Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • Kidney Week Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • ASN Publications
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • ASN Publications
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • Kidney Week Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow CJASN on Twitter
  • CJASN RSS
  • Community Forum
Special Features
You have accessRestricted Access

Design of Clinical Trials in Acute Kidney Injury: Report from an NIDDK Workshop on Trial Methodology

Paul M. Palevsky, Bruce A. Molitoris, Mark D. Okusa, Adeera Levin, Sushrut S. Waikar, Ron Wald, Glenn M. Chertow, Patrick T. Murray, Chirag R. Parikh, Andrew D. Shaw, Alan S. Go, Sarah G. Faubel, John A. Kellum, Vernon M. Chinchilli, Kathleen D. Liu, Alfred K. Cheung, Steven D. Weisbord, Lakhmir S. Chawla, James S. Kaufman, Prasad Devarajan, Robert M. Toto, Chi-yuan Hsu, Tom Greene, Ravindra L. Mehta, John B. Stokes, Aliza M. Thompson, B. Taylor Thompson, Christof S. Westenfelder, James A. Tumlin, David G. Warnock, Sudhir V. Shah, Yining Xie, Emily G. Duggan, Paul L. Kimmel and Robert A. Star
CJASN May 2012, 7 (5) 844-850; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.12791211
Paul M. Palevsky
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bruce A. Molitoris
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark D. Okusa
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Adeera Levin
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sushrut S. Waikar
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ron Wald
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Glenn M. Chertow
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Patrick T. Murray
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chirag R. Parikh
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew D. Shaw
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alan S. Go
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarah G. Faubel
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John A. Kellum
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Vernon M. Chinchilli
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kathleen D. Liu
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alfred K. Cheung
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Steven D. Weisbord
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lakhmir S. Chawla
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James S. Kaufman
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Prasad Devarajan
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert M. Toto
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chi-yuan Hsu
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tom Greene
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ravindra L. Mehta
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John B. Stokes
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aliza M. Thompson
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
B. Taylor Thompson
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christof S. Westenfelder
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James A. Tumlin
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David G. Warnock
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sudhir V. Shah
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yining Xie
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Emily G. Duggan
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul L. Kimmel
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert A. Star
Due to the number of contributing authors, the affiliations are provided in the .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading

Summary

Acute kidney injury (AKI) remains a complex clinical problem associated with significant short-term morbidity and mortality and lacking effective pharmacologic interventions. Patients with AKI experience longer-term risks for progressive chronic ESRD, which diminish patients’ health-related quality of life and create a larger burden on the healthcare system. Although experimental models have yielded numerous promising agents, translation into clinical practice has been unsuccessful, possibly because of issues in clinical trial design, such as delayed drug administration, masking of therapeutic benefit by adverse events, and inadequate sample size. To address issues of clinical trial design, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases sponsored a workshop titled “Clinical Trials in Acute Kidney Injury: Current Opportunities and Barriers” in December 2010. Workshop participants included representatives from academia, industry, and government agencies whose areas of expertise spanned basic science, clinical nephrology, critical care medicine, biostatistics, pharmacology, and drug development. This document summarizes the discussions of collaborative workgroups that addressed issues related to patient selection, study endpoints, the role of novel biomarkers, sample size and power calculations, and adverse events and pilot/feasibility studies in prevention and treatment of AKI. Companion articles outline the discussions of workgroups for model trials related to prevention or treatment of established AKI in different clinical settings, such as in patients with sepsis.

Patient Selection in AKI—Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

Moderators: Dr. Adeera Levin and Dr. Sushrut S. Waikar

The appropriate enrollment criteria for clinical trials of a drug or device targeting prevention or treatment of acute kidney injury (AKI) depend on multiple factors, including phase of drug or device development, intended population, mechanism of action and toxicity potential of the intervention, and logistic considerations regarding recruitment and expected event rates.

To enrich event rates, studies of AKI prevention or treatment must identify and recruit high-risk individuals on the basis of demographic data, comorbidity assessment, and clinical measures. Key considerations are summarized in Table 1. Commonly identified variables in risk scores include baseline CKD, diabetes mellitus, age, congestive heart failure, and liver disease. Although there is a rationale for restricting studies to patients in the highest risk strata, that impulse must be balanced by the possibility of decreased therapeutic effect because those in the highest risk strata may also be biologic nonresponders. Inclusion of procedural variables in assessment of AKI risk, such as duration of cardiopulmonary bypass during cardiac surgery or the volume or type of iodinated contrast agent administration, can pose logistic issues because such data will not be available when patients are recruited before the procedure.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Considerations for enrollment criteria

Pre-existing CKD is the most important risk factor for subsequent development of AKI (1). Underlying CKD potentially alters the natural history of AKI, its pathophysiologic mechanisms and drug targets, and the biologic response to interventions. Although the associations of elevated serum creatinine concentration (SCr) and reduced estimated GFR (eGFR) with AKI have been best characterized, proteinuria (with or without albuminuria) is also an important risk factor for development of AKI (2,3). Although inclusion of individuals with CKD may increase the rates of AKI in intervention or prevention trials, it may also diminish response rates. The inclusion of patients with moderate to advanced CKD may be counterproductive because of the potential for differing disease mechanisms or a decreased biologic response as well as diminished generalizability to patients with normal or near-normal baseline kidney function. Recruitment of patients with an eGFR of 15 to 45 ml/min per 1.73 m2 or an eGFR of 46 to 60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 in the presence of another risk factor for AKI might provide a reasonable balance between risk and response.

SCr is limited in its ability to identify early AKI (4). Although numerous novel biomarkers have been proposed for early identification of intrinsic AKI, to date no biomarker has been shown to possess sufficient predictive ability to be used as a primary enrollment criterion and should not supplant SCr for enrollment into trials exploring the effects of agents on established AKI. However, the use of biomarkers for risk stratification in AKI trials warrants further study because reproducible and qualified biomarkers may enhance trial design.

