The effects of the sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin on renal and cardiovascular disease have not been tested in a dedicated population of people with chronic kidney disease ...(CKD).
The EMPA-KIDNEY trial is an international randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessing whether empagliflozin 10 mg daily decreases the risk of kidney disease progression or cardiovascular death in people with CKD. People with or without diabetes mellitus (DM) were eligible provided they had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥20 but <45 mL/min/1.73 m2 or an eGFR ≥45 but <90 mL/min/1.73 m2 with a urinary albumin:creatinine ratio (uACR) ≥200 mg/g. The trial design is streamlined, as extra work for collaborating sites is kept to a minimum and only essential information is collected.
Between 15 May 2019 and 16 April 2021, 6609 people from eight countries in Europe, North America and East Asia were randomized. The mean age at randomization was 63.8 years standard deviation (SD) 13.9), 2192 (33%) were female and 3570 (54%) had no prior history of DM. The mean eGFR was 37.5 mL/min/1.73 m2 (SD 14.8), including 5185 (78%) with an eGFR <45 mL/min/1.73 m2. The median uACR was 412 mg/g) (quartile 1-quartile 3 94-1190), with a uACR <300 mg/g in 3194 (48%). The causes of kidney disease included diabetic kidney disease n = 2057 (31%), glomerular disease n = 1669 (25%), hypertensive/renovascular disease n = 1445 (22%), other n = 808 (12%) and unknown causes n = 630 (10%).
EMPA-KIDNEY will evaluate the efficacy and safety of empagliflozin in a widely generalizable population of people with CKD at risk of kidney disease progression. Results are anticipated in 2022.
A multicenter, randomized trial involving participants with diabetes and no evident cardiovascular disease at trial entry showed that aspirin led to a lower risk of serious vascular events than ...placebo but also caused a higher risk of major bleeding.
In this trial involving patients with diabetes without evidence of cardiovascular disease, the risk of serious vascular events was similar in those who received n−3 fatty acid supplements and those ...who received placebo.
Findings from cardiovascular outcome trials suggest that treatment with fenofibrate may reduce the progression of diabetic retinopathy. However, no dedicated large-scale randomised trials have yet ...investigated this hypothesis.
LENS is a streamlined randomised double-masked placebo-controlled trial, based in Scotland, assessing whether treatment with fenofibrate (145 mg tablet daily or, in the context of impaired renal function, on alternate days) in people with early retinopathy reduces progression to referable diabetic retinopathy (defined in NHS Scotland's Diabetic Eye Screening grading scheme as referable background or proliferative retinopathy, or referable maculopathy in either eye) or treatment with retinal laser, intravitreal injections or vitrectomy. Adults with diabetes mellitus and non-referable retinopathy (mild background retinopathy in both eyes or observable background retinopathy in one/both eyes at the most recent NHS retinal screening assessment; or observable maculopathy in one/both eyes in the previous 3 years) were eligible. Potential participants were identified from routinely collected healthcare data and followed up using regular contact from the research team and linkage to national electronic morbidity, mortality, biochemistry and retinal screening records. Study treatment was mailed to participants.
Between 18 September 2018 and 27 July 2021, 1151 participants were randomised. Their mean age was 61 (SD 12) years, 312 (27%) were female and 305 (26%) had type 1 diabetes. 96% had bilateral mild background retinopathy and 10% had observable maculopathy.
LENS will provide a robust evaluation of the efficacy of treating people at risk of progression of diabetic retinopathy with fenofibrate. Results are anticipated in mid-2024.
NCT03439345; ISRCTN15073006; EuDRACT 2016-002656-24.
