Kidney function and symptom development over time in elderly patients with advanced chronic kidney disease: results of the EQUAL cohort study

Background. Initiation of renal replacement therapy often results from a combination of kidney function deterioration and symptoms related to chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression. We investigated the association between kidney function decline and symptom development in patients with advanced CKD.Methods. In the European Quality study on treatment in advanced CKD (EQUAL study), a European prospective cohort study, patients with advanced CKD aged >= 65 years and a kidney function that dropped <20 mL/min/1.73 m(2) were followed for 1 year. Linear mixed-effects models were used to assess the association between kidney function decline and symptom development. The sum score for symptom number ranged from 0 to 33 and for overall symptom severity from 0 to 165, using the Dialysis Symptom Index.Results. At least one kidney function estimate with symptom number or overall symptom severity was available for 1109 and 1019 patients, respectively. The mean (95% confidence interval) annual kidney function decline was 1.70 (1.32; 2.08) mL/min/1.73 m(2). The mean overall increase in symptom number and severity was 0.73 (0.28; 1.19) and 2.93 (1.34; 4.52) per year, respectively. A cross-sectional association between the level of kidney function and symptoms was lacking. Furthermore, kidney function at cohort entry was not associated with symptom development. However, each mL/min/1.73 m(2) of annual kidney function decline was associated with an extra annual increase of 0.23 (0.07; 0.39) in the number of symptoms and 0.87 (0.35; 1.40) in overall symptom severity.Conclusions. A faster kidney function decline was associated with a steeper increase in both symptom number and severity. Considering the modest association, our results seem to suggest that repeated thorough assessment of symptom development during outpatient clinic visits, in addition to the monitoring of kidney function decline, is important for clinical decision-making.Clinical epidemiolog

Efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide with flexible dose adjustment versus sitagliptin in type 2 diabetes (PIONEER 7): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3a trial

Background: Oral semaglutide is the first oral formulation of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist developed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of flexible dose adjustments of oral semaglutide with sitagliptin 100 mg. Methods: In this 52-week, multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3a trial, we recruited patients with type 2 diabetes from 81 sites in ten countries. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older (19 years or older in South Korea), had type 2 diabetes (diagnosed ≥90 days before screening), HbA1c of 7·5–9·5% (58–80 mmol/mol), and were inadequately controlled on stable daily doses of one or two oral glucose-lowering drugs (for 90 days or more before screening). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by use of an interactive web-response system, stratified by background glucose-lowering medication at screening, to oral semaglutide with flexible dose adjustments to 3, 7, or 14 mg once daily or sitagliptin 100 mg once daily. To approximate treatment individualisation in clinical practice, oral semaglutide dose could be adjusted on the basis of prespecified HbA1c and tolerability criteria. Two efficacy-related estimands were prespecified: treatment policy (regardless of treatment discontinuation or use of rescue medication) and trial product (on treatment and without use of rescue medication) for participants randomly assigned to treatment. The primary endpoint was achievement of HbA1c of less than 7% (53 mmol/mol) at week 52 and the confirmatory secondary efficacy endpoint was change in bodyweight from baseline to week 52. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02849080, and European Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT number 2015-005593-38, and an open-label extension is ongoing. Findings: Between Sept 20, 2016, and Feb 7, 2017, of 804 patients assessed for eligibility, 504 were eligible and randomly assigned to oral semaglutide (n=253) or sitagliptin (n=251). Most participants were male (285 [57%] of 504) with a mean age of 57·4 years (SD 9·9). All participants were given at least one dose of their allocated study drug except for one participant in the sitagliptin group. From a mean baseline HbA1c of 8·3% (SD 0·6%; 67 mmol/mol [SD 6·4]), a greater proportion of participants achieved an HbA1c of less than 7% with oral semaglutide than did with sitagliptin (treatment policy estimand: 58% [134 of 230] vs 25% [60 of 238]; and trial product estimand: 63% [123 of 196] vs 28% [52 of 184]). The odds of achieving an HbA1c of less than 7% was significantly better with oral semaglutide than sitagliptin (treatment policy estimand: odds ratio [OR] 4·40, 95% CI 2·89–6·70, p&lt;0·0001; and trial product estimand: 5·54, 3·54–8·68, p&lt;0·0001). The odds of decreasing mean bodyweight from baseline to week 52 were higher with oral semaglutide than with sitagliptin (estimated mean change in bodyweight, treatment policy estimand: −2·6 kg [SE 0·3] vs −0·7 kg [SE 0·2], estimated treatment difference [ETD] −1·9 kg, 95% CI −2·6 to −1·2; p&lt;0·0001; and trial product estimand: −2·9 kg [SE 0·3] vs −0·8 kg [SE 0·3], ETD −2·2 kg, −2·9 to −1·5; p&lt;0·0001). Adverse events occurred in 197 (78%) of 253 participants in the oral semaglutide group versus 172 (69%) of 250 in the sitagliptin group, and nausea was the most common adverse event with oral semaglutide (53 [21%]). Two deaths occurred in the sitagliptin group during the trial. Interpretation: Oral semaglutide, with flexible dose adjustment, based on efficacy and tolerability, provided superior glycaemic control and weight loss compared with sitagliptin, and with a safety profile consistent with subcutaneous GLP-1 receptor agonists. Funding: Novo Nordisk A/S

Peri-infarct zone pacing to prevent adverse left ventricular remodelling in patients with large myocardial infarction

Cardiolog

Obesity is not protective against fracture in postmenopausal women: GLOW

MethodsThis was a multinational, prospective, observational, population-based study carried out by 723 physician practices at 17 sites in 10 countries. A total of 60,393 women aged ?55 years were included. Data were collected using self-administered questionnaires that covered domains that included patient characteristics, fracture history, risk factors for fracture, and anti-osteoporosis medications.ResultsBody mass index (BMI) and fracture history were available at baseline and at 1 and 2 years in 44,534 women, 23.4% of whom were obese (BMI ?30 kg/m2). Fracture prevalence in obese women at baseline was 222 per 1000 and incidence at 2 years was 61.7 per 1000, similar to rates in nonobese women (227 and 66.0 per 1000, respectively). Fractures in obese women accounted for 23% and 22% of all previous and incident fractures, respectively. The risk of incident ankle and upper leg fractures was significantly higher in obese than in nonobese women, while the risk of wrist fracture was significantly lower. Obese women with fracture were more likely to have experienced early menopause and to report 2 or more falls in the past year. Self-reported asthma, emphysema, and type 1 diabetes were all significantly more common in obese than nonobese women with incident fracture. At 2 years, 27% of obese women with incident fracture were receiving bone protective therapy, compared with 41% of nonobese and 57% of underweight women.ConclusionsOur results demonstrate that obesity is not protective against fracture in postmenopausal women and is associated with increased risk of ankle and upper leg fractures

Self-perception of fracture risk: what can it tell us?

In this study, we report that self-perception of fracture risk captures some aspect of fracture risk not currently measured using conventional fracture prediction tools and is associated with improved medication uptake. It suggests that adequate appreciation of fracture risk may be beneficial and lead to greater healthcare engagement and treatment

Durable functional limitation in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 admitted to intensive care and the effect of intermediate-dose vs standard-dose anticoagulation on functional outcomes

Introduction: Patients affected with severe forms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) suffer from a wide range of sequelae, from limited airway diseases to multiple organ failure. These sequelae may create exercise limitation, impair the daily activity and thus impact the mental health and the social life. However, the extent of functional limitations and depressive symptoms are understudied especially in patients with COVID-19 after intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalization.Methods: The Intermediate versus Standard-dose Prophylactic anticoagulation In cRitically-ill pATIents with COVID-19: An opeN label randomized controlled trial (INSPIRATION) was a clinical trial that randomized ICU patients with COVID-19 to intermediate-dose vs standard-dose anticoagulation. In the current study, we assessed the interval change in 30-day and 90-day functional limitations based on the post-COVID-19 functional status scale (PCFS) and depressive symptoms based on the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) in the trial participants. We also assessed the effect of intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation on the functional outcomes and depressive symptoms.Results: Of 600 randomized patients in INSPIRATION, 375 (age: 62 years; 42% women) participated in the functional status study. 195 patients died during the 90-day follow up (191 by day 30). Among survivors, between day 30 and day 90, the proportion of patients with moderate-to-severe functional limitation (PCSF grade 3-or-4) decreased from 20.0% to 4.8% (P = 3 decreased from 25.5% to 16.6% (P = 0.05). The proportion of patients with no functional limitations (PCFS grade 0) increased (4.2% to 15.4%, P= 3 (17.9% vs 15.3%; OR, 1.14, [95% CI, 0.79-1.65]; P = 0.14), with similar results when accounting for study center.Conclusion: In patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU, functional limitations and depressive symptoms were common at 30-day follow-up and had some improvement by 90-day follow-up among survivors. Intermediate-dose compared to standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation did not improve functional outcomes