The implications of specific inclusion and exclusion criteria on feasibility of recruitment and on potential generalizability of study findings should also be assessed. Realistic estimates of potentially eligible populations and likely enrollment rates should be assessed during study planning using electronic health records and laboratory and administrative databases. The clinical setting (outpatient versus inpatient versus intensive care unit) and concomitant severity of comorbid illnesses should also be considered.

Tenable Endpoints for AKI Trials

Moderators: Dr. Ron Wald and Dr. Glenn M. Chertow

Study endpoints must provide reliable signals for the efficacy of the intervention being tested. At the same time, endpoints must be measured accurately and reliably and be meaningful to patients. In the context of trials involving AKI, the choice of endpoints will differ depending on whether the intervention targets prevention or treatment of established AKI. In patients with established AKI, endpoint selection will depend on the timing relative to the course of disease (e.g., following an abnormal test result for a putative kidney injury biomarker versus “advanced” AKI that necessitates dialysis). Finally, although surrogate markers of efficacy could be acceptable in phase 2 studies, phase 3 trials must explore outcomes with clear clinical relevance—assessing whether an intervention changes how long or how well a person lives or feels.

Different endpoints must be considered for the following scenarios: (1) a phase 2 trial testing a novel intervention to prevent AKI after a predictable insult (e.g., cardiopulmonary bypass or abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in highly susceptible patients), (2) a phase 2 trial testing an intervention to improve outcomes in established AKI, and (3) a phase 3 trial testing an intervention to improve outcomes in established AKI. For example, for a phase 2 trial testing a novel intervention to prevent AKI after a predictable insult, it would be appropriate to use the Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) definition of AKI (a rise in SCr of 50% or ≥0.3 mg/dl), using the preprocedure SCr as the baseline (5). To enhance the specificity and clinical significance of this endpoint, it might be reasonable to require that the elevation in SCr be sustained for 48 hours, with serial determinations of SCr every 12 hours. Although novel biomarkers have been proposed for diagnosis of AKI, such biomarkers require more extensive replication and qualification before they can be used as study endpoints.

For interventions directed at patients with established AKI, endpoints would depend on the timing of implementation of the intervention. For an early intervention (e.g., after a small increase in SCr or positive result for a putative biomarker), a composite endpoint of death, provision of dialysis (or reaching prespecified criteria at which dialysis would typically be instituted), or a sustained loss of kidney function at a discrete time point (e.g., 28 or 60 days) would be meaningful. An alternative approach would be the use of a weighted composite endpoint incorporating death, provision of dialysis, and sustained loss of kidney function (i.e., change in SCr from baseline to day 28 or 60) in descending order of importance or rank (6). In trials testing interventions later in the course of AKI (e.g., AKIN stage 3 or after dialysis initiation), a composite endpoint of death and kidney “nonrecovery” (i.e., dialysis dependence at 28 or 60 days or longer) might be appropriate.

Phase 3 clinical trials testing an early intervention in established AKI must emphasize outcomes that have unequivocal relevance to patients. A composite endpoint of death, provision of dialysis, and sustained loss of kidney function could be supplemented by several secondary outcomes examining longer-term consequences of impaired kidney function, including survival, development and progression of CKD, adjudicated cardiovascular events, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and neurocognitive function. Although time-to-event analyses would not be appropriate when evaluating short-term outcomes, they may be useful in longer-term analyses.

Biomarkers/Surrogate Markers

Moderators: Dr. Patrick T. Murray and Dr. Chirag R. Parikh

A biomarker is defined as “a characteristic that is objectively measured and evaluated as an indicator of normal biological processes, pathogenic processes, or pharmacologic responses to a therapeutic intervention” (7). Biomarkers can serve multiple roles in clinical trials: quantification of risk for disease occurrence or progression (prognostic biomarker), assessment of likelihood of response to treatment (predictive biomarker), assessment of whether a biologic response has occurred (pharmacodynamic biomarker), or assessment of an endpoint (surrogate biomarker).

What Are the Proper Biomarkers to Be Used in Interventional Studies in Patients with AKI?

Demographic and clinical risk factors for the development of contrast agent–induced AKI and cardiac surgery–induced AKI are well defined. There is, however, less precision in characterizing milder episodes of AKI compared with ascertainment of the need for acute renal replacement therapy. In both settings, impaired kidney function at baseline is the dominant risk factor. Although identification of other biomarkers may refine preprocedural risk prediction, the main limitation to the conduct of prevention trials in these settings will remain the need to recruit very large numbers of patients to provide the adequate number of outcomes (events) required to achieve adequate study power.

Currently, changes in SCr remain the most useful biomarker for case identification and enrollment in interventional trials (5,8,9). Although decreased urine output is an alternate functional biomarker, there is less evidence to establish the appropriateness of the urine output components of the Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss of function, and End-stage Renal Disease (RIFLE) and AKIN staging systems as trial entry criteria. Whichever functional criterion is used for AKI case definition, appropriate enrollment might be further improved by the use of urine microscopy and indices of tubular function, such as fractional excretion of sodium (FENa) or urea combined with biomarkers of renal tubular damage (9,10) to differentiate patients with and without intrinsic kidney injury. Although this approach is conceptually attractive, data on use of novel AKI biomarkers for early AKI case identification in clinical trials are inadequate. In the only published trial to have been guided by urinary biomarker elevation, the biomarkers used were not sufficiently predictive to identify the desired study population (11). Real-time, point-of-care–measured GFR represents another tool that could improve case identification and staging or stratification at clinical trial enrollment, as well as serving as a trial endpoint, but such technology is not currently available.

Staging of AKI, using the RIFLE or AKIN systems, to assess the severity of injury may help demonstrate proof of concept in phase 2 studies of interventions to prevent or mitigate the severity of AKI (5,8,12,13). Novel biomarkers, if suitably robust in their discriminatory ability, may further enrich such assessments (14,15). Accordingly, decisions to proceed with development of AKI therapies could be guided by a combination of biochemical, physiologic (measures of GFR, tubular function, and urine output), and pathologic structural (tubular AKI damage biomarkers) markers of kidney damage. The combined use of case adjudication and biomarkers could be used to target specific AKI “phenotypes.” For example, prerenal azotemia cases could be characterized by low FENa, absence of kidney damage markers, and improvement in kidney function with volume expansion or restoration of renal perfusion. Such cases might be appropriate for early hemodynamic interventions or renal vasodilators. In contrast, cases of intrinsic kidney damage (e.g., acute tubular necrosis) would have a high FENa and positivity for damage markers and be less responsive or unresponsive to volume expansion.

Are There Valid Surrogate Markers to Be Used in Studies of AKI Therapies for Determining Severity and Prognosis?

A wealth of information documents the independent association of AKI defined by SCr increments and adverse patient outcomes, including death (12–15). However, in the absence of trials demonstrating that prevention or treatment of AKI mitigates these outcomes, it has not been possible to definitively validate small increments in SCr or other biomarkers as surrogate endpoints for AKI clinical trials. In the past, successful improvement of an endpoint such as a 25% relative or 0.5 mg/dl absolute increment in SCr within 48 hours of radiocontrast exposure may have been sufficient to change clinical practice if an existing agent was associated with minimal risk (e.g., N-acetylcysteine or sodium bicarbonate) and definitively shown to be beneficial; however, such endpoints are not currently acceptable for regulatory approval of a new drug. Nonetheless, such endpoints may be acceptable for proof-of-concept studies, particularly when supplemented with supportive and mechanistic information derived from novel biomarkers. Biomarkers of AKI severity might also be included as components of clinical composite endpoints or as secondary or tertiary endpoints for later stage (phase 2b and 3) clinical trials of AKI therapies, in addition to the currently accepted endpoints of death and need for dialysis.

Patients with CKD have the highest risk for developing AKI. Therefore, it is important that the cutoff values and test performance of AKI biomarkers are appropriate for patients with underlying CKD. The characteristics of biomarkers used for detection of kidney injury need to be fit for purpose. The required cutoffs and desired test performances may differ among early-phase drug development in healthy persons, proof-of-concept studies in patients with comorbid conditions, and “definitive” (event-driven) AKI trials.

Power and Sample Size Issues

Moderators: Dr. Andrew D. Shaw and Dr. Alan S. Go

How Should Power Analyses for Interventional Studies of AKI Therapies versus AKI Prevention Strategies Be Informed?

The statistical methods for calculating sample sizes given minimally acceptable power are well described and are driven by several factors, including the ratio of treatment group size, estimated effect size of the prevention or treatment strategy compared with the control approach, rate of the outcome of interest in the control group and its constancy over time, drop-out (and, where applicable, drop-in) rates in each group, and diagnostic clarity (i.e., error in the diagnosis of AKI itself) (16). The current challenge for the field of AKI prevention and treatment is the dearth of robust information in several of these areas.

What Are the Critical Data Needed to Inform Power/Sample Size Calculations for AKI Prevention or Treatment Trials Using Biomarker/Surrogate Markers? “Hard” Clinical Outcomes? Patient-Centered Outcomes? What Are the Effect Sizes That Are Likely to Have Clinical and Public Health Relevance but Also Allow for Feasible Recruitment?

The event rate and biologically plausible effect sizes in both prevention and treatment trials depend on the clinical endpoints chosen. For example, event rates based on small changes in SCr (e.g., ≥0.3 mg/dl or ≥50% increase in SCr) will be substantially higher than rates of severe AKI necessitating dialysis or 28-day mortality. Similarly, the plausible effect of any intervention will vary with the type of endpoint, and generally with larger effect sizes associated with surrogate compared with hard endpoints. Thus, the use of biomarkers or surrogate markers might allow for study designs that are shorter or require substantially fewer participants. These designs will be more appropriate for phase 2 trials, while more definitive phase 3 trials should be powered on “hard,” clinically meaningful endpoints.

For both AKI prevention and treatment trials, patient centered-outcomes (17) such as functional status and HRQOL are also important but should be considered secondary to objective events, such as death, substantial and sustained loss of kidney function, or other complications (e.g., adverse cardiovascular events), in sample size and power calculations. Given that functional status and HRQOL are typically measured using continuous scales, a prevention or treatment trial that is adequately powered to detect differences in event rates will probably be more than adequately powered for these secondary outcomes.

Determining a plausible effect size in prevention or treatment studies is difficult given the limited data available. Previous trials have generally used overly optimistic treatment effect assumptions, causing these studies to be grossly underpowered. Data related to hard clinical endpoints collected during phase 2 trials evaluating surrogate outcomes will help inform more accurate estimates of potential effect sizes. In the absence of better data, it is probably safest to adopt a conservative approach, remembering the “winner’s curse” effect (18) in which follow-up studies almost always have smaller effects than the initial positive study.

What Are the Optimal Data Sources That Could Be Used to Inform These Analyses for Different Target Populations (e.g., After Elective Surgery, Administration of Radiocontrast Agents, Sepsis, Trauma/Intensive Care Unit)?

Although new national and international registries of patients who are at risk for or experience AKI would be ideal to construct, the cost and time needed are probably prohibitive for providing short-term insights needed for current trial planning. Multiple data sources could be leveraged to inform clinical trial planning for selected AKI prevention and treatment populations (Table 2) (19–34). Depending on the data source, insights into the likely proportion of eligible patients as well as preliminary outcome rates at different follow-up times would be available to assist in sample size and power calculations. Selected information about the range of event rates for presumed control groups may be available from pooled analyses of existing randomized trials involving target populations.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Data sources for estimation of acute kidney injury event rates

What Are the Implications of Different Clinical Trial Designs and Follow-up Timeframes for Power and Sample Size for AKI Prevention versus Interventional Trial Approaches?

