Introduction Evaluating the safety and acceptability of reusing catheters for intermittent catheterisation (IC) is one of the top 10 continence research priorities identified by the UK James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership in 2008. There are an estimated 50 000 IC users in England and this number is rising. Globally, both single-use catheters (thrown away after use) and multi-use/reusable ones (cleaned between uses) are used. Using multi-use catheters as well as single-use ones (mixed-use) could bring benefits (eg, reducing plastic waste and patients never running out of catheters) and offer more choice to users. Evidence is needed that mixed-use is at least as safe and acceptable as using only single-use catheters.Methods The MultICath Trial is a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial involving 578 participants. The aim is to compare mixed-use catheter management with single-use catheter management over 12 months. Participants are randomised on a 1:1 basis to either mixed-use catheter management, which includes an evidence-based cleaning method for the multi-use catheters (intervention) or single-use catheter management (control). Following randomisation, participants are followed up for 12 months. The primary outcome is at least one episode of microbiologically confirmed symptomatic urinary tract infection with help-seeking or self-help behaviour over the 12-month follow-up period. Laboratory analysis of patient-initiated urine samples is blind. Secondary outcomes include antibiotic use, microhaematuria, visible blood on catheter/in urine, quality of life and health economics. A qualitative sub-study to examine participant experiences using mixed-use is included.Ethics and dissemination Ethical review was undertaken by South Central-Hampshire A Research Ethics Committee and favourable opinion was granted on 12 July 2019 (reference: 19/SC/0334). Written, informed consent to participate was obtained from all participants. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications, in the National Institute for Health and Care Research journal library and to participants and the public via a lay summary published on the trial website.Trial registration number ISRCTN42028483.

Objectives To estimate the cost-effectiveness of methenamine hippurate compared with antibiotic prophylaxis in the management of recurrent urinary tract infections.Design Multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial.Setting Eight centres in the UK, recruiting from June 2016 to June 2018.Participants Women aged ≥18 years with recurrent urinary tract infections, requiring prophylactic treatment.Interventions Women were randomised to receive once-daily antibiotic prophylaxis or twice-daily methenamine hippurate for 12 months. Treatment allocation was not masked and crossover between arms was allowed.Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary economic outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained at 18 months. All costs were collected from a UK National Health Service perspective. QALYs were estimated based on responses to the EQ-5D-5L administered at baseline, 3, 6, 9, 12 and 18 months. Incremental costs and QALYs were estimated using an adjusted analysis which controlled for observed and unobserved characteristics. Stochastic sensitivity analysis was used to illustrate uncertainty on a cost-effectiveness plane and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. A sensitivity analysis, not specified in the protocol, considered the costs associated with antibiotic resistance.Results Data on 205 participants were included in the economic analysis. On average, methenamine hippurate was less costly (−£40; 95% CI: −684 to 603) and more effective (0.014 QALYs; 95% CI: −0.05 to 0.07) than antibiotic prophylaxis. Over the range of values considered for an additional QALY, the probability of methenamine hippurate being considered cost-effective ranged from 51% to 67%.Conclusions On average, methenamine hippurate was less costly and more effective than antibiotic prophylaxis but these results are subject to uncertainty. Methenamine hippurate is more likely to be considered cost-effective when the benefits of reduced antibiotic use were included in the analysis.Trial registration number ISRCTN70219762.

