EPIdemiology of Surgery-Associated Acute Kidney Injury (EPIS-AKI): Study protocol for a multicentre, observational trial

Introduction More than 300 million surgical procedures are performed each year. Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication after major surgery and is associated with adverse short-term and long-term outcomes. However, there is a large variation in the incidence of reported AKI rates. The establishment of an accurate epidemiology of surgery-associated AKI is important for healthcare policy, quality initiatives, clinical trials, as well as for improving guidelines. The objective of the Epidemiology of Surgery-associated Acute Kidney Injury (EPIS-AKI) trial is to prospectively evaluate the epidemiology of AKI after major surgery using the latest Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) consensus definition of AKI. Methods and analysis EPIS-AKI is an international prospective, observational, multicentre cohort study including 10 000 patients undergoing major surgery who are subsequently admitted to the ICU or a similar high dependency unit. The primary endpoint is the incidence of AKI within 72 hours after surgery according to the KDIGO criteria. Secondary endpoints include use of renal replacement therapy (RRT), mortality during ICU and hospital stay, length of ICU and hospital stay and major adverse kidney events (combined endpoint consisting of persistent renal dysfunction, RRT and mortality) at day 90. Further, we will evaluate preoperative and intraoperative risk factors affecting the incidence of postoperative AKI. In an add-on analysis, we will assess urinary biomarkers for early detection of AKI. Ethics and dissemination EPIS-AKI has been approved by the leading Ethics Committee of the Medical Council North Rhine-Westphalia, of the Westphalian Wilhelms-University Münster and the corresponding Ethics Committee at each participating site. Results will be disseminated widely and published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at conferences and used to design further AKI-related trials. Trial registration number NCT04165369

Early versus late initiation of renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (The ELAIN-Trial): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Acute kidney injury remains a common complication in critically ill patients and despite multiple trials and observational studies, the optimal timing for initiation of renal replacement therapy is still unclear. The early versus late initiation of renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (ELAIN) study is a randomized, single-center, prospective, two-arm, parallel group trial to reduce mortality in patients with severe acute kidney injury. We describe the study design and discuss aspects of the need for a trial in this patient cohort. Methods/design: Our plan is to randomize critically ill patients with acute kidney injury to 'early' or 'late' initiation of renal replacement therapy according to stage 2 and 3 of the KDIGO classification using a specific trial protocol. We plan to guide data collection and analysis using pre-existing definitions and testing. The primary endpoint is overall survival in a 90-day follow-up period. Secondary endpoints include 28-day, 60-day, 90-day and 1-year all-cause mortality, recovery of renal function, ICU and hospital length-of-stay. The primary analysis will be an intention-to-treat analysis; secondary analyses include treated analyses. We will also specify rules for handling data and determining outcome. Discussion: Several challenges for study design and execution can be seen in our trial, and it should generate results that will inform and influence the practice of renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00004367 (www.germanctr.de); 28 May 2013

Biomarker-guided implementation of the KDIGO guidelines to reduce the occurrence of acute kidney injury in patients after cardiac surgery (PrevAKI-multicentre) : protocol for a multicentre, observational study followed by randomised controlled feasibility trial

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a frequent complication after cardiac surgery with adverse short-term and long-term outcomes. Although prevention of AKI (PrevAKI) is strongly recommended, the optimal strategy is uncertain. The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guideline recommended a bundle of supportive measures in high-risk patients. In a single-centre trial, we recently demonstrated that the strict implementation of the KDIGO bundle significantly reduced the occurrence of AKI after cardiac surgery. In this feasibility study, we aim to evaluate whether the study protocol can be implemented in a multicentre setting in preparation for a large multicentre trial. We plan to conduct a prospective, observational survey followed by a randomised controlled, multicentre, multinational clinical trial including 280 patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. The purpose of the observational survey is to explore the adherence to the KDIGO recommendations in routine clinical practice. The second phase is a randomised controlled trial. The objective is to investigate whether the trial protocol is implementable in a large multicentre, multinational setting. The primary endpoint of the interventional part is the compliance rate with the protocol. Secondary endpoints include the occurrence of any AKI and moderate/severe AKI as defined by the KDIGO criteria within 72 hours after surgery, renal recovery at day 90, use of renal replacement therapy (RRT) and mortality at days 30, 60 and 90, the combined endpoint major adverse kidney events consisting of persistent renal dysfunction, RRT and mortality at day 90 and safety outcomes. The PrevAKI multicentre study has been approved by the leading Research Ethics Committee of the University of Münster and the respective Research Ethics Committee at each participating site. The results will be used to design a large, definitive trial. Trial registration number NCT03244514

