Dronedarone vs placebo in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter across a range of renal function: a post hoc analysis of the ATHENA trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The use of antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is challenging due to issues with renal clearance, drug accumulation and increased proarrhythmic risks. Since CKD is a common comorbidity with atrial fibrillation (AF), it is important to establish the efficacy and safety for antiarrhythmic drug treatment in patients with CKD. Purpose To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dronedarone in patients with AF or atrial flutter (AFL) across different stages of renal impairment. Methods In this post-hoc analysis of ATHENA (NCT00174785), a randomised, double-blind trial of dronedarone 400 mg BID vs placebo in patients with AF or AFL plus additional risk factors for death and a calculated glomerular filtration rate ≥10 mL/min, the primary outcome was time to first cardiovascular (CV) hospitalisation or death. Renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]) was assessed using CKD Epidemiology Collaboration equation and patients were grouped by eGFR (10–44, 45–59, ≥60 mL/min). Log-rank testing and Cox regression were used to compare time to events between treatment groups. Results In ATHENA, 43.6% of placebo and 42.2% of dronedarone patients had mild-to-moderate CKD (Table). Median time to CV hospitalisation/death was longer in all strata for dronedarone vs placebo, reaching significance in the 45–59 and ≥60 mL/min groups (Figure 1). There was a trend towards more treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), deaths and discontinuations due to TEAEs in patients with eGFR 10–44 mL/min. No clear difference in safety was seen between treatment arms except for discontinuations, which were higher with dronedarone. Conclusions This analysis confirms the efficacy of dronedarone, demonstrated in ATHENA, across different stages of renal impairment. Further assessment of safety will require larger populations of patients with CKD. Figure 1 Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Private company. Main funding source(s): Sanofi
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".