Search

BackgroundChronic or gestational hypertension complicates approximately 7% of pregnancies, half of which reach 37 weeks' gestation. Early term birth (at 37 to 38 weeks) may reduce maternal complications, cesareans, stillbirths, and costs but may increase neonatal morbidity. In the WILL Trial (When to Induce Labour to Limit risk in pregnancy hypertension), we aimed to establish optimal timing of birth for women with chronic or gestational hypertension who reach term and remain well.Methods and findingsThis 50-centre, open-label, randomised trial in the United Kingdom included an economic analysis. WILL randomised women with chronic or gestational hypertension at 36 to 37 weeks and a singleton fetus, and who provided documented informed consent to "Planned early term birth at 38+0-3 weeks" (intervention) or "usual care at term" (control). The coprimary outcomes were "poor maternal outcome" (composite of severe hypertension, maternal death, or maternal morbidity; superiority hypothesis) and "neonatal care unit admission for ≥4 hours" (noninferiority hypothesis). The key secondary was cesarean. Follow-up was to 6 weeks postpartum. The planned sample size was 540/group. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. A total of 403 participants (37.3% of target) were randomised to the intervention (n = 201) or control group (n = 202), from 3 June 2019 to 19 December 2022, when the funder stopped the trial for delayed recruitment. In the intervention (versus control) group, losses to follow-up were 18/201 (9%) versus 15/202 (7%). In each group, maternal age was about 30 years, about one-fifth of women were from ethnic minorities, over half had obesity, approximately half had chronic hypertension, and most were on antihypertensives with normal blood pressure. In the intervention (versus control) group, birth was a median of 0.9 weeks earlier (38.4 [38.3 to 38.6] versus 39.3 [38.7 to 39.9] weeks). There was no evidence of a difference in "poor maternal outcome" (27/201 [13%] versus 24/202 [12%], respectively; adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72 to 1.87). For "neonatal care unit admission for ≥4 hours," the intervention was considered noninferior to the control as the adjusted risk difference (aRD) 95% CI upper bound did not cross the 8% prespecified noninferiority margin (14/201 [7%] versus 14/202 [7%], respectively; aRD 0.003, 95% CI -0.05 to +0.06), although event rates were lower-than-estimated. The intervention (versus control) was associated with no difference in cesarean (58/201 [29%] versus 72/202 [36%], respectively; aRR 0.81, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.08. There were no serious adverse events. Limitations include our smaller-than-planned sample size, and lower-than-anticipated event rates, so the findings may not be generalisable to where hypertension is not treated with antihypertensive therapy.ConclusionsIn this study, we observed that most women with chronic or gestational hypertension required labour induction, and planned birth at 38+0-3 weeks (versus usual care) resulted in birth an average of 6 days earlier, and no differences in poor maternal outcome or neonatal morbidity. Our findings provide reassurance about planned birth at 38+0-3 weeks as a clinical option for these women.Trial registrationisrctn.com ISRCTN77258279.

Abstract Background Endometriosis affects 1 in 10 women, many of whom have surgery for persistent pain. Recurrence of symptoms following an operation is common. Although hormonal treatment can reduce this risk, there is uncertainty about the best option. Objectives To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of long-acting progestogen therapy compared with the combined oral contraceptive pill in preventing recurrence of endometriosis-related pain and quality of life. Design A multicentre, open, randomised trial with parallel economic evaluation. The final design was informed by a pilot study, qualitative exploration of women’s lived experience of endometriosis and a pretrial economic model. Setting Thirty-four United Kingdom hospitals. Participants Women of reproductive age undergoing conservative surgery for endometriosis. Interventions Long-acting progestogen reversible contraceptive (either 150 mg depot medroxyprogesterone acetate or 52 mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system) or combined oral contraceptive pill (30 µg ethinylestradiol, 150 µg levonorgestrel). Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the pain domain of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 questionnaire at 36 months post randomisation. The economic evaluation estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Results Four hundred and five women were randomised to receive either long-acting reversible contraceptive (N = 205) or combined oral contraceptive pill (N = 200). Pain scores improved in both groups (24 and 23 points on average) compared with preoperative values but there was no difference between the two (adjusted mean difference: −0.8, 95% confidence interval −5.7 to 4.2; p = 0.76). The long-acting reversible contraceptive group underwent fewer surgical procedures or second-line treatments compared with the combined oral contraceptive group (73 vs. 97; hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.00). The mean adjusted quality-adjusted life-year difference between two arms was 0.043 (95% confidence interval −0.069 to 0.152) in favour of the combined oral contraceptive pill, although this cost an additional £533 (95% confidence interval 52 to 983) per woman. Limitations Limitations include the absence of a no-treatment group and the fact that many women changed treatments over the 3 years of follow-up. Use of telephone follow-up to collect primary outcome data in those who failed to return questionnaires resulted in missing data for secondary outcomes. The COVID pandemic may have affected rates of further surgical treatment. Conclusions At 36 months, women allocated to either intervention had comparable levels of pain, with both groups showing around a 40% improvement from presurgical levels. Although the combined oral contraceptive was cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the difference between the two was marginal and lower rates of repeat surgery might make long-acting reversible contraceptives preferable to some women. Future work Future research needs to focus on evaluating newer hormonal preparations, a more holistic approach to symptom suppression and identification of biomarkers to diagnose endometriosis and its recurrence. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN97865475. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN97865475. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 11/114/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 55. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. The NIHR recognises that people have diverse gender identities, and in this report, the word ‘woman’ is used to describe patients or individuals whose sex assigned at birth was female, whether they identify as female, male or non-binary. Plain language summary What was the question? Endometriosis is a condition where cells similar to ones that line the womb are found elsewhere in the body. Endometriosis affects 1 in 10 women, many of whom have surgery for persistent pain. Unfortunately, symptoms often return and some women will need repeat operations. Hormonal contraceptives can prevent the return of endometriosis-related pain: either long-acting reversible contraceptives (injections or a coil, fitted inside the womb) or the combined oral contraceptive pill (often called ‘the pill’). We do not know which is the best option. The aim of this trial was to find out which of these two hormone treatments was more effective in terms of symptom relief, avoidance of further surgery and costs. What did we do? Four hundred and five women with endometriosis, who were not intending to get pregnant, participated in a clinical trial. Half of the participants took long-acting reversible contraceptives, and the other half took the pill for 3 years following endometriosis surgery. The choice of treatment was made at random by a computer to ensure a fair comparison, although those allocated to the long-acting contraceptive could choose between injections or the coil. Participants completed questionnaires about their symptoms and life quality at intervals up to 3 years. What did we find? Both treatments were equally good at reducing pain but more women using the pill had repeat operations. The pill was a little more costly overall but associated with a slightly higher quality of life. What does this mean? Both treatments are equally effective in reducing pain up to 3 years after surgery for endometriosis. The differences in costs are small and the choice of treatment should be based on personal preference. Scientific summary Background Endometriosis, which affects up to 1 in 10 women, is characterised by the proliferation of endometrial cells outside the uterus, usually within the