Factors affecting continuation of clean intermittent catheterisation in people with multiple sclerosis: results of the COSMOS mixed-methods study

Background:  Clean intermittent catheterisation (CIC) is often recommended for people with multiple sclerosis (MS).  Objective:  To determine the variables that affect continuation or discontinuation of the use of CIC.  Methods:  A three-part mixed-method study (prospective longitudinal cohort (n = 56), longitudinal qualitative interviews (n = 20) and retrospective survey (n = 456)) was undertaken, which identified the variables that influenced CIC continuation/discontinuation. The potential explanatory variables investigated in each study were the individual’s age, gender, social circumstances, number of urinary tract infections, bladder symptoms, presence of co-morbidity, stage of multiple sclerosis and years since diagnosis, as well as CIC teaching method and intensity.  Results:  For some people with MS the prospect of undertaking CIC is difficult and may take a period of time to accept before beginning the process of using CIC. Ongoing support from clinicians, support at home and a perceived improvement in symptoms such as nocturia were positive predictors of continuation. In many cases, the development of a urinary tract infection during the early stages of CIC use had a significant detrimental impact on continuation.  Conclusion:  Procedures for reducing the incidence of urinary tract infection during the learning period (i.e. when being taught and becoming competent) should be considered, as well as the development of a tool to aid identification of a person’s readiness to try CIC

Continuous low-dose antibiotic prophylaxis for adults with repeated urinary tract infections (AnTIC): a randomised, open-label trial

Funder: UK National Institute for Health Research. Open Access funded by Department of Health UK Acknowledgments We thank all the participants for their commitment to the study, Sheila Wallace for updating the systematic review, members of the Trial Steering Committee and members of the Data Monitoring Committee for their valuable guidance. We thank the National Health Service organisations, principal investigators and local research staff who hosted and ran the study at site. We thank the Health Technology Assessment Programme of the UK NIHR for funding the study (no. 11/72/01). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the UK Government Department of Health. A full report of the study30 has been published by the NIHR Library.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Continuous low-dose antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent urinary tract infection in adults who perform clean intermittent self-catheterisation: the AnTIC RCT

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Intermittent catheterisation after botulinum toxin injections : the time to reassess our practice

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS Botulinum toxin has become a widely adopted treatment for patients with recalcitrant overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms. Some recommend clean intermittent self-catheterisation (CISC) if a postvoid residual (PVR) >200 ml posttreatment, but there is no evidence for this recommendation. The aim of this study was to identify whether abstinence from CISC as a routine strategy for patients with a PVR following intradetrusor botulinum toxin injections is associated with any measurable adversity. METHODS This was a cohort observation study. Patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) attending a medical urology centre were observed before and after botulinum toxin treatment. Intradetrusal botulinum toxin injections were administered in the day-treatment centre at a medical urology centre in London, UK. Patients were reviewed at follow-up consultations to measure PVR. RESULTS Of the 240 patients studied, 215 were women and 25 were men, of whom, 196 (82%) received botulinum toxin injections and were not managed with CISC; 18% were using CISC prior to injections and continued. None of the 196 patients developed acute retention or significant voiding symptoms. CONCLUSIONS Our study indicates that routine administration of CISC based on an arbitrary PVR volume is unlikely to confer benefit. In order to avoid patients being deterred from botulinum treatment, we recommend that CISC be reserved for those who have troublesome voiding symptoms as well as a raised PVR. It is unlikely that CISC, initiated on the basis of an arbitrary PVR volume, would benefit the patient

What Works to Improve and Manage Fecal Incontinence in Care Home Residents Living With Dementia? A Realist Synthesis of the Evidence.

