Usual medical treatments or levonorgestrel-IUS for women with heavy menstrual bleeding: long-term ranomised pragmatic trial in primary care

Background: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common, chronic problem burdening women and health services. However long-term evidence on treatment in primary care is lacking.Aim: To assess the effectiveness of commencing levonorgestrel intra-uterine system (LNG-IUS) or usual medical treatments for women presenting with HMB in general practice.Design: Pragmatic, multicentre, parallel, open-label randomised controlled trialSetting: 63 primary care practicesMethods: 571 women, aged 25-50, with HMB were randomised to LNG-IUS or usual medical treatment (tranexamic/mefenamic acid, combined oestrogen-progestogen, or progesterone alone). The primary outcome was the patient reported Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS, measuring effect of HMB on practical difficulties, social life, psychological and physical health, work and family life; scores from 0 -100). Secondary outcomes included surgical intervention (endometrial ablation/hysterectomy), general quality-of-life, sexual-activity and safety.Results: At five years post-randomisation 424 (74%) women provided data. While the difference between LNG-IUS and usual-treatment groups was not significant (3.9 points; 95% CI: -0.6 to 8.3; p=0.09), MMAS scores improved significantly in both groups from baseline (mean increase, 44.9 and 43.4 points, respectively;

Usual medical treatments or levonorgestrel-IUS for women with heavy menstrual bleeding:long-term randomised pragmatic trial in primary care

Background: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common, chronic problem affecting women and health services. However, long-term evidence on treatment in primary care is lacking. Aim: To assess the effectiveness of commencing the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) or usual medical treatments for women presenting with HMB in general practice. Design and setting: A pragmatic, multicentre, parallel, open-label, long term, randomised controlled trial in 63 primary care practices across the English Midlands. Method: In total, 571 women aged 25–50 years, with HMB were randomised to LNG-IUS or usual medical treatment (tranexamic/mefenamic acid, combined oestrogen–progestogen, or progesterone alone). The primary outcome was the patient reported Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS, measuring effect of HMB on practical difficulties, social life, psychological and physical health, and work and family life; scores from 0 to 100). Secondary outcomes included surgical intervention (endometrial ablation/hysterectomy), general quality of life, sexual activity, and safety. Results: At 5 years post-randomisation, 424 (74%) women provided data. While the difference between LNG-IUS and usual treatment groups was not significant (3.9 points; 95% confidence interval = −0.6 to 8.3; P = 0.09), MMAS scores improved significantly in both groups from baseline (mean increase, 44.9 and 43.4 points, respectively; P<0.001 for both comparisons). Rates of surgical intervention were low in both groups (surgery-free survival was 80% and 77%; hazard ratio 0.90; 95% CI = 0.62 to 1.31; P = 0.6). There was no difference in generic quality of life, sexual activity scores, or serious adverse events. Conclusion: Large improvements in symptom relief across both groups show treatment for HMB can be successfully initiated with long-term benefit and with only modest need for surgery

Interobserver variability studies in diagnostic imaging:a methodological systematic review

Objectives: To review the methodology of interobserver variability studies; including current practice and quality of conducting and reporting studies. Methods: Interobserver variability studies between January 2019 and January 2020 were included; extracted data comprised of study characteristics, populations, variability measures, key results, and conclusions. Risk of bias was assessed using the COSMIN tool for assessing reliability and measurement error. Results: Seventy-nine full-text studies were included covering various imaging tests and clinical areas. The median number of patients was 47 (IQR:23–88), and observers were 4 (IQR:2–7), with sample size justified in 12 (15%) studies. Most studies used static images (n = 75, 95%), where all observers interpreted images for all patients (n = 67, 85%). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) (n = 41, 52%), Kappa (κ) statistics (n = 31, 39%) and percentage agreement (n = 15, 19%) were most commonly used. Interpretation of variability estimates often did not correspond with study conclusions. The COSMIN risk of bias tool gave a very good/adequate rating for 52 studies (66%) including any studies that used variability measures listed in the tool. For studies using static images, some study design standards were not applicable and did not contribute to the overall rating. Conclusions: Interobserver variability studies have diverse study designs and methods, the impact of which requires further evaluation. Sample size for patients and observers was often small without justification. Most studies report ICC and κ values, which did not always coincide with the study conclusion. High ratings were assigned to many studies using the COSMIN risk of bias tool, with certain standards scored ‘not applicable’ when static images were used. Advances in knowledge: The sample size for both patients and observers was often small without justification. For most studies, observers interpreted static images and did not evaluate the process of acquiring the imaging test, meaning it was not possible to assess many COSMIN risk of bias standards for studies with this design. Most studies reported intraclass correlation coefficient and κ statistics; study conclusions often did not correspond with results

Interobserver variability studies in diagnostic imaging: a methodological systematic review

OBJECTIVES: To review the methodology of interobserver variability studies; including current practice and quality of conducting and reporting studies. METHODS: Interobserver variability studies between January 2019 and January 2020 were included; extracted data comprised of study characteristics, populations, variability measures, key results, and conclusions. Risk of bias was assessed using the COSMIN tool for assessing reliability and measurement error. RESULTS: Seventy-nine full-text studies were included covering various imaging tests and clinical areas. The median number of patients was 47 (IQR:23-88), and observers were 4 (IQR:2-7), with sample size justified in 12 (15%) studies. Most studies used static images (n = 75, 95%), where all observers interpreted images for all patients (n = 67, 85%). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) (n = 41, 52%), Kappa (κ) statistics (n = 31, 39%) and percentage agreement (n = 15, 19%) were most commonly used. Interpretation of variability estimates often did not correspond with study conclusions. The COSMIN risk of bias tool gave a very good/adequate rating for 52 studies (66%) including any studies that used variability measures listed in the tool. For studies using static images, some study design standards were not applicable and did not contribute to the overall rating. CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver variability studies have diverse study designs and methods, the impact of which requires further evaluation. Sample size for patients and observers was often small without justification. Most studies report ICC and κ values, which did not always coincide with the study conclusion. High ratings were assigned to many studies using the COSMIN risk of bias tool, with certain standards scored 'not applicable' when static images were used. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The sample size for both patients and observers was often small without justification. For most studies, observers interpreted static images and did not evaluate the process of acquiring the imaging test, meaning it was not possible to assess many COSMIN risk of bias standards for studies with this design. Most studies reported intraclass correlation coefficient and κ statistics; study conclusions often did not correspond with results

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

Post-Implant Phosphodiesterase-5 Inhibitors in Patients with Left Ventricular Assist Device: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Despite the improvement in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology and the advent of third-generation LVADs, hemocompatibility-related events remain a significant issue. Therefore, new pharmacological treatments are necessary to optimize patient management and to further reduce hemocompatibility-related events. The purpose of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize the existing data regarding the safety and efficacy of post-implant phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE-5i) on hemocompatibility-related events. Methods: Among the 258 articles in Pubmed, Scopus, and CENTRAL that were retrieved (1990–2022), 15 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, and 9 studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. The fixed-effects model was used because it is statistically sound for combining a very small number of studies. The primary endpoint of the study was all-cause mortality, whereas the secondary endpoints were ischemic stroke, pump thrombosis, and gastrointestinal bleeding. Results: Mortality was significantly lower in the PDE-5i group vs. the control group (OR: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.85, 0.98]; p = 0.02). The secondary endpoints ischemic stroke (OR: 0.87 [95% CI: 0.78, 0.98]; p = 0.02) and pump thrombosis (OR: 0.90 [95% CI: 0.82, 0.99]; p = 0.04) were also lower in the PDE-5i group. The incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding was significantly higher in patients with LVAD receiving PDE-5i (OR: 1.26 [95% CI: 1.11, 1.44]; p < 0.01). In the overall analysis, the heterogeneity of outcomes was low, except for pump thrombosis. Conclusions: The use of PDE-5i post-implant was associated with lower mortality and thrombotic events but with a higher risk of gastrointestinal bleeding

COVID-19 Infection among Elite Football Players: A Nationwide Prospective Cohort Study

Little is known about the risk of COVID-19 infection among footballers. We aimed to investigate the incidence and characteristics of COVID-19 infection among footballers. In total, 480 football players of Super League Greece and 420 staff members participated in a prospective cohort study, which took place from May 2020 to May 2021. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from footballers and staff members weekly. All samples (n = 43,975) collected were tested using the reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for the detection of &ldquo;SARS-CoV-2&rdquo;. In total, 190 positive cases (130 among professional football players and 60 among staff) were recorded. Out of the 190 cases that turned positive, 64 (34%) cases were considered as symptomatic, and 126 (66%) cases were asymptomatic. The incidence rate of a positive test result for footballers was 0.57% (confidence interval (CI) 0.48&ndash;0.68%) and for staff members it was 0.27% (CI 0.20%, 0.34%), respectively. Footballers recorded a twofold increased risk of COVID-19 infection in comparison to staff members (relative risk = 2.16; 95% CI = 1.59&ndash;2.93; p-value &lt; 0.001). No significant transmission events were observed during the follow-up period. We found a low incidence of COVID-19 infection among professional footballers over a long follow-up period. Furthermore, the implementation of a weekly diagnostic testing (RT-PCR) was critical to break the transmission chain of COVID-19, especially among asymptomatic football players and staff members