MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Blood Pressure Effects of Canagliflozin and Clinical Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease

2021· article· en· W3126553617 on OpenAlexaff
Nan Ye, Meg Jardine, Megumi Oshima, Carinna Hockham, Hiddo J.L. Heerspink, Rajiv Agarwal, George L. Bakris, Aletta E. Schutte, Clare Arnott, Tara I. Chang, José Luis Górriz, Christopher P. Cannon, David M. Charytan, Dick de Zeeuw, Adeera Levin, Kenneth W. Mahaffey, Bruce Neal, Carol A. Pollock, David C. Wheeler, Gian Luca Di Tanna, Hong Cheng, Vlado Perkovic, Brendon L. Neuen

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanagliflozinMedicineKidney diseaseBlood pressureInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesHazard ratioEmpagliflozinPlaceboPopulationDiureticEndocrinologyConfidence intervalPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: People with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease experience a high burden of hypertension, but the magnitude and consistency of blood pressure (BP) lowering with canagliflozin in this population are uncertain. Whether the effects of canagliflozin on kidney and cardiovascular outcomes vary by baseline BP or BP-lowering therapy is also unknown. Methods: The CREDENCE trial (Canagliflozin and Renal Events in Diabetes with Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation) randomized people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease to canagliflozin or placebo. In a post hoc analysis, we investigated the effect of canagliflozin on systolic BP across subgroups defined by baseline systolic BP, number of BP-lowering drug classes, and history of apparent treatment-resistant hypertension (BP ≥130/80 mm Hg while receiving ≥3 classes of BP-lowering drugs, including a diuretic). We also assessed whether effects on clinical outcomes differed across these subgroups. Results: The trial included 4401 participants, of whom 3361 (76.4%) had baseline systolic BP ≥130 mm Hg, and 1371 (31.2%) had resistant hypertension. By week 3, canagliflozin reduced systolic BP by 3.50 mm Hg (95% CI, –4.27 to –2.72), an effect maintained over the duration of the trial, with similar reductions across BP and BP-lowering therapy subgroups (all P interaction ≥0.05). Canagliflozin also reduced the need for initiation of additional BP-lowering agents during the trial (hazard ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.61–0.75]). The effect of canagliflozin on kidney failure, doubling of serum creatinine, or death caused by kidney or cardiovascular disease (hazard ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.59–0.82]) was consistent across BP and BP-lowering therapy subgroups (all P interaction ≥0.35), as were effects on other key kidney, cardiovascular, and safety outcomes. Conclusions: In people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, canagliflozin lowers systolic BP across all BP-defined subgroups and reduces the need for additional BP-lowering agents. These findings support use of canagliflozin for end-organ protection and as an adjunct BP-lowering therapy in people with chronic kidney disease. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02065791.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations111
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207