The use of a traditional randomized trial design is appropriate for both prevention and treatment studies. Of note, however, follow-up for both prevention and treatment trials should have a time horizon that will allow assessment of sustained losses in kidney function along with other clinical events. This would require assessment of outcomes during the index hospitalization as well as at 60–90 days and later (e.g., 12 months or longer) to understand whether improved prevention and treatment strategies have long-term clinical benefits. In addition, adaptive study designs should be considered because they provide for adjustment in sample size based on prespecified interim assessments of endpoint rates (35). Such a design would facilitate more timely identification of strategies that have a higher likelihood of success, as well as allow early termination of approaches with low probability of success.

What Are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Incorporating Stratified Randomization Variables for Specific Patient Subgroups of Interest?

Identifying subsets of patients who are at higher risk for adverse events is a key step because they may be likely to benefit from a prevention or treatment strategy. However, enrolling such patients does not necessarily guarantee a higher rate of preventable adverse events, just a higher overall outcome rate, because higher-risk patients may also exhibit diminished response to interventions. The relative effect on individual components of a composite endpoint must also be considered. For example, a preventive strategy may decrease the risk for AKI but have no other effects on the underlying rate of progression or other unrelated causes of death.

For prevention trials, targeted subgroups may include those with impaired kidney function or overt proteinuria, as well as patients with impaired kidney function admitted with decompensated heart failure. For treatment trials, there is a need to achieve standards regarding how to define AKI using existing and newer urine and serum biomarkers along with further epidemiologic studies that identify AKI subsets most likely to experience clinical outcomes of interest across various target populations.

How Should Stopping Guidelines Be Used in Different AKI Prevention and Interventional Trials? How Does This Influence Power and Sample Size?

Controversy still exists regarding whether Bayesian versus frequentist statistical methods are optimal for planning and analyzing clinical trials. This controversy has important implications for clinical trial design and sample size estimates, especially if adaptive trial designs are implemented for a definitive outcome trial. Clinical trials should be planned to err on the side of longer follow-up (i.e., more conservative stopping rules) given experience from other disciplines about the disadvantages associated with premature stopping of studies due to apparent greater-than-expected benefit early in a trial (36).

Considerations regarding Adverse Events in Pilot and Feasibility Studies in AKI

Moderators: Dr. Sarah G. Faubel and Dr. John A. Kellum

Adverse events in clinical trials are context specific and generally fall into three categories: medication- or intervention-specific, patient-specific, and disease-specific.

Medication- or intervention-specific adverse events are due to the drug (or device) itself. The risk profile of an intervention may range from very low, with rare adverse events, to high, with frequent expected adverse events.

Patient-specific adverse events are related to the underlying diagnoses in the patient population being studied. It is important to understand the comorbid conditions of the study population in order to attribute adverse events to the intervention as opposed to expected adverse events related to the underlying health of study participants.

Disease-specific adverse events are related to the natural history of the specific disease being studied. The mortality attributable to the disease in the presence of AKI must also be considered. For example, patients admitted to the hospital with community-acquired pneumonia have a 90-day mortality rate of 5% that increases to 10% in the setting of AKI (37). Similarly, hospital mortality after routine cardiothoracic surgery is generally low, at less than 2%, but increases to 11% in the setting of AKI (38). When studies in patients with AKI are being planned, it is critical to accurately assess the natural history of the diseases in the population with AKI and to integrate this knowledge with potential side effects of the drug or intervention to be studied.

A clear understanding of patient- and disease-specific outcomes in the context of treatment and medication outcomes will facilitate improved clinical trial design as well as interpretation of adverse effects that may occur during the trial. Knowledge of expected outcomes is particularly important in pilot studies with small sample size, where it cannot be assumed that the control group will be of sufficient size to allow an accurate estimate of event rates.

As with all interventions, those developed for prevention or treatment of AKI carry risk, with risk-to-benefit ratios varying across trials of prevention and treatment. Although risk of a particular intervention may be relatively constant, its potential benefit may vary as a function of disease severity. Patients without disease can benefit only if a treatment prevents disease. In general, acceptance of risk will increase as expectation of benefit increases, and the tolerance of risk will generally increase with severity of AKI.

Prevention Trials.

The most common settings in which prevention of AKI are studied are exposure to radiocontrast agents and cardiothoracic surgery. In both these settings the incidence rate of AKI in the general population is low. For example, AKI necessitating dialysis occurs in approximately 1% of patients after cardiac surgery (39). Thus, AKI prevention trials must accurately assess the side effect profile of medications and adverse outcomes of interventions because only a low threshold for adverse effects would be tolerated as a result of the low risk for adverse outcomes in general. This is another reason that selecting a population at increased risk is important.

Treatment Trials.

Tolerance of risk for interventions and medications once AKI has developed is higher than for prevention trials. Mortality risk increases with AKI, especially in the setting of critical illness. Thus, the potential benefit of effectively managing AKI may outweigh the risks associated with certain medications and interventions. Assessment of severity of AKI is important for assessing risk-to-benefit ratios, given the increased risk for disease-specific adverse events with greater severity of AKI.

Interventions may also have the greatest benefit when administered early, at a stage at which AKI has not yet manifested or in patients whose disease severity is still low. Risk stratification and “fit for purpose” qualification of early biomarkers for detection of AKI are needed. The utility of current staging systems (e.g., AKIN) that rely on SCr may be limited, especially when early intervention is desired, because SCr is a lagging indicator. Therefore, stratification strategies and emerging biomarkers with sufficient sensitivity and specificity need to be developed.

