糖尿病肾病(DKD)新兴疗法的临床试验设计糖尿病肾病(DKD)新兴疗法的临床试验设计。

Postgraduate medicine Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-24 DOI:10.1080/00325481.2024.2377529
Ajay K Singh, Youssef M K Farag, Zihe Zheng, George L Bakris
{"title":"糖尿病肾病(DKD)新兴疗法的临床试验设计糖尿病肾病(DKD)新兴疗法的临床试验设计。","authors":"Ajay K Singh, Youssef M K Farag, Zihe Zheng, George L Bakris","doi":"10.1080/00325481.2024.2377529","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Current evidence for medical therapies for diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is largely based on large-scale clinical trials. These trials, however, often exhibit heterogeneity in participant characteristics and baseline kidney function. These differences may lead to misinterpretation in clinical practice, such that treatment effects from different trials are directly compared and generalized to broader populations beyond the population in which each trial was conducted. This is particularly relevant if comparisons on efficacy and safety are made when the underlying study populations are distinctly different. Indeed, key clinical trials evaluating sodium-glucose transport protein-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (nsMRA), and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) differed in recruitment requirements (inclusion/exclusion criteria), resulting in differences in the severity of the underlying kidney disease as well as risk factor profiles. Moreover, these trials defined their primary and secondary outcomes differently. Collectively, these factors lead to distinct study populations with different baseline risks for DKD progression in the placebo arm in each clinical trial. Consequently, a direct head-to-head comparison of the treatment effect between treatments using relative risk measures from placebo-controlled clinical trials alone is not recommended. In addition, healthcare professionals should be equipped to understand the specific target population of clinical trials to avoid over-generalization when drawing conclusions from these trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":94176,"journal":{"name":"Postgraduate medicine","volume":" ","pages":"585-593"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical trial designs of emerging therapies for diabetic kidney disease (DKD).\",\"authors\":\"Ajay K Singh, Youssef M K Farag, Zihe Zheng, George L Bakris\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00325481.2024.2377529\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Current evidence for medical therapies for diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is largely based on large-scale clinical trials. These trials, however, often exhibit heterogeneity in participant characteristics and baseline kidney function. These differences may lead to misinterpretation in clinical practice, such that treatment effects from different trials are directly compared and generalized to broader populations beyond the population in which each trial was conducted. This is particularly relevant if comparisons on efficacy and safety are made when the underlying study populations are distinctly different. Indeed, key clinical trials evaluating sodium-glucose transport protein-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (nsMRA), and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) differed in recruitment requirements (inclusion/exclusion criteria), resulting in differences in the severity of the underlying kidney disease as well as risk factor profiles. Moreover, these trials defined their primary and secondary outcomes differently. Collectively, these factors lead to distinct study populations with different baseline risks for DKD progression in the placebo arm in each clinical trial. Consequently, a direct head-to-head comparison of the treatment effect between treatments using relative risk measures from placebo-controlled clinical trials alone is not recommended. In addition, healthcare professionals should be equipped to understand the specific target population of clinical trials to avoid over-generalization when drawing conclusions from these trials.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94176,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Postgraduate medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"585-593\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Postgraduate medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00325481.2024.2377529\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Postgraduate medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00325481.2024.2377529","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目前,糖尿病肾病(DKD)医学疗法的证据主要基于大规模临床试验。然而,这些试验往往在参与者特征和基线肾功能方面表现出异质性。这些差异可能会导致临床实践中的误解,如直接比较不同试验的治疗效果,并将其推广到每个试验所针对人群之外的更广泛人群。如果在基础研究人群截然不同的情况下对疗效和安全性进行比较,这一点尤为重要。事实上,评估钠-葡萄糖转运蛋白-2 抑制剂(SGLT2i)、非类固醇矿皮质激素受体拮抗剂(nsMRA)和胰高血糖素样肽-1 受体激动剂(GLP-1RA)的主要临床试验在招募要求(纳入/排除标准)上各不相同,导致基础肾脏疾病的严重程度和风险因素概况也不尽相同。此外,这些试验对主要和次要结果的定义也不尽相同。总之,这些因素导致了不同的研究人群,在每项临床试验中,安慰剂治疗组 DKD 进展的基线风险也不同。因此,不建议仅使用安慰剂对照临床试验中的相对风险指标来直接比较不同治疗方法的治疗效果。此外,医护人员应了解临床试验的特定目标人群,避免从这些试验中得出过于笼统的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Clinical trial designs of emerging therapies for diabetic kidney disease (DKD).

Current evidence for medical therapies for diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is largely based on large-scale clinical trials. These trials, however, often exhibit heterogeneity in participant characteristics and baseline kidney function. These differences may lead to misinterpretation in clinical practice, such that treatment effects from different trials are directly compared and generalized to broader populations beyond the population in which each trial was conducted. This is particularly relevant if comparisons on efficacy and safety are made when the underlying study populations are distinctly different. Indeed, key clinical trials evaluating sodium-glucose transport protein-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (nsMRA), and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) differed in recruitment requirements (inclusion/exclusion criteria), resulting in differences in the severity of the underlying kidney disease as well as risk factor profiles. Moreover, these trials defined their primary and secondary outcomes differently. Collectively, these factors lead to distinct study populations with different baseline risks for DKD progression in the placebo arm in each clinical trial. Consequently, a direct head-to-head comparison of the treatment effect between treatments using relative risk measures from placebo-controlled clinical trials alone is not recommended. In addition, healthcare professionals should be equipped to understand the specific target population of clinical trials to avoid over-generalization when drawing conclusions from these trials.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Moraxella catarrhalis bacteremia in adult with cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Thickening liquids for pediatric dysphagia: a perspective from clinical practice. Association of plasma aldosterone concentration with arterial stiffness progression in hypertensive patients: insights from a longitudinal analysis. Preoperative intravenous versus oral iron supplementation for elective surgery: evidence based on 12 randomized trials. Factors associated with renal involvement in adult immunoglobulin a vasculitis: what is it?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1