Background Return of gastrointestinal (GI) function is fundamental to patient recovery after colorectal surgery and is required before patients can be discharged from hospital safely. Up to 40% of patients suffer delayed return of GI function after colorectal surgery, causing nausea, vomiting and abdominal discomfort, resulting in longer hospital stay. Small, randomised studies have suggested perioperative intravenous (IV) lidocaine, which has analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects, may accelerate return of GI function after colorectal surgery. The ALLEGRO trial is a pragmatic effectiveness study to assess the benefit of perioperative IV lidocaine in improving return of GI function after elective minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) colorectal surgery. Methods United Kingdom (UK) multi-centre double blind placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial in 562 patients undergoing elective minimally invasive colorectal resection. IV lidocaine or placebo will be infused for 6–12 h commencing at the start of surgery as an adjunct to usual analgesic/anaesthetic technique. The primary outcome will be return of GI function. Discussion A 6–12-h perioperative intravenous infusion of 2% lidocaine is a cheap addition to usual anaesthetic/analgesic practice in elective colorectal surgery with a low incidence of adverse side-effects. If successful in achieving quicker return of gut function for more patients, it would reduce the rate of postoperative ileus and reduce the duration of inpatient recovery, resulting in reduced pain and discomfort with faster recovery and discharge from hospital. Since colorectal surgery is a common procedure undertaken in every acute hospital in the UK, a reduced length of stay and reduced rate of postoperative ileus would accrue significant cost savings for the National Health Service (NHS). Trial registration EudraCT Number 2017-003835-12; REC Number 17/WS/0210 the trial was prospectively registered (ISRCTN Number: ISRCTN52352431 ); date of registration 13 June 2018; date of enrolment of first participant 14 August 2018.

Background Urinary stone disease affects 2–3% of the general population. Ureteric stones are associated with severe pain and can have a significant impact on a patient’s quality of life. Most ureteric stones are expected to pass spontaneously with supportive care; however, between one-fifth and one-third of patients require an active intervention. The two standard interventions are shockwave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic stone treatment. Both treatments are effective, but they differ in terms of invasiveness, anaesthetic requirement, treatment setting, number of procedures, complications, patient-reported outcomes and cost. There is uncertainty around which is the more clinically effective and cost-effective treatment. Objectives To determine if shockwave lithotripsy is clinically effective and cost-effective compared with ureteroscopic stone treatment in adults with ureteric stones who are judged to require active intervention. Design A pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial of shockwave lithotripsy as a first-line treatment option compared with primary ureteroscopic stone treatment for ureteric stones. Setting Urology departments in 25 NHS hospitals in the UK. Participants Adults aged ≥ 16 years presenting with a single ureteric stone in any segment of the ureter, confirmed by computerised tomography, who were able to undergo either shockwave lithotripsy or ureteroscopic stone treatment and to complete trial procedures. Intervention Eligible participants were randomised 1 : 1 to shockwave lithotripsy (up to two sessions) or ureteroscopic stone treatment. Main outcome measures The primary clinical outcome measure was resolution of the stone episode (stone clearance), which was operationally defined as ‘no further intervention required to facilitate stone clearance’ up to 6 months from randomisation. This was determined from 8-week and 6-month case report forms and any additional hospital visit case report form that was completed by research staff. The primary economic outcome measure was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 6 months from randomisation. We estimated costs from NHS resources and calculated quality-adjusted life-years from participant completion of the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version, at baseline, pre intervention, 1 week post intervention and 8 weeks and 6 months post randomisation. Results In the shockwave lithotripsy arm, 67 out of 302 (22.2%) participants needed further treatment. In the ureteroscopic stone treatment arm, 31 out of 302 (10.3%) participants needed further treatment. The absolute risk difference was 11.4% (95% confidence interval 5.0% to 17.8%); the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval ruled out the prespecified margin of non-inferiority (which was 20%). The mean quality-adjusted life-year difference (shockwave lithotripsy vs. ureteroscopic stone treatment) was –0.021 (95% confidence interval 0.033 to –0.010) and the mean cost difference was –£809 (95% confidence interval –£1061 to –£551). The probability that shockwave lithotripsy is cost-effective is 79% at a threshold of society’s willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year of £30,000. The CEAC is derived from the joint distribution of incremental costs and incremental effects. Most of the results fall in the south-west quadrant of the cost effectiveness plane as SWL always costs less but is less effective. Limitations A limitation of the trial was low return and completion rates of patient questionnaires. The study was initially powered for 500 patients in each arm; however, the total number of patients recruited was only 307 and 306 patients in the ureteroscopic stone treatment and shockwave lithotripsy arms, respectively. Conclusions Patients receiving shockwave lithotripsy needed more further interventions than those receiving primary ureteroscopic retrieval, although the overall costs for those receiving the shockwave treatment were lower. The absolute risk difference between the two clinical pathways (11.4%) was lower than expected and at a level that is acceptable to clinicians and patients. The shockwave lithotripsy pathway is more cost-effective in an NHS setting, but results in lower quality of life. Future work (1) The generic health-related quality-of-life tools used in this study do not fully capture the impact of the various treatment pathways on patients. A condition-specific health-related quality-of-life tool should be developed. (2) Reporting of ureteric stone trials would benefit from agreement on a core outcome set that would ensure that future trials are easier to compare. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN92289221. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 26, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

ObjectivesTo 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 MethodsData 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThe 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.