Comportamento de dois genótipos de milho cultivados em sistema de aléias preestabelecido com diferentes leguminosas arbóreas.

O cultivo em aléias tem sido recomendado como alternativa para a substituição da agricultura de corte e queima, no trópico úmido, devido à grande capacidade de produção de matéria orgânica e de reciclagem de nutrientes, mas algumas dúvidas quanto à sustentabilidade e à competição interespecífica são persistentes. O objetivo no trabalho foi avaliar a viabilidade da cultura do milho em um sistema de cultivo em aléias de leguminosas arbóreas. O delineamento experimental utilizado foi em blocos casualisados, com quatro repetições dos tratamentos: aléias de sombreiro (Clitoria fairchildiana), ingá (Inga edulis), guandu (Cajanus cajan) e leucena (Leucaena leucocephala) e uma testemunha sem aléias. Foram avaliadas a remobilização de carbono e nitrogênio, massa de grãos, massa de mil grãos e competição interespecífica entre as cultivares de milho e as leguminosas. A produção de grãos foi maior nas parcelas com C. fairchildiana e L. leucocephala. A produtividade do híbrido de milho foi superior à da variedade em todos os tratamentos. A produtividade e a massa de mil grãos de milho não são negativamente afetadas pela distância da linha da leguminosa arbórea. Esse estudo conclui que o sistema de aléias com leguminosas arbóreas é uma alternativa importante ao manejo sustentável dos agroecossistemas no tropico úmido. Além disso, nessa região a produtividade em grãos na cultura do milho é favorecida no sistema de aléias preeestabelecidas com as leguminosas arbóreas sombreiro, ingá e leucena e pela utilização de genótipos eficientes no aproveitamento do nitrogênio, cujo sincronismo entre a liberação e a absorção do N aplicado por meio das leguminosas deve ser aprimorado

Corticotropin-stimulated steroid profiles to predict shock development and mortality in sepsis: From the HYPRESS study

Rationale Steroid profiles in combination with a corticotropin stimulation test provide information about steroidogenesis and its functional reserves in critically ill patients. Objectives We investigated whether steroid profiles before and after corticotropin stimulation can predict the risk of in-hospital death in sepsis. Methods An exploratory data analysis of a double blind, randomized trial in sepsis (HYPRESS [HYdrocortisone for PRevention of Septic Shock]) was performed. The trial included adult patients with sepsis who were not in shock and were randomly assigned to placebo or hydrocortisone treatment. Corticotropin tests were performed in patients prior to randomization and in healthy subjects. Cortisol and precursors of glucocorticoids (17-OH-progesterone, 11-desoxycortisol) and mineralocorticoids (11-desoxycorticosterone, corticosterone) were analyzed using the multi-analyte stable isotope dilution method (LC–MS/MS). Measurement results from healthy subjects were used to determine reference ranges, and those from placebo patients to predict in-hospital mortality. Measurements and main results Corticotropin tests from 180 patients and 20 volunteers were included. Compared to healthy subjects, patients with sepsis had elevated levels of 11-desoxycorticosterone and 11-desoxycortisol, consistent with activation of both glucocorticoid and mineralocorticoid pathways. After stimulation with corticotropin, the cortisol response was subnormal in 12% and the corticosterone response in 50% of sepsis patients. In placebo patients (n = 90), a corticotropin-stimulated cortisol-to-corticosterone ratio > 32.2 predicted in-hospital mortality (AUC 0.8 CI 0.70–0.88; sensitivity 83%; and specificity 78%). This ratio also predicted risk of shock development and 90-day mortality. Conclusions In this exploratory analysis, we found that in sepsis mineralocorticoid steroidogenesis was more frequently impaired than glucocorticoid steroidogenesis. The corticotropin-stimulated cortisol-to-corticosterone ratio predicts the risk of in-hospital death. Trial registration Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00670254. Registered 1 May 2008, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00670254

Postoperative acute kidney injury in adult non-cardiac surgery:joint consensus report of the Acute Disease Quality Initiative and PeriOperative Quality Initiative

Postoperative acute kidney injury (PO-AKI) is a common complication of major surgery that is strongly associated with short-term surgical complications and long-term adverse outcomes, including increased risk of chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular events and death. Risk factors for PO-AKI include older age and comorbid diseases such as chronic kidney disease and diabetes mellitus. PO-AKI is best defined as AKI occurring within 7 days of an operative intervention using the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) definition of AKI; however, additional prognostic information may be gained from detailed clinical assessment and other diagnostic investigations in the form of a focused kidney health assessment (KHA). Prevention of PO-AKI is largely based on identification of high baseline risk, monitoring and reduction of nephrotoxic insults, whereas treatment involves the application of a bundle of interventions to avoid secondary kidney injury and mitigate the severity of AKI. As PO-AKI is strongly associated with long-term adverse outcomes, some form of follow-up KHA is essential; however, the form and location of this will be dictated by the nature and severity of the AKI. In this Consensus Statement, we provide graded recommendations for AKI after non-cardiac surgery and highlight priorities for future research

Sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with severe or critical COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background: Elevated proinflammatory cytokines are associated with greater COVID-19 severity. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in patients with severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19. Methods: We did a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial at 45 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain. We included adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1 with permuted blocks of five) to receive intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. Patients, care providers, outcome assessors, and investigators remained masked to assigned intervention throughout the course of the study. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement of two or more points (seven point scale ranging from 1 [death] to 7 [discharged from hospital]) in the modified intention-to-treat population. The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04327388; EudraCT, 2020-001162-12; and WHO, U1111-1249-6021. Findings: Between March 28 and July 3, 2020, of 431 patients who were screened, 420 patients were randomly assigned and 416 received placebo (n=84 [20%]), sarilumab 200 mg (n=159 [38%]), or sarilumab 400 mg (n=173 [42%]). At day 29, no significant differences were seen in median time to an improvement of two or more points between placebo (12·0 days [95% CI 9·0 to 15·0]) and sarilumab 200 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 12·0]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·03 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·40]; log-rank p=0·96) or sarilumab 400 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 13·0]; HR 1·14 [95% CI 0·84 to 1·54]; log-rank p=0·34), or in proportions of patients alive (77 [92%] of 84 patients in the placebo group; 143 [90%] of 159 patients in the sarilumab 200 mg group; difference −1·7 [−9·3 to 5·8]; p=0·63 vs placebo; and 159 [92%] of 173 patients in the sarilumab 400 mg group; difference 0·2 [−6·9 to 7·4]; p=0·85 vs placebo). At day 29, there were numerical, non-significant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +8·9% [95% CI −7·7 to 25·5]; p=0·25) for patients who had critical disease. No unexpected safety signals were seen. The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 65% (55 of 84) in the placebo group, 65% (103 of 159) in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 70% (121 of 173) in the sarilumab 400 mg group, and of those leading to death 11% (nine of 84) were in the placebo group, 11% (17 of 159) were in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 10% (18 of 173) were in the sarilumab 400 mg group. Interpretation: This trial did not show efficacy of sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and receiving supplemental oxygen. Adequately powered trials of targeted immunomodulatory therapies assessing survival as a primary endpoint are suggested in patients with critical COVID-19. Funding: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals

Impact of Safety-Related Dose Reductions or Discontinuations on Sustained Virologic Response in HCV-Infected Patients: Results from the GUARD-C Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Despite the introduction of direct-acting antiviral agents for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, peginterferon alfa/ribavirin remains relevant in many resource-constrained settings. The non-randomized GUARD-C cohort investigated baseline predictors of safety-related dose reductions or discontinuations (sr-RD) and their impact on sustained virologic response (SVR) in patients receiving peginterferon alfa/ribavirin in routine practice. METHODS: A total of 3181 HCV-mono-infected treatment-naive patients were assigned to 24 or 48 weeks of peginterferon alfa/ribavirin by their physician. Patients were categorized by time-to-first sr-RD (Week 4/12). Detailed analyses of the impact of sr-RD on SVR24 (HCV RNA <50 IU/mL) were conducted in 951 Caucasian, noncirrhotic genotype (G)1 patients assigned to peginterferon alfa-2a/ribavirin for 48 weeks. The probability of SVR24 was identified by a baseline scoring system (range: 0-9 points) on which scores of 5 to 9 and <5 represent high and low probability of SVR24, respectively. RESULTS: SVR24 rates were 46.1% (754/1634), 77.1% (279/362), 68.0% (514/756), and 51.3% (203/396), respectively, in G1, 2, 3, and 4 patients. Overall, 16.9% and 21.8% patients experienced ≥1 sr-RD for peginterferon alfa and ribavirin, respectively. Among Caucasian noncirrhotic G1 patients: female sex, lower body mass index, pre-existing cardiovascular/pulmonary disease, and low hematological indices were prognostic factors of sr-RD; SVR24 was lower in patients with ≥1 vs. no sr-RD by Week 4 (37.9% vs. 54.4%; P = 0.0046) and Week 12 (41.7% vs. 55.3%; P = 0.0016); sr-RD by Week 4/12 significantly reduced SVR24 in patients with scores <5 but not ≥5. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, sr-RD to peginterferon alfa-2a/ribavirin significantly impacts on SVR24 rates in treatment-naive G1 noncirrhotic Caucasian patients. Baseline characteristics can help select patients with a high probability of SVR24 and a low probability of sr-RD with peginterferon alfa-2a/ribavirin.This study was sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland. Support for third-party writing assistance for this manuscript, furnished by Blair Jarvis MSc, ELS, of Health Interactions, was provided by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland

Impact of safety-related dose reductions or discontinuations on sustained virologic response in HCV-infected patients: Results from the GUARD-C Cohort

Background: Despite the introduction of direct-acting antiviral agents for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, peginterferon alfa/ribavirin remains relevant in many resource-constrained settings. The non-randomized GUARD-C cohort investigated baseline predictors of safety-related dose reductions or discontinuations (sr-RD) and their impact on sustained virologic response (SVR) in patients receiving peginterferon alfa/ribavirin in routine practice. Methods: A total of 3181 HCV-mono-infected treatment-naive patients were assigned to 24 or 48 weeks of peginterferon alfa/ribavirin by their physician. Patients were categorized by time-to-first sr-RD (Week 4/12). Detailed analyses of the impact of sr-RD on SVR24 (HCV RNA <50 IU/mL) were conducted in 951 Caucasian, noncirrhotic genotype (G)1 patients assigned to peginterferon alfa-2a/ribavirin for 48 weeks. The probability of SVR24 was identified by a baseline scoring system (range: 0-9 points) on which scores of 5 to 9 and <5 represent high and low probability of SVR24, respectively. Results: SVR24 rates were 46.1 % (754/1634), 77.1% (279/362), 68.0% (514/756), and 51.3% (203/396), respectively, in G1,2, 3, and 4 patients. Overall, 16.9% and 21.8% patients experienced 651 sr-RD for peginterferon alfa and ribavirin, respectively. Among Caucasian noncirrhotic G1 patients: female sex, lower body mass index, pre-existing cardiovascular/pulmonary disease, and low hematological indices were prognostic factors of sr-RD; SVR24 was lower in patients with 651 vs. no sr-RD by Week 4 (37.9% vs. 54.4%; P = 0.0046) and Week 12 (41.7% vs. 55.3%; P = 0.0016); sr-RD by Week 4/12 significantly reduced SVR24 in patients with scores <5 but not 655. Conclusions: In conclusion, sr-RD to peginterferon alfa-2a/ribavirin significantly impacts on SVR24 rates in treatment-naive G1 noncirrhotic Caucasian patients. Baseline characteristics can help select patients with a high probability of SVR24 and a low probability of sr-RD with peginter-feron alfa-2a/ribavirin