Introduction Bronchiectasis is a long-term lung condition, with dilated bronchi, chronic inflammation, chronic infection and acute exacerbations. Recurrent exacerbations are associated with poorer clinical outcomes such as increased severity of lung disease, further exacerbations, hospitalisations, reduced quality of life and increased risk of death. Despite an increasing prevalence of bronchiectasis, there is a critical lack of high-quality studies into the disease and no treatments specifically approved for its treatment. This trial aims to establish whether inhaled dual bronchodilators (long acting beta agonist (LABA) and long acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)) taken as either a stand-alone therapy or in combination with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) reduce the number of exacerbations of bronchiectasis requiring treatment with antibiotics during a 12 month treatment period. Methods This is a multicentre, pragmatic, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, incorporating an internal pilot and embedded economic evaluation. 600 adult patients (≥18 years) with CT confirmed bronchiectasis will be recruited and randomised to either inhaled dual therapy (LABA+LAMA), triple therapy (LABA+LAMA+ICS) or matched placebo, in a 2:2:1 ratio (respectively). The primary outcome is the number of protocol defined exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics during the 12 month treatment period. Ethics and dissemination Favourable ethical opinion was received from the North East—Newcastle and North Tyneside 2 Research Ethics Committee (reference: 21/NE/0020). Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications, at national and international conferences, in the NIHR Health Technology Assessments journal and to participants and the public (using lay language). Trial registration number ISRCTN15988757.

BACKGROUND:At least half of all adult women will experience infective cystitis (urinary tract infection: UTI) at least once in their life and many suffer from repeated episodes. Recurrent urinary tract infection (rUTI) in adult women is usually treated with long-term, low-dose antibiotics and current national and international guidelines recommend this as the 'gold standard' preventative treatment. Although they are reasonably effective, long-term antibiotics can result in bacteria becoming resistant not only to the prescribed antibiotic but to other antimicrobial agents. The problem of antimicrobial resistance is recognised as a global threat and the recent drive for antibiotic stewardship has emphasised the need for careful consideration prior to prescribing antibiotics. This has led clinicians and patients alike to explore potential non-antibiotic options for recurrent UTI prevention.DESIGN /METHODS:This is a multicentre, pragmatic, patient-randomised, non-inferiority trial comparing a non-antibiotic preventative treatment for rUTI in women, methenamine hippurate, against the current standard of daily low-dose antibiotics. Women who require preventative treatment for rUTI are the target population. This group is comprised of those with a diagnosis of rUTI, defined as three episodes in 1 year or two episodes in 6 months, and those with a single severe infection requiring hospitalisation. Participants will be recruited from secondary care urology / urogynaecology departments in the UK following referral with rUTI. Participants will be followed up during a 12-month period of treatment and in the subsequent 6 months following completion of the prophylactic medication. Outcomes will be assessed from patient recorded symptoms, quality of life questionnaires and microbiological examination of urine and perineal swabs. The primary outcome is the incidence of symptomatic antibiotic-treated UTI self-reported by participants during the 12-month period of preventative treatment. Health economic outcomes will also be assessed to define the cost-effectiveness of both treatments. A qualitative study will be conducted in the first 8 months of the trial to explore with participants/non-participants' and recruiting clinicians' views on trial processes and identify potential barriers to recruitment, reasons for participating and non-participation and for dropping out of the study.DISCUSSION:The study was commissioned and funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and approved under the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) notification scheme as a 'Type A' study.TRIAL REGISTRATION:International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN), registry number: ISRCTN70219762 . Registered on 31 May 2016.

BACKGROUND Daily, low-dose antibiotic prophylaxis is the current standard care for women with recurrent urinary tract infection. Emerging antimicrobial resistance is a global health concern, prompting research interest in non-antibiotic agents such as methenamine hippurate, but comparative data on their efficacy and safety are lacking. OBJECTIVE To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of methenamine hippurate (Hiprex®; Mylan NV, Canonsburg, PA, USA) compared with current standard care (antibiotic prophylaxis) for recurrent urinary tract infection prevention in adult women. DESIGN Multicentre, pragmatic, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial of 12 months' treatment with the allocated intervention, including an early, embedded qualitative study and a 6-month post-treatment observation phase. The predefined non-inferiority margin was one urinary tract infection per person-year. SETTING Eight UK NHS secondary care sites. PARTICIPANTS A total of 240 adult women with recurrent urinary tract infection requiring preventative treatment participated in the trial. INTERVENTIONS A central randomisation system allocated participants 1 : 1 to the experimental (methenamine hippurate: 1 g twice daily) or control (once-daily low-dose antibiotics: 50/100 mg of nitrofurantoin, 100 mg of trimethoprim or 250 mg of cefalexin) arm. Crossover between treatment arms was permitted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary clinical outcome was incidence of symptomatic antibiotic-treated urinary tract infection during the 12-month treatment period. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained, extrapolated over the patient's expected lifetime using a Markov cohort model. Secondary outcomes included post-treatment urinary tract infections, total antibiotic use, microbiologically proven urinary tract infections, antimicrobial resistance, bacteriuria, hospitalisations and treatment satisfaction. RESULTS Primary modified intention-to-treat analysis comprised 205 (85%) randomised participants [102/120 (85%) participants in the antibiotics arm and 103/120 (86%) participants in the methenamine hippurate arm] with at least 6 months' data available. During treatment, the incidence rate of symptomatic, antibiotic-treated urinary tract infections decreased substantially in both arms to 1.38 episodes per person-year (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.72 episodes per person-year) for methenamine hippurate and 0.89 episodes per person year (95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.12 episodes per person-year) for antibiotics (absolute difference 0.49; 90% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.84). This absolute difference did not exceed the predefined, strict, non-inferiority limit of one urinary tract infection per person-year. On average, methenamine hippurate was less costly and more effective than antibiotics in terms of quality-adjusted life-years gained; however, this finding was not consistent over the longer term. The urinary tract infection incidence rate 6 months after treatment completion was 1.72 episodes per year in the methenamine hippurate arm and 1.19 in the antibiotics arm. During treatment, 52% of urine samples taken during symptomatic urinary tract infections were microbiologically confirmed and higher proportions of participants taking daily antibiotics (46/64; 72%) demonstrated antibiotic resistance in Escherichia coli cultured from perineal swabs than participants in the methenamine hippurate arm (39/70; 56%) (p-value = 0.05). Urine cultures revealed that during treatment higher proportions of participants and samples from the antibiotic arm grew E. coli resistant to trimethoprim/co-trimoxazole and cephalosporins, respectively. Conversely, post treatment, higher proportions of participants in the methenamine hippurate arm (9/45; 20%) demonstrated multidrug resistance in E. coli isolated from perineal swabs than participants in the antibiotic arm (2/39; 5%) (p = 0.06). All other secondary outcomes and adverse events were similar in both arms. LIMITATIONS This trial could not define whether or not one particular antibiotic was more beneficial, and progressive data loss hampered economic evaluation. CONCLUSIONS This large, randomised, pragmatic trial in a routine NHS setting has clearly shown that methenamine hippurate is not inferior to current standard care (daily low-dose antibiotics) in preventing recurrent urinary tract infections in women. The results suggest that antimicrobial resistance is proportionally higher in women taking prophylactic antibiotics. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH Future research should include evaluation of other non-antibiotic preventative treatments in well-defined homogeneous patient groups, preferably with the comparator of daily antibiotics. TRIAL REGISTRATION This trial is registered as ISRCTN70219762 and EudraCT 2015-003487-36. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background Mitochondrial disease is a heterogenous group of rare, complex neurometabolic disorders. Despite their individual rarity, collectively mitochondrial diseases represent the most common cause of inherited metabolic disorders in the UK; they affect 1 in every 4300 individuals, up to 15,000 adults (and a similar number of children) in the UK. Mitochondrial disease manifests multisystem and isolated organ involvement, commonly affecting those tissues with high energy demands, such as skeletal muscle. Myopathy manifesting as fatigue, muscle weakness and exercise intolerance is common and debilitating in patients with mitochondrial disease. Currently, there are no effective licensed treatments and consequently, there is an urgent clinical need to find an effective drug therapy. Aim To investigate the efficacy of 12-week treatment with acipimox on the adenosine triphosphate (ATP) content of skeletal muscle in patients with mitochondrial disease and myopathy. Methods AIMM is a single-centre, double blind, placebo-controlled, adaptive designed trial, evaluating the efficacy of 12 weeks’ administration of acipimox on skeletal muscle ATP content in patients with mitochondrial myopathy. Eligible patients will receive the trial investigational medicinal product (IMP), either acipimox or matched placebo. Participants will also be prescribed low dose aspirin as a non-investigational medical product (nIMP) in order to protect the blinding of the treatment assignment. Eighty to 120 participants will be recruited as required, with an interim analysis for sample size re-estimation and futility assessment being undertaken once the primary outcome for 50 participants has been obtained. Randomisation will be on a 1:1 basis, stratified by Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS) (dichotomised as < 40, ≥ 40). Participants will take part in the trial for up to 20 weeks, from screening visits through to follow-up at 16 weeks post randomisation. The primary outcome of change in ATP content in skeletal muscle and secondary outcomes relating to quality of life, perceived fatigue, disease burden, limb function, balance and walking, skeletal muscle analysis and symptom-limited cardiopulmonary fitness (optional) will be assessed between baseline and 12 weeks. Discussion The AIMM trial will investigate the effect of acipimox on modulating muscle ATP content and whether it can be repurposed as a new treatment for mitochondrial disease with myopathy. Trial registration EudraCT2018-002721-29 . Registered on 24 December 2018, ISRCTN 12895613. Registered on 03 January 2019, https://www.isrctn.com/search?q=aimm

Background: Systematic review of previous randomised controlled trials concluded that the non-antibiotic option of methenamine hippurate may be effective for urinary tract infection (UTI) prevention but outlined the need for further large, well-conducted randomised trials. We aimed to satisfy this requirement by testing its efficacy, compared to the current standard prophylactic treatment of daily low-dose antibiotics. Methods: This randomised, non-inferiority trial recruited from eight UK centres. Women with recurrent UTI, requiring prophylactic treatment, were randomly assigned (1:1), (using permuted blocks of variable length via a web-based system), to receive antibiotic prophylaxis or methenamine hippurate for 12-months. Treatment allocation was not masked and crossover between arms was permitted. The primary outcome was the absolute difference in symptomatic, antibiotic-treated UTI incidence during treatment. The non-inferiority margin was one UTI episode per person-year. Analyses performed in a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population comprised all participants observed for at least six months. Trial registration was via ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN70219762. Findings: Between June 23, 2016 and June 20, 2018, 240 participants were randomised to antibiotic prophylaxis (n=120) or methenamine hippurate (n=120). The mITT analysis comprised 205 (85%) participants [102 (85%) antibiotics, 103 (86%) methenamine hippurate]. The incidence of antibiotic-treated UTI during the 12-month treatment period was 0·89 episodes per person-year (95% CI 0·65-1·12) in the antibiotic group and 1·38 (1·05-1·72) in the methenamine hippurate group with an absolute difference of 0·49 (90% CI 0·15-0·84) confirming non-inferiority. Adverse reactions were reported by 34/142 (24%) and 35/127 (28%) participants receiving antibiotics and methenamine hippurate respectively and the majority were mild. Interpretation: Non-antibiotic prophylactic treatment using methenamine hippurate should now be considered as a first-line option in women with a history of recurrent UTI episodes, given the robust demonstration of non-inferiority to daily antibiotic prophylaxis seen in this trial. Clinical Trial Registration Details: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN70219762. Funding Information: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme. Declaration of Interests: CH, HM, TH,TC , WK, JL, AAb, LV, RF, KW and AAl report grants from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme pertaining to the reported study. All other authors have nothing to declare. Ethics Approval Statement: The study protocol was approved by North East Tyne and Wear South Research Ethics Committee (15/NE/0381) and has been published. All participants provided written informed consent.

