Search

Background Selected patients with advanced heart failure ineligible for heart transplantation could benefit from left ventricular assist device therapy as ‘destination therapy’. There is evidence of the efficacy of destination therapy; however, it is not currently commissioned within the United Kingdom National Health Service due to the lack of economic evidence. Objective What is the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a left ventricular assist device compared to medical management for patients with advanced heart failure ineligible for heart transplantation (destination therapy)? Methods A systematic review of evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy was undertaken including, where feasible, a network meta-analysis to provide an indirect estimate of the relative effectiveness of currently available left ventricular assist devices compared to medical management. For the systematic reviews, data sources searched (up to 11 January 2022) were Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE via Ovid for primary studies, and Epistemonikos and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for relevant systematic reviews. Trial registers were also searched, along with data and reports from intervention-specific registries. Economic studies were identified in EconLit, CEA registry and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). The searches were supplemented by checking reference lists of included studies. An economic model (Markov) was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices compared to medical management from the United Kingdom National Health Service/personal social service perspective. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore uncertainties. Where possible, all analyses focused on the only currently available left ventricular assist device (HeartMate 3TM, Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA) in the United Kingdom. Results The clinical effectiveness review included 134 studies (240 articles). There were no studies directly comparing HeartMate 3 and medical management (a randomised trial is ongoing). The currently available left ventricular assist device improves patient survival and reduces stroke rates and complications compared to earlier devices and relative to medical management. For example, survival at 24 months is 77% with the HeartMate 3 device compared to 59% with the HeartMate II (MOMENTUM 3 trial). An indirect comparison demonstrated a reduction in mortality compared to medical management [relative risk of death 0.25 (95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.47); 24 months; this study]. The cost-effectiveness review included 5 cost analyses and 14 economic evaluations covering different generations of devices and with different perspectives. The reported incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained compared to medical management were lower for later generations of devices [as low as £46,207 (2019 prices; United Kingdom perspective; time horizon at least 5 years)]. The economic evaluation used different approaches to obtain the relative effects of current left ventricular assist devices compared to medical management from the United Kingdom National Health Service/personal social service perspective. All gave similar incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £53,496–58,244 per quality-adjusted life-year gained – lifetime horizon. Model outputs were sensitive to parameter estimates relating to medical management. The findings did not materially differ on exploratory subgroup analyses based on the severity of heart failure. Limitations There was no direct evidence comparing the clinical effectiveness of HeartMate 3 to medical management. Indirect comparisons made were based on limited data from heterogeneous studies regarding the severity of heart failure (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support score distribution) and possible for survival only. Furthermore, the cost of medical management of advanced heart failure in the United Kingdom is not clear. Conclusions Using cost-effectiveness criteria applied in the United Kingdom, left ventricular assist devices compared to medical management for patients with advanced heart failure ineligible for heart transplant may not be cost-effective. When available, data from the ongoing evaluation of HeartMate 3 compared to medical management can be used to update cost-effectiveness estimates. An audit of the costs of medical management in the United Kingdom is required to further decrease uncertainty in the economic evaluation. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020158987. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128996) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 38. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary The majority of patients with advanced heart failure would be unsuitable for heart transplantation due to their age and comorbidities but selected patients could benefit from a left ventricular assist device. Left ventricular assist device therapy for such patients is known as ‘destination therapy’. This is a long-term therapy that involves implanting a battery-powered pump to support the patient’s heart. The purpose of this project was to collect and assess the research evidence on the effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices when used for destination therapy, and to estimate value for money compared to medical management from the United Kingdom National Health Service/personal social service perspective. This research identified that the currently available left ventricular assist device improves patient survival as well as reducing stroke rates and complications compared to earlier devices and relative to medical management. However, there is uncertainty in the evidence due to the absence of studies directly comparing the current device to medical therapy alone. An ongoing clinical trial is currently assessing this. It also means there is uncertainty about whether left ventricular assist devices could provide value for money as determined currently for the United Kingdom National Health Service. Scientific summary Background Heart failure is a debilitating, progressive syndrome characterised by the inability of the heart to pump blood around the body. Pharmacological treatments are used as first-line treatment but may eventually become less effective and left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) or heart transplant (HT) are considered. LVADs are frequently used as bridge to transplant (BTT) or bridge to candidacy (BTC). However, some patients are ineligible for HT and either continue on medical management (MM) or could have a LVAD implanted as ‘destination therapy’ (DT). LVAD as DT is not currently commissioned within the United Kingdom National Health Service (UK NHS). The costs of LVADs are high, especially when compared to the alternative MM, but may also offer significant benefit in terms of survival. It is important to determine whether LVADs are both clinically and cost-effective as DT to inform decision-making from the UK NHS/personal social service (PSS) perspective on their potential as long-term treatment for advanced heart failure patients ineligible for HT. Aims and objectives What is the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a LVAD compared to MM for advanced heart failure (AHF) patients ineligible for HT (DT)? The specific objectives to address this aim were to undertake: – a systematic review of available evidence on the clinical effectiveness of a LVAD as DT, including a network meta-analysis (NMA) to provide an indirect estimate of the relative effectiveness of currently available LVADs compared to MM; – a systematic review of available economic evidence on the use of a LVAD as DT; and – the development of an economic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a LVAD compared to MM from the UK NHS/PSS perspective. Due to the withdrawal of the HeartWare ventricular assist device (HVAD) during the undertaking of this research, the analyses primarily focus on the HeartMate 3™ (Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA) device, the only LVAD available in the UK at this time. Methods Systematic review of clinical effectiveness A systematic review was undertaken of all LVADs as DT and reporting followed the general principles of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020158987). Eligibility criteria Studies of patients over 16 years of age with AHF who received any type of LVAD as DT were included. The review considered all devices, but the analysis focused on the HM3 device due to the recent withdrawal of the HeartWare HVAD (Medtronic, Dublin, Republic of Ireland). Eligible comparators (where relevant) were MM and other LVADs. Outcomes were survival, quality of life (QoL), hospitalisations, major events, complications and functional status. Study designs eligible were any clinical trial (whether randomised, non-randomised or single arm), observational studies (cohort, case-controls and case series) and reports from patient registries [e.g. INTERMACS, International Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulation (IMACS)]. Studies were eligible if 50 or more DT patients were included. Systematic reviews were included and used to identify any additional potentially relevant primary studies. Searches and study selection Databases were searched from inception to 20 May 2020, with an updated search on 11 January 2022. Databases searched included Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE via Ovid, Epistemonikos, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews and World Health Organization (WHO) clinical trials portal (for ongoing studies). There were no restrictions by language or date of publication. Two reviewers independently undertook title and abstract screening and full-text selection via Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, VIC, Australia). Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer or consensus and reasons for exclusion were recorded. Risk of bias, data extraction and synthesis Quality assessment and data extraction were completed by one reviewer and checked by a second. Appropriate risk-of-bias tools dependent upon study design were applied. A hierarchical approach to synthesis was undertaken to avoid double-counting of studies with overlapping patient data and to manage the large volume of evidence. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled non-randomised trials were considered in the first instance. Registry reports and uncontrolled observational studies were used to supplement findings for all outcomes. Data were tabulated and analysed in a narrative approach by device, and forest plots without summary estimates were presented (and where appropriate the feasibility of meta-analysis was considered). A network meta-analysis was considered for the main outcomes to produce an indirect comparison of the HM3 device (across LVAD generations) to MM, but only carried out for survival. Systematic review of cost-effectiveness A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of LVADs was carried out utilising the same search strategy, and at the same time as the clinical effectiveness review, with the addition of three further specialist economics database searches in EconLit, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) registry and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). Appropriate risk-of-bias tools were applied and a narrative synthesis was undertaken. Economic evaluation The systematic reviews’ findings were used to inform the development of a cost–utility analysis (CUA), from the NHS/PSS perspective, using a Markov model with a lifetime horizon and 1-month cycles. Along with evidence from the reviews, the model was informed by guidance from clinical specialists, patients and commissioners. All costs used were in 2019 prices, and a discount rate of 3.5% was applied as per the national UK guidelines. To produce the base case, mortality risks for MM and LVAD arms required some assumptions and several methods for estimating the risks were identified. Two of these were primarily utilised: non-comparative net weight estimates and comparative estimates mapped to LVAD data from the recent relevant HM3 trial (MOMENTUM). The analysis was repeated incorporating a small probability of LVAD DT recipients transitioning to HT eligibility. The potential impacts of the severity of heart failure on cost-effectiveness were explored by considering subgroupings of profiles based on the INTERMACS classification. Uncertainty was explored via both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, paying specific attention to the life expectancy and ongoing costs. Results Systematic review of clinical effectiveness There were 240 articles from 134 studies included in the clinical effectiveness review (5 randomised trials, 1 non-randomised trial, 86 observational studies, reports from 5 registries, 5 ongoing studies and 32 systematic reviews). Of the six trials that were included, only one of these assessed the HM3 and this was in comparison to the previous generation HeartMate II device (MOMENTUM RCT). The majority of HM3 data comes from this trial, with minimal additional data contributions from registry reports or observational studies of single cohorts. The MOMENTUM study was considered as having some concerns regarding risk of bias; however, this was primarily due to the per-protocol analysis for the DT participants and most other domains were considered low risk. There were 624 DT patients in the MOMENTUM 3 trial in total, with a mean age of 63 [standard deviation (SD) 12], 82.2% male and 52.1% INTERMACS level 3. At the longest follow-up point (24 months) survival was 76.7% in HM3 DT patients compared to 59% in HeartMate II patients. Clear and significant improvements in QoL from baseline were reported at 12 months and maintained at 24 months in the HM3 group; however, this was similar in the HeartMate II group. Major events and complications were present in both groups by the 24-month follow-up. There were eight stroke events per 100 patient-years in the HM3, as well as one pump thrombosis event and 70 bleeding events per 100 patient-years. These were all lower than that of the HeartMate II group. Rehospitalisations were also significantly lower in HM3 patients. While some reports included HM3 patients, there were no HM3 specific data reported in any patient registry reports. One observational study reported that HM3 patients (n = 15) had 0 pump thrombosis events in 24 months of follow-up. While it was not the focus due to withdrawal, survival levels were lower in the HeartWare HVAD trials when compared to the HM3 in the MOMENTUM trial and there were concerns with the stroke rates reported in the evidence. Risk of bias across the included trials varied with all but two studies reporting an overall high risk of bias or with some concerns for at least one outcome. The evidence contained within the remaining trials, observational studies and registry reports mostly relate to devices other than HM3. This evidence is summarised in the main part of this report. Indirect comparison of HeartMate 3 and medical management As there were no studies directly comparing HM3 and MM, indirect comparisons of the trial data were required utilising MM data from the older REMATCH trial (the first RCT comparing the first-generation HeartMate device to MM). Data were available to link through available studies for the survival outcome only. The network meta-analysis demonstrated a reduction in the risk of mortality, relative risk of death of 0.25 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.47] 24 months, with the HM3 compared to MM. Systematic review of cost-effectiveness There were 19 studies reported in 20 articles included in the cost-effectiveness review: 5 cost analyses and 14 economic evaluations. Nine studies were US-based and four were UK-based. Most of the studies aimed to compare the health and cost outcomes of LVADs with MM. Most economic evaluations (n = 12) used a CUA approach and only two conducted a CEA. Markov-based modelling was applied in eight studies. The perspective, where stated, was the service provider in most studies. Healthcare resource use was usually estimated based on small numbers of patients from a single centre, which resulted in variability. In the studies comparing LVAD with MM for DT patients, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained estimates ranged between £46,207 and £238,401 in 2019 prices over a time horizon of 5 years or longer and from different perspectives. The overall quality of the studies was considered poor to moderate. Some limitations were limited consideration of uncertainty, insufficient time horizon and lack of consideration of some key complications and cost components. Only one study looked at the impact of disease severity on cost-effectiveness. More recent evaluations tended to have lower estimates of incremental cost-effectiveness, presumably reflecting better clinical outcomes of more recent devices. Two recent studies estimated the cost-effectiveness from a UK perspective, deriving incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £47,361 and £46,207 per QALY gained for the HeartWare device (device withdrawn in 2021) and the HM3 device, respectively compared to MM. Economic evaluation The economic evaluation found similar results for each base case: Non-comparative net weight estimates approach: LVAD would produce an additional 2.86 QALYs per person, increase life expectancy by 3.73 years and the incremental cost to the NHS would be £152,735 per person. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER): £53,496. Comparative estimates mapped to LVAD in MOMENTUM approach: LVAD would produce an additional 2.51 QALYs per person, increase life expectancy by 3.06 years and the incremental cost to the NHS would be £146,275 per person. ICER: £58,244. At a willingness to pay threshold of £50,000 per QALY gained, LVADs would not be considered cost-effective compared to MM for AHF patients ineligible for HT. The same applied when severity weighted ICER estimates based on QALY shortfall methods were used. The deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that inclusion of the probability of becoming eligible for a HT did not change these findings. Furthermore, the findings did not differ in subgroup analyses based on severity of heart failure. Model outputs were most sensitive to estimates related to outpatient costs for both LVAD and MM. Conclusions LVADs have significantly improved over time and the currently available HM3 LVAD is considered clinically effective in patients with end-stage heart failure ineligible for transplant, offering survival of over 75% at 2 years of follow-up with reduced complications and major events in comparison to older devices. However, the device compared to MM may not be considered cost-effective when using methods of defining this for end of life in the UK. Future research Currently, no RCT has been published that compares the HM3 device to MM; however, there is an ongoing trial (SweVAD) comparing the two, which is due to complete final study follow-up in December 2023. This randomised trial, undertaken in Sweden, should allow for relative effects to be determined between the two interventions. This will ultimately enable more robust data to be used to update the current model, rather than relying upon indirect comparisons with wide uncertainty. However, further issues around the true cost of MM are still present due to the lack of recent data on these costs in the UK. An audit of MM costs in DT patients in the UK would address this. Issues also persist in developing reliable subgroup analyses based on severity profiles to aid identification of whether a LVAD is (more) cost-effective for some groups of DT patients. Future trials and other studies should report results by patient severity profiles (e.g. INTERMACS classification), and if registry/observational studies then also by device implanted. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020158987. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128996) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 38. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background: Bacterial vaginosis is a common and distressing condition associated with serious comorbidities. Antibiotic treatment is usually clinically effective in the short term, but recurrence is common and side effects can occur. Objectives: The objective is to assess whether or not intravaginal lactic acid gel is clinically effective and cost-effective for treating recurrent bacterial vaginosis compared with oral metronidazole (Flagyl, Sanofi). Design: This was an open-label, multicentre, parallel-arm, randomised (1 : 1) controlled trial. Setting: This took place in one general practice and 19 sexual health centres in the UK. Participants: Women aged ≥ 16 years with bacterial vaginosis symptoms and one or more episode(s) within the past 2 years took part. Interventions: The interventions were 5 ml of intravaginal lactic acid gel taken once daily for 7 days (intervention) or 400-mg oral metronidazole tablets taken twice daily for 7 days (control). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the resolution of bacterial vaginosis symptoms 14 days after randomisation. The secondary outcomes were time to first recurrence of symptoms; number of recurrences and treatment courses over 6 months; microbiological resolution on microscopy of vaginal smears at week 2; time to resolution of symptoms; tolerability, adherence and acceptability of the treatment; prevalence of concurrent sexually transmitted infections; quality of life; and cost-effectiveness. Results: Recruitment stopped prior to reaching the target of 1900 participants on recommendation from the Data Monitoring Committee and Trial Steering Committee after a planned review of the results indicated that the research question had been answered. Overall, 518 participants were randomised and primary outcome data were available for 409 participants (79%; 204 in the metronidazole arm, 205 in the lactic acid gel arm). Participant-reported symptom resolution at week 2 was higher with metronidazole (143/204; 70%) than with lactic acid gel (97/205; 47%) (adjusted risk difference –23.2%, 95% confidence interval –32.3% to –14.0%). Recurrence in 6 months in a subset of participants who had initial resolution and were available for follow-up was similar across arms (metronidazole arm: 51/72, 71%; lactic acid gel arm: 32/46, 70%). A higher incidence of some side effects was reported with metronidazole than with lactic acid gel (nausea 32% vs. 8%; taste changes 18% vs. 1%; diarrhoea 20% vs. 6%, respectively). At week 2, the average cost per participant with resolved symptoms was £86.94 (metronidazole), compared with £147.00 (lactic acid gel). Some participants preferred using lactic acid gel even if they perceived it to be less effective than metronidazole. Limitations: Loss to follow-up for collection of the primary outcome data was 21% and was similar in both arms. There is a risk of bias owing to missing outcome data at 3 and 6 months post treatment. Conclusions: A higher initial response was seen with metronidazole than with lactic acid gel, but subsequent treatment failure was common with both. Lactic acid gel was less cost-effective than metronidazole. In general, women disliked taking repeated courses of metronidazole and preferred lactic acid gel, even when they were aware that it was less likely to provide symptom resolution. In the absence of effective curative therapy, further evaluation of non-antibiotic treatments to control the symptoms of recurrent bacterial vaginosis is required to improve quality of life for these patients. Further microbiological analysis of vaginal samples would be useful to identify additional factors affecting response to treatment. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14161293. 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. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Excess weight in children is a continuing health issue. Community-based children’s weight management programmes have had some effect in promoting weight loss. Families from minority ethnic communities are less likely to complete these programmes but, to date, no programmes have been culturally adapted to address this. Objectives: We aimed to (1) culturally adapt an existing weight management programme for children aged 4–11 years and their families to make it more suited to Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities but inclusive of all families and (2) evaluate the adapted programme to assess its feasibility and acceptability, as well as the feasibility of methods, for a future full-scale trial. Design: In phase I, a cultural adaptation of a programme that was informed by formative research and guided by two theoretical frameworks was undertaken and in phase II this adapted programme was delivered in a cluster-randomised feasibility study (for which the clusters were the standard and adapted children’s weight management programmes). Setting: Birmingham: a large, ethnically diverse UK city. Participants: In phase I, Pakistani and Bangladeshi parents of children with excess weight, and, in phase II, children aged 4–11 years who have excess weight and their families. Interventions: A culturally adapted children’s weight management programme, comprising six sessions, which was delivered to children and parents, targeting diet and physical activity and incorporating behaviour change techniques, was developed in phase I and delivered in the intervention arm to 16 groups in phase II. The eight groups in the comparator arm received the standard (unadapted) children’s weight management programme. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of Pakistani and Bangladeshi families completing (attending ≥ 60% of) the adapted programme. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of all families completing the adapted programme, the feasibility of delivery of the programme, the programme’s acceptability to participants, the feasibility of trial processes and the feasibility of collection of outcome and cost data. Results: The proportion of Pakistani and Bangladeshi families and all families completing the adapted programme was 78.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 64.8% to 88.2%] and 76.3% (95% CI 67.0% to 83.6%), respectively. The programme was feasible to deliver with some refinements and was well received. Ninety-two families participated in outcome data collection. Data collection was mostly feasible, but participant burden was high. Data collection on the cost of programme delivery was feasible, but costs to families were more challenging to capture. There was high attrition over the 6-month follow-up period (35%) and differential attrition in the two study arms (29% and 52% in the intervention and comparator arms, respectively). Limitations: The study was not designed to address the issue of low participant uptake of children’s weight management programmes. The design of a future trial may include individual randomisation and a ‘minimal intervention’ arm, the acceptability of which has not been evaluated in this study. Conclusions: The theoretically informed, culturally adapted children’s weight management programme was highly acceptable to children and families of all ethnicities. Consideration should be given to a future trial to evaluate clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the adapted programme, but the design of a future trial would need to address the logistics of data collection, participant burden and study attrition. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN81798055. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 33. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Kate Jolly is part-funded by the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West Midlands.