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. (C) 2021 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Abstract Introduction Renal stones are common, with a lifetime prevalence of 10% in adults. Global incidence is increasing due to increases in obesity and diabetes, with these patient populations being more likely to suffer renal stone disease. Flank pain from stones (renal colic) is the most common cause of emergency admission to UK urology departments. Stones most commonly develop in the lower pole of the kidney (in ~35% of cases) and here are least likely to pass without intervention. Currently there are three technologies available within the UK National Health Service to remove lower pole kidney stones: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and flexible ureterorenoscopy (FURS) with laser lithotripsy. Current evidence indicates there is uncertainty regarding the management of lower pole stones, and each treatment has advantages and disadvantages. The aim of this trial is to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of FURS compared with ESWL or PCNL in the treatment of lower pole kidney stones. Methods The PUrE (PCNL, FURS and ESWL for lower pole kidney stones) trial is a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating FURS versus ESWL or PCNL for lower pole kidney stones. Patients aged ≥16 years with a stone(s) in the lower pole of either kidney confirmed by non-contrast computed tomography of the kidney, ureter and bladder (CTKUB) and requiring treatment for a stone ≤10 mm will be randomised to receive FURS or ESWL (RCT1), and those requiring treatment for a stone >10 mm to ≤25 mm will be randomised to receive FURS or PCNL (RCT2). Participants will undergo follow-up by questionnaires every week up to 12 weeks post-intervention and at 12 months post-randomisation. The primary clinical outcome is health status measured by the area under the curve calculated from multiple measurements of the EuroQol five dimensions five-level version (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire up to 12 weeks post-intervention. The primary economic outcome is the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained at 12 months post-randomisation. Discussion The PUrE trial aims to provide robust evidence on health status, quality of life, clinical outcomes and resource use to directly inform choice and National Health Service provision of the three treatment options. Trial registration ISRCTN: ISRCTN98970319 . Registered on 11 November 2015.

Background Multicentre randomised trials provide some of the key evidence underpinning healthcare practice around the world. They are also hard work and generally expensive. Some of this work and expense are devoted to sites that fail to recruit as many participants as expected. Methods to identify sites that will recruit to target would be helpful. Methods We asked trial managers at the Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials (CHaRT), University of Aberdeen to predict whether a site would recruit to target. Predictions were made after a site initiation visit and were collected on a form comprising a simple ‘Yes/No’ prediction and a reason for the prediction. We did not provide guidance as to what trial managers might want to think about when making predictions. After a minimum of eight months of recruitment at each site for which a prediction had been made, all trial mangers in CHaRT were invited to a group discussion where predictions were presented together with sites’ actual recruitment performance over that period. Individual trial managers reflected on their predictions and there was a general discussion about predicting site recruitment. The prediction reasons from the forms and the content of the group discussion were used to identify features linked to correct predictions of recruitment failure. Results Ten trial managers made predictions for 56 site visits recruiting to eight trials. Trial managers’ sensitivity was 82% and their specificity was 32%, correctly identifying 65% of sites that would hit their recruitment target and 54% of those that did not. Eight ‘red flags’ for recruitment failure were identified: previous poor site performance; slow approvals process; strong staff/patient preferences; the site recruitment target; the trial protocol and its implementation at the site; lack of staff engagement; lack of research experience among site staff; and busy site staff. We used these red flags to develop a guided prediction form. Conclusions Trial managers’ unguided recruitment predictions were not bad but were not good enough for decision-making. We have developed a modified prediction form that includes eight flags to consider before making a prediction. We encourage anyone interested in contributing to its evaluation to contact us.

