Monofilament suture versus braided suture thread to improve pregnancy outcomes after vaginal cervical cerclage (C-STICH): a pragmatic randomised, controlled, phase 3, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Miscarriage in the second trimester and preterm birth are significant global problems. Vaginal cervical cerclage is performed to prevent pregnancy loss and preterm birth. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of a monofilament suture thread compared with braided suture thread on pregnancy loss rates in women undergoing a cervical cerclage. METHODS: C-STICH was a pragmatic, randomised, controlled, superiority trial done at 75 obstetric units in the UK. Women with a singleton pregnancy who received a vaginal cervical cerclage due to a history of pregnancy loss or premature birth, or if indicated by ultrasound, were centrally randomised (1:1) using minimisation to receive a monofilament suture or braided suture thread for their cervical cerclage. Women and outcome assessors were masked to allocation as far as possible. The primary outcome was pregnancy loss, defined as miscarriage, stillbirth, or neonatal death in the first week of life, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all women who were randomly assigned). Safety was also assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial was registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN15373349. FINDINGS: Between Aug 21, 2015, and Jan 28, 2021, 2049 women were randomly assigned to receive a monofilament suture (n=1025) or braided suture (n=1024). The primary outcome was ascertained in 1003 women in the monofilament suture group and 993 women in the braided suture group. Pregnancy loss occurred in 80 (8·0%) of 1003 women in the monofilament suture group and 75 (7·6%) of 993 women in the braided suture group (adjusted risk ratio 1·05 [95% CI 0·79 to 1·40]; adjusted risk difference 0·002 [95% CI -0·02 to 0·03]). INTERPRETATION: Monofilament suture did not reduce rate of pregnancy loss when compared with a braided suture. Clinicians should use the results of this trial to facilitate discussions around the choice of suture thread to optimise outcomes. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

C-STICH: Cerclage Suture Type for an Insufficient Cervix and its effect on Health outcomes-a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is associated with significant mortality and morbidity for mothers and babies. Women are identified as high risk for preterm birth based on either previous medical/pregnancy history or on ultrasound assessment of the cervix. Women identified as high risk can be offered a cervical cerclage (a purse string stitch) around the cervix (neck of the womb) to reduce the risk of preterm birth. In women who have a cervical cerclage, the procedure can be performed using either a monofilament (single-stranded) or braided (woven) suture material. Both suture materials are routinely used for cervical cerclage and there is uncertainty as to which is superior. METHODS: A multicentre, open, randomised controlled superiority trial of 2050 women presenting at obstetric units, deemed to be at risk of preterm birth and already scheduled to have a cervical cerclage as part of their standard care. Inclusion criteria include singleton pregnancies and an indication for cervical cerclage for either a history of three or more previous mid-trimester losses or premature births (≤ 28 weeks), insertion of cervical sutures in previous pregnancies, a history of mid trimester loss or premature birth with a (current) shortened (≤ 25 mm) cervix, or women whom clinicians deem to be at risk of preterm birth either by history or the results of an ultrasound scan. Exclusion criteria include women who have taken part in C-STICH previously, are aged less than 18 years old at the time of presentation, require a rescue cerclage, and are unwilling or unable to give informed consent and in whom a cerclage will be placed by any route other than vaginally (e.g. via an abdominal route). Following informed consent, women are randomised on a 1:1 basis to either monofilament or braided suture, by minimisation. The primary outcome is pregnancy loss (miscarriage and perinatal mortality, including any stillbirth or neonatal death in the first week of life), and secondary outcomes include the core outcome set for preterm birth trials. DISCUSSION: Optimising established interventions to prevent preterm birth is important in reducing perinatal mortality rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 15373349 . Registered before recruitment on 03 December 2014 prior to first recruit.

The PD COMM trial: a protocol for the process evaluation of a randomised trial assessing the effectiveness of two types of SLT for people with Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: The PD COMM trial is a phase III multi-centre randomised controlled trial whose aim is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two approaches to speech and language therapy (SLT) compared with no SLT intervention (control) for people with Parkinson's disease who have self-reported or carer-reported problems with their speech or voice. Our protocol describes the process evaluation embedded within the outcome evaluation whose aim is to evaluate what happened at the time of the PD COMM intervention implementation and to provide findings that will assist in the interpretation of the PD COMM trial results. Furthermore, the aim of the PD COMM process evaluation is to investigate intervention complexity within a theoretical model of how the trialled interventions might work best and why. METHODS/DESIGN: Drawing from the Normalization Process Theory and frameworks for implementation fidelity, a mixed method design will be used to address process evaluation research questions. Therapists' and participants' perceptions and experiences will be investigated via in-depth interviews. Critical incident reports, baseline survey data from therapists, treatment record forms and home practice diaries also will be collected at relevant time points throughout the running of the PD COMM trial. Process evaluation data will be analysed independently of the outcome evaluation before the two sets of data are then combined. DISCUSSION: To date, there are a limited number of published process evaluation protocols, and few are linked to trials investigating rehabilitation therapies. Providing a strong theoretical framework underpinning design choices and being tailored to meet the complex characteristics of the trialled interventions, our process evaluation has the potential to provide valuable insight into which components of the interventions being delivered in PD COMM worked best (and what did not), how they worked well and why. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN12421382 . Registered on 18 April 2016.