BRIGHT‐SC 2016.

Methods	Study design: parallel, 2‐arm RCT Time frame Study start date: June 2013 Study primary completion date: March 2017 Actual study completion date: 30 June 2017 Duration of follow‐up: 6 months
Participants	Setting: multicentre (number of sites not reported) Country: Czech Republic, Germany, Hong Kong, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, UK Inclusion criteria: biopsy‐proven IgAN; UPCR 1 to 6 g/g; eGFR > 30 mL/min/1.73 m2, on renin‐angiotensin blockade Number (analysed/randomised): 47/57 Mean age ± SD (years): not reported Sex (M/F): 45% men Exclusion criteria: clinical or histologic evidence of non‐IgA‐related GN; IgA nephropathy > 50% glomerulosclerosis or cortical scarring; meets eGFR criteria; history of treatment with oral or parenteral corticosteroids within 3 months or immunosuppressants within 6 months; malignancy within past 5 years; known to be positive for HIV and/or positive at the screening visit for hepatitis B, or hepatitis C; liver disease; neutropenia; active infection requiring hospitalisation or treatment with parenteral antibiotics within the past 60 days or history of repeated herpetic viral infections; history of active tuberculosis or a history of tuberculosis infection; pregnant or nursing
Interventions	Treatment group Blisibimod: 100 mg 3 times/week for 8 weeks, then 200 mg/week Control group Placebo Co‐interventions Not reported
Outcomes	ESKD eGFR UPCR Serum immunoglobulins IgA, IgG and IgM Plasma cells and B‐cell subsets Complement C3 and C4 Requiring addition of corticosteroid therapy
Notes	Conference abstract Responsible party: Anthera Pharmaceuticals. Results submitted to trial registry; currently in quality control Funding: Anthera Pharmaceuticals
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Double‐blind study
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Outcome assessment was not reported. However, the study outcomes of interest were objectively measured, therefore this was adjudicated as low risk of bias
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	10/57 participants did not complete 6 months of study follow‐up and were not included in analysis. It was not clear whether there was differential loss in the treatment groups and the reasons for dropout were not provided
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	There was no pre‐specified protocol identified for this study. The study did not report extractable data for the key outcomes that would be expected for a study of this type (e.g., death (any cause), GFR loss, infection, malignancy)
Other bias	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement. Methods of randomisation, baseline characteristics were not reported to assess quality of randomisation