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

Randomized Evaluation of the Effects of Anacetrapib through Lipid-modification (REVEAL)-A large-scale, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the clinical effects of anacetrapib among people with established vascular disease: Trial design, recruitment, and baseline characteristics

Merck & Co, Inc.UK Medical Research CouncilBritish Heart FoundationCancer Research U

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

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Supplementary Material for: Use of Mobile Devices to Measure Outcomes in Clinical Research, 2010–2016: A Systematic Literature Review

<b><i>Background:</i></b> The use of mobile devices in clinical research has advanced substantially in recent years due to the rapid pace of technology development. With an overall aim of informing the future use of mobile devices in interventional clinical research to measure primary outcomes, we conducted a systematic review of the use of and clinical outcomes measured by mobile devices (mobile outcomes) in observational and interventional clinical research. <b><i>Method:</i></b> We conducted a PubMed search using a range of search terms to retrieve peer-reviewed articles on clinical research published between January 2010 and May 2016 in which mobile devices were used to measure study outcomes. We screened each publication for specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. We then identified and qualitatively summarized the use of mobile outcome assessments in clinical research, including the type and design of the study, therapeutic focus, type of mobile device(s) used, and specific mobile outcomes reported. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The search retrieved 2,530 potential articles of interest. After screening, 88 publications remained. Twenty-five percent of the publications (<i>n</i> = 22) described mobile outcomes used in interventional research, and the rest (<i>n</i> = 66) described observational clinical research. Thirteen therapeutic areas were represented. Five categories of mobile devices were identified: (1) inertial sensors, (2) biosensors, (3) pressure sensors and walkways, (4) medication adherence monitors, and (5) location monitors; inertial sensors/accelerometers were most common (reported in 86% of the publications). Among the variety of mobile outcomes, various assessments of physical activity were most common (reported in 74% of the publications). Other mobile outcomes included assessments of sleep, mobility, and pill adherence, as well as biomarkers assessed using a mobile device, including cardiac measures, glucose, gastric reflux, respiratory measures, and intensity of head-related injury. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Mobile devices are being widely used in clinical research to assess outcomes, although their use in interventional research to assess therapeutic effectiveness is limited. For mobile devices to be used more frequently in pivotal interventional research – such as trials informing regulatory decision-making – more focus should be placed on: (1) consolidating the evidence supporting the clinical meaningfulness of specific mobile outcomes, and (2) standardizing the use of mobile devices in clinical research to measure specific mobile outcomes (e.g., data capture frequencies, placement of device). To that aim, this manuscript offers a broad overview of the various mobile outcome assessments currently used in observational and interventional research, and categorizes and consolidates this information for researchers interested in using mobile devices to assess outcomes in interventional research

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.RLM was supported by the Australian National Health Medical Research Council (Sidney Sax Public Health Overseas Fellowship No. 1054216). The SHARP study was funded by Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, with additional support from the Australian National Health Medical Research Council, the British Heart Foundation (CH/1996001/9454), and the UK Medical Research Council (A310). SHARP was initiated, conducted, and interpreted independently of the principal study funder (Merck & Co.). The study sponsor did not have any role in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication