Efficacy and safety of dronedarone vs placebo in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter across a spectrum of renal function: post hoc analyses of the EURIDIS-ADONIS trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background/Introduction The use of antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is complex because impaired renal clearance can cause increased drug levels, and risk of intolerance or adverse events. Since CKD commonly co-occurs with atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter (AF/AFL), it is important to establish efficacy and safety for such drugs when used in AF/AFL patients with CKD. Purpose To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dronedarone in patients with AF or AFL across different levels of renal function. Methods This post hoc analysis evaluated pooled data from two multicentre, double-blind, randomised (2:1) trials of rhythm control with dronedarone 400 mg twice daily vs placebo. Primary endpoint was time to first recurrence of AF or AFL. Renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]) was assessed with the CKD-Epidemiology Collaboration equation. Patients were grouped by eGFR strata. Log-rank testing and Cox regression were used to compare time to events between treatment groups. Results Most (85%) patients had mild or mild-to-moderate decrease in eGFR (Table 1). Median time to first AF recurrence was significantly longer in the dronedarone vs placebo group for all eGFR subgroups except the 30–44 mL/min group (Figure 1), where the trend was consistent; however, the small population size may have precluded meaningful analyses in this subgroup. Serious adverse events, deaths, and treatment discontinuations did not differ notably between each group irrespective of eGFR strata. Conclusions This analysis confirms the efficacy and safety of dronedarone in patients with AF across a wide spectrum of renal function. 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 | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".