Dataset Information

Glibenclamide and metfoRmin versus stAndard care in gEstational diabeteS (GRACES): a feasibility open label randomised trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Metformin is widely used to treat gestational diabetes (GDM), but many women remain hyperglycaemic and require additional therapy. We aimed to determine recruitment rate and participant throughput in a randomised trial of glibenclamide compared with standard therapy insulin (added to maximum tolerated metformin) for treatment of GDM. METHODS:We conducted an open label feasibility study in 5 UK antenatal clinics among pregnant women 16 to 36 weeks' gestation with metformin-treated GDM. Women failing to achieve adequate glycaemic control on metformin monotherapy were randomised to additional glibenclamide or insulin. The primary outcome was recruitment rate. We explored feasibility with uptake, retention, adherence, safety, glycaemic control, participant satisfaction and clinical outcomes. RESULTS:Records of 197 women were screened and 23 women randomised to metformin and glibenclamide (n = 13) or metformin and insulin (n = 10). Mean (SD) recruitment rate was 0.39 (0.62) women/centre/month. 9/13 (69.2%, 95%CI 38.6-90.9%) women adhered to glibenclamide and all provided outcome data (100% retention). There were no episodes of severe hypoglycaemia, but metformin and insulin gave superior glycaemic control to metformin and glibenclamide, with fewer blood glucose readings <3.5 mmol/l (median [IQR] difference/woman/week of treatment 0.58 [0.03-1.87]). CONCLUSIONS:A large randomised controlled trial comparing glibenclamide or insulin in combination with metformin for women with GDM would be feasible but is unlikely to be worthwhile, given the poorer glycaemic control with glibenclamide and metformin in this pilot study. The combination of metformin and glibenclamide should be reserved for women with GDM with true needle phobia or inability to use insulin therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION:www.clinicaltrials.gov registration number:NCT02080377 February 11th 2014.

SUBMITTER: Reynolds RM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5610470 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Glibenclamide and metfoRmin versus stAndard care in gEstational diabeteS (GRACES): a feasibility open label randomised trial.

Reynolds Rebecca M RM Denison Fiona C FC Juszczak Ed E Bell Jennifer L JL Penneycard Jessica J Strachan Mark W J MWJ Lindsay Robert S RS Alexander Claire I CI Love Corinne D B CDB Whyte Sonia S Mackenzie Fiona F Stenson Ben B Norman Jane E JE

BMC pregnancy and childbirth 20170922 1

<h4>Background</h4>Metformin is widely used to treat gestational diabetes (GDM), but many women remain hyperglycaemic and require additional therapy. We aimed to determine recruitment rate and participant throughput in a randomised trial of glibenclamide compared with standard therapy insulin (added to maximum tolerated metformin) for treatment of GDM.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted an open label feasibility study in 5 UK antenatal clinics among pregnant women 16 to 36 weeks' gestation with metform ...[more]

PMID: 28938877

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo summarize short term outcomes in randomized controlled trials comparing glibenclamide or metformin versus insulin or versus each other in women with gestational diabetes requiring drug treatment.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomized controlled trials that fulfilled all the following: (1) published as full text; (2) addressed women with gestational diabetes requiring drug treatment; (3) compared glibenclamide v insulin, metformin v insulin, or metformin v glibenclamide; and (4) provided information on maternal or fetal outcomes.Data sourcesMedline, CENTRAL, and Embase were searched up to 20 May 2014.Outcomes measuresWe considered 14 primary outcomes (6 maternal, 8 fetal) and 16 secondary (5 maternal, 11 fetal) outcomes.ResultsWe analyzed 15 articles, including 2509 subjects. Significant differences for primary outcomes in glibenclamide v insulin were obtained in birth weight (mean difference 109 g (95% confidence interval 35.9 to 181)), macrosomia (risk ratio 2.62 (1.35 to 5.08)), and neonatal hypoglycaemia (risk ratio 2.04 (1.30 to 3.20)). In metformin v insulin, significance was reached for maternal weight gain (mean difference -1.14 kg (-2.22 to -0.06)), gestational age at delivery (mean difference -0.16 weeks (-0.30 to -0.02)), and preterm birth (risk ratio 1.50 (1.04 to 2.16)), with a trend for neonatal hypoglycaemia (risk ratio 0.78 (0.60 to 1.01)). In metformin v glibenclamide, significance was reached for maternal weight gain (mean difference -2.06 kg (-3.98 to -0.14)), birth weight (mean difference -209 g (-314 to -104)), macrosomia (risk ratio 0.33 (0.13 to 0.81)), and large for gestational age newborn (risk ratio 0.44 (0.21 to 0.92)). Four secondary outcomes were better for metformin in metformin v insulin, and one was worse for metformin in metformin v glibenclamide. Treatment failure was higher with metformin than with glibenclamide.ConclusionsAt short term, in women with gestational diabetes requiring drug treatment, glibenclamide is clearly inferior to both insulin and metformin, while metformin (plus insulin when required) performs slightly better than insulin. According to these results, glibenclamide should not be used for the treatment of women with gestational diabetes if insulin or metformin is available.Systematic review registration NCT01998113.

