MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093341334 · doi:10.1016/s2213-8587(20)30300-4

Effects of canagliflozin on anaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease: a post-hoc analysis from the CREDENCE trial

2020· article· en· W3093341334 on OpenAlexaff
Megumi Oshima, Brendon L. Neuen, Meg Jardine, George L. Bakris, Robert Edwards, Adeera Levin, Kenneth W. Mahaffey, Bruce Neal, Carol A. Pollock, Norman Rosenthal, Takashi Wada, David C. Wheeler, Vlado Perkovic, Hiddo J.L. Heerspink

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersJanssen Research and DevelopmentNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilUniversity of New South WalesNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceMitsubishi Tanabe Pharma CorporationJanssen Scientific Affairs
KeywordsCanagliflozinMedicinePost-hoc analysisPlaceboInternal medicineKidney diseaseType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusErythropoiesisAnemiaEndocrinologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors might enhance erythropoiesis and increase red blood cell mass. We assessed the long-term effects of canagliflozin on anaemia-related outcomes. METHODS: In a post-hoc analysis of the Canagliflozin and Renal Events in Diabetes with Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation (CREDENCE) trial, we included patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease who were randomly assigned to treatment with canagliflozin or placebo at 690 sites in 34 countries. We assessed the effects of canagliflozin versus matched placebo on haemoglobin and haematocrit using linear mixed-effects models. The primary outcome of this post-hoc analysis was a composite outcome of investigator-reported anaemia or treatment for anaemia, which was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression models. All analyses were done by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Between March 24, 2014, and May 5, 2017, 4401 participants were randomly assigned to receive canagliflozin (100 mg; n=2202) or placebo (n=2199). At baseline, mean haemoglobin concentration was 132·0 g/L (SD 17·7), 1599 (36%) of 4401 participants had anaemia (defined as haemoglobin <130 g/L in men or <120 g/L in women), and 33 (<1%) of 4401 participants used erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. During a median follow-up period of 2·6 years (IQR 2·1-3·1), mean haemoglobin concentration was 7·1 g/L (95% CI 6·4-7·8) higher and haematocrit was 2·4% (2·2-2·6) higher in the canagliflozin group than the placebo group. Overall, 573 of 4401 participants had either an investigator-reported anaemia event or initiation of treatment for anaemia: 358 (8%) of 4401 participants reported anaemia events, 343 (8%) initiated iron preparations, 141 (3%) initiated erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, and 114 (2%) received blood transfusion. The risk of the composite outcome of anaemia events or initiation of treatment for anaemia was lower in the canagliflozin group than the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·65, 95% CI 0·55-0·77; p<0·0001). Compared with the placebo group, participants in the canagliflozin group also had lower risks of anaemia events alone (0·58, 0·47-0·72; p<0·0001), initiation of iron preparations (0·64, 0·52-0·80; p<0·0001), and need for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (0·65, 0·46-0·91; p=0·012). INTERPRETATION: These data suggest that canagliflozin reduces the risk of anaemia-associated outcomes, including the need for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, among patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. FUNDING: Janssen Research and Development.

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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations131
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Diabetes & EndocrinologySame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207