Editor's Choice - Bypass versus Angioplasty for Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL) Prospective Cohort Study and the Generalisability of the BASIL-2 Randomised Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE: The Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg-2 (BASIL-2) randomised controlled trial has shown that, for patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia (CLTI) who require an infrapopliteal (IP) revascularisation a vein bypass (VB) first revascularisation strategy led to a 35% increased risk of major amputation or death when compared with a best endovascular treatment (BET) first revascularisation strategy. The study aims are to place the BASIL-2 trial within the context of the CLTI patient population as a whole and to investigate the generalisability of the BASIL-2 outcome data.METHODS: This was an observational, single centre prospective cohort study. Between 24 June 2014 and 31 July 2018, the BASIL Prospective Cohort Study (PCS) was performed which used BASIL-2 trial case record forms to document the characteristics, initial and subsequent management, and outcomes of 471 consecutive CLTI patients admitted to an academic vascular centre. Ethical approval was obtained, and all patients provided fully informed written consent. Follow up data were censored on 14 December 2022.RESULTS: Of the 238 patients who required an infrainguinal revascularisation, 75 (32%) had either IP bypass (39 patients) or IP BET (36 patients) outside BASIL-2. Seventeen patients were initially randomised to BASIL-2. A further three patients who did not have an IP revascularisation as their initial management were later randomised in BASIL-2. Therefore, 95/471 (20%) of patients had IP revascularisation (16% outside, 4% inside BASIL-2). Differences in amputation free survival, overall survival, and limb salvage between IP bypass and IP BET performed outside BASIL-2 were not subject to hypothesis testing due to the small sample size. Reasons for non-randomisation into the trial were numerous, but often due to anatomical and technical considerations.CONCLUSION: CLTI patients who required an IP revascularisation procedure and were subsequently randomised into BASIL-2 accounted for a small subset of the CLTI population as a whole. For a wide range of patient, limb, anatomical and operational reasons, most patients in this cohort were deemed unsuitable for randomisation in BASIL-2. The results of BASIL-2 should be interpreted in this context.</p

Subsequent pregnancy outcomes among women with tubal ectopic pregnancy treated with methotrexate

An ectopic pregnancy occurs when an embryo implants outside of the uterus, usually in a fallopian tube. When detected early, treatment is often with a medication called methotrexate. When methotrexate does not work, surgery is required. A recent clinical trial of ectopic pregnancy treatment (called GEM3) found that adding a drug called gefitinib to methotrexate did not reduce the need for surgery. We have used data from the GEM3 trial, combined with data collected 12 months after the trial finished, to investigate post-methotrexate pregnancy outcomes. We found no difference in pregnancy rates, pregnancy loss rates and recurrent ectopic pregnancy rates between those treated medically only and those who subsequently also needed surgery. The surgical technique used also did not affect pregnancy rates. This research provides reassurance that women with ectopic pregnancies treated medically who need surgery have similar post-treatment pregnancy outcomes to those treated successfully medically

Early (Days 1–4) post-treatment serum hCG level changes predict single-dose methotrexate treatment success in tubal ectopic pregnancy

Acknowledgements S.C.M. was supported by the South-East Scotland Academic Foundation Programme. Medical Research Council (MRC) Centre grants to the Centre for Reproductive Health (CRH) (G1002033 and MR/N022556/1) are also gratefully acknowledged. Funding This project was supported by funding from the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research partnership (grant reference number 14/150/03).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

WILL (When to Induce Labour to Limit risk in pregnancy hypertension): a multicentre randomised controlled trial - adaptations to deliver a timing-of-birth trial during the COVID-19 international pandemic.

BACKGROUND: As a pragmatic randomised timing-of-birth trial, WILL adapted its trial procedures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These are reviewed here to inform post-pandemic trial methodology. METHODS: The trial (internal pilot) paused in March 2020, re-opened in July 2020, and is currently recruiting in 37 UK NHS consultant-led maternity units. We evaluated pandemic adaptations made to WILL processes and surveyed sites for their views of these changes (20 sites, videoconference). RESULTS: Despite 88% of sites favouring an electronic investigator site file (ISF), information technology requirements and clinical trial unit (CTU) operating procedures mandated the ongoing use of paper ISFs; site start-up delays resulted from restricted access to the CTU. Site initiation visits (SIVs) were conducted remotely; 50% of sites preferred remote SIVs and 44% felt that it was trial-dependent, while few preferred SIVs in-person as standard procedure. The Central team felt remote SIVs provided scheduling and attendance flexibility (for sites and trial staff), the option of recording discussions for missing or future staff, improved efficiency by having multiple sites attend, and time and cost savings; the negative impact on rapport-building and interaction was partially mitigated over time with more familiarity with technology and new ways-of-working. Two methods of remote consent were developed and used by 30/37 sites and for 54/156 recruits. Most (86%) sites using remote consenting felt it improved recruitment. For remote data monitoring (5 sites), advantages were primarily for the monitor (e.g. flexibility, no time constraints, reduced cost), and disadvantages primarily for the sites (e.g. document and access preparation, attendance at a follow-up meeting), but 81% of sites desired having the option of remote monitoring post-pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: COVID adaptations to WILL trial processes improved the flexibility of trial delivery, for Central and site staff, and participants. Flexibility to use these strategies should be retained post-pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN77258279. Registered on 05 December 2018

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Prophylactic antibiotics for uterine evacuation procedures to treat miscarriage

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: The objective of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of routine antibiotic prophylaxis to women undergoing uterine evacuation procedures to treat miscarriage.

WILL (when to induce labour to limit risk in pregnancy hypertension): protocol for a multicentre randomised trial

Objectives: to address optimal timing of birth for women with chronic or gestational hypertension who reach term and remain well. Study design: Pragmatic, non-masked randomised trial. Inclusion: maternal age ≥16 years, chronic or gestational hypertension, singleton pregnancy, live fetus, 36+0–37+6 weeks’ gestation, and able to give documented informed consent. Exclusion: contraindication to either trial arm (e.g., pre-eclampsia or another indication for birth at term), blood pressure (BP) ≥ 160/110 mmHg until controlled, major fetal anomaly anticipated to require neonatal care unit admission, or participation in another timing of birth trial. Randomisation (1:1 ratio, minimised for key prognostic variables: site, hypertension type, and prior Caesarean) to ‘planned early term birth at 38+0-3 weeks’ or ‘usual care at term’ (revised from ‘expectant care until at least 40+0 weeks’, Aug 2022).Outcomes: maternal co-primary: composite of ‘poor maternal outcome’ (severe hypertension, maternal death, or maternal morbidity). Neonatal co-primary: neonatal care unit admission for ≥4 h. Each co-primary is measured until primary hospital discharge or 28 days post-birth (whichever is earlier). Key secondary: Caesarean birth.Analysis: sample of 1080 participants (540/arm) will detect an 8% reduction in the maternal co-primary (90% power, superiority hypothesis), and give 94% power for a between-group non-inferiority margin of difference of 9% in the neonatal co-primary. Analysis will be by intention-to-treat. Ethics approval has been obtained (NHS Health Research Authority London Fulham Research Ethics Committee, 18/LO/2033). Conclusions: The study will provide data for women to make informed choices about their care and allow health systems to plan services.</p

A treatment strategy with nifedipine versus labetalol for women with pregnancy hypertension:study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (Giant PANDA)

BACKGROUND: Approximately one in ten women have high blood pressure during pregnancy. Hypertension is associated with adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes, and as treatment improves maternal outcomes, antihypertensive treatment is recommended. Previous trials have been unable to provide a definitive answer on which antihypertensive treatment is associated with optimal maternal and neonatal outcomes and the need for robust evidence evaluating maternal and infant benefits and risks remains an important, unanswered question for research and clinical communities. METHODS: The Giant PANDA study is a pragmatic, open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of a treatment initiation strategy with nifedipine (calcium channel blocker), versus labetalol (mixed alpha/beta blocker) in 2300 women with pregnancy hypertension. The primary objective is to evaluate if treatment with nifedipine compared to labetalol in women with pregnancy hypertension reduces severe maternal hypertension without increasing fetal or neonatal death or neonatal unit admission. Subgroup analyses will be undertaken by hypertension type (chronic, gestational, pre-eclampsia), diabetes (yes, no), singleton (yes, no), self-reported ethnicity (Black, all other), and gestational age at randomisation categories (11 + 0 to 19 + 6, 20 + 0 to 27 + 6, 28 + 0 to 34 + 6 weeks). A cost-effectiveness analysis using an NHS perspective will be undertaken using a cost-consequence analysis up to postnatal hospital discharge and an extrapolation exercise with a lifetime horizon conditional on the results of the cost-consequence analysis. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to address the uncertainty of which antihypertensive treatment is associated with optimal maternal and neonatal outcomes. The trial results are intended to provide definitive evidence to inform guidelines and linked, shared decision-making tools, thus influencing clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number: 2020-003410-12, ISRCTN: 12,792,616 registered on 18 November 2020

Gefitinib and methotrexate to resolve tubal ectopic pregnancy: the GEM3 RCT

Background Tubal ectopic pregnancies can cause significant morbidity or even death. Current treatment is with methotrexate or surgery. However, methotrexate treatment can fail in approximately 30% of women. Gefitinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor, may improve the effects of methotrexate. We assessed the efficacy of administering oral gefitinib with methotrexate, versus methotrexate alone, to treat a tubal ectopic pregnancy. Objectives To test the hypothesis a combination of gefitinib with methotrexate can increase resolution of stable tubal ectopic pregnancy without the need for surgery, compared with methotrexate alone. Design A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, superiority trial. Setting Fifty UK hospitals. Participants A target of 328 women with a stable, tubal ectopic pregnancy. Intervention Women were randomised to combination of methotrexate and gefitinib or methotrexate and placebo. All participants received a single intramuscular dose of methotrexate 50 mg/m2 and were randomised in a 1:1 ratio of oral gefitinib (250 mg daily for 7 days) or placebo. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was surgical intervention for resolution of ectopic pregnancy. Secondary outcomes were the need for an additional dose of methotrexate, time to resolution of the ectopic pregnancy, number of treatment-associated hospital visits, safety and tolerability, acceptability of treatment and return to menses. Results Between 2 November 2016 and 6 October 2021, 328 women were randomly allocated to methotrexate and gefitinib (n = 165) or methotrexate and placebo (n = 163). Three women in the placebo group withdrew. Surgical intervention occurred in 30% (50/165) of the gefitinib group and in 29% (47/160) of the placebo group (adjusted risk ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.58; adjusted risk difference −0.01, 95% confidence interval −0.10 to 0.09; p = 0.37). Without surgical intervention, median time to resolution was 28.0 days in the gefitinib group and 28.0 days in the placebo group (subdistribution hazard ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.40). The need for additional methotrexate doses, number of additional hospital visits, participant acceptability, time to return of menses and serious adverse events were similar in both groups. Diarrhoea and rash were more common in the gefitinib group. Conclusions The addition of gefitinib to standard medical management with methotrexate to treat tubal ectopic pregnancy is not clinically effective as it does not reduce subsequent surgical intervention and is associated with higher rates of reported symptoms than placebo. Limitations We were unable to investigate how different gefitinib doses or modes of delivery would impact on the results. Future work Questions that remain unaddressed relate to the use of methotrexate and gefitinib combination treatment for other extrauterine and uterine ectopic pregnancy, such as caesarean scar pregnancies, or in the management of choriocarcinoma. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN 67795930 and EudraCT 2015-005013-76. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme and will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanistic Evaluation; Vol. 10, No. 1. The gefitinib and placebo were supplied by Astra Zeneca. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Plain language summary What was the question? A tubal ectopic pregnancy is where a fertilised egg is not growing in the womb. The pregnancy cannot be saved and the woman is at risk of losing her fallopian tube and if this pregnancy is left to grow can even die. Current treatment is with methotrexate or surgery. An operation can happen because either the ectopic pregnancy has ruptured and caused internal bleeding, the medical treatment has not worked and the ectopic pregnancy needs to be removed or the patient can chose to have an operation. However, methotrexate treatment can fail in approximately 30% of women. We carried out research to see if the addition of a new drug (gefitinib, a drug used for lung cancer) to methotrexate could lower the number of women needing an operation to remove their ectopic pregnancy. What did we do? We involved 328 women with a stable tubal ectopic pregnancy, who were being treated medically with methotrexate, and randomly assigned them to have methotrexate alone or a combination of methotrexate and gefitinib. The gefitinib was taken in tablet form for 7 days, and the methotrexate was given as an injection. We followed the women up in line with their clinical care until their ectopic pregnancy resolved or they had surgery to remove the ectopic pregnancy. What did we find? The addition of gefitinib to methotrexate did not reduce the number of women who required surgery to remove their ectopic pregnancy. More women taking gefitinib experienced side effects, such as a facial rash or diarrhoea. What does this mean? Treatment with methotrexate remains the only drug treatment option for ectopic pregnancy. More research is needed. Scientific summary Background Tubal ectopic pregnancy (EP) can cause significant morbidity or even death. Current treatment is with methotrexate (MTX) or surgery. However, MTX treatment can fail in approximately 30% of women. Preclinical studies have shown that tubal implantation sites express high levels of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and that gefitinib (an EGFR antagonist) augments MTX-induced regression of pregnancy-like tissue. Clinical evidence from uncontrolled phase I and II trials has raised the possibility that a combination of MTX and gefitinib could be a more effective medical treatment than MTX alone to treat stable tubal EP. Objectives To test the hypothesis, a combination of gefitinib with MTX can increase resolution of stable tubal EP without the need for surgery, compared with MTX alone. Design A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, superiority trial. Setting This trial took place in 50 hospitals in the UK. Participants A target of 328 women with a stable, tubal EP. Intervention Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either gefitinib and MTX or matched placebo and MTX with the use of minimisation to balance trial-group assignments according to baseline human chorionic gonadotropin levels (<1500 IU/l, ≥1500 to <2500 IU/l, ≥2500 IU/l), body mass index (<25 kg/m2, ≥25 kg/m2), ectopic size (<2 cm, ≥2 cm) and by hospital centre. Main outcome measures The primary outcome, analysed by intention to treat, was surgical intervention for removal of the EP. Secondary outcomes included additional MTX doses, time to resolution of EP, number of treatment-associated hospital visits until resolution or scheduled/emergency surgery, safety/tolerability, acceptability of treatment, return to menses, adverse events and serious adverse events. Results Between 2 November 2016 and 6 October 2021, 328 women were randomly allocated to MTX and gefitinib (n = 165) or MTX and placebo (n = 163). Three women in the placebo group withdrew. Surgical intervention occurred in 30% (50/165) of the gefitinib group and in 29% (47/160) of the placebo group [adjusted risk ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.58; adjusted risk difference −0.01, 95% CI −0.10 to 0.09; p = 0.37]. Without surgical intervention, median time to resolution was 28.0 days in the gefitinib group and 28.0 days in the placebo group (subdistribution hazard ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.40). The need for additional MTX doses and serious adverse events were similar in both groups. The proportion of women who experienced diarrhoea (75/160 vs. 39/161) and rash (97/159 vs. 36/160) were more common in the MTX and gefitinib group compared with the MTX and placebo group. Conclusions In women with a tubal EP, adding oral gefitinib to parental MTX does not offer clinical benefit over MTX alone and increases reported symptoms. Limitations We were unable to investigate how different gefitinib doses or modes of delivery would impact on the results. Future work Questions that remain unaddressed relate to the use of combination treatment for other extrauterine and uterine EP, such as caesarean scar pregnancies, or in the management of choriocarcinoma. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 67795930 and EudraCT 2015-005013-76. Funding This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health and Care Research partnership. Gefitinib and placebo were supplied by Astra Zeneca. This will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanistic Evaluation; Vol. 10, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Combination of gefitinib and methotrexate to treat tubal ectopic pregnancy (GEM3): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background: tubal ectopic pregnancies can cause substantial morbidity or even death. Current treatment is with methotrexate or surgery. Methotrexate treatment fails in approximately 30% of women who subsequently require rescue surgery. Gefitinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor, might improve the effects of methotrexate. We assessed the efficacy of oral gefitinib with methotrexate, versus methotrexate alone, to treat tubal ectopic pregnancy.Methods: we performed a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across 50 UK hospitals. Participants diagnosed with tubal ectopic pregnancy were administered a single dose of intramuscular methotrexate (50 mg/m2) and randomised (1:1 ratio) to 7 days of additional oral gefitinib (250 mg daily) or placebo. The primary outcome, analysed by intention to treat, was surgical intervention to resolve the ectopic pregnancy. Secondary outcomes included time to resolution of ectopic pregnancy and serious adverse events. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, ISCRTN 67795930.Findings: between Nov 2, 2016, and Oct 6, 2021, 328 participants were allocated to methotrexate and gefitinib (n=165) or methotrexate and placebo (n=163). Three participants in the placebo group withdrew. Surgical intervention occurred in 50 (30%) of 165 participants in the gefitinib group and in 47 (29%) of 160 participants in the placebo group (adjusted risk ratio 1·15, 95% CI 0·85 to 1·58; adjusted risk difference –0·01, 95% CI –0·10 to 0·09; p=0·37). Without surgical intervention, median time to resolution was 28·0 days in the gefitinib group and 28·0 days in the placebo group (subdistribution hazard ratio 1·03, 95% CI 0·75 to 1·40). Serious adverse events occurred in five (3%) of 165 participants in the gefitinib group and in six (4%) of 162 participants in the placebo group. Diarrhoea and rash were more common in the gefitinib group.Interpretation: in women with a tubal ectopic pregnancy, adding oral gefitinib to parenteral methotrexate does not offer clinical benefit over methotrexate and increases minor adverse reactions. Funding: National Institute of Health Research.</p