Search

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

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

Introduction Emotional disorders (such as anxiety and depression) are associated with considerable distress and impairment in day-to-day function for affected children and young people and for their families. Effective evidence-based interventions are available but require appropriate identification of difficulties to enable timely access to services. Standardised diagnostic assessment (SDA) tools may aid in the detection of emotional disorders, but there is limited evidence on the utility of SDA tools in routine care and equipoise among professionals about their clinical value. Methods and analysis A multicentre, two-arm, parallel group randomised controlled trial, with embedded qualitative and health economic components. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the Development and Well-Being Assessment SDA tool as an adjunct to usual clinical care, or usual care only. A total of 1210 participants (children and young people referred to outpatient, specialist Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services with emotional difficulties and their parent/carers) will be recruited from at least 6 sites in England. The primary outcome is a clinician-made diagnosis about the presence of an emotional disorder within 12 months of randomisation. Secondary outcomes include referral acceptance, diagnosis and treatment of emotional disorders, symptoms of emotional difficulties and comorbid disorders and associated functional impairment. Ethics and dissemination The study received favourable opinion from the South Birmingham Research Ethics Committee (Ref. 19/WM/0133). Results of this trial will be reported to the funder and published in full in the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Journal series and also submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal. Trial registration number NCT15748675; Pre-results.

Background Data collection consumes a large proportion of clinical trial resources. Each data item requires time and effort for collection, processing and quality control procedures. In general, more data equals a heavier burden for trial staff and participants. It is also likely to increase costs. Knowing the types of data being collected, and in what proportion, will be helpful to ensure that limited trial resources and participant goodwill are used wisely. Aim The aim of this study is to categorise the types of data collected across a broad range of trials and assess what proportion of collected data each category represents. Methods We developed a standard operating procedure to categorise data into primary outcome, secondary outcome and 15 other categories. We categorised all variables collected on trial data collection forms from 18, mainly publicly funded, randomised superiority trials, including trials of an investigational medicinal product and complex interventions. Categorisation was done independently in pairs: one person having in-depth knowledge of the trial, the other independent of the trial. Disagreement was resolved through reference to the trial protocol and discussion, with the project team being consulted if necessary. Key results Primary outcome data accounted for 5.0% (median)/11.2% (mean) of all data items collected. Secondary outcomes accounted for 39.9% (median)/42.5% (mean) of all data items. Non-outcome data such as participant identifiers and demographic data represented 32.4% (median)/36.5% (mean) of all data items collected. Conclusion A small proportion of the data collected in our sample of 18 trials was related to the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes accounted for eight times the volume of data as the primary outcome. A substantial amount of data collection is not related to trial outcomes. Trialists should work to make sure that the data they collect are only those essential to support the health and treatment decisions of those whom the trial is designed to inform.

Background Researchers often rely on trial participants to self-report clinical outcomes (for example, fractures, re-operations). Little information exists as to the ‘accuracy’ of participant-reported clinical outcomes, particularly in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). To help address this evidence gap, we report four case studies, nested within different RCTs where participant-reported clinical outcome data were compared with those reported by clinicians or extracted from medical notes. Methods Four publicly-funded RCTs with different methods of verifying participant-reported outcomes were identified. In KAT, the participants were asked about hospital admissions for any reason. Where it was thought to be relevant to the trial knee, further information was sought from the lead surgeon at the admitting site to confirm whether or not the admission was relevant to the trial knee. In REFLUX, participants were asked about hospital admissions for any reason. For participants who reported a re-operation, further information was sought from the lead surgeon at the admitting site to confirm this. In RECORD, participants were asked three questions regarding broken bones. Where low-trauma fractures were reported, clinical verification was sought, initially from the research nurse at the site. In CATHETER, participants were asked about urinary tract infections (UTIs), and a prescription of antibiotics was provided for the treatment of UTIs following urethral catheterisation. The GPs of those who reported a UTI were contacted to confirm that an antibiotic prescription had been issued for the suspected UTI. Results In KAT, 397 of 6882 (6%) participant-reported hospital admissions were confirmed as relevant to the trial knee. In REFLUX, 16 of 19 participants (84%) who appeared to have had a re-operation were confirmed as having had one. In RECORD, 473 of 781 (61%) fractures reported by participants were confirmed as being low-trauma fractures. In CATHETER, 429 of 830 participant-reported UTIs (52%) were confirmed as such by the GPs. Conclusions We used different approaches in our verification of participant-reported outcomes in clinical trials, and we believe there is no one optimal solution. Consideration of issues such as what information is sought from participants, the phrasing of questions, whether the medical records are a true ‘gold standard’ and costs and benefits to the RCT may help determine the appropriate approach.

Methods We evaluated two interventions aimed at increasing postal questionnaire response rates in a 2x2 partial factorial RCT nested within a single, large, UK-wide RCT of medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stones. The interventions were: questionnaire pre-notification via SMS text prior to posting the trial questionnaires versus no pre-notification; for non-responders to the initial questionnaire mailing, use of an e-mail reminder (containing a hyperlink for online questionnaire completion) versus a postal reminder with paper questionnaire. Participants were randomised to the pre-notification comparison, the reminder comparison or both, depending on whether they supplied mobile telephone number and/or email address. The primary outcome was response to 4 and 12 week questionnaires.

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

Catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) is a major preventable cause of harm for patients in hospital and incurs significant costs for health-care providers such as the UK NHS. Many preventative strategies and measures have been introduced to minimise CAUTI risk, including the use of antimicrobial catheters. However, there is considerable uncertainty regarding their usefulness in terms of reducing symptomatic CAUTI, and whether or not they are cost-effective.Do antimicrobial catheters reduce the rate of symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI) during short-term hospital use and is their use cost-effective for the UK NHS?A pragmatic multicentre UK randomised controlled trial comparing three catheters as they would be used in the UK NHS: antimicrobial-impregnated (nitrofurazone) and antiseptic-coated (silver alloy) catheters with the standard polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-coated catheters. Economic evaluation used a decision model populated with data from the trial. Sensitivity analysis was used to explore uncertainty.Relevant clinical departments in 24 NHS hospitals throughout the UK.Adults requiring temporary urethral catheterisation for a period of between 1 and 14 days as part of their care, predominantly as a result of elective surgery.Eligible participants were randomised 1 : 1 : 1 to one of three types of urethral catheter in order to make the following pragmatic comparisons: nitrofurazone-impregnated silicone catheter compared with standard PTFE-coated latex catheter; and silver alloy-coated hydrogel latex catheter compared with standard PTFE-coated latex catheter.The primary outcome for clinical effectiveness was the incidence of UTI at any time up to 6 weeks post randomisation. This was defined as any symptom reported during catheterisation, up to 3 days or 1 or 2 weeks post catheter removal or 6 weeks post randomisation combined with a prescription of antibiotics, at any of these times, for presumed symptomatic UTI. The primary economic outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Health-care costs were estimated from NHS sources with QALYs calculated from participant completion of the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D).Outcome analyses encompassed 6394 (90%) of 7102 participants randomised. The rate of symptomatic UTI within 6 weeks of randomisation was 10.6% in the nitrofurazone group (n = 2153; -2.1% absolute risk difference), 12.5% in the silver alloy group (n = 2097; -0.1% absolute risk difference) and 12.6% in the PTFE group (n = 2144). The effect size {odds ratio (OR) [97.5% confidence interval (CI)]} was 0.82 (97.5% CI 0.66 to 1.01) for nitrofurazone (p = 0.037) and 0.99 (97.5% CI 0.81 to 1.22) for silver alloy (p = 0.92) catheters. The nitrofurazone catheters were more likely to cause discomfort during use and on removal. The primary economic analysis suggested that nitrofurazone-impregnated catheters would be, on average, the least costly (£7 less than PTFE) and most effective option at current NHS prices. There was a 73% chance that nitrofurazone would be cost saving and an 84% chance that the incremental cost per QALY would be£30,000. At the trial price (£6.46), silver alloy catheters were very unlikely to be cost-effective. These results were unchanged in sensitivity analyses, although when the length of stay cost was excluded the incremental cost per QALY for nitrofurazone against PTFE was £28,602.The trial estimate of clinical effectiveness for nitrofurazone-impregnated catheters was less than the pre-specified minimum absolute risk difference that we considered important (-3.3%), and the surrounding CI included zero, indicating that any reduction in catheter-associated UTI was uncertain. Economic analysis, although associated with uncertainty, suggested that nitrofurazone-impregnated catheters may be cost-effective for the NHS. The trial ruled out the possibility that silver alloy-coated catheters might reach the pre-set degree of clinical effectiveness and that their use was unlikely to be cost-effective. These findings should be considered by patients, clinicians and health-care policy-makers to determine whether or not a change in practice is worthwhile. Future research should be aimed at determining the minimum clinically important difference in terms of CAUTI prevention in comparative trials, and to identify reliable methods which can detect the impact of the intervention on quality of life and other drivers of cost, when the intervention is a subsidiary part of overall treatment plans.