Two parallel, pragmatic, UK multicentre, randomised controlled trials comparing surgical options for upper compartment (vault or uterine) pelvic organ prolapse (the VUE Study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Surgical interventions for uterine prolapse and for vault prolapse: the two VUE RCTs

BACKGROUND

New surgical approaches for apical prolapse have gradually been introduced, with few prospective randomised controlled trial data to evaluate their safety and efficacy compared with traditional methods.

OBJECTIVE

To compare surgical uterine preservation with vaginal hysterectomy in women with uterine prolapse and abdominal procedures with vaginal procedures in women with vault prolapse in terms of clinical effectiveness, adverse events, quality of life and cost-effectiveness.

DESIGN

Two parallel randomised controlled trials (i.e. Uterine and Vault). Allocation was by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1 ratio), minimised on the need for concomitant anterior and/or posterior procedure, concomitant incontinence procedure, age and surgeon.

SETTING

UK hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Uterine trial - 563 out of 565 randomised women had uterine prolapse surgery. Vault trial - 208 out of 209 randomised women had vault prolapse surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Uterine trial - uterine preservation or vaginal hysterectomy. Vault trial - abdominal or vaginal vault suspension.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measures were women's prolapse symptoms (as measured using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score), prolapse-specific quality of life and cost-effectiveness (as assessed by incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year).

RESULTS

Uterine trial - adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, the mean Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score at 12 months for uterine preservation was 4.2 (standard deviation 4.9) versus vaginal hysterectomy with a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score of 4.2 (standard deviation 5.3) (mean difference -0.05, 95% confidence interval -0.91 to 0.81). Serious adverse event rates were similar between the groups (uterine preservation 5.4% vs. vaginal hysterectomy 5.9%; risk ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.38 to 1.75). There was no difference in overall prolapse stage. Significantly more women would recommend vaginal hysterectomy to a friend (odds ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.83). Uterine preservation was £235 (95% confidence interval £6 to £464) more expensive than vaginal hysterectomy and generated non-significantly fewer quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference -0.004, 95% confidence interval -0.026 to 0.019). Vault trial - adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, the mean Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score at 12 months for an abdominal procedure was 5.6 (standard deviation 5.4) versus vaginal procedure with a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score of 5.9 (standard deviation 5.4) (mean difference -0.61, 95% confidence interval -2.08 to 0.86). The serious adverse event rates were similar between the groups (abdominal 5.9% vs. vaginal 6.0%; risk ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.27 to 3.44). The objective anterior prolapse stage 2b or more was higher in the vaginal group than in the abdominal group (odds ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.79). There was no difference in the overall prolapse stage. An abdominal procedure was £570 (95% confidence interval £459 to £682) more expensive than a vaginal procedure and generated non-significantly more quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference 0.004, 95% confidence interval -0.031 to 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

Uterine trial - in terms of efficacy, quality of life or adverse events in the short term, no difference was identified between uterine preservation and vaginal hysterectomy. Vault trial - in terms of efficacy, quality of life or adverse events in the short term, no difference was identified between an abdominal and a vaginal approach.

FUTURE WORK

Long-term follow-up for at least 6 years is ongoing to identify recurrence rates, need for further prolapse surgery, adverse events and cost-effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86784244.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 13. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

How to deal with a temporary suspension and restarting your trial: our experiences and lessons learnt

Whilst the issues around early termination of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are well documented in the literature, trials can also be temporarily suspended with the real prospect that they may subsequently restart. There is little guidance in the literature as to how to manage such a temporary suspension. In this paper, we describe the temporary suspension of a trial within our clinical trials unit because of concerns over the safety of transvaginal synthetic mesh implants. We also describe the challenges, considerations, and lessons learnt during the suspension that we are now applying in the current COVID-19 pandemic which has led to activities in many RCTs across the world undergoing a temporary suspension.

There were three key phases within the temporary suspension: the decision to suspend, implementation of the suspension, and restarting. Each of these phases presented individual challenges which are discussed within this paper, along with the lessons learnt. There were obvious challenges around recruitment, delivery of the intervention, and follow-up. Additional challenges included communication between stakeholders, evolving risk assessment, updates to trial protocol and associated paperwork, maintaining site engagement, data-analysis, and workload within the trial team and Sponsor organisation.

Based on our experience of managing a temporary suspension, we developed an action plan and guidance (see Additional File 1) for managing a significant trial event, such as a temporary suspension. We have used this document to help us manage the suspension of activities within our portfolio of trials during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Long-term safety and efficacy of laparoscopically placed mesh for apical prolapse

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Concerns regarding the use of vaginal mesh for prolapse have led to questions about the safety and efficacy of abdominally placed mesh. Mesh procedures for treating apical prolapse have become popular, either a laparoscopic hysteropexy (LSH) for uterine prolapse or a sacrocolpopexy (LSC) for vaginal vault prolapse. Robust long-term safety and efficacy data for these procedures are essential.

METHODS

All patients who had LSH or LSC since 2010 were invited back for face-to-face review and examination. Case notes were reviewed for surgical morbidities and patients were questioned about short- and long-term complications. The Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale was used to assess prolapse, bladder and bowel symptoms postoperatively.

RESULTS

One hundred twelve patients were included in the review, 93 of whom were examined. The median time since surgery was 6 years (range 1-9 years); 2.7% cases had an intraoperative complication, two conversions to laparotomy and one bladder injury. Overall, 17.3% patients sought medical review postoperatively, with 10.7% having problems with their skin incisions. With regard to mesh safety, there was one case of bowel obstruction requiring resection following LSH and two vaginal mesh exposures following LSC; 97% had stage 1 or less apical prolapse at long-term follow-up and 79.6% reported symptoms of prolapse to be 'much better' or 'very much better' on the PGI-I scale.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows excellent long-term results from LSC and LSH with comprehensive follow-up, demonstrating a very low and acceptable level of intraoperative, short- and long-term complications.