI SF). Noninferiority margin was 15%, thought to be of acceptable lower effectiveness, in return for reduced adverse events (AEs) and easier operation, for the sling. Secondary outcomes were operative and postoperative details, patient-reported measures, and AEs, up to 12 mo after surgery. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 380 participants were included. At 12 mo after randomisation, incontinence rates were 134/154 (87.0%) for male sling versus 133/158 (84.2%) for AUS (difference 3.6% [95% confidence interval {CI} -11.6 to 4.6], pNI = 0.003), showing noninferiority. Incontinence symptoms (ICIQ-UI SF) reduced from scores of 16.1 and 16.4 at baseline to 8.7 and 7.5 for male sling and AUS, respectively (mean difference 1.4 [95% CI 0.2-2.6], p =  0.02). Serious AEs (SAEs) were few: n = 6 and n = 13 for male sling and AUS (one man had three SAEs), respectively. Quality of life scores improved, and satisfaction was high in both groups. All other secondary outcomes that show statistically significant differences favour the AUS. CONCLUSIONS: Using a strict definition, urinary incontinence rates remained high, with no evidence of difference between male sling and AUS. Symptoms and quality of life improved significantly in both groups, and men were generally satisfied with both procedures. Overall, secondary and post hoc analyses were in favour of AUS. PATIENT SUMMARY: Urinary incontinence after prostatectomy has considerable effect on men's quality of life. MASTER shows that if surgery is needed, both surgical options result in fewer symptoms and high satisfaction, despite most men not being completely dry. However, most other results indicate that men having an artificial urinary sphincter have better outcomes than those who have a sling.

Shockwave Lithotripsy Versus Ureteroscopic Treatment as Therapeutic Interventions for Stones of the Ureter (TISU): A Multicentre Randomised Controlled Non-inferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND: Renal stone disease is common and can cause emergency presentation with acute pain due to ureteric colic. International guidelines have stated the need for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine whether a non-invasive outpatient (shockwave lithotripsy [SWL]) or surgical (ureteroscopy [URS]) intervention should be the first-line treatment for those needing active intervention. This has implications for shaping clinical pathways. OBJECTIVE: To report a pragmatic multicentre non-inferiority RCT comparing SWL with URS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This trial tested for non-inferiority of up to two sessions of SWL compared with URS as initial treatment for ureteric stones requiring intervention. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was whether further intervention was required to clear the stone, and secondary outcomes included quality of life assessment, severity of pain, and serious complications; these were based on questionnaires at baseline, 8 wk, and 6 mo. We included patients over 16 yr with a single ureteric stone clinically deemed to require intervention. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were planned. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The study recruited between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2017. We recruited 613 participants from a total of 1291 eligible patients, randomising 306 to SWL and 307 to URS. Sixty-seven patients (22.1%) in the SWL arm needed further treatment compared with 31 patients (10.3%) in the URS arm. The absolute risk difference was 11.7% (95% confidence interval 5.6%, 17.8%) in favour of URS, which was inside the 20% threshold we set for demonstrating noninferiority of SWL. CONCLUSIONS: This RCT was designed to test whether SWL is non-inferior to URS and confirmed this; although SWL is an outpatient noninvasive treatment with potential advantages both for patients and for reducing the use of inpatient health care resources, the trial showed a benefit in overall clinical outcomes with URS compared with SWL, reflecting contemporary practice. The Therapeutic Interventions for Stones of the Ureter (TISU) study provides new evidence to help guide the choice of modality for this common health condition. PATIENT SUMMARY: We present the largest trial comparing ureteroscopy versus extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for ureteric stones. While ureteroscopy had marginally improved outcome in terms of stone clearance, as expected, shockwave lithotripsy had better results in terms of health care costs. These results should enable patients and health care providers to optimise treatment pathways for this common urological condition.