When trials are designed for prevention or treatment, it is important to understand the mortality risk attributable to AKI in particular settings. Once the effect of AKI on mortality is estimated, the risk and benefit of a particular intervention may then be assessed in the appropriate context.

Pilot and Feasibility Studies.

Inclusion criteria for pilot and feasibility studies for treatment of AKI should focus on distinct populations. A homogenous population with relatively few underlying comorbid conditions and a well defined course of AKI will facilitate adequate assessment of potential beneficial and adverse effects of a particular medication or intervention. Thus, patients with a clearly identified cause of AKI would be more suitable for pilot and feasibility studies than patients with multifactorial AKI.

Intervention and Definitive Studies.

In contrast to pilot and feasibility studies, inclusion criteria for intervention and definitive studies of treatment of AKI should be as broad as possible. For example, AKI in critically ill patients is generally multifactorial. Definitive trials focusing on a relatively “pure” cause of AKI would therefore have limited generalizability. Patients with certain conditions, such as urinary tract obstruction, acute interstitial nephritis, GN, and vascular conditions should be excluded because specific therapies for these disorders already exist and these conditions are sufficiently well defined to permit specific treatments. Similarly, patients with various conditions influencing renal perfusion (hepatorenal and cardiorenal syndromes) might be excluded from some trials. However, these conditions may also cause parenchymal injury and may also coexist with other conditions directly affecting the kidney.

Justification for broad inclusion of patients in definitive trials of AKI is supported by analogy to acute lung injury (40). Acute lung injury is defined by specific quantifiable criteria that do not distinguish among the over 60 causes associated with its diagnosis (40). Use of a uniform definition of acute lung injury in clinical trials has helped establish remarkable reductions in mortality over the past decade, largely associated with low tidal volume mechanical ventilation and conservative fluid management (41). By analogy, applying an intervention using broad inclusion criteria for clinical trials of AKI might result in similar advances in the overall care of patients with AKI.

Disclosures

None.

Acknowledgment

The views expressed in this report should not be taken to represent the views of the US Food and Drug Administration.

Footnotes

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.cjasn.org.

  • This article contains supplemental material online at http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.2215/CJN.12791211/-/DCSupplemental.

  • Copyright © 2012 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    1. Waikar SS,
    2. Liu KD,
    3. Chertow GM
    : Diagnosis, epidemiology and outcomes of acute kidney injury. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 3: 844–861, 2008pmid:18337550
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. James MT,
    2. Hemmelgarn BR,
    3. Wiebe N,
    4. Pannu N,
    5. Manns BJ,
    6. Klarenbach SW,
    7. Tonelli M,
    8. Alberta Kidney Disease Network
    : Glomerular filtration rate, proteinuria, and the incidence and consequences of acute kidney injury: A cohort study. Lancet 376: 2096–2103, 2010pmid:21094997
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Matsushita K,
    2. van der Velde M,
    3. Astor BC,
    4. Woodward M,
    5. Levey AS,
    6. de Jong PE,
    7. Coresh J,
    8. Gansevoort RT,
    9. Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis Consortium
    : Association of estimated glomerular filtration rate and albuminuria with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in general population cohorts: A collaborative meta-analysis. Lancet 375: 2073–2081, 2010pmid:20483451
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Waikar SS,
    2. Bonventre JV
    : Creatinine kinetics and the definition of acute kidney injury. J Am Soc Nephrol 20: 672–679, 2009pmid:19244578
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Mehta RL,
    2. Kellum JA,
    3. Shah SV,
    4. Molitoris BA,
    5. Ronco C,
    6. Warnock DG,
    7. Levin A,
    8. Acute Kidney Injury Network
    : Acute Kidney Injury Network: Report of an initiative to improve outcomes in acute kidney injury. Crit Care 11: R31, 2007pmid:17331245
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Chertow GM,
    2. Levin NW,
    3. Beck GJ,
    4. Depner TA,
    5. Eggers PW,
    6. Gassman JJ,
    7. Gorodetskaya I,
    8. Greene T,
    9. James S,
    10. Larive B,
    11. Lindsay RM,
    12. Mehta RL,
    13. Miller B,
    14. Ornt DB,
    15. Rajagopalan S,
    16. Rastogi A,
    17. Rocco MV,
    18. Schiller B,
    19. Sergeyeva O,
    20. Schulman G,
    21. Ting GO,
    22. Unruh ML,
    23. Star RA,
    24. Kliger AS,
    25. FHN Trial Group
    : In-center hemodialysis six times per week versus three times per week. N Engl J Med 363: 2287–2300, 2010pmid:21091062
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Biomarkers Definitions Working Group.
    : Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: Preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther 69: 89–95, 2001pmid:11240971
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Bellomo R,
    2. Ronco C,
    3. Kellum JA,
    4. Mehta RL,
    5. Palevsky P,
    6. Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative workgroup
    : Acute renal failure—definition, outcome measures, animal models, fluid therapy and information technology needs: the Second International Consensus Conference of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) Group. Crit Care 8: R204–R212, 2004pmid:15312219
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Murray PT,
    2. Devarajan P,
    3. Levey AS,
    4. Eckardt KU,
    5. Bonventre JV,
    6. Lombardi R,
    7. Herget-Rosenthal S,
    8. Levin A
    : A framework and key research questions in AKI diagnosis and staging in different environments. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 3: 864–868, 2008pmid:18287251
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Nickolas TL,
    2. O’Rourke MJ,
    3. Yang J,
    4. Sise ME,
    5. Canetta PA,
    6. Barasch N,
    7. Buchen C,
    8. Khan F,
    9. Mori K,
    10. Giglio J,
    11. Devarajan P,
    12. Barasch J
    : Sensitivity and specificity of a single emergency department measurement of urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin for diagnosing acute kidney injury. Ann Intern Med 148: 810–819, 2008pmid:18519927
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Endre ZH,
    2. Walker RJ,
    3. Pickering JW,
    4. Shaw GM,
    5. Frampton CM,
    6. Henderson SJ,
    7. Hutchison R,
    8. Mehrtens JE,
    9. Robinson JM,
    10. Schollum JB,
    11. Westhuyzen J,
    12. Celi LA,
    13. McGinley RJ,
    14. Campbell IJ,
    15. George PM
    : Early intervention with erythropoietin does not affect the outcome of acute kidney injury (the EARLYARF trial). Kidney Int 77: 1020–1030, 2010pmid:20164823
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Joannidis M,
    2. Metnitz B,
    3. Bauer P,
    4. Schusterschitz N,
    5. Moreno R,
    6. Druml W,
    7. Metnitz PG
    : Acute kidney injury in critically ill patients classified by AKIN versus RIFLE using the SAPS 3 database. Intensive Care Med 35: 1692–1702, 2009pmid:19547955
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Ricci Z,
    2. Cruz D,
    3. Ronco C
    : The RIFLE criteria and mortality in acute kidney injury: A systematic review. Kidney Int 73: 538–546, 2008pmid:18160961
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Haase M,
    2. Haase-Fielitz A,
    3. Bellomo R,
    4. Devarajan P,
    5. Story D,
    6. Matalanis G,
    7. Reade MC,
    8. Bagshaw SM,
    9. Seevanayagam N,
    10. Seevanayagam S,
    11. Doolan L,
    12. Buxton B,
    13. Dragun D
    : Sodium bicarbonate to prevent increases in serum creatinine after cardiac surgery: A pilot double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med 37: 39–47, 2009pmid:19112278
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Haase M,
    2. Bellomo R,
    3. Devarajan P,
    4. Schlattmann P,
    5. Haase-Fielitz A,
    6. NGAL Meta-analysis Investigator Group
    : Accuracy of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) in diagnosis and prognosis in acute kidney injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Kidney Dis 54: 1012–1024, 2009pmid:19850388
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Kelly PJ,
    2. Webster AC,
    3. Craig JC
    : How many patients do we need for a clinical trial? Demystifying sample size calculations. Nephrology (Carlton) 15: 725–731, 2010pmid:21175958
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Johansen KL,
    2. Smith MW,
    3. Unruh ML,
    4. Siroka AM,
    5. O’Connor TZ,
    6. Palevsky PM,
    7. VA/NIH Acute Renal Failure Trial Network
    : Predictors of health utility among 60-day survivors of acute kidney injury in the Veterans Affairs/National Institutes of Health Acute Renal Failure Trial Network Study. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 5: 1366–1372, 2010pmid:20507953
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Young NS,
    2. Ioannidis JP,
    3. Al-Ubaydli O
    : Why current publication practices may distort science. PLoS Med 5: e201, 2008pmid:18844432
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Jacobs JP,
    2. Edwards FH,
    3. Shahian DM,
    4. Haan CK,
    5. Puskas JD,
    6. Morales DL,
    7. Gammie JS,
    8. Sanchez JA,
    9. Brennan JM,
    10. O’Brien SM,
    11. Dokholyan RS,
    12. Hammill BG,
    13. Curtis LH,
    14. Peterson ED,
    15. Badhwar V,
    16. George KM,
    17. Mayer JE Jr.,
    18. Chitwood WR Jr.,
    19. Murray GF,
    20. Grover FL
    : Successful linking of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons adult cardiac surgery database to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicare data. Ann Thorac Surg 90: 1150–1156, discussion 1156–1157, 2010pmid:20868806
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Shahian DM,
    2. Edwards F,
    3. Grover FL,
    4. Jacobs JP,
    5. Wright CD,
    6. Prager RL,
    7. Rich JB,
    8. Mack MJ,
    9. Mathisen DJ
    : The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Adult Cardiac Database: A continuing commitment to excellence. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 140: 955–959, 2010pmid:20951246
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Coca SG,
    2. King JT Jr.,
    3. Rosenthal RA,
    4. Perkal MF,
    5. Parikh CR
    : The duration of postoperative acute kidney injury is an additional parameter predicting long-term survival in diabetic veterans. Kidney Int 78: 926–933, 2010pmid:20686452
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lafrance JP,
    2. Miller DR
    : Defining acute kidney injury in database studies: The effects of varying the baseline kidney function assessment period and considering CKD status. Am J Kidney Dis 56: 651–660, 2010pmid:20673605
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Thakar CV,
    2. Christianson A,
    3. Freyberg R,
    4. Almenoff P,
    5. Render ML
    : Incidence and outcomes of acute kidney injury in intensive care units: A Veterans Administration study. Crit Care Med 37: 2552–2558, 2009pmid:19602973
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Go AS,
    2. Magid DJ,
    3. Wells B,
    4. Sung SH,
    5. Cassidy-Bushrow AE,
    6. Greenlee RT,
    7. Langer RD,
    8. Lieu TA,
    9. Margolis KL,
    10. Masoudi FA,
    11. McNeal CJ,
    12. Murata GH,
    13. Newton KM,
    14. Novotny R,
    15. Reynolds K,
    16. Roblin DW,
    17. Smith DH,
    18. Vupputuri S,
    19. White RE,
    20. Olson J,
    21. Rumsfeld JS,
    22. Gurwitz JH
    : The Cardiovascular Research Network: A new paradigm for cardiovascular quality and outcomes research. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 1: 138–147, 2008pmid:20031802
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Magid DJ,
    2. Gurwitz JH,
    3. Rumsfeld JS,
    4. Go AS
    : Creating a research data network for cardiovascular disease: The CVRN. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther 6: 1043–1045, 2008pmid:18793105
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Dehmer GJ,
    2. Elma M,
    3. Hewitt K,
    4. Brindis RG
    : Bringing measurement and management science to the cath laboratory: The National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR) and the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Continuous Quality Improvement Toolkit (ACC-CathKIT). J Cardiovasc Manag 15: 20–26, 2004pmid:15587942
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Peterson ED,
    2. Roe MT,
    3. Chen AY,
    4. Fonarow GC,
    5. Lytle BL,
    6. Cannon CP,
    7. Rumsfeld JS
    : The NCDR ACTION Registry-GWTG: Transforming contemporary acute myocardial infarction clinical care. Heart 96: 1798–1802, 2010pmid:20736202
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Go AS,
    2. Parikh CR,
    3. Ikizler TA,
    4. Coca S,
    5. Siew ED,
    6. Chinchilli VM,
    7. Hsu CY,
    8. Garg AX,
    9. Zappitelli M,
    10. Liu KD,
    11. Reeves WB,
    12. Ghahramani N,
    13. Devarajan P,
    14. Faulkner GB,
    15. Tan TC,
    16. Kimmel PL,
    17. Eggers P,
    18. Stokes JB,
    19. Assessment Serial Evaluation, and Subsequent Sequelae of Acute Kidney Injury Study Investigators
    : The assessment, serial evaluation, and subsequent sequelae of acute kidney injury (ASSESS-AKI) study: Design and methods. BMC Nephrol 11: 22, 2010pmid:20799966
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. The Ohio State University Sepsis Registry: Available at: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00837421. Accessed February 22, 2012
    1. Martin G,
    2. Brunkhorst FM,
    3. Janes JM,
    4. Reinhart K,
    5. Sundin DP,
    6. Garnett K,
    7. Beale R
    : The international PROGRESS registry of patients with severe sepsis: drotrecogin alfa (activated) use and patient outcomes. Crit Care 13: R103, 2009pmid:19566927
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Martin CM,
    2. Priestap F,
    3. Fisher H,
    4. Fowler RA,
    5. Heyland DK,
    6. Keenan SP,
    7. Longo CJ,
    8. Morrison T,
    9. Bentley D,
    10. Antman N,
    11. STAR Registry Investigators
    : A prospective, observational registry of patients with severe sepsis: The Canadian Sepsis Treatment and Response Registry. Crit Care Med 37: 81–88, 2009pmid:19050636
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Kallet RH,
    2. Jasmer RM,
    3. Pittet JF,
    4. Tang JF,
    5. Campbell AR,
    6. Dicker R,
    7. Hemphill C,
    8. Luce JM
    : Clinical implementation of the ARDS network protocol is associated with reduced hospital mortality compared with historical controls. Crit Care Med 33: 925–929, 2005pmid:15891315
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Arthurs ZM,
    2. Starnes BW,
    3. Sohn VY,
    4. Singh N,
    5. Martin MJ,
    6. Andersen CA
    : Functional and survival outcomes in traumatic blunt thoracic aortic injuries: An analysis of the National Trauma Databank. J Vasc Surg 49: 988–994, 2009pmid:19341888
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Vogt TM,
    2. Elston-Lafata J,
    3. Tolsma D,
    4. Greene SM
    : The role of research in integrated healthcare systems: the HMO Research Network. Am J Manag Care 10: 643–648, 2004pmid:15515997
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Emerson SC,
    2. Rudser KD,
    3. Emerson SS
    : Exploring the benefits of adaptive sequential designs in time-to-event endpoint settings. Stat Med 30: 1199–1217, 2011pmid:21538450
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Bassler D,
    2. Briel M,
    3. Montori VM,
    4. Lane M,
    5. Glasziou P,
    6. Zhou Q,
    7. Heels-Ansdell D,
    8. Walter SD,
    9. Guyatt GH,
    10. Flynn DN,
    11. Elamin MB,
    12. Murad MH,
    13. Abu Elnour NO,
    14. Lampropulos JF,
    15. Sood A,
    16. Mullan RJ,
    17. Erwin PJ,
    18. Bankhead CR,
    19. Perera R,
    20. Ruiz Culebro C,
    21. You JJ,
    22. Mulla SM,
    23. Kaur J,
    24. Nerenberg KA,
    25. Schünemann H,
    26. Cook DJ,
    27. Lutz K,
    28. Ribic CM,
    29. Vale N,
    30. Malaga G,
    31. Akl EA,
    32. Ferreira-Gonzalez I,
    33. Alonso-Coello P,
    34. Urrutia G,
    35. Kunz R,
    36. Bucher HC,
    37. Nordmann AJ,
    38. Raatz H,
    39. da Silva SA,
    40. Tuche F,
    41. Strahm B,
    42. Djulbegovic B,
    43. Adhikari NK,
    44. Mills EJ,
    45. Gwadry-Sridhar F,
    46. Kirpalani H,
    47. Soares HP,
    48. Karanicolas PJ,
    49. Burns KE,
    50. Vandvik PO,
    51. Coto-Yglesias F,
    52. Chrispim PP,
    53. Ramsay T,
    54. STOPIT-2 Study Group
    : Stopping randomized trials early for benefit and estimation of treatment effects: Systematic review and meta-regression analysis. JAMA 303: 1180–1187, 2010pmid:20332404
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Murugan R,
    2. Karajala-Subramanyam V,
    3. Lee M,
    4. Yende S,
    5. Kong L,
    6. Carter M,
    7. Angus DC,
    8. Kellum JA,
    9. Genetic and Inflammatory Markers of Sepsis (GenIMS) Investigators
    : Acute kidney injury in non-severe pneumonia is associated with an increased immune response and lower survival. Kidney Int 77: 527–535, 2010pmid:20032961
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Dasta JF,
    2. Kane-Gill SL,
    3. Durtschi AJ,
    4. Pathak DS,
    5. Kellum JA
    : Costs and outcomes of acute kidney injury (AKI) following cardiac surgery. Nephrol Dial Transplant 23: 1970–1974, 2008pmid:18178605
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Rosner MH,
    2. Okusa MD
    : Acute kidney injury associated with cardiac surgery. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 1: 19–32, 2006pmid:17699187
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Bernard GR,
    2. Artigas A,
    3. Brigham KL,
    4. Carlet J,
    5. Falke K,
    6. Hudson L,
    7. Lamy M,
    8. LeGall JR,
    9. Morris A,
    10. Spragg R,
    11. The Consensus Committee
    : Report of the American-European consensus conference on ARDS: Definitions, mechanisms, relevant outcomes and clinical trial coordination. Intensive Care Med 20: 225–232, 1994pmid:8014293
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Liu KD,
    2. Matthay MA
    : Advances in critical care for the nephrologist: acute lung injury/ARDS. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 3: 578–586, 2008pmid:18199848
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 7 (5)
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 7, Issue 5
May 07, 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in CJASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Design of Clinical Trials in Acute Kidney Injury: Report from an NIDDK Workshop on Trial Methodology
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Design of Clinical Trials in Acute Kidney Injury: Report from an NIDDK Workshop on Trial Methodology
Paul M. Palevsky, Bruce A. Molitoris, Mark D. Okusa, Adeera Levin, Sushrut S. Waikar, Ron Wald, Glenn M. Chertow, Patrick T. Murray, Chirag R. Parikh, Andrew D. Shaw, Alan S. Go, Sarah G. Faubel, John A. Kellum, Vernon M. Chinchilli, Kathleen D. Liu, Alfred K. Cheung, Steven D. Weisbord, Lakhmir S. Chawla, James S. Kaufman, Prasad Devarajan, Robert M. Toto, Chi-yuan Hsu, Tom Greene, Ravindra L. Mehta, John B. Stokes, Aliza M. Thompson, B. Taylor Thompson, Christof S. Westenfelder, James A. Tumlin, David G. Warnock, Sudhir V. Shah, Yining Xie, Emily G. Duggan, Paul L. Kimmel, Robert A. Star
CJASN May 2012, 7 (5) 844-850; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.12791211

