Lower urinary tract symptoms in men: the TRIUMPH cluster RCT
Authors: Worthington Jo , Frost Jessica , Sanderson Emily , Cochrane Madeleine , Wheeler Jessica , Cotterill Nikki , MacNeill Stephanie J , Noble Sian , Avery Miriam , Clarke Samantha , Fader Mandy , Hashim Hashim , McGeagh Lucy , Macaulay Margaret , Rees Jonathan , Robles Luke , Taylor Gordon , Taylor Jodi , Thompson Joanne , Lane J Athene , Ridd Matthew J , Drake Marcus J 
Published: April 2023

Background

Conservative therapies are recommended as initial treatment for male lower urinary tract symptoms. However, there is a lack of evidence on effectiveness and uncertainty regarding approaches to delivery.

Objective

The objective was to determine whether or not a standardised and manualised care intervention delivered in primary care achieves superior symptomatic outcome for lower urinary tract symptoms to usual care.

Design

This was a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial.

Setting

The trial was set in 30 NHS general practice sites in England.

Participants

Participants were adult men (aged ≥ 18 years) with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms.

Interventions

Sites were randomised 1 : 1 to deliver the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions trial intervention or usual care to all participants. The TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions intervention comprised a standardised advice booklet developed for the trial from the British Association of Urological Surgeons’ patient information sheets, with patient and expert input. Patients were directed to relevant sections by general practice or research nurses/healthcare assistants following urinary symptom assessment, providing the manualised element. The healthcare professional provided follow-up contacts over 12 weeks to support adherence to the intervention.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was the validated patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score 12 months post consent. Rather than the minimal clinically important difference of 3.0 points for overall International Prostate Symptom Score, the sample size aimed to detect a difference of 2.0 points, owing to the recognised clinical impact of individual symptoms.

Results

A total of 1077 men consented to the study: 524 in sites randomised to the intervention arm (n = 17) and 553 in sites randomised to the control arm (n = 13). A difference in mean International Prostate Symptom Score at 12 months was found (adjusted mean difference of –1.81 points, 95% confidence interval –2.66 to –0.95 points), with a lower score in the intervention arm, indicating less severe symptoms. Secondary outcomes of patient-reported urinary symptoms, quality of life specific to lower urinary tract symptoms and perception of lower urinary tract symptoms all showed evidence of a difference between the arms favouring the intervention. No difference was seen between the arms in the proportion of urology referrals or adverse events. In qualitative interviews, participants welcomed the intervention, describing positive effects on their symptoms, as well as on their understanding of conservative care and their attitude towards the experience of lower urinary tract symptoms. The interviews highlighted that structured, in-depth self-management is insufficiently embedded within general practitioner consultations. From an NHS perspective, mean costs and quality-adjusted life-years were similar between trial arms. The intervention arm had slightly lower mean costs (adjusted mean difference of –£29.99, 95% confidence interval –£109.84 to £22.63) than the usual-care arm, and a small gain in quality-adjusted life-years (adjusted mean difference of 0.001, 95% confidence interval –0.011 to 0.014).

Conclusions

The intervention showed a small, sustained benefit for men’s lower urinary tract symptoms and quality of life across a range of outcome measures in a UK primary care setting. Qualitative data showed that men highly valued the intervention. Intervention costs were marginally lower than usual-care costs. Limitations of the study included that trial participants were unmasked, with limited diversity in ethnicity and deprivation level. Additional research is needed to assess the applicability of the intervention for a more ethnically diverse population..

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN11669964.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/90/03) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 13. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.