Proper understanding of recurrent stress urinary incontinence treatment in women (PURSUIT): a randomised controlled trial of endoscopic and surgical treatment.

BACKGROUND: Women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) experience urine leakage with physical activity. Currently, the interventional treatments for SUI are surgical, or endoscopic bulking injection(s). However, these procedures are not always successful, and symptoms can persist or come back after treatment, categorised as recurrent SUI. There are longstanding symptoms and distress associated with a failed primary treatment, and currently, there is no consensus on how best to treat women with recurrent, or persistent, SUI. METHODS: A two-arm trial, set in at least 20 National Health Service (NHS) urology and urogynaecology referral units in the UK, randomising 250 adult women with recurrent or persistent SUI 1:1 to receive either an endoscopic intervention (endoscopic bulking injections) or a standard NHS surgical intervention, currently colposuspension, autologous fascial sling or artificial urinary sphincter. The aim of the trial is to determine whether surgical treatment is superior to endoscopic bulking injections in terms of symptom severity at 1 year after randomisation. This primary outcome will be measured using the patient-reported International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire - Urinary Incontinence - Short Form (ICIQ-UI-SF). Secondary outcomes include assessment of longer-term clinical impact, improvement of symptoms, safety, operative assessments, sexual function, cost-effectiveness and an evaluation of patients' and clinicians' views and experiences of the interventions. DISCUSSION: There is a lack of high-quality, randomised, scientific evidence for which treatment is best for women presenting with recurrent SUI. The PURSUIT study will benefit healthcare professionals and patients and provide robust evidence to guide further treatment and improve symptoms and quality of life for women with this condition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) registry ISRCTN12201059. Registered on 09 January 2020.

Female Urgency, Trial of Urodynamics as Routine Evaluation (FUTURE study): a superiority randomised clinical trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of invasive urodynamic investigations in management of women with refractory overactive bladder symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Overactive bladder (OAB) syndrome is a symptom complex affecting 12-14% of the UK adult female population. Symptoms include urinary urgency, with or without urgency incontinence, increased daytime urinary frequency and nocturia. OAB has a negative impact on women's social, physical, and psychological wellbeing. Initial treatment includes lifestyle modifications, bladder retraining, pelvic floor exercises and pharmacological therapy. However, these measures are unsuccessful in 25-40% of women (refractory OAB). Before considering invasive treatments, such as Botulinum toxin injection or sacral neuromodulation, most guidelines recommend urodynamics to confirm diagnosis of detrusor overactivity (DO). However, urodynamics may fail to show evidence of DO in up to 45% of cases, hence the need to evaluate its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. FUTURE (Female Urgency, Trial of Urodynamics as Routine Evaluation) aims to test the hypothesis that, in women with refractory OAB, urodynamics and comprehensive clinical assessment is associated with superior patient-reported outcomes following treatment and is more cost-effective, compared to comprehensive clinical assessment only. METHODS: FUTURE is a pragmatic, multi-centre, superiority randomised controlled trial. Women aged ≥ 18 years with refractory OAB or urgency predominant mixed urinary incontinence, and who have failed/not tolerated conservative and medical treatment, are considered for trial entry. We aim to recruit 1096 women from approximately 60 secondary/tertiary care hospitals across the UK. All consenting women will complete questionnaires at baseline, 3 months, 6 months and 15 months post-randomisation. The primary outcome is participant-reported success at 15 months post-randomisation measured using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement. The primary economic outcome is incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained at 15 months. The secondary outcomes include adverse events, impact on other urinary symptoms and health-related quality of life. Qualitative interviews with participants and clinicians and a health economic evaluation will also be conducted. The statistical analysis of the primary outcome will be by intention-to-treat. Results will be presented as estimates and 95% CIs. DISCUSSION: The FUTURE study will inform patients, clinicians and policy makers whether routine urodynamics improves treatment outcomes in women with refractory OAB and whether it is cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN63268739 . Registered on 14 September 2017.

Protocol for a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled, crossover trial of Melatonin for treatment of Nocturia in adults with Multiple Sclerosis (MeNiMS).

BACKGROUND: Nocturia (the symptom of needing to wake up to pass urine) is common in progressive Multiple Sclerosis (MS) patients. Moderate-to-severe nocturia affects quality of life, can exacerbate fatigue and may affect capacity to carry out daily activities. Melatonin is a natural hormone regulating circadian cycles, released by the pineal gland at night-time, and secretion is impaired in MS. Melatonin levels can be supplemented by administration in tablet form at bedtime. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of melatonin on mean number of nocturia episodes per night in MS patients. Secondary outcome measures will assess impact upon quality of life, urinated volumes, lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), cognition, sleep quality and sleep disturbance of partners. METHODS: A randomized, double blind, placebo controlled, crossover trial consisting of two, six week treatment phases (active drug melatonin 2 mg or placebo), with a 1 month wash-out period in between. The primary outcome (change in nocturia episodes per night) in this two arm, two treatment, two period crossover design, will be objectively measured using frequency volume charts (FVC) at baseline and following both treatment phases. Questionnaires will be used to assess quality of life, sleep quality, safety and urinary tract symptoms. Qualitative interviews of participants and partners will explore issues including quality of life, mechanisms of sleep disturbance and impact of nocturia on partners. DISCUSSION: This study will evaluate whether melatonin reduces the frequency of nocturia episodes in MS patients, and therefore whether 'Circadin' has the potential to reduce LUTS and fatigue, and improve cognition and overall quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: (EudraCT reference) 2012-00418321 registered: 25/01/13. ISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN38687869.

What are the best outcome measures when assessing treatments for LUTD?--achieving the most out of outcome evaluation: ICI-RS 2011.

A think tank was convened at the third ICI-RS meeting held in the UK, June 2011, to consider the best outcome measures when assessing treatments for lower urinary tract dysfunction (LUTD). Given the vast array of measures available a focus on questionnaires was decided upon, which continued to highlight a plethora of available tools. The decision was therefore taken to approach this topic from an alternative perspective and instead ask the audience of gathered experts in this field to consider, "What we need to ask as a minimum in order to capture the most fundamental parameters when evaluating new treatments for LUTD?" Discussions highlighted the need for inclusion of a global measure in all outcome evaluations in order to increase comparability between different treatment evaluations and different populations. More specific categories of evaluation identified were: treatment satisfaction, symptom quantification, health related quality of life and adverse events. Further optional components were identified for inclusion where relevant, such as health economic, goal setting and psychosocial evaluation. A "Minimum Outcome Set for Testing (MOST)" was therefore proposed by selecting a health outcome measure from each category while not being prescriptive about specific outcome measurement selection. The 'MOST' toolkit is therefore proposed to promote standardized evaluation in this field and represents a useful starting point for further consideration of this concept.