Background Septoplasty (surgery to straighten a deviation in the nasal septum) is a frequently performed operation worldwide, with approximately 250,000 performed annually in the US and 22,000 in the UK. Most septoplasties aim to improve diurnal and nocturnal nasal obstruction. The evidence base for septoplasty clinical effectiveness is hitherto very limited. Aims To establish, and inform guidance for, the best management strategy for individuals with nasal obstruction associated with a deviated septum. Methods/design A multicentre, mixed-methods, open label, randomised controlled trial of septoplasty versus medical management for adults with a deviated septum and a reduced nasal airway. Eligible patients will have septal deflection visible at nasendoscopy and a nasal symptom score ≥ 30 on the NOSE questionnaire. Surgical treatment comprises septoplasty with or without reduction of the inferior nasal turbinate on the anatomically wider side of the nose. Medical management comprises a nasal saline spray followed by a fluorinated steroid spray daily for six months. The recruitment target is 378 patients, recruited from up to 17 sites across Scotland, England and Wales. Randomisation will be on a 1:1 basis, stratified by gender and severity (NOSE score). Participants will be followed up for 12 months post randomisation. The primary outcome measure is the total SNOT-22 score at 6 months. Clinical and economic outcomes will be modelled against baseline severity (NOSE scale) to inform clinical decision-making. The study includes a recruitment enhancement process, and an economic evaluation. Discussion The NAIROS trial will evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of septoplasty versus medical management for adults with a deviated septum and symptoms of nasal blockage. Identifying those individuals most likely to benefit from surgery should enable more efficient and effective clinical decision-making, and avoid unnecessary operations where there is low likelihood of patient benefit. Trial registration EudraCT: 2017–000893-12, ISRCTN: 16168569 . Registered on 24 March 2017.

OBJECTIVES:The FiCTION trial compared co-primary outcomes (dental pain and/or infection) and secondary outcomes (child oral health-related quality of life [COHRQOL], child dental anxiety, cost-effectiveness, caries development/progression and acceptability) across three treatment strategies (Conventional with Prevention [C + P]; Biological with Prevention [B + P]; Prevention Alone [PA]) for managing caries in children in primary care. COHRQOL and child dental anxiety experiences are reported upon here. METHODS:A multi-centre, 3-arm, parallel-group, unblinded patient-randomized controlled trial of 3- to 7-year-olds treated under NHS contracts was conducted in 72 general dental practices in England, Wales and Scotland. Child participants (with at least one primary molar with dentinal caries) were randomized (1:1:1) to one of three treatment arms with the intention of being managed according to allocated arm for 3 years (minimum 23 months). Randomization was via a centrally administered system using random permuted blocks of variable length. At baseline and final visit, accompanying parents/caregivers completed a parental questionnaire including COHRQOL (16 item P-CPQ-16), and at every visit, child- and parental-questionnaire-based data were collected for child-based dental trait and state anxiety. Statistical analyses were conducted on complete cases from the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis set. RESULTS:A total of 1144 children were randomized (C + P: 386; B + P: 381; PA: 377). The mITT analysis set included the 1058 children who attended at least one study visit (C + P: 352; B + P: 352; PA: 354). Median follow-up was 33.8 months (IQR: 23.8, 36.7). The P-CPQ-16 overall score could be calculated after simple imputation at both baseline and final visit for 560 children (C + P: 189; B + P: 189; PA: 182). There was no evidence of a difference in the estimated adjusted mean P-CPQ-16 at the final visit which was, on average, 0.3 points higher (97.5% CI: -1.1 to 1.6) in B + P than C + P and 0.2 points higher, on average, (97.5% CI: -1.2 to 1.5) in PA than for C + P. Child dental trait anxiety and child dental state anxiety, measured at every treatment visit, showed no evidence of any statistically or clinically significant difference between arms in adjusted mean scores averaged over all follow-up visits. CONCLUSIONS:The differences noted in COHRQOL and child-based dental trait and dental state anxiety measures across three treatment strategies for managing dental caries in primary teeth were small, and not considered to be clinically meaningful. The findings highlight the importance of including all three strategies in a clinician's armamentarium, to manage childhood caries throughout the young child's life and achieve positive experiences of dental care.

