机构:[1]Australasian Kidney Trials Network,University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia[2]Department of Nephrology,Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China大德路总院肾内科大德路总院肾内科广东省中医院[3]Department of Nephrology,The St George Hospital, Sydney, Australia[4]Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice,Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia[5]Menzies School of Health Research,Darwin, Australia[6]Department of Nephrology,Nambour Hospital, Nambour, Australia[7]Department of Renal Medicine,North Shore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand[8]Child & Adolescent Renal Service,Lady Cilento Children’s Hospital, Brisbane, Australia[9]Infection Management Services,Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia[10]Department of Nephrology,Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia[11]Department of Nephrology,Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia
Background: The HONEYPOT trial failed to establish the superiority of exit-site application of Medihoney compared with nasal mupirocin prophylaxis for the prevention of peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. This study aimed to assess the representativeness of the patients in the HONEYPOT trial to the Australian and New Zealand PD population. Methods: This study compared baseline characteristics of the 371 PD patients in the HONEYPOT trial with those of 6,085 PD patients recorded on the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry. Results: Compared with the PD population, the HONEYPOT sample was older (standardized difference [d] = 0.19, p = 0.003), more likely to be treated with automated PD (d = 0.58, p < 0.001), had higher residual renal function (d = 0.26, p < 0.001) and a higher proportion of participants with end-stage kidney disease due to polycystic kidney disease (d = 0.17) and lower proportion due to diabetes (d= -0.17) and glomerulonephritis (d = -0.18) (p < 0.001), and lower proportions of indigenous people (d = -0.17, p < 0.001), current smokers (d = -0.10, p < 0.001), and people with prior histories of hemodialysis (d = -0.16, p < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (d = -0.18, p < 0.001), and coronary artery disease (d = -0.15, p < 0.001). Conclusions: HONEYPOT trial participants tended to be healthier than the Australian and New Zealand PD patient population. Although the differences between the groups were generally modest, it is possible that their cumulative effect may have had some impact on external generalizability, which is not an uncommon occurrence in clinical trials.
基金:
Baxter Healthcare (McGraw Park, IL, USA; Renal Discoveries Extramural Grant Program); Queensland Government (Smart State Health Grant); Gambro (Baulkham Hills, NSW, Australia)
第一作者机构:[1]Australasian Kidney Trials Network,University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia[2]Department of Nephrology,Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China
通讯作者:
通讯机构:[1]Australasian Kidney Trials Network,University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia[11]Department of Nephrology,Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia[*1]Department of Nephrology, Level 2, Arts Building, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Ipswich Road, Woolloongabba, Brisbane, Qld 4102 Australia
推荐引用方式(GB/T 7714):
Zhang Lei,Badve Sunil V.,Pascoe Elaine M.,et al.REPRESENTATIVENESS OF HONEYPOT TRIAL PARTICIPANTS TO AUSTRALASIAN PD PATIENTS[J].PERITONEAL DIALYSIS INTERNATIONAL.2017,37(5):516-522.doi:10.3747/pdi.2016.00065.
APA:
Zhang, Lei,Badve, Sunil V.,Pascoe, Elaine M.,Beller, Elaine,Cass, Alan...&the HONEYPOT Study Collaborative Group.(2017).REPRESENTATIVENESS OF HONEYPOT TRIAL PARTICIPANTS TO AUSTRALASIAN PD PATIENTS.PERITONEAL DIALYSIS INTERNATIONAL,37,(5)
MLA:
Zhang, Lei,et al."REPRESENTATIVENESS OF HONEYPOT TRIAL PARTICIPANTS TO AUSTRALASIAN PD PATIENTS".PERITONEAL DIALYSIS INTERNATIONAL 37..5(2017):516-522