BACKGROUND: The primary aims of this trial are to determine whether the use of a concomitant prophylactic anti-incontinence procedure may prevent stress urinary incontinence symptom development in women undergoing vaginal prolapse surgery and to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this prophylactic approach. PURPOSE: To present the rationale and design of a randomized controlled surgical trial (RCT), the Outcomes following vaginal Prolapse repair and mid Urethral Sling (OPUS) Trial highlighting the challenges in the design and implementation. METHODS: The challenges of implementing this surgical trial combined with a cost-effectiveness study and patient preference group are discussed including the study design, ethical issues regarding use of sham incision, maintaining the masking of study staff, and pragmatic difficulties encountered in the collection of cost data. The trial is conducted by the NICHD-funded Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. RESULTS: The ongoing OPUS trial started enrollment in May 2007 with a planned accrual of 350. The use of sham incision was generally well accepted but the collection of cost data using conventional billing forms was found to potentially unmask key study personnel. This necessitated changes in the study forms and planned timing for collection of cost data. To date, the enrollment to the patient preference group has been lower than the limit established by the protocol suggesting a willingness on the part of women to participate in the randomization. LIMITATIONS: Given the invasive nature of surgical intervention trials, potential participants may be reluctant to accept random assignment, potentially impacting generalizability. CONCLUSION: Findings from the OPUS trial will provide important information that will help surgeons to better counsel women on the benefits and risks of concomitant prophylactic anti-incontinence procedure at the time of vaginal surgery for prolapse. The implementation of the OPUS trial has necessitated that investigators consider ethical issues up front, remain flexible with regards to data collection and be constantly aware of unanticipated opportunities for unmasking. Future surgical trials should be aware of potential challenges in maintaining masking and collection of cost-related information.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The primary aims of this trial are to determine whether the use of a concomitant prophylactic anti-incontinence procedure may prevent stress urinary incontinence symptom development in women undergoing vaginal prolapse surgery and to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this prophylactic approach. PURPOSE: To present the rationale and design of a randomized controlled surgical trial (RCT), the Outcomes following vaginal Prolapse repair and mid Urethral Sling (OPUS) Trial highlighting the challenges in the design and implementation. METHODS: The challenges of implementing this surgical trial combined with a cost-effectiveness study and patient preference group are discussed including the study design, ethical issues regarding use of sham incision, maintaining the masking of study staff, and pragmatic difficulties encountered in the collection of cost data. The trial is conducted by the NICHD-funded Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. RESULTS: The ongoing OPUS trial started enrollment in May 2007 with a planned accrual of 350. The use of sham incision was generally well accepted but the collection of cost data using conventional billing forms was found to potentially unmask key study personnel. This necessitated changes in the study forms and planned timing for collection of cost data. To date, the enrollment to the patient preference group has been lower than the limit established by the protocol suggesting a willingness on the part of women to participate in the randomization. LIMITATIONS: Given the invasive nature of surgical intervention trials, potential participants may be reluctant to accept random assignment, potentially impacting generalizability. CONCLUSION: Findings from the OPUS trial will provide important information that will help surgeons to better counsel women on the benefits and risks of concomitant prophylactic anti-incontinence procedure at the time of vaginal surgery for prolapse. The implementation of the OPUS trial has necessitated that investigators consider ethical issues up front, remain flexible with regards to data collection and be constantly aware of unanticipated opportunities for unmasking. Future surgical trials should be aware of potential challenges in maintaining masking and collection of cost-related information.
Authors: Vincent Misraï; Morgan Rouprêt; Florence Cour; Emmanuel Chartier-Kastler; François Richard Journal: BJU Int Date: 2007-11-08 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Linda Brubaker; Matthew D Barber; Ingrid Nygaard; Charlie W Nager; Edward Varner; Joseph Schaffer; Anthony Visco; Susan Meikle; Cathie Spino Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-08-21 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: J Eric Jelovsek; Kevin Chagin; Linda Brubaker; Rebecca G Rogers; Holly E Richter; Lily Arya; Matthew D Barber; Jonathan P Shepherd; Tracy L Nolen; Peggy Norton; Vivian Sung; Shawn Menefee; Nazema Siddiqui; Susan F Meikle; Michael W Kattan Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Charles W Nager; Cara L Grimes; Tracy L Nolen; Clifford Y Wai; Linda Brubaker; Peter C Jeppson; Tracey S Wilson; Anthony G Visco; Matthew D Barber; Gary Sutkin; Peggy Norton; Charles R Rardin; Lily Arya; Dennis Wallace; Susan F Meikle Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2019 Jan/Feb Impact factor: 2.091