Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://dora.health.qld.gov.au/qldresearchjspui/handle/1/229
Title: Representativeness of Honeypot Trial Participants to Australasian PD Patients
Authors: McTaggart, S.
Committee, Honeypot Trial Writing
Isbel, N. M.
Group, Honeypot Study Collaborative
Snelling, P. 
Badve, S. V.
Playford, G.
Scaria, A.
Beller, E.
Cass, A.
Zhang, L.
de Zoysa, J.
Vergara, L. A.
Morrish, A. T.
Clark, C.
Liu, X.
Pascoe, E. M.
Johnson, D. W.
Hawley, C. M.
Issue Date: 2017
Source: 37, (5), 2017, p. 516-522
Pages: 516-522
Journal: Peritoneal Dialysis International
Abstract: BACKGROUND: The HONEYPOT trial failed to establish the superiority of exit-site application of Medihoney compared with nasal mupirocin prophylaxis for the prevention of peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. This study aimed to assess the representativeness of the patients in the HONEYPOT trial to the Australian and New Zealand PD population.METHODS: This study compared baseline characteristics of the 371 PD patients in the HONEYPOT trial with those of 6,085 PD patients recorded on the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry.
RESULTS: Compared with the PD population, the HONEYPOT sample was older (standardized difference [d] = 0.19, p = 0.003), more likely to be treated with automated PD (d = 0.58, p < 0.001), had higher residual renal function (d = 0.26, p < 0.001) and a higher proportion of participants with end-stage kidney disease due to polycystic kidney disease (d = 0.17) and lower proportion due to diabetes (d = -0.17) and glomerulonephritis (d = -0.18) (p < 0.001), and lower proportions of indigenous people (d = -0.17, p < 0.001), current smokers (d = -0.10, p < 0.001), and people with prior histories of hemodialysis (d = -0.16, p < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (d = -0.18, p < 0.001), and coronary artery disease (d = -0.15, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: HONEYPOT trial participants tended to be healthier than the Australian and New Zealand PD patient population. Although the differences between the groups were generally modest, it is possible that their cumulative effect may have had some impact on external generalizability, which is not an uncommon occurrence in clinical trials.
HONEYPOT Trial Writing CommitteeZhang, Lei
Badve, Sunil V
Pascoe, Elaine M
Beller, Elaine
Cass, Alan
Clark, Carolyn
de Zoysa, Janak
Isbel, Nicole M
Liu, Xusheng
McTaggart, Steven
Morrish, Alicia T
Playford, Geoffrey
Scaria, Anish
Snelling, Paul
Vergara, Liza A
Hawley, Carmel M
Johnson, David W
HONEYPOT Study Collaborative Group
DOI: 1256
Resources: http://scproxy.slq.qld.gov.au/login?url=http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=prem&AN=27935534http://linksource.ebsco.com/athens.b6e6cc08-c492-42af-aec4-c6084e18e68c/linking.aspx?sid=OVID:medline&id=pmid:27935534&id=doi:10.3747%2Fpdi.2016.00065&issn=0896-8608&isbn=&volume=37&issue=5&spage=516&date=2017&title=Peritoneal+Dialysis+International&atitle=Representativeness+of+Honeypot+Trial+Participants+to+Australasian+PD+Patients.&aulast=Zhang&pid=%3CAN%3E27935534%3C%2FAN%3E
Type: Article
Appears in Sites:Sunshine Coast HHS Publications

Show full item record

Page view(s)

210
checked on Mar 20, 2025

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DORA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.