Project description:BackgroundThe antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and antiviral properties of azithromycin suggest therapeutic potential against COVID-19. Randomised data in mild-to-moderate disease are not available. We assessed whether azithromycin is effective in reducing hospital admission in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.MethodsThis prospective, open-label, randomised superiority trial was done at 19 hospitals in the UK. We enrolled adults aged at least 18 years presenting to hospitals with clinically diagnosed, highly probable or confirmed COVID-19 infection, with fewer than 14 days of symptoms, who were considered suitable for initial ambulatory management. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg once daily orally for 14 days) plus standard care or to standard care alone. The primary outcome was death or hospital admission from any cause over the 28 days from randomisation. The primary and safety outcomes were assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381962) and recruitment is closed.Findings298 participants were enrolled from June 3, 2020, to Jan 29, 2021. Three participants withdrew consent and requested removal of all data, and three further participants withdrew consent after randomisation, thus, the primary outcome was assessed in 292 participants (145 in the azithromycin group and 147 in the standard care group). The mean age of the participants was 45·9 years (SD 14·9). 15 (10%) participants in the azithromycin group and 17 (12%) in the standard care group were admitted to hospital or died during the study (adjusted OR 0·91 [95% CI 0·43-1·92], p=0·80). No serious adverse events were reported.InterpretationIn patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 managed without hospital admission, adding azithromycin to standard care treatment did not reduce the risk of subsequent hospital admission or death. Our findings do not support the use of azithromycin in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford and Pfizer.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the feasibility of an ante- and post-natal lifestyle intervention for women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) to reduce type 2 diabetes risk.DesignA partially randomised patient preference feasibility trial.SettingDiabetes antenatal clinics in two inner-London hospitals, UK.ParticipantsPregnant women ≥18 years with a GDM diagnosis and pre-pregnancy body mass index of ≥25kg/m2.InterventionParticipants in the intervention group were offered four motivational interview-based sessions (two antenatally and two postnatally, at 3 and 6 months postpartum), a WhatsApp support group, a FitBit and electronic self-help resources.Outcome measuresRecruitment; retention; intervention dose received; data completion; adaptions; proportion achieving ≥5% weight loss; weight change, blood glucose; blood pressure; diet, physical activity, breastfeeding and depression. Clinical outcomes were measured at baseline and 6 months postpartum.Results50 participants were recruited from 155 eligible women (32% recruitment rate). Thirty-four were recruited to the intervention group (23 following randomisation (RI-group) and 11 based on preference (PI-group)); and 16 to the control group (13 randomised (RC-group) and 3 preference (PC-group)). Attrition was 44% (n = 22/50). Forty-six percent (n = 6) of the intervention group (25% (n = 2) of the RI-group and 80% (n = 4) of the PI-group) achieved ≥5% weight loss compared to 8% (n = 1) in the control group (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.69 to 0.07). Mean weight change was -2.1kg±9.0 in the intervention group (0kg±5.4 in the RI-group and -5.4kg±13.0 in the PI-group) compared to +4.4kg±4.9 in the control group (RC +4.4kg ±5.3 and PC +4.7kg ±3.1, 95% CI -12.4 to 0.2).ConclusionsRecruitment was feasible, but strategies to improve retention are needed. The findings suggest the intervention can support women with GDM to lose weight. The observed weight loss was primarily in women who preferred the intervention. Therefore, future trials may need to adopt a preference design and consider factors associated with preference.Trial registrationTrial registration: ISRCTN52675820 https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN52675820?q=ISRCTN52675820&filters=&sort=&offset=1&totalResults=1&page=1&pageSize=10&searchType=basic-search.

