Bardoxolone Methyl Improves Kidney Function in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease Stage 4 and Type 2 Diabetes:Post-Hoc Analyses from Bardoxolone Methyl Evaluation in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease and Type 2 Diabetes Study

Background: Increases in measured inulin clearance, measured creatinine clearance, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) have been observed with bardoxolone methyl in 7 studies enrolling approximately 2,600 patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). The largest of these studies was Bardoxolone Methyl Evaluation in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease and Type 2 Diabetes (BEACON), a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial which enrolled patients with T2D and CKD stage 4. The BEACON trial was terminated after preliminary analyses showed that patients randomized to bardoxolone methyl experienced significantly higher rates of heart failure events. We performed post-hoc analyses to characterize changes in kidney func-tion induced by bardoxolone methyl. Methods: Patients in -BEACON (n = 2,185) were randomized 1: 1 to receive oncedaily bardoxolone methyl (20 mg) or placebo. We compared the effects of bardoxolone methyl and placebo on a post-hoc composite renal endpoint consisting of = 30% decline from baseline in eGFR, eGFR <15 mL/min/1.73 m2, and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) events (provision of dialysis or kidney transplantation). Results: Consistent with prior studies, patients randomized to bardoxolone methyl experienced mean increases in eGFR that were sustained through study week 48. Moreover, increases in eGFR from baseline were sustained 4 weeks after cessation of treatment. Patients randomized to bardoxolone methyl were significantly less likely to experience the composite renal endpoint (hazards ratio 0.48 [95% CI 0.36-0.64]; p <0.0001). Conclusions: Bardoxolone methyl preserves kidney function and may delay the onset of ESRD in patients with T2D and stage 4 CKD. (C) 2018 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Base

Efficacy of Omaveloxolone in Friedreich's Ataxia: Delayed-Start Analysis of the MOXIe Extension

BACKGROUND: MOXIe was a two-part study evaluating the safety and efficacy of omaveloxolone in patients with Friedreich's ataxia, a rare, progressive neurological disease with no proven therapy. MOXIe part 2, a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial, showed omaveloxolone significantly improved modified Friedreich's Ataxia Rating Scale (mFARS) scores relative to placebo. Patients who completed part 1 or 2 were eligible to receive omaveloxolone in an open-label extension study. OBJECTIVE: The delayed-start study compared mFARS scores at the end of MOXIe part 2 with those at 72 weeks in the open-label extension period (up to 144 weeks) for patients initially randomized to omaveloxolone versus those initially randomized to placebo. METHODS: We performed a noninferiority test to compare the difference between treatment groups (placebo to omaveloxolone versus omaveloxolone to omaveloxolone) using a single mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model. In addition, slopes of the change in mFARS scores were compared between both groups in the open-label extension. RESULTS: The noninferiority testing demonstrated that the difference in mFARS between omaveloxolone and placebo observed at the end of placebo-controlled MOXIe part 2 (-2.17 ± 1.09 points) was preserved after 72 weeks in the extension (-2.91 ± 1.44 points). In addition, patients previously randomized to omaveloxolone in MOXIe part 2 continued to show no worsening in mFARS relative to their extension baseline through 144 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the positive results of MOXIe part 2 and indicate a persistent benefit of omaveloxolone treatment on disease course in Friedreich's ataxia. © 2022 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

Mechanisms Contributing to Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Stage 4 Chronic Kidney Disease Treated with Bardoxolone Methyl

BackgroundBardoxolone methyl, an Nrf2-activating and nuclear factor-κB-inhibiting semisynthetic oleanane triterpenoid compound, was evaluated in a phase 3 trial (BEACON) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and stage 4 chronic kidney disease (CKD). The trial was terminated because of an increase in heart failure events in the bardoxolone methyl group, many of which appeared related to fluid retention. Thus, additional analyses were conducted to explain these serious adverse events.MethodsPatients (n = 2,185) were randomized to receive once-daily bardoxolone methyl (20 mg) or placebo. Twenty-four-hour urine collections were analyzed in a subset of the BEACON population and from a separate, open-label pharmacology study in patients with stage 3b/4 CKD and T2DM administered 20 mg bardoxolone methyl once daily for 56 consecutive days.ResultsBardoxolone-methyl-treated patients in the BEACON substudy had a clinically meaningful reduction in urine volume and sodium excretion at week 4 relative to baseline (p &lt; 0.05), and a separate study revealed that decreased sodium excretion and urine output occurred in some patients with stage 4 CKD but not those with stage 3b CKD. The clinical phenotype of fluid overload and heart failure in BEACON was similar to that observed with endothelin receptor antagonists in advanced CKD patients, and preclinical data demonstrate that bardoxolone methyl modifies endothelin signaling.ConclusionsThe totality of the evidence suggests that through modulation of the endothelin pathway, bardoxolone methyl may pharmacologically promote acute sodium and volume retention and increase blood pressure in patients with more advanced CKD

Rehabilitation versus surgical reconstruction for non-acute anterior cruciate ligament injury (ACL SNNAP): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

BackgroundAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is a common debilitating injury that can cause instability of the knee. We aimed to investigate the best management strategy between reconstructive surgery and non-surgical treatment for patients with a non-acute ACL injury and persistent symptoms of instability.MethodsWe did a pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial in 29 secondary care National Health Service orthopaedic units in the UK. Patients with symptomatic knee problems (instability) consistent with an ACL injury were eligible. We excluded patients with meniscal pathology with characteristics that indicate immediate surgery. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by computer to either surgery (reconstruction) or rehabilitation (physiotherapy but with subsequent reconstruction permitted if instability persisted after treatment), stratified by site and baseline Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score—4 domain version (KOOS4). This management design represented normal practice. The primary outcome was KOOS4 at 18 months after randomisation. The principal analyses were intention-to-treat based, with KOOS4 results analysed using linear regression. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN10110685, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02980367.FindingsBetween Feb 1, 2017, and April 12, 2020, we recruited 316 patients. 156 (49%) participants were randomly assigned to the surgical reconstruction group and 160 (51%) to the rehabilitation group. Mean KOOS4 at 18 months was 73·0 (SD 18·3) in the surgical group and 64·6 (21·6) in the rehabilitation group. The adjusted mean difference was 7·9 (95% CI 2·5–13·2; p=0·0053) in favour of surgical management. 65 (41%) of 160 patients allocated to rehabilitation underwent subsequent surgery according to protocol within 18 months. 43 (28%) of 156 patients allocated to surgery did not receive their allocated treatment. We found no differences between groups in the proportion of intervention-related complications.InterpretationSurgical reconstruction as a management strategy for patients with non-acute ACL injury with persistent symptoms of instability was clinically superior and more cost-effective in comparison with rehabilitation management

Defining the causes of sporadic Parkinson's disease in the global Parkinson's genetics program (GP2)

The Global Parkinson’s Genetics Program (GP2) will genotype over 150,000 participants from around the world, and integrate genetic and clinical data for use in large-scale analyses to dramatically expand our understanding of the genetic architecture of PD. This report details the workflow for cohort integration into the complex arm of GP2, and together with our outline of the monogenic hub in a companion paper, provides a generalizable blueprint for establishing large scale collaborative research consortia

Multi-ancestry genome-wide association meta-analysis of Parkinson?s disease

Although over 90 independent risk variants have been identified for Parkinson’s disease using genome-wide association studies, most studies have been performed in just one population at a time. Here we performed a large-scale multi-ancestry meta-analysis of Parkinson’s disease with 49,049 cases, 18,785 proxy cases and 2,458,063 controls including individuals of European, East Asian, Latin American and African ancestry. In a meta-analysis, we identified 78 independent genome-wide significant loci, including 12 potentially novel loci (MTF2, PIK3CA, ADD1, SYBU, IRS2, USP8, PIGL, FASN, MYLK2, USP25, EP300 and PPP6R2) and fine-mapped 6 putative causal variants at 6 known PD loci. By combining our results with publicly available eQTL data, we identified 25 putative risk genes in these novel loci whose expression is associated with PD risk. This work lays the groundwork for future efforts aimed at identifying PD loci in non-European populations

Investigation of hospital discharge cases and SARS-CoV-2 introduction into Lothian care homes

Background The first epidemic wave of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Scotland resulted in high case numbers and mortality in care homes. In Lothian, over one-third of care homes reported an outbreak, while there was limited testing of hospital patients discharged to care homes. Aim To investigate patients discharged from hospitals as a source of SARS-CoV-2 introduction into care homes during the first epidemic wave. Methods A clinical review was performed for all patients discharges from hospitals to care homes from 1st March 2020 to 31st May 2020. Episodes were ruled out based on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) test history, clinical assessment at discharge, whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data and an infectious period of 14 days. Clinical samples were processed for WGS, and consensus genomes generated were used for analysis using Cluster Investigation and Virus Epidemiological Tool software. Patient timelines were obtained using electronic hospital records. Findings In total, 787 patients discharged from hospitals to care homes were identified. Of these, 776 (99%) were ruled out for subsequent introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into care homes. However, for 10 episodes, the results were inconclusive as there was low genomic diversity in consensus genomes or no sequencing data were available. Only one discharge episode had a genomic, time and location link to positive cases during hospital admission, leading to 10 positive cases in their care home. Conclusion The majority of patients discharged from hospitals were ruled out for introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into care homes, highlighting the importance of screening all new admissions when faced with a novel emerging virus and no available vaccine

Hospital admission and emergency care attendance risk for SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) compared with alpha (B.1.1.7) variants of concern: a cohort study

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) variant was first detected in England in March, 2021. It has since rapidly become the predominant lineage, owing to high transmissibility. It is suspected that the delta variant is associated with more severe disease than the previously dominant alpha (B.1.1.7) variant. We aimed to characterise the severity of the delta variant compared with the alpha variant by determining the relative risk of hospital attendance outcomes. Methods: This cohort study was done among all patients with COVID-19 in England between March 29 and May 23, 2021, who were identified as being infected with either the alpha or delta SARS-CoV-2 variant through whole-genome sequencing. Individual-level data on these patients were linked to routine health-care datasets on vaccination, emergency care attendance, hospital admission, and mortality (data from Public Health England's Second Generation Surveillance System and COVID-19-associated deaths dataset; the National Immunisation Management System; and NHS Digital Secondary Uses Services and Emergency Care Data Set). The risk for hospital admission and emergency care attendance were compared between patients with sequencing-confirmed delta and alpha variants for the whole cohort and by vaccination status subgroups. Stratified Cox regression was used to adjust for age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, recent international travel, area of residence, calendar week, and vaccination status. Findings: Individual-level data on 43 338 COVID-19-positive patients (8682 with the delta variant, 34 656 with the alpha variant; median age 31 years [IQR 17–43]) were included in our analysis. 196 (2·3%) patients with the delta variant versus 764 (2·2%) patients with the alpha variant were admitted to hospital within 14 days after the specimen was taken (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2·26 [95% CI 1·32–3·89]). 498 (5·7%) patients with the delta variant versus 1448 (4·2%) patients with the alpha variant were admitted to hospital or attended emergency care within 14 days (adjusted HR 1·45 [1·08–1·95]). Most patients were unvaccinated (32 078 [74·0%] across both groups). The HRs for vaccinated patients with the delta variant versus the alpha variant (adjusted HR for hospital admission 1·94 [95% CI 0·47–8·05] and for hospital admission or emergency care attendance 1·58 [0·69–3·61]) were similar to the HRs for unvaccinated patients (2·32 [1·29–4·16] and 1·43 [1·04–1·97]; p=0·82 for both) but the precision for the vaccinated subgroup was low. Interpretation: This large national study found a higher hospital admission or emergency care attendance risk for patients with COVID-19 infected with the delta variant compared with the alpha variant. Results suggest that outbreaks of the delta variant in unvaccinated populations might lead to a greater burden on health-care services than the alpha variant. Funding: Medical Research Council; UK Research and Innovation; Department of Health and Social Care; and National Institute for Health Research

Changes in symptomatology, reinfection, and transmissibility associated with the SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.7: an ecological study

Background The SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.7 was first identified in December, 2020, in England. We aimed to investigate whether increases in the proportion of infections with this variant are associated with differences in symptoms or disease course, reinfection rates, or transmissibility. Methods We did an ecological study to examine the association between the regional proportion of infections with the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 variant and reported symptoms, disease course, rates of reinfection, and transmissibility. Data on types and duration of symptoms were obtained from longitudinal reports from users of the COVID Symptom Study app who reported a positive test for COVID-19 between Sept 28 and Dec 27, 2020 (during which the prevalence of B.1.1.7 increased most notably in parts of the UK). From this dataset, we also estimated the frequency of possible reinfection, defined as the presence of two reported positive tests separated by more than 90 days with a period of reporting no symptoms for more than 7 days before the second positive test. The proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections with the B.1.1.7 variant across the UK was estimated with use of genomic data from the COVID-19 Genomics UK Consortium and data from Public Health England on spike-gene target failure (a non-specific indicator of the B.1.1.7 variant) in community cases in England. We used linear regression to examine the association between reported symptoms and proportion of B.1.1.7. We assessed the Spearman correlation between the proportion of B.1.1.7 cases and number of reinfections over time, and between the number of positive tests and reinfections. We estimated incidence for B.1.1.7 and previous variants, and compared the effective reproduction number, Rt, for the two incidence estimates. Findings From Sept 28 to Dec 27, 2020, positive COVID-19 tests were reported by 36 920 COVID Symptom Study app users whose region was known and who reported as healthy on app sign-up. We found no changes in reported symptoms or disease duration associated with B.1.1.7. For the same period, possible reinfections were identified in 249 (0·7% [95% CI 0·6–0·8]) of 36 509 app users who reported a positive swab test before Oct 1, 2020, but there was no evidence that the frequency of reinfections was higher for the B.1.1.7 variant than for pre-existing variants. Reinfection occurrences were more positively correlated with the overall regional rise in cases (Spearman correlation 0·56–0·69 for South East, London, and East of England) than with the regional increase in the proportion of infections with the B.1.1.7 variant (Spearman correlation 0·38–0·56 in the same regions), suggesting B.1.1.7 does not substantially alter the risk of reinfection. We found a multiplicative increase in the Rt of B.1.1.7 by a factor of 1·35 (95% CI 1·02–1·69) relative to pre-existing variants. However, Rt fell below 1 during regional and national lockdowns, even in regions with high proportions of infections with the B.1.1.7 variant. Interpretation The lack of change in symptoms identified in this study indicates that existing testing and surveillance infrastructure do not need to change specifically for the B.1.1.7 variant. In addition, given that there was no apparent increase in the reinfection rate, vaccines are likely to remain effective against the B.1.1.7 variant. Funding Zoe Global, Department of Health (UK), Wellcome Trust, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (UK), National Institute for Health Research (UK), Medical Research Council (UK), Alzheimer's Society