Losartan Effects on Emphysema Progression Randomized Clinical Trial: Rationale, Design, Recruitment, and Retention.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wise RA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8686851 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Rationale: There are no pharmacologic agents that modify emphysema progression in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of losartan, an angiotensin receptor blocker, to reduce emphysema progression. Methods: The trial was a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted between May 2017 and January 2021. Eligible participants were aged ⩾40 years, had moderate to severe airflow obstruction, ⩾10 pack-years of smoking, mild-moderate emphysema on high-resolution computed tomography, and no medical indication for or intolerance of angiotensin receptor blockers. Treatment with losartan 100 mg daily or matching placebo (1:1) was randomly assigned. The primary outcome was emphysema progression on high-resolution computed tomography over 48 weeks. Secondary outcomes included the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale, the COPD Assessment Test, and the Physical Function-Short Form 20a. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 220 participants were enrolled; 58% were men, 19% were African American, and 24% were current smokers. The medians (interquartile ranges) for age were 65 (61-73) years and 48 (36-59) for percent predicted FEV1 after bronchodilator use. The mean (95% confidence interval) percentage emphysema progression was 1.35% (0.67-2.03) in the losartan group versus 0.66% (0.09-1.23) in the placebo group (P = NS). Conclusions: Losartan did not prevent emphysema progression in people with COPD with mild-moderate emphysema. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02696564).
| S-EPMC9799269 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHeart failure (HF) is increasing in prevalence and is associated with prolonged morbidity, repeat hospitalizations, and high costs. Drug therapies and lifestyle changes can reduce hospitalizations, but nonadherence is high, ranging from 30% to 80%. There is an urgent need to identify cost-effective ways to improve adherence and reduce hospitalizations.Trial designThe Heart Failure Adherence and Retention Trial (HART) evaluated the benefit of patient self-management (SM) skills training in combination with HF education, over HF education alone, on the composite end points of death/HF hospitalizations and death/all-cause hospitalizations in patients with mild to moderate systolic or diastolic dysfunction. Secondary end points included progression of HF, quality of life, adherence to drug and lifestyle regimens, and psychosocial function. The HART cohort was composed of 902 patients including 47% women, 40% minorities, and 23% with diastolic dysfunction. After a baseline examination, patients were randomized to SM or education control, received 18 treatment contacts over 1 year, annual follow-ups, and 3-month phone calls to assess primary end points. Self-management treatment was conducted in small groups and aimed to activate the patient to implement HF education through training in problem-solving and 5 SM skills. The education control received HF education in the mail followed by a phone call to check comprehension.ConclusionsThe significance of HART lies in its ability to determine the clinical value of activating the patient to collaborate in his or her care. Support for the trial hypotheses would encourage interdisciplinary HF treatment, drawing on an evidence base not only from medicine but also from behavioral medicine.
| S-EPMC3609705 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is associated with high in-hospital mortality. Alveolar recruitment followed by ventilation at optimal titrated PEEP may reduce ventilator-induced lung injury and improve oxygenation in patients with ARDS, but the effects on mortality and other clinical outcomes remain unknown. This article reports the rationale, study design, and analysis plan of the Alveolar Recruitment for ARDS Trial (ART).Methods/designART is a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized (concealed), controlled trial, which aims to determine if maximum stepwise alveolar recruitment associated with PEEP titration is able to increase 28-day survival in patients with ARDS compared to conventional treatment (ARDSNet strategy). We will enroll adult patients with ARDS of less than 72 h duration. The intervention group will receive an alveolar recruitment maneuver, with stepwise increases of PEEP achieving 45 cmH2O and peak pressure of 60 cmH2O, followed by ventilation with optimal PEEP titrated according to the static compliance of the respiratory system. In the control group, mechanical ventilation will follow a conventional protocol (ARDSNet). In both groups, we will use controlled volume mode with low tidal volumes (4 to 6 mL/kg of predicted body weight) and targeting plateau pressure ≤30 cmH2O. The primary outcome is 28-day survival, and the secondary outcomes are: length of ICU stay; length of hospital stay; pneumothorax requiring chest tube during first 7 days; barotrauma during first 7 days; mechanical ventilation-free days from days 1 to 28; ICU, in-hospital, and 6-month survival. ART is an event-guided trial planned to last until 520 events (deaths within 28 days) are observed. These events allow detection of a hazard ratio of 0.75, with 90% power and two-tailed type I error of 5%. All analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle.DiscussionIf the ART strategy with maximum recruitment and PEEP titration improves 28-day survival, this will represent a notable advance to the care of ARDS patients. Conversely, if the ART strategy is similar or inferior to the current evidence-based strategy (ARDSNet), this should also change current practice as many institutions routinely employ recruitment maneuvers and set PEEP levels according to some titration method.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01374022.
