Clinical trial results in context: comparison of baseline characteristics and outcomes of 38,510 RECOVERY trial participants versus a reference population of 346,271 people hospitalised with COVID-19 in England.

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials are essential to reliably assess medical interventions. Nevertheless, interpretation of such studies, particularly when considering absolute effects, is enhanced by understanding how the trial population may differ from the populations it aims to represent. METHODS: We compared baseline characteristics and mortality of RECOVERY participants recruited in England (n = 38,510) with a reference population hospitalised with COVID-19 in England (n = 346,271) from March 2020 to November 2021. We used linked hospitalisation and mortality data for both cohorts to extract demographics, comorbidity/frailty scores, and crude and age- and sex-adjusted 28-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Demographics of RECOVERY participants were broadly similar to the reference population, but RECOVERY participants were younger (mean age [standard deviation]: RECOVERY 62.6 [15.3] vs reference 65.7 [18.5] years) and less frequently female (37% vs 45%). Comorbidity and frailty scores were lower in RECOVERY, but differences were attenuated after age stratification. Age- and sex-adjusted 28-day mortality declined over time but was similar between cohorts across the study period (RECOVERY 23.7% [95% confidence interval: 23.3-24.1%]; vs reference 24.8% [24.6-25.0%]), except during the first pandemic wave in the UK (March-May 2020) when adjusted mortality was lower in RECOVERY. CONCLUSIONS: Adjusted 28-day mortality in RECOVERY was similar to a nationwide reference population of patients admitted with COVID-19 in England during the same period but varied substantially over time in both cohorts. Therefore, the absolute effect estimates from RECOVERY were broadly applicable to the target population at the time but should be interpreted in the light of current mortality estimates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN50189673- Feb. 04, 2020, NCT04381936- May 11, 2020.

Frailty, multimorbidity and polypharmacy: exploratory analyses of the effects of empagliflozin from the EMPA-KIDNEY trial.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are recommended treatment for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD), but uncertainty exists regarding their use in patients with frailty and/or multimorbidity, among whom polypharmacy is common. We derived a multivariable logistic regression model to predict hospitalization (reflecting frailty) and assessed empagliflozin's risk-benefit profile in a post-hoc analysis of the double-blind, placebo-controlled EMPA-KIDNEY trial. METHODS: The EMPA-KIDNEY trial randomized 6609 patients with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] ≥20<45 mL/min/1.73m2, or ≥45<90 mL/min/1.73m2 with urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio ≥200 mg/g) to receive either empagliflozin 10 mg daily or matching placebo and followed for two years (median). Additional characteristics analysed in subgroups were multimorbidity, polypharmacy and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at baseline. Cox regression analyses were performed with subgroups defined by approximate thirds of each variable. RESULTS: The strongest predictors of hospitalization were N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide, poor mobility and diabetes; then eGFR and other comorbidities. Empagliflozin was generally well-tolerated independent of predicted risk of hospitalization. In relative terms, allocation to empagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary outcome of kidney disease progression or cardiovascular death by 28% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.82); and all-cause hospitalization by 14% (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78-0.95); with broadly consistent effects across subgroups of predicted risk of hospitalization, multimorbidity, polypharmacy or HRQoL. In absolute terms, the estimated benefits of empagliflozin were greater in those at highest predicted risk of hospitalization (reflecting frailty) and outweighed potential serious harms. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the use of SGLT2 inhibitors in CKD, irrespective of frailty, multimorbidity or polypharmacy.

The Integration of Clinical Trials With the Practice of Medicine: Repairing a House Divided.

