Long acting progestogens versus combined oral contraceptive pill for preventing recurrence of endometriosis related pain : the PRE-EMPT pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial

Peer reviewe

Ulipristal acetate versus levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for heavy menstrual bleeding (UCON) : a randomised controlled phase III trial

Acknowledgments This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research partnership (grant 12/206/52). Medical Research Council (MRC) Centre grants to the Centre for Reproductive Health (CRH) (G1002033 and MR/N022556/1) are also gratefully acknowledged. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, or Department of Health and Social Care. We thank our Collaborative Group (listed in the Supplementary Material) for their contribution to recruitment, randomisation and collection of data, and to our Trial Steering and Data Monitoring Committees (members listed in Supplementary Material).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome

The sequence of the human genome encodes the genetic instructions for human physiology, as well as rich information about human evolution. In 2001, the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium reported a draft sequence of the euchromatic portion of the human genome. Since then, the international collaboration has worked to convert this draft into a genome sequence with high accuracy and nearly complete coverage. Here, we report the result of this finishing process. The current genome sequence (Build 35) contains 2.85 billion nucleotides interrupted by only 341 gaps. It covers ∼99% of the euchromatic genome and is accurate to an error rate of ∼1 event per 100,000 bases. Many of the remaining euchromatic gaps are associated with segmental duplications and will require focused work with new methods. The near-complete sequence, the first for a vertebrate, greatly improves the precision of biological analyses of the human genome including studies of gene number, birth and death. Notably, the human enome seems to encode only 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes. The genome sequence reported here should serve as a firm foundation for biomedical research in the decades ahead

Long acting progestogens versus combined oral contraceptive pill for preventing recurrence of endometriosis related pain:the PRE-EMPT pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVESTo evaluate the clinical effectiveness of long acting progestogens compared with the combined oral contraceptive pill in preventing recurrence of endometriosis related pain.DESIGNThe PRE-EMPT (preventing recurrence of endometriosis) pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial.SETTING34 UK hospitals.PARTICIPANTS405 women of reproductive age undergoing conservative surgery for endometriosis.INTERVENTIONSParticipants were randomised in a 1:1 ratio using a secure internet facility to a long acting progestogen (depot medroxyprogesterone acetate or levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system) or the combined oral contraceptive pill.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURESThe primary outcome was pain measured three years after randomisation using the pain domain of the Endometriosis Health Profile 30 (EHP-30) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes (evaluated at six months, one, two, and three years) included the four core and six modular domains of the EHP-30, and treatment failure (further therapeutic surgery or second line medical treatment).RESULTS405 women were randomised to receive a long acting progestogen (n=205) or combined oral contraceptive pill (n=200). At three years, there was no difference in pain scores between the groups (adjusted mean difference −0.8, 95% confidence interval −5.7 to 4.2, P=0.76), which had improved by around 40% in both groups compared with preoperative values (an average of 24 and 23 points for long acting progestogen and combined oral contraceptive pill groups, respectively). Most of the other domains of the EHP-30 also showed improvement at all time points compared with preoperative scores, without evidence of any differences between groups. Women randomised to a long acting progestogen underwent fewer surgical procedures or second line treatments compared with those randomised to the combined oral contraceptive pill group (73 v 97; hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.00).CONCLUSIONSPostoperative prescription of a long acting progestogen or the combined oral contraceptive pill results in similar levels of improvement in endometriosis related pain at three years, with both groups showing around a 40% improvement compared with preoperative levels. While women can be reassured that both options are effective, the reduced risk of repeat surgery for endometriosis and hysterectomy might make long acting reversible progestogens preferable for some.TRIAL REGISTRATIONISRCTN registry ISRCTN97865475

Long acting progestogens versus combined oral contraceptive pill for preventing recurrence of endometriosis related pain: the PRE-EMPT pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial

Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of long acting progestogens compared with the combined oral contraceptive pill in preventing recurrence of endometriosis related pain. Design: The PRE-EMPT (preventing recurrence of endometriosis) pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial. Setting: 34 UK hospitals. Participants: 405 women of reproductive age undergoing conservative surgery for endometriosis. Interventions: Participants were randomised in a 1:1 ratio using a secure internet facility to a long acting progestogen (depot medroxyprogesterone acetate or levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system) or the combined oral contraceptive pill. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was pain measured three years after randomisation using the pain domain of the Endometriosis Health Profile 30 (EHP-30) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes (evaluated at six months, one, two, and three years) included the four core and six modular domains of the EHP-30, and treatment failure (further therapeutic surgery or second line medical treatment). Results: 405 women were randomised to receive a long acting progestogen (n=205) or combined oral contraceptive pill (n=200). At three years, there was no difference in pain scores between the groups (adjusted mean difference −0.8, 95% confidence interval −5.7 to 4.2, P=0.76), which had improved by around 40% in both groups compared with preoperative values (an average of 24 and 23 points for long acting progestogen and combined oral contraceptive pill groups, respectively). Most of the other domains of the EHP-30 also showed improvement at all time points compared with preoperative scores, without evidence of any differences between groups. Women randomised to a long acting progestogen underwent fewer surgical procedures or second line treatments compared with those randomised to the combined oral contraceptive pill group (73 v 97; hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.00). Conclusions: Postoperative prescription of a long acting progestogen or the combined oral contraceptive pill results in similar levels of improvement in endometriosis related pain at three years, with both groups showing around a 40% improvement compared with preoperative levels. While women can be reassured that both options are effective, the reduced risk of repeat surgery for endometriosis and hysterectomy might make long acting reversible progestogens preferable for some. Trial registration: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN97865475

Ulipristal acetate versus levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for heavy menstrual bleeding: the UCON randomised controlled trial and mechanism of action study

BackgroundHeavy menstrual bleeding affects one in four women and negatively impacts quality of life. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system is an effective long-term treatment but is discontinued by many due to unpredictable bleeding, or adverse effects. The selective progesterone receptor modulator ulipristal acetate is used to treat symptomatic fibroids but long-term efficacy for the symptom of heavy menstrual bleeding, irrespective of presence of fibroids, is unknown.ObjectivesTo determine whether ulipristal acetate is more effective at reducing the burden of heavy menstrual bleeding than levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system after 12 months of treatment in women with and without fibroids. We investigated mechanism of action of ulipristal acetate in a subset of 20 women.DesignRandomised, open-label, parallel group, multicentre trial with embedded mechanistic study.SettingTen UK hospitals.ParticipantsWomen with heavy menstrual bleeding aged 18 and over with no contraindications to levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or ulipristal acetate.InterventionsThree 12-week treatment cycles of 5 mg ulipristal acetate daily, separated by 4-week treatment-free intervals, or continuous levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system following allocation in a 1 : 1 ratio using a web-based minimisation procedure.Main trial outcome measuresPrimary outcome was quality-of-life measured by menorrhagia multi-attribute scale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included menstrual bleeding and patient satisfaction. Impact on fibroid size, endometrial appearance and liver function was also collected.Mechanistic study outcomeCellular markers for endometrial cell structure and function, determined from endometrial biopsies; volume of uterus and fibroids and microcirculation parameters were determined from magnetic resonance images.ResultsSample size was increased from 220 to 302 as a result of temporary halt to recruitment due to concerns of ulipristal acetate hepatoxicity. Subsequent withdrawal of ulipristal acetate and the COVID-19 pandemic led to a premature closure of recruitment, with 118 women randomised to each treatment and 103 women completing 12-month menorrhagia multi-attribute scale scores prior to this point. Primary outcome scores substantially improved in both arms, but at 12 months there was no evidence of a difference between those receiving three cycles of ulipristal acetate [median score category: 76–99, interquartile range (51–75 to 100), n = 53] and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system [median score category: 76–99, interquartile range (51–75 to 100), n = 50; adjusted odds ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 1.17; p = 0.12]. Rates of amenorrhoea were much higher in those allocated ulipristal acetate compared with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (12 months: 64% vs. 25%, adjusted odds ratio 7.12, 95% confidence interval 2.29 to 22.2). There was no evidence of a difference in other participant-reported outcomes. There were no cases of endometrial malignancy and no hepatotoxicity due to ulipristal acetate use.Mechanistic study resultsUlipristal acetate produced a reversible reduction in endometrial cell proliferation, as well as reversible alteration of other endometrial cellular markers. Ulipristal acetate did not produce a reduction in the volume of the uterus irrespective of coexisting fibroids, nor an effect on uterine microvascular blood flow.LimitationsThe urgent safety measures and premature closure of recruitment impacted final sample size.ConclusionsWe found no evidence of a difference in quality of life between the two treatments, but ulipristal acetate was superior to levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system at inducing amenorrhoea. Ulipristal acetate currently has restricted availability due to concerns regarding hepatotoxicity.Future workThere is a need to develop new, safe, effective and fertility-sparing medical treatments for heavy menstrual bleeding. The observed acceptability and effectiveness of ulipristal acetate warrants further research into the selective progesterone receptor modulator class of pharmacological agents.Study registrationThis trial is registered as ISRCTN 20426843

Using healthcare systems data for outcomes in clinical trials: issues to consider at the design stage

Background: Healthcare system data (HSD) are increasingly used in clinical trials, augmenting or replacing traditional methods of collecting outcome data. This study, PRIMORANT, set out to identify, in the UK context, issues to be considered before the decision to use HSD for outcome data in a clinical trial is finalised, a methodological question prioritised by the clinical trials community. Methods: The PRIMORANT study had three phases. First, an initial workshop was held to scope the issues faced by trialists when considering whether to use HSDs for trial outcomes. Second, a consultation exercise was undertaken with clinical trials unit (CTU) staff, trialists, methodologists, clinicians, funding panels and data providers. Third, a final discussion workshop was held, at which the results of the consultation were fed back, case studies presented, and issues considered in small breakout groups. Results: Key topics included in the consultation process were the validity of outcome data, timeliness of data capture, internal pilots, data-sharing, practical issues, and decision-making. A majority of consultation respondents (n = 78, 95%) considered the development of guidance for trialists to be feasible. Guidance was developed following the discussion workshop, for the five broad areas of terminology, feasibility, internal pilots, onward data sharing, and data archiving. Conclusions: We provide guidance to inform decisions about whether or not to use HSDs for outcomes, and if so, to assist trialists in working with registries and other HSD providers to improve the design and delivery of trials

Using healthcare systems data for outcomes in clinical trials: issues to consider at the design stage

Background: Healthcare system data (HSD) are increasingly used in clinical trials, augmenting or replacing traditional methods of collecting outcome data. This study, PRIMORANT, set out to identify, in the UK context, issues to be considered before the decision to use HSD for outcome data in a clinical trial is finalised, a methodological question prioritised by the clinical trials community. Methods: The PRIMORANT study had three phases. First, an initial workshop was held to scope the issues faced by trialists when considering whether to use HSDs for trial outcomes. Second, a consultation exercise was undertaken with clinical trials unit (CTU) staff, trialists, methodologists, clinicians, funding panels and data providers. Third, a final discussion workshop was held, at which the results of the consultation were fed back, case studies presented, and issues considered in small breakout groups. Results: Key topics included in the consultation process were the validity of outcome data, timeliness of data capture, internal pilots, data-sharing, practical issues, and decision-making. A majority of consultation respondents (n = 78, 95%) considered the development of guidance for trialists to be feasible. Guidance was developed following the discussion workshop, for the five broad areas of terminology, feasibility, internal pilots, onward data sharing, and data archiving. Conclusions: We provide guidance to inform decisions about whether or not to use HSDs for outcomes, and if so, to assist trialists in working with registries and other HSD providers to improve the design and delivery of trials