Explore the vast range of titles available.

Sodium ferric gluconate complex in hemodialysis patients: Adverse reactions compared to placebo and iron dextran. Parenteral iron is often required by hemodialysis patients to maintain adequate iron stores. Until recently, the only available form of intravenous iron was iron dextran, which is associated with significant adverse reactions, including anaphylaxis and death. Sodium ferric gluconate complex (SFGC) was recently approved for use in the U.S. under FDA's priority drug review. This Phase IV study was designed to evaluate the safety of a single dose of intravenous SFGC as compared to placebo and a historical iron dextran control. This multicenter, crossover, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled prospective comparative study was performed in hemodialysis patients requiring at least 125mg of elemental iron. The historical control was obtained from a meta-analysis of four publications examining outcomes in patients exposed to iron dextran. SFGC naïve patients were administered SFGC without a test dose, undiluted, at a rate of 125mg over 10 minutes, and compared to placebo comprising bacteriostatic saline. A total of 2534 patients were enrolled. The incidence of drug intolerance (an adverse event precluding re-exposure) was significantly less [0.44%, confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 0.71%] after SFGC as compared to the iron dextran control (2.47%, CI 1.87 to 3.07%, P < 0.0001), but higher than after placebo (0.1%, P = 0.02). There was no difference found between SFGC and placebo in serious adverse events. A single life-threatening event occurred after SFGC (0.04%, CI 0.00 to 0.22%), which was significantly less than following iron dextran (0.61%, CI 0.36 to 0.86%), P = 0.0001. SFGC is well tolerated when given by intravenous push without a test dose. SFGC has a significantly lower incidence of drug intolerance and life-threatening events as compared to previous studies using iron dextran. The routine use of iron dextran in hemodialysis patients should be discontinued.

Background Cardiovascular (CV) outcome trials in type 2 diabetes (T2D) have underrepresented patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), leading to uncertainty regarding their kidney efficacy and safety. The CARMELINA ® trial aims to evaluate the effects of linagliptin, a DPP-4 inhibitor, on both CV and kidney outcomes in a study population enriched for cardio-renal risk. Methods CARMELINA ® is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted in 27 countries in T2D patients at high risk of CV and/or kidney events. Participants with evidence of CKD with or without CV disease and HbA1c 6.5–10.0% (48–86 mmol/mol) were randomized 1:1 to receive linagliptin once daily or matching placebo, added to standard of care adjusted according to local guidelines. The primary outcome is time to first occurrence of CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke. The key secondary outcome is a composite of time to first sustained occurrence of end-stage kidney disease, ≥ 40% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from baseline, or renal death. CV and kidney events are prospectively adjudicated by independent, blinded clinical event committees. CARMELINA ® was designed to continue until at least 611 participants had confirmed primary outcome events. Assuming a hazard ratio of 1.0, this provides 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of linagliptin versus placebo within the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 1.3 at a one-sided α-level of 2.5%. If non-inferiority of linagliptin for the primary outcome is demonstrated, then its superiority for both the primary outcome and the key secondary outcome will be investigated with a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Results Between July 2013 and August 2016, 6980 patients were randomized and took ≥ 1 dose of study drug (40.6, 33.1, 16.9, and 9.4% from Europe, South America, North America, and Asia, respectively). At baseline, mean ± SD age was 65.8 ± 9.1 years, HbA1c 7.9 ± 1.0%, BMI 31.3 ± 5.3 kg/m 2 , and eGFR 55 ± 25 mL/min/1.73 m 2 . A total of 5148 patients (73.8%) had prevalent kidney disease (defined as eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 or macroalbuminuria [albumin-to-creatinine ratio > 300 mg/g]) and 3990 patients (57.2%) had established CV disease with increased albuminuria; these characteristics were not mutually exclusive. Microalbuminuria (n = 2896 [41.5%]) and macroalbuminuria (n = 2691 [38.6%]) were common. Conclusions CARMELINA ® will add important information regarding the CV and kidney disease clinical profile of linagliptin by including an understudied, vulnerable cohort of patients with T2D at highest cardio-renal risk. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier—NCT01897532; registered July 9, 2013

The results of numerous large randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have changed clinical practice in gastric cancer (GC). However, research waste (ie, unpublished data, inadequate reporting, or avoidable design limitations) is still a major challenge for evidence-based medicine. To determine the characteristics of GC RCTs in the past 20 years and the presence of research waste and to explore potential targets for improvement. In this cross-sectional study of GC RCTs, ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for phase 3 or 4 RCTs registered from January 2000 to December 2019 using the keyword gastric cancer. Independent investigators undertook assessments and resolved discrepancies via consensus. Data were analyzed from August through December 2020. The primary outcomes were descriptions of the characteristics of GC RCTs and the proportion of studies with signs of research waste. Research waste was defined as unpublished data, inadequate reporting, or avoidable design limitations. Publication status was determined by searching PubMed and Scopus databases. The adequacy of reporting was evaluated using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guideline checklist. Avoidable design limitations were determined based on existing bias or lack of cited systematic literature reviews. In the analyses of research waste, 125 RCTs that ended after June 2016 without publication were excluded. A total of 262 GC RCTs were included. The number of RCTs increased from 25 trials in 2000 to 2004 to 97 trials in 2015 to 2019, with a greater increase among RCTs of targeted therapy or immunotherapy, which increased from 0 trials in 2000 to 2004 to 36 trials in 2015 to 2019. The proportion of RCTs that were multicenter was higher in non-Asian regions than in Asian regions (50 of 71 RCTs [70.4%] vs 96 of 191 RCTs [50.3%]; P = .004). The analysis of research waste included 137 RCTs, of which 81 (59.1%) were published. Among published RCTs, 65 (80.2%) were judged to be adequately reported and 63 (77.8%) had avoidable design defects. Additionally, 119 RCTs (86.9%) had 1 or more features of research waste. Study settings that included blinding (odds ratio [OR], 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.93; P = .03), a greater number of participants (ie, ≥200 participants; OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.51; P = .01), and external funding support (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-0.60; P = .004) were associated with lower odds of research waste. Additionally, 35 RCTs (49.3%) were referenced in guidelines, and 18 RCTs (22.2%) had their prospective data reused. To our knowledge, this study is the first to describe the characteristics of GC RCTs in the past 20 years, and it found a research waste burden, which may provide evidence for the development of rational RCTs and reduction of waste in the future.

To the Editor: In the ANNEXA-I trial (Trial of Andexanet Alfa in Intracranial Hemorrhage Patients Receiving an Oral FXa Inhibitor) conducted by Connolly et al. (May 16/23 issue), 1 investigators evaluated the use of andexanet alfa in cerebral hemorrhage associated with factor Xa use, which is currently the subject of debate, given that guidelines are contradictory. 2,3 We are concerned about the potentially unbalanced data presentation. In contrast to the andexanet group, in which 98.2% of the patients received the trial drug, only 85.5% of the patients in the usual-care group received prothrombin complex concentrate. This situation disadvantages the control group. If . . .

Background To end the tuberculosis (TB) epidemic, the WHO recommends implementing active case-finding to increase TB detection, as well as the provision of TB preventive treatment (TPT) in contacts of people with TB. However, the scale-up of both strategies remains limited in high TB-burden countries such as Thailand. Despite the country’s highly decentralised healthcare system, significant inequalities remain in access to care, particularly in vulnerable populations. We designed an intervention study investigating the effectiveness and feasibility of a novel strategy combining active case-finding and the implementation of short-course TPT in households of newly diagnosed adults with TB in Thailand. Methods This is a pragmatic phase IV stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial conducted in 20 provincial hospitals (clusters). The study population comprises household members who were exposed within the last 3 months to adults with newly detected bacteriologically confirmed TB. The intervention combines an educational video to the index TB case, provision of an invitation card to household contacts for free TB screening at the facility, with a transport voucher, and support from village or urban health volunteers. Household contacts without active TB are offered TPT regimens according to age: 1-month rifapentine-isoniazid (1HP), 3-month rifapentine-isoniazid (3HP) or 3-month rifampicin-isoniazid (3HR). In the control phase, TB staff implement the current standard of care, including verbal information to persons newly diagnosed with TB on the need to screen their household contacts and provision of standard TPT. Hospitals shift from the control to the intervention phase every 3 months in four randomised sequences until all clusters apply the intervention. Generalised linear mixed models will be used to compare the intervention outcomes versus the standard of care, controlling for clustering and confounding by time. Discussion Active case-finding and systematic TPT in at-risk populations is currently limited in Thailand. This protocol incorporates pragmatic design features with a participant-centred approach to assess the effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability of a combined strategy including systematic screening of household contacts, active case-finding and TPT provision. If successful, this strategy will likely contribute to TB elimination in Thailand and beyond. Trial registration The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05581212 on April 3rd, 2024, and is currently recruiting.

Background Treatment of pulmonary sarcoidosis is recommended in case of significant symptoms, impaired or deteriorating lung function. Evidence-based treatment recommendations are limited and largely based on expert opinion. Prednisone is currently the first-choice therapy and leads to short-term improvement of lung function. Unfortunately, prednisone often has side-effects and may be associated with impaired quality of life. Methotrexate is presently considered second-line therapy, and appears to have fewer side-effects. Objective The primary objective of this trial is to investigate the effectiveness and tolerability of methotrexate as first-line therapy in patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis compared with prednisone. The primary endpoint of this study will be the change in hospital-measured Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) between baseline and 24 weeks. Secondary objectives are to gain more insights in response to therapy in individual patients by home spirometry and patient-reported outcomes. Blood biomarkers will be examined to find predictors of response to therapy, disease progression and chronicity, and to improve our understanding of the underlying disease mechanism. Methods/design In this prospective, randomized, non-blinded, multi-center, non-inferiority trial, we plan to randomize 138 treatment-naïve patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis who are about to start treatment. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either prednisone or methotrexate in a predefined schedule for 24 weeks, after which they will be followed up in regular care for up to 2 years. Regular hospital visits will include pulmonary function assessment, completion of patient-reported outcomes, and blood withdrawal. Additionally, patients will be asked to perform weekly home spirometry, and record symptoms and side-effects via a home monitoring application for 24 weeks. Discussion This study will be the first randomized controlled trial comparing first-line treatment of prednisone and methotrexate and provide valuable data on efficacy, safety, quality of life and biomarkers. If this study confirms the hypothesis that methotrexate is as effective as prednisone as first-line treatment for sarcoidosis but with fewer side-effects, this will lead to improvement in care and initiate a change in practice. Furthermore, insights into the immunological mechanisms underlying sarcoidosis pathology might reveal new therapeutic targets. Trial registration The study was registered on the 19th of March 2020 in the International Clinical Trial Registry, www.clinicaltrials.gov; ID NCT04314193 .

Background In the UK, routinely recorded data may benefit prospective studies including randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In an on-going study, we aim to assess the feasibility of access and agreement of routinely recorded clinical and non-clinical data compared to data collected during a RCT using standard prospective methods. This paper will summarise available UK routinely recorded data sources and discuss our experience with the feasibility of accessing routinely recorded data for participants of a RCT before finally proposing recommendations for improving the access and implementation of routinely recorded data in RCTs. Methods Setting: the case study RCT is the Standard and New Antiepileptic Drugs II (SANAD II) trial, a pragmatic, UK, multicentre, phase IV RCT assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of antiepileptic drug treatments for newly diagnosed epilepsy. Participants: 98 participants have provided written consent to permit the request of routinely recorded data. Study procedures: routinely recorded clinical and non-clinical data were identified and data requested through formal applications from available data holders for the duration that participants have been recruited into SANAD II. The feasibility of accessing routinely recorded data during a RCT is assessed and recommendations for improving access proposed. Results Secondary-care clinical and socioeconomic data is recorded on a national basis and can be accessed, although there are limitations in the application process. Primary-care data are recorded by a number of organisations on a de-identified basis but access for specific individuals has not been feasible. Access to data recorded by non-clinical sources, including The Department for Work and Pensions and The Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency, was not successful. Conclusions Recommendations discussed include further research to assess the attributes of routinely recorded data, an assessment of public perceptions and the development of strategies to collaboratively improve access to routinely recorded data for research. Trial registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN30294119 . Registered on 3 July 2012. EudraCT No: 2012-001884-64. Registered on 9 May 2012.