MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4226198019 · doi:10.2215/cjn.14231021

Dapagliflozin and Kidney Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 Infection

2022· article· en· W4226198019 on OpenAlexaff
Hiddo J.L. Heerspink, Remo H.M. Furtado, Otávio Berwanger, Gary G. Koch, Felipe A. Martínez, Omar Mukhtar, Subodh Verma, Samvel B. Gasparyan, Fengming Tang, Sheryl L. Windsor, Vicente Cés de Souza-Dantas, Mildren Del Sueldo, Robert Frankel, Ali Javaheri, Rafael Maldonado, Caryn G. Morse, Marco Antônio Mota Gomes, Douglas Shemin, Osvaldo Lourenço Silva, Alexandre Pereira Tognon, Marcel Twahirwa, Joan Buenconsejo, Russell Esterline, Jan Oscarsson, Phil Ambery, Anna Maria Langkilde, Mikhail Kosiborod

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCastle BiosciencesModernaUnion Chimique BelgeNovo NordiskDexcomCytokineticsAcceleronRegeneron PharmaceuticalsBristol-Myers SquibbEli Lilly and CompanyAstraZenecaCSL BehringGilead SciencesSanofiAmgenViiV HealthcareGlaxoSmithKlinePfizer
KeywordsMedicineDapagliflozinHazard ratioConfidence intervalInternal medicinePlaceboClinical endpointPopulationRenal functionKidney diseaseRandomized controlled trialDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objectives Patients who were hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection are at high risk of AKI and KRT, especially in the presence of CKD. The Dapagliflozin in Respiratory Failure in Patients with COVID-19 (DARE-19) trial showed that in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, treatment with dapagliflozin versus placebo resulted in numerically fewer participants who experienced organ failure or death, although these differences were not statistically significant. We performed a secondary analysis of the DARE-19 trial to determine the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin on kidney outcomes in the overall population and in prespecified subgroups of participants defined by baseline eGFR. Design, setting, participants, & measurements The DARE-19 trial randomized 1250 patients who were hospitalized (231 [18%] had eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 ) with COVID-19 and cardiometabolic risk factors to dapagliflozin or placebo. Dual primary outcomes (time to new or worsened organ dysfunction or death, and a hierarchical composite end point of recovery [change in clinical status by day 30]), and the key secondary kidney outcome (composite of AKI, KRT, or death), and safety were assessed in participants with baseline eGFR <60 and ≥60 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 . Results The effect of dapagliflozin versus placebo on the primary prevention outcome (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 1.10), primary recovery outcome (win ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.22), and the composite kidney outcome (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.50 to 1.07) were consistent across eGFR subgroups ( P for interaction: 0.98, 0.67, and 0.44, respectively). The effects of dapagliflozin on AKI were also similar in participants with eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.29 to 1.77) and ≥60 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.37 to 1.29). Dapagliflozin was well tolerated in participants with eGFR <60 and ≥60 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 . Conclusions The effects of dapagliflozin on primary and secondary outcomes in hospitalized participants with COVID-19 were consistent in those with eGFR below/above 60 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 . Dapagliflozin was well tolerated and did not increase the risk of AKI in participants with eGFR below or above 60 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 .

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations20
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicDiabetes Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→