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Design of Clinical Trials in Acute Kidney Injury: Report from an NIDDK Workshop on Trial Methodology
Paul M. Palevsky, Bruce A. Molitoris, Mark D. Okusa, Adeera Levin, Sushrut S. Waikar, Ron Wald, Glenn M. Chertow, Patrick T. Murray, Chirag R. Parikh, Andrew D. Shaw, Alan S. Go, Sarah G. Faubel, John A. Kellum, Vernon M. Chinchilli, Kathleen D. Liu, Alfred K. Cheung, Steven D. Weisbord, Lakhmir S. Chawla, James S. Kaufman, Prasad Devarajan, Robert M. Toto, Chi-yuan Hsu, Tom Greene, Ravindra L. Mehta, John B. Stokes, Aliza M. Thompson, B. Taylor Thompson, Christof S. Westenfelder, James A. Tumlin, David G. Warnock, Sudhir V. Shah, Yining Xie, Emily G. Duggan, Paul L. Kimmel, Robert A. Star
CJASN May 2012, 7 (5) 844-850; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.12791211
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Summary
    • Patient Selection in AKI—Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
    • Tenable Endpoints for AKI Trials
    • Biomarkers/Surrogate Markers
    • Power and Sample Size Issues
    • Considerations regarding Adverse Events in Pilot and Feasibility Studies in AKI
    • Disclosures
    • Acknowledgment
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Patient and Other Stakeholder Engagement in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Funded Studies of Patients with Kidney Diseases
  • Alport Syndrome in Women and Girls
  • Urinary Stone Disease: Advancing Knowledge, Patient Care, and Population Health
Show more Special Features

