Randomized multicentre pilot study of sacubitril/valsartan versus irbesartan in patients with chronic kidney disease: United Kingdom Heart and Renal Protection (HARP)- III—rationale, trial design and baseline data

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at risk of progression to end-stage renal disease and cardiovascular disease. Data from other populations and animal experiments suggest that neprilysin inhibition (which augments the natriuretic peptide system) may reduce these risks, but clinical trials among patients with CKD are required to test this hypothesis. METHODS: UK Heart and Renal Protection III (HARP-III) is a multicentre, double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg two times daily (an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor) with irbesartan 300 mg one time daily among 414 patients with CKD. Patients ≥18 years of age with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of ≥45 but <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and urine albumin:creatinine ratio (uACR) >20 mg/mmol or eGFR ≥20 but <45 mL/min/1.73 m2 (regardless of uACR) were invited to be screened. Following a 4- to 7-week pre-randomization single-blind placebo run-in phase (during which any current renin-angiotensin system inhibitors were stopped), willing and eligible participants were randomly assigned either sacubitril/valsartan or irbesartan and followed-up for 12 months. The primary aim was to compare the effects of sacubitril/valsartan and irbesartan on measured GFR after 12 months of therapy. Important secondary outcomes include effects on albuminuria, change in eGFR over time and the safety and tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan in CKD. RESULTS: Between November 2014 and January 2016, 620 patients attended a screening visit and 566 (91%) entered the pre-randomization run-in phase. Of these, 414 (73%) participants were randomized (mean age 63 years; 72% male). The mean eGFR was 34.0 mL/min/1.73 m2 and the median uACR was 58.5 mg/mmol. CONCLUSIONS: UK HARP-III will provide important information on the short-term effects of sacubitril/valsartan on renal function, tolerability and safety among patients with CKD

Conventional and Genetic Evidence on the Association between Adiposity and CKD

Background The size of any causal contribution of central and general adiposity to CKD risk and the underlying mechanism of mediation are unknown. Methods Data from 281,228 UK Biobank participants were used to estimate the relevance of waist-to-hip ratio and body mass index (BMI) to CKD prevalence. Conventional approaches used logistic regression. Genetic analyses used Mendelian randomization (MR) and data from 394 waist-to-hip ratio and 773 BMI-associated loci. Models assessed the role of known mediators (diabetes mellitus and BP) by adjusting for measured values (conventional analyses) or genetic associations of the selected loci (multivariable MR). Results Evidence of CKD was found in 18,034 (6.4%) participants. Each 0.06 higher measured waist-to-hip ratio and each 5-kg/m2 increase in BMI were associated with 69% (odds ratio, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.64 to 1.74) and 58% (1.58; 1.55 to 1.62) higher odds of CKD, respectively. In analogous MR analyses, each 0.06–genetically-predicted higher waist-to-hip ratio was associated with a 29% (1.29; 1.20 to 1.38) increased odds of CKD, and each 5-kg/m2 genetically-predicted higher BMI was associated with a 49% (1.49; 1.39 to 1.59) increased odds. After adjusting for diabetes and measured BP, chi-squared values for associations for waist-to-hip ratio and BMI fell by 56%. In contrast, mediator adjustment using multivariable MR found 83% and 69% reductions in chi-squared values for genetically-predicted waist-to-hip ratio and BMI models, respectively. Conclusions Genetic analyses suggest that conventional associations between central and general adiposity with CKD are largely causal. However, conventional approaches underestimate mediating roles of diabetes, BP, and their correlates. Genetic approaches suggest these mediators explain most of adiposity-CKD–associated risk.</p

