Search

Background: Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common cause of dementia, is a neurodegenerative disease resulting from extracellular and intracellular deposits of amyloid-β (Aβ) and neurofibrillary tangles in the brain. Although many clinical studies evaluating pharmacological approaches have been conducted, most have shown disappointing results; thus, innovative strategies other than drugs have been actively attempted. Objective: This study aims to explore low-dose radiation therapy (LDRT) for the treatment of patients with AD based on preclinical evidence, case reports, and a small pilot trial in humans. Methods: This study is a phase II, multicenter, prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial that will evaluate the efficacy and safety of LDRT to the whole brain using a linear accelerator in patients with mild AD. Sixty participants will be randomly assigned to three groups: experimental I (24 cGy/6 fractions), experimental II (300 cGy/6 fractions), or sham RT group (0 cGy/6 fractions). During LDRT and follow-up visits after LDRT, possible adverse events will be assessed by the physician's interview and neurological examinations. Furthermore, the effectiveness of LDRT will be measured using neurocognitive function tests and imaging tools at 6 and 12 months after LDRT. We will also monitor the alterations in cytokines, Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio, and tau levels in plasma. Our primary endpoint is the change in cognitive function test scores estimated by the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Korea compared to baseline after 6 months of LDRT. Conclusions: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT05635968] and is currently recruiting patients. This study will provide evidence that LDRT is a new treatment strategy for AD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Consider the choice of outcome for overall treatment benefit in a clinical trial which measures the first time to each of several clinical events. We describe several new variants of the win ratio that incorporate the time spent in each clinical state over the common follow‐up, where clinical state means the worst clinical event that has occurred by that time. One version allows restriction so that death during follow‐up is most important, while time spent in other clinical states is still accounted for. Three other variants are described; one is based on the average pairwise win time, one creates a continuous outcome for each participant based on expected win times against a reference distribution and another that uses the estimated distributions of clinical state to compare the treatment arms. Finally, a combination testing approach is described to give robust power for detecting treatment benefit across a broad range of alternatives. These new methods are designed to be closer to the overall treatment benefit/harm from a patient's perspective, compared to the ordinary win ratio. The new methods are compared to the composite event approach and the ordinary win ratio. Simulations show that when overall treatment benefit on death is substantial, the variants based on either the participants' expected win times (EWTs) against a reference distribution or estimated clinical state distributions have substantially higher power than either the pairwise comparison or composite event methods. The methods are illustrated by re‐analysis of the trial heart failure: a controlled trial investigating outcomes of exercise training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Loop diuretics are a primary therapy for the symptomatic treatment of heart failure (HF), but whether torsemide improves patient symptoms and quality of life better than furosemide remains unknown. As prespecified secondary end points, the TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) compared the effect of torsemide versus furosemide on patient-reported outcomes among patients with HF. Methods: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic, randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF (regardless of ejection fraction) across 60 hospitals in the United States. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide or furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This report examined effects on prespecified secondary end points, which included Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS; assessed as adjusted mean difference in change from baseline; range, 0–100 with 100 indicating best health status; clinically important difference, ≥5 points) and Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (range, 0–6; score ≥3 supporting evaluation for depression) over 12 months. Results: Baseline data were available for 2787 (97.5%) patients for KCCQ-CSS and 2624 (91.8%) patients for Patient Health Questionnaire-2. Median (interquartile range) baseline KCCQ-CSS was 42 (27–60) in the torsemide group and 40 (24–59) in the furosemide group. At 12 months, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide in change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS (adjusted mean difference, 0.06 [95% CI, –2.26 to 2.37]; P =0.96) or the proportion of patients with Patient Health Questionnaire-2 score ≥3 (15.1% versus 13.2%: P =0.34). Results for KCCQ-CSS were similar at 1 month (adjusted mean difference, 1.36 [95% CI, –0.64 to 3.36]; P =0.18) and 6-month follow-up (adjusted mean difference, –0.37 [95% CI, –2.52 to 1.78]; P =0.73), and across subgroups by ejection fraction phenotype, New York Heart Association class at randomization, and loop diuretic agent before hospitalization. Irrespective of baseline KCCQ-CSS tertile, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide on change in KCCQ-CSS, all-cause mortality, or all-cause hospitalization. Conclusions: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, a strategy of torsemide compared with furosemide did not improve symptoms or quality of life over 12 months. The effects of torsemide and furosemide on patient-reported outcomes were similar regardless of ejection fraction, previous loop diuretic use, and baseline health status. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key Points: Question: Does torsemide reduce all-cause mortality compared with furosemide in patients with heart failure following hospitalization? Findings: In this randomized clinical trial of 2859 patients, 26.1% of patients randomized to torsemide and 26.2% randomized to furosemide died over a median follow-up of 17.4 months without a significant difference between groups. Meaning: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for heart failure, torsemide compared with furosemide did not result in a significant difference in all-cause mortality over 12 months; however, interpretation of these findings is limited by loss to follow-up and participant crossover and nonadherence. Importance: Although furosemide is the most commonly used loop diuretic in patients with heart failure, some studies suggest a potential benefit for torsemide. Objective: To determine whether torsemide results in decreased mortality compared with furosemide among patients hospitalized for heart failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic randomized trial that recruited 2859 participants hospitalized with heart failure (regardless of ejection fraction) at 60 hospitals in the United States. Recruitment occurred from June 2018 through March 2022, with follow-up through 30 months for death and 12 months for hospitalizations. The final date for follow-up data collection was July 2022. Interventions: Loop diuretic strategy of torsemide (n = 1431) or furosemide (n = 1428) with investigator-selected dosage. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality in a time-to-event analysis. There were 5 secondary outcomes with all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization and total hospitalizations assessed over 12 months being highest in the hierarchy. The prespecified primary hypothesis was that torsemide would reduce all-cause mortality by 20% compared with furosemide. Results: TRANSFORM-HF randomized 2859 participants with a median age of 65 years (IQR, 56-75), 36.9% were women, and 33.9% were Black. Over a median follow-up of 17.4 months, a total of 113 patients (53 [3.7%] in the torsemide group and 60 [4.2%] in the furosemide group) withdrew consent from the trial prior to completion. Death occurred in 373 of 1431 patients (26.1%) in the torsemide group and 374 of 1428 patients (26.2%) in the furosemide group (hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.89-1.18]). Over 12 months following randomization, all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization occurred in 677 patients (47.3%) in the torsemide group and 704 patients (49.3%) in the furosemide group (hazard ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.83-1.02]). There were 940 total hospitalizations among 536 participants in the torsemide group and 987 total hospitalizations among 577 participants in the furosemide group (rate ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.84-1.07]). Results were similar across prespecified subgroups, including among patients with reduced, mildly reduced, or preserved ejection fraction. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for heart failure, torsemide compared with furosemide did not result in a significant difference in all-cause mortality over 12 months. However, interpretation of these findings is limited by loss to follow-up and participant crossover and nonadherence. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03296813 This clinical trial compares the efficacy of torsemide vs furosemide in decreasing the risk of death from any cause among patients hospitalized for heart failure (regardless of ejection fraction). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Alteration in lung microbes is associated with disease progression in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.Objective: To assess the effect of antimicrobial therapy on clinical outcomes.Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, randomized, unblinded clinical trial conducted across 35 US sites. A total of 513 patients older than 40 years were randomized from August 2017 to June 2019 (final follow-up was January 2020).Interventions: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 allocation ratio to receive antimicrobials (n = 254) or usual care alone (n = 259). Antimicrobials included co-trimoxazole (trimethoprim 160 mg/sulfamethoxazole 800 mg twice daily plus folic acid 5 mg daily, n = 128) or doxycycline (100 mg once daily if body weight <50 kg or 100 mg twice daily if ≥50 kg, n = 126). No placebo was administered in the usual care alone group.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was time to first nonelective respiratory hospitalization or all-cause mortality.Results: Among the 513 patients who were randomized (mean age, 71 years; 23.6% women), all (100%) were included in the analysis. The study was terminated for futility on December 18, 2019. After a mean follow-up time of 13.1 months (median, 12.7 months), a total of 108 primary end point events occurred: 52 events (20.4 events per 100 patient-years [95% CI, 14.8-25.9]) in the usual care plus antimicrobial therapy group and 56 events (18.4 events per 100 patient-years [95% CI, 13.2-23.6]) in the usual care group, with no significant difference between groups (adjusted HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.71-1.53; P = .83]. There was no statistically significant interaction between the effect of the prespecified antimicrobial agent (co-trimoxazole vs doxycycline) on the primary end point (adjusted HR, 1.15 [95% CI 0.68-1.95] in the co-trimoxazole group vs 0.82 [95% CI, 0.46-1.47] in the doxycycline group; P = .66). Serious adverse events occurring at 5% or greater among those treated with usual care plus antimicrobials vs usual care alone included respiratory events (16.5% vs 10.0%) and infections (2.8% vs 6.6%); adverse events of special interest included diarrhea (10.2% vs 3.1%) and rash (6.7% vs 0%).Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, the addition of co-trimoxazole or doxycycline to usual care, compared with usual care alone, did not significantly improve time to nonelective respiratory hospitalization or death. These findings do not support treatment with these antibiotics for the underlying disease.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02759120. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Compelling data have linked disease progression in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) with lung dysbiosis and the resulting dysregulated local and systemic immune response. Moreover, prior therapeutic trials have suggested improved outcomes in these patients treated with either sulfamethoxazole/ trimethoprim or doxycycline. These trials have been limited by methodological concerns. This trial addresses the primary hypothesis that long-term treatment with antimicrobial therapy increases the time-to-event endpoint of respiratory hospitalization or all-cause mortality compared to usual care treatment in patients with IPF. We invoke numerous innovative features to achieve this goal, including: 1) utilizing a pragmatic randomized trial design; 2) collecting targeted biological samples to allow future exploration of 'personalized' therapy; and 3) developing a strong partnership between the NHLBI, a broad range of investigators, industry, and philanthropic organizations. The trial will randomize approximately 500 individuals in a 1:1 ratio to either antimicrobial therapy or usual care. The site principal investigator will declare their preferred initial antimicrobial treatment strategy (trimethoprim 160 mg/ sulfamethoxazole 800 mg twice a day plus folic acid 5 mg daily or doxycycline 100 mg once daily if body weight is < 50 kg or 100 mg twice daily if ≥50 kg) for the participant prior to randomization. Participants randomized to antimicrobial therapy will receive a voucher to help cover the additional prescription drug costs. Additionally, those participants will have 4-5 scheduled blood draws over the initial 24 months of therapy for safety monitoring. Blood sampling for DNA sequencing and genome wide transcriptomics will be collected before therapy. Blood sampling for transcriptomics and oral and fecal swabs for determination of the microbiome communities will be collected before and after study completion. As a pragmatic study, participants in both treatment arms will have limited in-person visits with the enrolling clinical center. Visits are limited to assessments of lung function and other clinical parameters at time points prior to randomization and at months 12, 24, and 36. All participants will be followed until the study completion for the assessment of clinical endpoints related to hospitalization and mortality events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02759120. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article describes the use of smart technology by investigators and patients to facilitate lung disease clinical trials and make them less costly and more efficient. By "smart technology" we include various electronic media, such as computer databases, the Internet, and mobile devices. We first describe the use of electronic health records for identifying potential subjects and then discuss electronic informed consent. We give several examples of using the Internet and mobile technology in clinical trials. Interventions have been delivered via the World Wide Web or via mobile devices, and both have been used to collect outcome data. We discuss examples of new electronic devices that recently have been introduced to collect health data. While use of smart technology in clinical trials is an exciting development, comparison with similar interventions applied in a conventional manner is still in its infancy. We discuss advantages and disadvantages of using this omnipresent, powerful tool in clinical trials, as well as directions for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]