MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133471047 · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2011-300157

Satavaptan for the management of ascites in cirrhosis: efficacy and safety across the spectrum of ascites severity

2011· article· en· W2133471047 on OpenAlexaff
Florence Wong, Hugh Watson, Alexander L. Gerbes, Hendrik Vilstrup, Salvatore Badalamenti, Mauro Bernardi, Pere Ginès

Bibliographic record

VenueGut · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAscitesCirrhosisMedicineInternal medicineGastroenterologyIntensive care medicineBroad spectrumChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Satavaptan, a vasopressin V2 receptor antagonist, has been shown to improve the control of ascites in cirrhosis in short-term phase II studies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of satavaptan in three different populations of patients with cirrhosis and ascites. METHODS: 1200 patients were included in three randomised double-blind studies comparing satavaptan with placebo in uncomplicated ascites (study 1: n=463 patients) and difficult-to-treat ascites, with and without concomitant diuretic treatment (studies 2 and 3: n=497 and n=240 patients, respectively). RESULTS: Satavaptan was not more effective than placebo in the control of ascites in any of the populations studied as estimated by the primary efficacy endpoints: worsening of ascites (study 1) and the cumulative number of large-volume paracenteses during 12 weeks (studies 2 and 3). Nevertheless, some of the secondary efficacy endpoints related to the treatment of ascites were met in the three studies, suggesting a slight advantage of satavaptan over placebo in delaying ascites formation. Moreover, satavaptan was more effective than placebo in improving the serum sodium concentration in patients with hyponatraemia. The incidence of major complications of cirrhosis during follow-up did not differ significantly between the satavaptan and placebo groups in the three studies. Overall, the rate of any treatment-related adverse events, serious treatment-related events and treatment-related events leading to permanent discontinuation of treatment did not differ significantly between the treatment groups. However, in study 2 mortality was higher in patients treated with satavaptan compared with placebo (HR 1.47; 95% CI 1.01 to 2.15); no significant differences in mortality between the two groups were observed in the other two studies. No specific cause for the increased mortality was identified. Most deaths were associated with known complications of liver cirrhosis. CONCLUSION: Satavaptan, alone or in combination with diuretics, is not clinically beneficial in the long-term management of ascites in cirrhosis.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations127
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGutSame topicLiver Disease and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207