Search

Background The most common cause of preventable death after injury is haemorrhage. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is intended to provide earlier, temporary haemorrhage control, to facilitate transfer to an operating theatre or interventional radiology suite for definitive haemostasis. Objective To compare standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta versus standard care in patients with exsanguinating haemorrhage in the emergency department. Design Pragmatic, multicentre, Bayesian, group-sequential, registry-enabled, open-label, parallel-group randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta, compared to standard care alone. Setting United Kingdom Major Trauma Centres. Participants Trauma patients aged 16 years or older with confirmed or suspected life-threatening torso haemorrhage deemed amenable to adjunctive treatment with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. Interventions Participants were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to: standard care, as expected in a major trauma centre standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. Main outcome measures Primary: Mortality at 90 days. Secondary: Mortality at 6 months, while in hospital, and within 24, 6 and 3 hours; need for haemorrhage control procedures, time to commencement of haemorrhage procedure, complications, length of stay (hospital and intensive care unit-free days), blood product use. Health economic: Expected United Kingdom National Health Service perspective costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years, modelled over a lifetime horizon. Data sources Case report forms, Trauma Audit and Research Network registry, NHS Digital (Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics data). Results Ninety patients were enrolled: 46 were randomised to standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta and 44 to standard care. Mortality at 90 days was higher in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group (54%) compared to the standard care group (42%). The odds ratio was 1.58 (95% credible interval 0.72 to 3.52). The posterior probability of an odds ratio > 1 (indicating increased odds of death with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta) was 86.9%. The overall effect did not change when an enthusiastic prior was used or when the estimate was adjusted for baseline characteristics. For the secondary outcomes (3, 6 and 24 hours mortality), the posterior probability that standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta was harmful was higher than for the primary outcome. Additional analyses to account for intercurrent events did not change the direction of the estimate for mortality at any time point. Death due to haemorrhage was more common in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group than in the standard care group. There were no serious adverse device effects. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is less costly (probability 99%), due to the competing mortality risk but also substantially less effective in terms of lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (probability 91%). Limitations The size of the study reflects the relative infrequency of exsanguinating traumatic haemorrhage in the United Kingdom. There were some baseline imbalances between groups, but adjusted analyses had little effect on the estimates. Conclusions This is the first randomised trial of the addition of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta to standard care in the management of exsanguinating haemorrhage. All the analyses suggest that a strategy of standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is potentially harmful. Future work The role (if any) of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in the pre-hospital setting remains unclear. Further research to clarify its potential (or not) may be required. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN16184981. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/199/09) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 54. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Trauma (physical injury) is a major cause of death and disability. The most common cause of preventable death after injury is uncontrolled bleeding. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is a technique whereby a small balloon is inflated in the aorta (main blood vessel) which aims to limit blood loss until an operation can be done to stop the bleeding. In this study, which is the first randomised trial in the world of this technique, we investigated whether adding resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta to the standard care received in a major trauma centre reduced the risk of death in trauma patients who had life-threatening uncontrolled bleeding. The study took place in 16 major trauma centres in the United Kingdom. Ninety adult trauma patients with confirmed or suspected uncontrolled bleeding took part and were randomly divided into two groups: (1) those who received standard care and (2) those who received standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. We followed participants for 6 months using routinely collected data from the National Health Service and from the Trauma Audit Research Network registry. We also contacted surviving patients at 6 months to ask about their quality of life. In the standard care group, 42% of participants died within 90 days of their injury compared to 54% of participants in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group. Risk of death was also higher in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group at all other time points (3, 6 and 24 hours, in hospital and at 6 months). Overall, the study showed that the use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in hospital increased the risk of death. Scientific summary Background Trauma is a major cause of death and disability. Trauma (physical injury) disproportionately affects the young, killing those who might otherwise have lived long and productive lives. The most common cause of preventable death after injury is haemorrhage. The addition of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) to current standard care is intended to provide earlier, temporary haemorrhage control, to facilitate transfer to an operating theatre or interventional radiology suite, for definitive haemostasis. Objectives The UK-REBOA trial was a pragmatic, multicentre, Bayesian, open-label, group-sequential, parallel-group randomised controlled trial comparing standard care plus REBOA versus standard care in patients with exsanguinating haemorrhage in the emergency room. The study included an elicitation exercise, an embedded mixed-methods process evaluation and a health economic evaluation. The primary clinical outcome was 90-day mortality (defined as death within 90 days of injury, before or after discharge from hospital). Secondary clinical outcomes included 3-, 6- and 24-hour mortality, in-hospital mortality, 6-month mortality, length of stay (in hospital and intensive care unit), 24-hour blood product use, need for haemorrhage control procedures (operation or angioembolisation), time to commencement of haemorrhage control procedure, complications/safety data and functional outcome [measured using the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS-E)] at discharge. Economic outcomes were 6-month (within trial) and lifetime (modelled) UK NHS perspective costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) [calculated using EuroQol Group’s 5-dimension health status 5-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L)], 6-month quality of life (measured using EQ-5D-5L). Methods Trauma patients were recruited in 16 UK major trauma centres. Trauma patients aged (or believed to be aged) 16 years or older, with confirmed or suspected life-threatening torso haemorrhage thought to be amenable to adjunctive treatment with REBOA were eligible. Women known (or thought to be) pregnant and those with injuries deemed unsurvivable were excluded. The trauma team leader assessed the patients for eligibility. Patients who were eligible for inclusion in the trial were incapacitated and unable to give consent at the time of eligibility assessment and randomisation. There was also not sufficient time to consult a surrogate decision-maker, or even an independent medical practitioner, for advice about including the patient. Enrolment therefore took place without prior consent following Research Ethics Committee approval for this approach. Consent for continuing participation (i.e. data collection) was sought by a member of the UK-REBOA trial team once patients were no longer in a critical condition (defined as being cared for in a ward area rather than an intensive care unit or high-dependency unit) or from a personal (or nominated professional) consultee. The trauma team leader enrolled the participant using a dedicated, secure website, available on a handheld device (smartphone, tablet) or desktop computer which is linked directly to the 24-hour randomisation system at the Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, based in the Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen. Patients were randomised into one of the two intervention arms, in a 1 : 1 allocation ratio, in randomly generated blocks of two or four. Standard care: Patients allocated to the control group received ‘standard care’, as expected in a specialist major trauma centre. Such treatment typically included intubation, blood transfusion including blood products in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio, interventions such as tourniquet application, and early operative or endovascular haemorrhage control. Treatment could also have included open aortic occlusion of the thoracic or abdominal aorta. Standard care plus REBOA: Patients allocated to this arm of the trial additionally received the technique of endovascular aortic occlusion, for the purpose of resuscitation, as part of an overall treatment strategy. The addition of REBOA to current standard care was intended to provide earlier, temporary haemorrhage control, to facilitate transfer to an operating theatre or interventional radiology suite for definitive haemostasis. The trial sought to evaluate the technique of REBOA rather than a specific brand of device, and therefore permitted the use of any licensed occlusion balloon, and did not prescribe or mandate a particular product. The trial had an integrated training programme to ensure familiarity with the REBOA procedure. In patients who had been randomised to the standard care plus REBOA arm of the trial, clinicians could decide not to insert the balloon occlusion device if: the patient’s haemodynamic status improved (as a result of other resuscitative measures), if they were deemed to no longer have life-threatening torso haemorrhage requiring adjunctive treatment with REBOA; they deteriorated (to the point of imminent death); or there was technical difficulty in obtaining arterial access, and it was felt that operative control of haemorrhage could be obtained more quickly. The data collection strategy for the UK-REBOA trial was designed to minimise the burden on participants and clinicians, and for the avoidance of duplication. The randomisation system collected balloon inflation/deflation times. The trial drew on routinely collected data, primarily from the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) registry which includes demographic, injury, treatment and outcome data (including the GOS-E and EQ-5D-5L). Mortality and hospital resource use data were also sought from NHS Digital. The main analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle. There were two planned interim analyses of survival and a final analysis of all outcomes after follow-up was complete. Baseline and follow-up data were summarised using descriptive statistics and graphical summaries. Treatment effects are presented with 95% credible intervals for the primary and secondary outcomes. Elicitation exercise An elicitation exercise involving 20 subject matter experts (12 emergency medicine physicians, 3 pre-hospital care doctors, 4 surgeons and 1 intensivist) was undertaken to derive prior probability distributions to help contextualise the interpretation for the primary and secondary outcomes of the trial. Subject matter experts, on average, estimated in-hospital and 90-day mortality in this patient group, without the use of REBOA, to be in excess of 50%. Mortality at earlier time points (6 and 24 hours) was estimated to be closer to 25%. The elicited data, and the resulting prior probability distributions, indicate that the experts, on average, had a favourable opinion of REBOA, that is they expect the addition of REBOA to standard care to improve mortality at all time points. Clinical results Sixteen recruitment sites were opened in a staggered manner. Recruitment commenced in October 2017, was halted in March 2020 due to COVID-19, and restarted in July 2020. The second interim analysis (including 80 participants) triggered one of the pre-specified stopping rules, and recruitment closed in March 2022, by which time 90 participants had been recruited. Forty-four participants were randomised to standard care (2 of whom did receive REBOA) and 46 were randomised to standard care plus REBOA (19 of whom had the catheter inserted and balloon inserted and the remaining 27 progressed to different time points along this pathway). The groups were well-matched in terms of age, gender, comorbidities, mechanism of injury and injury severity. In the standard care arm, the median age was 39 years (interquartile range 30–56 years) and 77% were male. In the standard care plus REBOA arm, the median age was 46 years (interquartile range 33–62) and 61% were male. The median Injury Severity Score in both arms was 41 (interquartile range 29–50), with the majority classed as having very severe injury. Of the 46 patients allocated to standard care plus REBOA treatment, 25 (54%) died within 90 days. Of the 43 standard care patients for whom primary outcome data are available, 18 (42%) died within 90 days. Using the minimally informative prior, the odds of 90-day mortality were 1.58 for patients allocated to the standard care plus REBOA arm (95% credible interval 0.72 to 3.52). The posterior probability of an odds ratio > 1 (i.e. that REBOA was harmful) was 86.9%. The direction of the estimate did not change when an enthusiastic (the elicited) prior was used or when the estimate was adjusted for baseline characteristics. For the secondary outcomes (3-, 6- and 24-hour mortality), the posterior probability that REBOA was harmful was higher than for the primary outcome. Additional analyses to account for intercurrent events did not change the direction of the estimate for mortality at 3, 6 and 24 hours, at 90 days or 6 months, or in-hospital mortality. Death due to haemorrhage was more common in the standard care plus REBOA group than in the standard care group. The mean number of days spent in intensive care and in hospital were lower in the standard care plus REBOA group compared to the standard care group, partly because of the higher number of earlier deaths in the standard care plus REBOA arm. There were no serious adverse device effects. Health economics We costed individual components of resources and summed these to generate a total cost for the whole initial hospitalisation admission period. Total NHS resource use for the index hospitalisation was obtained from patient-level data in TARN and the key resource use variables for costing included time of arrival, time of emergency department departure, time of first operation, time of death/discharge, number and type of operative procedures and volume of blood transfusions that were required. Secondary care contacts and episodes of care that were commenced between the date of discharge from the index hospitalisation through 6 months post randomisation were sourced, where available, through linkage of patient records to the Hospital Episode Statistics database. All costs are reported from a UK NHS perspective in Great British pounds (GBP) (year 2020-1). Quality of life was measured using the EQ-5D-5L prior to patient’s discharge from their index hospitalisation and at 6 months post admission. EQ-5D-5L asks respondents to report any problems on a given day across five dimensions of mobility, self-care, usual activities, anxiety/depression and pain. The data were available from TARN and supplemented with data collected by the local trial teams. EQ-5D-5L data were cross-walked to the 3L version and valued using UK general population preference tariffs. Baseline utility was set equal to the unconscious state (−0.402) and utility following death was set to 0. QALYs were calculated using an area under the curve approach assuming linear extrapolation between time points. From the within-trial health economic analysis, participants in the standard care plus REBOA arm of the study incurred lower costs {index hospital admission: mean cost £57,384 [standard deviation (SD) £62,863]} compared to those in standard care [mean cost £116,064 (SD £128,957)]. Lower costs in the standard care plus REBOA arm of the study were mainly due to lower use of hospital resources (length of stay, etc.) due to the competing risk of death (i.e. a higher number of deaths in the REBOA plus standard care group). Similarly, life-years accrued and QALYs over 6 months post randomisation were also lower in standard care plus REBOA compared to standard care due to a greater proportion of trial participants dying, with mortality also occurring earlier in the follow-up period for the REBOA arm. The mean life-years gained in the standard care plus REBOA arm was 0.232 (SD 0.247) compared to 0.305 (SD 0.236) in the standard care arm. When modelled over a full lifetime horizon, standard care plus REBOA is less costly (probability 99%), due to the competing risk of mortality but is also substantially less effective in terms of QALYs accrued over a lifetime horizon (probability 91%). The findings are robust to a range of scenario analyses undertaken, with the probability of standard care being the optimal treatment strategy ranging from 66% to 81% at a threshold value of a QALY = £50,000. Process evaluation The process evaluation was conducted in two phases; both phases involved interviews with clinical and research staff based at recruitment sites. Phase 1 was designed to identify barriers during trial initial and set-up; Phase 2 focused on exploring barriers and facilitators of recruitment into the trial and intervention delivery. A behavioural framework was used in Phase 2 to direct analysis and generate solutions designed to enhance trial practices, which included regular online meetings between the principal investigators from each site, updates to training materials and delivery, and e-mail/Twitter feedback on recruitment activity. Conclusions This is the first randomised trial ever to be conducted examining the potential clinical effectiveness of REBOA for the management of exsanguinating haemorrhage. All the analyses conducted suggest with high probability that a strategy of standard care plus REBOA is harmful. Implications for health care: The continuing use of REBOA, at least in the UK in-hospital setting, should be re-evaluated. Implications for research: The role (if any) of REBOA in the pre-hospital setting remains unclear. Further research to clarify its potential (or not) may be required. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN16184981. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/199/09) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 54. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Objective This umbrella review synthesises evidence on the methods used to recruit and retain ethnically diverse participants and report and analyse variables related to ethnic diversity in randomised controlled trials.Design Umbrella review.Data sources Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane and Campbell Libraries for review papers published between 1 January 2010 and 13 May 2024.Eligibility criteria English language systematic reviews focusing on inclusion and reporting of ethnicity variables. Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool.Results Sixty-two systematic reviews were included. Findings point to limited representation and reporting of ethnic diversity in trials. Recruitment strategies commonly reported by the reviews were community engagement, advertisement, face-to-face recruitment, cultural targeting, clinical referral, community presentation, use of technology, incentives and research partnership with communities. Retention strategies highlighted by the reviews included frequent follow-ups on participants to check how they are doing in the study, provision of incentives, use of tailored approaches and culturally appropriate interventions. The findings point to a limited focus on the analysis of variables relevant to ethnic diversity in trials even when they are reported in trials.Conclusion Significant improvements are required in enhancing the recruitment and retention of ethnically diverse participants in trials as well as analysis and reporting of variables relating to diversity in clinical trials.PROSPERO registration number CRD42022325241.

