Effects of RBT-1 on preconditioning response biomarkers in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft or heart valve surgery: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial.

Background: RBT-1 is a combination drug of stannic protoporfin (SnPP) and iron sucrose (FeS) that elicits a preconditioning response through activation of antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and iron-scavenging pathways, as measured by heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1), interleukin-10 (IL-10), and ferritin, respectively. Our primary aim was to determine whether RBT-1 administered before surgery would safely and effectively elicit a preconditioning response in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Methods: This phase 2, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, adaptive trial, conducted in 19 centres across the USA, Canada, and Australia, enrolled patients scheduled to undergo non-emergent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and/or heart valve surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Patients were randomised (1:1:1) to receive either a single intravenous infusion of high-dose RBT-1 (90 mg SnPP/240 mg FeS), low-dose RBT-1 (45 mg SnPP/240 mg FeS), or placebo within 24-48 h before surgery. The primary outcome was a preoperative preconditioning response, measured by a composite of plasma HO-1, IL-10, and ferritin. Safety was assessed by adverse events and laboratory parameters. Prespecified adaptive criteria permitted early stopping and enrichment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04564833. Findings: Between Aug 4, 2021, and Nov 9, 2022, of 135 patients who were enrolled and randomly allocated to a study group (46 high-dose, 45 low-dose, 44 placebo), 132 (98%) were included in the primary analysis (46 high-dose, 42 low-dose, 44 placebo). At interim, the trial proceeded to full enrollment without enrichment. RBT-1 led to a greater preconditioning response than did placebo at high-dose (geometric least squares mean [GLSM] ratio, 3.58; 95% CI, 2.91-4.41; p < 0.0001) and low-dose (GLSM ratio, 2.62; 95% CI, 2.11-3.24; p < 0.0001). RBT-1 was generally well tolerated by patients. The primary drug-related adverse event was dose-dependent photosensitivity, observed in 12 (26%) of 46 patients treated with high-dose RBT-1 and in six (13%) of 45 patients treated with low-dose RBT-1 (safety population). Interpretation: RBT-1 demonstrated a statistically significant cytoprotective preconditioning response and a manageable safety profile. Further research is needed. A phase 3 trial is planned. Funding: Renibus Therapeutics, Inc.

Preoperative Vitamin D Concentration and Cardiac, Renal, and Infectious Morbidity after Noncardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Low 25-hydroxyvitamin D is associated with cardiovascular, renal, and infectious risks. Postsurgical patients are susceptible to similar complications, but whether vitamin D deficiency contributes to postoperative complications remains unclear. We tested whether low preoperative vitamin D is associated with cardiovascular events within 30 days after noncardiac surgery. METHODS: We evaluated a subset of patients enrolled in the biobank substudy of the Vascular events In noncardiac Surgery patIents cOhort evaluatioN (VISION) study, who were at least 45 yr with at least an overnight hospitalization. Blood was collected preoperatively, and 25-hydroxyvitamin D was measured in stored samples. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular events (death, myocardial injury, nonfatal cardiac arrest, stroke, congestive heart failure) within 30 postoperative days. Secondary outcomes were kidney injury and infectious complications. RESULTS: A total of 3,851 participants were eligible for analysis. Preoperative 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration was 70 ± 30 nmol/l, and 62% of patients were vitamin D deficient. Overall, 26 (0.7%) patients died, 41 (1.1%) had congestive heart failure or nonfatal cardiac arrest, 540 (14%) had myocardial injury, and 15 (0.4%) had strokes. Preoperative vitamin D concentration was not associated with the primary outcome (average relative effect odds ratio [95% CI]: 0.93 [0.85, 1.01] per 10 nmol/l increase in preoperative vitamin D, P = 0.095). However, it was associated with postoperative infection (average relative effect odds ratio [95% CI]: 0.94 [0.90, 0.98] per 10 nmol/l increase in preoperative vitamin D, P adjusted value = 0.005) and kidney function (estimated mean change in postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate [95% CI]: 0.29 [0.11, 0.48] ml min 1.73 m per 10 nmol/l increase in preoperative vitamin D, P adjusted value = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative vitamin D was not associated with a composite of postoperative 30-day cardiac outcomes. However, there was a significant association between vitamin D deficiency and a composite of infectious complications and decreased kidney function. While renal effects were not clinically meaningful, the effect of vitamin D supplementation on infectious complications requires further study.

Hip fracture evaluation with alternatives of total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty (HEALTH): protocol for a multicentre randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: Hip fractures are a leading cause of mortality and disability worldwide, and the number of hip fractures is expected to rise to over 6 million per year by 2050. The optimal approach for the surgical management of displaced femoral neck fractures remains unknown. Current evidence suggests the use of arthroplasty; however, there is lack of evidence regarding whether patients with displaced femoral neck fractures experience better outcomes with total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hemiarthroplasty (HA). The HEALTH trial compares outcomes following THA versus HA in patients 50 years of age or older with displaced femoral neck fractures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: HEALTH is a multicentre, randomised controlled trial where 1434 patients, 50 years of age or older, with displaced femoral neck fractures from international sites are randomised to receive either THA or HA. Exclusion criteria include associated major injuries of the lower extremity, hip infection(s) and a history of frank dementia. The primary outcome is unplanned secondary procedures and the secondary outcomes include functional outcomes, patient quality of life, mortality and hip-related complications-both within 2 years of the initial surgery. We are using minimisation to ensure balance between intervention groups for the following factors: age, prefracture living, prefracture functional status, American Society for Anesthesiologists (ASA) Class and centre number. Data analysts and the HEALTH Steering Committee are blinded to the surgical allocation throughout the trial. Outcome analysis will be performed using a χ(2) test (or Fisher's exact test) and Cox proportional hazards modelling estimate. All results will be presented with 95% CIs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The HEALTH trial has received local and McMaster University Research Ethics Board (REB) approval (REB#: 06-151). RESULTS: Outcomes from the primary manuscript will be disseminated through publications in academic journals and presentations at relevant orthopaedic conferences. We will communicate trial results to all participating sites. Participating sites will communicate results with patients who have indicated an interest in knowing the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The HEALTH trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00556842).

The use of expertise-based randomized controlled trials to assess spinal manipulation and acupuncture for low back pain: a systematic review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To assess current use of expertise-based randomization in trials of acupuncture or spinal manipulation for low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The randomized clinical trial is often referred to as the gold standard for providing evidence to guide therapeutic decisions. Random allocation of participants to intervention and control groups theoretically should balance these groups for both known and unknown prognostic factors; however, when randomizing patients to competing interventions in which the clinician's skill is a central aspect of the intervention, (e.g., surgery, chiropractic, rehabilitation) a differential expertise bias may exist if a majority of clinicians participating have greater expertise in 1 of the 2 interventions under evaluation. Randomizing patients to therapists experienced in the interventions under investigation can overcome this bias. METHODS: We systematically identified relevant randomized controlled trials published up to December 2005. Two independent reviewers extracted data in duplicate using a standardized form. RESULTS: Of 12 eligible trials, none made use of an expertise-based randomized trial design. CONCLUSION: Investigators designing acupuncture or spinal manipulation trials in which 2 or more active therapies are compared should consider expertise-based randomization to increase the validity and feasibility of their efforts.