Cargando…

TISU: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, as first treatment option, compared with direct progression to ureteroscopic treatment, for ureteric stones: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Urinary stone disease is very common with an estimated prevalence among the general population of 2–3%. Ureteric stones are associated with severe pain as they pass through the urinary tract and have significant impact on patients’ quality of life due to the detrimental effect on their a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McClinton, Samuel, Cameron, Sarah, Starr, Kathryn, Thomas, Ruth, MacLennan, Graeme, McDonald, Alison, Lam, Thomas, N’Dow, James, Kilonzo, Mary, Pickard, Robert, Anson, Ken, Keeley, Frank, Burgess, Neil, Clark, Charles Terry, MacLennan, Sara, Norrie, John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5964896/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29788982
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2652-1
_version_ 1783325264239919104
author McClinton, Samuel
Cameron, Sarah
Starr, Kathryn
Thomas, Ruth
MacLennan, Graeme
McDonald, Alison
Lam, Thomas
N’Dow, James
Kilonzo, Mary
Pickard, Robert
Anson, Ken
Keeley, Frank
Burgess, Neil
Clark, Charles Terry
MacLennan, Sara
Norrie, John
author_facet McClinton, Samuel
Cameron, Sarah
Starr, Kathryn
Thomas, Ruth
MacLennan, Graeme
McDonald, Alison
Lam, Thomas
N’Dow, James
Kilonzo, Mary
Pickard, Robert
Anson, Ken
Keeley, Frank
Burgess, Neil
Clark, Charles Terry
MacLennan, Sara
Norrie, John
author_sort McClinton, Samuel
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Urinary stone disease is very common with an estimated prevalence among the general population of 2–3%. Ureteric stones are associated with severe pain as they pass through the urinary tract and have significant impact on patients’ quality of life due to the detrimental effect on their ability to work and need for hospitalisation. Most ureteric stones can be expected to pass spontaneously with supportive care. However, between one-fifth and one-third of cases require an intervention. The two standard active intervention options are extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopic stone retrieval. ESWL and ureteroscopy are effective in terms of stone clearance; however, they differ in terms of invasiveness, anaesthetic requirement, treatment setting, complications, patient-reported outcomes (e.g. pain after intervention, time off work) and cost. There is uncertainty around which is the most clinically effective in terms of stone clearance and the true cost to the NHS and to society (in terms of impact on patient-reported health and economic burden). The aim of this trial is to determine whether, in adults with ureteric stones, judged to require active intervention, ESWL is not inferior and is more cost-effective compared to ureteroscopic treatment as the initial management option. METHODS: The TISU study is a pragmatic multicentre non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of ESWL as the first treatment option compared with direct progression to ureteroscopic treatment for ureteric stones. Patients aged over 16 years with a ureteric stone confirmed by non-contrast computed tomography of the kidney, ureter and bladder (CTKUB) will be randomised to either ESWL or ureteroscopy. The primary clinical outcome is resolution of the stone episode (no further intervention required to facilitate stone clearance) up to six months from randomisation. The primary economic outcome is the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained at six months from randomisation. DISCUSSION: Determining whether ESWL is not inferior clinically and is cost-effective compared to ureteroscopic treatment as the initial management in adults with ureteric stones who are judged to require active treatment is relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to healthcare providers, both in the UK and globally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN92289221. Registered on 21 February 2013. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2652-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5964896
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59648962018-05-24 TISU: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, as first treatment option, compared with direct progression to ureteroscopic treatment, for ureteric stones: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial McClinton, Samuel Cameron, Sarah Starr, Kathryn Thomas, Ruth MacLennan, Graeme McDonald, Alison Lam, Thomas N’Dow, James Kilonzo, Mary Pickard, Robert Anson, Ken Keeley, Frank Burgess, Neil Clark, Charles Terry MacLennan, Sara Norrie, John Trials Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Urinary stone disease is very common with an estimated prevalence among the general population of 2–3%. Ureteric stones are associated with severe pain as they pass through the urinary tract and have significant impact on patients’ quality of life due to the detrimental effect on their ability to work and need for hospitalisation. Most ureteric stones can be expected to pass spontaneously with supportive care. However, between one-fifth and one-third of cases require an intervention. The two standard active intervention options are extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopic stone retrieval. ESWL and ureteroscopy are effective in terms of stone clearance; however, they differ in terms of invasiveness, anaesthetic requirement, treatment setting, complications, patient-reported outcomes (e.g. pain after intervention, time off work) and cost. There is uncertainty around which is the most clinically effective in terms of stone clearance and the true cost to the NHS and to society (in terms of impact on patient-reported health and economic burden). The aim of this trial is to determine whether, in adults with ureteric stones, judged to require active intervention, ESWL is not inferior and is more cost-effective compared to ureteroscopic treatment as the initial management option. METHODS: The TISU study is a pragmatic multicentre non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of ESWL as the first treatment option compared with direct progression to ureteroscopic treatment for ureteric stones. Patients aged over 16 years with a ureteric stone confirmed by non-contrast computed tomography of the kidney, ureter and bladder (CTKUB) will be randomised to either ESWL or ureteroscopy. The primary clinical outcome is resolution of the stone episode (no further intervention required to facilitate stone clearance) up to six months from randomisation. The primary economic outcome is the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained at six months from randomisation. DISCUSSION: Determining whether ESWL is not inferior clinically and is cost-effective compared to ureteroscopic treatment as the initial management in adults with ureteric stones who are judged to require active treatment is relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to healthcare providers, both in the UK and globally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN92289221. Registered on 21 February 2013. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2652-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-05-22 /pmc/articles/PMC5964896/ /pubmed/29788982 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2652-1 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
McClinton, Samuel
Cameron, Sarah
Starr, Kathryn
Thomas, Ruth
MacLennan, Graeme
McDonald, Alison
Lam, Thomas
N’Dow, James
Kilonzo, Mary
Pickard, Robert
Anson, Ken
Keeley, Frank
Burgess, Neil
Clark, Charles Terry
MacLennan, Sara
Norrie, John
TISU: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, as first treatment option, compared with direct progression to ureteroscopic treatment, for ureteric stones: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
title TISU: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, as first treatment option, compared with direct progression to ureteroscopic treatment, for ureteric stones: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
title_full TISU: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, as first treatment option, compared with direct progression to ureteroscopic treatment, for ureteric stones: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
title_fullStr TISU: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, as first treatment option, compared with direct progression to ureteroscopic treatment, for ureteric stones: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed TISU: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, as first treatment option, compared with direct progression to ureteroscopic treatment, for ureteric stones: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
title_short TISU: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, as first treatment option, compared with direct progression to ureteroscopic treatment, for ureteric stones: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
title_sort tisu: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, as first treatment option, compared with direct progression to ureteroscopic treatment, for ureteric stones: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5964896/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29788982
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2652-1
work_keys_str_mv AT mcclintonsamuel tisuextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyasfirsttreatmentoptioncomparedwithdirectprogressiontoureteroscopictreatmentforuretericstonesstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT cameronsarah tisuextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyasfirsttreatmentoptioncomparedwithdirectprogressiontoureteroscopictreatmentforuretericstonesstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT starrkathryn tisuextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyasfirsttreatmentoptioncomparedwithdirectprogressiontoureteroscopictreatmentforuretericstonesstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT thomasruth tisuextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyasfirsttreatmentoptioncomparedwithdirectprogressiontoureteroscopictreatmentforuretericstonesstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT maclennangraeme tisuextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyasfirsttreatmentoptioncomparedwithdirectprogressiontoureteroscopictreatmentforuretericstonesstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT mcdonaldalison tisuextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyasfirsttreatmentoptioncomparedwithdirectprogressiontoureteroscopictreatmentforuretericstonesstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT lamthomas tisuextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyasfirsttreatmentoptioncomparedwithdirectprogressiontoureteroscopictreatmentforuretericstonesstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT ndowjames tisuextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyasfirsttreatmentoptioncomparedwithdirectprogressiontoureteroscopictreatmentforuretericstonesstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT kilonzomary tisuextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyasfirsttreatmentoptioncomparedwithdirectprogressiontoureteroscopictreatmentforuretericstonesstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT pickardrobert tisuextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyasfirsttreatmentoptioncomparedwithdirectprogressiontoureteroscopictreatmentforuretericstonesstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT ansonken tisuextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyasfirsttreatmentoptioncomparedwithdirectprogressiontoureteroscopictreatmentforuretericstonesstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT keeleyfrank tisuextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyasfirsttreatmentoptioncomparedwithdirectprogressiontoureteroscopictreatmentforuretericstonesstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT burgessneil tisuextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyasfirsttreatmentoptioncomparedwithdirectprogressiontoureteroscopictreatmentforuretericstonesstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT clarkcharlesterry tisuextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyasfirsttreatmentoptioncomparedwithdirectprogressiontoureteroscopictreatmentforuretericstonesstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT maclennansara tisuextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyasfirsttreatmentoptioncomparedwithdirectprogressiontoureteroscopictreatmentforuretericstonesstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT norriejohn tisuextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyasfirsttreatmentoptioncomparedwithdirectprogressiontoureteroscopictreatmentforuretericstonesstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT tisuextracorporealshockwavelithotripsyasfirsttreatmentoptioncomparedwithdirectprogressiontoureteroscopictreatmentforuretericstonesstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial