MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Benefits of Icosapent Ethyl Across the Range of Kidney Function in Patients With Established Cardiovascular Disease or Diabetes: REDUCE-IT RENAL

2021· article· en· W3208705919 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
FundersAmarin CorporationBrigham and Women's Hospital
KeywordsRenal functionDiseaseKidney diseaseKidneyCreatinine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Chronic kidney disease is associated with adverse outcomes among patients with established cardiovascular disease (CVD) or diabetes. Commonly used medications to treat CVD are less effective among patients with reduced kidney function. Methods: REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial) was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that randomly assigned statin-treated patients with elevated triglycerides (135–499 mg/dL) who had CVD or diabetes and 1 additional risk factor to treatment with icosapent ethyl (4 g daily) or placebo. Patients from REDUCE-IT were categorized by prespecified estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) categories to analyze the effect of icosapent ethyl on the primary end point (composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina) and key secondary end point (a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke). Results: Among the 8179 REDUCE-IT patients, median baseline eGFR was 75 mL·min –1 ·1.73 m –2 (range, 17–123 mL·min –1 ·1.73 m –2 ). There were no meaningful changes in median eGFR for icosapent ethyl versus placebo across study visits. Treatment with icosapent ethyl led to consistent reduction in both the primary and key secondary composite end points across baseline eGFR categories. Patients with eGFR <60 mL·min –1 ·1.73 m –2 treated with icosapent ethyl had the largest absolute and similar relative risk reduction for the primary composite end point (icosapent ethyl versus placebo, 21.8% versus 28.9%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.59–0.85]; P =0.0002) and key secondary composite end point (16.8% versus 22.5%; HR 0.71 [95% CI, 0.57–0.88]; P =0.001). The numeric reduction in cardiovascular death was greatest in the eGFR <60 mL·min –1 ·1.73 m –2 group (icosapent ethyl: 7.6%; placebo: 10.6%; HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.51–0.95]; P =0.02). Although patients with eGFR <60 mL·min –1 ·1.73 m –2 treated with icosapent ethyl had the highest numeric rates of atrial fibrillation/flutter (icosapent ethyl: 4.2%; placebo 3.0%; HR 1.42 [95% CI, 0.86–2.32]; P =0.17) and serious bleeding (icosapent ethyl: 5.4%; placebo 3.6%; HR, 1.40 [95% CI, 0.90–2.18]; P =0.13), HRs for atrial fibrillation/flutter and serious bleeding were similar across eGFR categories ( P -interaction for atrial fibrillation/flutter=0.92; P -interaction for serious bleeding=0.76). Conclusions: In REDUCE-IT, icosapent ethyl reduced fatal and nonfatal ischemic events across the broad range of baseline eGFR categories. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01492361

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)0.001
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations69
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207