Project description:BackgroundVancomycin is the most widely used antibiotic for neonatal Gram-positive sepsis, but clinical outcome data of dosing strategies are scarce. The NeoVanc programme comprised extensive preclinical studies to inform a randomised controlled trial to assess optimised vancomycin dosing. We compared the efficacy of an optimised regimen to a standard regimen in infants with late onset sepsis that was known or suspected to be caused by Gram-positive microorganisms.MethodsNeoVanc was an open-label, multicentre, phase 2b, parallel-group, randomised, non-inferiority trial comparing the efficacy and toxicity of an optimised regimen of vancomycin to a standard regimen in infants aged 90 days or younger. Infants with at least three clinical or laboratory sepsis criteria or confirmed Gram-positive sepsis with at least one clinical or laboratory criterion were enrolled from 22 neonatal intensive care units in Greece, Italy, Estonia, Spain, and the UK. Infants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the optimised regimen (25 mg/kg loading dose, followed by 15 mg/kg every 12 h or 8 h dependent on postmenstrual age, for 5 ± 1 days) or the standard regimen (no loading dose; 15 mg/kg every 24 h, 12 h, or 8 h dependent on postmenstrual age for 10 ± 2 days). Vancomycin was administered intravenously via 60 min infusion. Group allocation was not masked to local investigators or parents. The primary endpoint was success at the test of cure visit (10 ± 1 days after the end of actual vancomycin therapy) in the per-protocol population, where success was defined as the participant being alive at the test of cure visit, having a successful outcome at the end of actual vancomycin therapy, and not having a clinically or microbiologically significant relapse or new infection requiring antistaphylococcal antibiotics for more than 24 h within 10 days of the end of actual vancomycin therapy. The non-inferiority margin was -10%. Safety was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02790996).FindingsBetween March 3, 2017, and July 29, 2019, 242 infants were randomly assigned to the standard regimen group (n=122) or the optimised regimen group (n=120). Primary outcome data in the per-protocol population were available for 90 infants in the optimised group and 92 in the standard group. 64 (71%) of 90 infants in the optimised group and 73 (79%) of 92 in the standard group had success at test of cure visit; non-inferiority was not confirmed (adjusted risk difference -7% [95% CI -15 to 2]). Incomplete resolution of clinical or laboratory signs after 5 ± 1 days of vancomycin therapy was the main factor contributing to clinical failure in the optimised group. Abnormal hearing test results were recorded in 25 (30%) of 84 infants in the optimised group and 12 (15%) of 79 in the standard group (adjusted risk ratio 1·96 [95% CI 1·07 to 3·59], p=0·030). There were six vancomycin-related adverse events in the optimised group (one serious adverse event) and four in the standard group (two serious adverse events). 11 infants in the intention-to-treat population died (six [6%] of 102 infants in the optimised group and five [5%] of 98 in the standard group).InterpretationIn the largest neonatal vancomycin efficacy trial yet conducted, no clear clinical impact of a shorter duration of treatment with a loading dose was demonstrated. The use of the optimised regimen cannot be recommended because a potential hearing safety signal was identified; long-term follow-up is being done. These results emphasise the importance of robust clinical safety assessments of novel antibiotic dosing regimens in infants.FundingEU Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration.

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 has overwhelmed health services globally. Oral antiviral therapies are licensed worldwide, but indications and efficacy rates vary. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral favipiravir in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.MethodsWe conducted a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial of oral favipiravir in adult patients who were newly admitted to hospital with proven or suspected COVID-19 across five sites in the UK (n=2), Brazil (n=2) and Mexico (n=1). Using a permuted block design, eligible and consenting participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral favipiravir (1800 mg twice daily for 1 day; 800 mg twice daily for 9 days) plus standard care, or standard care alone. All caregivers and patients were aware of allocation and those analysing data were aware of the treatment groups. The prespecified primary outcome was the time from randomisation to recovery, censored at 28 days, which was assessed using an intention-to-treat approach. Post-hoc analyses were used to assess the efficacy of favipiravir in patients aged younger than 60 years, and in patients aged 60 years and older. The trial was registered with clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04373733.FindingsBetween May 5, 2020 and May 26, 2021, we assessed 503 patients for eligibility, of whom 499 were randomly assigned to favipiravir and standard care (n=251) or standard care alone (n=248). There was no significant difference between those who received favipiravir and standard care, relative to those who received standard care alone in time to recovery in the overall study population (hazard ratio [HR] 1·06 [95% CI 0·89-1·27]; n=499; p=0·52). Post-hoc analyses showed a faster rate of recovery in patients younger than 60 years who received favipiravir and standard care versus those who had standard care alone (HR 1·35 [1·06-1·72]; n=247; p=0·01). 36 serious adverse events were observed in 27 (11%) of 251 patients administered favipiravir and standard care, and 33 events were observed in 27 (11%) of 248 patients receiving standard care alone, with infectious, respiratory, and cardiovascular events being the most numerous. There was no significant between-group difference in serious adverse events per patient (p=0·87).InterpretationFavipiravir does not improve clinical outcomes in all patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, however, patients younger than 60 years might have a beneficial clinical response. The indiscriminate use of favipiravir globally should be cautioned, and further high-quality studies of antiviral agents, and their potential treatment combinations, are warranted in COVID-19.FundingLifeArc and CW+.

Dataset Information

Glibenclamide and metfoRmin versus stAndard care in gEstational diabeteS (GRACES): a feasibility open label randomised trial.

Publications

Glibenclamide and metfoRmin versus stAndard care in gEstational diabeteS (GRACES): a feasibility open label randomised trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets