Search

Key Points: Question: For people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at high risk of exacerbations, does bisoprolol reduce the number of exacerbations? Finding: In this randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of 515 people with COPD, the number of exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both did not differ significantly with use of bisoprolol (mean exacerbations, 2.03/y) vs placebo (mean exacerbations, 2.01/y). Meaning: Treatment with bisoprolol did not reduce COPD exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both. This randomized clinical trial examines whether the addition of bisoprolol to treatment of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at high risk of exacerbation reduces the rate of moderate to severe exacerbations. Importance: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Observational studies report that β-blocker use may be associated with reduced risk of COPD exacerbations. However, a recent trial reported that metoprolol did not reduce COPD exacerbations and increased COPD exacerbations requiring hospital admission. Objective: To test whether bisoprolol decreased COPD exacerbations in people with COPD at high risk of exacerbations. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Bisoprolol in COPD Study (BICS) was a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial conducted in 76 UK sites (45 primary care clinics and 31 secondary clinics). Patients with COPD who had at least moderate airflow obstruction on spirometry (ratio of forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration [FEV1] to forced vital capacity <0.7; FEV1 <80% predicted) and at least 2 COPD exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both in the prior 12 months were enrolled from October 17, 2018, to May 31, 2022. Follow-up concluded on April 18, 2023. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to bisoprolol (n = 261) or placebo (n = 258). Bisoprolol was started at 1.25 mg orally daily and was titrated as tolerated during 4 sessions to a maximum dose of 5 mg/d, using a standardized protocol. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary clinical outcome was the number of patient-reported COPD exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both during the 1-year treatment period. Safety outcomes included serious adverse events and adverse reactions. Results: Although the trial planned to enroll 1574 patients, recruitment was suspended from March 16, 2020, to July 31, 2021, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Two patients in each group were excluded postrandomization. Among the 515 patients (mean [SD] age, 68 [7.9] years; 274 men [53%]; mean FEV1, 50.1%), primary outcome data were available for 514 patients (99.8%) and 371 (72.0%) continued taking the study drug. The primary outcome of patient-reported COPD exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both was 526 in the bisoprolol group, with a mean exacerbation rate of 2.03/y, vs 513 exacerbations in the placebo group, with a mean exacerbation rate of 2.01/y. The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.84-1.13; P =.72). Serious adverse events occurred in 37 of 255 patients in the bisoprolol group (14.5%) vs 36 of 251 in the placebo group (14.3%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.62-1.66; P =.96). Conclusions and Relevance: Among people with COPD at high risk of exacerbation, treatment with bisoprolol did not reduce the number of self-reported COPD exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN10497306 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Endometriosis affects 190 million women and those assigned female at birth worldwide. For some, it is associated with debilitating chronic pelvic pain. Diagnosis of endometriosis is often achieved through diagnostic laparoscopy. However, when isolated superficial peritoneal endometriosis (SPE), the most common endometriosis subtype, is identified during laparoscopy, limited evidence exists to support the common decision to surgically remove it via excision or ablation. Improved understanding of the impact of surgical removal of isolated SPE for the management of chronic pelvic pain in women is required. Here, we describe our protocol for a multi-centre trial to determine the effectiveness of surgical removal of isolated SPE for the management of endometriosis-associated pain. Methods: We plan to undertake a multi-centre participant-blind parallel-group randomised controlled clinical and cost-effectiveness trial with internal pilot. We plan to randomise 400 participants from up to 70 National Health Service Hospitals in the UK. Participants with chronic pelvic pain awaiting diagnostic laparoscopy for suspected endometriosis will be consented by the clinical research team. If isolated SPE is identified at laparoscopy, and deep or ovarian endometriosis is not seen, participants will be randomised intraoperatively (1:1) to surgical removal (by excision or ablation or both, according to surgeons' preference) versus diagnostic laparoscopy alone. Randomisation with block-stratification will be used. Participants will be given a diagnosis but will not be informed of the procedure they received until 12 months post-randomisation, unless required. Post-operative medical treatment will be according to participants' preference. Participants will be asked to complete validated pain and quality of life questionnaires at 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Our primary outcome is the pain domain of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 (EHP-30), via a between randomised group comparison of adjusted means at 12 months. Assuming a standard deviation of 22 points around the pain score, 90% power, 5% significance and 20% missing data, 400 participants are required to be randomised to detect an 8-point pain score difference. Discussion: This trial aims to provide high quality evidence of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical removal of isolated SPE. Trial registration: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN27244948. Registered 6 April 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The benefit of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) in guiding asthma treatment is uncertain. We evaluated the efficacy of adding FeNO to symptom-guided treatment in children with asthma versus only symptom-guided treatment. RAACENO was a multicentre, parallel, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done in 35 secondary care centres and 17 primary care recruitment sites (only seven primary care sites managed to recruit patients) in the UK. Patients with a confirmed asthma diagnosis, aged 6–15 years, prescribed inhaled corticosteroids, and who received a course of oral corticosteroids for at least one asthma exacerbation during the 12 months before recruitment were included. Participants were randomly assigned to either FeNO plus symptom-guided treatment (intervention) or symptom-guided treatment alone (standard care) using a 24 h in-house, web-based randomisation system. Participants and the clinical and research teams were not masked to the group allocation. A web-based algorithm gave treatment recommendations based on the Asthma Control Test (ACT) or Childhood ACT (CACT) score; current asthma treatment; adherence to study treatment in the past 3 months; and use of FeNO (in the intervention group). Follow-up occurred at 3-month intervals for 12 months. The primary outcome was any asthma exacerbation treated with oral corticosteroids in the 12 months after randomisation, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry, ISRCTN67875351. Between June 22, 2017, and Aug 8, 2019, 535 children were assessed for eligibility, 20 were ineligible and six were excluded post-randomisation. 509 children were recruited and at baseline, the mean age of participants was 10·1 years (SD 2·6), and 308 (60·5%) were male. The median FeNO was 21 ppb (IQR 10–48), mean predicted FEV 1 was 89·6% (SD 18·0), and median daily dose of inhaled corticosteroids was 400 μg budesonide equivalent (IQR 400–1000). Asthma was partly or fully controlled in 256 (50·3%) of 509 participants. The primary outcome, which was available for 506 (99%) of 509 participants, occurred in 123 (48·2%) of 255 participants in the intervention group and 129 (51·4%) of 251 in the standard care group, the intention-to-treat adjusted odds ratio (OR) was 0·88 (95% CI 0·61 to 1·27; p=0·49). The adjusted difference in the percentage of participants who received the intervention in whom the primary outcome occurred compared with those who received standard care was −3·1% (−11·9% to 5·6%). In 377 (21·3%) of 1771 assessments, the algorithm recommendation was not followed. Adverse events were reported by 27 (5·3%) of 509 participants (15 in the standard care group and 12 in the intervention group). The most common adverse event was itch after skin prick testing (reported by eight participants in each group). We found that the addition of FeNO to symptom-guided asthma treatment did not lead to reduced exacerbations among children prone to asthma exacerbation. Asthma symptoms remain the only tool for guiding treatment decisions. National Institute for Health Research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The costs of medical research are a concern. Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) need to better understand variations in the costs of their activities.Methods: Representatives of ten CTUs and two grant-awarding bodies pooled their experiences in discussions over 1.5 years. Five of the CTUs provided estimates of, and written justification for, costs associated with CTU activities required to implement an identical protocol. The protocol described a 5.5-year, nonpharmacological randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted at 20 centres. Direct and indirect costs, the number of full time equivalents (FTEs) and the FTEs attracting overheads were compared and qualitative methods (unstructured interviews and thematic analysis) were used to interpret the results. Four members of the group (funding-body representatives or award panel members) reviewed the justification statements for transparency and information content. Separately, 163 activities common to trials were assigned to roles used by nine CTUs; the consistency of role delineation was assessed by Cohen's κ.Results: Median full economic cost of CTU activities was £769,637 (range: £661,112 to £1,383,323). Indirect costs varied considerably, accounting for between 15% and 59% (median 35%) of the full economic cost of the grant. Excluding one CTU, which used external statisticians, the total number of FTEs ranged from 2.0 to 3.0; total FTEs attracting overheads ranged from 0.3 to 2.0. Variation in directly incurred staff costs depended on whether CTUs: supported particular roles from core funding rather than grants; opted not to cost certain activities into the