scholarly journals SUGAR-DIP trial: oral medication strategy versus insulin for diabetes in pregnancy, study protocol for a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e029808 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leon de Wit ◽  
Doortje Rademaker ◽  
Daphne N Voormolen ◽  
Bettina M C Akerboom ◽  
Rosalie M Kiewiet-Kemper ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Glycaemic Control ◽  
Study Protocol ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Treatment Protocol ◽  
Large For Gestational Age ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Oral Glucose ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionIn women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) requiring pharmacotherapy, insulin was the established first-line treatment. More recently, oral glucose lowering drugs (OGLDs) have gained popularity as a patient-friendly, less expensive and safe alternative. Monotherapy with metformin or glibenclamide (glyburide) is incorporated in several international guidelines. In women who do not reach sufficient glucose control with OGLD monotherapy, usually insulin is added, either with or without continuation of OGLDs. No reliable data from clinical trials, however, are available on the effectiveness of a treatment strategy using all three agents, metformin, glibenclamide and insulin, in a stepwise approach, compared with insulin-only therapy for improving pregnancy outcomes. In this trial, we aim to assess the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and patient experience of a stepwise combined OGLD treatment protocol, compared with conventional insulin-based therapy for GDM.MethodsThe SUGAR-DIP trial is an open-label, multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Participants are women with GDM who do not reach target glycaemic control with modification of diet, between 16 and 34 weeks of gestation. Participants will be randomised to either treatment with OGLDs, starting with metformin and supplemented as needed with glibenclamide, or randomised to treatment with insulin. In women who do not reach target glycaemic control with combined metformin and glibenclamide, glibenclamide will be substituted with insulin, while continuing metformin. The primary outcome will be the incidence of large-for-gestational-age infants (birth weight >90th percentile). Secondary outcome measures are maternal diabetes-related endpoints, obstetric complications, neonatal complications and cost-effectiveness analysis. Outcomes will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Utrecht University Medical Centre. Approval by the boards of management for all participating hospitals will be obtained. Trial results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNTR6134; Pre-results.

scholarly journals Update to the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a mindfulness training programme in schools compared with normal school provision (MYRIAD): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesus Montero-Marin ◽  
◽  
Elizabeth Nuthall ◽  
Sarah Byford ◽  
Catherine Crane ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Study Protocol ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Mindfulness Training ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background MYRIAD (My Resilience in Adolescence) is a superiority, parallel group, cluster randomised controlled trial designed to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a mindfulness training (MT) programme, compared with normal social and emotional learning (SEL) school provision to enhance mental health, social-emotional-behavioural functioning and well-being in adolescence. The original trial protocol was published in Trials (accessible at 10.1186/s13063-017-1917-4). This included recruitment in two cohorts, enabling the learning from the smaller first cohort to be incorporated in the second cohort. Here we describe final amendments to the study protocol and discuss their underlying rationale. Methods Four major changes were introduced into the study protocol: (1) there were changes in eligibility criteria, including a clearer operational definition to assess the degree of SEL implementation in schools, and also new criteria to avoid experimental contamination; (2) the number of schools and pupils that had to be recruited was increased based on what we learned in the first cohort; (3) some changes were made to the secondary outcome measures to improve their validity and ability to measure constructs of interest and to reduce the burden on school staff; and (4) the current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19) pandemic both influences and makes it difficult to interpret the 2-year follow-up primary endpoint results, so we changed our primary endpoint to 1-year follow-up. Discussion These changes to the study protocol were approved by the Trial Management Group, Trial Steering Committee and Data and Ethics Monitoring Committees and improved the enrolment of participants and quality of measures. Furthermore, the change in the primary endpoint will give a more reliable answer to our primary question because it was collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic in both cohort 1 and cohort 2. Nevertheless, the longer 2-year follow-up data will still be acquired, although this time-point will be now framed as a second major investigation to answer some new important questions presented by the combination of the pandemic and our study design. Trial registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials ISRCTN86619085. Registered on 3 June 2016.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of an intimate partner violence prevention intervention targeting men, women and couples in rural Ethiopia: evidence from the Unite for a Better Life randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e042365
Author(s):  
Jessica Leight ◽  
Negussie Deyessa ◽  
Vandana Sharma
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Community Level ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cost

ObjectivesExperience of intimate partner violence (IPV) is associated with adverse health and psychosocial outcomes for women. However, rigorous economic evaluations of interventions targeting IPV prevention are rare. This paper analyses the cost-effectiveness of Unite for a Better Life (UBL), a gender-transformative intervention designed to prevent IPV and HIV risk behaviours among men, women and couples.DesignWe use an economic evaluation nested within a large-scale cluster randomised controlled trial, analysing financial and economic costs tracked contemporaneously.SettingUBL was implemented in rural southern Ethiopia between 2013 and 2015.ParticipantsThe randomised controlled trial included 6770 households in 64 villages.InterventionsUBL is an intervention delivered within the context of the Ethiopian coffee ceremony, a culturally established forum for community discussion, and designed to assist participants to build skills for healthy, non-violent, equitable relationships.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThis paper reports on the unit cost and cost-effectiveness of the interventions implemented. Cost-effectiveness is measured as the cost per case of past-year physical and/or sexual IPV averted.ResultsThe estimated annualised cost of developing and implementing UBL was 2015 US$296 772, or approximately 2015 US$74 per individual directly participating in the intervention and 2015 US$5 per person annually for each community-level beneficiary (woman of reproductive age in intervention communities). The estimated cost per case of past-year physical and/or sexual IPV averted was 2015 US$2726 for the sample of direct beneficiaries, and 2015 US$194 for the sample of all community-level beneficiaries.ConclusionsUBL is an effective and cost-effective intervention for the prevention of IPV in a low and middle-income country setting. Further research should explore strategies to quantify the positive effects of the intervention across other domains.Trial registration numberNCT02311699 (ClinicalTrials.gov); AEARCTR-0000211 (AEA Registry)

scholarly journals Group antenatal care (Pregnancy Circles) for diverse and disadvantaged women: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial with integral process and economic evaluations

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Meg Wiggins ◽  
Mary Sawtell ◽  
Octavia Wiseman ◽  
Christine McCourt ◽  
Sandra Eldridge ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Antenatal Care ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Trial Registration ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
The World ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Group antenatal care has been successfully implemented around the world with suggestions of improved outcomes, including for disadvantaged groups, but it has not been formally tested in the UK in the context of the NHS. To address this the REACH Pregnancy Circles intervention was developed and a randomised controlled trial (RCT), based on a pilot study, is in progress. Methods The RCT is a pragmatic, two-arm, individually randomised, parallel group RCT designed to test clinical and cost-effectiveness of REACH Pregnancy Circles compared with standard care. Recruitment will be through NHS services. The sample size is 1732 (866 randomised to the intervention and 866 to standard care). The primary outcome measure is a ‘healthy baby’ composite measured at 1 month postnatal using routine maternity data. Secondary outcome measures will be assessed using participant questionnaires completed at recruitment (baseline), 35 weeks gestation (follow-up 1) and 3 months postnatal (follow-up 2). An integrated process evaluation, to include exploration of fidelity, will be conducted using mixed methods. Analyses will be on an intention to treat as allocated basis. The primary analysis will compare the number of babies born “healthy” in the control and intervention arms and provide an odds ratio. A cost-effectiveness analysis will compare the incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years and per additional ‘healthy and positive birth’ of the intervention with standard care. Qualitative data will be analysed thematically. Discussion This multi-site randomised trial in England is planned to be the largest trial of group antenatal care in the world to date; as well as the first rigorous test within the NHS of this maternity service change. It has a recruitment focus on ethnically, culturally and linguistically diverse and disadvantaged participants, including non-English speakers. Trial registration Trial registration; ISRCTN, ISRCTN91977441. Registered 11 February 2019 - retrospectively registered. The current protocol is Version 4; 28/01/2020.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document