pelvis. These endometriotic deposits undergo cyclical proliferation in response to ovarian oestrogen, resulting in internal bleeding, scarring and adhesion formation, which causes pain and has a serious impact on quality of life in affected women. Surgical removal or destruction of endometriotic tissue is currently the preferred treatment but the risk of recurrence is high. Recurrence can be controlled by post-surgical hormonal treatment to reduce circulating levels of oestrogen but there is uncertainty as to the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two commonly used modalities: long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) and the combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP). Progestogen-based LARCs used in the trial were the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate injection (DMPA). Objectives To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of LARCs compared with COCP in preventing recurrence of endometriosis-related pain and quality of life. Design A multicentre, open, randomised trial with parallel economic evaluation. The final design was informed by a pilot study, qualitative exploration of women’s lived experience of endometriosis and a pretrial economic model. Setting Thirty-four NHS hospitals within the UK. Participants Women of reproductive age undergoing laparoscopic surgery for pelvic pain due to endometriosis were eligible if they fulfilled the following criteria: Inclusion criteria: Aged 16–45 years. No immediate plans to conceive. Scheduled for laparoscopic conservative surgery, or diagnostic laparoscopy with concurrent surgery if endometriosis is found, for pelvic pain associated with endometriosis. Willing to be randomised to one long-acting progestogen (LNG-IUS or DMPA) and COCP. The following women were also eligible if they had recurrent pain and were to have conservative surgery for endometriosis: Had one or more previous diagnostic laparoscopies. Had previous laparoscopic conservative surgery for endometriosis, provided that this did not involve rectovaginal dissection or bowel resection. Used postoperative medical treatment, including the treatment options included in the trial. Previous use of treatment options included in the trial as contraceptives. Use of preoperative gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHa), provided that this was stopped at least 4 weeks prior to laparoscopy. Exclusion criteria: No endometriosis identified at diagnostic laparoscopy. Infertility. Any plans for further elective endometriosis surgery (for deep disease or endometrioma). Contraindications to the use of hormonal treatment with oestrogen or progestogens. Suspicion of malignancy. Interventions Four hundred and five women were randomised in a one-to-one ratio via secure internet facility to either LARCs or COCP. The LARC was either 150 mg DMPA or 52 mg LNG-IUS. The COCP formulation contained 30 µg ethinylestradiol and 150 µg levonorgestrel. The LARC (LNG-IUS or DMPA) was selected before randomisation by the patient if a preference was apparent (or alternatively allocated randomly if there was no opinion). Outcome measures Primary outcome Pain as evaluated by the pain domain of the Endometriosis Health Profile – 30-item (EHP-30) questionnaire at 36 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes (evaluated at 6 months, 1, 2 and 3 years): The four core domains of the EHP-30 questionnaire (control and powerlessness; emotional well-being; social support; self-image). The six modular domains of the EHP-30 (work; relationships with family; sexual relationships; feelings about medical profession; feelings about treatment; feelings about infertility). Pelvic pain measured by visual analogue scale (VAS) during periods; during intercourse; at any time. Responses to the question ‘compared to 1 month ago, would you say your pelvic pain has “Got much better”, “Got a little better”, “Not changed much”, “Got worse”’. Fatigue, as measured by Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) score. Menstrual regularity. Generic quality of life questionnaire [EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L)], including index and thermometer scores. Capabilities, as a measure of well-being (ICEpop CAPability, ICECAP measure). Further therapeutic surgery or second-line treatment for endometriosis as a proxy for recurrence or ‘treatment failure’, defined as having undergone hysterectomy, surgery for endometriosis, laparoscopy or taking GnRHa treatment. Discontinuation rates of randomised treatment (time to first treatment change), with reasons for change. Serious adverse events. The economic evaluation estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Sample size To detect an 8-point difference on the EHP-30 pain domain with 90% power (p = 0.05) and assuming the standard deviation (SD) to be 22 points required 160 participants per group, 320 in total. To account for any loss to follow-up (estimated to be 20%), this target was inflated to 400. Eight points is equivalent to 0.36 SD, which can be considered halfway between a small (0.2 SD) to moderate (0.5 SD) effect size. This size of sample would also give us good power (80%) to detect a 10-point difference in the two stratified analyses of LNG-IUS versus COCP and DMPA versus COCP provided that these subgroups had a roughly even split. Results A total of 405 women were allocated to receive either LARC (N = 205) or COCP (N = 200) following laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis. The two randomised groups were comparable in terms of age [29.6 years (6.7 years) vs. 29.3 years (6.6 years)]; body mass index [27.0 kg/m2 (10.6 kg/m2) vs. 26.3 kg/m2 (5.5 kg/m2)]; early-stage endometriosis: stages I and II (79% vs. 79%); complete surgical excision (92% vs. 90%); white ethnicity (91% vs. 92%) and previous hormonal treatment (27% vs. 23%). Pain scores improved in both groups (24 and 23 points on average) compared with preoperative values but there was no statistically significant difference between LARC and COCP at 3 years [adjusted mean difference: −0.