Impact of Educational Attainment on Health Outcomes in Moderate to Severe CKD

BackgroundThe inverse association between educational attainment and mortality is well established, but its relevance to vascular events and renal progression in a population with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is less clear. This study aims to determine the association between highest educational attainment and risk of vascular events, cause-specific mortality, and CKD progression.Study DesignProspective epidemiologic analysis among participants in the Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP), a randomized controlled trial.Setting & Participants9,270 adults with moderate to severe CKD (6,245 not receiving dialysis at baseline) and no history of myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization recruited in Europe, North America, Asia, Australia, and New Zealand.PredictorHighest educational attainment measured at study entry using 6 levels that ranged from “no formal education” to “tertiary education.”OutcomesAny vascular event (any fatal or nonfatal cardiac, cerebrovascular, or peripheral vascular event), cause-specific mortality, and CKD progression during 4.9 years’ median follow-up.ResultsThere was a significant trend (P<0.001) toward increased vascular risk with decreasing levels of education. Participants with no formal education were at a 46% higher risk of vascular events (relative risk [RR], 1.46; 95% CI, 1.14-1.86) compared with participants with tertiary education. The trend for mortality across education levels was also significant (P<0.001): all-cause mortality was twice as high among those with no formal education compared with tertiary-educated individuals (RR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.62-2.58), and significant increases were seen for both vascular (RR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.21-2.81) and nonvascular (RR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.60-2.89) deaths. Lifestyle factors and prior disease explain most of the excess mortality risk. Among 6,245 participants not receiving dialysis at baseline, education level was not significantly associated with progression to end-stage renal disease or doubling of creatinine level (P for trend = 0.4).LimitationsNo data for employment or health insurance coverage.ConclusionsLower educational attainment is associated with increased risk of adverse health outcomes in individuals with CKD

Impact of CKD on Household Income

Introduction The impact of chronic kidney disease (CKD) on income is unclear. We sought to determine whether CKD severity, serious adverse events, and CKD progression affected household income. Methods Analyses were undertaken in a prospective cohort of adults with moderate-to-severe CKD in the Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP), with household income information available at baseline screening and study end. Logistic regressions, adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, smoking, and prior diseases at baseline, estimated associations during the 5-year follow-up, among (i) baseline CKD severity, (ii) incident nonfatal serious adverse events (vascular or cancer), and (iii) CKD treatment modality (predialysis, dialysis, or transplanted) at study end and the outcome “fall into relative poverty.” This was defined as household income <50% of country median income. Results A total of 2914 SHARP participants from 14 countries were included in the main analysis. Of these, 933 (32%) were in relative poverty at screening; of the remaining 1981, 436 (22%) fell into relative poverty by study end. Compared with participants with stage 3 CKD at baseline, the odds of falling into poverty were 51% higher for those with stage 4 (odds ratio [OR]: 1.51; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09–2.10), 66% higher for those with stage 5 (OR: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.11–2.47), and 78% higher for those on dialysis at baseline (OR: 1.78, 95% CI: 1.22–2.60). Participants with kidney transplant at study end had approximately half the risk of those on dialysis or those with CKD stages 3 to 5. Conclusion More advanced CKD is associated with increased odds of falling into poverty. Kidney transplantation may have a role in reducing this risk

Randomized multicentre pilot study of sacubitril/valsartan versus irbesartan in patients with chronic kidney disease: United Kingdom Heart and Renal Protection (HARP)- III-rationale, trial design and baseline data

Background Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at risk of progression to end-stage renal disease and cardiovascular disease. Data from other populations and animal experiments suggest that neprilysin inhibition (which augments the natriuretic peptide system) may reduce these risks, but clinical trials among patients with CKD are required to test this hypothesis. Methods UK Heart and Renal Protection III (HARP-III) is a multicentre, double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg two times daily (an angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor) with irbesartan 300 mg one time daily among 414 patients with CKD. Patients ≥18 years of age with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of ≥45 but 20 mg/mmol or eGFR ≥20 but <45 mL/min/1.73 m2 (regardless of uACR) were invited to be screened. Following a 4- to 7-week pre-randomization single-blind placebo run-in phase (during which any current renin–angiotensin system inhibitors were stopped), willing and eligible participants were randomly assigned either sacubitril/valsartan or irbesartan and followed-up for 12 months. The primary aim was to compare the effects of sacubitril/valsartan and irbesartan on measured GFR after 12 months of therapy. Important secondary outcomes include effects on albuminuria, change in eGFR over time and the safety and tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan in CKD. Results Between November 2014 and January 2016, 620 patients attended a screening visit and 566 (91%) entered the pre-randomization run-in phase. Of these, 414 (73%) participants were randomized (mean age 63 years; 72% male). The mean eGFR was 34.0 mL/min/1.73 m2 and the median uACR was 58.5 mg/mmol. Conclusions UK HARP-III will provide important information on the short-term effects of sacubitril/valsartan on renal function, tolerability and safety among patients with CKD