Abstract 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.

Background Pelvic organ prolapse is common, causes unpleasant symptoms and negatively affects women’s quality of life. In the UK, most women with pelvic organ prolapse attend clinics for pessary care. Objectives To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management on prolapse-specific quality of life for women with prolapse compared with clinic-based care; and to assess intervention acceptability and contextual influences on effectiveness, adherence and fidelity. Design A multicentre, parallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial with a mixed-methods process evaluation. Participants Women attending UK NHS outpatient pessary services, aged ≥ 18 years, using a pessary of any type/material (except shelf, Gellhorn or Cube) for at least 2 weeks. Exclusions: women with limited manual dexterity, with cognitive deficit (prohibiting consent or self-management), pregnant or non-English-speaking. Intervention The self-management intervention involved a 30-minute teaching appointment, an information leaflet, a 2-week follow-up telephone call and a local clinic telephone helpline number. Clinic-based care involved routine appointments determined by centres’ usual practice. Allocation Remote web-based application; minimisation was by age, pessary user type and centre. Blinding Participants, those delivering the intervention and researchers were not blinded to group allocation. Outcomes The patient-reported primary outcome (measured using the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7) was prolapse-specific quality of life, and the cost-effectiveness outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (a specifically developed health Resource Use Questionnaire was used) at 18 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included self-efficacy and complications. Process evaluation data were collected by interview, audio-recording and checklist. Analysis was by intention to treat. Results Three hundred and forty women were randomised (self-management, n = 169; clinic-based care, n = 171). At 18 months post randomisation, 291 questionnaires with valid primary outcome data were available (self-management, n = 139; clinic-based care, n = 152). Baseline economic analysis was based on 264 participants (self-management, n = 125; clinic-based care, n = 139) with valid quality of life and resource use data. Self-management was an acceptable intervention. There was no group difference in prolapse-specific quality of life at 18 months (adjusted mean difference −0.03, 95% confidence interval −9.32 to 9.25). There was fidelity to intervention delivery. Self-management was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, with an estimated incremental net benefit of £564.32 and an 80.81% probability of cost-effectiveness. At 18 months, more pessary complications were reported in the clinic-based care group (adjusted mean difference 3.83, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 6.86). There was no group difference in general self-efficacy, but self-managing women were more confident in pessary self-management activities. In both groups, contextual factors impacted on adherence and effectiveness. There were no reported serious unexpected serious adverse reactions. There were 32 serious adverse events (self-management, n = 17; clinic-based care, n = 14), all unrelated to the intervention. Skew in the baseline data for the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7, the influence of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the potential effects of crossover and the lack of ethnic diversity in the recruited sample were possible limitations. Conclusions Self-management was acceptable and cost-effective, led to fewer complications and did not improve or worsen quality of life for women with prolapse compared with clinic-based care. Future research is needed to develop a quality-of-life measure that is sensitive to the changes women desire from treatment. Study registration This study is registered as ISRCTN62510577. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/82/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 23. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Pelvic organ prolapse is a common and distressing condition experienced by large numbers of women. Prolapse is when the organs that are usually in the pelvis drop down into the vagina. Women experience a feeling of something coming down into the vagina, along with bowel, bladder and sexual problems. One possible treatment is a vaginal pessary. The pessary is a device that is inserted into the vagina and holds the pelvic organs back in their usual place. Women who use a vaginal pessary usually come back to clinic every 6 months to have their pessary removed and replaced; this is called clinic-based care. However, it is possible for a woman to look after the pessary herself; this is called self-management. This study compared self-management with clinic-based care. Three hundred and forty women with prolapse took part; 171 received clinic-based care and 169 undertook self-management. Each woman had an equal chance of being in either group. Women in the self-management group received a 30-minute teaching appointment, an information leaflet, a 2-week follow-up telephone call and a telephone number for their local centre. Women in the clinic-based care group returned to clinic as advised by the treating healthcare professional. Self-management was found to be acceptable. Women self-managed their pessary in ways that suited their lifestyle. After 18 months, there was no difference between the groups in women’s quality of life. Women in the self-management group experienced fewer pessary complications than women who received clinic-based care. Self-management costs less to deliver than clinic-based care. In summary, self-management did not improve women’s quality of life more than clinic-based care, but it did lead to women experiencing fewer complications and cost less to deliver in the NHS. The findings support self-management as a treatment pathway for women using a pessary for prolapse. Scientific summary Background Pelvic organ prolapse (hereafter prolapse) is the descent of some, or all, of the female pelvic organs from their usual position in the pelvis into the vagina. Prolapse is a common problem, with studies suggesting that up to 65% of women may be affected. Prolapse incidence increases with age. As the population ages, prolapse presents a growing health problem. Women who experience prolapse report bothersome symptoms that negatively affect their quality of life and body image. Symptoms include a feeling of ‘something coming down’ into the vagina; urinary, bowel and sexual symptoms; and pain. Prolapse can be treated conservatively or surgically. Between 10% and 30% of women who have prolapse surgery may need repeat surgery, and the controversy around the use of surgical mesh has brought the focus onto conservative treatment options. One conservative treatment option is vaginal pessary. The pessary is an inexpensive mechanical device that is inserted into the vagina to support the pelvic organs. Pessaries are widely used in the NHS, with two-thirds of women initially choosing a vaginal pessary to treat their prolapse symptoms. The current UK care pathway for women who use a pessary as treatment for prolapse is that the pessary is usually fitted at a gynaecological clinic, or occasionally at a general practitioner surgery, and the woman returns approximately every 6 months to have it removed and replaced with a new one. However, having to return to clinic every 6 months may be inconvenient for women, having a pessary permanently in situ may interfere with sexual intercourse, and the patient may require a review in clinic before 6 months because the pessary has fallen out or because of pessary complications (e.g. vaginal discomfort). An alternative to clinic-based pessary care is pessary self-management, whereby a woman removes and reinserts the pessary herself at home, thus offering her more control over her ability to maintain and improve her own health. Research in other clinical domains suggests that self-management is beneficial because people improve their self-efficacy (confidence) in looking after their own health. To the best of our knowledge, there is no current evidence on the effectiveness of pessary self-management for women with prolapse. The treatment of prolapse with self-care pessary (TOPSY) study aims to fill that evidence gap. Objective The TOPSY trial aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of self-management of a vaginal pessary on the prolapse-specific quality of life of women with pelvic organ prolapse when compared with clinic-based care. Clinic-based care is the standard operating model for many pessary services across the UK. The process evaluation undertaken concurrently with the trial aimed to assess, using a mixed-methods design, intervention acceptability, pathways to effectiveness, adherence to treatment and fidelity. Methods We undertook a parallel-group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial, with individual randomisation, which assessed the superiority of self-management compared with clinic-based pessary care for women who used a pessary for prolapse. Allocation was carried out remotely via a web-based computer system, with minimisation by age (< 65/≥ 65 years), pessary user type (new user/existing user) and centre. A sample size of 330 women (165 per group) was required to provide 90% power to detect a difference of 20 points in the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 score (which measures prolapse-specific quality of life) at 18 months after randomisation, assuming a standard deviation of 50, two-sided alpha of 0.05 and 20% loss to follow-up. Participants were recruited from 21 UK centres where pessary care was routinely provided. Women who were new pessary users (had used a pessary for ≤ 3 months) and existing users (had used a pessary for > 3 months) were identified by centre staff and via patient notes, clinic lists, caseloads and referral letters. Potentially eligible women were sent an invitation letter or approached in clinic by centre staff. Women were eligible for inclusion if they were aged ≥ 18 years, were using a pessary of any material or type (except shelf, Gellhorn or cube pessaries) and had retained the pessary for at least 2 weeks. Women were excluded if they had limited manual dexterity that would affect their ability to remove and replace their pessary; were judged by their healthcare team to have a cognitive deficit such that it was not possible for them to provide informed consent or to self-manage; were pregnant; or had insufficient understanding of the English language (the self-management intervention was only available in English). The primary outcome of effectiveness was prolapse-specific quality of life, measured using the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7, and of cost-effectiveness was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year at 18 months post randomisation. Interim follow-ups were undertaken at 6 and 12 months. Secondary outcome measures included generic quality of life [measured using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level (EQ-5D-5L)]; pelvic floor symptoms (measured using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20); sexual function (measured using the prolapse/incontinence sexual questionnaire-IUGA-Revised); self-efficacy (measured using the General Self-efficacy Scale); pessary complications; pessary use; and pessary confidence. Resource use data were collected using a specifically developed health Resource Use Questionnaire. Study centres received a training visit during which the principles of self-management were explained and the intervention delivery staff were trained in the components of the intervention. Each centre also received a training manual that provided written guidance on the intervention. Women randomised to self-management received: a 30-minute self-management teaching appointment where they were taught to, and given the opportunity to try to, remove, clean and reinsert their own pessary a self-management information leaflet that provided written and diagrammatic information on pessary self-management a 2-week follow-up telephone call to assess if they had been able to remove, clean and reinsert their pessary since the teaching appointment and to assess any difficulties they experienced a telephone helpline number for their local clinical centre. Women in the clinic-based care group received routine appointments at which their pessary was removed and cleaned, or changed for a new one, and replaced by a healthcare professional. The interval between the appointments was determined by the usual practice of the centre. A concurrent mixed-methods process evaluation was undertaken to assess intervention acceptability, pathways to effectiveness, adherence to treatment and fidelity. Recruiting staff at centres were asked to audio-record a sample of their recruitment discussions. Staff delivering the intervention were asked to record a sample of self-management teaching appointments and 2-week follow-up telephone calls and to complete a checklist for every self-management teaching session undertaken to allow assessment of fidelity to the intervention. A subsample of women who were randomised in the trial and consented to take part in an additional interview study were interviewed at baseline and 18 months. Eligible women who declined to be randomised but were willing to take part in an interview study were also interviewed at baseline and 18 months. The Pessary Use Questionnaire included an open question about women’s experiences of their trial group. The interviews and open questions aimed to assess acceptability, adherence and pathways to effectiveness. Finally, recruiting centre staff and healthcare professionals who delivered the intervention were invited to take part in an interview to increase understanding of pathways to effectiveness and fidelity. A within-trial economic evaluation was conducted to compare the costs and benefits, measured in quality-adjusted life-years, of self-management with clinic-based care over the 18 months post randomisation. In addition, a decision-analytic model was developed using the trial data to extend the analysis over a 5-year period. Healthcare resource use data were collected from the clinic visit and telephone support case report forms and from the participant-completed Resource Use Questionnaire. Costs were attached to resource use from published sources. Health state utility values were elicited from responses to the EQ-5D-5L to estimate the difference in quality-adjusted life-years between the trial groups. The trial analysis followed the intention to treat principle, and the analyses of all study elements were documented in prespecified analysis plans. The qualitative analysis for the process evaluation followed framework analysis methods and, where appropriate, case study analytic methods. Results Key results: trial Three hundred and forty women were randomised: 169 to the self-management group and 171 to the clinic-based care group. At 18 months post randomisation, 291 questionnaires with valid primary outcome data were available: 139 (82.2%) in the self-management group and 152 (88.9%) in the clinic-based care group. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in prolapse-specific quality of life (measured using the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7) at 18 months (adjusted mean difference −0.03, 95% confidence interval −9.32 to 9.25). Sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome showed no significant difference between the groups under a range of different assumptions and prespecified sensitivity analyses. A subgroup analysis of the primary outcome showed no significant effect of trial group by subgroup interactions (subgroups were age < 65 vs. ≥ 65 years, new vs. existing pessary user and hysterectomy vs. no hysterectomy at baseline). At the 18-month follow-up, a greater proportion of pessary complications were reported in the clinic-based care group than in the self-management group (adjusted mean difference 3.83, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 6.86). There was no difference between the groups in general self-efficacy, but women in the self-management group were more confident in their ability to manage pessary-related problems and to insert and remove their pessary. An analysis adjusting for clinic-based care appointments cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic did not alter the findings. Key results: process evaluation Self-management was reported to be an acceptable intervention to women and to healthcare professionals. Women (whether they received self-management or not) and healthcare professionals reported benefits from pessary self-management to women and the NHS and valued the possibilities provided to women who could self-manage their pessary, such as flexibility and independence in using the pessary as needed. There was fidelity to self-management intervention delivery and there was minimal variance in the delivery of clinic-based care across the study centres. Self-management delivery can be integrated within existing service structures. Interview data demonstrated that women’s adherence to their allocated group ranged from not adherent at all to completely adherent in all aspects, and this was the case in both groups. The COVID-19 pandemic did have an impact on adherence, especially among those in the clinic-based care group when clinic appointments were suspended, which led some women to remove their own pessary. Although the pandemic might have had some effect on adherence, multiple other contextual factors influenced adherence, such as good general health, which influenced it in both groups. Multiple contextual factors impacted on pathways to effectiveness for both trial groups. There was variance in women’s quality of life in both groups across the 18 months’ follow-up. The pessary itself influenced women’s quality of life, regardless of trial group. There was at least the potential for self-management to further enhance that quality of life over and above the influence of the pessary itself. Women in the self-management group had different self-efficacy from those in the clinic-based group. Women in the self-management group felt more confident in addressing common problems with their pessary, such as discharge or slippage, on their own without the need for additional clinic appointments. Key results: economic evaluation The within-trial economic analysis indicated that clinic-based care was dominated by self-management. There was no significant difference in the mean number of quality-adjusted life-years gained between self-management and clinic-based care (0.021), but the mean cost was lower for self-management than for clinic-based care (£578 vs. £728). The incremental net benefit estimated at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained was £564, with an 80.8% probability of cost-effectiveness. The modelling results are consistent with the trial analysis. The incremental net benefit at 5 years was estimated as £4221 and the probability that self-management is a cost-effective intervention was estimated as 69.7%. Key results: synthesis There was no evidence that self-management improved prolapse-specific or general quality of life more than clinic-based care. Although qualitative findings suggested that quality of life had the potential to be improved more in the self-management group, this did not translate beyond participant-level data. The proposed mechanism of action for the intervention was self-efficacy. General self-efficacy did not differ between the groups at 18 months. Women who self-managed were more confident in their abilities to insert and remove their pessary and to manage problems experienced with their pessary than women in the clinic-based care group. There was fidelity to the self-management and clinic-based care intervention delivery, with the groups receiving different interventions, confirming that the trial was a true test. There was variance in adherence to trial group by the women; approximately 40% of the clinic-based care group removed the pessary themselves at least once at some point during follow-up, and 34 women in the self-management group crossed over to clinic-based care. Women in the self-management group reported fewer complications than women in the clinic-based care group. Experience of complications led to a greater likelihood of women discontinuing pessary use. Conclusions Implications for health care Healthcare professionals and policy-makers can be confident that in offering self-management as an option to women who use a vaginal pessary to manage pelvic organ prolapse they are offering an acceptable intervention that will not make women’s quality of life better or worse than clinic-based care. Self-management will, however, reduce the pessary-related complications that women experience and will cost the NHS less to deliver than standard clinic-based care models. Self-management of vaginal pessaries should be offered as part of NHS services from the outset of pessary care and as part of routine, ongoing care. In offering self-management to women, healthcare professionals should explain the lower complication rates experienced by women who self-manage and the possible mechanisms that may lead to that reduction (such as women’s confidence in removing the pessary when experiencing discomfort). Healthcare professionals who deliver self-management training may wish to add further information about options for pessary removal into that training, as women found pessary removal more difficult than pessary insertion. Recommendations for research (in priority order) Future research is needed to identify constructs that are important to women in measuring their prolapse-specific quality of life. This may necessitate the generation of a new measure that has greater sensitivity to quality-of-life constructs beyond the symptomatic changes linked to the pessary itself. Future trials of self-management should test the effectiveness of self-management with a wide range of ethnic groups and with women of different abilities to assess its effectiveness in these populations. This may include the testing of devices that support pessary removal or insertion. Future research is needed that focuses on self-management follow-up. For example, can follow-up be women-initiated, or does it need to be planned at specific intervals? Future research on pessary self-management is needed to look at possible links between pessary continuation and complications, including which specific complications are more likely to lead to discontinuation. Study registration This study is registered as ISRCTN62510577. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/82/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 23. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Abstract 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 Background The majority of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome presenting to the emergency department will be discharged once myocardial infarction has been ruled out, although a proportion will have unrecognised coronary artery disease. In this setting, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin identifies those at increased risk of future cardiac events. In patients with intermediate cardiac troponin concentrations in whom myocardial infarction has been ruled out, this trial aims to investigate whether outpatient computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) reduces subsequent myocardial infarction or cardiac death. Methods TARGET-CTCA is a multicentre prospective randomised open label with blinded endpoint parallel group event driven trial. After myocardial infarction and clear alternative diagnoses have been ruled out, participants with intermediate cardiac troponin concentrations (5 ng/L to 99th centile upper reference limit) will be randomised 1:1 to outpatient CTCA plus standard of care or standard of care alone. The primary endpoint is myocardial infarction or cardiac death. Secondary endpoints include clinical, patient-centred, process and cost-effectiveness. Recruitment of 2270 patients will give 90% power with a two-sided P value of 0.05 to detect a 40% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint. Follow-up will continue until 97 primary outcome events have been accrued in the standard care arm with an estimated median follow-up of 36 months. Discussion This randomised controlled trial will determine whether high-sensitivity cardiac troponin-guided CTCA can improve outcomes and reduce subsequent major adverse cardiac events in patients presenting to the emergency department who do not have myocardial infarction. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03952351. Registered on May 16, 2019.