grant; assigned clerical or data management tasks to research or administrative staff; employed extensive on-site monitoring strategies (also the main source of variation in non-staff costs). Funders preferred written justifications of costs that described both FTEs and indicative tasks for funded roles, with itemised non-staff costs. Consistency in role delineation was fair (κ = 0.21-0.40) for statisticians/data managers and poor for other roles (κ < 0.20).Conclusions: Some variation in costs is due to factors outside the control of CTUs such as access to core funding and levels of indirect costs levied by host institutions. Research is needed on strategies to control costs appropriately, especially the implementation of risk-based monitoring strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The independent oversight of clinical trials, which is recommended by the Medical Research Council (MRC) Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice, is typically provided by an independent advisory Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) and an independent executive committee, to whom the DMC makes recommendations. The detailed roles and function of this executive committee, known as the Trial Steering Committee (TSC), have not previously been studied or reviewed since those originally proposed by the MRC in 1998.Methods: An expert panel (n = 7) was convened comprising statisticians, clinicians and trial methodologists with prior TSC experience. Twelve questions about the role and responsibilities of the TSC were discussed by the panel at two full-day meetings. Each meeting was transcribed in full and the discussions were summarised.Results: The expert panel reached agreement on the role of the TSC, to which it was accountable, the membership, the definition of independence, and the experience and training needed. The management of ethical issues, difficult/complex situations and issues the TSC should not ask the DMC to make recommendations on were more difficult to discuss without specific examples, but support existed for further work to help share issues and to provide appropriate training for TSC members. Additional topics discussed, which had not been identified by previous work relating to the DMCs but were pertinent to the role of the TSC, included the following: review of data sharing requests, indemnity, lifespan of the TSC, general TSC administration, and the roles of both the Funder and the Sponsor.Conclusions: This paper presents recommendations that will contribute to the revision and update of the MRC TSC terms of reference. Uncertainty remains in some areas due to the absence of real-life examples; future guidance on these issues would benefit from a repository of case studies. Notably, the role of a patient and public involvement (PPI) contributor was not discussed, and further work is warranted to explore the role of a PPI contributor in independent trial oversight. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

: Jonathan Cook and colleagues systematically reviewed the literature for methods of determining the target difference for use in calculating the necessary sample size for clinical trials, and discuss which methods are best for various types of trials. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is a rare inflammatory skin disorder characterised by painful and rapidly progressing skin ulceration. PG can be extremely difficult to treat and patients often require systemic immunosuppression. Recurrent lesions of PG are common, but the relative rarity of this condition means that there is a lack of published evidence regarding its treatment. A systematic review published in 2005 found no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) relating to the treatment of PG. Since this time, one small RCT has been published comparing infliximab to placebo, but none of the commonly used systemic treatments for PG have been formally assessed. The UK Dermatology Clinical Trials Network's STOP GAP Trial has been designed to address this lack of trial evidence. Methods: The objective is to assess whether oral ciclosporin is more effective than oral prednisolone for the treatment of PG. The trial design is a two-arm, observer-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial comparing ciclosporin (4 mg/kg/day) to prednisolone (0.75 mg/kg/day). A total of 140 participants are to be recruited over a period of 4 years, from up to 50 hospitals in the UK and Eire. Primary outcome of velocity of healing at 6 weeks is assessed blinded to treatment allocation (using digital images of the ulcers). Secondary outcomes include: (i) timeto healing; (ii) global assessment of improvement; (iii) PG inflammation assessment scale score; (iv) self-reportedpain; (v) health-related quality of life; (vi) time to recurrence; (vii) treatment failures; (viii) adverse reactions to study medications; and (ix) cost effectiveness/utility. Patients with a clinical diagnosis of PG (excluding granulomatous PG);measurable ulceration (that is, not pustular PG); and patients aged over 18 years old who are able to give informed consent are included in the trial. Randomisation is by computer generated code using permuted blocks of randomly varying size, stratified by lesion size, and presence or absence of underlying systemic disease (for example, rheumatoid arthritis).Patients who require topical therapy are asked to enter a parallel observational study (case series). If topical therapy fails and systemic therapy is required, participants are then considered for inclusion in the randomised trial.Trial registration: Current controlled trials: ISRCTN35898459. Eudract No.2008-008291-14. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many interventions delivered within the stroke rehabilitation setting could be considered complex, though some are more complex than others. The degree of complexity might be based on the number of and interactions between levels, components and actions targeted within the intervention. The number of (and variation within) participant groups and the contexts in which it is delivered might also reflect the extent of complexity. Similarly, designing the evaluation of a complex intervention can be challenging. Considerations include the necessity for intervention standardisation, the multiplicity of outcome measures employed to capture the impact of a multifaceted intervention and the delivery of the intervention across different clinical settings operating within varying healthcare contexts. Our aim was to develop and evaluate the implementation of a complex, multidimensional oral health care (OHC) intervention for people in stroke rehabilitation settings which would inform the development of a randomised controlled trial.Methods: After reviewing the evidence for the provision of OHC following stroke, multi-disciplinary experts informed the development of our intervention. Using both quantitative and qualitative methods we evaluated the implementation of the complex OHC intervention across patients, staff and service levels of care. We also adopted a pragmatic approach to patient recruitment, the completion of assessment tools and delivery of OHC, alongside an attention to the context in which it was delivered.Results: We demonstrated the feasibility of implementing a complex OHC intervention across three levels of care. The complementary nature of the mixed methods approach to data gathering provided a complete picture of the implementation of the intervention and a detailed understanding of the variations within and interactions between the components of the intervention. Information on the feasibility of the outcome measures used to capture impact across a range of components was also collected, though some process orientated uncertainties including eligibility and recruitment rates remain to be further explored within a Phase II exploratory trial.Conclusions: Complex interventions can be captured and described in a manner which facilitates evaluation in the form of exploratory and subsequently definitive clinical trials. If effective, the evidence captured relating to the intervention context will facilitate translation into clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients undergoing major elective or urgent surgery are at high risk of death or significant morbidity. Measures to reduce this morbidity and mortality include pre-operative optimisation and use of higher levels of dependency care after surgery. We propose a pragmatic multi-centre randomised controlled trial of level of dependency and pre-operative fluid therapy in high-risk surgical patients undergoing major elective surgery. Methods/Design: A multi-centre randomised controlled trial with a 2 * 2 factorial design. The first randomisation is to pre-operative fluid therapy or standard regimen and the second randomisation is to routine intensive care versus high dependency care during the early post-operative period. We intend to recruit 204 patients undergoing major elective and urgent abdominal and thoraco-abdominal surgery who fulfil high-risk surgical criteria. The primary outcome for the comparison of level of care is cost-effectiveness at six months and for the comparison of fluid optimisation is the number of hospital days after surgery. Discussion: We believe that the results of this study will be invaluable in determining the future care and clinical resource utilisation for this group of patients and thus will have a major impact on clinical practice. Trial Registration: Trial registration number - ISRCTN32188676 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The primary aim of the Scottish Schizophrenia Outcomes Study (SSOS) was to assess the feasibility and utility of routinely collecting outcome data in everyday clinical settings. Data were collected over three years in the Scottish National Health Service (NHS). There were two secondary aims of SSOS: first, to compare data from patient-rated, objective, and clinician-rated outcomes, and second, to describe trends in outcome data and service use across Scotland over the three years of the study (2002-2005). Methods: This study used a naturalistic, longitudinal, observational cohort design. A representative sample of 1,015 persons with lCD-10 F20-F29 diagnoses (schizophrenia, schizotypal disorders, or delusional disorders) was assessed annually using the clinician-rated measure, the Health of the Nation Outcome Scale (HoNOS), and the patient-reported assessment, the Avon Mental Health Measure (Avon). Objective outcomes data and information on services and interventions were collected. Data were analyzed with regression modeling. Results: Of the 1,015 persons recruited, 78% of the cohort (N= 789) completed the study. Over the study period, significant decreases were seen in the number of hospitalizations, incidence of attempted suicide and self-harm, and civil detentions. Avon scores indicated significant improvement on all subscales (behavior, social, access, and