Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Haemorrhoidal disease is one of the most common anorectal disorders, which affects nearly half of the general population. Treatment of grade III haemorrhoids consists initially of conservative measures, followed by rubber band ligation and haemorrhoidectomy when unsuccessful. Given the current guidelines and numerous modalities the obvious question which needs to be answered is which treatment is the best for grade III haemorrhoids. There is a need for evaluating treatment from the patient’s point of view and transparency in surgical and non-surgical treatment outcome.

Methods and analysis

This multicentre, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial with cost–utility analysis compares haemorrhoidectomy with rubber band ligation. Patients aged 18 years and older with symptomatic haemorrhoids grade III are recruited. Primary outcome measure is quality of life at 24 months measured with the EQ-5D-5L and in-hospital (in)direct costs and out-of-hospital postoperative costs. A key secondary outcome is recurrence at 1-year postprocedure. Secondary outcomes are complaint reduction with proctology-specific patient-reported outcome measurements (Haemorrhoid Severity Score, ProctoPROM, PROM-HISS, vaizey score), resumption of work, pain and complication rates. Data are collected at seven different time points. Standard postprocedural care is followed. A sample size has been calculated using a one sided alpha of 0.025 and a power of 80% with an SD of 0.15 and a non-inferiority limit of 0.05. With stratification by centre and to adjust for 10% lost to follow-up the total sample size will be 360 patients in total (180 per group). Data will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat and the per-protocol principle.

Ethics and dissemination

The protocol has been approved by the Medical Ethics Review Committee of the Amsterdam University Medical Centres, location AMC. Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences, whether they are positive, negative or inconclusive.

Trial registration numbers

NCT04621695, NTR8020

SUBMITTER: Dekker L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8039253 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOptimum surgical intervention for low-grade haemorrhoids is unknown. Haemorrhoidal artery ligation (HAL) has been proposed as an efficacious, safe therapy while rubber band ligation (RBL) is a commonly used outpatient treatment. We compared recurrence after HAL versus RBL in patients with grade II-III haemorrhoids.MethodsThis multicentre, open-label, parallel group, randomised controlled trial included patients from 17 acute UK NHS trusts. We screened patients aged 18 years or older presenting with grade II-III haemorrhoids. We excluded patients who had previously received any haemorrhoid surgery, more than one injection treatment for haemorrhoids, or more than one RBL procedure within 3 years before recruitment. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to either RBL or HAL with Doppler. Randomisation was computer-generated and stratified by centre with blocks of random sizes. Allocation concealment was achieved using a web-based system. The study was open-label with no masking of participants, clinicians, or research staff. The primary outcome was recurrence at 1 year, derived from the patient's self-reported assessment in combination with resource use from their general practitioner and hospital records. Recurrence was analysed in patients who had undergone one of the interventions and been followed up for at least 1 year. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN41394716.FindingsFrom Sept 9, 2012, to May 6, 2014, of 969 patients screened, 185 were randomly assigned to the HAL group and 187 to the RBL group. Of these participants, 337 had primary outcome data (176 in the RBL group and 161 in the HAL group). At 1 year post-procedure, 87 (49%) of 176 patients in the RBL group and 48 (30%) of 161 patients in the HAL group had haemorrhoid recurrence (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2·23, 95% CI 1·42-3·51; p=0·0005). The main reason for this difference was the number of extra procedures required to achieve improvement (57 [32%] participants in the RBL group and 23 [14%] participants in the HAL group had a subsequent procedure for haemorrhoids). The mean pain 1 day after procedure was 3·4 (SD 2·8) in the RBL group and 4·6 (2·8) in the HAL group (difference -1·2, 95% CI -1·8 to -0·5; p=0·0002); at day 7 the scores were 1·6 (2·3) in the RBL group and 3·1 (2·4) in the HAL group (difference -1·5, -2·0 to -1·0; p<0·0001). Pain scores did not differ between groups at 21 days and 6 weeks. 15 individuals reported serious adverse events requiring hospital admission. One patient in the RBL group had a pre-existing rectal tumour. Of the remaining 14 serious adverse events, 12 (7%) were among participants treated with HAL and two (1%) were in those treated with RBL. Six patients had pain (one treated with RBL, five treated with HAL), three had bleeding not requiring transfusion (one treated with RBL, two treated with HAL), two in the HAL group had urinary retention, two in the HAL group had vasovagal upset, and one in the HAL group had possible sepsis (treated with antibiotics).InterpretationAlthough recurrence after HAL was lower than a single RBL, HAL was more painful than RBL. The difference in recurrence was due to the need for repeat bandings in the RBL group. Patients (and health commissioners) might prefer such a course of RBL to the more invasive HAL.FundingNIHR Health Technology Assessment programme.

Project description:IntroductionHaemorrhoidal 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 analysisThis 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.DiscussionThe 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 disseminationThe 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 registrationDutch Trial Register NL8377 . Registered on 12-02-2020.

Project description:BackgroundBrace effectiveness for knee osteoarthritis (OA) remains unclear and international guidelines offer conflicting recommendations. Our trial will determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of adding knee bracing (matched to patients' clinical and radiographic presentation and with adherence support) to a package of advice, written information and exercise instruction delivered by physiotherapists.Methods and analysisA multicentre, pragmatic, two-parallel group, single-blind, superiority, randomised controlled trial with internal pilot and nested qualitative study. 434 eligible participants with symptomatic knee OA identified from general practice, physiotherapy referrals and self-referral will be randomised 1:1 to advice, written information and exercise instruction and knee brace versus advice, written information and exercise instruction alone. The primary analysis will be intention-to-treat comparing treatment arms on the primary outcome (Knee Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS)-5) (composite knee score) at the primary endpoint (6 months) adjusted for prespecified covariates. Secondary analysis of KOOS subscales (pain, other symptoms, activities of daily living, function in sport and recreation, knee-related quality of life), self-reported pain, instability (buckling), treatment response, physical activity, social participation, self-efficacy and treatment acceptability will occur at 3, 6, and 12 months postrandomisation. Analysis of covariance and logistic regression will model continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. Treatment effect estimates will be presented as mean differences or ORs with 95% CIs. Economic evaluation will estimate cost-effectiveness. Semistructured interviews to explore acceptability and experiences of trial interventions will be conducted with participants and physiotherapists delivering interventions.Ethics and disseminationNorth West Preston Research Ethics Committee, the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research in Wales approved the study (REC Reference: 19/NW/0183; IRAS Reference: 247370). This protocol has been coproduced with stakeholders including patients and public. Findings will be disseminated to patients and a range of stakeholders.Trial registration numberISRCTN28555470.