Introduction Endovenous therapy is the first choice management for symptomatic varicose veins in NICE guidelines, with 56–70 000 procedures performed annually in the UK. Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a known complication of endovenous therapy, occurring at a rate of up to 3.4%. Despite 73% of UK practitioners administering pharmacological thromboprophylaxis to reduce VTE, no high-quality evidence supporting this practice exists. Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis may have clinical and cost benefit in preventing VTE; however, further evidence is needed. This study aims to establish whether when endovenous therapy is undertaken: a single dose or course of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alters the risk of VTE; pharmacological thromboprophylaxis is associated with an increased rate of bleeding events; pharmacological prophylaxis is cost effective.Methods and analysis A multi-centre, assessor-blind, randomised controlled trial (RCT) will recruit 6660 participants from 40 NHS and private sites across the UK. Participants will be randomised to intervention (single dose or extended course of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis plus compression) or control (compression alone). Participants will undergo a lower limb venous duplex ultrasound scan at 21–28 days post-procedure to identify asymptomatic DVT. The duplex scan will be conducted locally by blinded assessors. Participants will be contacted remotely for follow-up at 7 days and 90 days post-procedure. The primary outcome is imaging-confirmed lower limb DVT with or without symptoms or PE with symptoms within 90 days of treatment. The main analysis will be according to the intention-to-treat principle and will compare the rates of VTE at 90 days, using a repeated measures analysis of variance, adjusting for any pre-specified strongly prognostic baseline covariates using a mixed effects logistic regression.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was granted by Brent Research Ethics Committee (22/LO/0261). Results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at national and international conferences.Trial registration number ISRCTN18501431.

Introduction Almost all patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV) in intensive care units (ICUs) require analgesia and sedation. The most widely used sedative drug is propofol, but there is uncertainty whether alpha2-agonists are superior. The alpha 2 agonists for sedation to produce better outcomes from critical illness (A2B) trial aims to determine whether clonidine or dexmedetomidine (or both) are clinically and cost-effective in MV ICU patients compared with usual care.Methods and analysis Adult ICU patients within 48 hours of starting MV, expected to require at least 24 hours further MV, are randomised in an open-label three arm trial to receive propofol (usual care) or clonidine or dexmedetomidine as primary sedative, plus analgesia according to local practice. Exclusions include patients with primary brain injury; postcardiac arrest; other neurological conditions; or bradycardia. Unless clinically contraindicated, sedation is titrated using weight-based dosing guidance to achieve a Richmond-Agitation-Sedation score of −2 or greater as early as considered safe by clinicians. The primary outcome is time to successful extubation. Secondary ICU outcomes include delirium and coma incidence/duration, sedation quality, predefined adverse events, mortality and ICU length of stay. Post-ICU outcomes include mortality, anxiety and depression, post-traumatic stress, cognitive function and health-related quality of life at 6-month follow-up. A process evaluation and health economic evaluation are embedded in the trial.The analytic framework uses a hierarchical approach to maximise efficiency and control type I error. Stage 1 tests whether each alpha2-agonist is superior to propofol. If either/both interventions are superior, stages 2 and 3 testing explores which alpha2-agonist is more effective. To detect a mean difference of 2 days in MV duration, we aim to recruit 1437 patients (479 per group) in 40–50 UK ICUs.Ethics and dissemination The Scotland A REC approved the trial (18/SS/0085). We use a surrogate decision-maker or deferred consent model consistent with UK law. Dissemination will be via publications, presentations and updated guidelines.Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03653832.

AbstractPesticide self-poisoning is one of the three most important global means of suicide, killing an estimated 110–168,000 people each year, mostly in poor rural Asian communities. Organophosphorus (OP) and carbamate anticholinesterase insecticides are responsible for about two-thirds of these deaths. Calcium channel blocking medicines (CCB) may reduce the effect of pesticides and prevent deaths. Two preclinical rodents’ studies and eight clinical studies utilising nimodipine and magnesium sulphate (MgSO4), respectively, showed mixed results. We have established a multi-centre randomised controlled trial (RCT) of patients with OP or carbamate self-poisoning admitted to at least six major hospitals in Bangladesh. The study aims to recruit maximum 3,243 patients over four years. One-third of the patients selected at random will receive standard treatment, while one-third will be treated with additional nimodipine and one-third with additional MgSO4. The additional treatments will be given for 48 h. We will check mortality (currently an estimated 11% die with standard treatment) and need for intensive care for mechanical ventilation across the three groups. This could lead to development of the first novel treatment for anticholinesterase poisoning in 50 years and its introduction into routine hospital practice worldwide.

Summary: Background: Prolapse affects 30–40% of women. Those using a pessary for prolapse usually receive care as an outpatient. This trial determined effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pessary self-management (SM) vs clinic-based care (CBC) in relation to condition-specific quality of life (QoL). Methods: Parallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial, recruiting from 16 May 2018 to 7 February 2020, with follow-up to 17 September 2021. Women attending pessary clinics, ≥18 years, using a pessary (except Shelf, Gellhorn or Cube), with pessary retained ≥2 weeks were eligible. Limited manual dexterity; cognitive deficit; pregnancy; or requirement for non-English teaching were exclusions. SM group received a 30-min teaching session; information leaflet; 2-week follow-up call; and telephone support. CBC group received usual routine appointments. The primary clinical outcome was pelvic floor-specific QoL (PFIQ-7), and incremental net monetary benefit for cost-effectiveness, 18 months post-randomisation. Group allocation was by remote web-based application, minimised on age, user type (new/existing) and centre. Participants, intervention deliverers, researchers and the statistician were not blinded. The primary analysis was intention-to-treat based. Trial registration: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN62510577. Findings: The requisite 340 women were randomised (169 SM, 171 CBC) across 21 centres. There was not a statistically significant difference between groups in PFIQ-7 at 18 months (mean SM 32.3 vs CBC 32.5, adjusted mean difference SM-CBC −0.03, 95% CI −9.32 to 9.25). SM was less costly than CBC. The incremental net benefit of SM was £564 (SE £581, 95% CI −£576 to £1704). A lower percentage of pessary complications was reported in the SM group (mean SM 16.7% vs CBC 22.0%, adjusted mean difference −3.83%, 95% CI –6.86% to −0.81%). There was no meaningful difference in general self-efficacy. Self-managing women were more confident in self-management activities. There were no reported suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions, and 31 unrelated serious adverse events (17 SM, 14 CBC). Interpretation: Pessary self-management is cost-effective, does not improve or worsen QoL compared to CBC, and has a lower complication rate. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme (16/82/01).

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(9):598–600.

Background Recent evidence from case reports suggests that a ketogenic diet may be effective for bipolar disorder. However, no clinical trials have been conducted to date. Aims To assess the recruitment and feasibility of a ketogenic diet intervention in bipolar disorder. Method Euthymic individuals with bipolar disorder were recruited to a 6–8 week trial of a modified ketogenic diet, and a range of clinical, economic and functional outcome measures were assessed. Study registration number: ISRCTN61613198. Results Of 27 recruited participants, 26 commenced and 20 completed the modified ketogenic diet for 6–8 weeks. The outcomes data-set was 95% complete for daily ketone measures, 95% complete for daily glucose measures and 95% complete for daily ecological momentary assessment of symptoms during the intervention period. Mean daily blood ketone readings were 1.3 mmol/L (s.d. = 0.77, median = 1.1) during the intervention period, and 91% of all readings indicated ketosis, suggesting a high degree of adherence to the diet. Over 91% of daily blood glucose readings were within normal range, with 9% indicating mild hypoglycaemia. Eleven minor adverse events were recorded, including fatigue, constipation, drowsiness and hunger. One serious adverse event was reported (euglycemic ketoacidosis in a participant taking SGLT2-inhibitor medication). Conclusions The recruitment and retention of euthymic individuals with bipolar disorder to a 6–8 week ketogenic diet intervention was feasible, with high completion rates for outcome measures. The majority of participants reached and maintained ketosis, and adverse events were generally mild and modifiable. A future randomised controlled trial is now warranted.

Objectives To compare telephone consultations with in-person consultations for the provision of medical abortion (using mifepristone 200 mg and misoprostol 800 µg). We hypothesised that telemedicine consultations would be non-inferior to in-person consultations with a non-inferiority limit of 3%.Design Randomised controlled trial with 1:1 allocation.Setting Community abortion service housed within an integrated sexual and reproductive health service in Edinburgh, UK.Participants The trial began on 13 January 2020, but was stopped early due to COVID-19; recruitment was suspended on 31 March 2020, and was formally closed on 31 August 2021. A total of 125 participants were randomised, approximately 10% of the total planned, with 63 assigned to telemedicine and 62 to in-person consultation.Primary and secondary outcome measures Primary outcome: efficacy of medical abortion, defined as complete abortion without surgical intervention. Secondary outcomes: satisfaction with consultation type, preparedness, unscheduled contact with care, complication rate, time spent in clinical contact and uptake of long-acting contraception.Results Primary outcome was available for 115 participants (lost-to-follow-up telemedicine=2, in-person=8), secondary outcomes were available for 110 participants (n=5 and n=10 in telemedicine and in-person groups did not complete questionnaires). There were no significant differences between groups in treatment efficacy (telemedicine 57/63 (90.5%), in-person 48/62 (77.4%)). However, non-inferiority was not demonstrated (+3.3% in favour of telemedicine, CI −6.6% to +13.3%, lower than non-inferiority margin). There were no significant differences in most secondary outcomes, however, there was more unscheduled contact with care in the telemedicine group (12 (19%) vs 3 (5%), p=0.01). The overall time spent in clinical contact was statistically significantly lower in the telemedicine group (mean 94 (SD 24) vs 111 (24) min, p=0.0005).Conclusions Telemedicine for medical abortion appeared to be effective, safe and acceptable to women, with less time spent in the clinic. However, due to the small sample size resulting from early cessation, the study was underpowered to confirm this conclusion. These findings warrant further investigation in larger scale studies.Trial registration number NCT04139382.

Chronic breathlessness, a persistent and disabling symptom despite optimal treatment of underlying causes, is a frightening symptom with serious and widespread impact on patients and their carers. Clinical guidelines support the use of morphine for the relief of chronic breathlessness in common long-term conditions, but questions remain around clinical effectiveness, safety and longer term (>7 days) administration. This trial will evaluate the effectiveness of low-dose oral modified-release morphine in chronic breathlessness. This is a multicentre, parallel group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Participants (n=158) will be opioid-naïve with chronic breathlessness due to heart or lung disease, cancer or post-coronavirus disease 2019. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to 5 mg oral modified-release morphine/placebo twice daily and docusate/placebo 100 mg twice daily for 56 days. Non-responders at Day 7 will dose escalate to 10 mg morphine/placebo twice daily at Day 15. The primary end-point (Day 28) measure will be worst breathlessness severity (previous 24 h). Secondary outcome measures include worst cough, distress, pain, functional status, physical activity, quality of life, and early identification and management of morphine-related side-effects. At Day 56, participants may opt to take open-label, oral modified-release morphine as part of usual care and complete quarterly breathlessness and toxicity questionnaires. The study is powered to be able to reject the null hypothesis and an embedded normalisation process theory-informed qualitative substudy will explore the adoption of morphine as a first-line pharmacological treatment for chronic breathlessness in clinical practice if effective.

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.

Abstract 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

Abstract Malnutrition is an independent predictor for postoperative complications in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We systematically reviewed evidence on the impact of preoperative oral nutrition supplementation (ONS) on patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery in LMICs. We searched EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, WHO Global Index Medicus, SciELO, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) databases from inception to March 21, 2022 for randomised controlled trials evaluating preoperative ONS in gastrointestinal cancer within LMICs. We evaluated the impact of ONS on all postoperative outcomes using random-effects meta-analysis. Seven studies reported on 891 patients (446 ONS group, 445 control group) undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancer. Preoperative ONS reduced all cause postoperative surgical complications (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% CI 0.46–0.60, P

BackgroundNo evidence-based support has been offered to young people (YP) who have experienced technology-assisted sexual abuse (TASA). Interventions aimed at improving mentalization (the ability to understand the mental states of oneself and others) are increasingly being applied to treat YP with various clinical issues. Digital technology use among YP is now common. A digital intervention aimed at improving mentalization in YP who have experienced TASA may reduce the risk of revictimization and future harm and make YP more resilient and able to manage distress that might result from TASA experiences. ObjectiveIn this paper, we describe a protocol for determining the feasibility of the i-Minds trial and the acceptability, safety, and usability of the digital intervention (the i-Minds app) and explore how to best integrate i-Minds into existing routine care pathways. MethodsThis is a mixed methods nonrandomized study aimed to determine the feasibility, acceptability, safety, and usability of the intervention. Participants aged between 12 and 18 years who report distress associated with TASA exposure will be recruited from the United Kingdom from the National Health Service (NHS) Trust Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, sexual assault referral centers, and a web-based e-therapy provider. All participants will receive the i-Minds app for 6 weeks. Coproduced with YP and a range of stakeholders, the i-Minds app focuses on 4 main topics: mentalization, TASA and its impact, emotional and mental health, and trauma. A daily prompt will encourage YP to use the app, which is designed to be used in a stand-alone manner alongside routine care. We will follow participants up after the intervention and conduct interviews with stakeholders to explore the acceptability of the app and trial procedures and identify areas for improvement. Informed by the normalization process theory, we will examine barriers and enablers relevant to the future integration of the intervention into existing care pathways, including traditional clinic-based NHS and NHS e-therapy providers. ResultsThis study was approved by the Research Ethics Board of Scotland. We expect data to be collected from up to 60 YP. We expect to conduct approximately 20 qualitative interviews with participants and 20 health care professionals who referred YP to the study. The results of this study have been submitted for publication. ConclusionsThis study will provide preliminary evidence on the feasibility of recruiting YP to a trial of this nature and on the acceptability, safety, and usability of the i-Minds app, including how to best integrate it into existing routine care. The findings will inform the decision to proceed with a powered efficacy trial. Trial RegistrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry (ISRCTN) ISRCTN43130832; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN43130832 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/40539

Summary: Background: Malnutrition represents a key priority for global health policy, yet the impact of nutritional state on cancer surgery worldwide remains poorly described. We aimed to analyse the effect of malnutrition on early postoperative outcomes following elective surgery for colorectal or gastric cancer. Methods: We did an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study of patients undergoing elective surgery for colorectal or gastric cancer between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019. Patients were excluded if the primary pathology was benign, they presented with cancer recurrence, or if they underwent emergency surgery (within 72 h of hospital admission). Malnutrition was defined with the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria. The primary outcome was death or a major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression and a three-way mediation analysis were done to establish the relationship between country income group, nutritional status, and 30-day postoperative outcomes. Findings: This study included 5709 patients (4593 with colorectal cancer and 1116 with gastric cancer) from 381 hospitals in 75 countries. The mean age was 64·8 years (SD 13·5) and 2432 (42·6%) patients were female . Severe malnutrition was present in 1899 (33·3%) of 5709 patients, with a disproportionate burden in upper-middle-income countries (504 [44·4%] of 1135) and low-income and lower-middle-income countries (601 [62·5%] of 962). After adjustment for patient and hospital risk factors, severe malnutrition was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality across all country income groups (high income: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1·96 [95% CI 1·14–3·37], p=0·015; upper-middle income: 3·05 [1·45–6·42], p=0·003; low income and lower-middle income: 11·57 [5·87–22·80], p

Abstract Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with significant morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Beta blockers are well-established drugs widely used to treat cardiovascular conditions. Observational studies consistently report that beta blocker use in people with COPD is associated with a reduced risk of COPD exacerbations. The bisoprolol in COPD study (BICS) investigates whether adding bisoprolol to routine COPD treatment has clinical and cost-effective benefits. A sub-study will risk stratify participants for heart failure to investigate whether any beneficial effect of bisoprolol is restricted to those with unrecognised heart disease. Methods BICS is a pragmatic randomised parallel group double-blind placebo-controlled trial conducted in UK primary and secondary care sites. The major inclusion criteria are an established predominant respiratory diagnosis of COPD (post-bronchodilator FEV1

Abstract Background Return of gastrointestinal (GI) function is fundamental to patient recovery after colorectal surgery and is required before patients can be discharged from hospital safely. Up to 40% of patients suffer delayed return of GI function after colorectal surgery, causing nausea, vomiting and abdominal discomfort, resulting in longer hospital stay. Small, randomised studies have suggested perioperative intravenous (IV) lidocaine, which has analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects, may accelerate return of GI function after colorectal surgery. The ALLEGRO trial is a pragmatic effectiveness study to assess the benefit of perioperative IV lidocaine in improving return of GI function after elective minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) colorectal surgery. Methods United Kingdom (UK) multi-centre double blind placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial in 562 patients undergoing elective minimally invasive colorectal resection. IV lidocaine or placebo will be infused for 6–12 h commencing at the start of surgery as an adjunct to usual analgesic/anaesthetic technique. The primary outcome will be return of GI function. Discussion A 6–12-h perioperative intravenous infusion of 2% lidocaine is a cheap addition to usual anaesthetic/analgesic practice in elective colorectal surgery with a low incidence of adverse side-effects. If successful in achieving quicker return of gut function for more patients, it would reduce the rate of postoperative ileus and reduce the duration of inpatient recovery, resulting in reduced pain and discomfort with faster recovery and discharge from hospital. Since colorectal surgery is a common procedure undertaken in every acute hospital in the UK, a reduced length of stay and reduced rate of postoperative ileus would accrue significant cost savings for the National Health Service (NHS). Trial registration EudraCT Number 2017-003835-12; REC Number 17/WS/0210 the trial was prospectively registered (ISRCTN Number: ISRCTN52352431 ); date of registration 13 June 2018; date of enrolment of first participant 14 August 2018.

