| Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
Challenges in designing a pragmatic clinical trial: the mixed incontinence — medical or surgical approach (MIMOSA) trial experienceDepartments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Urology, Loyola University, Chicago, IL, USA, Lbrubaker{at}lumc.edu
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
Department of Reproductive Medicine, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA
Department of Urology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI, USA
Department of Urology, University of Maryland, MD, USA
Department of Urology, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX, USA
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah, Salt Lake, UT, USA
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA
New England Research Institutes, Watertown, MA, USA Background Mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) is a common, bothersome condition in women. In MUI, the two subtypes of urinary incontinence that coexist are treated differently; stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is primarily treated surgically while urge urinary incontinence (UUI) is primarily treated medically. There is no evidence to guide the treatment for women with significant bother from both incontinence subtypes. Therefore, investigators of the Urinary Incontinence Treatment Network (UITN) designed and initiated a randomized clinical trial comparing outcomes for two distinct initial treatment approaches for women with mixed urinary incontinence (MUI): therapy initiated with surgery versus therapy initiated with nonsurgical treatment. Purpose The aim of this manuscript is to describe the challenges in planning and implementing this randomized clinical trial. Methods The mixed incontinence: medical or surgical approach (MIMOSA) trial was designed as a practical or pragmatic clinical trial to establish the relative efficacy of two specific treatment approaches. The design presented many challenging decisions including: (1) selection of practical paradigm; (2) refining inclusion/ exclusion criteria to offer equipoise; (3) selection of feasibility sample size; (4) recruitment challenges for two divergent treatment approaches (medical vs. surgical), and (5) resolution of ethical and methodological issues. Results MIMOSA recruitment was planned in two phases, starting with a 5-month pilot and feasibility phase followed by a full trial contingent on the outcome of the first phase. The feasibility portion of the MIMOSA trial started in November 2008. 1198 subjects were screened and approached forstudy enrollment, but only 27 consented to randomization. The feasibility study was halted due to lack of enrollment in March 2009. Limitations The challenges of this trial included a lack of information from subjects who did not enroll, increasing the difficulty of interpreting the feasibility phase. Conclusions Successful recruitment to a randomized trial that compares significantly different treatment approaches poses a challenge. Clinical Trials 2009; 6: 355—364. http://ctj.sagepub.com
This version was published on August
1, 2009 Clinical Trials, Vol. 6, No. 4,
355-364 (2009) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
 |
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