The prevalence of fecal incontinence (FI) in care homes is estimated to range from 30% to 50%. There is limited evidence of what is effective in the reduction and management of FI in care homes. Using realist synthesis, 6 potential program theories of what should work were identified. These addressed clinician-led support, assessment, and review; the contribution of teaching and support for care home staff on how to reduce and manage FI; addressing the causes and prevention of constipation; how cognitive and physical capacity of the resident affects outcomes; how the potential for recovery, reduction, and management of FI is understood by those involved; and how the care of people living with dementia and FI is integral to the work patterns of the care home and its staff. Dementia was a known risk factor for fecal incontinence (FI), but how it affected uptake of different interventions or the dementia specific continence and toileting skills staff require, were not addressed in the literature. There was a lack of dementia-specific evidence on continence aids. Most care home residents with FI will be doubly incontinent; there is, therefore, limited value in focusing solely on FI or single causes, such as constipation. Medical and nursing support for continence care is an important resource, but it is unhelpful to create a distinction between what is continence care and what is personal or intimate care. Prompted toileting is an approach that may be particularly beneficial for some residents. Valuing the intimate and personal care work unqualified and junior staff provide to people living with dementia and reinforcement of good practice in ways that are meaningful to this workforce are important clinician-led activities. Providing dementia-sensitive continence care within the daily work routines of care homes is key to helping to reduce and manage FI for this population

TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Healthcare using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions (TRIUMPH) compared with usual care: Study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

Background: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) can relate to urinary storage or voiding. In men, the prevalence and severity of LUTS increases with age, with a significant impact on quality of life. The majority of men presenting with LUTS are managed by their general practitioner (GP) in the first instance, with conservative therapies recommended as the initial treatment. However, the provision of conservative therapies in primary care is variable and can be time and resource limited. GPs require practical resources to enhance patient engagement with such interventions. TRIUMPH aims to determine whether a standardised and manualised care intervention delivered in primary care achieves superior symptomatic outcome for LUTS versus usual care.Methods/design: TRIUMPH is a two-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) being conducted in 30 National Health Service (NHS) general practices in England. The TRIUMPH intervention comprises a standardised LUTS advice booklet developed for the trial with patient and healthcare professional (HCP) consultation. The booklet is delivered to patients by nurses/healthcare assistants following assessment of their urinary symptoms. Patients are directed to relevant sections of the booklet, providing the manualised element of the intervention. To encourage adherence, HCPs provide follow-up contacts over 12 weeks. Practices are randomised 1:1 to either deliver the TRIUMPH intervention or a usual care pathway. The patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 12 months post consent is the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes include cost-effectiveness, patient-reported outcomes on LUTS, quality of life, and patient and HCP acceptability and experience of the intervention. Primary analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis.Discussion: It is unclear whether conservative therapies for male LUTS are effectively delivered in primary care using current approaches. This can lead to men being inappropriately referred to secondary care or experiencing persistent symptoms. Primary care, therefore, holds the key to effective treatment for these men. The TRIUMPH intervention, through its standardised and manualised approach, has been developed to support GP practices in delivering effective conservative care. This pragmatic, cluster RCT should provide robust evidence in a primary-care setting to inform future guidelines

Treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men in primary care using a conservative intervention: Cluster randomised controlled trial

Objective: To determine whether a standardised and manualised care intervention in men in primary care could achieve superior improvement of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) compared with usual care. Design: Cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting: 30 National Health Service general practice sites in England. Participants: Sites were randomised 1:1 to the intervention and control arms. 1077 men (≥18 years) with bothersome LUTS recruited between June 2018 and August 2019: 524 were assigned to the intervention arm (n=17 sites) and 553 were assigned to the usual care arm (n=13 sites). Intervention: Standardised information booklet developed with patient and expert input, providing guidance on conservative and lifestyle interventions for LUTS in men. After assessment of urinary symptoms (manualised element), general practice nurses and healthcare assistants or research nurses directed participants to relevant sections of the manual and provided contact over 12 weeks to assist with adherence. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was patient reported International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) measured 12 months after participants had consented to take part in the study. The target reduction of 2.0 points on which the study was powered reflects the minimal clinically important difference where baseline IPSS is <20. Secondary outcomes were patient reported quality of life, urinary symptoms and perception of LUTS, hospital referrals, and adverse events. The primary intention-to-treat analysis included 887 participants (82% of those recruited) and used a mixed effects multilevel linear regression model adjusted for site level variables used in the randomisation and baseline scores. Results: Participants in the intervention arm had a lower mean IPSS at 12 months (adjusted mean difference −1.81 points, 95% confidence interval −2.66 to −0.95) indicating less severe urinary symptoms than those in the usual care arm. LUTS specific quality of life, incontinence, and perception of LUTS also improved more in the intervention arm than usual care arm at 12 months. The proportion of urology referrals (intervention 7.3%, usual care 7.9%) and adverse events (intervention seven events, usual care eight events) were comparable between the arms. Conclusions: A standardised and manualised intervention in primary care showed a sustained reduction in LUTS in men at 12 months. The mean difference of −1.81 points (95% confidence interval −0.95 to −2.66) on the IPSS was less than the predefined target reduction of 2.0 points. Trial registration: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN11669964

Lower urinary tract symptoms in men: The TRIUMPH cluster RCT

Conservative therapies are recommended as initial treatment for male lower urinary tract symptoms. However, there is a lack of evidence on effectiveness and uncertainty regarding approaches to delivery. The objective was to determine whether or not a standardised and manualised care intervention delivered in primary care achieves superior symptomatic outcome for lower urinary tract symptoms to usual care. This was a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. The trial was set in 30 NHS general practice sites in England. Participants were adult men (aged ≥ 18 years) with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms. Sites were randomised 1 : 1 to deliver the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions trial intervention or usual care to all participants. The TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions intervention comprised a standardised advice booklet developed for the trial from the British Association of Urological Surgeons' patient information sheets, with patient and expert input. Patients were directed to relevant sections by general practice or research nurses/healthcare assistants following urinary symptom assessment, providing the manualised element. The healthcare professional provided follow-up contacts over 12 weeks to support adherence to the intervention. The primary outcome was the validated patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score 12 months post consent. Rather than the minimal clinically important difference of 3.0 points for overall International Prostate Symptom Score, the sample size aimed to detect a difference of 2.0 points, owing to the recognised clinical impact of individual symptoms. A total of 1077 men consented to the study: 524 in sites randomised to the intervention arm ( = 17) and 553 in sites randomised to the control arm ( = 13). A difference in mean International Prostate Symptom Score at 12 months was found (adjusted mean difference of -1.81 points, 95% confidence interval -2.66 to -0.95 points), with a lower score in the intervention arm, indicating less severe symptoms. Secondary outcomes of patient-reported urinary symptoms, quality of life specific to lower urinary tract symptoms and perception of lower urinary tract symptoms all showed evidence of a difference between the arms favouring the intervention. No difference was seen between the arms in the proportion of urology referrals or adverse events. In qualitative interviews, participants welcomed the intervention, describing positive effects on their symptoms, as well as on their understanding of conservative care and their attitude towards the experience of lower urinary tract symptoms. The interviews highlighted that structured, in-depth self-management is insufficiently embedded within general practitioner consultations. From an NHS perspective, mean costs and quality-adjusted life-years were similar between trial arms. The intervention arm had slightly lower mean costs (adjusted mean difference of -£29.99, 95% confidence interval -£109.84 to £22.63) than the usual-care arm, and a small gain in quality-adjusted life-years (adjusted mean difference of 0.001, 95% confidence interval -0.011 to 0.014). The intervention showed a small, sustained benefit for men's lower urinary tract symptoms and quality of life across a range of outcome measures in a UK primary care setting. Qualitative data showed that men highly valued the intervention. Intervention costs were marginally lower than usual-care costs. Limitations of the study included that trial participants were unmasked, with limited diversity in ethnicity and deprivation level. Additional research is needed to assess the applicability of the intervention for a more ethnically diverse population.. This trial is registered as ISRCTN11669964. This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/90/03) and is published in full in ; Vol. 28, No. 13. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information