The BLOOM study (co-Benefits of Largescale Organic farming On huMan health) aims to determine if a government-implemented agroecology programme reduces pesticide exposure and improves dietary diversity in agricultural households. To achieve this aim, a community-based, cluster-randomised controlled evaluation of the Andhra Pradesh Community-managed Natural Farming (APCNF) programme will be conducted in 80 clusters (40 intervention and 40 control) across four districts of Andhra Pradesh state in south India. Approximately 34 households per cluster will be randomly selected for screening and enrolment into the evaluation at baseline. The two primary outcomes, measured 12 months post-baseline assessment, are urinary pesticide metabolites in a 15% random subsample of participants and dietary diversity in all participants. Both primary outcomes will be measured in (1) adult men ≥18 years old, (2) adult women ≥18 years old, and (3) children

BackgroundIn many parts of the world, medical devices and the processes of their development are tightly regulated. However, the current regulatory landscape in Uganda like other developing countries is weak and poorly defined, which creates significant barriers to innovation, clinical evaluation, and translation of medical devices.AimTo evaluate current knowledge, systems and infrastructure for medical devices regulation and innovation in Uganda.MethodsA mixed methods study design using the methods triangulation strategy was employed in this study. Data of equal weight were collected sequentially. First, a digital structured questionnaire was sent out to innovators to establish individual knowledge and experience with medical device innovation and regulation. Then, a single focus group discussion involving both medical device innovators and regulators to collect data about the current regulatory practices for medical devices in Uganda. Univariate and bivariate analysis was done for the quantitative data to summarize results in graphs and tables. Qualitative data was analyzed using thematic analysis. Ethical review and approval were obtained from the Makerere University School of Biomedical Sciences, Research and Ethics Committee, and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology.ResultsA total of 47 innovators responded to the questionnaire. 14 respondents were excluded since they were not medical device innovators. Majority (76%) of individuals had been innovators for more than a year, held a bachelor's degree with a background in Engineering and applied sciences, and worked in an academic research institute. 22 of the 33 medical device innovators had stopped working on their innovations and had stalled at the proof-of-concept stage. Insufficient funding, inadequate technical expertise and confusing regulatory landscape were major challenges to innovation. The two themes that emerged from the discussion were “developing standards for medical devices regulation” and “implementation of regulations in practical processes”. Legal limitations, lengthy processes, and low demand were identified as challenges to developing medical device regulations.ConclusionsEfforts have been taken by government to create a pathway for medical device innovations to be translated to the market. More work needs to be done to coordinate efforts among stakeholders to build effective medical device regulations in Uganda.

Introduction Hospital-acquired thrombosis (HAT) is defined as any venous thromboembolism (VTE)-related event during a hospital admission or occurring up to 90 days post discharge, and is associated with significant morbidity, mortality and healthcare-associated costs. Although surgery is an established risk factor for VTE, operations with a short hospital stay (

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; pnon-inferiority

Introduction Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a key risk factor for cardiovascular disease, foot ulceration and lower limb amputation in people with diabetes. Early diagnosis of PAD can enable optimisation of therapies to manage these risks. Its diagnosis is fundamental, though challenging in the context of diabetes. Although a variety of diagnostic bedside tests are available, there is no agreement as to which is the most accurate in routine clinical practice.The aim of this study is to determine the diagnostic performance of a variety of tests (audible waveform assessment, visual waveform assessment, ankle brachial pressure index (ABPI), exercise ABPI and toe brachial pressure index (TBPI)) for the diagnosis of PAD in people with diabetes as determined by a reference test (CT angiography (CTA) or magnetic resonance angiography (MRA)). In selected centres, we also aim to evaluate the performance of a new point-of-care duplex ultrasound scan (PAD-scan).Methods and analysis A prospective multicentre diagnostic accuracy study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT05009602). We aim to recruit 730 people with diabetes from 18 centres across the UK, covering primary and secondary healthcare. Consenting participants will undergo the tests under investigation. Reference tests (CTA or MRA) will be performed within 6 weeks of the index tests. Imaging will be reported by blinded consultant radiologists at a core imaging lab, using a validated scoring system, which will also be used to categorise PAD severity. The presence of one or more arterial lesions of ≥50% stenosis, or tandem lesions with a combined value of ≥50%, will be used as the threshold for the diagnosis of PAD. The primary outcome measure of diagnostic performance will be test sensitivity.Ethics and dissemination The study has received approval from the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) (REC reference 21/PR/1221). Results will be disseminated through research presentations and papers.Trial registration number NCT05009602.

Background: Around 7500 people are diagnosed with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer in the UK annually. Recurrence following transurethral resection of bladder tumour is common, and the intensive monitoring schedule required after initial treatment has associated costs for patients and the NHS. In photodynamic diagnosis, before transurethral resection of bladder tumour, a photosensitiser that is preferentially absorbed by tumour cells is instilled intravesically. Transurethral resection of bladder tumour is then conducted under blue light, causing the photosensitiser to fluoresce. Photodynamic diagnosis-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour offers better diagnostic accuracy than standard white-light-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour, potentially reducing the chance of subsequent recurrence. Objective: The objective was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of photodynamic diagnosis-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour. Design: This was a multicentre, pragmatic, open-label, parallel-group, non-masked, superiority randomised controlled trial. Allocation was by remote web-based service, using a 1 : 1 ratio and a minimisation algorithm balanced by centre and sex. Setting: The setting was 22 NHS hospitals. Participants: Patients aged ≥ 16 years with a suspected first diagnosis of high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, no contraindications to photodynamic diagnosis and written informed consent were eligible. Interventions: Photodynamic diagnosis-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour and standard white-light cystoscopy transurethral resection of bladder tumour. Main outcome measures: The primary clinical outcome measure was the time to recurrence from the date of randomisation to the date of pathologically proven first recurrence (or intercurrent bladder cancer death). The primary health economic outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 3 years. Results: We enrolled 538 participants from 22 UK hospitals between 11 November 2014 and 6 February 2018. Of these, 269 were allocated to photodynamic diagnosis and 269 were allocated to white light. A total of 112 participants were excluded from the analysis because of ineligibility (n = 5), lack of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer diagnosis following transurethral resection of bladder tumour (n = 89) or early cystectomy (n = 18). In total, 209 photodynamic diagnosis and 217 white-light participants were included in the clinical end-point analysis population. All randomised participants were included in the cost-effectiveness analysis. Over a median follow-up period of 21 months for the photodynamic diagnosis group and 22 months for the white-light group, there were 86 recurrences (3-year recurrence-free survival rate 57.8%, 95% confidence interval 50.7% to 64.2%) in the photodynamic diagnosis group and 84 recurrences (3-year recurrence-free survival rate 61.6%, 95% confidence interval 54.7% to 67.8%) in the white-light group (hazard ratio 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 1.28; p = 0.70). Adverse event frequency was low and similar in both groups [12 (5.7%) in the photodynamic diagnosis group vs. 12 (5.5%) in the white-light group]. At 3 years, the total cost was £12,881 for photodynamic diagnosis-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour and £12,005 for white light. There was no evidence of differences in the use of health services or total cost at 3 years. At 3 years, the quality-adjusted life-years gain was 2.094 in the photodynamic diagnosis transurethral resection of bladder tumour group and 2.087 in the white light group. The probability that photodynamic diagnosis-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour was cost-effective was never > 30% over the range of society’s cost-effectiveness thresholds. Limitations: Fewer patients than anticipated were correctly diagnosed with intermediate- to high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer before transurethral resection of bladder tumour and the ratio of intermediate- to high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer was higher than expected, reducing the number of observed recurrences and the statistical power. Conclusions: Photodynamic diagnosis-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour did not reduce recurrences, nor was it likely to be cost-effective compared with white light at 3 years. Photodynamic diagnosis-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour is not supported in the management of primary intermediate- to high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Future work: Further work should include the modelling of appropriate surveillance schedules and exploring predictive and prognostic biomarkers. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN84013636. 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. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Widespread issues in respirator availability and fit have been rendered acutely apparent by the COVID-19 pandemic. This study sought to determine whether personalized 3D printed respirators provide adequate filtration and function for healthcare workers through a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT). Fifty healthcare workers recruited within NHS Lothian, Scotland, underwent 3D facial scanning or 3D photographic reconstruction to produce 3D printed personalized respirators. The primary outcome measure was quantitative fit-testing to FFP3 standard. Secondary measures included respirator comfort, wearing experience, and function instrument (R-COMFI) for tolerability, Modified Rhyme Test (MRT) for intelligibility, and viral decontamination on respirator material. Of the 50 participants, 44 passed the fit test with the customized respirator, not significantly different from the 38 with the control (p = 0.21). The customized respirator had significantly improved comfort over the control respirator in both simulated clinical conditions (p < 0.0001) and during longer wear (p < 0.0001). For speech intelligibility, both respirators performed equally. Standard NHS decontamination agents were able to eradicate 99.9% of viral infectivity from the 3D printed plastics tested. Personalized 3D printed respirators performed to the same level as control disposable FFP3 respirators, with clear communication and with increased comfort, wearing experience, and function. The materials used were easily decontaminated of viral infectivity and would be applicable for sustainable and reusable respirators.

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.

Medical technologies present a huge potential in improving global health playing a key role toward achieving Sustainable Development Goal 3 by 2030. A number of clinicians, innovators, business entities and biomedical engineers among others have developed a number of innovative medical devices and technologies to address the healthcare challenges especially in Africa. Globally, medical devices clinical trials present the most acceptable method for determining the risks and benefits of medical device innovations with the aim of ascertaining their effectiveness and safety as compared with established medical practice. However, there are very few medical device clinical trials reported in Africa compared to other regions like USA, UK and Europe. Most of the medical device clinical trials reported in Africa are addressing challenges around HIV/AIDS, maternal health and NCDs. In this mini review, we report about some of the published medical device clinical trials in Africa PubMed and Google Scholar and their associated challenges.

Introduction Fractures of the odontoid process frequently result from low impact falls in frail or older adults. These are increasing in incidence and importance as the population ages. In the UK, odontoid fractures in older adults are usually managed in hard collars to immobilise the fracture and promote bony healing. However, bony healing does not always occur in older adults, and bony healing is not associated with quality of life, functional, or pain outcomes. Further, hard collars can cause complications such as skin pressure ulcers, swallowing difficulties and difficulties with personal care. We hypothesise that management with no immobilisation may be superior to management in a hard collar for older or frail adults with odontoid fractures.Methods and analyses This is the protocol for the Duration of External Neck Stabilisation (DENS) trial—a non-blinded randomised controlled trial comparing management in a hard collar with management without a collar for older (≥65 years) or frail (Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale ≥5) adults with a new odontoid fracture. 887 neurologically intact participants with any odontoid process fracture type will be randomised to continuing with a hard collar (standard care) or removal of the collar (intervention). The primary outcome is quality of life measured using the EQ-5D-5L at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes include pain scores, neck disability index, health and social care use and costs, and mortality.Ethics and dissemination Informed consent for participation will be sought from those able to provide it. We will also include those who lack capacity to ensure representativeness of frail and acutely unwell older adults. Results will be disseminated via scientific publication, lay summary, and visual abstract. The DENS trial received a favourable ethical opinion from the Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (21/SS/0036) and the Leeds West Research Ethics Committee (21/YH/0141).Trial registration number NCT04895644.