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) −5.7 to 4.2; p = 0.76]. The choice of LARC (LNG-IUS or DMPA) did not alter these findings. Most of the other domains of the EHP-30 were improved in both groups at all time points compared with preoperative scores, with no consistent evidence of any difference between groups when estimates of uncertainty were considered. Women in the LARC group had fewer surgical procedures or second-line treatments compared with those taking COCP (73 vs. 97 events, occurring in 50 vs. 61 women due to repeat interventions), translating to a 33% reduction in time to treatment failure [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.00]. Participants in the LARC group had a slightly higher mean EQ-5D-5L score at 36 months compared with those in the COCP arm (0.693 and 0.686, respectively). The mean adjusted imputed QALY difference between the two arms was 0.043 (95% CI −0.069 to 0.152) in favour of COCP, where participants in LARC group had a lower QALY value than those randomised to COCP (1.937 and 1.976, respectively). Despite this, the COCP group was estimated to be more expensive than the LARC group by £533 (95% CI 52 to 983) per woman over 36 months of follow-up. Limitations In the absence of a no-treatment arm, we were unable to demonstrate the effect of surgery alone on preventing recurrence of pain symptoms. While we are able to comment on the effectiveness of a strategy of postoperative prescription of LARC versus COCP, the true impact of these interventions is difficult to gauge as the prolonged duration of follow-up meant that many women had discontinued their allocated treatments. The predominance of white women in the recruited sample limits our ability to be confident about how our results might apply to women from other ethnic backgrounds. Use of telephone follow-up to collect primary outcome data in those who failed to return full questionnaires resulted in missing data for some of the secondary outcomes. While all patients were recruited prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of women who required further surgery may be underestimated, given the negative impact of COVID-19 on waiting lists for elective surgery throughout the UK. It is possible that this may have led to an increase in the use of GnRHa treatment by women who were unable to access surgery for their symptoms. Conclusions At 36 months, women allocated to LARCs or COCP had comparable levels of pain, with both groups showing around 40% improvement from presurgical levels. Although COCP is likely to be considered more cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY, the difference between the two is marginal. LARCs may be preferred by some women as they are associated with lower rates of surgery, particular hysterectomy and operations for recurrence of endometriosis. Future work Future research needs to focus on evaluating newer hormonal preparations, a more holistic approach to symptom suppression and identification of biomarkers to diagnose endometriosis and its recurrence. Active measures need to be adopted to improve the inclusivity of clinical research and ensure that the ethnic mix within participants mirror that of the general population. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN97865475. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN97865475. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 11/114/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 55. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background Second trimester miscarriage and preterm birth is a significant global problem. Surgical cervical cerclage is performed to prevent pregnancy loss and preterm birth. It utilises either a monofilament or braided suture. It is hypothesised that a braided material becomes colonised with pathogenic bacteria that causes vaginal dysbiosis, infection and cerclage failure. Objectives The primary objective of the study was to examine the effectiveness of using a monofilament suture material as opposed to a braided suture material on pregnancy loss in women requiring a vaginal cervical cerclage. Design Superiority open randomised controlled trial. Setting Seventy-five maternity sites across the UK. Participants Women experiencing a singleton pregnancy requiring a cervical cerclage. Interventions Monofilament suture or braided suture. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was pregnancy loss (miscarriage and perinatal mortality, including any stillbirth or neonatal death in the first week of life). Secondary outcomes included the core outcome set for preterm birth. Methods Women were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis to monofilament or braided cerclage utilising a bespoke randomisation service with minimisation dependent on the site, indication for cerclage, intention to use progesterone and planned surgical technique. The inclusion criteria were three or more previous mid-trimester losses or preterm births, insertion of a cerclage in a previous pregnancy, a history of a mid-trimester loss or preterm birth with a shortened cervical length in the current pregnancy or in women who clinicians deemed at risk of preterm birth. The exclusion criteria were an emergency or rescue cerclage, age of < 18 years, being unable to give informed consent or the cerclage having to be placed abdominally. The original sample size was calculated based on a relative risk reduction of 41% from a pregnancy loss rate of 19% in the braided group to 11% in the monofilament group with 90% power and alpha at p = 0.05. The independent data monitoring committee noted a lower-than-anticipated pooled event rate within the trial and recommended an increase in sample size to 2050. The outcome data were collected using clinical record forms from the maternal and neonatal medical records and reported to Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit. Results A total of 2049 women were randomised, after withdrawals and loss to follow-up, data on 1005 women in the monofilament group and 993 women in the braided group were included. The baseline demographics between the groups were similar. There was no evidence of a difference in pregnancy loss rates between the monofilament and braided groups (80/1003 vs. 75/993; adjusted risk ratio: 1.05, 95% confidence interval: 0.79 to 1.40; adjusted risk difference: 0.002, 95% confidence interval: −0.02 to 0.03). Limitations The trial did not collect long-term paediatric outcomes. There were no safety concerns. Conclusions There was no evidence of a difference in pregnancy loss between a monofilament suture and a braided suture. Future work Long-term follow-up of neonates born within the C-STICH (cerclage suture type for an insufficient cervix and its effects on health outcomes) trial. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN15373349. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/04/107) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 40. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Cervical cerclage is an operation performed in pregnancy to prevent miscarriage and preterm birth. A cervical cerclage is sometimes recommended in women who have had babies born prematurely before or who have had previous cervical surgery. A cerclage operation involves a stitch being inserted around the neck of the womb (cervix) to keep it closed during pregnancy and to prevent it opening prematurely. When performing the operation, the doctor can use different types of threads made of different materials. The threads used to perform the operation are called sutures. One suture type is a single strand or monofilament thread, and the other is a multifilament braided thread with lots of thin strands woven together. Some evidence has suggested that using a monofilament suture thread prevented pregnancy loss by preventing infection. Therefore, we performed a randomised controlled trial of the use of monofilament suture thread versus braided suture thread, aiming to reduce pregnancy loss in women who were having a cerclage as part of their routine care. The women consented to take part in the study and were randomly allocated to their cerclage performed with either a monofilament or braided suture thread; there was no other change to their planned pregnancy care. What happened in their pregnancy was recorded from their medical records and analysed. A total of 2049 women agreed to take part in the study and consented to the analysis of their pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. Cerclage suture type for an insufficient cervix and its effects on health outcomes showed that there was no difference in pregnancy loss between the two suture threads. There was decreased maternal sepsis and decreased chorioamnionitis (which is an infection inside the womb during labour) in the women who received a monofilament suture, which needs further investigation. Although more women who had a cerclage using the monofilament thread needed a small operation and an anaesthetic, often between 36 and 37 weeks, to remove the monofilament suture prior to a vaginal birth, there were no differences in the outcomes for their babies. Scientific summary Background Preterm birth and second trimester miscarriage is a significant cause of worldwide neonatal morbidity and mortality. The aetiology is complex and multifactorial with a number of causes, including cervical insufficiency. One treatment to prevent preterm birth and second trimester miscarriage caused by cervical insufficiency is the placement of a vaginal cervical cerclage (CC). A CC is the placement of a purse string suture thread around the cervix aiming to prevent pregnancy loss and preterm birth. A CC can be performed with either a monofilament suture thread or a braided suture thread. The choice of thread used during surgical operations is dependent on the properties of the thread, with braided threads being multifilament in nature with lots of single strands woven together, which predisposes it to potentially becoming colonised with pathogenic bacteria. A prior feasibility study suggested a difference in pregnancy loss outcomes between monofilament and braided suture threads and the acceptability of either thread for clinicians and women. Therefore, a randomised controlled trial was designed to explore this discrepancy, aiming to reduce pregnancy loss for women at high risk of preterm birth. Objectives The primary objective of the study was to examine the effectiveness of using a monofilament suture material compared to a braided suture material on minimising the risk of pregnancy loss in women requiring a vaginal CC. The secondary objectives of the study included exploring the impact of suture material on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Design A pragmatic open, parallel, multicentre, randomised superiority trial of monofilament versus braided suture type during CC to prevent pregnancy loss. Setting The study was conducted in hospital settings across the UK (75 sites) between 2015 and 2022. Participants Women were eligible for the trial if they required a vaginal CC as part of their routine care within their current pregnancy and they fulfilled the following eligibility criteria: Inclusion Singleton pregnancy. Indication for CC for either: a history of three or more previous mid-term losses or premature births (≤ 28 weeks), OR insertion of cervical sutures in previous pregnancies, OR a history of mid-trimester loss or premature birth with a shortened (≤ 25 mm) cervix, OR women whom clinicians deemed to be at risk of preterm birth either because of their history or because of the results of an ultrasound scan. Exclusion Had taken part in C-STICH previously. Aged < 18 years old at the time of presentation. Requiring a rescue cerclage. Unwilling or unable to give informed consent. Those in whom a cerclage was to be placed by any route other than vaginally (e.g. via an abdominal route). Immediate need for insertion of a suture. Membranes that had ruptured or were surfacing. Interventions Women were randomised at a 1 : 1 ratio via a secure internet facility to have their CC performed using either a monofilament or braided suture thread. Minimisation was employed to balance for the following: indication for cerclage, planned bladder dissection, intention to commence patient on progesterone and recruiting site. Outcome measures The primary outcome measure was pregnancy loss (miscarriage and perinatal mortality). Key secondary outcome: Time from conception to pregnancy end (any reason). Maternal outcomes: Miscarriage and previable neonatal death (defined as delivery < 24 weeks). Stillbirth (defined as intrauterine death ≥ 24 weeks). Gestation at delivery (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Gestational age of < 28/< 32/< 37 weeks at delivery (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Time from conception to onset of spontaneous vaginal delivery (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Sepsis (at any time in pregnancy and until 7 days postnatal). Preterm prelabour rupture of membranes (PPROM). Mode of initiation of labour (spontaneous or induced). Mode of delivery (vaginal, operative vaginal or caesarean). Cerclage placement complications (cervical laceration/bleeding from cervix/ruptured membranes/bladder injury). Cerclage removal complications (cervical tears/need for anaesthetic/difficult to remove). Other maternal complications: vaginal bleeding/steroid use/chorioamnionitis/maternal pyrexia of 38°C (intrapartum/postnatal)/admission to high dependency unit (HDU) or intensive therapy unit (ITU) (pre/post delivery). Neonatal outcomes: Early neonatal death (defined as a death within 7 days after delivery) (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Late neonatal death (defined as a death beyond 7 days and before 28 days after delivery) (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Birth-weight centile adjusted for gestational age and sex (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Small for gestational age and sex (< 10th centile, in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Resuscitation at birth (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Additional care required [special care baby unit (SCBU)/neonatal intensive care unit (NICU)/HDU/transitional care] and length of stay in additional care (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Antibiotics within 72 hours (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Sepsis (clinically diagnosed/proven) (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Early neurodevelopmental morbidity (severe abnormality on cranial ultrasound scan) (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Respiratory support and days on respiratory support (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Supplementary oxygen requirements at 36 weeks post menstrual age (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Necrotising enterocolitis (Bell’s stage 2 or 3) (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Retinopathy of prematurity requiring laser treatment (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Disabilities (live births ≥ 24 weeks). Congenital anomalies (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). The core outcome set for preterm birth was fully collected within the trial. Sample size The original sample size was based on a meta-analysis of non-randomised studies, where the pooled pregnancy loss rate in the monofilament group was 7% compared to 19% in the braided group. To allow for the observational nature of these data, we powered the study to detect a more plausible relative reduction of 41% (19% with braided sutures to 11.2% with monofilament sutures) with 90% power (alpha = 0.05). We planned to recruit 900 women. As a result of some uncertainty around the sample size parameters, the data monitoring committee reviewed the pooled event rate throughout the study. The sample size was subsequently increased to 2050 women to allow for a lower-than-anticipated event rate in order to maintain sufficient power to detect the same relative risk reduction. The primary analysis was by intention to treat. Results The trial opened for recruitment in August 2015 and completed recruitment in January 2021. A total of 2049 women were randomised into the trial and data for analysis was available for 1003 women in the monofilament group and 993 women in the braided group. The baseline demographic characteristics of women in the monofilament and braided group were similar. There was no evidence of a difference in pregnancy loss rates between the monofilament and braided groups [80/1003 vs. 75/993; adjusted risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.40; adjusted risk difference 0.002, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.03]. There was no difference in conception to pregnancy end (median time to pregnancy end: 37.9 weeks vs. 38.0 weeks; adjusted hazard ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.14). Regarding maternal outcomes there was a decrease in maternal sepsis in the monofilament group (4%) compared to the braided group (7%) (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.82) and a decreased risk of chorioamnionitis in the monofilament group (3%) compared to the braided group (6%) (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.71). There was no difference in any neonatal outcomes. CC removal complications showed an increase in the monofilament group (56% vs. 42%, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.36), with increased difficulty of removal and an increased need for anaesthetic for removal being the most common complications. Conclusions There was no evidence of a difference between a monofilament suture thread and a braided suture for pregnancy outcomes. We can be relatively confident that using a monofilament suture is unlikely to have a substantial impact on pregnancy loss compared to a braided suture. The uncertainty around our comparative estimate for this outcome is at most 2% in favour of the monofilament in absolute terms. While this margin may not completely rule out missing a clinically important difference, we consider this scenario to be unlikely. Therefore, clinicians should consider the relative merits and disadvantages of the physical suture properties when selecting the material to perform a vaginal CC. The trial was robustly conducted with minimal limitations. An important strength of the study is the recognition early in the trial that the event rate was lower than anticipated and, therefore, the sample size was increased allowing the effectiveness of a monofilament versus braided suture thread to be fully evaluated. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN15373349. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/04/107) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 40. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award project information.

Abstract Background Healthcare system data (HSD) are increasingly used in clinical trials, augmenting or replacing traditional methods of collecting outcome data. This study, PRIMORANT, set out to identify, in the UK context, issues to be considered before the decision to use HSD for outcome data in a clinical trial is finalised, a methodological question prioritised by the clinical trials community. Methods The PRIMORANT study had three phases. First, an initial workshop was held to scope the issues faced by trialists when considering whether to use HSDs for trial outcomes. Second, a consultation exercise was undertaken with clinical trials unit (CTU) staff, trialists, methodologists, clinicians, funding panels and data providers. Third, a final discussion workshop was held, at which the results of the consultation were fed back, case studies presented, and issues considered in small breakout groups. Results Key topics included in the consultation process were the validity of outcome data, timeliness of data capture, internal pilots, data-sharing, practical issues, and decision-making. A majority of consultation respondents (n = 78, 95%) considered the development of guidance for trialists to be feasible. Guidance was developed following the discussion workshop, for the five broad areas of terminology, feasibility, internal pilots, onward data sharing, and data archiving. Conclusions We provide guidance to inform decisions about whether or not to use HSDs for outcomes, and if so, to assist trialists in working with registries and other HSD providers to improve the design and delivery of trials.

Introduction Aortic stenosis (AS) is common affecting >13% of adults over the age of 75 years. In people who develop symptoms, without valve replacement, prognosis is dismal with mortality as high as 50% at 1 year. In asymptomatic patients, the timing of valve intervention is less well defined and a strategy of watchful waiting is recommended. Many, however, may develop symptoms and attribute this to age related decline, rather than worsening AS. Timely intervention in asymptomatic severe AS is critical, since delayed intervention often results in poor outcomes. Proactive surveillance of symptoms, quality of life and functional capacity should enable timely identification of people who will benefit from aortic valve replacement. There are no data however, to support the clinical and cost effectiveness of such an approach in a healthcare setting in the UK. The aim of this pilot trial is to test the feasibility of a full-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine the utility of proactive surveillance in people with asymptomatic severe AS to guide the timing of intervention.Methods and analysis APRAISE-AS is a multi-centre, non-blinded, two-arm, parallel group randomised controlled trial of up to 66 participants aged >18 years with asymptomatic severe AS. Participants will be randomised to either standard care or standard care supplemented with the APRAISE-AS intervention. Primary outcomes will capture; adherence to and participant acceptability of the intervention, recruitment and retention rates, and completeness of data collection. The findings will be used to inform the sample size and most appropriate outcome measure(s) for a full-scale RCT and health economic evaluation.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was granted by the Black Country REC, reference: 22/WM/0214. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at local, regional and national meetings where appropriate.Trial registration number ISRCTN19413194 registered on 14.07.2023.

Introduction Breastfeeding has health benefits for infants and mothers, yet the UK has low rates with marked social inequalities. The Assets-based feeding help Before and After birth (ABA) feasibility study demonstrated the acceptability of a proactive, assets-based, woman-centred peer support intervention, inclusive of all feeding types, to mothers, peer supporters and maternity services. The ABA-feed study aims to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the ABA-feed intervention compared with usual care in first-time mothers in a full trial.Methods and analysis A multicentre randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation to explore clinical and cost-effectiveness, and embedded process evaluation to explore differences in implementation between sites. We aim to recruit 2730 primiparous women, regardless of feeding intention. Women will be recruited at 17 sites from antenatal clinics and various remote methods including social media and invitations from midwives and health visitors. Women will be randomised at a ratio of 1.43:1 to receive either ABA-feed intervention or usual care. A train the trainer model will be used to train local Infant Feeding Coordinators to train existing peer supporters to become ‘infant feeding helpers’ in the ABA-feed intervention. Infant feeding outcomes will be collected at 3 days, and 8, 16 and 24 weeks postbirth. The primary outcome will be any breastfeeding at 8 weeks postbirth. Secondary outcomes will include breastfeeding initiation, any and exclusive breastfeeding, formula feeding practices, anxiety, social support and healthcare utilisation. All analyses will be based on the intention-to-treat principle.Ethics and dissemination The study protocol has been approved by the East of Scotland Research Ethics Committee. Trial results will be available through open-access publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant meetings and conferences.Trial registration number ISRCTN17395671.

Abstract Background As a pragmatic randomised timing-of-birth trial, WILL adapted its trial procedures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These are reviewed here to inform post-pandemic trial methodology. Methods The trial (internal pilot) paused in March 2020, re-opened in July 2020, and is currently recruiting in 37 UK NHS consultant-led maternity units. We evaluated pandemic adaptations made to WILL processes and surveyed sites for their views of these changes (20 sites, videoconference). Results Despite 88% of sites favouring an electronic investigator site file (ISF), information technology requirements and clinical trial unit (CTU) operating procedures mandated the ongoing use of paper ISFs; site start-up delays resulted from restricted access to the CTU. Site initiation visits (SIVs) were conducted remotely; 50% of sites preferred remote SIVs and 44% felt that it was trial-dependent, while few preferred SIVs in-person as standard procedure. The Central team felt remote SIVs provided scheduling and attendance flexibility (for sites and trial staff), the option of recording discussions for missing or future staff, improved efficiency by having multiple sites attend, and time and cost savings; the negative impact on rapport-building and interaction was partially mitigated over time with more familiarity with technology and new ways-of-working. Two methods of remote consent were developed and used by 30/37 sites and for 54/156 recruits. Most (86%) sites using remote consenting felt it improved recruitment. For remote data monitoring (5 sites), advantages were primarily for the monitor (e.g. flexibility, no time constraints, reduced cost), and disadvantages primarily for the sites (e.g. document and access preparation, attendance at a follow-up meeting), but 81% of sites desired having the option of remote monitoring post-pandemic. Conclusions COVID adaptations to WILL trial processes improved the flexibility of trial delivery, for Central and site staff, and participants. Flexibility to use these strategies should be retained post-pandemic. Trial registration ISRCTN77258279. Registered on 05 December 2018.