mental health) and on the total score. However, HoNOS scores on the behavior and symptom subscales did not change, scores on the impairment subscale increased significantly (indicating increased levels of impairment), and scores on the social subscale decreased significantly (indicating improved social functioning). Conclusions: This study has demonstrated that it is feasible within the Scottish NHS to routinely collect meaningful outcomes data in schizophrenia. Patient-reported assessments were also successfully collected and used in care plans. This model shows that it is possible to incorporate patient-reported assessments into routine care for schizophrenia. Such assessments may provide useful data for clinicians and may improve treatment adherence. The pattern of outcomes and interventions confirms that despite the introduction of guidelines, new treatments, and new services, people with schizophrenia continue to have high levels of chronic disability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The outcome of a randomized controlled trial of cognitive behavior therapy in addition to treatment as usual (CBT plus TAU) compared with TAU alone (TAU) in one hundred and six participants meeting diagnostic criteria for borderline personality disorder is described. We anticipated that CBT plus TAU would decrease the number of participants with in-patient psychiatric hospitalizations or accident and emergency room contact or suicidal acts over twelve months treatment and twelve months follow-up, compared with TAU. We also anticipated that CBT plus TAU would lead to improvement in a range of secondary outcomes of mental health and social functioning compared to TAU. Of the 106 participants randomized, follow-up data on 102 (96%) was obtained at two years. Those randomized to CBT were offered an average of 27 sessions over 12 months and attended on average 16 (range 0 to 35). We found that the global odds ratio of a participant in the CBT plus TAU group compared with the TAU alone group having any of the outcomes of a suicidal act, in-patient hospitalization, or accident and emergency contact in the 24 months following randomization was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 1.66, p = 0.66). The corresponding global odds ratio, excluding accident and emergency room contact, was 0.75 (95% CI 0.37 to 1.54, p = 0.44). In terms of the number of suicidal acts, there was a significant reduction over the two years in favor of CBT plus TAU over TAU, with a mean difference of -0.91 (95% CI -1.67 to -0.15, p = 0.020). Across both treatment arms there was gradual and sustained improvement in both primary and secondary outcomes, with evidence of benefit for the addition of CBT on the positive symptom distress index at one year, and on state anxiety, dysfunctional beliefs and the quantity of suicidal acts at two year follow-up. CBT can deliver clinically important changes in relatively few clinical sessions in real clinical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes the rationale for a randomized controlled trial, comparing cognitive behavior therapy in addition to treatment as usual with treatment as usual alone, for borderline personality disorder. Previous pioneering randomized controlled trials of psychotherapies have suffered from methodological weaknesses and have not always been reported clearly to allow adequate evaluation of either the individual study or comparisons across studies to be undertaken. We report on the recruitment and randomization, design, and conduct of an ongoing randomized controlled trial of one hundred and six patients with borderline personality disorder. Primary and secondary hypotheses and their planned analyses are stated. The baseline characteristics of 106 patients meeting diagnostic criteria for borderline personality disorder are described. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pyoderma gangrenosum is a rare inflammatory skin condition. Two prospective studies have evaluated treatments for pyoderma gangrenosum using a primary outcome of healing speed at 6 weeks.Objective: Using data from both studies we assessed the predictive value of 3 early predictors for healing at 6 months: speed of healing, Investigator Global Assessment (IGA), and resolution of inflammation, recorded at 2 and 6 weeks.Methods: Logistic regression models were applied and the effectiveness of the 3 measures was assessed through estimating the positive and negative predictive values and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.Results: The positive and negative predictive value at 6 weeks were, respectively, 63.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 52.4%-73.7%) and 74.6% (95% CI 62.5%-84.5%) for speed of healing; 80% (95% CI 68.7%-88.6%) and 74.2% (95% CI 64.1%-82.7%) for IGA; and 72.1% (95% CI 59.9%-82.3%) and 68.1% (95% CI 57.7%-77.3%) for resolution of inflammation. IGA had the best combined positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve at 2 and 6 weeks.Limitations: We were limited by data available from existing datasets.Conclusion: Speed of healing, IGA, and resolution of inflammation were all shown to be good predictors of eventual healing of pyoderma gangrenosum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Central to the design of a randomised controlled trial is the calculation of the number of participants needed. This is typically achieved by specifying a target difference and calculating the corresponding sample size, which provides reassurance that the trial will have the required statistical power (at the planned statistical significance level) to identify whether a difference of a particular magnitude exists. Beyond pure statistical or scientific concerns, it is ethically imperative that an appropriate number of participants should be recruited. Despite the critical role of the target difference for the primary outcome in the design of randomised controlled trials, its determination has received surprisingly little attention. This article provides guidance on the specification of the target difference for the primary outcome in a sample size calculation for a two parallel group randomised controlled trial with a superiority question. Methods: This work was part of the DELTA (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) project. Draft guidance was developed by the project steering and advisory groups utilising the results of the systematic review and surveys. Findings were circulated and presented to members of the combined group at a face-to-face meeting, along with a proposed outline of the guidance document structure, containing recommendations and reporting items for a trial protocol and report. The guidance and was subsequently drafted and circulated for further comment before finalisation. Results: Guidance on specification of a target difference in the primary outcome for a two group parallel randomised controlled trial was produced. Additionally, a list of reporting items for protocols and trial reports was generated. Conclusions: Specification of the target difference for the primary outcome is a key component of a randomized controlled trial sample size calculation. There is a need for better justification of the target difference and reporting of its specification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In pivotal clinical effectiveness trials, the primary endpoint needs to be precisely defined and quantified because any misclassification could introduce noise and possible bias, potentially leading to incorrect trial conclusions. Generally, if not exclusively, trials assume that central adjudication is more accurate than local adjudication, and so presents the central findings as the primary analysis. The review concluded that independent adjudication could be important, but raised doubts about the appropriate use of adjudication in double blind randomised controlled trials. 376, 2010, 23-32 45 The CRASH-3 trial collaborators Effects of tranexamic acid on death, disability, vascular occlusive events and other morbidities in patients with acute traumatic brain injury (CRASH-3): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Heavy menstrual bleeding affects 25% of women in the UK, many of whom require surgery to treat it. Hysterectomy is effective but has more complications than endometrial ablation, which is less invasive but ultimately leads to hysterectomy in 20% of women. We compared laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with endometrial ablation in women seeking surgical treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding.Methods: In this parallel-group, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial in 31 hospitals in the UK, women younger than 50 years who were referred to a gynaecologist for surgical treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding and who were eligible for endometrial ablation were randomly allocated (1:1) to either laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy or second generation endometrial ablation. Women were randomly assigned by either an interactive voice response telephone system or an internet-based application with a minimisation algorithm based on centre and age group (<40 years vs ≥40 years). Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy involves laparoscopic (keyhole) surgery to remove the upper part of the uterus (the body) containing the endometrium. Endometrial ablation aims to treat heavy menstrual bleeding by destroying the endometrium, which is responsible for heavy periods. The co-primary clinical outcomes were patient satisfaction and condition-specific quality of life, measured with the menorrhagia multi-attribute quality of life scale (MMAS), assessed at 15 months after randomisation. Our analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle. The trial was registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN49013893.Findings: Between May 21, 2014, and March 28, 2017, we enrolled and randomly assigned 660 women (330 in each group). 616 (93%) of 660 women were operated on within the study period, 588 (95%) of whom received the allocated procedure and 28 (5%) of whom had an alternative surgery. At 15 months after randomisation, more women allocated to laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy were satisfied with their operation compared with those in the endometrial ablation group (270 [97%] of 278 women vs 244 [87%] of 280 women; adjusted percentage difference 9·8, 95% CI 5·1-14·5; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2·53, 95% CI 1·83-3·48; p<0·0001). Women randomly assigned to laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy were also more likely to have the best possible MMAS score of 100 than women assigned to endometrial ablation (180 [69%] of 262 women vs 146 [54%] of 268 women; adjusted percentage difference 13·3, 95% CI 3·8-22·8; adjusted OR 1·87, 95% CI 1·31-2·67; p=0·00058). 14 (5%) of 309 women in the laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy group and 11 (4%) of 307 women in the endometrial ablation group had at least one serious adverse event (adjusted OR 1·30, 95% CI 0·56-3·02; p=0·54).Interpretation: Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy is superior to endometrial ablation in terms of clinical effectiveness and has a similar proportion of complications, but takes longer to perform and is associated with a longer recovery.Funding: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Primary angle-closure glaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide. In early-stage disease, intraocular pressure is raised without visual loss. Because the crystalline lens has a major mechanistic role, lens extraction might be a useful initial treatment.Methods: From Jan 8, 2009, to Dec 28, 2011, we enrolled patients from 30 hospital eye services in five countries. Randomisation was done by a web-based application. Patients were assigned to undergo clear-lens extraction or receive standard care with laser peripheral iridotomy and topical medical treatment. Eligible patients were aged 50 years or older, did not have cataracts, and had newly diagnosed primary angle closure with intraocular pressure 30 mm Hg or greater or primary angle-closure glaucoma. The co-primary endpoints were patient-reported health status, intraocular pressure, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained 36 months after treatment. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN44464607.Findings: Of 419 participants enrolled, 155 had primary angle closure and 263 primary angle-closure glaucoma. 208 were assigned to clear-lens extraction and 211 to standard care, of whom 351 (84%) had complete data on health status and 366 (87%) on intraocular pressure. The mean health status score (0·87 [SD 0·12]), assessed with the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions questionnaire, was 0·052 higher (95% CI 0·015-0·088, p=0·005) and mean intraocular pressure (16·6 [SD 3·5] mm Hg) 1·18 mm Hg lower (95% CI -1·99 to -0·38, p=0·004) after clear-lens extraction than after standard care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £14 284 for initial lens extraction versus standard care. Irreversible loss of vision occurred in one participant who underwent clear-lens extraction and three who received standard care. No patients had serious adverse events.Interpretation: Clear-lens extraction showed greater efficacy and was more cost-effective than laser peripheral iridotomy, and should be considered as an option for first-line treatment.Funding: Medical Research Council. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In pragmatic trials, participants are broadly representative of people who will receive a treatment or diagnostic strategy, and the outcomes affect day-to-day care. The authors review the unique features of pragmatic trials through a wide-ranging series of exemplar trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study by Dr. Julie Brittenden and colleagues which attempts to provide a comparison on the quality of life offered by treatment options for varicose veins as surgery, laser therapy, and foam schlerotherapy. Topics include the methodology including patient participants, assessment of outcome measures, and use of randomization and treatment study, and results which include primary and secondary outcomes on factors as quality of life, clinical outcomes, and complications.

Summary: Background: Although statins reduce coronary and cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality in middle-aged individuals, their efficacy and safety in elderly people is not fully established. Our aim was to test the benefits of pravastatin treatment in an elderly cohort of men and women with, or at high risk of developing, cardiovascular disease and stroke. Methods: We did a randomised controlled trial in which we assigned 5804 men (n=2804) and women (n=3000) aged 70-82 years with a history of, or risk factors for, vascular disease to pravastatin (40 mg per day; n=2891) or placebo (n=2913). Baseline cholesterol concentrations ranged from 4.0 mmol/L to 9.0 mmol/L. Follow-up was 3.2 years on average and our primary endpoint was a composite of coronary death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and fatal or non-fatal stroke. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Findings: Pravastatin lowered LDL cholesterol concentrations by 34% and reduced the incidence of the primary endpoint to 408 events compared with 473 on placebo (hazard ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.97, p=0.014). Coronary heart disease death and non-fatal myocardial infarction risk was also reduced (0.81, 0.69-0.94, p=0.006). Stroke risk was unaffected (1.03, 0.81-1.31, p=0.8), but the hazard ratio for transient ischaemic attack was 0.75 (0.55-1.00, p=0.051). New cancer diagnoses were more frequent on pravastatin than on placebo (1.25, 1.04-1.51, p=0.020). However, incorporation of this finding in a meta-analysis of all pravastatin and all statin trials showed no overall increase in risk. Mortality from coronary disease fell by 24% (p=0.043) in the pravastatin group. Pravastatin had no significant effect on cognitive function or disability. Interpretation: Pravastatin given for 3 years reduced the risk of coronary disease in elderly individuals. PROSPER therefore extends to elderly individuals the treatment strategy currently used in middle aged people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]