Abstract Background Endometriosis (where endometrial-like tissue is found outside the uterus) affects ~ 176 million women worldwide and can lead to debilitating pelvic pain. Three subtypes of endometriosis exist, with ~ 80% of women having superficial peritoneal endometriosis (SPE). Endometriosis is diagnosed by laparoscopy and, if SPE is found, gynaecologists usually remove it surgically. However, many women get limited pain relief from surgical removal of SPE. We plan to undertake a future large trial where women who have only SPE found at initial laparoscopy are randomly allocated to have surgical removal (excision or ablation) of SPE, or not. Ultimately, we want to determine whether surgical removal improves overall symptoms and quality of life, or whether surgery is of no benefit, exacerbates symptoms, or even causes harm. The primary objective of this feasibility study is to determine what proportion of women with suspected SPE undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy will agree to randomisation. The secondary objectives are to determine if there are differences in key prognostic parameters between eligible women that agree to be randomised and those that decline; how many women having laparoscopy for investigation of chronic pelvic pain are eligible for the trial; the range of treatment effects and variability in outcomes and the most acceptable methods of recruitment, randomisation and assessment tools. Methods We will recruit up to 90 women with suspected SPE undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy over a 9-month recruitment period in four Scottish hospitals and randomise them 1:1 to either diagnostic laparoscopy alone (with a sham port to achieve blinding of the allocation) or surgical removal of endometriosis. Baseline characteristics, e.g. age, index of social deprivation, ethnicity, and intensity/duration of pain will be collected. Participants will be followed up by online questionnaires assessing pain, physical and emotional function at baseline, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months. Discussion Recruitment to a randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of surgery for endometriosis may be challenging because of preconceived ideas about treatment success amongst patients and clinicians. We have designed this study to assess feasibility of recruitment and to inform the design of our future definitive trial. Trial registration ClincicalTrials.gov, NCT04081532 Status Recruiting

Background: The role of fractional exhaled nitric oxide in guiding asthma treatment in children is uncertain. Objective: To compare treatment guided by both fractional exhaled nitric oxide and symptoms (intervention) with treatment guided by symptoms alone (standard care) in children with asthma who are at risk of an asthma exacerbation, in terms of the number of asthma exacerbations over 12 months. Design: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial with embedded cost-effectiveness and qualitative process evaluations. Randomisation (1 : 1) was carried out using a remote web-based system and was minimised on recruitment centre, age, sex and British Thoracic Society treatment step. Clinical teams and participants were not blind to treatment allocation. Setting: The trial took place in 35 hospitals and seven primary care practices in the UK. Participants: Children aged 6–15 years with a diagnosis of asthma who were currently prescribed inhaled corticosteroids and who had one or more parent-/patient-reported asthma exacerbation treated with oral corticosteroids in the 12 months prior to recruitment. Interventions: Asthma treatment guided by symptoms alone (standard care) and asthma treatment guided by symptoms plus fractional exhaled nitric oxide (intervention). Treatment recommendations in both groups were protocolised within a web-based algorithm, incorporating inhaled corticosteroid adherence (objectively measured using an electronic logging device) and current treatment. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was asthma exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids in the year post randomisation. Secondary outcomes included time to first exacerbation, number of exacerbations, lung function, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, daily dose of inhaled corticosteroid, asthma control and quality of life. Results: In total, 509 eligible participants were recruited and the primary outcome was available for 506 participants. The primary outcome occurred in 123 out of 255 (48.2%) participants in the intervention group and 129 out of 251 (51.4%) participants in the standard-care group (adjusted odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 1.27). There was algorithm non-compliance on 21% of assessments. Per-protocol and complier-average causal effect analysis did not change the interpretation. This non-statistically significant estimate was consistent across predefined subgroups. There were no differences between the groups in secondary outcomes. There were no serious adverse events or deaths. No meaningful differences in health service costs, direct patient costs or indirect costs to society were identified between the groups. The economic evaluation does not provide evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. In the qualitative process evaluation, 15 trial staff and six families were interviewed. Overall, their experiences were positive. The intervention was broadly acceptable, with caveats around clinicians using the algorithm recommendation as a guide and wariness around extreme step ups/downs in treatment in the light of contextual factors not being taken into account by the algorithm. Limitations: Potential limitations included the choice of cut-off point to define uncontrolled asthma and the change in fractional exhaled nitric oxide to trigger a change in treatment. Furthermore, the treatment decisions in the two groups may not have been sufficiently different to create a difference in outcomes. Conclusions: The RAACENO (Reducing Asthma Attacks in Children using Exhaled Nitric Oxide) trial findings do not support the routine use of fractional exhaled nitric oxide measurements as part of asthma management in a secondary care setting. The potential for other objective markers to guide asthma management in children needs to be evaluated. Trial registration: This trial was registered as ISRCTN67875351. Funding: This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, a MRC and National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) partnership. This will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 9, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Relapse is a major determinant of outcome for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Early warning signs frequently precede relapse. A recent Cochrane Review found low-quality evidence to suggest a positive effect of early warning signs interventions on hospitalisation and relapse. Objective: How feasible is a study to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a digital intervention to recognise and promptly manage early warning signs of relapse in schizophrenia with the aim of preventing relapse? Design: A multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group cluster randomised controlled trial involving eight community mental health services, with 12-month follow-up. Settings: Glasgow, UK, and Melbourne, Australia. Participants: Service users were aged > 16 years and had a schizophrenia spectrum disorder with evidence of a relapse within the previous 2 years. Carers were eligible for inclusion if they were nominated by an eligible service user. Interventions: The Early signs Monitoring to Prevent relapse in psychosis and prOmote Wellbeing, Engagement, and Recovery (EMPOWER) intervention was designed to enable participants to monitor changes in their well-being daily using a mobile phone, blended with peer support. Clinical triage of changes in well-being that were suggestive of early signs of relapse was enabled through an algorithm that triggered a check-in prompt that informed a relapse prevention pathway, if warranted. Main outcome measures: The main outcomes were feasibility of the trial and feasibility, acceptability and usability of the intervention, as well as safety and performance. Candidate co-primary outcomes were relapse and fear of relapse. Results: We recruited 86 service users, of whom 73 were randomised (42 to EMPOWER and 31 to treatment as usual). Primary outcome data were collected for 84% of participants at 12 months. Feasibility data for people using the smartphone application (app) suggested that the app was easy to use and had a positive impact on motivations and intentions in relation to mental health. Actual app usage was high, with 91% of users who completed the baseline period meeting our a priori criterion of acceptable engagement (> 33%). The median time to discontinuation of > 33% app usage was 32 weeks (95% confidence interval 14 weeks to ∞). There were 8 out of 33 (24%) relapses in the EMPOWER arm and 13 out of 28 (46%) in the treatment-as-usual arm. Fewer participants in the EMPOWER arm had a relapse (relative risk 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 0.98), and time to first relapse (hazard ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.74) was longer in the EMPOWER arm than in the treatment-as-usual group. At 12 months, EMPOWER participants were less fearful of having a relapse than those in the treatment-as-usual arm (mean difference –4.29, 95% confidence interval –7.29 to –1.28). EMPOWER was more costly and more effective, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £3041. This incremental cost-effectiveness ratio would be considered cost-effective when using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Limitations: This was a feasibility study and the outcomes detected cannot be taken as evidence of efficacy or effectiveness. Conclusions: A trial of digital technology to monitor early warning signs that blended with peer support and clinical triage to detect and prevent relapse is feasible. Future work: A main trial with a sample size of 500 (assuming 90% power and 20% dropout) would detect a clinically meaningful reduction in relapse (relative risk 0.7) and improvement in other variables (effect sizes 0.3–0.4). Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN99559262. 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. 27. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Funding in Australia was provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1095879).

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.

Abstract Objectives The primary objective is to evaluate the efficacy of camostat to prevent respiratory deterioration in patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Secondary objectives include assessment of the ability of camostat to reduce the requirement for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related hospital admission and to reduce the requirement for supplementary oxygen and ventilation as treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection, to evaluate overall mortality related to COVID-19 and to evaluate the efficacy of camostat by effect on clinical improvement. Research objectives include to assess change in COVID-19 symptom severity, to evaluate the ability of camostat to reduce viral load throughout duration of illness as well as translational research on host and viral genomics, serum antibody production, COVID-19 diagnostics, and validation of laboratory testing methods and biomarkers. Trial design SPIKE-1 is a randomised, multicentre, prospective, open label, community-based clinical trial. Eligible patients will be randomised 1:1 to the camostat treatment arm and control arm (best supportive care). The trial is designed to include a pilot phase recruiting up to 50 patients in each arm. An initial review at the end of the pilot phase will allow assessment of available data and inform the requirement for any protocol adaptations to include refinement of eligibility criteria to enrich the patient population and sample size calculations. Up to 289 additional patients will be randomised in the continuation phase of the trial. A formal interim analysis will be performed once 50% of the maximum sample size has been recruited Participants The trial will recruit adults (≥ 18 years) who score moderate to very high risk according to COVID-age risk calculation, with typical symptoms of COVID-19 infection as per Public Health England guidance or equivalent organisations in the UK, Health Protection Scotland, Public Health Wales, Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland) and with evidence of current COVID-19 infection from a validated assay. The trial is being conducted in the UK and patients are recruited through primary care and hospital settings. Intervention and comparator Eligible patients with be randomised to receive either camostat tablets, 200 mg four times daily (qds) for 14 days (treatment arm) or best supportive care (control arm). Main outcomes Primary outcome measure: the rate of hospital admissions requiring supplemental oxygen. Secondary outcome measures include: the rate of COVID-19 related hospital admission in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection; the number of supplementary oxygen-free days and ventilator-free days measured at 28 days from randomisation; the rate of mortality related to COVID-19 one year from randomisation; the time to worst point on the nine-point category ordinal scale (recommended by the World Health Organization: Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019)) or deterioration of two points or more, within 28 days from randomisation. Research outcomes include the assessment of change in COVID-19 symptom severity on days 1-14 as measured by (1) time to apyrexia (maintained for 48 hrs) by daily self-assessment of temperature, time to improvement (by two points) in peripheral oxygenation saturation defined by daily self-assessment of fingertip peripheral oxygenation saturation levels, (3) assessment of COVID-19 symptoms using the Flu-iiQ questionnaire (determined by app recording and/or daily video call (or phone) consultation and (4) assessment of functional score (where possible) at screening, day 7 and 14. The ability of camostat to reduce viral load throughout duration of illness will be assessed by (1) change in respiratory (oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal swab RT-PCR) log10 viral load from baseline to Days 7 and 14, (2) change in respiratory (saliva RT-PCR) log10 viral load from baseline to Days 1-14 and (3) change in upper respiratory viral shedding at Day 1 -14 measured as time to clearance of nasal SARS-CoV-2, defined as 2 consecutive negative swabs by qPCR. Additional translational research outcomes include assessment of host and viral genomics, serum antibody production and COVID-19 diagnostics at baseline and on Days 7 and 14. Randomisation Eligible patients will be randomised using an interactive web response system (IWRS) in a 1:1 ratio to one of two arms: (1) treatment arm or (2) control arm. Blinding (masking) The trial is open-label. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) The trial is designed to include a pilot and a continuation phase. Up to 100 patients (randomised 1:1 treatment and control arm) will be recruited in the pilot phase and a maximum of 289 patients (randomised 1:1 treatment and control) will be recruited as part of the continuation phase. The total number of patients recruited will not exceed 389. Trial Status Protocol version number v3 25 September 2020. Trial opened to recruitment on 04 August 2020. The authors anticipate recruitment to be completed by October 2021. Trial registration EudraCT 2020-002110-41; 18 June 2020 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04455815 ; 02 July 2020 Full protocol The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). Unpublished PK data provided under confidentiality agreement to the trial Sponsor has been removed from the background section of the protocol to allow for publication of the trial protocol. In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Abstract Background Process evaluations have become a valued component, alongside clinical trials, of the wider evaluation of complex health interventions. They support understanding of implementation, and fidelity, related to the intervention and provide valuable insights into what is effective in a practical setting by examining the context in which interventions are implemented. The TOPSY study consists of a large multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of pessary self-management with clinic-based care in improving women’s condition-specific quality of life, and a nested process evaluation. The process evaluation aims to examine and maximise recruitment to the trial, describe intervention fidelity and explore participants’ and healthcare professionals’ experiences. Methods The trial will recruit 330 women from approximately 17 UK centres. The process evaluation uses a mixed-methods approach. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with randomised women (18 per randomised group/n = 36), women who declined trial participation but agreed to interview (non-randomised women) (n = 20) and healthcare professionals recruiting to the trial (n ~ 17) and delivering self-management and clinic-based care (n ~ 17). The six internal pilot centres will be asked to record two to three recruitment discussions each (total n = 12–18). All participating centres will be asked to record one or two self-management teaching appointments (n = 30) and self-management 2-week follow-up telephone calls (n = 30). Process data (quantitative and qualitative) will be gathered in participant completed trial questionnaires. Interviews will be analysed thematically and recordings using an analytic grid to identify fidelity to the intervention. Quantitative analysis will be predefined within the process evaluation analysis plan. Discussion The wide variety of pessary care delivered across the UK for women with pelvic organ prolapse presents specific localised contexts in which the TOPSY interventions will be implemented. Understanding this contextual variance is central to understanding how and in what circumstances pessary self-management can be implemented (should it be effective). The inclusion of non-randomised women provides an innovative way of collecting indispensable information about eligible women who decline trial participation, allowing broader contextualisation and considerations of generalisability of trial findings. Methodological insights from examination of recruitment processes and mechanisms have the potential to inform recruitment mechanisms and future recruitment strategies and study designs. Trial registration ISRCTN62510577 . Registered on 6 October 2017.

