Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of edoxaban in patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: protocol for a multicentre, randomised, warfarin-controlled, parallel group trial - KABUKI trial

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is a complication of prior pulmonary thromboembolism (PE), caused by incomplete clot dissolution after PE. In patients with CTEPH, lifelong anticoagulation is mandatory to prevent recurrence of PE and secondary in situ thrombus formation. Warfarin, a vitamin K antagonist, is commonly used for anticoagulation in CTEPH based on historical experience and evidence. The anticoagulant activity of warfarin is affected by food and drug interactions, requiring regular monitoring of prothrombin time. The lability of anticoagulant effect often results in haemorrhagic and thromboembolic complications. Thus, lifelong warfarin is a handicap in terms of safety and convenience. Currently, the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in CTEPH has increased with the advent of four DOACs. The safety of DOACs is superior to warfarin, with less intracranial bleeding in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism. Edoxaban, the latest DOAC, also has proven efficacy and safety for those diseases in two large clinical trials; the ENGAGE-AF trial and HOKUSAI-VTE trial. The present trial seeks to evaluate whether edoxaban is non-inferior to warfarin in preventing worsening of CTEPH.

Methods and analysis

The KABUKI trial (is an investigator-initiated, multicentre, phase 3, randomised, single-blind, parallel-group, warfarin-controlled, non-inferiority trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of edoxaban versus warfarin (vitamin K Antagonist) in subjects with chronic thromBoembolic pUlmonary hypertension taking warfarin (vitamin K antagonIst) at baseline) is designed to prove the non-inferiority of edoxaban to warfarin in terms of efficacy and safety in patients with CTEPH.

Ethics and dissemination

This study is approved by the Institutional Review Board of each participating institution. The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, including positive, negative and inconclusive results.

Trial registration number

NCT04730037.

Protocol version

This paper was written per the study protocol V.4.0, dated 29 January 2021.

SUBMITTER: Hosokawa K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9301811 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundArthroscopic sub-acromial decompression (decompressing the sub-acromial space by removing bone spurs and soft tissue arthroscopically) is a common surgery for subacromial shoulder pain, but its effectiveness is uncertain. We did a study to assess its effectiveness and to investigate the mechanism for surgical decompression.MethodsWe did a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group trial at 32 hospitals in the UK with 51 surgeons. Participants were patients who had subacromial pain for at least 3 months with intact rotator cuff tendons, were eligible for arthroscopic surgery, and had previously completed a non-operative management programme that included exercise therapy and at least one steroid injection. Exclusion criteria included a full-thickness torn rotator cuff. We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to arthroscopic subacromial decompression, investigational arthroscopy only, or no treatment (attendance of one reassessment appointment with a specialist shoulder clinician 3 months after study entry, but no intervention). Arthroscopy only was a placebo as the essential surgical element (bone and soft tissue removal) was omitted. We did the randomisation with a computer-generated minimisation system. In the surgical intervention groups, patients were not told which type of surgery they were receiving (to ensure masking). Patients were followed up at 6 months and 1 year after randomisation; surgeons coordinated their waiting lists to schedule surgeries as close as possible to randomisation. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (0 [worst] to 48 [best]) at 6 months, analysed by intention to treat. The sample size calculation was based upon a target difference of 4·5 points (SD 9·0). This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01623011.FindingsBetween Sept 14, 2012, and June 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 313 patients to treatment groups (106 to decompression surgery, 103 to arthroscopy only, and 104 to no treatment). 24 [23%], 43 [42%], and 12 [12%] of the decompression, arthroscopy only, and no treatment groups, respectively, did not receive their assigned treatment by 6 months. At 6 months, data for the Oxford Shoulder Score were available for 90 patients assigned to decompression, 94 to arthroscopy, and 90 to no treatment. Mean Oxford Shoulder Score did not differ between the two surgical groups at 6 months (decompression mean 32·7 points [SD 11·6] vs arthroscopy mean 34·2 points [9·2]; mean difference -1·3 points (95% CI -3·9 to 1·3, p=0·3141). Both surgical groups showed a small benefit over no treatment (mean 29·4 points [SD 11·9], mean difference vs decompression 2·8 points [95% CI 0·5-5·2], p=0·0186; mean difference vs arthroscopy 4·2 [1·8-6·6], p=0·0014) but these differences were not clinically important. There were six study-related complications that were all frozen shoulders (in two patients in each group).InterpretationSurgical groups had better outcomes for shoulder pain and function compared with no treatment but this difference was not clinically important. Additionally, surgical decompression appeared to offer no extra benefit over arthroscopy only. The difference between the surgical groups and no treatment might be the result of, for instance, a placebo effect or postoperative physiotherapy. The findings question the value of this operation for these indications, and this should be communicated to patients during the shared treatment decision-making process.FundingArthritis Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, and the Royal College of Surgeons (England).

