TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Healthcare using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions (TRIUMPH) compared with usual care: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

Lower urinary tract symptoms in men: the TRIUMPH cluster RCT

Background

Conservative therapies are recommended as initial treatment for male lower urinary tract symptoms. However, there is a lack of evidence on effectiveness and uncertainty regarding approaches to delivery.

Objective

The objective was to determine whether or not a standardised and manualised care intervention delivered in primary care achieves superior symptomatic outcome for lower urinary tract symptoms to usual care.

Design

This was a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial.

Setting

The trial was set in 30 NHS general practice sites in England.

Participants

Participants were adult men (aged ≥ 18 years) with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms.

Interventions

Sites were randomised 1 : 1 to deliver the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions trial intervention or usual care to all participants. The TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions intervention comprised a standardised advice booklet developed for the trial from the British Association of Urological Surgeons' patient information sheets, with patient and expert input. Patients were directed to relevant sections by general practice or research nurses/healthcare assistants following urinary symptom assessment, providing the manualised element. The healthcare professional provided follow-up contacts over 12 weeks to support adherence to the intervention.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was the validated patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score 12 months post consent. Rather than the minimal clinically important difference of 3.0 points for overall International Prostate Symptom Score, the sample size aimed to detect a difference of 2.0 points, owing to the recognised clinical impact of individual symptoms.

Results

A total of 1077 men consented to the study: 524 in sites randomised to the intervention arm (n = 17) and 553 in sites randomised to the control arm (n = 13). A difference in mean International Prostate Symptom Score at 12 months was found (adjusted mean difference of -1.81 points, 95% confidence interval -2.66 to -0.95 points), with a lower score in the intervention arm, indicating less severe symptoms. Secondary outcomes of patient-reported urinary symptoms, quality of life specific to lower urinary tract symptoms and perception of lower urinary tract symptoms all showed evidence of a difference between the arms favouring the intervention. No difference was seen between the arms in the proportion of urology referrals or adverse events. In qualitative interviews, participants welcomed the intervention, describing positive effects on their symptoms, as well as on their understanding of conservative care and their attitude towards the experience of lower urinary tract symptoms. The interviews highlighted that structured, in-depth self-management is insufficiently embedded within general practitioner consultations. From an NHS perspective, mean costs and quality-adjusted life-years were similar between trial arms. The intervention arm had slightly lower mean costs (adjusted mean difference of -£29.99, 95% confidence interval -£109.84 to £22.63) than the usual-care arm, and a small gain in quality-adjusted life-years (adjusted mean difference of 0.001, 95% confidence interval -0.011 to 0.014).

Conclusions

The intervention showed a small, sustained benefit for men's lower urinary tract symptoms and quality of life across a range of outcome measures in a UK primary care setting. Qualitative data showed that men highly valued the intervention. Intervention costs were marginally lower than usual-care costs. Limitations of the study included that trial participants were unmasked, with limited diversity in ethnicity and deprivation level. Additional research is needed to assess the applicability of the intervention for a more ethnically diverse population..

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN11669964.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/90/03) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 13. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Cost-effectiveness of a primary healthcare intervention to treat male lower urinary tract symptoms: the TRIUMPH cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of a primary care intervention for male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) compared with usual care.

DESIGN

Economic evaluation alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective with a 12-month time horizon.

SETTING

Thirty NHS general practice sites in England.

PARTICIPANTS

1077 men aged 18 or older identified in primary care with bothersome LUTS.

INTERVENTIONS

A standardised and manualised intervention for the treatment of bothersome LUTS was compared with usual care. The intervention group (n=524) received a standardised information booklet with guidance on conservative treatment for LUTS, urinary symptom assessment and follow-up contacts for 12 weeks. The usual care group (n=553) followed local guidelines between general practice sites.

MEASURES

Resource use was obtained from electronic health records, trial staff and participants, and valued using UK reference costs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated from the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Adjusted mean differences in costs and QALYs and incremental net monetary benefit were estimated.

RESULTS

866 of 1077 (80.4%) participants had complete data and were included in the base-case analysis. Over the 12-month follow-up period, intervention and usual care arms had similar mean adjusted costs and QALYs. Mean differences were lower in the intervention arm for adjusted costs -£29.99 (95% CI -£109.84 to £22.63) while higher in the intervention arm for adjusted QALYs 0.001 (95% CI -0.011 to 0.014). The incremental net monetary benefit statistic was £48.01 (95% CI -£225.83 to £321.85) at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence UK threshold of £20 000 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed a 63% probability of the intervention arm being cost-effective at this threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Costs and QALYs were similar between the two arms at 12 months follow-up. This indicates that the intervention can be implemented in general practice at neutral cost.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN11669964.

Treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men in primary care using a conservative intervention: cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a standardised and manualised care intervention in men in primary care could achieve superior improvement of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) compared with usual care.

DESIGN

Cluster randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

30 National Health Service general practice sites in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Sites were randomised 1:1 to the intervention and control arms. 1077 men (≥18 years) with bothersome LUTS recruited between June 2018 and August 2019: 524 were assigned to the intervention arm (n=17 sites) and 553 were assigned to the usual care arm (n=13 sites).

INTERVENTION

Standardised information booklet developed with patient and expert input, providing guidance on conservative and lifestyle interventions for LUTS in men. After assessment of urinary symptoms (manualised element), general practice nurses and healthcare assistants or research nurses directed participants to relevant sections of the manual and provided contact over 12 weeks to assist with adherence.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was patient reported International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) measured 12 months after participants had consented to take part in the study. The target reduction of 2.0 points on which the study was powered reflects the minimal clinically important difference where baseline IPSS is <20. Secondary outcomes were patient reported quality of life, urinary symptoms and perception of LUTS, hospital referrals, and adverse events. The primary intention-to-treat analysis included 887 participants (82% of those recruited) and used a mixed effects multilevel linear regression model adjusted for site level variables used in the randomisation and baseline scores.

RESULTS

Participants in the intervention arm had a lower mean IPSS at 12 months (adjusted mean difference -1.81 points, 95% confidence interval -2.66 to -0.95) indicating less severe urinary symptoms than those in the usual care arm. LUTS specific quality of life, incontinence, and perception of LUTS also improved more in the intervention arm than usual care arm at 12 months. The proportion of urology referrals (intervention 7.3%, usual care 7.9%) and adverse events (intervention seven events, usual care eight events) were comparable between the arms.

CONCLUSIONS

A standardised and manualised intervention in primary care showed a sustained reduction in LUTS in men at 12 months. The mean difference of -1.81 points (95% confidence interval -0.95 to -2.66) on the IPSS was less than the predefined target reduction of 2.0 points.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN11669964.

Bladder training for treating overactive bladder in adults

BACKGROUND

Overactive bladder (OAB) is a common chronic and bothersome condition. Bladder training is widely prescribed as a first-line treatment for OAB, but the efficacy has been systematically evaluated for urinary incontinence rather than OAB alone.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of bladder training for treating adults with OAB compared to no treatment, anticholinergics, β3-adrenoceptor agonists, or pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) alone or in combination.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 6 November 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials involving adults aged 18 years or older with non-neurogenic OAB. We excluded studies of participants whose symptoms were caused by factors outside the urinary tract (e.g. neurologic disorders, cognitive impairment, gynecologic diseases).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. participant-reported cure or improvement, 2. symptom- and condition-related quality of life (QoL), and 3.

ADVERSE EVENTS

Secondary outcomes included 4. participant-reported satisfaction, 5. number of incontinence episodes, 6. number of urgency episodes, and 7. number of micturition episodes. For the purpose of this review, we considered two time points: immediately after the treatment (early phase) and at least two months after the treatment (late phase). We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 trials with 2007 participants; participants in these trials were predominantly women (89.3%). We assessed the risk of bias of results for primary and secondary outcomes, which across all studies was similar and predominantly of high risk of bias, and none were at low risk of bias. The certainty of evidence was low to very low, with some moderate, across measured outcomes. Bladder training versus no treatment: three studies involving 92 participants compared bladder training to no treatment. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of bladder training on cure or improvement at the early phase (risk ratio (RR) 17.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 256.56; 1 study, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Bladder training may reduce the number of incontinence episodes (mean difference (MD) -1.86, 95% CI -3.47 to -0.25; 1 study, 14 participants; low-certainty evidence). No studies measured symptom- and condition-related QoL, number of adverse events, participant-reported satisfaction, number of urgency episodes, or number of micturition episodes in the early phase. Bladder training versus anticholinergics: seven studies (602 participants) investigated the effects of bladder training versus anticholinergic therapy. Bladder training may be more effective than anticholinergics on cure or improvement at the early phase (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.70; 4 studies, 258 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of bladder training on symptom- and condition-related QoL (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.77; 2 studies, 117 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Although the evidence is very uncertain, there were fewer adverse events in the bladder training group than in the anticholinergics group (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.17; 3 studies, 187 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours (MD 0.36, 95% CI -0.27 to 1.00; 2 studies, 117 participants; very low-certainty evidence), the number of urgency episodes per 24 hours (MD 0.70, 95% CI -0.62 to 2.02; 2 studies, 92 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the number of micturition episodes per 24 hours (MD -0.35, 95% CI -1.90 to 1.20; 3 studies, 175 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies measured participant-reported satisfaction in the early phase. Bladder training versus PFMT: three studies involving 203 participants compared bladder training to PFMT. The evidence is very uncertain about the different effects between bladder training and PFMT on symptom- and condition-related QoL at the early phase (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.40; 2 studies, 178 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were no adverse events in either group at the early phase (1 study, 97 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain about the effects of the number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.39, 1 study, 81 participants; low-certainty evidence) and very uncertain about the number of micturition episodes per 24 hours (MD 0.10, 95% CI -1.44 to 1.64; 1 study, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies measured cure or improvement, participant-reported satisfaction, or number of urgency episodes in the early phase. Although we were interested in studies examining bladder training versus β3-adrenoceptor agonists, in combination with β3-adrenoceptor agonists versus β3-adrenoceptor agonists alone, and in combination with PFMT versus PFMT alone, we did not identify any eligible studies for these comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review focused on the effect of bladder training to treat OAB. However, most of the evidence was low or very-low certainty. Based on the low- or very low-certainty evidence, bladder training may cure or improve OAB compared to no treatment. Bladder training may be more effective to cure or improve OAB than anticholinergics, and there may be fewer adverse events. There may be no difference in efficacy or safety between bladder training and PFMT. More well-designed trials are needed to reach a firm conclusion.

Qualitative Assessment of the Conservative Management of Nocturia with Standardised Written Materials for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Men Treated in Primary Care

BACKGROUND

Many men prefer conservative treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) but education and self-help guidance are limited in primary care.

OBJECTIVE

To report qualitative interview findings for men reporting nocturia in a primary care setting for LUTS.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

TRIUMPH (Treating Urinary Symptoms in Men in Primary Healthcare) is a multicentre cluster randomised trial of standardised manualised care (a booklet delivered by a health care professional) versus usual care for LUTS. The participants (524 in the intervention arm and 553 in the usual care arm) were men presenting for primary care for LUTS at 30 general practice (GP) sites in the UK.

INTERVENTION

Delivery of a LUTS self-management booklet by health care staff in comparison to usual care for men with LUTS.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The qualitative component included 58 early-stage (0-3 mo after study enrolment) and 33 late-stage (3-9 mo later) interviews with participants to assess their experience of LUTS and conservative treatment in primary care. Purposive sampling was used to select participants for interview.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Nocturia is a common driver for seeking health care and is perceived by men as relatively acceptable to discuss. Information and self-help guidance were largely absent from descriptions of GP consultations, other than reducing evening caffeine and fluid intake. The TRIUMPH LUTS intervention booklet offers explanations and self-management guidance. Men with long-term disruptive symptoms, a perception that the booklet content was novel or worthwhile, and a belief that self-management might help, were more receptive to the intervention. In follow-up, improvements in nocturia were related to successful implementation of several aspects of the guidance. Most men were willing to complete a bladder diary, but some found it inconvenient, especially men in employment. The characteristics of the trial population mean that the findings may not apply to all men.

CONCLUSIONS

Reassuring men that nocturia is part of ageing without offering them information and support risks reinforcing the tendency to discount problematic LUTS. The trial booklet and the training of health care professionals support guidance on nocturia self-management, which is most effective for men receptive to this approach. However, the nature of the trial population means that the findings may not apply to all men.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Men are more comfortable in discussing waking at night to urinate than talking about other urinary symptoms with their GP. This problem should lead to a detailed discussion of all urinary symptoms rather than being thought of as a sign of ageing. An information booklet and nurse consultation helped many men to improve this symptom.

The Challenges of Real-life Bladder Diary Use and Interpretation

The International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire bladder diary records the amount and type of drinks, urine output, bladder sensation, and pad use for assessing nocturia and storage urinary symptoms. Instructions before completion, checks after completion, and training of staff in diary analysis are essential.