IntroductionOral emergency contraception (EC) can prevent unintended pregnancy but it is important to start a regular method of contraception. Women in the UK usually access EC from a pharmacy but then need a subsequent appointment with a general practitioner or a sexual and reproductive health (SRH) service to access regular contraception. Unintended pregnancies can occur during this time.Methods and analysisBridge-It is a pragmatic cluster randomised cohort cross-over trial designed to determine whether pharmacist provision of a bridging supply of a progestogen-only pill (POP) plus rapid access to a local SRH clinic, results in increased uptake of effective contraception and prevents more unintended pregnancies than provision of EC alone. Bridge-It involves 31 pharmacies in three UK regions (London, Lothian and Tayside) aiming to recruit 626–737 women. Pharmacies will give EC (levonorgestrel) according to normal practice and recruit women to both intervention and the control phases of the study. In the intervention phase, pharmacists will provide the POP (desogestrel) and offer rapid access to an SRH clinic. In the control phase, pharmacists will advise women to attend a contraceptive provider for contraception (standard care).Women will be asked 4 months later about contraceptive use. Data linkage to abortion registries will provide abortion rates over 12 months. The sample size is calculated on the primary outcome of effective contraception use at 4 months (yes/no) with 90% power and a 5% level of significance. Abortion rates will be an exploratory secondary analysis. Process evaluation includes interviews with pharmacists, SRH clinicians and women. Cost-effectiveness analysis will use a healthcare system perspective and be expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was received from South East Scotland REC June 2017. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.Trial registration numberISRCTN70616901.

Urinary stone disease is very common with an estimated prevalence among the general population of 2–3%. Ureteric stones are associated with severe pain as they pass through the urinary tract and have significant impact on patients’ quality of life due to the detrimental effect on their ability to work and need for hospitalisation. Most ureteric stones can be expected to pass spontaneously with supportive care. However, between one-fifth and one-third of cases require an intervention.

Background Meta-analyses of previous randomised controlled trials concluded that the smooth muscle relaxant drugs tamsulosin and nifedipine assisted stone passage for people managed expectantly for ureteric colic, but emphasised the need for high-quality trials with wide inclusion criteria. We aimed to fulfil this need by testing effectiveness of these drugs in a standard clinical care setting.Methods For this multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, we recruited adults (aged 18-65 years) undergoing expectant management for a single ureteric stone identified by CT at 24 UK hospitals. Participants were randomly assigned by a remote randomisation system to tamsulosin 400 mu g, nifedipine 30 mg, or placebo taken daily for up to 4 weeks, using an algorithm with centre, stone size (<= 5 mm or >5 mm), and stone location (upper, mid, or lower ureter) as minimisation covariates. Participants, clinicians, and trial personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who did not need further intervention for stone clearance within 4 weeks of randomisation, analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population defined as all eligible patients for whom we had primary outcome data. This trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT number 2010-019469-26, and as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 69423238.Findings Between Jan 11, 2011, and Dec 20, 2013, we randomly assigned 1167 participants, 1136 (97%) of whom were included in the primary analysis (17 were excluded because of ineligibility and 14 participants were lost to follow-up). 303 (80%) of 379 participants in the placebo group did not need further intervention by 4 weeks, compared with 307 (81%) of 378 in the tamsulosin group (adjusted risk difference 1.3% [95% CI-5.7 to 8.3]; p=0.73) and 304 (80%) of 379 in the nifedipine group (0.5% [-5.6 to 6.5]; p=0.88). No difference was noted between active treatment and placebo (p=0.78), or between tamsulosin and nifedipine (p=0.77). Serious adverse events were reported in three participants in the nifedipine group (one had right loin pain, diarrhoea, and vomiting; one had malaise, headache, and chest pain; and one had severe chest pain, difficulty breathing, and left arm pain) and in one participant in the placebo group (headache, dizziness, lightheadedness, and chronic abdominal pain).Interpretation Tamsulosin 400 mu g and nifedipine 30 mg are not effective at decreasing the need for further treatment to achieve stone clearance in 4 weeks for patients with expectantly managed ureteric colic. Copyright (C) Pickard et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY.

There are challenges to conducting randomised controlled trials: some are common across trial settings; others relate to the setting itself.We present some challenges for publically-funded trials recruiting within the acute NHS setting.We draw on experience from three such RCTs: SCARLESS (Single Port/Incision Laparoscopic Surgery versus standard laparoscopic surgery for appendicectomy); SUSPEND (alpha blockers, calcium channel blockers versus placebo for urinary stones) and NIAMI (intravenous sodium nitrite versus placebo in patients with acute heart attack).Across all three studies, patients presented out-of-hours.To facilitate out-of-hours recruitment, the wider clinical team identified eligible patients, provided study information, obtained consent and recorded data without the support of a research nurse.In some cases, they also delivered the intervention.Training the wider clinical teams to undertake these duties was resource-intensive, particularly because of junior staff rotation.Again, across studies, there were challenges in intervention delivery.In SCARLESS there was tension around randomising patients: a senior surgeon provided cover for the novel surgery, but junior surgeons were keen to develop their skills by undertaking standard surgery.In SUSPEND, recruitment was constrained to the opening hours of clinical trials pharmacies to dispense study medication.This particular challenge was addressed in NIAMI by the study team holding study medication, even for patients presenting in-hours.A further, and more unexpected challenge was in relation to engaging participants in follow-up.Retention to primary outcome was challenging; perhaps because patients have not had a "chronic" condition and have "moved-on" from the event that brought them into the 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.