Abstract Background Pelvic organ prolapse (or prolapse) is a common condition in women where the pelvic organs (bladder, bowel or womb) descend into the vagina and cause distressing symptoms that adversely affect quality of life. Many women will use a vaginal pessary to treat their prolapse symptoms. Clinic-based care usually consists of having a pessary fitted in a primary or secondary care setting, and returning approximately every 6 months for healthcare professional review and pessary change. However, it is possible that women could remove, clean and re-insert their pessary themselves; this is called self-management. This trial aims to assess if self-management of a vaginal pessary is associated with better quality of life for women with prolapse when compared to clinic-based care. Methods This is a multicentre randomised controlled trial in at least 17 UK centres. The intervention group will receive pessary self-management teaching, a self-management information leaflet, a follow-up phone call and access to a local telephone number for clinical support. The control group will receive the clinic-based pessary care which is standard at their centre. Demographic and medical history data will be collected from both groups at baseline. The primary outcome is condition-specific quality of life at 18 months’ post-randomisation. Several secondary outcomes will also be assessed using participant-completed questionnaires. Questionnaires will be administered at baseline, 6, 12 and 18 months’ post-randomisation. An economic evaluation will be carried out alongside the trial to evaluate cost-effectiveness. A process evaluation will run parallel to the trial, the protocol for which is reported in a companion paper. Discussion The results of the trial will provide robust evidence of the effectiveness of pessary self-management compared to clinic-based care in terms of improving women’s quality of life, and of its cost-effectiveness. Trial registration ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN62510577 . Registered on June 10, 2017.

Abstract Whilst the issues around early termination of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are well documented in the literature, trials can also be temporarily suspended with the real prospect that they may subsequently restart. There is little guidance in the literature as to how to manage such a temporary suspension. In this paper, we describe the temporary suspension of a trial within our clinical trials unit because of concerns over the safety of transvaginal synthetic mesh implants. We also describe the challenges, considerations, and lessons learnt during the suspension that we are now applying in the current COVID-19 pandemic which has led to activities in many RCTs across the world undergoing a temporary suspension. There were three key phases within the temporary suspension: the decision to suspend, implementation of the suspension, and restarting. Each of these phases presented individual challenges which are discussed within this paper, along with the lessons learnt. There were obvious challenges around recruitment, delivery of the intervention, and follow-up. Additional challenges included communication between stakeholders, evolving risk assessment, updates to trial protocol and associated paperwork, maintaining site engagement, data-analysis, and workload within the trial team and Sponsor organisation. Based on our experience of managing a temporary suspension, we developed an action plan and guidance (see Additional File 1) for managing a significant trial event, such as a temporary suspension. We have used this document to help us manage the suspension of activities within our portfolio of trials during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Abstract Background Patients’ pre-operative health and physical function is known to influence their post-operative outcomes. In patients with knee osteoarthritis, pharmacological and non-pharmacological options are often not optimised prior to joint replacement. This results in some patients undergoing surgery when they are not as fit as they could be. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a pre-operative package of non-operative care versus standard care prior to joint replacement. Methods/design This is a multicentre, randomised controlled feasibility trial of patients undergoing primary total knee replacement for osteoarthritis. Sixty patients will be recruited and randomised (2:1) to intervention or standard care arms. Data will be collected at baseline (before the start of the intervention), around the end of the intervention period and a minimum of 90 days after the planned date of surgery. Adherence will be reviewed each week during the intervention period (by telephone or in person). Participants will be randomised to a pre-operative package of non-operative care or standard care. The non-operative care will consist of (1) a weight-loss programme, (2) a set of exercises, (3) provision of advice on analgesia use and (4) provision of insoles. The intervention will be started as soon as possible after patients have been added to the waiting list for joint replacement surgery to take advantage of the incentive for behavioural change that this will create. The primary outcomes of this study are feasibility outcomes which will indicate whether the intervention and study protocol is feasible and acceptable and whether a full-scale effectiveness trial is warranted. The following will be measured and used to inform study feasibility: rate of recruitment, rate of retention at 90-day follow-up review after planned surgery date, and adherence to the intervention estimated through review questionnaires and weight change (for those receiving the weight-loss aspect of intervention). In addition the following information will be assessed qualitatively: analysis of qualitative interviews exploring acceptability, feasibility, adherence and possible barriers to implementing the intervention, and acceptability of the different outcome measures. Discussion The aims of the study specifically relate to testing the feasibility and acceptability of the proposed effectiveness trial intervention and the feasibility of the trial methods. This study forms the important first step in developing and assessing whether the intervention has the potential to be assessed in a future fully powered effectiveness trial. The findings will also be used to refine the design of the effectiveness trial. Trial registration ISRCTN registry, ID: ISRCTN96684272. Registered on 18 April 2018.

Summary: Background: Many repurposed drugs have progressed rapidly to Phase 2 and 3 trials in COVID19 without characterisation of Pharmacokinetics /Pharmacodynamics including safety data. One such drug is nafamostat mesylate. Methods: We present the findings of a phase Ib/IIa open label, platform randomised controlled trial of intravenous nafamostat in hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonitis. Patients were assigned randomly to standard of care (SoC), nafamostat or an alternative therapy. Nafamostat was administered as an intravenous infusion at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg/h for a maximum of seven days. The analysis population included those who received any dose of the trial drug and all patients randomised to SoC. The primary outcomes of our trial were the safety and tolerability of intravenous nafamostat as an add on therapy for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 pneumonitis. Findings: Data is reported from 42 patients, 21 of which were randomly assigned to receive intravenous nafamostat. 86% of nafamostat-treated patients experienced at least one AE compared to 57% of the SoC group. The nafamostat group were significantly more likely to experience at least one AE (posterior mean odds ratio 5.17, 95% credible interval (CI) 1.10 – 26.05) and developed significantly higher plasma creatinine levels (posterior mean difference 10.57 micromol/L, 95% CI 2.43–18.92). An average longer hospital stay was observed in nafamostat patients, alongside a lower rate of oxygen free days (rate ratio 0.55–95% CI 0.31–0.99, respectively). There were no other statistically significant differences in endpoints between nafamostat and SoC. PK data demonstrated that intravenous nafamostat was rapidly broken down to inactive metabolites. We observed no significant anticoagulant effects in thromboelastometry. Interpretation: In hospitalised patients with COVID-19, we did not observe evidence of anti-inflammatory, anticoagulant or antiviral activity with intravenous nafamostat, and there were additional adverse events. Funding: DEFINE was funded by LifeArc (an independent medical research charity) under the STOPCOVID award to the University of Edinburgh. We also thank the Oxford University COVID-19 Research Response Fund (BRD00230).

Background: Around 60,000 babies are born preterm (prior to 37 weeks’ gestation) each year in the UK. There is little evidence on the optimal birth mode (vaginal or caesarean section). Objective: The overall aim of the CASSAVA project was to determine if a trial to define the optimal mode of preterm birth could be carried out and, if so, determine what sort of trial could be conducted and how it could best be performed. We aimed to determine the specific groups of preterm women and babies for whom there are uncertainties about the best planned mode of birth, and if there would be willingness to recruit to, and participate in, a randomised trial to address some, but not all, of these uncertainties. This project was conducted in response to a Heath Technology Assessment programme commissioning call (17/22 ‘Mode of delivery for preterm infants’). Methods: We conducted clinician and patient surveys (n = 224 and n = 379, respectively) to identify current practice and opinion, and a consensus survey and Delphi workshop (n = 76 and n = 22 participants, respectively) to inform the design of a hypothetical clinical trial. The protocol for this clinical trial/vignette was used in telephone interviews with clinicians (n = 24) and in focus groups with potential participants (n = 13). Results: Planned sample size and data saturation was achieved for all groups except for focus groups with participants, as this had to be curtailed because of the COVID-19 pandemic and data saturation was not achieved. There was broad agreement from parents and health-care professionals that a trial is needed. The clinician survey demonstrated a variety of practice and opinion. The parent survey suggested that women and their families generally preferred vaginal birth at later gestations and caesarean section for preterm infants. The interactive workshop and Delphi consensus process confirmed the need for more evidence (hence the case for a trial) and provided rich information on what a future trial should entail. It was agreed that any trial should address the areas with most uncertainty, including the management of women at 26–32 weeks’ gestation, with either spontaneous preterm labour (cephalic presentation) or where preterm birth was medically indicated. Clear themes around the challenges inherent in conducting any trial emerged, including the concept of equipoise itself. Specific issues were as follows: different clinicians and participants would be in equipoise for each clinical scenario, effective conduct of the trial would require appropriate resources and expertise within the hospital conducting the trial, potential participants would welcome information on the trial well before the onset of labour and minority ethnic groups would require tailored approaches. Conclusion: Given the lack of evidence and the variation of practice and opinion in this area, and having listened to clinicians and potential participants, we conclude that a trial should be conducted and the outlined challenges resolved. Future work: The CASSAVA project could be used to inform the design of a randomised trial and indicates how such a trial could be carried out. Any future trial would benefit from a pilot with qualitative input and a study within a trial to inform optimal recruitment. Limitations: Certainty that a trial could be conducted can be determined only when it is attempted. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12295730. 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. 25, No. 61. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Patients diagnosed with advanced primary open-angle glaucoma are at a high risk of lifetime blindness. Uncertainty exists about whether primary medical management (glaucoma eye drops) or primary surgical treatment (augmented trabeculectomy) provide the best and safest patient outcomes. Objectives: To compare primary medical management with primary surgical treatment (augmented trabeculectomy) in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma presenting with advanced disease in terms of health-related quality of life, clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness. Design: This was a two-arm, parallel, multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Setting: Secondary care eye services. Participants: Adult patients presenting with advanced primary open-angle glaucoma in at least one eye, as defined by the Hodapp–Parrish–Anderson classification of severe glaucoma. Intervention: Primary medical treatment – escalating medical management with glaucoma eye drops. Primary trabeculectomy treatment – trabeculectomy augmented with mitomycin C. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was health-related quality of life measured with the Visual Function Questionnaire-25 at 2 years post randomisation. Secondary outcomes were mean intraocular pressure; EQ-5D-5L; Health Utilities Index 3; Glaucoma Utility Index; cost and cost-effectiveness; generic, vision-specific and disease-specific health-related quality of life; clinical effectiveness; and safety. Results: A total of 453 participants were recruited. The mean age of the participants was 67 years (standard deviation 12 years) in the trabeculectomy arm and 68 years (standard deviation 12 years) in the medical management arm. Over 65% of participants were male and more than 80% were white. At 24 months, the mean difference in Visual Function Questionnaire-25 score was 1.06 (95% confidence interval –1.32 to 3.43; p = 0.383). There was no evidence of a difference between arms in the EQ-5D-5L score, the Health Utilities Index or the Glaucoma Utility Index. At 24 months, the mean intraocular pressure was 12.40 mmHg in the trabeculectomy arm and 15.07 mmHg in the medical management arm (mean difference –2.75 mmHg, 95% confidence interval –3.84 to –1.66 mmHg; p