Summary Background Lithium carbonate and valproate semisodium are both recommended as monotherapy for prevention of relapse in bipolar disorder, but are not individually fully effective in many ...patients. If combination therapy with both agents is better than monotherapy, many relapses and consequent disability could be avoided. We aimed to establish whether lithium plus valproate was better than monotherapy with either drug alone for relapse prevention in bipolar I disorder. Methods 330 patients aged 16 years and older with bipolar I disorder from 41 sites in the UK, France, USA, and Italy were randomly allocated to open-label lithium monotherapy (plasma concentration 0·4–1·0 mmol/L, n=110), valproate monotherapy (750–1250 mg, n=110), or both agents in combination (n=110), after an active run-in of 4–8 weeks on the combination. Randomisation was by computer program, and investigators and participants were informed of treatment allocation. All outcome events were considered by the trial management team, who were masked to treatment assignment. Participants were followed up for up to 24 months. The primary outcome was initiation of new intervention for an emergent mood episode, which was compared between groups by Cox regression. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN 55261332. Findings 59 (54%) of 110 people in the combination therapy group, 65 (59%) of 110 in the lithium group, and 76 (69%) of 110 in the valproate group had a primary outcome event during follow-up. Hazard ratios for the primary outcome were 0·59 (95% CI 0·42–0·83, p=0·0023) for combination therapy versus valproate, 0·82 (0·58–1·17, p=0·27) for combination therapy versus lithium, and 0·71 (0·51–1·00, p=0·0472) for lithium versus valproate. 16 participants had serious adverse events after randomisation: seven receiving valproate monotherapy (three deaths); five lithium monotherapy (two deaths); and four combination therapy (one death). Interpretation For people with bipolar I disorder, for whom long-term therapy is clinically indicated, both combination therapy with lithium plus valproate and lithium monotherapy are more likely to prevent relapse than is valproate monotherapy. This benefit seems to be irrespective of baseline severity of illness and is maintained for up to 2 years. BALANCE could neither reliably confirm nor refute a benefit of combination therapy compared with lithium monotherapy. Funding Stanley Medical Research Institute; Sanofi-Aventis.
Abstract Background Randomised trials are essential to reliably assess medical interventions. Nevertheless, interpretation of such studies, particularly when considering absolute effects, is enhanced ...by understanding how the trial population may differ from the populations it aims to represent. Methods We compared baseline characteristics and mortality of RECOVERY participants recruited in England ( n = 38,510) with a reference population hospitalised with COVID-19 in England ( n = 346,271) from March 2020 to November 2021. We used linked hospitalisation and mortality data for both cohorts to extract demographics, comorbidity/frailty scores, and crude and age- and sex-adjusted 28-day all-cause mortality. Results Demographics of RECOVERY participants were broadly similar to the reference population, but RECOVERY participants were younger (mean age standard deviation: RECOVERY 62.6 15.3 vs reference 65.7 18.5 years) and less frequently female (37% vs 45%). Comorbidity and frailty scores were lower in RECOVERY, but differences were attenuated after age stratification. Age- and sex-adjusted 28-day mortality declined over time but was similar between cohorts across the study period (RECOVERY 23.7% 95% confidence interval: 23.3–24.1%; vs reference 24.8% 24.6–25.0%), except during the first pandemic wave in the UK (March–May 2020) when adjusted mortality was lower in RECOVERY. Conclusions Adjusted 28-day mortality in RECOVERY was similar to a nationwide reference population of patients admitted with COVID-19 in England during the same period but varied substantially over time in both cohorts. Therefore, the absolute effect estimates from RECOVERY were broadly applicable to the target population at the time but should be interpreted in the light of current mortality estimates. Trial registration ISRCTN50189673- Feb. 04, 2020, NCT04381936- May 11, 2020.
Findings from cardiovascular outcome trials suggest that fenofibrate therapy may reduce the progression of diabetic retinopathy.BACKGROUNDFindings from cardiovascular outcome trials suggest that ...fenofibrate therapy may reduce the progression of diabetic retinopathy.We recruited and followed adults with nonreferable diabetic retinopathy or maculopathy using the national Diabetic Eye Screening (DES) program in Scotland. We randomly assigned participants to receive 145-mg fenofibrate tablets or placebo (taken daily or, in those with impaired renal function, on alternate days). The primary outcome was a composite of developing referable diabetic retinopathy or maculopathy (based on Scotland's DES grading scheme) or treatment (intravitreal injection, retinal laser, vitrectomy) for retinopathy or maculopathy.METHODSWe recruited and followed adults with nonreferable diabetic retinopathy or maculopathy using the national Diabetic Eye Screening (DES) program in Scotland. We randomly assigned participants to receive 145-mg fenofibrate tablets or placebo (taken daily or, in those with impaired renal function, on alternate days). The primary outcome was a composite of developing referable diabetic retinopathy or maculopathy (based on Scotland's DES grading scheme) or treatment (intravitreal injection, retinal laser, vitrectomy) for retinopathy or maculopathy.A total of 1151 participants were randomly assigned to treatment. During a median of 4.0 years, progression to referable diabetic retinopathy or maculopathy, or treatment thereof, occurred in 131 (22.7%) of 576 participants in the fenofibrate group and 168 (29.2%) of 575 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.58 to 0.91; P=0.006). In the fenofibrate group compared with the placebo group, the frequencies for any progression of retinopathy or maculopathy were 185 (32.1%) vs. 231 (40.2%); hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.90 and for the development of macular edema were 22 (3.8%) vs. 43 (7.5%); hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.84. Seventeen (3.0%) participants assigned fenofibrate and 28 (4.9%) assigned placebo were given treatment for retinopathy (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.31 to 1.06). There was no effect on visual function, quality of life, or visual acuity. Trial-averaged estimated glomerular filtration rate was 7.9 (95% CI, 6.8 to 9.1) ml/min/1.73 m2 lower in participants in the fenofibrate group compared with the placebo group. Serious adverse events occurred in 208 (36.1%) participants allocated fenofibrate and 204 (35.5%) participants allocated placebo.RESULTSA total of 1151 participants were randomly assigned to treatment. During a median of 4.0 years, progression to referable diabetic retinopathy or maculopathy, or treatment thereof, occurred in 131 (22.7%) of 576 participants in the fenofibrate group and 168 (29.2%) of 575 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.58 to 0.91; P=0.006). In the fenofibrate group compared with the placebo group, the frequencies for any progression of retinopathy or maculopathy were 185 (32.1%) vs. 231 (40.2%); hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.90 and for the development of macular edema were 22 (3.8%) vs. 43 (7.5%); hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.84. Seventeen (3.0%) participants assigned fenofibrate and 28 (4.9%) assigned placebo were given treatment for retinopathy (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.31 to 1.06). There was no effect on visual function, quality of life, or visual acuity. Trial-averaged estimated glomerular filtration rate was 7.9 (95% CI, 6.8 to 9.1) ml/min/1.73 m2 lower in participants in the fenofibrate group compared with the placebo group. Serious adverse events occurred in 208 (36.1%) participants allocated fenofibrate and 204 (35.5%) participants allocated placebo.Fenofibrate reduced progression of diabetic retinopathy compared with placebo among participants with early retinal changes. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03439345; ISRCTN number, ISRCTN15073006.).CONCLUSIONSFenofibrate reduced progression of diabetic retinopathy compared with placebo among participants with early retinal changes. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03439345; ISRCTN number, ISRCTN15073006.).
Background:
Meta-analyses of individual-level data from randomised trials are often required to detect clinically worthwhile effects. The Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration, which ...includes data from numerous large long-term statin trials, is conducting a review of the effects of statin therapy on all adverse events collected in those trials. This article describes the approaches used and challenges faced to systematically capture and categorise the data.
Methods:
Protocols, statistical analysis plans, case report forms, clinical study reports and datasets were obtained, reviewed and checked. Relevant baseline and follow-up data from each trial was then reorganised into standardised formats based upon the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium Study Data Tabulation Model. Adverse event data were organised and coded (automatically or, where necessary, manually) according to a common medical dictionary based upon the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities.
Results:
Data from 23 double-blind statin trials and 5 open-label statin trials were provided, either through direct data transfer or through online access platforms. Together, these trials provided 845 datasets containing over 38 million records relating to 30,495 study variables and 181,973 randomised participants. Of the 46 Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium Study Data Tabulation Model domains that could potentially have been used to organise the data, the 13 most relevant to the project were identified and utilised, including 6 domains related to post-randomisation adverse events. Nearly 1.2 million adverse events were extracted and mapped to over 45,000 unique adverse event terms. Of these adverse events, 99% were coded to a Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities ‘lower level term’, with the remainder coded to a ‘higher level term’ or, very rarely, only a ‘higher level group term’.
Conclusion:
In this meta-analysis of adverse event data from the large randomised trials of statins, approaches based on common standards for data organisation and classification have provided a resource capable of allowing reliable and rapid evaluation of any previously unknown benefits or hazards of statin therapy.
PDF
