Dataset Information

Glimepiride monotherapy versus combination of glimepiride and linagliptin therapy in patients with HNF1A-diabetes: a protocol for a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Hepatocyte nuclear factor 1? (HNF1A)-diabetes is the most common monogenetic subtype of diabetes. Strict glycaemic control is crucial for a good prognosis for patients with HNF1A-diabetes. Sulfonylurea (SU) is used as a first-line therapy in HNF1A-diabetes. However, SU therapy may be problematic as it confers a high risk of hypoglycaemia. We hypothesise that low dose of SU in combination with a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor provides a safer and more efficacious treatment in patients with HNF1A-diabetes compared with SU as monotherapy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:In a randomised, double-blinded, crossover study, patients with HNF1A-diabetes will randomly be assigned to 16 weeks of treatment with glimepiride+linagliptin, 4 weeks of washout and 16 weeks of treatment with glimepiride+placebo (or vice versa). Treatment will be evaluated with continuous glucose monitoring and combined meal and bicycle tests conducted at baseline and at the end of each of the two treatment periods. The primary end point is the absolute difference in the mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions between the two treatments (glimepiride+linagliptin?vs glimepiride+placebo) at the end of each treatment period. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study protocol is approved by the Danish Medicines Agency, The Scientific-Ethical Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark (H-17014518) and the Danish Data Protection Agency. The trial will be carried out and monitored in compliance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines and in accordance with the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki. Positive, negative and inconclusive results will be published at scientific conferences and as one or more scientific manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals with authorship in accordance with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' recommendations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:2017-000204-15.

SUBMITTER: Sidelmann Christensen A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6194456 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Glimepiride monotherapy versus combination of glimepiride and linagliptin therapy in patients with HNF1A-diabetes: a protocol for a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial.

Sidelmann Christensen Alexander A Storgaard Heidi H Hædersdal Sofie S Hansen Torben T Knop Filip K FK Vilsbøll Tina T

BMJ open 20181003 10

<h4>Introduction</h4>Hepatocyte nuclear factor 1α (HNF1A)-diabetes is the most common monogenetic subtype of diabetes. Strict glycaemic control is crucial for a good prognosis for patients with HNF1A-diabetes. Sulfonylurea (SU) is used as a first-line therapy in HNF1A-diabetes. However, SU therapy may be problematic as it confers a high risk of hypoglycaemia. We hypothesise that low dose of SU in combination with a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor provides a safer and more efficacious treatment ...[more]

PMID: 30287671

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To compare the efficacy and toxicity of cyclosporin A (CsA) monotherapy with CsA plus methotrexate (MTX) combination therapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). PATIENTS AND METHODS:120 patients with active RA, rheumatoid factor positive and/or erosive, were randomly allocated to receive CsA with MTX (n=60) or CsA with placebo (n=60). Treatment with CsA was started in all patients at 2.5 mg/kg/day and increased to a maximum of 5 mg/kg/day in 16 weeks. MTX was started at 7.5 mg/week and increased to a maximal dose of 15 mg/week at week 16. Primary outcomes were clinical remission (Pinals criteria) and radiological damage (Larsen score), at week 48. RESULTS:Treatment was discontinued prematurely in 27 patients in the monotherapy group (21 because of inefficacy, and six because of toxicity) and in 26 patients in the combination therapy group (14 and 12, respectively). At week 48, clinical remission was achieved in four patients in the monotherapy group and in six patients in the combination therapy group (p=0.5). The median Larsen score increased to 10 (25th, 75th centiles: 3.5; 13.3) points in the monotherapy group and to 4 (1.0; 10.5) points in the combination therapy group (p=0.004). 28/60 (47%) of patients in the monotherapy group v 34/60 (57%) of patients in the combination therapy group had reached an American college of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response (p=0.36) at week 48; 15/60 (25%) v 29/60 (48%) of patients had reached an ACR50 response (p=0.013); and 7 (12%) v 12 (20%) of patients had reached an ACR70 response (p=0.11). Their was a tendency towards more toxicity in the combination therapy group. CONCLUSIONS:In patients with early RA, neither CsA plus MTX combination therapy nor CsA monotherapy is very effective in inducing clinical remission. Combination therapy is probably better at improving clinical disease activity, and definitely better at slowing radiological progression. Combination therapy should still be compared with methotrexate monotherapy.

