SUGAR-DIP trial: Oral medication strategy versus insulin for diabetes in pregnancy, study protocol for a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial

Introduction In women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) requiring pharmacotherapy, insulin was the established first-line treatment. More recently, oral glucose lowering drugs (OGLDs) have gained popularity as a patient-friendly, less expensive and safe alternative. Monotherapy with metformin or glibenclamide (glyburide) is incorporated in several international guidelines. In women who do not reach sufficient glucose control with OGLD monotherapy, usually insulin is added, either with or without continuation of OGLDs. No reliable data from clinical trials, however, are available on the effectiveness of a treatment strategy using all three agents, metformin, glibenclamide and insulin, in a stepwise approach, compared with insulin-only therapy for improving pregnancy outcomes. In this trial, we aim to assess the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and patient experience of a stepwise combined OGLD treatment protocol, compared with conventional insulin-based therapy for GDM. Methods The SUGAR-DIP trial is an open-label, multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Participants are women with GDM who do not reach target glycaemic control with modification of diet, between 16 and 34 weeks of gestation. Participants will be randomised to either treatment with OGLDs, starting with metformin and supplemented as needed with glibenclamide, or randomised to treatment with insulin. In women who do not reach target glycaemic control with combined metformin and glibenclamide, glibenclamide will be substituted with insulin, while continuing metformin. The primary outcome will be the incidence of large-for-gestational-age infants (birth weight >90th percentile). Secondary outcome measures are maternal diabetes-related endpoints, obstetric complications, neonatal complications and cost-effectiveness analysis. Outcomes will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Ethics and dissemination The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Utrecht University Medical Centre. Approval by the boards of management for all participating hospitals will be obtained. Trial results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals

Blood-brain barrier perturbations by uremic toxins: key contributors in chronic kidney disease-induced neurological disorders?

Chronic kidney disease is multifactorial and estimated to affect more than 840 million people worldwide constituting a major global health crisis. The number of patients will continue to rise mostly because of the aging population and the increased prevalence of comorbidities such as diabetes and hypertension. Patients with advanced stages display a loss of kidney function leading to an accumulation of, a.o. protein-bound uremic toxins that are poorly eliminated by renal replacement therapies. This systemic retention of toxic metabolites, known as the uremic syndrome, affects other organs. Indeed, neurological complications such as cognitive impairment, uremic encephalopathy, and anxiety have been reported in chronic kidney disease patients. Several factors are involved, including hemodynamic disorders and blood-brain barrier (BBB) impairment. The BBB guarantees the exchange of solutes between the blood and the brain through a complex cellular organization and a diverse range of transport proteins. We hypothesize that the increased exposure of the brain to protein-bound uremic toxins is involved in BBB disruption and induces a perturbation in the activity of endothelial membrane transporters. This phenomenon could play a part in the evolution of neurological disorders driven by this kidney-brain crosstalk impairment. In this review, we present chronic kidney disease-induced neurological complications by focusing on the pathological relationship between the BBB and protein-bound uremic toxins. The importance of mech-anistically delineating the impact of protein-bound uremic toxins on BBB integrity and membrane drug trans-porter expression and function in brain endothelial capillary cells is highlighted. Additionally, we put forward current knowledge gaps in the literature.Pharmacolog

Are cell-based therapies for kidney disease safe? A systematic review of preclinical evidence

The number of individuals affected by acute kidney injury (AKI) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) is constantly rising. In light of the limited availability of treatment options and their relative inefficacy, cell based therapeutic modalities have been studied. However, not many efforts are put into safety evaluation of such applications. The aim of this study was to review the existing published literature on adverse events reported in studies with genetically modified cells for treatment of kidney disease. A systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed and EMBASE for relevant articles published until June 2018. The search results were screened and relevant articles selected using pre-defined criteria, by two researchers independently. After initial screening of 6894 abstracts, a total number of 97 preclinical studies was finally included for full assessment. Of these, 61 (63%) presented an inappropriate study design for the evaluation of safety parameters. Only 4 studies (4%) had the optimal study design, while 32 (33%) showed sub-optimal study design with either direct or indirect evidence of adverse events. The high heterogeneity of studies included regarding cell type and number, genetic modification, administration route, and kidney disease model applied, combined with the consistent lack of appropriate control groups, makes a reliable safety evaluation of kidney cell-based therapies impossible. Only a limited number of relevant studies included looked into essential safety-related outcomes, such as inflammatory (48%), tumorigenic and teratogenic potential (12%), cell biodistribution (82%), microbiological safety with respect to microorganism contamination and latent viruses' reactivation (1%), as well as overall well-being and animal survival (19%). In conclusion, for benign cell-based therapies, well-designed pre-clinical studies, including all control groups required and good manufacturing processes securing safety, need to be done early in development. Preferably, this should be performed side by side with efficacy evaluation and according to the official guidelines of leading health organizations

SUGAR-DIP trial: oral medication strategy versus insulin for diabetes in pregnancy, study protocol for a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial

Contains fulltext : 208558.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)INTRODUCTION: In women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) requiring pharmacotherapy, insulin was the established first-line treatment. More recently, oral glucose lowering drugs (OGLDs) have gained popularity as a patient-friendly, less expensive and safe alternative. Monotherapy with metformin or glibenclamide (glyburide) is incorporated in several international guidelines. In women who do not reach sufficient glucose control with OGLD monotherapy, usually insulin is added, either with or without continuation of OGLDs. No reliable data from clinical trials, however, are available on the effectiveness of a treatment strategy using all three agents, metformin, glibenclamide and insulin, in a stepwise approach, compared with insulin-only therapy for improving pregnancy outcomes. In this trial, we aim to assess the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and patient experience of a stepwise combined OGLD treatment protocol, compared with conventional insulin-based therapy for GDM. METHODS: The SUGAR-DIP trial is an open-label, multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Participants are women with GDM who do not reach target glycaemic control with modification of diet, between 16 and 34 weeks of gestation. Participants will be randomised to either treatment with OGLDs, starting with metformin and supplemented as needed with glibenclamide, or randomised to treatment with insulin. In women who do not reach target glycaemic control with combined metformin and glibenclamide, glibenclamide will be substituted with insulin, while continuing metformin. The primary outcome will be the incidence of large-for-gestational-age infants (birth weight >90th percentile). Secondary outcome measures are maternal diabetes-related endpoints, obstetric complications, neonatal complications and cost-effectiveness analysis. Outcomes will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Utrecht University Medical Centre. Approval by the boards of management for all participating hospitals will be obtained. Trial results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR6134; Pre-results