Dataset Information

Rationale and design for Lowering-hyperUricaemia treatment on cardiovascular outcoMes In peritoNeal diAlysis patients: a prospective, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial (LUMINA).

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The prevalence of hyperuricaemia in peritoneal dialysis patients is quite high. Studies have demonstrated a correlation between hyperuricaemia and cardiovascular disease and treatment of hyperuricaemia reportedly reduces cardiovascular risk in patients with chronic kidney disease. However, whether hyperuricaemia treatment benefits cardiovascular outcomes in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) patients is not yet known.

Methods and analyses

This prospective, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial was designed to evaluate the effects of hyperuricaemia treatment on cardiovascular event risk in CAPD patients. Based on a power of 80%, with type I error α=0.05, two-sided test and 1:1 parallel control study, considering a dropout rate of 20%, a total of 548 eligible patients are expected to be randomly assigned to either the hyperuricaemia treatment group (febuxostat) or control group (placebo).

Ethics and dissemination

This study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University and the ethics committees of other participating institutions. Written informed consent will be obtained from potential trial participants or authorised surrogates.The findings of the study will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals, and presentations at national and international conferences.

Trial registration number

NCT03200210. 25 June 2017. The trial was started on 13 July 2017, and is expected to end by 31 December 2022. Till 20 Jan 2020, a total of 548 patients have been recruited.

Protocol version

The protocol version number and date are YLT-1604-V2.0 and 15 December 2016.

SUBMITTER: Chen W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7552848 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Rationale and design for Lowering-hyperUricaemia treatment on cardiovascular outcoMes In peritoNeal diAlysis patients: a prospective, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial (LUMINA).

Chen Wei W Huang Naya N Mao Haiping H Yang Xiao X Zhou Qian Q Jiang Lanping L Ding Jun J Feng Qiong Q Yu Xueqing X

BMJ open 20201010 10

<h4>Introduction</h4>The prevalence of hyperuricaemia in peritoneal dialysis patients is quite high. Studies have demonstrated a correlation between hyperuricaemia and cardiovascular disease and treatment of hyperuricaemia reportedly reduces cardiovascular risk in patients with chronic kidney disease. However, whether hyperuricaemia treatment benefits cardiovascular outcomes in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) patients is not yet known.<h4>Methods and analyses</h4>This prospectiv ...[more]

PMID: 33040002

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA systematic assessment of potential disease-modifying compounds for Parkinson's disease concluded that pioglitazone could hold promise for the treatment of patients with this disease. We assessed the effect of pioglitazone on the progression of Parkinson's disease in a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, futility clinical trial.MethodsParticipants with the diagnosis of early Parkinson's disease on a stable regimen of 1 mg/day rasagiline or 10 mg/day selegiline were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 15 mg/day pioglitazone, 45 mg/day pioglitazone, or placebo. Investigators were masked to the treatment assignment. Only the statistical centre and the central pharmacy knew the treatment name associated with the randomisation number. The primary outcome was the change in the total Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score between the baseline and 44 weeks, analysed by intention to treat. The primary null hypothesis for each dose group was that the mean change in UPDRS was 3 points less than the mean change in the placebo group. The alternative hypothesis (of futility) was that pioglitazone is not meaningfully different from placebo. We rejected the null if there was significant evidence of futility at the one-sided alpha level of 0·10. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01280123.Findings210 patients from 35 sites in the USA were enrolled between May 10, 2011, and July 31, 2013. The primary analysis included 72 patients in the 15 mg group, 67 in the 45 mg group, and 71 in the placebo group. The mean total UPDRS change at 44 weeks was 4·42 (95% CI 2·55-6·28) for 15 mg pioglitazone, 5·13 (95% CI 3·17-7·08) for 45 mg pioglitazone, and 6·25 (95% CI 4·35-8·15) for placebo (higher change scores are worse). The mean difference between the 15 mg and placebo groups was -1·83 (80% CI -3·56 to -0·10) and the null hypothesis could not be rejected (p=0·19). The mean difference between the 45 mg and placebo groups was -1·12 (80% CI -2·93 to 0·69) and the null hypothesis was rejected in favour of futility (p=0·09). Planned sensitivity analyses of the primary outcome, using last value carried forward (LVCF) to handle missing data and using the completers' only sample, suggested that the 15 mg dose is also futile (p=0·09 for LVCF, p=0·09 for completers) but failed to reject the null hypothesis for the 45 mg dose (p=0·12 for LVCF, p=0·19 for completers). Six serious adverse events occurred in the 15 mg group, nine in the 45 mg group, and three in the placebo group; none were thought to be definitely or probably related to the study interventions.InterpretationThese findings suggest that pioglitazone at the doses studied here is unlikely to modify progression in early Parkinson's disease. Further study of pioglitazone in a larger trial in patients with Parkinson's disease is not recommended.FundingNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Project description:BackgroundCardiovascular disease is a frequent cause of death in peritoneal dialysis patients. Biocompatible peritoneal dialysis solutions with neutral pH have been anticipated to reduce cardiovascular disease more than conventional peritoneal dialysis solutions with low pH, but it remains unclear which factors at peritoneal dialysis initiation increase cardiovascular risk in patients using biocompatible peritoneal dialysis solutions. This study was undertaken to investigate which clinical factors at peritoneal dialysis initiation, including peritoneal transport status, are associated with cardiovascular event in patients using biocompatible peritoneal dialysis solution.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study of peritoneal dialysis patients using biocompatible solutions with neutral pH assessed relations of clinical parameters at peritoneal dialysis initiation to cardiovascular event during the subsequent five years.ResultsOf 102 patients who started peritoneal dialysis, cardiovascular event occurred in 18. Age, history of cardiovascular disease before peritoneal dialysis initiation, hemoglobin, serum albumin, C-reactive protein, peritoneal permeability defined by the ratio of dialysate to plasma creatinine concentration at 4 hr (D/Pcre) in peritoneal equilibration test (PET), number of patients in each PET category defined by D/Pcre, and peritoneal protein clearance significantly differed between patients with and without cardiovascular event. For patients divided according to PET category using Kaplan-Meier method, the group of high average to high peritoneal transporters exhibited significantly high incidence of cardiovascular event and mortality compared with the groups of low and low-average peritoneal transporters (Log rank; p=0.0003 and 0.005, respectively). A Cox proportional hazards model showed independent association of PET category classification with cardiovascular event.ConclusionsPeritoneal permeability expressed as PET category at peritoneal dialysis initiation is an independent cardiovascular risk factor in peritoneal dialysis patients using biocompatible peritoneal dialysis solution with neutral pH. Greater peritoneal permeability at peritoneal dialysis initiation might reflect subclinical vascular disorders.

Project description:IntroductionPsoriasis vulgaris is a common skin disease that is characterised by persistent localised erythematous scaly plaques. Yinxieling is a Chinese herbal formula for psoriasis that has been used for more than 20 years in China. To facilitate application, PSORI-CM01 was developed based on the optimisation and simplification of Yinxieling tablets performed in a previous study and in clinical practice. However, the scientific evidence regarding whether PSORI-CM01 is more effective for psoriasis than the original Yinxieling remains insufficient. Therefore, we designed a randomised clinical trial to investigate the effect, safety and cost-effectiveness of PSORI-CM01 granules compared with those of Yinxieling tablets for the treatment of patients with psoriasis.Methods and analysisThis ongoing study is a two-arm parallel, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy clinical trial. Five hundred and fifty-six participants with psoriasis will be recruited and then randomly allocated into two groups in a 1:1 ratio. Participants in PSORI-CM01 group will receive a 5.5 g granule of PSORI-CM01 two times daily and five placebo tablets three times daily for 12 weeks. The participants in the Yinxieling group will receive five Yinxieling tablets three times daily and a placebo granule two times daily for 12 weeks. The primary outcome is the reduction of the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index. The secondary outcomes include relapse rate, Visual Analogue Scale scores, body surface area and the Dermatology Life Quality Index. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed from a health and community care provider perspective.Ethics and disseminationThis research protocol had been reviewed and approved by the institutional review boards of three trial centres (Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine (B2014-026-01), Affiliated Hospital of Tianjin Chinese Medicine Academy (2014-KY-001) and Third Hospital of Hangzhou (B2014-026-01)). The findings will be disseminated to the public through conference presentations and open-access journals.Trial registration numberChinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-TRC-14005185); Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundStaphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common cause of severe community-acquired and hospital-acquired infection worldwide. We tested the hypothesis that adjunctive rifampicin would reduce bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death, by enhancing early S aureus killing, sterilising infected foci and blood faster, and reducing risks of dissemination and metastatic infection.MethodsIn this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (≥18 years) with S aureus bacteraemia who had received ≤96 h of active antibiotic therapy were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequential randomisation list to receive 2 weeks of adjunctive rifampicin (600 mg or 900 mg per day according to weight, oral or intravenous) versus identical placebo, together with standard antibiotic therapy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, investigators, and those caring for the patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time to bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death (all-cause), from randomisation to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial was registered, number ISRCTN37666216, and is closed to new participants.FindingsBetween Dec 10, 2012, and Oct 25, 2016, 758 eligible participants were randomly assigned: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. 485 (64%) participants had community-acquired S aureus infections, and 132 (17%) had nosocomial S aureus infections. 47 (6%) had meticillin-resistant infections. 301 (40%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for 29 (IQR 18-45) days; 619 (82%) participants received flucloxacillin. By week 12, 62 (17%) of participants who received rifampicin versus 71 (18%) who received placebo experienced treatment failure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference -1·4%, 95% CI -7·0 to 4·3; hazard ratio 0·96, 0·68-1·35, p=0·81). From randomisation to 12 weeks, no evidence of differences in serious (p=0·17) or grade 3-4 (p=0·36) adverse events were observed; however, 63 (17%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10%) in the placebo group had antibiotic or trial drug-modifying adverse events (p=0·004), and 24 (6%) versus six (2%) had drug interactions (p=0·0005).InterpretationAdjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S aureus bacteraemia.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Project description:BackgroundMemantine has been used off-label to treat frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTD). A previous 26-week open-label study suggested a transient, modest benefit on neuropsychiatric symptoms as measured by the neuropsychiatric inventory (NPI). We aimed to determine whether memantine is an effective treatment for FTD.MethodsWe did a randomised, parallel group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 20 mg memantine taken orally daily for 26 weeks in patients with FTD. Participants met Neary criteria for behavioural variant FTD (bvFTD) or semantic dementia and had characteristic brain atrophy. Use of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors was prohibited. Individuals were randomly assigned to receive either memantine or matched placebo tablets (1:1) in blocks of two and four patients. All patients and study personnel were masked to treatment assignment. Primary endpoints were the change in total NPI score and clinical global impression of change (CGIC) score after 26 weeks and were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00545974.FindingsOf 100 patients screened, 81 were randomly assigned to receive memantine (39 patients) or placebo (42 patients). Five (6%) patients discontinued, and 76 completed the 26-week treatment. Enrolment numbers were lower than planned because of many patients' preference to take memantine or cholinesterase inhibitors off-label rather than participate in a clinical trial. Memantine treatment had no effect on either the NPI (mean difference 2·2, 95% CI -3·9 to 8·3, p=0·47) or CGIC (mean difference 0·0, -0·4 to 0·4, p=0·90) after 26 weeks of treatment. Memantine was generally well tolerated; however, patients in the memantine group had more frequent cognitive adverse events (six patients) than those in the placebo group (one).InterpretationMemantine treatment showed no benefit in patients with FTD. These data do not support memantine use in FTD.FundingForest Research Institute.

Project description:BackgroundNo specific antiviral drug has been proven effective for treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue prodrug, has inhibitory effects on pathogenic animal and human coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro, and inhibits Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, SARS-CoV-1, and SARS-CoV-2 replication in animal models.MethodsWe did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial at ten hospitals in Hubei, China. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, with an interval from symptom onset to enrolment of 12 days or less, oxygen saturation of 94% or less on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less, and radiologically confirmed pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg on days 2-10 in single daily infusions) or the same volume of placebo infusions for 10 days. Patients were permitted concomitant use of lopinavir-ritonavir, interferons, and corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement up to day 28, defined as the time (in days) from randomisation to the point of a decline of two levels on a six-point ordinal scale of clinical status (from 1=discharged to 6=death) or discharged alive from hospital, whichever came first. Primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety analysis was done in all patients who started their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04257656.FindingsBetween Feb 6, 2020, and March 12, 2020, 237 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (158 to remdesivir and 79 to placebo); one patient in the placebo group who withdrew after randomisation was not included in the ITT population. Remdesivir use was not associated with a difference in time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio 1·23 [95% CI 0·87-1·75]). Although not statistically significant, patients receiving remdesivir had a numerically faster time to clinical improvement than those receiving placebo among patients with symptom duration of 10 days or less (hazard ratio 1·52 [0·95-2·43]). Adverse events were reported in 102 (66%) of 155 remdesivir recipients versus 50 (64%) of 78 placebo recipients. Remdesivir was stopped early because of adverse events in 18 (12%) patients versus four (5%) patients who stopped placebo early.InterpretationIn this study of adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits. However, the numerical reduction in time to clinical improvement in those treated earlier requires confirmation in larger studies.FundingChinese Academy of Medical Sciences Emergency Project of COVID-19, National Key Research and Development Program of China, the Beijing Science and Technology Project.

Project description:BackgroundProgesterone administration has been shown to reduce the risk of preterm birth and neonatal morbidity in women at high risk, but there is uncertainty about longer term effects on the child.MethodsWe did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of vaginal progesterone, 200 mg daily taken from 22-24 to 34 weeks of gestation, on pregnancy and infant outcomes in women at risk of preterm birth (because of previous spontaneous birth at ≤34 weeks and 0 days of gestation, or a cervical length ≤25 mm, or because of a positive fetal fibronectin test combined with other clinical risk factors for preterm birth [any one of a history in a previous pregnancy of preterm birth, second trimester loss, preterm premature fetal membrane rupture, or a history of a cervical procedure to treat abnormal smears]). The objective of the study was to determine whether vaginal progesterone prophylaxis given to reduce the risk of preterm birth affects neonatal and childhood outcomes. We defined three primary outcomes: fetal death or birth before 34 weeks and 0 days gestation (obstetric), a composite of death, brain injury, or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (neonatal), and a standardised cognitive score at 2 years of age (childhood), imputing values for deaths. Randomisation was done through a web portal, with participants, investigators, and others involved in giving the intervention, assessing outcomes, or analysing data masked to treatment allocation until the end of the study. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ISRCTN.com, number ISRCTN14568373.FindingsBetween Feb 2, 2009, and April 12, 2013, we randomly assigned 1228 women to the placebo group (n=610) and the progesterone group (n=618). In the placebo group, data from 597, 587, and 439 women or babies were available for analysis of obstetric, neonatal, and childhood outcomes, respectively; in the progesterone group the corresponding numbers were 600, 589, and 430. After correction for multiple outcomes, progesterone had no significant effect on the primary obstetric outcome (odds ratio adjusted for multiple comparisons [OR] 0·86, 95% CI 0·61-1·22) or neonatal outcome (OR 0·62, 0·38-1·03), nor on the childhood outcome (cognitive score, progesterone group vs placebo group, 97·3 [SD 17·9] vs 97·7 [17·5]; difference in means -0·48, 95% CI -2·77 to 1·81). Maternal or child serious adverse events were reported in 70 (11%) of 610 patients in the placebo group and 59 (10%) of 616 patients in the progesterone group (p=0·27).InterpretationVaginal progesterone was not associated with reduced risk of preterm birth or composite neonatal adverse outcomes, and had no long-term benefit or harm on outcomes in children at 2 years of age.FundingEfficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership. The EME Programme is funded by the MRC and NIHR, with contributions from the Chief Scientist Office in Scotland and National Institute for Social Care and Research in Wales.

Dataset Information

Rationale and design for Lowering-hyperUricaemia treatment on cardiovascular outcoMes In peritoNeal diAlysis patients: a prospective, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial (LUMINA).

Introduction

Methods and analyses

Ethics and dissemination

Trial registration number

Protocol version

Publications

Rationale and design for Lowering-hyperUricaemia treatment on cardiovascular outcoMes In peritoNeal diAlysis patients: a prospective, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial (LUMINA).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets