Katie Gillies

Antimicrobial catheters for reduction of symptomatic urinary tract infection in adults requiring short-term catheterisation in hospital: a multicentre randomised controlled trial

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.

Types of urethral catheter for reducing symptomatic urinary tract infections in hospitalised adults requiring short-term catheterisation: multicentre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of antimicrobial- and antiseptic-impregnated urethral catheters (the CATHETER trial)

BACKGROUND 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. OBJECTIVES 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? DESIGN 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. SETTING Relevant clinical departments in 24 NHS hospitals throughout the UK. PARTICIPANTS 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. INTERVENTIONS 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. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES 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). RESULTS 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. CONCLUSIONS 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.

Types of urethral catheter for reducing symptomatic urinary tract infections in hospitalised adults requiring short-term catheterisation

BACKGROUND 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. OBJECTIVES 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? DESIGN 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. SETTING Relevant clinical departments in 24 NHS hospitals throughout the UK. PARTICIPANTS 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. INTERVENTIONS 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. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES 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). RESULTS 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. CONCLUSIONS 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.

Making randomised trials more efficient: report of the first meeting to discuss the Trial Forge platform

Randomised trials are at the heart of evidence-based healthcare, but the methods and infrastructure for conducting these sometimes complex studies are largely evidence free. Trial Forge (www.trialforge.org) is an initiative that aims to increase the evidence base for trial decision making and, in doing so, to improve trial efficiency.This paper summarises a one-day workshop held in Edinburgh on 10 July 2014 to discuss Trial Forge and how to advance this initiative. We first outline the problem of inefficiency in randomised trials and go on to describe Trial Forge. We present participants’ views on the processes in the life of a randomised trial that should be covered by Trial Forge.General support existed at the workshop for the Trial Forge approach to increase the evidence base for making randomised trial decisions and for improving trial efficiency. Agreed upon key processes included choosing the right research question; logistical planning for delivery, training of staff, recruitment, and retention; data management and dissemination; and close down. The process of linking to existing initiatives where possible was considered crucial. Trial Forge will not be a guideline or a checklist but a ‘go to’ website for research on randomised trials methods, with a linked programme of applied methodology research, coupled to an effective evidence-dissemination process. Moreover, it will support an informal network of interested trialists who meet virtually (online) and occasionally in person to build capacity and knowledge in the design and conduct of efficient randomised trials.Some of the resources invested in randomised trials are wasted because of limited evidence upon which to base many aspects of design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of clinical trials. Trial Forge will help to address this lack of evidence.

Use of drug therapy in the management of symptomatic ureteric stones in hospitalised adults : a multicentre, placebo-controlled, randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis of a calcium channel blocker (nifedipine) and an alpha-blocker (tamsulosin) (the SUSPEND trial)

BACKGROUND Ureteric colic, the term used to describe the pain felt when a stone passes down the ureter from the kidney to the bladder, is a frequent reason for people to seek emergency health care. Treatment with the muscle-relaxant drugs tamsulosin hydrochloride (Petyme, TEVA UK Ltd) and nifedipine (Coracten(®), UCB Pharma Ltd) as medical expulsive therapy (MET) is increasingly being used to improve the likelihood of spontaneous stone passage and lessen the need for interventional procedures. However, there remains considerable uncertainty around the effectiveness of these drugs for routine use. OBJECTIVES To determine whether or not treatment with either tamsulosin 400 µg or nifedipine 30 mg for up to 4 weeks increases the rate of spontaneous stone passage for people with ureteric colic compared with placebo, and whether or not it is cost-effective for the UK NHS. DESIGN A pragmatic, randomised controlled trial comparing two active drugs, tamsulosin and nifedipine, against placebo. Participants, clinicians and trial staff were blinded to treatment allocation. A cost-utility analysis was performed using data gathered during trial participation. SETTING Urology departments in 24 UK NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS Adults aged between 18 and 65 years admitted as an emergency with a single ureteric stone measuring ≤ 10 mm, localised by computerised tomography, who were able to take trial medications and complete trial procedures. INTERVENTIONS Eligible participants were randomised 1 : 1 : 1 to take tamsulosin 400 µg, nifedipine 30 mg or placebo once daily for up to 4 weeks to make the following comparisons: tamsulosin or nifedipine (MET) versus placebo and tamsulosin versus nifedipine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary effectiveness outcome was the proportion of participants who spontaneously passed their stone. This was defined as the lack of need for active intervention for ureteric stones at up to 4 weeks after randomisation. This was determined from 4- and 12-week case-report forms completed by research staff, and from the 4-week participant self-reported questionnaire. The primary economic outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over 12 weeks. We estimated costs from NHS sources and calculated QALYs from participant completion of the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions health status questionnaire 3-level response (EQ-5D-3L™) at baseline, 4 weeks and 12 weeks. RESULTS Primary outcome analysis included 97% of the 1167 participants randomised (378/391 tamsulosin, 379/387 nifedipine and 379/399 placebo participants). The proportion of participants who spontaneously passed their stone did not differ between MET and placebo [odds ratio (OR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.43; absolute difference 0.8%, 95% CI -4.1% to 5.7%] or between tamsulosin and nifedipine [OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.53; absolute difference 1%, 95% CI -4.6% to 6.6%]. There was no evidence of a difference in QALYs gained or in cost between the trial groups, which means that the use of MET would be very unlikely to be considered cost-effective. These findings were unchanged by extensive sensitivity analyses around predictors of stone passage, including sex, stone size and stone location. CONCLUSIONS Tamsulosin and nifedipine did not increase the likelihood of stone passage over 4 weeks for people with ureteric colic, and use of these drugs is very unlikely to be cost-effective for the NHS. Further work is required to investigate the phenomenon of large, high-quality trials showing smaller effect size than meta-analysis of several small, lower-quality studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN69423238. European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT) number 2010-019469-26. 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. 19, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Patient information leaflets (PILs) for UK randomised controlled trials : a feasibility study exploring whether they contain information to support decision making about trial participation

BackgroundInformed consent is regarded as a cornerstone of ethical healthcare research and is a requirement for most clinical research studies. Guidelines suggest that prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT) participants should understand a basic amount of key information about the RCTs they are being asked to enrol in in order to provide valid informed consent. This information is usually provided to potential participants in a patient information leaflet (PIL). There is evidence that some trial participants fail to understand key components of trial processes or rationale. As such, the existing approach to information provision for potential RCT participants may not be optimal. Decision aids have been used for a variety of treatment and screening decisions to improve knowledge, but focus more on overall decision quality, and may be helpful to those making decisions about participating in an RCT. We investigated the feasibility of using a tool to identify which items recommended for good quality decision making are present in UK PILs.MethodsPILs were sampled from UK registered Clinical Trials Unit websites across a range of clinical areas. The evaluation tool, which is based on standards for supporting decision making, was applied to 20 PILs. Two researchers independently rated each PIL using the tool. In addition, word count and readability were assessed.ResultsPILs scored poorly on the evaluation tool with the majority of leaflets scoring less than 50%. Specifically, presenting probabilities, clarifying and expressing values and structured guidance in deliberation and communication sub-sections scored consistently poorly. Tool score was associated with word count (r = 0.802, P <0.01); there was no association between score and readability (r = -0.372, P = 0.106).ConclusionsThe tool was feasible to use to evaluate PILs for UK RCTs. PILs did not meet current standards of information to support good quality decision making. Writers of information leaflets could use the evaluation tool as a framework during PIL development to help ensure that items are included which promote and support more informed decisions about trial participation. Further research is required to evaluate the inclusion of such information.

Determining information for inclusion in a decision-support intervention for clinical trial participation: a modified Delphi approach.

Background The use of decision-support interventions in the context of decisions about trial participation is an emergent field. There is a lack of evidence about what information is deemed important to support decisions about informed consent for clinical trials, and whether different groups agree on the information for inclusion. Purpose The overall objective was to determine the items which different stakeholder groups viewed to be important for inclusion in a decision-support tool when making decisions about clinical trial participation, with a view to use these as a framework for developing decision-support tools in this context. This is the first study to have addressed this issue. Methods A modified Delphi method was used to determine agreement on importance of items. The ‘stakeholder’ panel was made up of 49 individuals from 5 groups: 11 trialists, 6 research nurses, 7 ethics committee chairs, 9 decision-support experts, and 16 patients (9 trial experienced and 7 trial non-experienced). Two rounds of rating were completed. Items with a median of 7–10 with ≥65% of any one group (from aggregate ratings) in agreement were considered important for inclusion. Results The stakeholder panel achieved consensus on the majority of items included (60/66), agreeing that these were important for inclusion in a decision-support tool for trial participation. These included items covering information about trial participation and standard care, information on the likelihood of receiving different treatments, information to help patients determine what matters most to them, ensuring that the information is balanced, guidance on how to make a decision, disclosure of any conflicts of interest, using plain language in the tool, and guidance on the decision-support development process. Some areas of divergence among the panel were also identified relating to the use of patient stories. Limitations Selection bias may be a limitation in this study due to the manner in which the participants were invited to take part, and therefore, the representativeness, and reproducibility with another group of stakeholders, may differ. Conclusions Agreement was obtained on a number of items, which we recommend should be used as a framework to develop useful tools to support decision-making about participation in clinical trials.

Decision aids for randomised controlled trials: a qualitative exploration of stakeholders’ views

Objectives To explore stakeholders’ perceptions of decision aids designed to support the informed consent decision-making process for randomised controlled trials. Design Qualitative semistructured interviews. Participants were provided with prototype trial decision aids in advance to stimulate discussion. Interviews were analysed using an established interpretive approach. Participants 23 stakeholders: Trial Managers (n=5); Research Nurses (n=5); Ethics Committee Chairs (n=5); patients (n=4) and Clinical Principal Investigators (n=4). Setting Embedded within two ongoing randomised controlled trials. All interviews conducted with UK-based participants. Results Certain key aspects (eg, values clarification exercises, presentation of probabilities, experiences of others and balance of options) in the prototype decision aids were perceived by all stakeholders as having a significant advantage (over existing patient information leaflets) in terms of supporting well informed appropriate decisions. However, there were some important differences between the stakeholder groups on specific content (eg, language used in the section on positive and negative features of taking part in a trial and the overall length of the trial decision aids). Generally the stakeholders believed trial decision aids have the potential to better engage potential participants in the decision-making process and allow them to make more personally relevant decisions about their participation. Conclusions Compared to existing patient information leaflets, stakeholders perceived decision aids for trial participation to have the potential to promote a more ‘informed’ decision-making process. Further efforts to develop, refine and formally evaluate trial decision aids should be explored.

Vaginal birth after caesarean section: why is uptake so low? Insights from a meta-ethnographic synthesis of women's accounts of their birth choices

Objective To identify what women report influences their preferred mode of birth after caesarean section. Design Systematic review of qualitative literature using meta-ethnography. Data sources Medline, EMBASE, ASSIA, CINAHL and PsycINFO (1996 until April 2013; updated September 2015). Hand-searched journals, reference lists and abstract authors. Study selection Primary qualitative studies reporting womens accounts of what influenced their preferred mode of birth after caesarean section. Data extraction and synthesis Primary data (quotations from study participants) and authors’ interpretations of these were extracted, compared and contrasted between studies, and grouped into themes to support the development of a ‘line of argument’ synthesis. Results 20 papers reporting the views of 507 women from four countries were included. Distinctive clusters of influences were identified for each of three groups of women. Women who confidently sought vaginal birth after a caesarean section were typically driven by a long-standing anticipation of vaginal birth. Women who sought a repeat caesarean section were strongly influenced by distressing previous birth experiences, and at times, by encouragement from social contacts. Women who were more open to information and professional guidance had fewer strong preconceptions and concerns, and viewed a range of considerations as potentially important. Conclusions Womens attitudes towards birth after caesarean section appear to be shaped by distinct clusters of influences, suggesting that opportunities exist for clinicians to stratify and personalise decision support by addressing relevant ideas, concerns and experiences from the first caesarean section birth onwards.

Making a decision about trial participation: the feasibility of measuring deliberation during the informed consent process for clinical trials

BackgroundInformed consent of trial participants is both an ethical and a legal requirement. When facing a decision about trial participation, potential participants are provided with information about the trial and have the opportunity to have any questions answered before their degree of ‘informed-ness’ is assessed, usually subjectively, and before they are asked to sign a consent form. Currently, standardised methods for assessing informed consent have tended to be focused on aspects of understanding and associated outcomes, rather than on the process of consent and the steps associated with decision-making.MethodsPotential trial participants who were approached regarding participation in one of three randomised controlled trials were asked to complete a short questionnaire to measure their deliberation about trial participation. A total of 136 participants completed the 10-item questionnaire (DelibeRATE) before they made an explicit decision about trial participation (defined as signing the clinical trial consent form). Overall DelibeRATE scores were compared and investigated for differences between trial consenters and refusers.ResultsNo differences in overall DelibeRATE scores were identified. In addition, there was no significant difference between overall score and the decision to participate, or not, in the parent trial.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first study to prospectively measure the deliberation stage of the informed consent decision-making process of potential trial participants across different conditions and clinical areas. Although there were no differences detected in overall scores or scores of trial consenters and refusers, we did identify some interesting findings. These findings should be taken into consideration by those designing trials and others interested in developing and implementing measures of potential trial participants decision making during the informed consent process for research.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Register ISRCTN60695184 (date of registration: 13 May 2009), ISRCTN80061723 (date of registration: 8 March 2010), ISRCTN69423238 (date of registration: 18 November 2010)