Designs for Trials when there is a Standard Therapy

Abstract Background Secondary hyperparathyroidism may lead to increased cardiovascular risk. The use of cinacalcet may improve bone and cardiovascular health with improved parathormone (PTH) and phosphate control. Methods This is an open-label prospective randomised controlled trial to compare progression of cardiovascular and chronic kidney disease mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD) parameters. Patients were randomised to receive cinacalcet alongside standard therapy or standard therapy alone. Thirty-six haemodialysis patients who had > 90 days on dialysis, iPTH > 300 pg/mL, calcium > 2.1 mmol/L and age 18–75 years were included. Following randomization, all 36 patients underwent an intensive 12-week period of bone disease management aiming for iPTH 150-300 pg/mL. The primary outcome was change in vascular calcification using CT agatston score. Secondary outcomes included pulse wave velocity (PWV), left ventricular mass index (LVMI), carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT), augmentation index (Aix) and bone measurements. The above measurements were obtained at baseline and 12 months. Results There was no evidence of a group difference in the progression of calcification (median change (IQR) cinacalcet: 488 (0 to1539); standard therapy: 563 (50 to 1214)). In a post hoc analysis combining groups there was a mean (SD) phosphate reduction of 0.3 mmol/L (0.7) and median (IQR) iPTH reduction of 380 pg/mL (− 754, 120). Regression of LVMI and CIMT was seen (P = 0.03 and P = 0.001) and was significantly associated with change of phosphate on multi-factorial analyses. Conclusions With a policy of intense CKD-MBD parameter control, no significant benefit in bone and cardiovascular markers was seen with the addition of cinacalcet to standard therapy over one year. Tight control of hyperphosphataemia and secondary hyperparathyroidism may lead to a reduction in LVMI and CIMT but this needs further investigation. Although the sample size was small, meticulous trial supervision resulted in very few protocol deviations with therapy.

Download Full-text

Treating Critically Ill Patients Experiencing SARS-CoV-2 Severe Infection with Ig-M and Ig-A Enriched Ig-G Infusion

Antibiotics ◽

10.3390/antibiotics10080930 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (8) ◽

pp. 930

Author(s):

Alberto Corona ◽

Giuseppe Richini ◽

Sara Simoncini ◽

Marta Zangrandi ◽

Monica Biasini ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Immunoglobulin G ◽

Standard Therapy ◽

Severe Infection ◽

Treated Group ◽

Simplified Acute Physiology Score ◽

Retrospective Case ◽

Baseline Characteristics ◽

Time Of Admission ◽

Ig G ◽

Control Study

SARS-CoV-2 in patients who need intensive care unit (ICU) is associated with a mortality rate ranging from 10 to 40–45%, with an increase in morbidity and mortality in presence of sepsis. We hypothesized that IgM and IgA enriched immunoglobulin G may support the sepsis-related phase improving patient outcome. We conducted a retrospective case–control study on 47 consecutive patients admitted to our ICU. At the time of admission, patients received anticoagulants (heparin sodium) together with the standard supportive treatment. We decided to add IgM and IgA enriched immunoglobulin G to the standard therapy. Patients receiving IgM and IgA enriched immunoglobulin G were compared with patients with similar baseline characteristics and treatment, receiving only standard therapy. The mortality resulted significantly higher in patients treated with standard therapy only (56.5 vs. 37.5%, p < 0.01) and, at day 7, the probability of dying was 3 times higher in this group. Variable life adjustment display (VLAD) was 2.4 and -2.2 (in terms of lives saved in relation with those expected and derived from Simplified Acute Physiology Score II) in the treated and not treated group, respectively. The treatment based on IgM and IgA enriched immunoglobulin G infusion seems to give an advantage on survival in SARS-CoV-2 severe infection.

Download Full-text