• Keine Ergebnisse gefunden

Supplementary Tables Table S1: Institutional ethics committees that approved the study

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Aktie "Supplementary Tables Table S1: Institutional ethics committees that approved the study"

Copied!
8
0
0

Wird geladen.... (Jetzt Volltext ansehen)

Volltext

(1)

Supplementary Tables

Table S1: Institutional ethics committees that approved the study

S.No Ethics committees Numbers

1 Ethics Committee of The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University 2016 Lun Shen No. (80)

2 Ethics Committee of Beijing Huairou Hospital NA

3 Ethics Committee of Zaozhuang Municipal Hospital ZZSLEC-2017-003-01

4 Ethics Committee of Beijing Anzhen Hospital NA

5 Ethics Committee of The Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University Interim (2017) No. (003) 6 Ethics Committee of The Affiliated Hospital of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine AF/SC-08/02.0

7 Ethics Committee of Weihai Central Hospital IEC-AF/17-1.0

8 Ethics Committee of Fujian Medical University Union Hospital 2017YW030-02

9 Ethics Committee of The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University (2017) Lin Lun Shen No.038

10 Ethics Committee of Jinhua Municipal Central Hospital 2017-ethics approval number 003

11 Ethics Committee of Peking University International Hospital D2017-002

12 Ethics Committee of Quanzhou First Hospital, Fujian Quan Yilun [2017] No. 12

13 Ethics Committee of The First Hospital of Jiaxing (2017) ethics approval number 001

14 Ethics Committee of The Third Hospital of Shijiazhuang (2017) ethics approval number 002

15 Ethics Committee of Fujian Provincial Hospital 2017-004-01

16 Ethics Committee of Handan First Hospital IEC-C-006-V1.0

17 Ethics Committee of Lishui City People’s Hospital Lun Shen drug trial (2017-008-01) number

Table S2: The underlying causes of CKD

Cause of CKD N (%)

Diabetic Nephropathy 168 (19.4%)

(2)

Hypertension and ischemic renal injury 283 (32.6%)

Primary chronic glomerulonephritis 323 (37.2%)

Secondary glomerulonephritis 34 (3.9%)

Renal tubulointerstitial lesions 10 (1.2%)

Cystic kidney disease 19 (2.2%)

Obstructive nephropathy 3 (0.3%)

Others 28 (3.2%)

ANCA associated systematic Vasculitis 1 (0.1%)

HUS 1 (0.1%)

HbeAg positive chronic viral hepatitis B 1 (0.1%)

IgA nephropathy 2 (0.2%)

Renal biopsy was performed to determine the pathological type 1 (0.1%)

Proteinuria 1 (0.1%)

Amyloidosis 1 (0.1%)

Polycystic kidney 1 (0.1%)

Malignant renal arteriolosclerosis 1 (0.1%)

Hyperuricemia 1 (0.1%)

High blood pressure and gout may cause kidney disease 1 (0.1%)

Hypertensive renal impairment 1 (0.1%)

(3)

Capillary proliferative lupus nephritis 1 (0.1%)

Membranous nephropathy 1 (0.1%)

Ischemic renal damage 1 (0.1%)

Nephrotic syndrome 1 (0.1%)

Renal artery stenosis 1 (0.1%)

Unknown 8 (0.9%)

Drugs cause kidney damage 1 (0.1%)

Primary glomerulonephritis and Alport syndrome 1 (0.1%)

Total 868 (100.0%)

N (miss) 3

ANCA, anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody; CKD, chronic kidney disease; HbeAg, hepatitis B e antigen; HUS, hemolytic uremic syndrome; IgA, immunoglobulin A

Table S3: Change in office SBP and DBP from baseline to week 12 in CKD stage subgroups.

CKD Stages Visits N (N miss) SBP (mm Hg; mean [SD]) Change in SBP (mean

[SD]) DBP (mm Hg; mean

[SD]) Change in DBP

(mean [SD])

Stage 1 (N = 129) Baseline 128 (1) 160.4 (14.0) 96.6 (8.8)

Week 4 116 (13) 143.2 (14.3) -17.3 (16.4) 86.0 (10.0) -10.7 (10.1)

(4)

Week 8 106 (23) 140.6 (11.5) -19.9 (16.2) 84.6 (8.9) -12.1 (10.5)

Week 12 127 (2) 136.9 (9.9) -23.6 (15.2) 82.9 (7.1) -13.7 (10.0)

Week 12 sensitivity

analysis 129 (0) 136.8 (9.8) -23.5 (15.1) 82.9 (7.1) -13.6 (10.0)

Stage 2 (N = 133) Baseline 132 (1) 163.3 (17.6) 97.3 (12.4)

Week 4 122 (11) 142.7 (13.8) -20.7 (18.2) 85.9 (9.3) -11.3 (12.4)

Week 8 112 (21) 140.0 (12.1) -22.6 (15.9) 84.1 (8.9) -12.7 (11.6)

Week 12 133 (0) 137.2 (12.5) -26.0 (18.5) 83.1 (8.7) -14.1 (12.7)

Week 12 sensitivity analysis

133 (0) 137.2 (12.5) -26.0 (18.5) 83.1(8.7) -14.1 (12.7)

Stage 3 (N = 198) Baseline 198 (0) 163.1 (15.9) 97.7 (12.5)

Week 4 178 (20) 144.2 (15.1) -17.7 (15.7) 84.9(9.2) -11.4 (11.3)

Week 8 161 (37) 141.8 (13.9) -20.1 (16.0) 83.1 (8.4) -13.4 (12.1)

Week 12 197 (1) 139.0 (13.2) -24.2 (16.7) 82.6 (9.7) -15.0 (13.4)

Week 12 sensitivity analysis

198 (0) 139.0 (13.2) -24.2 (16.6) 82.6 (9.6) -15.1 (13.4)

Stage 4 (N = 154) Baseline 153 (1) 164.3 (15.2) 96.9 (11.4)

Week 4 138 (16) 147.7 (15.4) -16.7 (18.1) 86.1 (10.3) -11.1 (11.7)

Week 8 119 (35) 145.0 (14.8) -20.0 (18.4) 84.3 (10.0) -12.9 (11.8)

Week 12 153 (1) 142.1 (13.5) -22.3 (17.1) 83.2 (9.3) -13.7 (10.7)

Week 12 sensitivity

analysis 154 (0) 142.1 (13.5) -22.2 (17.1) 83.2 (9.3) -13.7 (10.6)

DBP, diastolic blood pressure; EFF, efficacy analysis set; N, number of patients with available data; N (miss), number of patients with missing data; SBP, systolic blood pressure; SD, standard deviation

Table S4: SBP and DBP control rate (EFF)

Visits Achieved BP control goal EFF (N = 622)

(5)

Week4 Yes 184 (29.6%)

No 377 (60.6%)

Missing 61 (9.8%)

Total 622 (100.0%)

Control rate and 95%CI 32.8% (28.9%,36.7%)

Week8 Yes 207 (33.3%)

No 298 (47.9%)

Missing 117 (18.8%)

Total 622 (100.0%)

Control rate and 95%CI 41.0% (36.7%,45.3%)

Week12 Yes 309 (49.7%)

No 309 (49.7%)

Missing 4 (0.6%)

Total 622 (100.0%)

Control rate and 95%CI 50.0% (46.1%,53.9%) Week12 (sensitivity

analyses) Yes 313 (50.3%)

No 309 (49.7%)

(6)

Total 622 (100.0%)

Control rate and 95%CI 50.3% (46.3%,54.3%) DBP, diastolic blood pressure, EFF, efficacy analysis set, SBP, systolic blood pressure

Table S5: Summary of AEs (SAF)

SAF (N=871)

Types Events N (%)

AE 117 72 (8.3%)

ADR 23 23 (2.6%)

AE leading to study discontinuation 20 19 (2.2%)

AE leading to death 0 0 (0.0%)

TEAE 117 72 (8.3%)

Treatment-emergent ADR 23 23 (2.6%)

TEAE leading to drug adjustment 6 6 (0.7%)

TEAE leading to drug interruption 20 19 (2.2%)

SAE 16 15 (1.7%)

Drug related SAE 1 1 (0.1%)

Treatment-emergent SAE 16 15 (1.7%)

Treatment-emergent drug-related SAE 1 1 (0.1%)

Footnote: Denominator of percentage is the No. of SAF patients. AE, adverse events, ADR, adverse drug reactions, SAE, serious adverse events, SAF, safety analysis set, TEAE, treatment-emergent adverse events.

(7)

Table S6: Adverse drug reactions (SAF)

Event Type Events N (%)

Adverse Drug Reactions 23 23 (2.6%)

Nervous system disorders 10 10 (1.1%)

Dizziness 7 7 (0.8%)

Headache 3 3 (0.3%)

General disorders and administration site conditions 5 5 (0.6%)

Generalized edema 5 5 (0.6%)

Metabolism and nutrition disorders 1 1 (0.1%)

Hyperkalemia 1 1 (0.1%)

Investigations 1 1 (0.1%)

Increase in heart rate 1 1 (0.1%)

Injury, poisoning and procedural complications 1 1 (0.1%)

Off-label use 1 1 (0.1%)

Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders 1 1 (0.1%)

Backache 1 1 (0.1%)

Respiratory, thoracic, and mediastinal diseases 1 1 (0.1%)

Cough 1 1 (0.1%)

Gastrointestinal disorders 1 1 (0.1%)

Diarrhea 1 1 (0.1%)

Cardiac disorders 1 1 (0.1%)

Palpitation 1 1 (0.1%)

Vascular disorders 1 1 (0.1%)

Flushing 1 1 (0.1%)

Footnote: Denominator of percentage is the No. of SAF patients. SAF, safety analysis set

(8)

Table S7: Serious adverse events (SAF)

Serious Adverse Events 16 15 (1.7%)

Renal and urinary disorders 6 6 (0.7%)

Chronic kidney disease 5 5 (0.6%)

Nephrotic syndrome 1 1 (0.1%)

Infections and infestations 4 3 (0.3%)

Pulmonary mycosis 1 1 (0.1%)

Pneumonia 1 1 (0.1%)

Appendicitis 1 1 (0.1%)

Pneumonia bacterial 1 1 (0.1%)

Metabolism and nutrition disorders 2 2 (0.2%)

Hyperkalemia 2 2 (0.2%)

Investigations 1 1 (0.1%)

Blood pressure increased 1 1 (0.1%)

Nervous system disorders 1 1 (0.1%)

Cerebral hemorrhage 1 1 (0.1%)

Gastrointestinal disorders 1 1 (0.1%)

Rectal polyp 1 1 (0.1%)

Cardiac disorders 1 1 (0.1%)

Cardiac failure 1 1 (0.1%)

Footnote: Denominator of percentage is the No. of SAF patients. SAF, safety analysis set

Referenzen

ÄHNLICHE DOKUMENTE

Figure S1 – Treatment with 5-AZA does not affect Oli-neu cell viability at a concentration of 1 µM.. Oli-neu cells were treated with different concentrations of 5-AZA for

Beijing Chest Hospital Ethics Committee of Beijing Chest Hospital, Capital Medical University The 8 th Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital Ethics Committee of Chinese

Noteworthy, the high values of mtDNA are a by-product of the separation of the samples based on mtDNA haplotypes, and were only calculated to investigate the relationship

In the United States of America Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are federally mandated ethics committees that evaluate research proposals to ensure the rights of human subjects

Warnock’s plans were endorsed in several letters to the British Medical Journal, with one doctor claiming that a national committee would ‘add reassurance to the public about what

A principle of fairness in the distribution of the burdens entailed by an important public good like herd immunity implies that the state ought to require each individual to

 CT 2: Detailed guidance on the application format and documentation to be submitted in an application for an Ethics Committee opinion on the clinical trial on medicinal products