METHOD: We completed a prospective, double-blinded, randomized placebo-control trial of azithromycin among pre-school children (12 to 60 months of age) presenting to the emergency department with wheeze. Patients were randomized to receive either five days of azithromycin or placebo. Primary outcome was time to resolution of respiratory symptoms after treatment initiation. Secondary outcomes included the number of days children used a Short-Acting Beta-Agonists during the 21 day follow-up and time to disease exacerbation during the following six months (unscheduled health care visit or treatment with an oral corticosteroid for acute respiratory symptoms).
RESULTS: Of the 300 wheezing children recruited, 222 and 169 were analyzed for the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. The treatment groups had similar demographics and clinical parameters at baseline. Median time to resolution of respiratory symptoms was four days for both treatment arms (interquartile range (IQR) 3,6; p = 0.28). Median number of days of Short-Acting Beta-Agonist use among those who received azithromycin was four and a half days (IQR 2, 7) and five days (IQR 2, 9; p = 0.22) among those who received placebo. Participants who received azithromycin had a 0.91 hazard ratio for time to six-month exacerbation compared to placebo (95% CI 0.61, 1.36, p = 0.65). A pre-determined subgroup analysis showed no differences in outcomes for children with their first or repeat episode of wheezing. There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants experiencing an adverse event.
CONCLUSION: Azithromycin neither reduced duration of respiratory symptoms nor time to respiratory exacerbation in the following six months after treatment among wheezing preschool children presenting to an emergency department. There was no significant effect among children with either first-time or prior wheezing.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Collaborators from the International Society of Nephrology (ISN), Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study and ISN-Global Kidney Health Atlas developed an online survey that was administered electronically to key nephrology leaders in 174 countries between 2 July and 4 August 2021.
RESULTS: Survey responses were received from 99 of 174 countries from all 10 ISN regions, among which 88/174 (50%) were complete. At least one vaccine was available in 96/99 (97%) countries. In 71% of the countries surveyed, patients on dialysis were prioritised for vaccination, followed by patients living with a kidney transplant (KT) (62%) and stage 4/5 CKD (51%). Healthcare workers were the most common high priority group for vaccination. At least 50% of patients receiving in-centre haemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis or KT were estimated to have completed vaccination at the time of the survey in 55%, 64% and 51% of countries, respectively. At least 50% of patients in all three patient groups had been vaccinated in >70% of high-income countries and in 100% of respondent countries in Western Europe.The most common barriers to vaccination of patients were vaccine hesitancy (74%), vaccine shortages (61%) and mass vaccine distribution challenges (48%). These were reported more in low-income and lower middle-income countries compared with high-income countries.
CONCLUSION: Patients with advanced CKD or KFRT were prioritised in COVID-19 vaccination in most countries. Multiple barriers led to substantial variability in the successful achievement of COVID-19 vaccination across the world, with high-income countries achieving the most access and success.
METHODS: In 567 adult participants planned for AVF creation, all were randomised to fish oil (4g/d) or placebo, and 406 to aspirin (100mg/d) or placebo, starting one day pre-surgery and continued for three months. Outcomes evaluated within 12 months included AVF intervention rates, CVC exposure, late dialysis suitability failure, and times to primary patency loss, abandonment and successful cannulation.
RESULTS: Final analyses included 536 participants randomised to fish oil or placebo (mean age 55 years, 64% male, 45% diabetic) and 388 randomised to aspirin or placebo. Compared with placebo, fish oil reduced intervention rates (0.82 vs 1.14/1000 patient-days, incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-0.97), particularly interventions for acute thrombosis (0.09 vs 0.17/1000 patient-days, IRR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34-0.84). Aspirin significantly reduced rescue intervention rates (IRR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27-0.78). Neither agent significantly affected CVC exposure, late dialysis suitability failure or time to primary patency loss, AVF abandonment or successful cannulation.
CONCLUSION: Although fish oil and low-dose aspirin given for 3 months reduced intervention rates in newly created AVF, they had no significant effects on CVC exposure, AVF usability and time to primary patency loss or access abandonment. Reduction in access interventions benefits patients, reduces costs and warrants further study.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review.
SETTING & POPULATION: Adults requiring maintenance hemodialysis.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials and trial protocols reporting vascular access outcomes identified from ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialized Register from January 2011 to June 2016.
INTERVENTIONS: Any hemodialysis-related intervention.
OUTCOMES: The frequency and characteristics of vascular access outcome measures were analyzed and classified.
RESULTS: From 168 relevant trials, 1,426 access-related outcome measures were extracted and classified into 23 different outcomes. The 3 most common outcomes were function (136 [81%] trials), infection (63 [38%]), and maturation (31 [18%]). Function was measured in 489 different ways, but most frequently reported as "mean access blood flow (mL/min)" (37 [27%] trials) and "number of thromboses" (30 [22%]). Infection was assessed in 136 different ways, with "number of access-related infections" being the most common measure. Maturation was assessed in 44 different ways at 15 different time points and most commonly characterized by vein diameter and blood flow. Patient-reported outcomes, including pain (19 [11%]) and quality of life (5 [3%]), were reported infrequently. Only a minority of trials used previously standardized outcome definitions.
LIMITATIONS: Restricted sampling frame for feasibility and focus on contemporary trials.
CONCLUSIONS: The reporting of access outcomes in hemodialysis trials is very heterogeneous, with limited patient-reported outcomes and infrequent use of standardized outcome measures. Efforts to standardize outcome reporting for vascular access are critical to optimizing the comparability, reliability, and value of trial evidence to improve outcomes for patients requiring hemodialysis.
BACKGROUND: AVFs are preferred for haemodialysis access but are limited by high rates of early failure.
METHODS: A post hoc analysis of 353 participants from ANZ and Malaysia included in the FAVOURED randomised-controlled trial undergoing de novo AVF surgery was performed. Composite AVF failure (thrombosis, abandonment, cannulation failure) and its individual components were compared between ANZ (n = 209) and Malaysian (n = 144) participants using logistic regression adjusted for patient- and potentially modifiable clinical factors.
RESULTS: Participants' mean age was 55 ± 14.3 years and 64% were male. Compared with ANZ participants, Malaysian participants were younger with lower body mass index, higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus and lower prevalence of cardiovascular disease. AVF failure was less frequent in the Malaysian cohort (38% vs 54%; adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.93). This difference was driven by lower odds of cannulation failure (29% vs 47%, OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25-0.80), while the odds of AVF thrombosis (17% vs 20%, OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.62-2.48) and abandonment (25% vs 23%, OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.62-2.16) were similar.
CONCLUSIONS: The risk of AVF failure was significantly lower in Malaysia compared to ANZ and driven by a lower risk of cannulation failure. Differences in practice patterns, including patient selection, surgical techniques, anaesthesia or cannulation techniques may account for regional outcome differences and warrant further investigation.
METHOD: Outcomes derived from a systematic review, multi-disciplinary expert panel and patient input were included in a multilanguage online survey. Participants rated the absolute importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9 being critically important). The relative importance was determined by a best-worst scale using multinomial logistic regression. Open text responses were analysed thematically.
RESULTS: The survey was completed by 873 participants [224 (26%) patients/caregivers and 649 (74%) health professionals] from 58 countries. Vascular access function was considered the most important outcome (mean score 7.8 for patients and caregivers/8.5 for health professionals, with 85%/95% rating it critically important, and top ranked on best-worst scale), followed by infection (mean 7.4/8.2, 79%/92% rating it critically important, second rank on best-worst scale). Health professionals rated all outcomes of equal or higher importance than patients/caregivers, except for aneurysms. We identified six themes: necessity for HD, applicability across vascular access types, frequency and severity of debilitation, minimizing the risk of hospitalization and death, optimizing technical competence and adherence to best practice and direct impact on appearance and lifestyle.
CONCLUSIONS: Vascular access function was the most critically important outcome among patients/caregivers and health professionals. Consistent reporting of this outcome across trials in HD will strengthen their value in supporting vascular access practice and shared decision making in patients requiring HD.
METHODS: It is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of individuals with kidney biopsy-confirmed IgAN, proteinuria ≥1 g/day, and an estimated GFR of 20-120 mL/min/1.73 m2, following at least 3 months of standard of care including maximum labelled (or tolerated) dose of renin-angiotensin system blockade. The original study design randomized participants 1:1 to oral methylprednisolone (0.6-0.8 mg/kg/day, maximum 48 mg/day) for 2 months, with subsequent weaning by 8 mg/day/month over 6-8 months, or matching placebo. The intervention was modified in 2016 (due to an excess of serious infection) to low-dose methylprednisolone (0.4 mg/kg/day, maximum 32 mg/day) for 2 months, followed by weaning by 4 mg/day/month over 6-9 months, or matching placebo. Participants recruited after 2016 also received prophylaxis against Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia during the first 12 weeks of treatment.
RESULTS: The study recruitment period extended from May 2012 to November 2019. By the time the excess of serious infections was observed, 262 participants had been randomized to the original full-dose treatment algorithm, and an interim analysis was reported in 2016. Subsequently, 241 additional participants were randomized to a revised low-dose protocol, for a total of 503 participants from China (373), India (78), Canada (24), Australia (18), and Malaysia (10). The mean age of randomized participants was 38, 39% were female, mean eGFR at randomization was 62.7 mL/min/1.73 m2, and mean 24-h urine protein 2.54 g. The primary endpoint is a composite of 40% eGFR decline from baseline or kidney failure (dialysis, transplantation, or death due to kidney disease), and participants will be followed until the primary outcome has been observed in at least 160 randomized participants. Analyses will also be made across predefined subgroups. Effects on eGFR slope and albuminuria will also be assessed overall, as well as by the steroid dosing regimen.
CONCLUSIONS: The TESTING study (combined full and low dose) will define the benefits of corticosteroid use on major kidney outcomes, as well as the risks of therapy, and provide data on the relative effects of different doses, in individuals with high-risk IgAN.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of methylprednisolone in patients with IgA nephropathy at high risk of kidney function decline.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An international, multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial that enrolled 503 participants with IgA nephropathy, proteinuria greater than or equal to 1 g per day, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 20 to 120 mL/min/1.73 m2 after at least 3 months of optimized background care from 67 centers in Australia, Canada, China, India, and Malaysia between May 2012 and November 2019, with follow-up until June 2021.
INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral methylprednisolone (initially 0.6-0.8 mg/kg/d, maximum 48 mg/d, weaning by 8 mg/d/mo; n = 136) or placebo (n = 126). After 262 participants were randomized, an excess of serious infections was identified, leading to dose reduction (0.4 mg/kg/d, maximum 32 mg/d, weaning by 4 mg/d/mo) and addition of antibiotic prophylaxis for pneumocystis pneumonia for subsequent participants (121 in the oral methylprednisolone group and 120 in the placebo group).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was a composite of 40% decline in eGFR, kidney failure (dialysis, transplant), or death due to kidney disease. There were 11 secondary outcomes, including kidney failure.
RESULTS: Among 503 randomized patients (mean age, 38 years; 198 [39%] women; mean eGFR, 61.5 mL/min/1.73 m2; mean proteinuria, 2.46 g/d), 493 (98%) completed the trial. Over a mean of 4.2 years of follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 74 participants (28.8%) in the methylprednisolone group compared with 106 (43.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53 [95% CI, 0.39-0.72]; P
METHODS: To assess the effects of non-calcium-based phosphate binders on intermediate cardiovascular markers, we conducted a multicenter, double-blind trial, randomizing 278 participants with stage 3b or 4 CKD and serum phosphate >1.00 mmol/L (3.10 mg/dl) to 500 mg lanthanum carbonate or matched placebo thrice daily for 96 weeks. We analyzed the primary outcome, carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures. Secondary outcomes included abdominal aortic calcification and serum and urine markers of mineral metabolism.
RESULTS: A total of 138 participants received lanthanum and 140 received placebo (mean age 63.1 years; 69% male, 64% White). Mean eGFR was 26.6 ml/min per 1.73 m2; 45% of participants had diabetes and 32% had cardiovascular disease. Mean serum phosphate was 1.25 mmol/L (3.87 mg/dl), mean pulse wave velocity was 10.8 m/s, and 81.3% had abdominal aortic calcification at baseline. At 96 weeks, pulse wave velocity did not differ significantly between groups, nor did abdominal aortic calcification, serum phosphate, parathyroid hormone, FGF23, and 24-hour urinary phosphate. Serious adverse events occurred in 63 (46%) participants prescribed lanthanum and 66 (47%) prescribed placebo. Although recruitment to target was not achieved, additional analysis suggested this was unlikely to have significantly affected the principle findings.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stage 3b/4 CKD, treatment with lanthanum over 96 weeks did not affect arterial stiffness or aortic calcification compared with placebo. These findings do not support the role of intestinal phosphate binders to reduce cardiovascular risk in patients with CKD who have normophosphatemia.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12610000650099.
METHODS: VALID is a prospective, multi-center, multinational validation study that will assess the accuracy and feasibility of measuring VA function, defined as the need for interventions to enable and maintain the use of a VA for HD. The primary objective is to determine whether VA function can be measured accurately by clinical staff as part of routine clinical practice (Assessor 1) compared to the reference standard of documented VA procedures collected by a VA expert (Assessor 2) during a 6-month follow-up period. Secondary outcomes include feasibility and acceptability of measuring VA function and the time to, rate of, and type of VA interventions. An estimated 612 participants will be recruited from approximately 10 dialysis units of different size, type (home-, in-center and satellite), governance (private versus public), and location (rural versus urban) across Australia, Canada, Europe, and Malaysia. Validity will be measured by the sensitivity and specificity of the data acquisition process. The sensitivity corresponds to the proportion of correctly identified interventions by Assessor 1, among the interventions identified by Assessor 2 (reference standard). The feasibility of measuring VA function will be assessed by the average data collection time, data completeness, feasibility questionnaires and semi-structured interviews on key feasibility aspects with the assessors.
DISCUSSION: Accuracy, acceptability, and feasibility of measuring VA function as part of routine clinical practice are required to facilitate global implementation of this core outcome across all HD trials. Global use of a standardized, patient-centered outcome measure for VA function in HD research will enhance the consistency and relevance of trial evidence to guide patient-centered care.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03969225. Registered on 31st May 2019.