| S-EPMC3543273 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is the most common cause of spinal cord dysfunction in the world. There are significant practice variation and uncertainty as to the optimal surgical approach for treating CSM.To determine whether ventral surgery is associated with superior Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary outcome at the 1-year follow-up compared with dorsal (laminectomy/fusion or laminoplasty) surgery for the treatment of CSM, to investigate whether postoperative sagittal balance is an independent predictor of overall outcome, and to compare health resource use for ventral and dorsal procedures.The study is a randomized, controlled trial with a nonrandomized arm for patients who are eligible but decline randomization. Two hundred fifty patients (159 randomized) with CSM from 11 sites will be recruited over 18 months. The primary outcome is the Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary score. Secondary outcomes include disease-specific outcomes, overall health-related quality of life (EuroQOL 5-dimension questionnaire), and health resource use.This will be the first randomized, controlled trial to compare directly the health-related quality-of-life outcomes for ventral vs dorsal surgery for treating CSM.A National Institutes of Health-funded (1R13AR065834-01) investigator meeting was held before the initiation of the trial to bring multiple stakeholders together to finalize the study protocol. Study investigators, coordinators, and major stakeholders were able to attend and discuss strengths of, limitations of, and concerns about the study. The final protocol was approved for funding by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (CE-1304-6173). The trial began enrollment on April 1, 2014.
| S-EPMC4633023 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCardiovascular disease, including aortic root dilation, dissection, and rupture, is the leading cause of mortality in patients with Marfan syndrome (MFS). The maximal aortic root diameter at the sinuses of Valsalva is considered the best predictor of adverse cardiovascular outcome. Although advances in therapy have improved life expectancy, affected individuals continue to suffer cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Recent studies in an FBN1-targeted mouse model of MFS with aortic disease similar to that seen in humans showed that treatment with losartan normalized aortic root growth and aortic wall architecture.MethodsThe Pediatric Heart Network designed a randomized clinical trial to compare aortic root growth and other short-term cardiovascular outcomes in subjects with MFS receiving atenolol or losartan. Individuals 6 months to 25 years of age with a body surface area-adjusted aortic root z score >3.0 will be eligible for inclusion. The primary aim is to compare the effect of atenolol therapy with that of losartan therapy on the rate of aortic root growth over 3 years. Secondary end points include progression of aortic regurgitation; incidence of aortic dissection, aortic root surgery, and death; progression of mitral regurgitation; left ventricular size and function; echocardiographically derived measures of central aortic stiffness; skeletal and somatic growth; and incidence of adverse drug reactions.ConclusionThis randomized trial should make a substantial contribution to the management of individuals with MFS and expand our understanding of the mechanisms responsible for the aortic manifestations of this disorder.
| S-EPMC3042860 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRacial/ethnic minority groups remain underrepresented in clinical trials. Many strategies to increase minority recruitment focus on minority communities and emphasize common diseases such as hypertension. Scant literature focuses on minority recruitment to trials of less common conditions, often conducted in specialty clinics and dependent on physician referrals. We identified trust/mistrust of specialist physician investigators and institutions conducting medical research and consequent participant reluctance to participate in clinical trials as key-shared barriers across racial/ethnic groups. We developed a trust-based continuous quality improvement intervention to build trust between specialist physician investigators and community minority-serving physicians and ultimately potential trial participants. To avoid the inherent biases of non-randomized studies, we evaluated the intervention in the national Randomized Recruitment Intervention Trial (RECRUIT). This report presents the design of RECRUIT. Specialty clinic follow-up continues through April 2017.MethodsWe hypothesized that specialist physician investigators and coordinators trained in the trust-based continuous quality improvement intervention would enroll a greater proportion of minority participants in their specialty clinics than specialist physician investigators in control specialty clinics. Specialty clinic was the unit of randomization. Using continuous quality improvement, the specialist physician investigators and coordinators tailored recruitment approaches to their specialty clinic characteristics and populations. Primary analyses were adjusted for clustering by specialty clinic within parent trial and matching covariates.ResultsRECRUIT was implemented in four multi-site clinical trials (parent trials) supported by three National Institutes of Health institutes and included 50 associated specialty clinics from these parent trials. Using current data, we have 88% power or greater to detect a 0.15 or greater difference from the currently observed control proportion adjusting for clustering. We detected no differences in baseline matching criteria between intervention and control specialty clinics (all p values > 0.17).ConclusionRECRUIT was the first multi-site randomized control trial to examine the effectiveness of a trust-based continuous quality improvement intervention to increase minority recruitment into clinical trials. RECRUIT's innovations included its focus on building trust between specialist investigators and minority-serving physicians, the use of continuous quality improvement to tailor the intervention to each specialty clinic's specific racial/ethnic populations and barriers to minority recruitment, and the use of specialty clinics from more than one parent multi-site trial to increase generalizability. The effectiveness of the RECRUIT intervention will be determined after the completion of trial data collection and planned analyses.
| S-EPMC5448312 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA pacemaker system consists of one or two leads connected to a device that is implanted into a pocket formed just below the collarbone. This pocket is typically subcutaneous, that is, located just above the pectoral fascia. Even though the size of pacemakers has decreased markedly, complications due to superficial implants do occur. An alternative technique would be intramuscular placement of the pacemaker device, but there are no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to support this approach, which is the rationale for the Placement Of Cardiac PacemaKEr Trial (POCKET). The aim is to study if intramuscular is superior to subcutaneous placement of a pacemaker pocket.MethodsIn October 2016, we started to enroll 200 consecutive patients with an indication for bradycardia pacemaker implantation. Patients are randomized to random block sizes, stratified by age group (cut-off: 65 years) and sex, and then randomized to either subcutaneous or intramuscular implant. A concealed allocation procedure is employed, using sequentially numbered, sealed envelopes. Pocket site is blinded to the patient and in all subsequent care. The primary endpoint is patient overall satisfaction with the pocket location at 24 months as measured using a visual analog scale (VAS) 0-10. Secondary endpoints are: complications, patient-reported satisfaction at 1, 12, and 24 months (overall satisfaction, pain, discomfort, degree of unsightly appearance, movement problems, and sleep problems due to device).ConclusionsPOCKET is a prospective interventional RCT designed to evaluate if intramuscular is superior to subcutaneous placement of a bradycardia pacemaker during a two-year follow-up.
| S-EPMC5421194 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The primary aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of three physical activity (PA) behavioural intervention strategies in a sample of adults with type 2 diabetes. METHOD/DESIGN:Participants (N = 287) were randomly assigned to one of three groups consisting of the following intervention strategies: (1) standard printed PA educational materials provided by the Canadian Diabetes Association [i.e., Group 1/control group)]; (2) standard printed PA educational materials as in Group 1, pedometers, a log book and printed PA information matched to individuals' PA stage of readiness provided every 3 months (i.e., Group 2); and (3) PA telephone counseling protocol matched to PA stage of readiness and tailored to personal characteristics, in addition to the materials provided in Groups 1 and 2 (i.e., Group 3). PA behaviour measured by the Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire and related social-cognitive measures were assessed at baseline, 3, 6, 9, 12 and 18-months (i.e., 6-month follow-up). Clinical (biomarkers) and health-related quality of life assessments were conducted at baseline, 12-months, and 18-months. Linear Mixed Model (LMM) analyses will be used to examine time-dependent changes from baseline across study time points for Groups 2 and 3 relative to Group 1. DISCUSSION:ADAPT will determine whether tailored but low-cost interventions can lead to sustainable increases in PA behaviours. The results may have implications for practitioners in designing and implementing theory-based physical activity promotion programs for this population. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00221234.
| S-EPMC2824703 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhile rarely used for supplementation trials in the United States, schools present a practical alternative to a clinical setting.PurposeWe describe the successful recruitment and retention of urban schoolchildren into a 6-month randomized, double-blind vitamin D3 supplementation trial.MethodsBoston-area urban schoolchildren, aged 8-15 years, were recruited in 2011-2012 through classroom and auditorium presentations. Informed consent forms in five languages were sent home to parents. Retention methods included regular telephone calls and gift cards for completed study visits.ResultsIn total, 691 schoolchildren enrolled. Their mean (standard deviation) age was 11.7 (1.4) years; 59% were racial/ethnic minorities and 68% qualified for free or reduced-price school meals. Multi-level, culturally sensitive, creative approaches contributed to success in recruitment and retention. Of 691 participants, 81% completed the 6-month intervention period. Reasons for attrition included missed appointments and fear of a blood draw. More children from households with higher incomes were retained than those from households with lower incomes (85% vs 79%, respectively, P = 0.04).LimitationsThe need for three fasting blood draws over the 6-month supplementation period was a limiting factor in the recruitment and retention of children in this study.ConclusionRecruitment of urban children into a school-based randomized controlled trial represents a feasible approach for a supplementation study. Particular attention to children of lower socioeconomic status may enhance participation and retention when conducting intervention studies among diverse populations.
| S-EPMC4344912 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsTo date, no pharmacotherapy exists for pediatric NAFLD. Losartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, has been proposed as a treatment due to its antifibrotic effects.Approach and resultsThe Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Clinical Research Network conducted a multicenter, double-masked, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial in children with histologically confirmed NAFLD at 10 sites (September 2018 to April 2020). Inclusion criteria were age 8-17 years, histologic NAFLD activity score ≥ 3, and serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) ≥ 50 U/l. Children received 100 mg of losartan or placebo orally once daily for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was change in ALT levels from baseline to 24 weeks, and the preset sample size was n = 110. Treatment effects were assessed using linear regression of change in treatment group adjusted for baseline value. Eighty-three participants (81% male, 80% Hispanic) were randomized to losartan (n = 43) or placebo (n = 40). During an enrollment pause, necessitated by the 2019 coronavirus pandemic, an unplanned interim analysis showed low probability (7%) of significant group difference. The Data and Safety Monitoring Board recommended early study termination. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The 24-week change in ALT did not differ significantly between losartan versus placebo groups (adjusted mean difference: 1.1 U/l; 95% CI = -30.6, 32.7; p = 0.95), although alkaline phosphatase decreased significantly in the losartan group (adjusted mean difference: -23.4 U/l; 95% CI = -41.5, -5.3; p = 0.01). Systolic blood pressure decreased in the losartan group but increased in placebo (adjusted mean difference: -7.5 mm Hg; 95% CI = -12.2, -2.8; p = 0.002). Compliance by pill counts and numbers and types of adverse events did not differ by group.ConclusionsLosartan did not significantly reduce ALT in children with NAFLD when compared with placebo.
| S-EPMC9288975 | biostudies-literature