Durham

This study is open to adults with chronic kidney disease at risk of progression. People with and without type 2 diabetes can take part in this study. The study is open to people who take other medicines called angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB). People who already take empagliflozin or any other sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) can also join. The study is also open to people who currently do not take any of these treatments. The purpose of this study is to find out whether a medicine called BI 690517 helps people with chronic kidney disease when taken in combination with a study medicine called empagliflozin. Worsening of kidney function increases the risk for kidney failure, cardiovascular disease, and heart disease. This study has 2 parts. In the first part, participants get empagliflozin or placebo matching BI 690517 for at least 6 weeks. Participants continue taking ACEi or ARB throughout the study if such treatments are indicated. In the second part, participants are divided into 2 groups by chance. One group takes BI 690517 tablets and the other group takes placebo tablets. Placebo tablets look like BI 690517 tablets but do not contain any medicine. Participants take 1 tablet once a day in addition to empagliflozin for the duration of the study. The doctors document when participants experience worsening of their kidney disease, go to hospital due to heart failure, or die of cardiovascular problems during the study. The time to these events is compared between the 2 treatment groups to see whether the treatment works. The study continues until the required number of events have occurred which is about 3 to 4 years. During this time, participants visit the study site about 4 times within the first 6 months. Then they visit the study site every 6 months. At the visits, doctors regularly check participants' health, take blood and urine samples, measure blood pressure and weight, check kidney function, and take note of any unwanted effects.

What is the problem being addressed? Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common lung condition in the United Kingdom, with a prevalence of 4.5% in population ≥40 years and rising4. In addition to daily symptoms such as cough and breathlessness that limit physical activity, people living with COPD are prone to unpredictable deteriorations in their health called 'exacerbations'. Exacerbations are sometimes severe enough to lead to hospital admission and are often driven by infections. A systematic review of patient outcomes in COPD identified exacerbations, especially severe hospitalised exacerbations, as the aspect of COPD that patients found most difficult to live with. Prior to the pandemic there were around 115,000 admissions to hospital with COPD exacerbations per annum6 and admissions are now returning to that level. Exacerbations are more common in the winter with greater circulation of respiratory viruses, and thus the burden of hospitalised exacerbations contributes to winter National Health Service (NHS) bed pressures and cost to the NHS. The annual healthcare cost for people with moderate and severe exacerbation of COPD in England was estimated to be nearly £1 billion in 20227. A particular problem after a hospitalised COPD exacerbation is re-admission to hospital. The National Asthma and COPD Audit Programme (NACAP) has shown that the re-admission rate is 23% at 30 days and 43% at 90 days2. A systematic review conducted by the authors identified comorbidities, previous exacerbations and increased length of stay as risk factors for 30- and 90-day all-cause readmission5. There are many interventions that can reduce the risk of COPD exacerbations but these are incompletely effective8. There is also evidence to suggest that earlier intervention with standard exacerbation treatment of antibiotics and/or corticosteroids (called a 'rescue pack') can hasten recovery, with a lessened chance of hospital admission9. As part of standard NHS care2, patients with COPD should have a 'discharge bundle' implemented, although this is often poorly delivered and has not been definitively shown to impact outcomes (likely because the wrong outcomes were chosen, and the bundle was poorly implemented)10. The provision of rescue packs is not a standard component of discharge bundles but these are sometimes provided according to local service preference3. Additionally, in usual clinical practice, some patients will have been prescribed rescue packs from primary care (GP) or a community respiratory team (CRT) prior to being hospitalised with COPD. Furthermore, patients may or may not have access to rescue packs from the GP or the CRT after hospital discharge. Although rescue packs are part of NICE guidance2, the available evidence suggests they are not effective unless provided in the context of a more comprehensive management/education plan that supports patients in their appropriate use11. In practice this usually does not happen3, with evidence that a patient with COPD will receive variable or often no support; with some patients receiving rescue packs on demand without considering antimicrobial resistance, predictable side-effects from steroid overuse, or reviewing appropriateness. The investigators have pilot data that show receiving a rescue pack on hospital discharge is controversial as the hospital team is not, in general, the team that provides ongoing support to use these. There is thus recognised over- and under-use of rescue packs, associated harm from these medicines and variable provision. Providing a rescue pack, with education on how to use and support for when to use, has not been specifically tested in the high-risk 90-day period for readmission following a hospitalised exacerbation. It is the investigators' hypothesis that rescue packs on discharge in addition to a comprehensive self-supported management plan, consisting of the Asthma+Lung UK written management plan and twice weekly automated phone and or text messaging during this 90 day high risk period, will reduce readmissions by 20% compared to standard care. Why is this research important in terms of improving the health of patients and health and care services? Reducing re-admission through provision of supported rescue pack use would benefit people living with COPD and the NHS. A reduction in readmissions of 20% could save the NHS £86 million per quarter (£344 million per annum). Conversely, demonstrating that rescue packs are not effective when used in this way will address controversy about use, and reduce pressure on antimicrobial resistance and harm from over-use of oral corticosteroids. Integrated care systems are rapidly developing out-of-hospital support for people with exacerbations of COPD including digitally supported virtual wards. The proposed trial will define the role of supported rescue pack provision in the design and implementation of these programmes, enhancing their ability to reduce demands on urgent and acute care. Whether positive or negative, this trial will help to reduce the current variation in service provision by providing a definitive answer to the study question. Furthermore, preventing exacerbations of COPD have been identified as a priority by the James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP)12.

This is a major pragmatic multi-centre prospective parallel group open RCT. It will be conducted in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, funding is being sought in several countries to expand recruitment internationally. The study is in 2 phases: the vanguard and main phase. Therefore the study will run an internal pilot to prove recruitment of the relevant number of participants during the initial 2 years. The over-arching aim is to determine whether early AVR results in better clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness than a strategy of expectant management in asymptomatic patients with severe AS. The primary hypothesis is that early AVR or TAVI in asymptomatic patients with severe AS will result in a reduction in the composite primary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death and hospitalisation for heart failure (HHF) when compared to the conventional approach of expectant management. Potential participants will be identified by a member of the clinical care team following diagnosis with severe AS. Participants will be screened for eligibility using pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria. Eligible participants will be provided with a written version of the participant information sheet detailing the exact nature of the study, what it will involve for the participant and any risks involved with taking part. Participants will be given at least 24 hours to consider the information and decide whether or not to take part. The study will randomise up to 2844 patients with severe asymptomatic AS to either allocated expectant management OR aortic valve replacement. Participants randomised to AVR will be placed on a waiting list with the aim that surgery will be performed within 3 months, dependent on local hospitals' waiting lists. Participants randomised to AVR will undergo routine tests/procedures which may include coronary angiography. If the outcome of the coronary angiography reveals coronary heart disease, the decision to perform CABG or PCI will be made by the responsible cardiac surgeon and cardiologist, in consultation with the patient. All analyses will be undertaken using the principles of intention-to-treat with participants analysed in the group they were randomised regardless of treatment received. EASY-AS is collaborating with the EVoLVeD study (Early Valve Replacement guided by Biomarkers of Left Ventricular Decompensation in Asymptomatic Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis, Clinical Trials.gov NCT03094143). In centres where both EASY-AS and EVoLVeD are running, participants in EASY-AS will be offered the opportunity to take part in EVoLVeD. Funding has been granted by the British Heart Foundation (UK), Medical Research Future Fund (Aus) and Heart Foundation (NZ). The UK sponsor is the University of Leicester. Additional support and resources for the study will be provided by the participating Trusts and their corresponding Clinical Research Networks in the UK. The central co-ordination centre is the University of Leicester Clinical Trials Unit.