Importance: Optimal health care delivery, both now and in the future, requires a continuous loop of knowledge generation, dissemination, and uptake on how best to provide care, not just determining what interventions work but also how best to ensure they are provided to those who need them. The randomized clinical trial (RCT) is the most rigorous instrument to determine what works in health care. However, major issues with both the clinical trials enterprise and the lack of integration of clinical trials with health care delivery compromise medicine's ability to best serve society. Observations: In most resource-rich countries, the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises function as separate entities, with siloed goals, infrastructure, and incentives. Consequently, RCTs are often poorly relevant and responsive to the needs of patients and those responsible for care delivery. At the same time, health care delivery systems are often disengaged from clinical trials and fail to rapidly incorporate knowledge generated from RCTs into practice. Though longstanding, these issues are more pressing given the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, heightened awareness of the disproportionate impact of poor access to optimal care on vulnerable populations, and the unprecedented opportunity for improvement offered by the digital revolution in health care. Four major areas must be improved. First, especially in the US, greater clarity is required to ensure appropriate regulation and oversight of implementation science, quality improvement, embedded clinical trials, and learning health systems. Second, greater adoption is required of study designs that improve statistical and logistical efficiency and lower the burden on participants and clinicians, allowing trials to be smarter, safer, and faster. Third, RCTs could be considerably more responsive and efficient if they were better integrated with electronic health records. However, this advance first requires greater adoption of standards and processes designed to ensure health data are adequately reliable and accurate and capable of being transferred responsibly and efficiently across platforms and organizations. Fourth, tackling the problems described above requires alignment of stakeholders in the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises through financial and nonfinancial incentives, which could be enabled by new legislation. Solutions exist for each of these problems, and there are examples of success for each, but there is a failure to implement at adequate scale. Conclusions and Relevance: The gulf between current care and that which could be delivered has arguably never been wider. A key contributor is that the 2 limbs of knowledge generation and implementation-the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises-operate as a house divided. Better integration of these 2 worlds is key to accelerated improvement in health care delivery.

Framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials: An expert panel report.

The limitations of the explanatory clinical trial framework include the high expense of implementing explanatory trials, restrictive entry criteria for participants, and redundant logistical processes. These limitations can result in slow evidence generation that is not responsive to population health needs, yielding evidence that is not generalizable. Clinically integrated trials, which integrate clinical research into routine care, represent a potential solution to this challenge and an opportunity to support learning health systems. The operational and design features of clinically integrated trials include a focused scope, simplicity in design and requirements, the leveraging of existing data structures, and patient participation in the entire trial process. These features are designed to minimize barriers to participation and trial execution and reduce additional research burdens for participants and clinicians alike. Broad adoption and scalability of clinically integrated trials are dependent, in part, on continuing regulatory, healthcare system, and payer support. This analysis presents a framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials and is based on a multidisciplinary expert "Think Tank" panel discussion that included representatives from patient populations, academia, non-profit funding agencies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry.

Effects of high-dose versus standard-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine among patients with diabetes: A post-hoc analysis of the DANFLU-1 trial.

AIM: High-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV-HD) has been shown to be more effective than standard-dose (QIV-SD) in reducing influenza infection, but whether diabetes status affects relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) is unknown. We aimed to assess rVE on change in glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c (∆HbA1c)], incident diabetes, total all-cause hospitalizations (first + recurrent), and a composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for pneumonia or influenza. METHODS: DANFLU-1 was a pragmatic, open-label trial randomizing adults (65-79 years) 1:1 to QIV-HD or QIV-SD during the 2021/22 influenza season. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate rVE against incident diabetes and the composite endpoint, negative binomial regression to estimate rVE against all-cause hospitalizations, and ANCOVA when assessing rVE against ∆HbA1c. RESULTS: Of the 12 477 participants, 1162 (9.3%) had diabetes at baseline. QIV-HD, compared with QIV-SD, was associated with a reduction in the rate of all-cause hospitalizations irrespective of diabetes [overall: 647 vs. 742 events, incidence rate ratio (IRR): 0.87, 95% CI (0.76-0.99); diabetes: 93 vs. 118 events, IRR: 0.80, 95% CI (0.55-1.15); without diabetes: 554 vs. 624 events, IRR: 0.88, 95% CI (0.76-1.01), pinteraction = 0.62]. Among those with diabetes, QIV-HD was associated with a lower risk of the composite outcome [2 vs. 11 events, HR: 0.18, 95% CI (0.04-0.83)] but had no effect on ∆HbA1c; QIV-HD adjusted mean difference: ∆ + 0.2 mmol/mol, 95% CI (-0.9 to 1.2). QIV-HD did not affect the risk of incident diabetes [HR 1.18, 95% CI (0.94-1.47)]. CONCLUSIONS: In this post-hoc analysis, QIV-HD versus QIV-SD was associated with an increased rVE against the composite of all-cause death and hospitalization for pneumonia/influenza, and the all-cause hospitalization rate irrespective of diabetes status.

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine against recurrent hospitalizations and mortality in relation to influenza circulation: A post-hoc analysis of the DANFLU-1 randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relative effectiveness of high-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV-HD) versus standard-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV-SD) against recurrent hospitalizations and its potential variation in relation to influenza circulation. METHODS: We did a post-hoc analysis of a pragmatic, open-label, randomized trial of QIV-HD versus QIV-SD performed during the 2021-2022 influenza season among adults aged 65-79 years. Participants were enrolled in October 2021-November, 2021 and followed for outcomes from 14 days postvaccination until 31 May, 2022. We investigated the following outcomes: Hospitalizations for pneumonia or influenza, respiratory hospitalizations, cardio-respiratory hospitalizations, cardiovascular hospitalizations, all-cause hospitalizations, and all-cause death. Outcomes were analysed as recurrent events. Cumulative numbers of events were assessed weekly. Cumulative relative effectiveness estimates were calculated and descriptively compared with influenza circulation. The trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05048589. RESULTS: Among 12,477 randomly assigned participants, receiving QIV-HD was associated with lower incidence rates of hospitalizations for pneumonia or influenza (10 vs. 33 events, incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.30 [95% CI, 0.14-0.64]; p 0.002) and all-cause hospitalizations (647 vs. 742 events, IRR 0.87 [95% CI, 0.76-0.99]; p 0.032) compared with QIV-SD. Trends favouring QIV-HD were consistently observed over time including in the period before active influenza transmission; i.e. while the first week with a ≥10% influenza test positivity rate was calendar week 10, 2022, the first statistically significant reduction in hospitalizations for pneumonia or influenza was already observed by calendar week 3, 2022 (5 vs. 15 events, IRR 0.33 [95% CI, 0.11-0.94]; p 0.037). DISCUSSION: In a post-hoc analysis, QIV-HD was associated with lower incidence rates of hospitalizations for pneumonia or influenza and all-cause hospitalizations compared with QIV-SD, with trends evident independent of influenza circulation levels. Our exploratory results correspond to a number needed to treat of 65 (95% CI 35-840) persons vaccinated with QIV-HD compared with QIV-SD to prevent one additional all-cause hospitalization per season. Further research is needed to confirm these hypothesis-generating findings.

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial.

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome.

