15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Design and rationale of a multi-center, pragmatic, open-label randomized trial of antimicrobial therapy – the study of clinical efficacy of antimicrobial therapy strategy using pragmatic design in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (CleanUP-IPF) clinical trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Abstract

          Compelling data have linked disease progression in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) with lung dysbiosis and the resulting dysregulated local and systemic immune response. Moreover, prior therapeutic trials have suggested improved outcomes in these patients treated with either sulfamethoxazole/ trimethoprim or doxycycline. These trials have been limited by methodological concerns. This trial addresses the primary hypothesis that long-term treatment with antimicrobial therapy increases the time-to-event endpoint of respiratory hospitalization or all-cause mortality compared to usual care treatment in patients with IPF. We invoke numerous innovative features to achieve this goal, including: 1) utilizing a pragmatic randomized trial design; 2) collecting targeted biological samples to allow future exploration of ‘personalized’ therapy; and 3) developing a strong partnership between the NHLBI, a broad range of investigators, industry, and philanthropic organizations. The trial will randomize approximately 500 individuals in a 1:1 ratio to either antimicrobial therapy or usual care. The site principal investigator will declare their preferred initial antimicrobial treatment strategy (trimethoprim 160 mg/ sulfamethoxazole 800 mg twice a day plus folic acid 5 mg daily or doxycycline 100 mg once daily if body weight is < 50 kg or 100 mg twice daily if ≥50 kg) for the participant prior to randomization. Participants randomized to antimicrobial therapy will receive a voucher to help cover the additional prescription drug costs. Additionally, those participants will have 4–5 scheduled blood draws over the initial 24 months of therapy for safety monitoring. Blood sampling for DNA sequencing and genome wide transcriptomics will be collected before therapy. Blood sampling for transcriptomics and oral and fecal swabs for determination of the microbiome communities will be collected before and after study completion. As a pragmatic study, participants in both treatment arms will have limited in-person visits with the enrolling clinical center. Visits are limited to assessments of lung function and other clinical parameters at time points prior to randomization and at months 12, 24, and 36. All participants will be followed until the study completion for the assessment of clinical endpoints related to hospitalization and mortality events.

          Trial Registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02759120.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Blinding in randomised trials: hiding who got what.

            Blinding embodies a rich history spanning over two centuries. Most researchers worldwide understand blinding terminology, but confusion lurks beyond a general comprehension. Terms such as single blind, double blind, and triple blind mean different things to different people. Moreover, many medical researchers confuse blinding with allocation concealment. Such confusion indicates misunderstandings of both. The term blinding refers to keeping trial participants, investigators (usually health-care providers), or assessors (those collecting outcome data) unaware of the assigned intervention, so that they will not be influenced by that knowledge. Blinding usually reduces differential assessment of outcomes (information bias), but can also improve compliance and retention of trial participants while reducing biased supplemental care or treatment (sometimes called co-intervention). Many investigators and readers naïvely consider a randomised trial as high quality simply because it is double blind, as if double-blinding is the sine qua non of a randomised controlled trial. Although double blinding (blinding investigators, participants, and outcome assessors) indicates a strong design, trials that are not double blinded should not automatically be deemed inferior. Rather than solely relying on terminology like double blinding, researchers should explicitly state who was blinded, and how. We recommend placing greater credence in results when investigators at least blind outcome assessments, except with objective outcomes, such as death, which leave little room for bias. If investigators properly report their blinding efforts, readers can judge them. Unfortunately, many articles do not contain proper reporting. If an article claims blinding without any accompanying clarification, readers should remain sceptical about its effect on bias reduction.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Predicting survival across chronic interstitial lung disease: the ILD-GAP model.

              Risk prediction is challenging in chronic interstitial lung disease (ILD) because of heterogeneity in disease-specific and patient-specific variables. Our objective was to determine whether mortality is accurately predicted in patients with chronic ILD using the GAP model, a clinical prediction model based on sex, age, and lung physiology, that was previously validated in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                kevin.anstrom@duke.edu
                Journal
                Respir Res
                Respir. Res
                Respiratory Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1465-9921
                1465-993X
                12 March 2020
                12 March 2020
                2020
                : 21
                : 68
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.26009.3d, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7961, Duke Clinical Research Institute, , Duke University, ; Durham, North Carolina USA
                [2 ]GRID grid.27755.32, ISNI 0000 0000 9136 933X, Division of Pulmonary Medicine, , University of Virginia, ; Charlottesville, Virginia USA
                [3 ]GRID grid.412590.b, ISNI 0000 0000 9081 2336, Division of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, , University of Michigan Health System, ; Ann Arbor, MI USA
                [4 ]GRID grid.453851.e, Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation, ; Chicago, IL USA
                [5 ]GRID grid.21925.3d, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9000, Graduate School of Public Health, , University of Pittsburgh, ; Pittsburgh, PA USA
                [6 ]GRID grid.8273.e, ISNI 0000 0001 1092 7967, Norwich Medical School, , University of East Anglia, ; Norwich, UK
                [7 ]GRID grid.25879.31, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8972, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, , University of Pennsylvania, ; Philadelphia, PA USA
                [8 ]GRID grid.55325.34, ISNI 0000 0004 0389 8485, Department of Respiratory Medicine, , Oslo University Hospital – Rikshospitalet, ; Oslo, Norway
                [9 ]GRID grid.279885.9, ISNI 0000 0001 2293 4638, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, ; Bethesda, MD USA
                [10 ]GRID grid.27860.3b, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9684, UC Davis, Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, ; Davis, California USA
                [11 ]GRID grid.5386.8, ISNI 000000041936877X, Division of Pulmonary Medicine, Weill-Cornell Medical Center, , Cornell University, ; New York, NY USA
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6452-2172
                Article
                1326
                10.1186/s12931-020-1326-1
                7069004
                32164673
                df24a693-0269-46fb-b8f1-61df5f6a72d6
                © The Author(s). 2020

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 23 August 2019
                : 19 February 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000050, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute;
                Award ID: 5U01-HL128964
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Study Protocol
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Respiratory medicine
                idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis,pragmatic clinical trial,doxycycline,co-trimoxazole

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content96

                Cited by10

                Most referenced authors677