The role of 25-hydroxyvitamin D deficiency in promoting insulin resistance and inflammation in patients with chronic kidney disease: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Approximately 50% of patients with stage 3 Chronic Kidney Disease are 25-hydroxyvitamin D insufficient, and this prevalence increases with falling glomerular filtration rate. Vitamin D is now recognised as having pleiotropic roles beyond bone and mineral homeostasis, with the vitamin D receptor and metabolising machinery identified in multiple tissues. Worryingly, recent observational data has highlighted an association between hypovitaminosis D and increased cardiovascular mortality, possibly mediated via vitamin D effects on insulin resistance and inflammation. The main hypothesis of this study is that oral Vitamin D supplementation will ameliorate insulin resistance in patients with Chronic Kidney Disease stage 3 when compared to placebo. Secondary hypotheses will test whether this is associated with decreased inflammation and bone/adipocyte-endocrine dysregulation. METHODS/DESIGN This study is a single-centre, double-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Inclusion criteria include; estimated glomerular filtration rate 30-59 ml/min/1.73 m(2); aged >or=18 on entry to study; and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels <75 nmol/L. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to receive either oral cholecalciferol 2000IU/day or placebo for 6 months. The primary outcome will be an improvement in insulin sensitivity, measured by hyperinsulinaemic euglycaemic clamp. Secondary outcome measures will include serum parathyroid hormone, cytokines (Interleukin-1beta, Interleukin-6, Tumour Necrosis Factor alpha), adiponectin (total and High Molecular Weight), osteocalcin (carboxylated and under-carboxylated), peripheral blood mononuclear cell Nuclear Factor Kappa-B p65 binding activity, brachial artery reactivity, aortic pulse wave velocity and waveform analysis, and indirect calorimetry. All outcome measures will be performed at baseline and end of study. DISCUSSION To date, no randomised controlled trial has been performed in pre-dialysis CKD patients to study the correlation between vitamin D status with supplementation, insulin resistance and markers of adverse cardiovascular risk. We remain hopeful that cholecalciferol may be a safe intervention, with health benefits beyond those related to bone-mineral homeostasis. TRIAL REGISTRATION Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609000246280.

Researching effective approaches to cleaning in hospitals: Protocol of the REACH study, a multi-site stepped-wedge randomised trial

Background The Researching Effective Approaches to Cleaning in Hospitals (REACH) study will generate evidence about the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a novel cleaning initiative that aims to improve the environmental cleanliness of hospitals. The initiative is an environmental cleaning bundle, with five interdependent, evidence-based components (training, technique, product, audit and communication) implemented with environmental services staff to enhance hospital cleaning practices. Methods/design The REACH study will use a stepped-wedge randomised controlled design to test the study intervention, an environmental cleaning bundle, in 11 Australian hospitals. All trial hospitals will receive the intervention and act as their own control, with analysis undertaken of the change within each hospital based on data collected in the control and intervention periods. Each site will be randomised to one of the 11 intervention timings with staggered commencement dates in 2016 and an intervention period between 20 and 50 weeks. All sites complete the trial at the same time in 2017. The inclusion criteria allow for a purposive sample of both public and private hospitals that have higher-risk patient populations for healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). The primary outcome (objective one) is the monthly number of Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemias (SABs), Clostridium difficile infections (CDIs) and vancomycin resistant enterococci (VRE) infections, per 10,000 bed days. Secondary outcomes for objective one include the thoroughness of hospital cleaning assessed using fluorescent marker technology, the bio-burden of frequent touch surfaces post cleaning and changes in staff knowledge and attitudes about environmental cleaning. A cost-effectiveness analysis will determine the second key outcome (objective two): the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from implementation of the cleaning bundle. The study uses the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (iPARIHS) framework to support the tailored implementation of the environmental cleaning bundle in each hospital. Discussion Evidence from the REACH trial will contribute to future policy and practice guidelines about hospital environmental cleaning. It will be used by healthcare leaders and clinicians to inform decision-making and implementation of best-practice infection prevention strategies to reduce HAIs in hospitals. Trial registration Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12615000325​505

Intensive versus conventional glycaemic control for treating diabetic foot ulcers

Background The estimated likelihood of lower limb amputation is 10 to 30 times higher amongst people with diabetes compared to those without diabetes. Of all non-traumatic amputations in people with diabetes, 85% are preceded by a foot ulcer. Foot ulceration associated with diabetes (diabetic foot ulcers) is caused by the interplay of several factors, most notably diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and changes in foot structure. These factors have been linked to chronic hyperglycaemia (high levels of glucose in the blood) and the altered metabolic state of diabetes. Control of hyperglycaemia may be important in the healing of ulcers. Objectives To assess the effects of intensive glycaemic control compared to conventional control on the outcome of foot ulcers in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Search methods In December 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; EBSCO CINAHL; Elsevier SCOPUS; ISI Web of Knowledge Web of Science; BioMed Central and LILACS. We also searched clinical trial databases, pharmaceutical trial databases and current international and national clinical guidelines on diabetes foot management for relevant published, non-published, ongoing and terminated clinical trials. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication or study setting. Selection criteria Published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were considered for inclusion where they investigated the effects of intensive glycaemic control on the outcome of active foot ulcers in people with diabetes. Non randomised and quasi-randomised trials were excluded. In order to be included the trial had to have: 1) attempted to maintain or control blood glucose levels and measured changes in markers of glycaemic control (HbA1c or fasting, random, mean, home capillary or urine glucose), and 2) documented the effect of these interventions on active foot ulcer outcomes. Glycaemic interventions included subcutaneous insulin administration, continuous insulin infusion, oral anti-diabetes agents, lifestyle interventions or a combination of these interventions. The definition of the interventional (intensive) group was that it should have a lower glycaemic target than the comparison (conventional) group. Data collection and analysis All review authors independently evaluated the papers identified by the search strategy against the inclusion criteria. Two review authors then independently reviewed all potential full-text articles and trials registry results for inclusion. Main results We only identified one trial that met the inclusion criteria but this trial did not have any results so we could not perform the planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses in the absence of data. Two ongoing trials were identified which may provide data for analyses in a later version of this review. The completion date of these trials is currently unknown. Authors' conclusions The current review failed to find any completed randomised clinical trials with results. Therefore we are unable to conclude whether intensive glycaemic control when compared to conventional glycaemic control has a positive or detrimental effect on the treatment of foot ulcers in people with diabetes. Previous evidence has however highlighted a reduction in risk of limb amputation (from various causes) in people with type 2 diabetes with intensive glycaemic control. Whether this applies to people with foot ulcers in particular is unknown. The exact role that intensive glycaemic control has in treating foot ulcers in multidisciplinary care (alongside other interventions targeted at treating foot ulcers) requires further investigation.