Project description:BackgroundPhysiological-based cord clamping (PBCC) in preterm infants is beneficial for cardiovascular transition at birth and may optimize placental transfusion. Whether PBCC can improve clinical outcomes is unknown. The aim of the Aeration, Breathing, Clamping (ABC3) trial was to test whether PBCC results in improved intact survival in very preterm infants.MethodsThe ABC3 trial was a parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled superiority clinical trial conducted in all Dutch tertiary referral centers for perinatal care involving infants born before 30 weeks of gestation. Infants were randomised to either PBCC or time-based delayed cord clamping (TBCC), stratified by gestational age and treatment center. Infants receiving PBCC were stabilised with umbilical cord intact, which was clamped after reaching cardiorespiratory stability (heart rate >100 bpm and SpO2 >85% while supplemental oxygen <40%). In TBCC the cord was clamped after 30-60 s. The primary outcome was survival without major cerebral injury and/or necrotizing enterocolitis. The primary and key secondary analyses were done in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03808051).FindingsFrom January 25, 2019, through October 2, 2022, 669 infants were randomised (median gestational age 27+5 weeks (IQR 26+2-28+6)) and included in the intention-to-treat population. Intact survival occurred in 241 of 339 infants (71.1%) after PBCC, compared with 223 of 330 (67.6%) after TBCC (odds ratio 1.18, 95% CI 0.84-1.66; absolute risk difference 3.1 %points, 95% CI -11.0 to 15.8, p = 0.33). Pre-specified subgroup analysis showed 69.9% intact survival in male infants after PBCC, compared with 61.8% after TBCC (odds ratio 2.32, 95% CI 1.42-3.78, p for interaction 0.026). Secondary outcomes showed fewer red blood cell transfusions after PBCC (rate ratio 0.83, 95% CI 0.75-0.92, p = 0.0003), lower incidence of late-onset sepsis (27.4% versus 33.3%, odds ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.62-0.95, p = 0.013) and lower admission temperature (36.3 °C versus 36.7 °C, mean difference -0.5, 95% CI -0.8 to -0.3, p < 0.0001). Parents were less anxious (Likert scale 1.52 (SD 0.97) versus 2.23 (SD 1.35); p < 0.001) and more content (Likert scale 4.74 (SD 0.75) versus 4.49 (SD 0.97); p < 0.001) after PBCC.InterpretationPBCC in very preterm infants did not increase survival without major cerebral injury or necrotizing enterocolitis compared to TBCC in the entire cohort. A possible beneficial effect in male infants requires confirmation from other trials. PBCC was safe to perform and parents reported more contentment and less anxiety.FundingThe Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of Listen, a self-management support intervention, for people living with long covid who were not in hospital.DesignPragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial.SettingTwenty four sites in England and Wales.ParticipantsIdentified from long covid clinic waiting lists, word of mouth, and adverts/social media self-referred to the trial, 554 adults with long covid were randomised to receive either the Listen trial intervention or NHS usual care.InterventionsThe Listen intervention involved up to six one-to-one personalised sessions with trained healthcare practitioners and an accompanying handbook co-designed by people with lived experience and health professionals. Usual NHS care was variable, ranging from no access, access to mobile applications and resources, and to specialist long covid clinics.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the Oxford participation and activities questionnaire (Ox-PAQ) routine activities scale score at three months assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes included Ox-PAQ emotional wellbeing and social engagement scale scores, the Short Form-12 (SF-12) health survey, the fatigue impact scale, and the generalised self-efficacy scale at three months. The EuroQol five-dimension five-level (EQ-5D-5L) assessed health utility. Serious adverse events were recorded.ResultsBetween 27 May 2022 and 15 September 2023, 554 people with long covid (mean age 50 (standard deviation 12.3) years; 394 (72.4%) women) were randomly assigned. At three months, participants assigned to the intervention group reported small non-significant improvements in the primary outcome of capacity for daily activities as assessed by Ox-PAQ routine activities scale score (adjusted mean difference -2.68 (95% confidence interval (CI) -5.38 to 0.02), P=0.052) compared with usual NHS care. For the secondary outcomes, people receiving the intervention also reported significant improvements in mental health (Ox-PAQ emotional wellbeing -5.29 (95% CI -8.37 to -2.20), P=0.001; SF-12 2.36 (95% CI 0.77 to 3.96), P=0.004), reductions in fatigue (fatigue impact score -7.93 (95% CI -11.97 to -3.88), P<0.001), and increases in self-efficacy (generalised self-efficacy scale 2.63 (95% CI 1.50 to 3.75), P<0.001). No differences were found in social engagement (-2.07 (95% CI -5.36 to 1.22), P=0.218) or SF-12 physical health (0.32 (95% CI -0.93 to 1.57), P=0.612). No intervention related serious adverse events were reported.ConclusionsThe personalised self-management support intervention of the Listen trial resulted in non-significant short term improvements in routine activities when compared with usual care. Improvements in emotional wellbeing, fatigue, quality of life, and self-efficacy for people living with long covid were also reported. Physical health and social engagement were not affected by the trial intervention. The limited understanding of how much change is clinically meaningful in this population along with the unblinded design, the use of self-referral as a recruitment method and variable usual care may have introduced unintended bias and thus limits robust conclusions about this intervention. Further research is required to fully establish the impact of the intervention.Trial registration numberISRCTN36407216, ISRCTN registry, registered 27 January 2022.

Project description:BackgroundNeutrophil serine proteases are involved in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 and increased serine protease activity has been reported in severe and fatal infection. We investigated whether brensocatib, an inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-1 (DPP-1; an enzyme responsible for the activation of neutrophil serine proteases), would improve outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.MethodsIn a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial, across 14 hospitals in the UK, patients aged 16 years and older who were hospitalised with COVID-19 and had at least one risk factor for severe disease were randomly assigned 1:1, within 96 h of hospital admission, to once-daily brensocatib 25 mg or placebo orally for 28 days. Patients were randomly assigned via a central web-based randomisation system (TruST). Randomisation was stratified by site and age (65 years or ≥65 years), and within each stratum, blocks were of random sizes of two, four, or six patients. Participants in both groups continued to receive other therapies required to manage their condition. Participants, study staff, and investigators were masked to the study assignment. The primary outcome was the 7-point WHO ordinal scale for clinical status at day 29 after random assignment. The intention-to-treat population included all patients who were randomly assigned and met the enrolment criteria. The safety population included all participants who received at least one dose of study medication. This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN30564012.FindingsBetween June 5, 2020, and Jan 25, 2021, 406 patients were randomly assigned to brensocatib or placebo; 192 (47·3%) to the brensocatib group and 214 (52·7%) to the placebo group. Two participants were excluded after being randomly assigned in the brensocatib group (214 patients included in the placebo group and 190 included in the brensocatib group in the intention-to-treat population). Primary outcome data was unavailable for six patients (three in the brensocatib group and three in the placebo group). Patients in the brensocatib group had worse clinical status at day 29 after being randomly assigned than those in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·57-0·92]). Prespecified subgroup analyses of the primary outcome supported the primary results. 185 participants reported at least one adverse event; 99 (46%) in the placebo group and 86 (45%) in the brensocatib group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders and infections. One death in the placebo group was judged as possibly related to study drug.InterpretationBrensocatib treatment did not improve clinical status at day 29 in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.FundingSponsored by the University of Dundee and supported through an Investigator Initiated Research award from Insmed, Bridgewater, NJ; STOP-COVID19 trial.