[Randomised controlled trials]

The relationship of platelet distribution width with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in peritoneal dialysis patients

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major complication in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. Previous studies have demonstrated that platelet distribution width (PDW) is associated with cardiovascular events in hemodialysis (HD) patients. In this study, we hypothesized that elevated PDW can predict all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in PD patients.

METHODS

We recruited PD patients for a single-center retrospective cohort study from 1 January 2007, to 30 June 2020. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were made to determine the PDW cutoff value for predicting all-cause mortality. The propensity score matching (PSM) method was used to improve the equilibrium between groups. The relation of PDW with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality was analyzed by Cox proportional hazards models. Restricted cubic spline (RCS) models were used to determine whether there was a linear relationship between PDW and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 720 PD patients were screened, and 426 PD patients were enrolled after PSM. After adjusting for confounders, Cox proportional hazards models showed that the PDW value was positively correlated with the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality (HR = 1.162, 95% CI 1.057-1.278, p = 0.002 and HR = 1.200, 95% CI 1.041-1.382, p = 0.012). The adjusted RCS analysis further showed that the relationship of PDW with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality was linear (p for nonlinearly = 0.143 and 0.062).

CONCLUSION

Elevated PDW is independently associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in PD patients.

Study Design Characteristics and Pharmacological Mechanisms in International Clinical Trials Registry Platform: Registered Clinical Trials on Antiviral Drugs for COVID-19

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the pharmacological mechanisms of antiviral drugs against the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and the study designs in clinical trials registered with the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).

METHODS

Clinical trials involving antiviral drugs for treating COVID-19 were retrieved from the ICTRP database. For each trial, the study design, number of participants, primary endpoints, source register, antiviral mechanism, and results were evaluated.

RESULTS

On June 10, 2020, 145 eligible clinical trials were retrieved from the ICTRP, of which 99 (68.3%) were randomized trials, 109 (75.2%) were parallel assignment trials, 38 (26.2%) were double or single blinded, 130 (89.7%) involved two groups, and 75 (51.6%) included more than 100 participants; and clinical improvement or recovery and virus-negative conversion were the two most common endpoints, accounting for 40.7% and 18.6%, respectively. The drugs were divided according to the antiviral mechanism into HIV reverse transcriptase inhibitors, RNA-dependent RNA polymerase inhibitors, HIV protease inhibitors (PIs), hepatitis C virus NS3 PIs, and anti-influenza drugs.

CONCLUSION

The design characteristics of clinical trials of antiviral drugs for treating COVID-19 as well as the mechanism of action and antiviral efficacy of the drugs were evaluated in this study. The results of these trials could constitute a reference for future clinical trials to be executed on COVID-19 treatment and prevention.

Characteristics of COVID-19 Clinical Trials in China Based on the Registration Data on ChiCTR and ClinicalTrials.gov

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the fundamental characteristics of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) clinical trials registered in China.

Methods

COVID-19 clinical trials registered in China were analyzed from databases on ChiCTR and ClinicalTrials.gov. The study designs, samples, primary end points, and intervention measures were evaluated.

Results

In total, 262 intervention clinical trials were retrieved on March 10, 2020. Overall, 181 (69.1%) trials involved two groups, 200 (76.3%) trials were randomized parallel trials, 24 (9.2%) trials were double blind, and 60.3% of trials included ≤100 participants. Sixty (22.9%) trials considered symptom improvement as the primary endpoint and 43 (16.4%) trials considered the rate or time at which the subjects became virus-free as the primary endpoint. Of 262 intervention studies, chemical drugs and biological products were studied in 105 (40.1%) intervention studies, of which antiviral drugs accounted for 15.3% and malaria drugs accounted for 8.4% of the studies. Among all trials, 27.9% of the studies used traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), 10.3% used cell therapy, and 5.0% used plasma therapy.

Conclusion

This study is the first snapshot of the landscape of COVID-19 clinical trials registered in China and provided the basic features of clinical trial designs for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 to offer useful information to guide future clinical trials on COVID-19 in other countries.