Background: The diagnosis of preterm labour is challenging. False-positive diagnoses are common and result in unnecessary, potentially harmful treatments (e.g. tocolytics, antenatal corticosteroids and magnesium sulphate) and costly hospital admissions. Measurement of fetal fibronectin in vaginal fluid is a biochemical test that can indicate impending preterm birth. Objectives: To develop an externally validated prognostic model using quantitative fetal fibronectin concentration, in combination with clinical risk factors, for the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth and to assess its cost-effectiveness. Design: The study comprised (1) a qualitative study to establish the decisional needs of pregnant women and their caregivers, (2) an individual participant data meta-analysis of existing studies to develop a prognostic model for spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days in women with symptoms of preterm labour based on quantitative fetal fibronectin and clinical risk factors, (3) external validation of the prognostic model in a prospective cohort study across 26 UK centres, (4) a model-based economic evaluation comparing the prognostic model with qualitative fetal fibronectin, and quantitative fetal fibronectin with cervical length measurement, in terms of cost per QALY gained and (5) a qualitative assessment of the acceptability of quantitative fetal fibronectin. Data sources/setting: The model was developed using data from five European prospective cohort studies of quantitative fetal fibronectin. The UK prospective cohort study was carried out across 26 UK centres. Participants: Pregnant women at 22+0–34+6 weeks’ gestation with signs and symptoms of preterm labour. Health technology being assessed: Quantitative fetal fibronectin. Main outcome measures: Spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days. Results: The individual participant data meta-analysis included 1783 women and 139 events of spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days (event rate 7.8%). The prognostic model that was developed included quantitative fetal fibronectin, smoking, ethnicity, nulliparity and multiple pregnancy. The model was externally validated in a cohort of 2837 women, with 83 events of spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days (event rate 2.93%), an area under the curve of 0.89 (95% confidence interval 0.84 to 0.93), a calibration slope of 1.22 and a Nagelkerke R2 of 0.34. The economic analysis found that the prognostic model was cost-effective compared with using qualitative fetal fibronectin at a threshold for hospital admission and treatment of ≥ 2% risk of preterm birth within 7 days. Limitations: The outcome proportion (spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days of test) was 2.9% in the validation study. This is in line with other studies, but having slightly fewer than 100 events is a limitation in model validation. Conclusions: A prognostic model that included quantitative fetal fibronectin and clinical risk factors showed excellent performance in the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days of test, was cost-effective and can be used to inform a decision support tool to help guide management decisions for women with threatened preterm labour. Future work: The prognostic model will be embedded in electronic maternity records and a mobile telephone application, enabling ongoing data collection for further refinement and validation of the model. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015027590 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41598423. 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. 25, No. 52. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Preterm birth is common in twins and accounts for significant mortality and morbidity. There are no effective preventative treatments. Some studies have suggested that, in twin pregnancy complicated by a short cervix, the Arabin pessary, which fits around the cervix and can be inserted as an outpatient procedure, reduces preterm birth and prevents neonatal morbidity. Objective: STOPPIT 2 aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of the Arabin cervical pessary in preventing preterm birth in women with a twin pregnancy and a short cervix. Design: STOPPIT 2 was a pragmatic, open label, multicentre randomised controlled trial with two treatment group – the Arabin pessary plus standard care (intervention) and standard care alone (control). Participants were initially recruited into the screening phase of the study, when cervical length was measured. Women with a measured cervical length of ≤ 35 mm were then recruited into the treatment phase of the study. An economic evaluation considered cost-effectiveness and a qualitative substudy explored the experiences of participants and clinicians. Setting: Antenatal clinics in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. Participants: Women with twin pregnancy at

BackgroundTimely interventions in women presenting with preterm labour can substantially improve health outcomes for preterm babies. However, establishing such a diagnosis is very challenging, as signs and symptoms of preterm labour are common and can be nonspecific. We aimed to develop and externally validate a risk prediction model using concentration of vaginal fluid fetal fibronectin (quantitative fFN), in combination with clinical risk factors, for the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth and assessed its cost-effectiveness.Methods and findingsPregnant women included in the analyses were 22+0 to 34+6 weeks gestation with signs and symptoms of preterm labour. The primary outcome was spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days of quantitative fFN test. The risk prediction model was developed and internally validated in an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of 5 European prospective cohort studies (2009 to 2016; 1,783 women; mean age 29.7 years; median BMI 24.8 kg/m2; 67.6% White; 11.7% smokers; 51.8% nulliparous; 10.4% with multiple pregnancy; 139 [7.8%] with spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days). The model was then externally validated in a prospective cohort study in 26 United Kingdom centres (2016 to 2018; 2,924 women; mean age 28.2 years; median BMI 25.4 kg/m2; 88.2% White; 21% smokers; 35.2% nulliparous; 3.5% with multiple pregnancy; 85 [2.9%] with spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days). The developed risk prediction model for spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days included quantitative fFN, current smoking, not White ethnicity, nulliparity, and multiple pregnancy. After internal validation, the optimism adjusted area under the curve was 0.89 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.92), and the optimism adjusted Nagelkerke R2 was 35% (95% CI 33% to 37%). On external validation in the prospective UK cohort population, the area under the curve was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.94), and Nagelkerke R2 of 36% (95% CI: 34% to 38%). Recalibration of the model's intercept was required to ensure overall calibration-in-the-large. A calibration curve suggested close agreement between predicted and observed risks in the range of predictions 0% to 10%, but some miscalibration (underprediction) at higher risks (slope 1.24 (95% CI 1.23 to 1.26)). Despite any miscalibration, the net benefit of the model was higher than "treat all" or "treat none" strategies for thresholds up to about 15% risk. The economic analysis found the prognostic model was cost effective, compared to using qualitative fFN, at a threshold for hospital admission and treatment of ≥2% risk of preterm birth within 7 days. Study limitations include the limited number of participants who are not White and levels of missing data for certain variables in the development dataset.ConclusionsIn this study, we found that a risk prediction model including vaginal fFN concentration and clinical risk factors showed promising performance in the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days of test and has potential to inform management decisions for women with threatened preterm labour. Further evaluation of the risk prediction model in clinical practice is required to determine whether the risk prediction model improves clinical outcomes if used in practice.Trial registrationThe study was approved by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee (16/WS/0068). The study was registered with ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN 41598423) and NIHR Portfolio (CPMS: 31277).

Background: Urinary incontinence is prevalent in nursing and residential care homes, and has a profound impact on residents’ dignity and quality of life. Treatment options are limited in these care contexts and care homes predominantly use absorbent pads to contain incontinence, rather than actively treat it. Transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation is a non-invasive, safe, low-cost intervention that is effective in reducing urinary incontinence in adults. Objective: To determine the clinical effectiveness of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation to treat urinary incontinence in care home residents and to determine the associated costs of the treatment. Design: A multicentre, pragmatic, participant and outcome assessor-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Setting: A total of 37 UK residential and nursing care homes. Participants: Care home residents with at least weekly urinary incontinence that is contained using absorbent pads and who are able to use a toilet/toilet aid with or without assistance. Interventions: Residents were randomised (1 : 1) to receive 12 30-minute sessions of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation or sham stimulation over a 6-week period. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome – change in volume of urine leaked over a 24-hour period at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes – number of pads used, Perception of Bladder Condition, toileting skills, quality of life and resource use. Results: A total of 408 residents were randomised (transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation, n = 197; sham stimulation, n = 209); two exclusions occurred post randomisation. Primary outcome data were available for 345 (85%) residents (transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation, n = 167; sham stimulation, n = 178). Adherence to the intervention protocol was as follows: 78% of the transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation group and 71% of the sham group received the correct stimulation. Primary intention-to-treat adjusted analysis indicated a mean change of –5 ml (standard deviation 362 ml) urine leakage from baseline in the transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation group and –66 ml (standard deviation 394 ml) urine leakage in the sham group, which was a statistically significant, but not clinically important, between-group difference of 68-ml urine leakage (95% confidence interval 0 to 136 ml; p = 0.05) in favour of the sham group. Sensitivity analysis supported the primary analysis. No meaningful differences were detected in any of the secondary outcomes. No serious adverse events related to transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation were reported. Economic evaluation assessed the resources used. The training and support costs for the staff to deliver the intervention were estimated at £121.03 per staff member. Estimated costs for delivery of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation during the trial were £81.20 per participant. No significant difference was found between participants’ scores over time, or between transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation and sham groups at any time point, for resident or proxy quality-of-life measures. Conclusions: The ELECTRIC (ELECtric Tibial nerve stimulation to Reduce Incontinence in Care homes) trial showed, in the care home context (with a high proportion of residents with poor cognitive capacity and limited independent mobility), that transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation was not effective in reducing urinary incontinence. No economic case for transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation was made by the cost–consequences analysis; however, the positive reception of learning about urinary incontinence for care home staff supports a case for routine education in this care context. Limitations: Completing 24-hour pad collections was challenging for care home staff, resulting in some missing primary outcome data. Future work: Research should investigate transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation in residents with urgency urinary incontinence to determine whether or not targeted stimulation is effective. Research should evaluate the effects of continence training for staff on continence care in care homes. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN98415244 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03248362. 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. 25, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Introduction Early medical abortion (EMA) is a two-stage process of terminating pregnancy using oral mifepristone (a progesterone-receptor antagonist) followed usually 1–2 days later by sublingual, vaginal or buccal misoprostol (a prostaglandin analogue). There are no published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of telemedicine for EMA. Our proposed research will determine if telephone consultations for EMA (the most common method of abortion in the UK) is non-inferior to standard face-to-face consultations with regard to the efficacy of EMA.Methods and analysis This study will be conducted as an RCT. The recruitment target is 1222 participants.The primary outcome is success of EMA (complete abortion rate). This will be determined based on a negative low-sensitivity urine pregnancy test result (2 weeks after misoprostol use) and absence of surgical intervention or diagnosis of ongoing pregnancy (within 6 weeks of misoprostol).Secondary outcomes include total time spent at a clinic appointment to receive EMA, self-reported preparedness for EMA, level of satisfaction with consultation and effective contraception uptake compared with when women attend for a face-to-face consultation.The main analysis will be a modified intention-to-treat analysis. This will include all randomised women (with a viable pregnancy) using EMA and follow-up for the main outcome. The study initiated on 13 January 2020 and is anticipated to finish in late 2021.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was given by the South East Scotland NHS Research Ethics Committee, reference: 19/SS/0111. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at clinical and academic meetings, and shared with participants via the clinic website.Trial registration number NCT04139382.

Abstract Background Adolescent-onset psychosis is associated with more severe symptoms and poorer outcomes than adult-onset psychosis. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommend that adolescents with first episode psychosis (FEP) should be offered a combination of antipsychotic medication (APs), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and family intervention (FI). The evidence for APs in treating psychosis is limited in adolescents compared to adults. Nevertheless, it indicates that APs can reduce overall symptoms in adolescents but may cause more severe side effects, including cardiovascular and metabolic effects, than in adults. CBT and FI can improve outcomes in adults, but there are no studies of psychological interventions (PI) in patients under 18 years old. Given this limited evidence base, NICE made a specific research recommendation for determining the clinical and cost effectiveness of APs versus PI versus both treatments for adolescent FEP. Methods/design The current study aimed to establish the feasibility and acceptability of conducting such a trial by recruiting 14–18-year-olds with a first episode of psychosis into a feasibility prospective randomised open blinded evaluation (PROBE) design, three-arm, randomised controlled trial of APs alone versus PI alone versus a combination of both treatments. We aimed to recruit 90 participants from Early Intervention and Child and Adolescent Mental Health Teams in seven UK sites. APs were prescribed by participants’ usual psychiatrists. PI comprised standardised cognitive behavioural therapy and family intervention sessions. Discussion This is the first study to compare APs to PI in an adolescent population with FEP. Recruitment finished on 31 October 2018. The study faced difficulties with recruitment across most sites due to factors including clinician and service-user treatment preferences. Trial registration Current controlled trial with ISRCTN, ISRCTN80567433. Registered on 27 February 2017.