HollAND trial: comparison of rubber band ligation and haemorrhoidectomy in patients with symptomatic haemorrhoids grade III: study protocol for a multicentre, randomised controlled trial and cost–utility analysis

Treatment of haemorrhoids: rubber band ligation or sclerotherapy (THROS)? Study protocol for a multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Haemorrhoidal disease (HD) is a common condition with significant epidemiologic and economic implications. While it is possible to treat symptomatic grade 1-2 haemorrhoids with rubber band ligation (RBL) or sclerotherapy (SCL), the effectiveness of these treatments compatible with current standards has not yet been investigated with a randomised controlled trial. The hypothesis is that SCL is not inferior to RBL in terms of symptom reduction (patient-related outcome measures (PROMs)), patient experience, complications or recurrence rate.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol describes the methodology of a non-inferiority, multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing rubber band ligation and sclerotherapy for symptomatic grade 1-2 haemorrhoids in adults (> 18 years). Patients are preferably randomised between the two treatment arms. However, patients with a strong preference for one of the treatments and refuse randomisation are eligible for the registration arm. Patients either receive 4 cc Aethoxysklerol 3% SCL or 3 × RBL. The primary outcome measures are symptom reduction by means of PROMs, recurrence and complication rates. Secondary outcome measures are patient experience, number of treatments and days of sick leave from work. Data are collected at 4 different time points.

DISCUSSION

The THROS trial is the first large multicentre randomised trial to study the difference in effectivity between RBL and SCL for the treatment of grade 1-2 HD. It will provide information as to which treatment method (RBL or SCL) is the most effective, gives fewer complications and is experienced by the patient as the best option.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol has been approved by the Medical Ethics Review Committee of the Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location AMC (nr. 2020_053). The gathered data and results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and spread to coloproctological associations and guidelines.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch Trial Register NL8377 . Registered on 12-02-2020.

Patient reported outcome measure-haemorrhoidal impact and satisfaction score (PROM-HISS): Development, reliability and construct validity

AIM

Haemorrhoidal disease (HD) is a frequently occurring disorder with a significant negative impact on a patient's quality of life. Here, we describe the development and validation of the Dutch patient reported outcome measure-haemorrhoidal impact and satisfaction score (PROM-HISS).

METHODS

The development of the PROM-HISS followed recommended guidelines. Face and content validity, structural properties, reliability and construct validity were evaluated in a HD population. Reliability was tested by assessing the test-retest reliability, defined by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and internal consistency measured with Cronbach's alpha. Construct validity was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and hypotheses testing.

RESULTS

The PROM-HISS consists of three domains: (1) HD symptoms (blood loss; pain; prolapse; soiling; itching), (2) impact of symptoms on daily activities, and (3) satisfaction with treatment. The PROM-HISS showed good face and content validity. The PROM-HISS was completed by 102 patients (65% male), with a mean age of 58 years (23-81 years). The ICCs of the different items in the domain HD symptoms ranged between 0.56 and 0.79 and were interpreted as good. The Cronbach's alpha value was 0.80 and considered satisfactory. The CFA provided further evidence for construct validity with a good model fit. A high score on the symptoms of HD correlated with a high impact of HD on daily activities (Pearson's r = 0.632, p < 0.01) and a low degree of satisfaction (Pearson's r = 0.378, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The PROM-HISS is a reliable and valid instrument to evaluate symptoms of HD, impact on daily activities and satisfaction with treatment.

Is the Goligher classification a valid tool in clinical practice and research for hemorrhoidal disease?

BACKGROUND

The most widely used classification for hemorrhoidal disease (HD) is the Goligher classification, which ranks presence and severity of prolapse in four grades. Since physicians base this gradation on medical history and physical examination, it might be prone to interobserver variability. Furthermore, the gradation impacts the treatment of choice which makes reproducibility of utmost importance. The aim of this study was to determine the interobserver variability of Goligher classification among surgeons in the Netherlands.

METHODS

A single-choice survey was used. The first part consisted of questions concerning baseline characteristics and the use of the Goligher classification in routine clinical practice. In the second part, to assess interobserver variability, we asked gastrointestinal surgeons and residents who routinely treat HD to review 25 photographs (with given timing as during rest or push) of patients with HD and classify the gradation using the Goligher classification. The survey was sent by email on April 19, 2021 and was available online until July 5, 2021. Interobserver variability was assessed using Fleiss' Kappa test.

RESULTS

A total of 329 gastrointestinal surgeons, fellows and residents were sent an invitation email, of whom 95 (29%) completed the survey. Among the respondents, 87% indicated that they use the Goligher classification in clinical practice. Eighty-one percent found the classification helpful and 63% classified HD according to Goligher and followed the guidelines for treatment of HD accordingly. The interobserver variability showed an overall fair strength of agreement, with a Fleiss' Kappa (κ) of 0.376 (95% CI 0.373-0.380). There was a moderate agreement for grade I and IV HD with a κ statistic of 0.466 and 0.522, respectively. For grades II and III, there was a lower (fair) strength of agreement with 0.206 and 0.378, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The fair interobserver variability is disappointing and demonstrates the need for a more reliable, and internationally accepted, classification for HD. A new classification should enable more uniformity in treating HD and in comparing outcomes of future trials and prospective registries. The protocol for a Delphi study for a new classification system is currently being prepared and led by an international research group.

Making Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Haemorrhoidal Disease in Clinical Practice: A Perspective

Haemorrhoidal disease (HD) affects millions of people around the world and for most it is a recurring problem. Increasingly, clinicians broaden their focus on the patient's experiences with haemorrhoidal symptoms, including their impact on daily life. The patient's experience can be assessed using a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). A PROM facilitates a deeper understanding of the disease-burden and allows a clinician to obtain information directly from the patients about their experiences with the ailment. Over the last years, PROMs have shown their additional role to traditional outcomes for several diseases and have earned their place in the daily consultation room. In order to improve and personalize the treatment of HD, we endorse the use of validated PROMs in clinical care.