Incomplete Distal Renal Tubular Acidosis from a Heterozygous Mutation of the V-ATPase B1 Subunit

Congenital distal renal tubular acidosis (dRTA) from mutations of the B1 subunit of the V-ATPase is considered an autosomal recessive disease. We analyzed a dRTA kindred with a truncation-mutation of B1 (p.Phe468fsX487) previously shown to have failure of assembly into the V1 domain of the V-ATPase. All heterozygous carriers in this kindred have normal plasma bicarbonate concentrations, thus evaded the diagnosis of RTA. However, inappropriately high urine pH, hypocitraturia, and hypercalciuria are present either individually or in combination in the heterozygotes at baseline. Two of the heterozygotes studied also have inappropriate urinary acidification with acute ammonium chloride loading and impaired urine-blood pCO2 gradient during bicarbonaturia indicating presence of H+ gradient and flux defects. In normal human renal papillae, wild type B1 is located primarily on the plasma membrane but papilla from one of the heterozygote who had kidney stones had renal tissue secured from surgery showed B1 in both plasma membrane as well as a diffuse intracellular staining. Titrating increasing amounts of the mutant B1 subunit did not exhibit negative dominance over the expression, cellular distribution, or H+-pump activity of the wild type B1 in mammalian HEK293 cells and in V-ATPase-deficient S. cerevisiae. This is the first demonstration of renal acidification defects and nephrolithiasis in heterozygous carriers of mutant B1 subunit; which cannot be attributable to negative dominance. We propose that heterozygosity may lead to mild real acidification defects due to haploinsufficiency. B1 heterozygosity should be considered in patients with calcium nephrolithiasis and urinary abnormalities such as alkalinuria or hypocitraturia.

Comparison of noninferiority margins reported in protocols and publications showed incomplete and inconsistent reporting.

OBJECTIVES To compare noninferiority margins defined in study protocols and trial registry records with margins reported in subsequent publications. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Comparison of protocols of noninferiority trials submitted 2001 to 2005 to ethics committees in Switzerland and The Netherlands with corresponding publications and registry records. We searched MEDLINE via PubMed, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library issue 01/2012), and Google Scholar in September 2013 to identify published reports, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform of the World Health Organization in March 2013 to identify registry records. Two readers recorded the noninferiority margin and other data using a standardized data-abstraction form. RESULTS The margin was identical in study protocol and publication in 43 (80%) of 54 pairs of study protocols and articles. In the remaining pairs, reporting was inconsistent (five pairs, 9%), or the noninferiority margin was either not reported in the publication (five pairs, 9%) or not defined in the study protocol (one pair). The confidence interval or the exact P-value required to judge whether the result was compatible with noninferior, inferior, or superior efficacy was reported in 43 (80%) publications. Complete and consistent reporting of both noninferiority margin and confidence interval (or exact P-value) was present in 39 (72%) protocol-publication pairs. Twenty-nine trials (54%) were registered in trial registries, but only one registry record included the noninferiority margin. CONCLUSION The reporting of noninferiority margins was incomplete and inconsistent with study protocols in a substantial proportion of published trials, and margins were rarely reported in trial registries.