Cost-effectiveness of methenamine hippurate compared with antibiotic prophylaxis for the management of recurrent urinary tract infections in secondary care: a multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

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.

Dual bronchodilators in Bronchiectasis study (DIBS): protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre, placebo-controlled, three-arm, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial studying bronchodilators in preventing exacerbations of bronchiectasis.

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.

Acipimox in Mitochondrial Myopathy (AIMM): study protocol for a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, adaptive design trial of the efficacy of acipimox in adult patients with mitochondrial myopathy.

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.

Methenamine hippurate compared with antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent recurrent urinary tract infections in women: the ALTAR non-inferiority RCT.

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.

Women with recurrent urine infections often require preventative treatment to reduce the frequency of infection episodes. Daily low-dose antibiotic medication is a guideline-recommended treatment option for these women. There is increasing concern globally regarding antibiotic-resistant infections, which has led researchers to look at alternative treatments. This trial was conducted to find out whether or not taking an alternative treatment that is not an antibiotic [i.e. methenamine hippurate (Hiprex^®; Mylan NV, Canonsburg, PA, USA)] was as effective as the standard daily low-dose antibiotics. A total of 240 women from across the UK took part in the trial. They were divided equally into two groups; half of the women were given methenamine hippurate and the other half were given standard low-dose antibiotics. Both treatments were prescribed to be taken every day for 1 year. To make a fair comparison, people were put into the two groups at random using a computer program. Aspects of the trial that could be improved were identified through telephone interviews with patients and recruiting staff. Feedback from these telephone interviews helped to ensure the successful conduct of the trial. Patients were followed up for 18 months, comprising the 12 months when they were taking treatment and a 6-month follow-up phase after they had finished treatment. We found that the non-antibiotic option of methenamine hippurate was no worse than the current standard treatment of daily antibiotics in preventing urinary tract infection episodes in adult women. For both treatments, patients expressed high levels of satisfaction. One advantage of the methenamine hippurate treatment was that infecting bacteria were slightly less likely to develop resistance to antibiotics. We also evaluated health-care costs of both treatments and found that methenamine hippurate seemed worthwhile to the NHS in the short term, but there was uncertainty over longer-term costs and benefits. These results will help patients with repeated urinary tract infections to decide on treatment options, particularly if they want to avoid prolonged courses of preventative antibiotics.

Alternative to prophylactic antibiotics for the treatment of recurrent urinary tract infections in women: multicentre, open label, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

OBJECTIVE: To test and compare the efficacy of methenamine hippurate for prevention of recurrent urinary tract infections with the current standard prophylaxis of daily low dose antibiotics. 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: Random assignment (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 allowed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Absolute difference in incidence of symptomatic, antibiotic treated, urinary tract infections during treatment. A patient and public involvement group predefined the non-inferiority margin as one episode of urinary tract infection per person year. Analyses performed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprised all participants observed for at least six months. RESULTS: Participants were randomly assigned to antibiotic prophylaxis (n=120) or methenamine hippurate (n=120). The modified intention-to-treat analysis comprised 205 (85%) participants (antibiotics, n=102 (85%); methenamine hippurate, n=103 (86%)). Incidence of antibiotic treated urinary tract infections during the 12 month treatment period was 0.89 episodes per person year (95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.12) in the antibiotics group and 1.38 (1.05 to 1.72) in the methenamine hippurate group, with an absolute difference of 0.49 (90% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.84) confirming non-inferiority. Adverse reactions were reported by 34/142 (24%) in the antibiotic group and 35/127 (28%) in the methenamine group and most reactions were mild. CONCLUSION: Non-antibiotic prophylactic treatment with methenamine hippurate might be appropriate for women with a history of recurrent episodes of urinary tract infections, informed by patient preferences and antibiotic stewardship initiatives, given the demonstration of non-inferiority to daily antibiotic prophylaxis seen in this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN70219762.

The FiCTION trial: Child oral health-related quality of life and dental anxiety across three treatment strategies for managing caries in young children.

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.

Nasal Airway Obstruction Study (NAIROS): a phase III, open-label, mixed-methods, multicentre randomised controlled trial of septoplasty versus medical management of a septal deviation with nasal obstruction.

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.

Best-practice prevention alone or with conventional or biological caries management for 3- to 7-year-olds: the FiCTION three-arm RCT.

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.

WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?: Tooth decay is common; it can lead to pain, days off school for children and days off work for parents and is a financial burden to the NHS. There is uncertainty about the best way of managing decay in young children. This trial aimed to find out whether or not there was a difference in the amount of pain and/or infection suffered by children having their decay treated with one of the following: fillings, having decay sealed in or using preventative treatment alone. Which method represented the best value was also explored. WHAT DID WE DO?: For young children with decay, the Filling Children's Teeth: Indicated Or Not? (FiCTION) trial compared the difference between fillings, sealing in the decay and using preventative treatment alone over 3 years in NHS dental practices in Scotland, England and Wales. We recruited 1144 children aged 3­7 years with one or more holes in their baby back teeth (molars), but without pain/infection, and placed them at random into one of three groups: (1) tooth numbing, removing decay and filling(s) with preventative treatment; (2) sealing in decay with fillings or caps and preventative treatment but no numbing; or (3) preventative treatment alone. WHAT DID WE FIND?: Recruitment was challenging but was achieved. There was no evidence of a difference in children's experience of pain or infection, quality of life or dental anxiety between groups. All three ways of treating decay were acceptable to children, parents and dental professionals. Sealing in with preventative treatment was most likely to be considered the best way of managing children's decay if we are willing to pay a minimum of £130 to avoid an episode of pain or infection. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?: As there was no evidence of a difference between the three treatment groups in pain/infection experienced, treatment choice should continue to be based on shared decision-making between the child, parent and clinician to agree the best option for the individual child.

ALternatives To prophylactic Antibiotics for the treatment of Recurrent urinary tract infection in women (ALTAR): study protocol for a multicentre, pragmatic, patient-randomised, non-inferiority trial.

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.