Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basic versus biofeedback-mediated intensive pelvic floor muscle training for female stress or mixed urinary incontinence: protocol for the OPAL randomised trial

This is the final version. Available on open access from BMJ Publishing Group via the DOI in this recordIntroduction Accidental urine leakage is a distressing problem that affects around one in three women. The main types of urinary incontinence (UI) are stress, urgency and mixed, with stress being most common. Current UK guidelines recommend that women with UI are offered at least 3 months of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT). There is evidence that PFMT is effective in treating UI, however it is not clear how intensively women have to exercise to give the maximum sustained improvement in symptoms, and how we enable women to achieve this. Biofeedback is an adjunct to PFMT that may help women exercise more intensively for longer, and thus may improve continence outcomes when compared with PFMT alone. A Cochrane review was inconclusive about the benefit of biofeedback, indicating the need for further evidence. Methods and analysis This multicentre randomised controlled trial will compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PFMT versus biofeedback-mediated PFMT for women with stress UI or mixed UI. The primary outcome is UI severity at 24 months after randomisation. The primary economic outcome measure is incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year at 24 months. Six hundred women from UK community, outpatient and primary care settings will be randomised and followed up via questionnaires, diaries and pelvic floor assessment. All participants are offered six PFMT appointments over 16 weeks. The use of clinic and home biofeedback is added to PFMT for participants in the biofeedback group. Group allocation could not be masked from participants and healthcare staff. An intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome will estimate the mean difference between the trial groups at 24 months using a general linear mixed model adjusting for minimisation covariates and other important prognostic covariates, including the baseline score. Ethics and dissemination Approval granted by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 4 (16/LO/0990). Written informed consent will be obtained from participants by the local research team. Serious adverse events will be reported to the data monitoring and ethics committee, the ethics committee and trial centres as required. A Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials checklist and figure are available for this protocol. The results will be published in international journals and included in the relevant Cochrane review. Trial registration number ISRCTN57746448; Pre-results.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR

Effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training with and without electromyographic biofeedback for urinary incontinence in women: multicentre randomised controlled trial

This is the final version. Available on open access from BMJ Publishing Group via the DOI in this recordObjective To assess the effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) plus electromyographic biofeedback or PFMT alone for stress or mixed urinary incontinence in women. Design Parallel group randomised controlled trial. Setting 23 community and secondary care centres providing continence care in Scotland and England. Participants 600 women aged 18 and older, newly presenting with stress or mixed urinary incontinence between February 2014 and July 2016: 300 were randomised to PFMT plus electromyographic biofeedback and 300 to PFMT alone. Interventions Participants in both groups were offered six appointments with a continence therapist over 16 weeks. Participants in the biofeedback PFMT group received supervised PFMT and a home PFMT programme, incorporating electromyographic biofeedback during clinic appointments and at home. The PFMT group received supervised PFMT and a home PFMT programme. PFMT programmes were progressed over the appointments. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was self-reported severity of urinary incontinence (International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-urinary incontinence short form (ICIQ-UI SF), range 0 to 21, higher scores indicating greater severity) at 24 months. Secondary outcomes were cure or improvement, other pelvic floor symptoms, condition specific quality of life, women’s perception of improvement, pelvic floor muscle function, uptake of other urinary incontinence treatment, PFMT self-efficacy, adherence, intervention costs, and quality adjusted life years. Results Mean ICIQ-UI SF scores at 24 months were 8.2 (SD 5.1, n=225) in the biofeedback PFMT group and 8.5 (SD 4.9, n=235) in the PFMT group (mean difference −0.09, 95% confidence interval −0.92 to 0.75, P=0.84). Biofeedback PFMT had similar costs (mean difference £121 ($154; €133), −£409 to £651, P=0.64) and quality adjusted life years (−0.04, −0.12 to 0.04, P=0.28) to PFMT. 48 participants reported an adverse event: for 23 this was related or possibly related to the interventions. Conclusions At 24 months no evidence was found of any important difference in severity of urinary incontinence between PFMT plus electromyographic biofeedback and PFMT alone groups. Routine use of electromyographic biofeedback with PFMT should not be recommended. Other ways of maximising the effects of PFMT should be investigated.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR

Fulvestrant plus anastrozole or placebo versus exemestane alone after progression on non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors in postmenopausal patients with hormone-receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (SoFEA): a composite, multicentre, phase 3 randomised trial

SummaryBackgroundThe optimum endocrine treatment for postmenopausal women with advanced hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer that has progressed on non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors (NSAIs) is unclear. The aim of the SoFEA trial was to assess a maximum double endocrine targeting approach with the steroidal anti-oestrogen fulvestrant in combination with continued oestrogen deprivation.MethodsIn a composite, multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial done in the UK and South Korea, postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer (oestrogen receptor [ER] positive, progesterone receptor [PR] positive, or both) were eligible if they had relapsed or progressed with locally advanced or metastatic disease on an NSAI (given as adjuvant for at least 12 months or as first-line treatment for at least 6 months). Additionally, patients had to have adequate organ function and a WHO performance status of 0–2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive fulvestrant (500 mg intramuscular injection on day 1, followed by 250 mg doses on days 15 and 29, and then every 28 days) plus daily oral anastrozole (1 mg); fulvestrant plus anastrozole-matched placebo; or daily oral exemestane (25 mg). Randomisation was done with computer-generated permuted blocks, and stratification was by centre and previous use of an NSAI as adjuvant treatment or for locally advanced or metastatic disease. Participants and investigators were aware of assignment to fulvestrant or exemestane, but not of assignment to anastrozole or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00253422 (UK) and NCT00944918 (South Korea).FindingsBetween March 26, 2004, and Aug 6, 2010, 723 patients underwent randomisation: 243 were assigned to receive fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 231 to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 249 to exemestane. Median PFS was 4·4 months (95% CI 3·4–5·4) in patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 4·8 months (3·6–5·5) in those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 3·4 months (3·0–4·6) in those assigned to exemestane. No difference was recorded between the patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole and fulvestrant plus placebo (hazard ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·83–1·21; log-rank p=0·98), or between those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo and exemestane (0·95, 0·79–1·14; log-rank p=0·56). 87 serious adverse events were reported: 36 in patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 22 in those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 29 in those assigned to exemestane. Grade 3–4 adverse events were rare; the most frequent were arthralgia (three in the group assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole; seven in that assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo; eight in that assigned to exemestane), lethargy (three; 11; 11), and nausea or vomiting (five; two; eight).InterpretationAfter loss of response to NSAIs in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer, maximum double endocrine treatment with 250 mg fulvestrant combined with oestrogen deprivation is no better than either fulvestrant alone or exemestane.FundingCancer Research UK and AstraZeneca