Factors Associated With Placebo Treatment Response in Functional Dyspepsia Clinical Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Controlling for potential placebo effects is an important aspect of gaining an accurate estimate of how much the therapy alone changes patient symptoms or other end points. When the placebo effect is large, this can lead to only a small fraction of changes seen in the active therapy group being attributed to the therapy itself. This problem has been well studied in some disorders of brain-gut interaction but not in functional dyspepsia where placebo response rates of 40% and higher have been reported. Understanding risk factors for placebo response might lead to changes in trial design that could reduce the magnitude of the problem. This study sought to identify risk factors for the placebo effect in a functional dyspepsia clinical trial with a longer-term aim of suggesting trial design changes that might minimize the problem. METHODS: A secondary analysis of the clinical trial data was undertaken using 2 arms deemed to involve placebo therapy. Potential predictors were drawn from a wide range of patient characteristics including psychological, clinical, and physiological features. RESULTS: Predictors of a stronger placebo effect on the gastrointestinal symptom rating scale included higher functional dyspepsia symptom burden at baseline ( b = -0.101), coexisting irritable bowel syndrome ( b = -0.436), and higher scores on the Nepean Dyspepsia Index eat/drink domain (-0.005). Baseline symptom burden and coexisting irritable bowel syndrome were found to be independent placebo predictors, explaining 13% of the variance in change in gastrointestinal symptom rating scale. Anxiety, childhood sexual abuse, sleep amount, and frequent abdominal pain were also found to be predictors of change in individual symptom scores. DISCUSSION: The findings of this study yield actionable insights into trial methodology that may help to reduce the magnitude of the placebo effect in future functional dyspepsia treatment trials.

Clinical Implementation and Initial Experience of Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin Testing for the Diagnostic and Prognostic Assessment of Acute Kidney Injury Events in Hospitalized Patients.

INTRODUCTION: The use of novel kidney injury biomarkers has been shown to improve diagnostic assessment and prognostic prediction in various populations with acute kidney injury (AKI), but their use in a standard clinical practice have been rarely reported. METHODS: We reported the clinical implementation of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) measurement for routine AKI diagnostic workup of patients receiving nephrology consultation in a tertiary academic centre. Specific focus was made on the diagnostic performance to discriminate functional ("pre-renal") from intra-renal AKI and to predict AKI progression. RESULTS: Forty-five urine NGAL (uNGAL) and 25 plasma NGAL (pNGAL) samples in the first 50 consecutive patients were analysed. KDIGO Stage 1, 2, 3 AKI, and renal replacement therapy occurred in 10%, 40%, 50%, and 24% of cases, respectively. The uNGAL was lower in patients with transient AKI (<48 h) and no sign of urinary tract infections (37 [25-167] ng/mL) than sustained or progressive AKI (298 [74-1,308] ng/mL) (p = 0.016), while pNGAL did not discriminate transient (264 [100-373] ng/mL) from persistent AKI (415 [220-816] ng/mL) (p = 0.137). The median uNGAL level was 63 (35-1,123) ng/mL for functional/pre-renal AKI and 451 (177-1,315) ng/mL for intra-renal AKI (p = 0.043), while the pNGAL was 264 (114-468) and 415 (230-816) ng/mL (p = 0.235), respectively. CONCLUSION: NGAL, as part of the routine workup, is useful for diagnostic and prognostic assessment of new-onset AKI in clinical practice. Interpretation of an increased NGAL level should be clinically evaluated in its clinical context, particularly considering concomitant infection (urinary or systemic). Clinical adoption of emerging AKI biomarkers as diagnostic tests in clinical practice should be further encouraged.