The clinical and cost effectiveness of surgical interventions for stones in the lower pole of the kidney: the percutaneous nephrolithotomy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower pole kidney stones randomised controlled trial (PUrE RCT) protocol.
Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy
Flexible ureterorenoscopy
Lower pole stone
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy
Renal stone
Journal
Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Jun 2020
04 Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
11
11
2019
accepted:
15
04
2020
entrez:
6
6
2020
pubmed:
6
6
2020
medline:
2
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Renal stones are common, with a lifetime prevalence of 10% in adults. Global incidence is increasing due to increases in obesity and diabetes, with these patient populations being more likely to suffer renal stone disease. Flank pain from stones (renal colic) is the most common cause of emergency admission to UK urology departments. Stones most commonly develop in the lower pole of the kidney (in ~35% of cases) and here are least likely to pass without intervention. Currently there are three technologies available within the UK National Health Service to remove lower pole kidney stones: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and flexible ureterorenoscopy (FURS) with laser lithotripsy. Current evidence indicates there is uncertainty regarding the management of lower pole stones, and each treatment has advantages and disadvantages. The aim of this trial is to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of FURS compared with ESWL or PCNL in the treatment of lower pole kidney stones. The PUrE (PCNL, FURS and ESWL for lower pole kidney stones) trial is a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating FURS versus ESWL or PCNL for lower pole kidney stones. Patients aged ≥16 years with a stone(s) in the lower pole of either kidney confirmed by non-contrast computed tomography of the kidney, ureter and bladder (CTKUB) and requiring treatment for a stone ≤10 mm will be randomised to receive FURS or ESWL (RCT1), and those requiring treatment for a stone >10 mm to ≤25 mm will be randomised to receive FURS or PCNL (RCT2). Participants will undergo follow-up by questionnaires every week up to 12 weeks post-intervention and at 12 months post-randomisation. The primary clinical outcome is health status measured by the area under the curve calculated from multiple measurements of the EuroQol five dimensions five-level version (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire up to 12 weeks post-intervention. The primary economic outcome is the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained at 12 months post-randomisation. The PUrE trial aims to provide robust evidence on health status, quality of life, clinical outcomes and resource use to directly inform choice and National Health Service provision of the three treatment options. ISRCTN: ISRCTN98970319. Registered on 11 November 2015.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32498699
doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04326-x
pii: 10.1186/s13063-020-04326-x
pmc: PMC7273687
doi:
Types de publication
Clinical Trial Protocol
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
479Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 13/152/02
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Chief Scientist Office
ID : HERU1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Chief Scientist Office
ID : HSRU1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Health Technology Assessment Programme
ID : 13/152/02
Références
Urology. 2014 May;83(5):1016-22
pubmed: 24560970
J Endourol. 2015 May;29(5):575-9
pubmed: 25203489
Eur Urol. 2001 Oct;40(4):362-71
pubmed: 11713390
Lancet. 2001 Aug 25;358(9282):651-6
pubmed: 11530173
Eur Urol. 1998;33(4):396-400
pubmed: 9612684
Health Econ. 2000 Oct;9(7):623-30
pubmed: 11103928
Health Econ. 2005 May;14(5):471-85
pubmed: 15386662
J Urol. 2005 Jun;173(6):2005-9
pubmed: 15879805
Health Econ. 2004 May;13(5):405-15
pubmed: 15127421
Eur Urol. 2000 Jan;37(1):18-22
pubmed: 10671779
Value Health. 2012 Sep-Oct;15(6):812-20
pubmed: 22999130
Urol Res. 2006 Apr;34(2):108-11
pubmed: 16463145
Urolithiasis. 2014 Apr;42(2):127-31
pubmed: 24220692
J Endourol. 2006 Oct;20(10):761-5
pubmed: 17094751
J Endourol. 1996 Feb;10(1):17-20
pubmed: 8833724
Nat Rev Urol. 2013 Feb;10(2):75-7
pubmed: 23295238
J Urol. 2001 Dec;166(6):2072-80
pubmed: 11696709
Eur Urol. 2015 Apr;67(4):612-6
pubmed: 25449204
J Urol. 2005 Mar;173(3):848-57
pubmed: 15711292
BJU Int. 2012 Apr;109(7):1082-7
pubmed: 21883851
Urology. 2000 Dec 20;56(6):935-9
pubmed: 11113736
J Urol. 1999 Dec;162(6):1904-8
pubmed: 10569534
J Urol. 1992 Feb;147(2):319-21
pubmed: 1732583
BJU Int. 2020 Jan;125(1):123-132
pubmed: 31313440
Eur Urol. 2014 Oct;66(4):724-9
pubmed: 25015037
BMJ. 2011 Apr 11;342:d1766
pubmed: 21482590
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Nov 24;(11):CD007044
pubmed: 25418417
J Endourol. 2006 Aug;20(8):556-9
pubmed: 16903814
J Urol. 2010 Apr;183(4):1424-8
pubmed: 20172565
Eur Urol. 2005 Jun;47(6):860-4
pubmed: 15925084
J Endourol. 2001 Oct;15(8):835-8
pubmed: 11724125
J Endourol. 2004 Aug;18(6):534-9
pubmed: 15333216
J Urol. 2003 Dec;170(6 Pt 1):2198-201
pubmed: 14634378
BMJ. 2011 Apr 07;342:d1548
pubmed: 21474510