Background: Gonorrhoea is a common sexually transmitted infection that can cause pain and discomfort, affect fertility in women and lead to epididymo-orchitis in men. Current treatment is with ceftriaxone, but there is increasing evidence of antimicrobial resistance reducing its effectiveness. Gentamicin is a potential alternative treatment requiring further evaluation. Objectives: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gentamicin as an alternative treatment to ceftriaxone in the treatment of gonorrhoea. Design: A multicentre, parallel-group, blinded, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. Setting: Fourteen sexual health clinics in England. Participants: Adults aged 16–70 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated, untreated genital, pharyngeal or rectal gonorrhoea based on a positive Gram-stained smear on microscopy or a positive nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT). Randomisation and blinding: Participants were randomised using a secure web-based system, stratified by clinic. Participants, investigators and research staff assessing participants were blinded to treatment allocation. Interventions: Allocation was to either 240 mg of gentamicin (intervention) or 500 mg of ceftriaxone (standard treatment), both administered as a single intramuscular injection. All participants also received 1 g of oral azithromycin. Main outcome measure: The primary outcome measure was clearance of Neisseria gonorrhoeae at all infected sites, confirmed by a negative Aptima Combo 2® (Hologic Inc., Marlborough, MA, USA) NAAT, at 2 weeks post treatment. Results: We randomised 720 participants, of whom 81% were men. There were 358 participants in the gentamicin group and 362 in the ceftriaxone group; 292 (82%) and 306 (85%) participants, respectively, were included in the primary analysis. Non-inferiority of gentamicin to ceftriaxone could not be demonstrated [adjusted risk difference for microbiological clearance –6.4%, 95% confidence interval (CI) –10.4% to –2.4%]. Clearance of genital infection was similar in the two groups, at 94% in the gentamicin group and 98% in the ceftriaxone group, but clearance of pharyngeal infection and rectal infection was lower in the gentamicin group (80% vs. 96% and 90% vs. 98%, respectively). Reported pain at the injection site was higher for gentamicin than for ceftriaxone. The side-effect profiles were comparable between the groups. Only one serious adverse event was reported and this was deemed not to be related to the trial medication. The economic analysis found that treatment with gentamicin is not cost neutral compared with standard care, with average patient treatment costs higher for those allocated to gentamicin (£13.90, 95% CI £2.47 to £37.34) than to ceftriaxone (£6.72, 95% CI £1.36 to £17.84). Limitations: Loss to follow-up was 17% but was similar in both treatment arms. Twelve per cent of participants had a negative NAAT for gonorrhoea at their baseline visit but this was balanced between treatment groups and unlikely to have biased the trial results. Conclusions: The trial was unable to demonstrate non-inferiority of gentamicin compared with ceftriaxone in the clearance of gonorrhoea at all infected sites. Clearance at pharyngeal and rectal sites was lower for participants allocated to gentamicin than for those allocated to ceftriaxone, but was similar for genital sites in both groups. Gentamicin was associated with more severe injection site pain. However, both gentamicin and ceftriaxone appeared to be well tolerated. Future work: Exploration of the genetic determinants of antibiotic resistance in N. gonorrhoeae will help to identify accurate markers of decreased susceptibility. Greater understanding of the immune response to infection can assist gonococcal vaccine development. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN51783227. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 20. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Caesarean section is associated with blood loss and maternal morbidity. Excessive blood loss requires transfusion of donor (allogeneic) blood, which is a finite resource. Cell salvage returns blood lost during surgery to the mother. It may avoid the need for donor blood transfusion, but reliable evidence of its effects is lacking. Objectives: To determine if routine use of cell salvage during caesarean section in mothers at risk of haemorrhage reduces the rates of blood transfusion and postpartum maternal morbidity, and is cost-effective, in comparison with standard practice without routine salvage use. Design: Individually randomised controlled, multicentre trial with cost-effectiveness analysis. Treatment was not blinded. Setting: A total of 26 UK obstetric units. Participants: Out of 3054 women recruited between June 2013 and April 2016, we randomly assigned 3028 women at risk of haemorrhage to cell salvage or routine care. Randomisation was stratified using random permuted blocks of variable sizes. Of these, 1672 had emergency and 1356 had elective caesareans. We excluded women for whom cell salvage or donor blood transfusion was contraindicated. Interventions: Cell salvage (intervention) versus routine care without salvage (control). In the intervention group, salvage was set up in 95.6% of the women and, of these, 50.8% had salvaged blood returned. In the control group, 3.9% had salvage deployed. Main outcome measures: Primary – donor blood transfusion. Secondary – units of donor blood transfused, time to mobilisation, length of hospitalisation, mean fall in haemoglobin, fetomaternal haemorrhage (FMH) measured by Kleihauer–Betke test, and maternal fatigue. Analyses were adjusted for stratification factors and other factors that were believed to be prognostic a priori. Cost-effectiveness outcomes – costs of resources and service provision taking the UK NHS perspective. Results: We analysed 1498 and 1492 participants in the intervention and control groups, respectively. Overall, the transfusion rate was 2.5% in the intervention group and 3.5% in the control group [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 1.01; p = 0.056]. In a planned subgroup analysis, the transfusion rate was 3.0% in the intervention group and 4.6% in the control group among emergency caesareans (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.99), whereas it was 1.8% in the intervention group and 2.2% in the control group among elective caesareans (adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.83) (interaction p = 0.46, suggesting that the difference in effect between subgroups was not statistically significant). Secondary outcomes did not differ between groups, except for FMH, which was higher under salvage in rhesus D (RhD)-negative women with RhD-positive babies (25.6% vs. 10.5%, adjusted OR 5.63, 95% CI 1.43 to 22.14; p = 0.013). No case of amniotic fluid embolism was observed. The additional cost of routine cell salvage during caesarean was estimated, on average, at £8110 per donor blood transfusion avoided. Conclusions: The modest evidence for an effect of routine use of cell salvage during caesarean section on rates of donor blood transfusion was associated with increased FMH, which emphasises the need for adherence to guidance on anti-D prophylaxis. We are unable to comment on long-term antibody sensitisation effects. Based on the findings of this trial, cell salvage is unlikely to be considered cost-effective. Future work: Research into risk of alloimmunisation among women exposed to cell salvage is needed. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN66118656. 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. 22, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Diet- and physical activity-based interventions in pregnancy have the potential to alter maternal and child outcomes. Objectives: To assess whether or not the effects of diet and lifestyle interventions vary in subgroups of women, based on maternal body mass index (BMI), age, parity, Caucasian ethnicity and underlying medical condition(s), by undertaking an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis. We also evaluated the association of gestational weight gain (GWG) with adverse pregnancy outcomes and assessed the cost-effectiveness of the interventions. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment database were searched from October 2013 to March 2015 (to update a previous search). Review methods: Researchers from the International Weight Management in Pregnancy Collaborative Network shared the primary data. For each intervention type and outcome, we performed a two-step IPD random-effects meta-analysis, for all women (except underweight) combined and for each subgroup of interest, to obtain summary estimates of effects and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and synthesised the differences in effects between subgroups. In the first stage, we fitted a linear regression adjusted for baseline (for continuous outcomes) or a logistic regression model (for binary outcomes) in each study separately; estimates were combined across studies using random-effects meta-analysis models. We quantified the relationship between weight gain and complications, and undertook a decision-analytic model-based economic evaluation to assess the cost-effectiveness of the interventions. Results: Diet and lifestyle interventions reduced GWG by an average of 0.70 kg (95% CI –0.92 to –0.48 kg; 33 studies, 9320 women). The effects on composite maternal outcome [summary odds ratio (OR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; 24 studies, 8852 women] and composite fetal/neonatal outcome (summary OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.08; 18 studies, 7981 women) were not significant. The effect did not vary with baseline BMI, age, ethnicity, parity or underlying medical conditions for GWG, and composite maternal and fetal outcomes. Lifestyle interventions reduce Caesarean sections (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99), but not other individual maternal outcomes such as gestational diabetes mellitus (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.10), pre-eclampsia or pregnancy-induced hypertension (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16) and preterm birth (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13). There was no significant effect on fetal outcomes. The interventions were not cost-effective. GWG, including adherence to the Institute of Medicine-recommended targets, was not associated with a reduction in complications. Predictors of GWG were maternal age (summary estimate –0.10 kg, 95% CI –0.14 to –0.06 kg) and multiparity (summary estimate –0.73 kg, 95% CI –1.24 to –0.23 kg). Limitations: The findings were limited by the lack of standardisation in the components of intervention, residual heterogeneity in effects across studies for most analyses and the unavailability of IPD in some studies. Conclusion: Diet and lifestyle interventions in pregnancy are clinically effective in reducing GWG irrespective of risk factors, with no effects on composite maternal and fetal outcomes. Future work: The differential effects of lifestyle interventions on individual pregnancy outcomes need evaluation. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003804. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.