BackgroundEarly physical rehabilitation in the intensive care unit (ICU) has been shown to improve short-term clinical outcomes but long-term benefit has not been proven and the optimum intensity of rehabilitation is not known.MethodsWe conducted a randomised, parallel-group, allocation-concealed, assessor-blinded, controlled trial in patients who had received at least 48 hours of invasive or non-invasive ventilation. Participants were randomised in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by admitting ICU, admission type and level of independence. The intervention group had a target of 90 min physical rehabilitation per day, the control group a target of 30 min per day (both Monday to Friday). The primary outcome was the Physical Component Summary (PCS) measure of SF-36 at 6 months.ResultsWe recruited 308 participants over 34 months: 150 assigned to the intervention and 158 to the control group. The intervention group received a median (IQR) of 161 (67–273) min of physical rehabilitation on ICU compared with 86 (31–139) min in the control group. At 6 months, 62 participants in the intervention group and 54 participants in the control group contributed primary outcome data. In the intervention group, 43 had died, 11 had withdrawn and 34 were lost to follow-up, while in the control group, 56 had died, 5 had withdrawn and 43 were lost to follow-up. There was no difference in the primary outcome at 6 months, mean (SD) PCS 37 (12.2) in the intervention group and 37 (11.3) in the control group.ConclusionsIn this study, ICU-based physical rehabilitation did not appear to improve physical outcomes at 6 months compared with standard physical rehabilitation.Trial registration numberISRCTN 20436833.

BackgroundMany patients awaiting lung transplantation die before a donor organ becomes available. Ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) allows initially unusable donor lungs to be assessed and reconditioned for clinical use.ObjectiveThe objective of the Donor Ex Vivo Lung Perfusion in UK lung transplantation study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of EVLP in increasing UK lung transplant activity.DesignA multicentre, unblinded, non-randomised, non-inferiority observational study to compare transplant outcomes between EVLP-assessed and standard donor lungs.SettingMulticentre study involving all five UK officially designated NHS adult lung transplant centres.ParticipantsPatients aged ≥ 18 years with advanced lung disease accepted onto the lung transplant waiting list.InterventionThe study intervention was EVLP assessment of donor lungs before determining suitability for transplantation.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was survival during the first 12 months following lung transplantation. Secondary outcome measures were patient-centred outcomes that are influenced by the effectiveness of lung transplantation and that contribute to the health-care costs.ResultsLungs from 53 donors unsuitable for standard transplant were assessed with EVLP, of which 18 (34%) were subsequently transplanted. A total of 184 participants received standard donor lungs. Owing to the early closure of the study, a non-inferiority analysis was not conducted. The Kaplan–Meier estimate of survival at 12 months was 0.67 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.83] for the EVLP arm and 0.80 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.85) for the standard arm. The hazard ratio for overall 12-month survival in the EVLP arm relative to the standard arm was 1.96 (95% CI 0.83 to 4.67). Patients in the EVLP arm required ventilation for a longer period and stayed longer in an intensive therapy unit (ITU) than patients in the standard arm, but duration of overall hospital stay was similar in both groups. There was a higher rate of very early grade 3 primary graft dysfunction (PGD) in the EVLP arm, but rates of PGD did not differ between groups after 72 hours. The requirement for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support was higher in the EVLP arm (7/18, 38.8%) than in the standard arm (6/184, 3.2%). There were no major differences in rates of chest radiograph abnormalities, infection, lung function or rejection by 12 months. The cost of EVLP transplants is approximately £35,000 higher than the cost of standard transplants, as a result of the cost of the EVLP procedure, and the increased ECMO use and ITU stay. Predictors of cost were quality of life on joining the waiting list, type of transplant and number of lungs transplanted. An exploratory model comparing a NHS lung transplant service that includes EVLP and standard lung transplants with one including only standard lung transplants resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £73,000. Interviews showed that patients had a good understanding of the need for, and the processes of, EVLP. If EVLP can increase the number of usable donor lungs and reduce waiting, it is likely to be acceptable to those waiting for lung transplantation. Study limitations include small numbers in the EVLP arm, limiting analysis to descriptive statistics and the EVLP protocol change during the study.ConclusionsOverall, one-third of donor lungs subjected to EVLP were deemed suitable for transplant. Estimated survival over 12 months was lower than in the standard group, but the data were also consistent with no difference in survival between groups. Patients receiving these additional transplants experience a higher rate of early graft injury and need for unplanned ECMO support, at increased cost. The small number of participants in the EVLP arm because of early study termination limits the robustness of these conclusions. The reason for the increased PGD rates, high ECMO requirement and possible differences in lung injury between EVLP protocols needs evaluation.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN44922411.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 85. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

SummaryBackgroundRepeated symptomatic urinary tract infections (UTIs) affect 25% of people who use clean intermittent self-catheterisation (CISC) to empty their bladder. We aimed to determine the benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of continuous low-dose antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of recurrent UTIs in adult users of CISC.MethodsIn this randomised, open-label, superiority trial, we enrolled participants from 51 UK National Health Service organisations. These participants were community-dwelling (as opposed to hospital inpatient) users of CISC with recurrent UTIs. We randomly allocated participants (1:1) to receive either antibiotic prophylaxis once daily (prophylaxis group) or no prophylaxis (control group) for 12 months by use of an internet-based system with permuted blocks of variable length. Trial and laboratory staff who assessed outcomes were masked to allocation but participants were aware of their treatment group. The primary outcome was the incidence of symptomatic, antibiotic-treated UTIs over 12 months. Participants who completed at least 6 months of follow-up were assumed to provide a reliable estimate of UTI incidence and were included in the analysis of the primary outcome. Change in antimicrobial resistance of urinary and faecal bacteria was monitored as a secondary outcome. The AnTIC trial is registered at ISRCTN, number 67145101; and EudraCT, number 2013-002556-32.FindingsBetween Nov 25, 2013, and Jan 29, 2016, we screened 1743 adult users of CISC for eligibility, of whom 404 (23%) participants were enrolled between Nov 26, 2013, and Jan 31, 2016. Of these 404 participants, 203 (50%) were allocated to receive prophylaxis and 201 (50%) to receive no prophylaxis. 1339 participants were excluded before randomisation. The primary analysis included 181 (89%) adults allocated to the prophylaxis group and 180 (90%) adults in the no prophylaxis (control) group. 22 participants in the prophylaxis group and 21 participants in the control group were not included in the primary analysis because they were missing follow-up data before 6 months. The incidence of symptomatic antibiotic-treated UTIs over 12 months was 1·3 cases per person-year (95% CI 1·1–1·6) in the prophylaxis group and 2·6 (2·3–2·9) in the control group, giving an incidence rate ratio of 0·52 (0·44–0·61; p<0·0001), indicating a 48% reduction in UTI frequency after treatment with prophylaxis. Use of prophylaxis was well tolerated: we recorded 22 minor adverse events in the prophylaxis group related to antibiotic prophylaxis during the study, predominantly gastrointestinal disturbance (six participants), skin rash (six participants), and candidal infection (four participants). However, resistance against the antibiotics used for UTI treatment was more frequent in urinary isolates from the prophylaxis group than in those from the control group at 9–12 months of trial participation (nitrofurantoin 12 [24%] of 51 participants from the prophylaxis group vs six [9%] of 64 participants from the control group with at least one isolate; p...

Objective To test and compare the efficacy of methenamine hippurate for prevention of recurrent urinary tract infections with the current standard prophylaxis of daily low dose antibiotics. Design Multicentre, open label, randomised, non-inferiority trial. Setting Eight centres in the UK, recruiting from June 2016 to June 2018. Participants Women aged ≥18 years with recurrent urinary tract infections, requiring prophylactic treatment. Interventions Random assignment (1:1, using permuted blocks of variable length via a web based system) to receive antibiotic prophylaxis or methenamine hippurate for 12 months. Treatment allocation was not masked and crossover between arms was allowed. Main outcome measure Absolute difference in incidence of symptomatic, antibiotic treated, urinary tract infections during treatment. A patient and public involvement group predefined the non-inferiority margin as one episode of urinary tract infection per person year. Analyses performed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprised all participants observed for at least six months. Results Participants were randomly assigned to antibiotic prophylaxis (n=120) or methenamine hippurate (n=120). The modified intention-to-treat analysis comprised 205 (85%) participants (antibiotics, n=102 (85%); methenamine hippurate, n=103 (86%)). Incidence of antibiotic treated urinary tract infections during the 12 month treatment period was 0.89 episodes per person year (95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.12) in the antibiotics group and 1.38 (1.05 to 1.72) in the methenamine hippurate group, with an absolute difference of 0.49 (90% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.84) confirming non-inferiority. Adverse reactions were reported by 34/142 (24%) in the antibiotic group and 35/127 (28%) in the methenamine group and most reactions were mild. Conclusion Non-antibiotic prophylactic treatment with methenamine hippurate might be appropriate for women with a history of recurrent episodes of urinary tract infections, informed by patient preferences and antibiotic stewardship initiatives, given the demonstration of non-inferiority to daily antibiotic prophylaxis seen in this trial. Trial registration ISRCTN70219762 .

Optimized insulin replacement and glucose monitoring underpinned by hypoglycemia-focused structured education should be provided to all with type 1 diabetes complicated by impaired awareness of hypoglycemia.