Project description:IntroductionKnee osteoarthritis is a common form of arthritis in elderly patients that is characterised by pain and functional limitation. Moxibustion has been employed to relieve chronic pain as an alternative therapy for knee osteoarthritis. However, the evidence of its efficacy is equivocal due to the low methodological quality in most clinical studies. Therefore, we are performing a double-blinded, double-placebo, randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of moxibustion in participants with knee osteoarthritis.Methods and analysisThis is a multicentre, double-blinded, double-placebo, randomised controlled clinical trial. 144 eligible participants with knee osteoarthritis will be randomly assigned to two different groups in a 1:1 ratio. Participants in the moxibustion group will undergo active moxibustion plus placebo gel, whereas participants in the control group will receive diclofenac sodium gel plus placebo moxibustion. Each participant will receive 12 sessions of active/placebo moxibustion at three acupoints (ST35, ST36 and EX-LE4) as well as 2 months of follow-up. Diclofenac sodium gel or placebo gel at a dose of 4 g per knee will be applied three times per day for 4 weeks. The primary outcome measure will be the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score change at the end of the intervention period from baseline. The secondary outcome measures include changes of other subscales (pain, stiffness and function) of WOMAC, visual analogue scale and patient globalassessment. The safety of moxibustion and diclofenac sodium gel will be assessed at every visit.Ethics and disseminationThis trial has been approved by the Sichuan Regional Ethics Review Committee (permission number: 2015KL-014). The results of this study are expected to provide clinical evidence on the efficacy of moxibustion for pain relief and physical function improvement in patients with knee osteoarthritis. The findings will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed medical journals and presented at relevant academic conferences.Trial registration numberNCT02769572.

Project description:Aims/hypothesisType 2 diabetes, particularly with concomitant CVD, is associated with an increased risk of cognitive impairment. We assessed the effect on accelerated cognitive decline (ACD) of the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin vs the sulfonylurea glimepiride in individuals with type 2 diabetes.MethodsThe CAROLINA-COGNITION study was part of the randomised, double-blind, active-controlled CAROLINA trial that evaluated the cardiovascular safety of linagliptin vs glimepiride in individuals with age ≥40 and ≤85 years and HbA1c 48-69 mmol/mol (6.5-8.5%) receiving standard care, excluding insulin therapy. Participants were randomised 1:1 using an interactive telephone- and web-based system and treatment assignment was determined by a computer-generated random sequence with stratification by center. The primary cognitive outcome was occurrence of ACD at end of follow-up, defined as a regression-based index score ≤16th percentile on either the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) or a composite measure of attention and executive functioning, in participants with a baseline MMSE score ≥24. Prespecified additional analyses included effects on ACD at week 160, in subgroups (sex, age, race, ethnicity, depressive symptoms, cardiovascular risk, duration of type 2 diabetes, albuminuria), and absolute changes in cognitive performance. Participants, caregivers, and people involved in measurements, examinations or adjudication, were all masked to treatment assignment.ResultsOf 6033 participants recruited from hospital and primary care sites, 3163 (38.0% female, mean age/diabetes duration 64/7.6 years, MMSE score 28.5, HbA1c 54 mmol/mol [7.1%]) represent the CAROLINA-COGNITION cohort. Over median 6.1 years, ACD occurred in 27.8% (449/1618, linagliptin) vs 27.6% (426/1545, glimepiride), OR 1.01 (95% CI 0.86, 1.18). Also, no differences in ACD were observed at week 160 (OR 1.07 [0.91, 1.25]), between treatments across subgroups, or for absolute cognitive changes.Conclusions/interpretationIn a large, international outcome trial in people with relatively early type 2 diabetes at elevated cardiovascular risk, no difference in risk for ACD was observed between linagliptin and glimepiride over 6.1 years.FundingThis study was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01243424.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence is conflicting about a causal role of inflammation in psychosis and, specifically, regarding antibodies binding to neuronal membrane targets, especially N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors. NMDAR, LGI1 and GABA-A antibodies were found more prevalent in people with psychosis than in healthy controls. We aim to test whether these antibodies are pathogenic and may cause isolated psychosis. The SINAPPS2 phase IIa double-blinded randomised controlled trial will test the efficacy and safety of immunoglobulin and rituximab treatment versus placebo for patients with acute psychosis symptoms as added to psychiatric standard of care.MethodsWe will screen approximately 2500 adult patients with acute psychosis to identify 160 with antibody-positive psychosis without co-existing neurological disease and recruit about 80 eligible participants to the trial in the period from September 2017 to September 2021 across the UK. Eligible patients will be randomised 1:1 either to intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) followed by rituximab or to placebo infusions of 1% albumin followed by 0.9% sodium chloride, respectively. To detect a time-to-symptomatic-recovery hazard ratio of 0.322 with a power of 80%, 56 participants are needed to complete the trial, allowing for up to 12 participants to drop out of each group. Eligible patients will be randomised and assessed at baseline within 4 weeks of their eligibility confirmation. The treatment will start with IVIG or 1% albumin placebo infusions over 2-4 consecutive days no later than 7 days from baseline. It will continue 4-5 weeks later with a rituximab or sodium chloride placebo infusion and will end 2-3 weeks after this with another rituximab or placebo infusion. The primary outcome is the time to symptomatic recovery defined as symptomatic remission sustained for at least 6 months on the following Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale items: P1, P2, P3, N1, N4, N6, G5 and G9. Participants will be followed for 12 months from the first day of treatment or, where sustained remission begins after the first 6 months, for an additional minimum of 6 months to assess later response.DiscussionThe SINAPPS2 trial aims to test whether immunotherapy is efficacious and safe in psychosis associated with anti-neuronal membrane antibodies.Trial registrationISRCTN, 11177045. Registered on 2 May 2017. EudraCT, 2016-000118-31. Registered on 22 November 2016. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03194815. Registered on 21 June 2017.

Project description:BackgroundTreatment options for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were limited. Anlotinib is a novel multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor. ALTER0703 study was conducted to assess efficacy and safety of anlotinib for patients with refractory mCRC.Materials and methodsThis was a multicenter, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III trial involving 33 hospitals in China. Patients had taken at least two lines of therapies were 2:1 randomized to receive oral anlotinib (12 mg/day; days 1-14; 21 days per cycle) or placebo, plus best supportive care. Randomization was stratified by previous VEGF-targeting treatments and time from diagnosis to metastases. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), quality of life (QoL), and safety.ResultsA total of 419 patients (anlotinib: 282; placebo: 137) were treated from December 2014 to August 2016. The median PFS was improved in anlotinib group (4.1 months; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.4-4.5) over placebo group (1.5 months; 95% CI, 1.4-1.5), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.34 (95% CI, 0.27-0.43; p < .0001). However, median OS was similar between two groups (8.6 months; 95% CI, 7.8-9.7 vs. 7.2 months; 95% CI, 6.2-8.8; HR, 1.02; p = .870). Improvements of ORR and DCR were observed in anlotinib over placebo. The most common grade ≥ 3 anlotinib related adverse events were hypertension (20.92%), increased γ-GT (7.09%), and hand-foot skin reaction (6.38%).ConclusionAnlotinib was tolerated in Chinese patients with refractory mCRC. Although OS did not reach significant difference, anlotinib still provided clinical benefits by substantially prolonged PFS in these patients.Implications for practiceIn this randomized clinical trial that included 419 patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, substantial prolonged in progression-free survival was noted in patients who received anlotinib compared with those given placebo. Improvements on objective response rate and disease control rate was also observed in anlotinib group. However, overall survival was similar between the two groups. In a word, in third-line or above treatment of Chinese patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, anlotinib provided clinical benefit by significantly prolonged progression-free survival.

Project description:IntroductionA novel coronavirus, designated SARS-CoV-2, caused an international outbreak of a respiratory illness, termed COVID-19 in December 2019. There is a lack of specific therapeutic agents based on evidence for this novel coronavirus infection; however, several medications have been evaluated as a potential therapy. Therapy is required to treat symptomatic patients and decrease the virus carriage duration to limit the communitytransmission.Methods and analysisWe hypothesise that patients with mild COVID-19 treated with favipiravir will have a shorter duration of time to virus clearance than the control group. The primary outcome is to evaluate the effect of favipiravir on the timing of the PCR test conversion from positive to negative within 15 days after starting the medicine.Adults (>18 years, men or nonpregnant women, diagnosed with mild COVID-19 within 5 days of disease onset) are being recruited by physicians participating from the Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs and the Ministry of Health ethics committee approved primary healthcare centres. This double-blind, randomised trial comprises three significant parts: screening, treatment and a follow-up period. The treating physician and patients are blinded. Eligible participants are randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the therapy group (favipiravir) or a control group (placebo) with 1800 mg by mouth two times per day for the first day, followed by 800 mg two times per day for 4-7 days. Serial nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swab samples are obtained on day 1 (5 days before therapy). On day5±1 day, 10±1 day, 15±2 days, extra nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal PCR COVID-19 samples are requested.The primary analysis population for evaluating both the efficacy and safety outcomes will be a modified intention to treat population. Anticipating a 10% dropout rate, we expect to recruit 288 subjects per arm. The results assume that the hazard ratio is constant throughout the study and that the Cox proportional hazard regression is used to analyse the data.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the King Abdullah International Medical Research Centre Institutional Review Board (28 April 2020) and the Ministry of Health Institutional Review Board (1 July 2020). Protocol details and any amendments will be reported to https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04464408. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNational Clinical Trial Registry (NCT04464408).

Project description:BackgroundInfluenza continues to have a substantial socioeconomic and health impact despite a long established vaccination programme and approved antivirals. Preclinical data suggest that combining antivirals might be more effective than administering oseltamivir alone in the treatment of influenza.MethodsWe did a randomised, double-blind, multicentre phase 2 trial of a combination of oseltamivir, amantadine, and ribavirin versus oseltamivir monotherapy with matching placebo for the treatment of influenza in 50 sites, consisting of academic medical centre clinics, emergency rooms, and private physician offices in the USA, Thailand, Mexico, Argentina, and Australia. Participants who were aged at least 18 years with influenza and were at increased risk of complications were randomly assigned (1:1) by an online computer-generated randomisation system to receive either oseltamivir (75 mg), amantadine (100 mg), and ribavirin (600 mg) combination therapy or oseltamivir monotherapy twice daily for 5 days, given orally, and participants were followed up for 28 days. Blinded treatment kits were used to achieve masking of patients and staff. The primary endpoint was the percentage of participants with virus detectable by PCR in nasopharyngeal swab at day 3, and was assessed in participants who were randomised, had influenza infection confirmed by the central laboratory on a baseline nasopharyngeal sample, and had received at least one dose of study drug. Safety assessment was done in all patients in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01227967.FindingsBetween March 1, 2011, and April 29, 2016, 633 participants were randomly assigned to receive combination antiviral therapy (n=316) or monotherapy (n=317). Seven participants were excluded from analysis: three were not properly randomised, three withdrew from the study, and one was lost to follow-up. The primary analysis included 394 participants, excluding 47 in the pilot phase, 172 without confirmed influenza, and 13 without an endpoint sample. 80 (40·0%) of 200 participants in the combination group had detectable virus at day 3 compared with 97 (50·0%) of 194 (mean difference 10·0, 95% CI 0·2-19·8, p=0·046) in the monotherapy group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal-related disorders, primarily nausea (65 [12%] of 556 reported adverse events in the combination group vs 63 [11%] of 585 reported adverse events in the monotherapy group), diarrhoea (56 [10%] of 556 vs 64 [11%] of 585), and vomiting (39 [7%] of 556 vs 23 [4%] of 585). There was no benefit in multiple clinical secondary endpoints, such as median duration of symptoms (4·5 days in the combination group vs 4·0 days in the monotherapy group; p=0·21). One death occurred in the study in an elderly participant in the monotherapy group who died of cardiovascular failure 13 days after randomisation, judged by the site investigator as not related to study intervention.InterpretationAlthough combination treatment showed a significant decrease in viral shedding at day 3 relative to monotherapy, this difference was not associated with improved clinical benefit. More work is needed to understand why there was no clinical benefit when a difference in virological outcome was identified.FundingNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, USA.

Project description:BackgroundExenatide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, has neuroprotective effects in preclinical models of Parkinson's disease. We investigated whether these effects would be apparent in a clinical trial.MethodsIn this single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients with moderate Parkinson's disease were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive subcutaneous injections of exenatide 2 mg or placebo once weekly for 48 weeks in addition to their regular medication, followed by a 12-week washout period. Eligible patients were aged 25-75 years, had idiopathic Parkinson's disease as measured by Queen Square Brain Bank criteria, were on dopaminergic treatment with wearing-off effects, and were at Hoehn and Yahr stage 2·5 or less when on treatment. Randomisation was by web-based randomisation with a two strata block design according to disease severity. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the adjusted difference in the Movement Disorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) motor subscale (part 3) in the practically defined off-medication state at 60 weeks. All efficacy analyses were based on a modified intention-to-treat principle, which included all patients who completed any post-randomisation follow-up assessments. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01971242) and is completed.FindingsBetween June 18, 2014, and March 13, 2015, 62 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 32 to exenatide and 30 to placebo. Our primary analysis included 31 patients in the exenatide group and 29 patients in the placebo group. At 60 weeks, off-medication scores on part 3 of the MDS-UPDRS had improved by 1·0 points (95% CI -2·6 to 0·7) in the exenatide group and worsened by 2·1 points (-0·6 to 4·8) in the placebo group, an adjusted mean difference of -3·5 points (-6·7 to -0·3; p=0·0318). Injection site reactions and gastrointestinal symptoms were common adverse events in both groups. Six serious adverse events occurred in the exenatide group and two in the placebo group, although none in either group were judged to be related to the study interventions.InterpretationExenatide had positive effects on practically defined off-medication motor scores in Parkinson's disease, which were sustained beyond the period of exposure. Whether exenatide affects the underlying disease pathophysiology or simply induces long-lasting symptomatic effects is uncertain. Exenatide represents a major new avenue for investigation in Parkinson's disease, and effects on everyday symptoms should be examined in longer-term trials.FundingMichael J Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research.

Dataset Information

Glimepiride monotherapy versus combination of glimepiride and linagliptin therapy in patients with HNF1A-diabetes: a protocol for a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial.

Publications

Glimepiride monotherapy versus combination of glimepiride and linagliptin therapy in patients with HNF1A-diabetes: a protocol for a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets