Investigating the endothelin receptor antagonist aprocitentan in resistant hypertension: design and baseline characteristics of the PRECISION study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The endothelin (ET) system plays an important role in hypertension, especially in volume and salt-dependent forms, which are common in patients with resistant hypertension (RHT). Therapies targeting the ET system may provide a new treatment option. A Phase 2 dose-finding study demonstrated an effect of the dual ET receptor antagonist aprocitentan monotherapy on blood pressure (BP) [1]. PRECISION is a randomized, parallel-group, Phase 3 study assessing the short-term effect of 2 doses of aprocitentan (12.5 mg and 25 mg) and its long-term sustained effect on BP. Following randomization, patients entered a 4-week, double-blind (DB), placebo-controlled part, followed by aprocitentan 25 mg for 32 weeks, and a 12-week, placebo-controlled, randomized withdrawal part (Figure 1). The primary endpoint is the change in systolic BP (SBP) from randomization to week 4 and the key secondary endpoint is the change in SBP from re-randomization to week 40. The study enrolled 1971 patients with RHT diagnosed according to the site's medical practice, from 193 centres worldwide. Entry criteria included sitting SBP [SiSBP] ≥140 mmHg, measured by unattended automated office BP (uAOBP, reducing the white coat effect), despite the use of ≥3 antihypertensive medications. During the screening period of 4 to 12 weeks, secondary causes of hypertension were excluded by the investigator and patients still having SiSBP ≥140 mmHg were switched from their individual antihypertensive drugs to a single-tablet, triple combination of valsartan 160 mg /amlodipine 5 or 10 mg /hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg o.d. (minimizing medical inertia and improving drug adherence) for at least 4 weeks before entering the placebo run-in (RI) period. The screening failure rate of 53% is indicative of the high incidence of apparent RHT within the hypertensive population. Patients continuing having SiSBP ≥140 mmHg on triple therapy (true RHT) then entered the 4-week, single-blind placebo RI period. Of these patients, 20% failed to be randomized, most frequently because of SiSBP <140 mmHg, possibly due to a placebo effect. As of 12 March 2021, 860 patients were in the placebo RI period and 664 patients were randomized, 30% from North America, 62% from Europe, and 8% from Asia/Australia. Mean age was 61.8 years (standard deviation [SD]=10.8). 40% of patients were women, 11% were Black, 5% Asian, and 83% White. Mean body mass index (BMI) was 33.6 kg/m2 (SD=6.4) and mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was 76.8 mL/min/1.73 m2 (including 21% chronic kidney disease [CKD] stage 3–4 patients). Medical history included diabetes (54%), myocardial infarction (30%), stroke (23%), congestive heart failure (19%), and sleep apnoea (15%). In addition to the standardized antihypertensive medication, 59% of patients used beta-blockers. Mean baseline SiSBP/SiDBP was 153/88 mmHg. Results of the trial will be available in 2022. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): The PRECISION study is sponsored by Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".