BACKGROUND:Historically, lack of evidence for effective management of decay in primary teeth has caused uncertainty, but there is emerging evidence to support alternative strategies to conventional fillings, which are minimally invasive and prevention orientated. OBJECTIVES:The objectives were (1) to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three strategies for managing caries in primary teeth and (2) to assess quality of life, dental anxiety, the acceptability and experiences of children, parents and dental professionals, and caries development and/or progression. DESIGN:This was a multicentre, three-arm parallel-group, participant-randomised controlled trial. Allocation concealment was achieved by use of a centralised web-based randomisation facility hosted by Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit. SETTING:This trial was set in primary dental care in Scotland, England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS:Participants were NHS patients aged 3-7 years who were at a high risk of tooth decay and had at least one primary molar tooth with decay into dentine, but no pain/sepsis. INTERVENTIONS:Three interventions were employed: (1) conventional with best-practice prevention (local anaesthetic, carious tissue removal, filling placement), (2) biological with best-practice prevention (sealing-in decay, selective carious tissue removal and fissure sealants) and (3) best-practice prevention alone (dietary and toothbrushing advice, topical fluoride and fissure sealing of permanent teeth). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The clinical effectiveness outcomes were the proportion of children with at least one episode (incidence) and the number of episodes, for each child, of dental pain or dental sepsis or both over the follow-up period. The cost-effectiveness outcomes were the cost per incidence of, and cost per episode of, dental pain and/or dental sepsis avoided over the follow-up period. RESULTS:A total of 72 dental practices were recruited and 1144 participants were randomised (conventional arm, n = 386; biological arm, n = 381; prevention alone arm, n = 377). Of these, 1058 were included in an intention-to-treat analysis (conventional arm, n = 352; biological arm, n = 352; prevention alone arm, n = 354). The median follow-up time was 33.8 months (interquartile range 23.8-36.7 months). The proportion of children with at least one episode of pain or sepsis or both was 42% (conventional arm), 40% (biological arm) and 45% (prevention alone arm). There was no evidence of a difference in incidence or episodes of pain/sepsis between arms. When comparing the biological arm with the conventional arm, the risk difference was -0.02 (97.5% confidence interval -0.10 to 0.06), which indicates, on average, a 2% reduced risk of dental pain and/or dental sepsis in the biological arm compared with the conventional arm. Comparing the prevention alone arm with the conventional arm, the risk difference was 0.04 (97.5% confidence interval -0.04 to 0.12), which indicates, on average, a 4% increased risk of dental pain and/or dental sepsis in the prevention alone arm compared with the conventional arm. Compared with the conventional arm, there was no evidence of a difference in episodes of pain/sepsis among children in the biological arm (incident rate ratio 0.95, 97.5% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.21, which indicates that there were slightly fewer episodes, on average, in the biological arm than the conventional arm) or in the prevention alone arm (incident rate ratio 1.18, 97.5% confidence interval 0.94 to 1.48, which indicates that there were slightly more episodes in the prevention alone arm than the conventional arm). Over the willingness-to-pay values considered, the probability of the biological treatment approach being considered cost-effective was approximately no higher than 60% to avoid an incidence of dental pain and/or dental sepsis and no higher than 70% to avoid an episode of pain/sepsis. CONCLUSIONS:There was no evidence of an overall difference between the three treatment approaches for experience of, or number of episodes of, dental pain or dental sepsis or both over the follow-up period. FUTURE WORK:Recommendations for future work include exploring barriers to the use of conventional techniques for carious lesion detection and diagnosis (e.g. radiographs) and developing and evaluating suitable techniques and strategies for use in young children in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN77044005. 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. 24, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.