Towards HOMe-based Albuminuria Screening: an Implementation Study Testing Two Approaches (THOMAS)
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04295889|
Recruitment Status : Enrolling by invitation
First Posted : March 5, 2020
Last Update Posted : April 5, 2022
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment||Phase|
|Albuminuria||Diagnostic Test: Approach A (PeeSpot urine collection device). Diagnostic Test: Approach B (ACR | EU Test kit).||Not Applicable|
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a worldwide major public health problem that is associated with an increased incidence of kidney failure and cardiovascular disease (CVD). To tackle this burden, screening for CKD among the general population could be beneficial to allow early detection and treatment. In the last decades, elevated albuminuria has increasingly been recognized as an early marker of generalized vascular endothelial damage, that predicts CKD and CVD progression.
It has been estimated that approximately 6% of the general population has elevated albuminuria, and that the majority of these subjects are not known yet with this abnormality. Among these subjects, many have hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes and/or impaired kidney function, that often is also not known yet. Early detection of elevated albuminuria may be important because it gives the opportunity to invite subjects that test positive for further screening for CKD and CVD risk factors. Thus these risk factors for CKD and CVD progression could be treated in an early stage.
Population screening for albuminuria could be justified according to the WHO criteria of Wilson and Jungner , because CKD has important consequences for subjects, the course of the disease is initially symptomless, and there are treatment methods available. However, implementation research to validate screening the general population for albuminuria and related health consequences is lacking, as are cost-effectiveness studies.
In the current study the aim is to develop a home-based screening technique for detecting elevated albuminuria. Two screening methods will be investigated, and yield and cost-effectiveness of these screening methods will be evaluated
|Study Type :||Interventional (Clinical Trial)|
|Estimated Enrollment :||15032 participants|
|Intervention Model:||Parallel Assignment|
|Masking:||None (Open Label)|
|Official Title:||Towards HOMe-based Albuminuria Screening: an Implementation Study Testing Two Approaches|
|Actual Study Start Date :||November 14, 2019|
|Estimated Primary Completion Date :||April 1, 2022|
|Estimated Study Completion Date :||July 1, 2022|
Active Comparator: Group A
Group A will receive an invitation for home based albuminuria screening using a more conventional urine collection device (known as "Peespot Test").
Diagnostic Test: Approach A (PeeSpot urine collection device).
The participant will receive the PeeSpot urine collection device (Hessels+Grob B.V., Deventer, The Netherlands), which consists of a holder containing a urine collection pad (consisting of hygroscopic material containing). The holder can be placed back into the tube and can be easily sent to the laboratory by mail. In this urine, albumin, creatinine, and the ACR will be measured in the laboratory of the Amphia hospital.
Active Comparator: Group B
Group B will receive an invitation for home based albuminuria screening using an app (internet application) and an ACR dipstick test (known as "ACR| EU Test").
Diagnostic Test: Approach B (ACR | EU Test kit).
The participant will receive the ACR | EU test kit (Healthy.io Ltd, Tel-Aviv- Yafo, Israel), which consists of a urine test strip, a urine cup, a color calibrator and instruction to download a smartphone application. The participants have to download the smartphone application according to the instructions included in the kit. Results will be directly shown to the participant in the app.
- Participation rate of the screening (i.e. home-based screening, elaborate screening and overall screening program) [ Time Frame: Screening period of 6 months. ]The participation rate is defined as the number of persons completing the albuminuria screening (i.e. returning the first PeeSpot urine device or scanned the first ACR | EU urine test strip with use of the app, and in case of an ACR >30 mg/g in this initial test, also completing the a confirmatory albuminuria screening tests), elaborate screening and overall screening program relative to the invited number of individuals.
- The yield of albuminuria screening. [ Time Frame: Screening period of 6 months. ]
These are twofold. First, the yield of the home-based screening is defined as the number of persons who test positive for albuminuria (at least 2 tests positive) relative to the number of persons participating in the corresponding arm (=per-protocol analysis) and of all invited persons in the corresponding arm (intention-to-screen analysis).
Second, the yield of the elaborate screening is defined as the number of subjects with increased albuminuria (defined as ACR >30 mg/g) with newly diagnosed and/or poorly controlled CVD and CKD risk factors. These risk factors, which will be assessed during the elaborate screening, include hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, impaired kidney function.
- Cost-effectiveness of the screening. [ Time Frame: 6 months follow-up after screening period. ]Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in euro per QALY gained for the two screening methods;
- GP follow-up rate. [ Time Frame: Screening period of 6 months. ]Number of persons completing the complete study (ACR testing, elaborate screening when invited, and visiting GP when recommended) relative to the number of referred individuals.
- Characteristics of responders. [ Time Frame: Screening period of 6 months. ]Information on (differences in) characteristics of the responders of the two screening methods (PeeSpot vs. ACR | EU) including differences in age, sex, educational level, estimated social economic status (based on data of Statistics Netherlands, providing estimated social economic status based on postal codes), medication use, and history of disease
- Characteristics of non-responders. [ Time Frame: Screening period of 6 months. ]Information on (differences in) characteristics of the non-responders of the two screening methods (PeeSpot vs. ACR | EU) including differences in age, sex, and estimated social economic status.
- Usability scores of the two screening methods. [ Time Frame: 6 months follow-up after screening period. ]Usability of both tests assessed by questionnaire in the participants with a confirmed positive test and in a subgroup of participants with a negative test.
- Appropriate treatment after elaborate screening. [ Time Frame: 6 months follow-up after screening period. ]Evaluate whether the subjects who participated the elaborate screening and in which abnormalities were found (hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, impaired renal function) did visit their general practitioner for start of appropriate treatment (lifestyle advice and/or medication).
- Information regarding sensitivity and specificity of the home-based screening tests [ Time Frame: Screening period of 6 months. ]Information on rate of false-negative and -positive tests for both screening methods (PeeSpot vs. ACR | EU).
- Optimal cut-off value of albuminuria. [ Time Frame: 6 months follow-up after screening period. ]To investigate which cut-off value of albuminuria should be used in the screening to render the most effective screening.
- Optimal age range for albuminuria screening. [ Time Frame: 6 months follow-up after screening period. ]Investigate the most effective age range for albuminuria screening.
- Role of health literacy in albuminuria screening. [ Time Frame: 6 months follow-up after screening period. ]The role of health literacy (assessed by questionnaire) in participating in the screening program and by obtaining appropriate treatment by the GP.
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT04295889
|University Medical Centre Groningen|
|Groningen, Netherlands, 9700 RB|
|Principal Investigator:||Ron T Gansevoort, MD, PhD||University Medical Center Groningen|