Effects of Empagliflozin on Fluid Overload, Weight, and Blood Pressure in CKD.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: SGLT2 inhibitors reduce risk of kidney progression, AKI, and cardiovascular disease, but the mechanisms of benefit are incompletely understood. Bioimpedance spectroscopy can estimate body water and fat mass. One quarter of the EMPA-KIDNEY bioimpedance substudy CKD population had clinically significant levels of bioimpedance-derived "Fluid Overload" at recruitment. Empagliflozin induced a prompt and sustained reduction in "Fluid Overload," irrespective of sex, diabetes, and baseline N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide or eGFR. No significant effect on bioimpedance-derived fat mass was observed. The effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on body water may be one of the contributing mechanisms by which they mediate effects on cardiovascular risk. BACKGROUND: CKD is associated with fluid excess that can be estimated by bioimpedance spectroscopy. We aimed to assess effects of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibition on bioimpedance-derived "Fluid Overload" and adiposity in a CKD population. METHODS: EMPA-KIDNEY was a double-blind placebo-controlled trial of empagliflozin 10 mg once daily in patients with CKD at risk of progression. In a substudy, bioimpedance measurements were added to the main trial procedures at randomization and at 2- and 18-month follow-up visits. The substudy's primary outcome was the study-average difference in absolute "Fluid Overload" (an estimate of excess extracellular water) analyzed using a mixed model repeated measures approach. RESULTS: The 660 substudy participants were broadly representative of the 6609-participant trial population. Substudy mean baseline absolute "Fluid Overload" was 0.4±1.7 L. Compared with placebo, the overall mean absolute "Fluid Overload" difference among those allocated empagliflozin was -0.24 L (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.38 to -0.11), with similar sized differences at 2 and 18 months, and in prespecified subgroups. Total body water differences comprised between-group differences in extracellular water of -0.49 L (95% CI, -0.69 to -0.30, including the -0.24 L "Fluid Overload" difference) and a -0.30 L (95% CI, -0.57 to -0.03) difference in intracellular water. There was no significant effect of empagliflozin on bioimpedance-derived adipose tissue mass (-0.28 kg [95% CI, -1.41 to 0.85]). The between-group difference in weight was -0.7 kg (95% CI, -1.3 to -0.1). CONCLUSIONS: In a broad range of patients with CKD, empagliflozin resulted in a sustained reduction in a bioimpedance-derived estimate of fluid overload, with no statistically significant effect on fat mass. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03594110 ; EuDRACT: 2017-002971-24 ( https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/ ).

Delivering trials in the NHS: more than worth it.

Randomised trials are the best method to determine the efficacy and safety of health technologies. A recent report by Lord O'Shaughnessy highlighted many of the current challenges to delivering trials in the UK and proposed potential solutions. Among these, making trials the business of all NHS institutions and a valued part of all doctors' work, while leveraging the potential of the data that the NHS collects routinely, offers an opportunity to improve NHS efficiency, doctors' job satisfaction and population health simultaneously.

Impact of outcome adjudication in kidney disease trials: observations from the Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP).

Introduction: We aimed to assess opportunities for trial streamlining and the scientific impact of adjudication on kidney and cardiovascular outcomes in CKD. Methods: We analysed the effects of adjudication of ~2100 maintenance kidney replacement therapy (KRT) and ~1300 major atherosclerotic events (MAEs) recorded in SHARP. We first compared outcome classification before versus after adjudication, and then re-ran randomised comparisons using pre-adjudicated follow-up data. Results: For maintenance KRT, adjudication had little impact with only 1% of events being refuted (28/2115). Consequently, randomised comparisons using pre-adjudication reports found almost identical results (pre-adjudication: simvastatin/ezetimibe 1038 vs placebo 1077; risk ratio [RR] 0.95, 95%CI 0.88-1.04; post-adjudicated: 1057 vs 1084; RR=0.97, 95%CI 0.89-1.05). For MAEs, about one-quarter of patient reports were refuted (324/1275 [25%]), and reviewing 3538 other potential vascular events and death reports identified only 194 additional MAEs. Nevertheless, randomised analyses using SHARP's pre-adjudicated data alone found similar results to analyses based on adjudicated outcomes (pre-adjudication: 573 vs 702; RR=0.80, 95%CI 0.72-0.89; adjudicated: 526 vs 619; RR=0.83, 95%CI 0.74- 0.94), and also suggested refuted MAEs were likely to represent atherosclerotic disease (RR for refuted MAEs=0.80, 95%CI 0.65-1.00). Conclusions: These analyses provide three key insights. First, they provide a rationale for nephrology trials not to adjudicate maintenance KRT. Secondly, when an event that mimics an atherosclerotic outcome is not expected to be influenced by the treatment under study (e.g. heart failure), the aim of adjudicating atherosclerotic outcomes should be to remove such events. Lastly, restrictive definitions for the remaining suspected atherosclerotic outcomes may reduce statistical power.

Reliability of major bleeding events in UK routine data versus clinical trial adjudicated follow-up data.

OBJECTIVE: To assess how reliable UK routine data are for ascertaining major bleeding events compared with adjudicated follow-up. METHODS: The ASCEND (A Study of Cardiovascular Events iN Diabetes) primary prevention trial randomised 15 480 UK people with diabetes to aspirin versus matching placebo. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding (including intracranial haemorrhage, sight-threatening eye bleeding, serious gastrointestinal bleeding and other major bleeding (epistaxis, haemoptysis, haematuria, vaginal and other bleeding)) ascertained by direct-participant mail-based follow-up, with >90% of outcomes undergoing adjudication. Nearly all participants were linked to routinely collected hospitalisation and death data (ie, routine data). An algorithm categorised bleeding events from routine data as major/minor. Kappa statistics were used to assess agreement between data sources, and randomised comparisons were re-run using routine data. RESULTS: When adjudicated follow-up and routine data were compared, there was agreement for 318 major bleeding events, with routine data identifying 281 additional-potential events, and not identifying 241 participant-reported events (kappa 0.53, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.57). Repeating ASCEND's randomised comparisons using routine data only found estimated relative and absolute effects of allocation to aspirin versus placebo on major bleeding similar to adjudicated follow-up (adjudicated follow-up: aspirin 314 (4.1%) vs placebo 245 (3.2%); rate ratio (RR) 1.29, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.52; absolute excess +6.3/5000 person-years (mean SE±2.1); vs routine data: 327 (4.2%) vs 272 (3.5%); RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.41; absolute excess +5.0/5000 (±2.2)). CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of the ASCEND randomised trial found that major bleeding events ascertained via UK routine data sources provided relative and absolute treatment effects similar to adjudicated follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN60635500; NCT00135226.

Empagliflozin in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: The effects of empagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease who are at risk for disease progression are not well understood. The EMPA-KIDNEY trial was designed to assess the effects of treatment with empagliflozin in a broad range of such patients. METHODS: We enrolled patients with chronic kidney disease who had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of at least 20 but less than 45 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area, or who had an eGFR of at least 45 but less than 90 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (with albumin measured in milligrams and creatinine measured in grams) of at least 200. Patients were randomly assigned to receive empagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or matching placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of progression of kidney disease (defined as end-stage kidney disease, a sustained decrease in eGFR to <10 ml per minute per 1.73 m2, a sustained decrease in eGFR of ≥40% from baseline, or death from renal causes) or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS: A total of 6609 patients underwent randomization. During a median of 2.0 years of follow-up, progression of kidney disease or death from cardiovascular causes occurred in 432 of 3304 patients (13.1%) in the empagliflozin group and in 558 of 3305 patients (16.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.82; P<0.001). Results were consistent among patients with or without diabetes and across subgroups defined according to eGFR ranges. The rate of hospitalization from any cause was lower in the empagliflozin group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.95; P = 0.003), but there were no significant between-group differences with respect to the composite outcome of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes (which occurred in 4.0% in the empagliflozin group and 4.6% in the placebo group) or death from any cause (in 4.5% and 5.1%, respectively). The rates of serious adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among a wide range of patients with chronic kidney disease who were at risk for disease progression, empagliflozin therapy led to a lower risk of progression of kidney disease or death from cardiovascular causes than placebo. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and others; EMPA-KIDNEY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03594110; EudraCT number, 2017-002971-24.).

A Pragmatic Randomized Feasibility Trial of Influenza Vaccines.

BACKGROUND: The relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccines (QIV-HD) versus standard-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccines (QIV-SD) against hospitalizations and mortality in the general older population has not been evaluated in an individually randomized trial. Because of the large sample size required, such a trial will need to incorporate innovative, pragmatic elements. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, open-label, active-controlled, randomized feasibility trial in Danish citizens aged 65 to 79 years during the 2021­2022 influenza season. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive QIV-HD or QIV-SD. Randomization was integrated into routine vaccination practice, and the trial relied solely on nationwide administrative health registries for data collection. Outcomes consisted of a feasibility assessment and descriptive rVE estimates. RESULTS: We invited 34,000 persons to participate. A total of 12,477 randomly assigned participants were included in the final analyses. Mean (±SD) age was 71.7±3.9 years, and 5877 (47.1%) were women. Registry-based data collection was feasible, with complete follow-up data for 99.9% of participants. Baseline characteristics were comparable to those of the overall Danish population aged 65 to 79 years. The incidence of hospitalization for influenza or pneumonia was 10 (0.2%) of 6245 in the QIV-HD group and 28 (0.4%) of 6232 in the QIV-SD group (rVE, 64.4%; 95% confidence interval, 24.4 to 84.6). All-cause death occurred in 21 (0.3%) and 41 (0.7%) participants in the QIV-HD and QIV-SD groups, respectively (rVE, 48.9%; 95% confidence interval, 11.5 to 71.3). CONCLUSIONS: Conducting a pragmatic randomized trial of QIV-HD versus QIV-SD using existing infrastructure and registry-based data collection was feasible. The findings of lower incidence of hospitalization for influenza or pneumonia and all-cause mortality in the QIV-HD group compared with the QIV-SD group require replication in a future, fully powered trial. (Funded by Sanofi; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05048589.)

Determining the Relationship Between Blood Pressure, Kidney Function, and Chronic Kidney Disease: Insights From Genetic Epidemiology.

BACKGROUND: It is well established that decreased kidney function can increase blood pressure (BP), but it is unproven whether moderately elevated BP causes chronic kidney disease (CKD) or glomerular hyperfiltration. METHODS: 311 119 White British UK Biobank participants were included in logistic regression analyses to estimate the odds of CKD (defined as long-term kidney replacement therapy, estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]< 60mL/min/1.73m2, or urinary albumin:creatinine ratio ≥3 mg/mmol) associated with higher genetically predicted BP using genetic risk scores comprising 219 systolic and 223 diastolic BP loci. Analyses estimating associations with clinical categories of eGFR and urinary albumin:creatinine ratio were also conducted, with an eGFR ≥120 mL (min·1.73m2) considered evidence of glomerular hyperfiltration. RESULTS: 21 623 participants had CKD: 7781 with reduced eGFR and 15 500 with albuminuria. 1828 participants had an eGFR ≥120 mL/min/1.73m2. Each genetically predicted 10 mmHg higher systolic BP and 5 mmHg higher diastolic BP were associated with a 37% (95% CI, 1.29-1.45) and 19% (1.14-1.25) higher odds of CKD, respectively. Associations were evident for both the reduced eGFR and albuminuria components of the CKD outcome. The odds of hyperfiltration (versus an eGFR ≥60 and <90 mL/min/1.73m2 were 49% higher (95% CI, 1.21-1.84) for each genetically predicted 10 mmHg higher systolic BP. Associations with CKD and hyperfiltration were similar irrespective of preexisting diabetes, vascular disease, or different levels of adiposity. CONCLUSIONS: In this general population, genetic epidemiological evidence supports a causal role of life-long differences in BP for decreased kidney function, glomerular hyperfiltration, and albuminuria. Physiological autoregulation may not afford complete renal protection against the moderate BP elevations.

Establishing COVID-19 trials at scale and pace: Experience from the RECOVERY trial.

The Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) Trial was set up in March 2020 to evaluate treatments for people hospitalised with COVID-19. To maximise recruitment it was designed to fit into routine clinical care throughout the UK, and as a result it has enrolled more patients than any other COVID-19 treatment trial. RECOVERY has shown four drugs to be life-saving - dexamethasone, tocilizumab, baricitinib and casirivimab-imdevimab - and a further six have been shown to be of little or no benefit. In each case, results from RECOVERY were clear enough to rapidly influence global practice. Some of the reasons for this success relate to its particular setting in the UK during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, but many are generalisable to other contexts. In particular, its focus on recruiting large numbers of patients to identify or rule out moderate but worthwhile benefits of treatment, and the design decisions that followed from this. Similar large streamlined trials could produce similarly clear answers about the treatment of many other common diseases.