4.4 Article

Rationale and design of the RESOLVE trial: lanreotide as a volume reducing treatment for polycystic livers in patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease

Journal

BMC NEPHROLOGY
Volume 13, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2369-13-17

Keywords

ADPKD; Urinary biomarkers; Polycystic liver disease; Lanreotide

Funding

  1. Ipsen, Boulogne Billancourt, France

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: A large proportion of patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) suffers from polycystic liver disease. Symptoms arise when liver volume increases. The somatostatin analogue lanreotide has proven to reduce liver volume in patients with polycystic liver disease. However, this study also included patients with isolated polycystic liver disease (PCLD). The RESOLVE trial aims to assess the efficacy of lanreotide treatment in ADPKD patients with symptomatic polycystic livers. In this study we present the design of the RESOLVE trial. Methods/design: This open-label clinical trial evaluates the effect of 6 months of lanreotide in ADPKD patients with symptomatic polycystic livers. Primary outcome is change in liver volume determined by computerised tomography-volumetry. Secondary outcomes are changes in total kidney volume, kidney intermediate volume and renal function. Furthermore, urinary (NGAL, alpha 1-microglobulin, KIM-1, H-FABP, MCP-1) and serum (fibroblast growth factor 23) biomarkers associated with ADPKD disease severity are assessed to investigate whether these biomarkers predict treatment responses to lanreotide. Moreover, safety and tolerability of the drug in ADPKD patients will be assessed. Discussion: We anticipate that lanreotide is an effective therapeutic option for ADPKD patients with symptomatic polycystic livers and that this trial aids in the identification of patient related factors that predict treatment response.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available