MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177246285 · doi:10.2215/cjn.01130121

Ertugliflozin and Slope of Chronic eGFR

2021· article· en· W3177246285 on OpenAlexaff
David Z.I. Cherney, Francesco Cosentino, Samuel Dagogo‐Jack, Darren K. McGuire, Richard E. Pratley, Robert Frederich, Mario Maldonado, Chih‐Chin Liu, Jie Liu, Annpey Pong, Christopher P. Cannon

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersMerckPfizer
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboConfidence intervalInternal medicineKidney diseaseRenal functionPopulationDiabetes mellitusUrologySurgeryEndocrinologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objectives A reduction in the rate of eGFR decline, with preservation of ≥0.75 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 per year, has been proposed as a surrogate for kidney disease progression. We report results from prespecified analyses assessing effects of ertugliflozin versus placebo on eGFR slope from the eValuation of ERTugliflozin effIcacy and Safety CardioVascular outcomes (VERTIS CV) trial (NCT01986881). Design, setting, participants, & measurements Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomized to placebo, ertugliflozin 5 mg, and ertugliflozin 15 mg (1:1:1). The analyses compared the effect of ertugliflozin (pooled doses, n =5499) versus placebo ( n =2747) on eGFR slope per week and per year by random coefficient models. Study periods (weeks 0–6 and weeks 6–52) and total and chronic slopes (week 0 or week 6 to weeks 104, 156, 208, and 260) were modeled separately and by baseline kidney status. Results In the overall population, for weeks 0–6, the least squares mean eGFR slopes (ml/min per 1.73 m 2 per week [95% confidence interval (95% CI)]) were −0.07 (−0.16 to 0.03) and −0.54 (−0.61 to −0.48) for the placebo and ertugliflozin groups, respectively; the difference was −0.47 (−0.59 to −0.36). During weeks 6–52, least squares mean eGFR slopes (ml/min per 1.73 m 2 per year [95% CI]) were −0.12 (−0.70 to 0.46) and 1.62 (1.21 to 2.02) for the placebo and ertugliflozin groups, respectively; the difference was 1.74 (1.03 to 2.45). For weeks 6–156, least squares mean eGFR slopes (ml/min per 1.73 m 2 per year [95% CI]) were −1.51 (−1.70 to −1.32) and −0.32 (−0.45 to −0.19) for the placebo and ertugliflozin groups, respectively; the difference was 1.19 (0.95 to 1.42). During weeks 0–156, the placebo-adjusted difference in least squares mean slope was 1.06 (0.85 to 1.27). These findings were consistent by baseline kidney status. Conclusions Ertugliflozin has a favorable placebo-adjusted eGFR slope >0.75 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 per year, documenting the kidney function preservation underlying the clinical benefits of ertugliflozin on kidney disease progression in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Clinical Trial registry name and registration number: US National Library of Medicine, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01986881. Date of trial registration: November 13, 2013.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations46
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207