Intersection Geometric Design and Operational Guidelines for Older Drivers and Pedestrians, Volume II: Executive Summary

DTFH61-92-C-00142This project was performed to develop guidelines for changes in the geometric design and operations at intersections with the greatest potential to aid in their use by older drivers and pedestrians. A literature review identified age-related diminished capabilities that affect performance at intersections, and examined current design standards and their adequacy for older road users. Problem identification studies (accident database analysis, task analysis, focus group discussions, field observations) were conducted to better define older persons' difficulties in intersection use, and an expert panel met to prioritize variables for more extensive laboratory and field studies later in the project. These studies subsequently focused on age (including both young-old and old-old groups) and the effects of opposite left-turn lane geometry (offset amount and direction), right-turn channelization and curb radius, and varying median pedestrian refuge island configurations, using both objective (performance) and subjective measures. A critique of the data obtained in these studies during a second expert panel meeting concluded that sufficient evidence exists to support guidelines for: (1) geometric design to ensure a minimum required sight distance for drivers turning left from a major roadway, and (2) operational changes to accommodate older drivers where (re)design of an intersection to meet sight distance requirements is not feasible. In addition, a revision of Case V in the AASHTO Green Book to determine sight distance requirements that reflect the perceptual task of gap judgment by a left-turning driver more accurately than the current assumptions in Case IIIB is recommended, and further research needs to enhance the safety and mobility of older road users at intersections are identified

Intersection Geometric Design and Operational Guidelines for Older Drivers and Pedestrians, Volume III: Guidelines

DTFH61-92-C-00142This project was performed to develop guidelines for changes in the geometric design and operations at intersections with the greatest potential to aid in their use by older drivers and pedestrians. A literature review identified age-related diminished capabilities that affect performance at intersections, and examined current design standards and their adequacy for older road users. A set of problem identification studies (accident database analysis, task analysis, focus group discussions, field observations) were conducted to better define older persons' difficulties in intersection use, and an expert panel met to prioritize variables for more extensive laboratory and field studies later in the project. These studies subsequently focused on age (including both young-old and old-old groups) and the effects of opposite left-turn lane geometry (offset amount and direction), right-turn channelization and curb radius, and varying median pedestrian refuge island configurations, using both objective (performance) and subjective measures. A critique of the data obtained in these studies during a second expert panel meeting concluded that sufficient evidence exists to support guidelines for: (1) geometric design to ensure a minimum required sight distance for drivers turning left from a major roadway, and (2) operational changes to accommodate older drivers where (re)design of an intersection to meet sight distance requirements is not feasible. In addition, a revision of Case V in the AASHTO Green Book to determine sight distance requirements that reflect the perceptual task of gap judgment by a left-turning driver more accurately than the current assumptions in Case IIIB is recommended, and further research needs to enhance the safety and mobility of older road users at intersections are identified

Intersection Geometric Design and Operational Guidelines for Older Drivers and Pedestrians, Volume I: Final Report

DTFH61-92-C-00142This project was performed to develop guidelines for changes in the geometric design and operations at intersections with the greatest potential to aid in their use by older drivers and pedestrians. A literature review identified age-related diminished capabilities that affect performance at intersections, and examined current design standards and their adequacy for older road users. Problem identification studies (accident database analysis, task analysis, focus group discussions, field observations) were conducted to better define older persons' difficulties in intersection use, and an expert panel met to prioritize variables for more extensive laboratory and field studies later in the project. These studies subsequently focused on age (including both young-old and old-old groups) and the effects of opposite left-turn lane geometry (offset amount and direction), right-turn channelization and curb radius, and varying median pedestrian refuge island configurations, using both objective (performance) and subjective measures. A critique of the data obtained in these studies during a second expert panel meeting concluded that sufficient evidence exists to support guidelines for: (1) geometric design to ensure a minimum required sight distance for drivers turning left from a major roadway, and (2) operational changes to accommodate older drivers where (re)design of an intersection to meet sight distance requirements is not feasible. In addition, a revision of Case V in the AASHTO Green Book to determine sight distance requirements that reflect the perceptual task of gap judgment by a left-turning driver more accurately than the current assumptions in Case IIIB is recommended, and further research needs to enhance the safety and mobility of older road users at intersections are identified

Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19

BACKGROUND Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have been proposed as treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) on the basis of in vitro activity and data from uncontrolled studies and small, randomized trials. METHODS In this randomized, controlled, open-label platform trial comparing a range of possible treatments with usual care in patients hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned 1561 patients to receive hydroxychloroquine and 3155 to receive usual care. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. RESULTS The enrollment of patients in the hydroxychloroquine group was closed on June 5, 2020, after an interim analysis determined that there was a lack of efficacy. Death within 28 days occurred in 421 patients (27.0%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and in 790 (25.0%) in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.23; P=0.15). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients. The results suggest that patients in the hydroxychloroquine group were less likely to be discharged from the hospital alive within 28 days than those in the usual-care group (59.6% vs. 62.9%; rate ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.98). Among the patients who were not undergoing mechanical ventilation at baseline, those in the hydroxychloroquine group had a higher frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (30.7% vs. 26.9%; risk ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.27). There was a small numerical excess of cardiac deaths (0.4 percentage points) but no difference in the incidence of new major cardiac arrhythmia among the patients who received hydroxychloroquine. CONCLUSIONS Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19, those who received hydroxychloroquine did not have a lower incidence of death at 28 days than those who received usual care. (Funded by UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ISRCTN number, ISRCTN50189673; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936.

Lopinavir–ritonavir in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Lopinavir–ritonavir has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of in vitro activity,preclinical studies, and observational studies. Here, we report the results of a randomised trial to assess whether lopinavir–ritonavir improves outcomes in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial, a range of possible treatments was compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus lopinavir–ritonavir (400 mg and 100 mg, respectively) by mouth for 10 days or until discharge (or one of the otherRECOVERY treatment groups: hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, or azithromycin) using web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment. Randomisation to usual care was twice that of any of the active treatment groups (eg, 2:1 in favour of usual care if the patient was eligible for only one active group, 2:1:1 if the patient was eligible for two active groups). The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Analyses weredone on an intention-to-treat basis in all randomly assigned participants. The trial is registered with ISRCTN,50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between March 19, 2020, and June 29, 2020, 1616 patients were randomly allocated to receive lopinavir–ritonavir and 3424 patients to receive usual care. Overall, 374 (23%) patients allocated to lopinavir–ritonavir and 767 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·03, 95% CI 0·91–1·17; p=0·60). Resultswere consistent across all prespecified subgroups of patients. We observed no significant difference in time until discharge alive from hospital (median 11 days [IQR 5 to >28] in both groups) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (rate ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·91–1·05; p=0·53). Among patients not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no significant difference in the proportion who met the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (risk ratio 1·09, 95% CI 0·99–1·20; p=0·092).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, lopinavir–ritonavir was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality, duration of hospital stay, or risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death. These findings do not support the use of lopinavir–ritonavir for treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Funding Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research