Cited By...

  • Pediatric Acute Kidney Injury Survivors Need Risk Stratification and Individualized Follow-Up
  • Long-Term Kidney Outcomes Following Dialysis-Treated Childhood Acute Kidney Injury: A Population-Based Cohort Study
  • Nephrologist Follow-Up versus Usual Care after an Acute Kidney Injury Hospitalization (FUSION): A Randomized Controlled Trial
  • Major Adverse Kidney Events in Pediatric Sepsis
  • Contrast-Induced Acute Kidney Injury in the PRESERVE Trial: Lessons Learned
  • Biomarkers for the Early Detection and Prognosis of Acute Kidney Injury
  • Evaluation of Short-Term Changes in Serum Creatinine Level as a Meaningful End Point in Randomized Clinical Trials
  • Cellular and Molecular Mechanisms of AKI
  • Therapeutic Targets of Human AKI: Harmonizing Human and Animal AKI
  • Bridging Translation by Improving Preclinical Study Design in AKI
  • Kinetic eGFR and Novel AKI Biomarkers to Predict Renal Recovery
  • Classifying AKI by Urine Output versus Serum Creatinine Level
  • Furosemide Stress Test and Biomarkers for the Prediction of AKI Severity
  • Biomarkers of AKI: A Review of Mechanistic Relevance and Potential Therapeutic Implications
  • Association between AKI and Long-Term Renal and Cardiovascular Outcomes in United States Veterans
  • AKI Is Around the World but Public Recognition Is Lacking
  • AKI: A Path Forward
  • The Inexorable Rise of AKI: Can We Bend the Growth Curve?
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Trainee of the Year
  • Author Resources
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • CJASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About CJASN
  • CJASN Email Alerts
  • CJASN Key Impact Information
  • CJASN Podcasts
  • CJASN RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Password/Email Address Changes
  • Subscribe to ASN Journals

© 2022 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1555-9041 Online ISSN - 1555-905X

Powered by HighWire