METHODS: A pragmatic, multi-centre, open-labelled, randomised trial. Eligible patients with MPE and an IPC will be randomised 1:1 to either regular topical mupirocin prophylaxis or no mupirocin (standard care). For the interventional arm, topical mupirocin will be applied around the IPC exit-site after each drainage, at least twice weekly. Weekly follow-up via phone calls or in person will be conducted for up to 6 months. The primary outcome is the percentage of patients who develop an IPC-related (pleural, skin, or tract) infection between the time of catheter insertion and end of follow-up period. Secondary outcomes include analyses of infection (types and episodes), hospitalisation days, health economics, adverse events, and survival. Subject to interim analyses, the trial will recruit up to 418 participants.

DISCUSSION: Results from this trial will determine the efficacy of mupirocin prophylaxis in patients who require IPC for MPE. It will provide data on infection rates, microbiology, and potentially infection pathways associated with IPC-related infections.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Sir Charles Gairdner and Osborne Park Health Care Group Human Research Ethics Committee has approved the study (RGS0000005920). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences.

METHOD: We enrolled 95 women (≥ 36 weeks gestation) on their attendance for planned ECV. All participants received terbutaline tocolysis. Regional anaesthesia was not used. ECV was performed in the standard fashion after the application of the allocated aid. If the first round (maximum of 2 attempts) of ECV failed, crossover to the opposing aid was permitted.

RESULTS: 48 women were randomised to powder and 47 to gel. Self-reported procedure related median [interquartile range] pain scores (using a 10-point visual numerical rating scale VNRS; low score more pain) were 6 [5-9] vs. 8 [7-9] P = 0.03 in favor of gel. ECV was successful in 21/48 (43.8%) vs. 26/47 (55.3%) RR 0.6 95% CI 0.3-1.4 P = 0.3 for powder and gel arms respectively. Crossover to the opposing aid and a second round of ECV was performed in 13/27 (48.1%) following initial failure with powder and 4/21 (19%) after failure with gel (RR 3.9 95% CI 1.0-15 P = 0.07). ECV success rate was 5/13 (38.5%) vs. 1/4 (25%) P = 0.99 after crossover use of gel or powder respectively. Operators reported higher satisfaction score with the use of gel (high score, greater satisfaction) VNRS scores 6 [4.25-8] vs 8 [7-9] P = 0.01.

CONCLUSION: Women find gel use to be associated with less pain. The ECV success rate is not significantly different.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, open-label randomised trial. Patients with MPE will be randomised 1:1 to daily or symptom-guided drainage regimes after IPC insertion. Patient allocation to groups will be stratified for the cancer type (mesothelioma vs others), performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status 0-1 vs ≥2), presence of trapped lung (vs not) and prior pleurodesis (vs not). The primary outcome is the mean daily dyspnoea score, measured by a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) over the first 60 days. Secondary outcomes include benefits on physical activity levels, rate of spontaneous pleurodesis, complications, hospital admission days, healthcare costs and QoL measures. Enrolment of 86 participants will detect a mean difference of VAS score of 14 mm between the treatment arms (5% significance, 90% power) assuming a common between-group SD of 18.9 mm and a 10% lost to follow-up rate.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Sir Charles Gairdner Group Human Research Ethics Committee has approved the study (number 2015-043). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific meetings.