MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366083577 · doi:10.1002/ejhf.2857

Cardiac and Kidney Benefits of Empagliflozin in Heart Failure Across the Spectrum of Kidney Function: Insights from the EMPEROR-Preserved Trial

2023· article· en· W4366083577 on OpenAlexaff
Abhinav Sharma, João Pedro Ferreira, Faı̈ez Zannad, Stuart Pocock, Gerasimos Filippatos, Egon Pfarr, Michaela Petrini, Bettina J. Kraus, Christoph Wanner, Milton Packer, Javed Butler, Stefan D. Anker

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Heart Failure · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsEmpagliflozinMedicineRenal functionHazard ratioKidney diseaseHeart failureInternal medicineEjection fractionDialysisConfidence intervalCardiologyCreatinineUrologyDiabetes mellitusEndocrinologyType 2 diabetes

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aim In the EMPEROR-Preserved trial, empagliflozin improved clinical outcomes of patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction. In this pre-specified analysis, we aim to study the effect of empagliflozin on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes across the spectrum of kidney function. Methods and results Patients were categorized by the presence or absence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) at baseline (CKD defined by an estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 or urine albumin to creatinine ratio >300 mg/g). The primary and key secondary outcomes were (i) a composite of cardiovascular death or first HF hospitalization (primary outcome); (ii) total number of HF hospitalization, (iii) eGFR slope; and a pre-specified exploratory composite kidney outcome including a sustained ≥40% decline in eGFR, chronic dialysis or renal transplant. The median follow-up was 26.2 months. A total of 5988 patients were randomized to empagliflozin or placebo, of whom 3198 (53.5%) had CKD. Irrespective of CKD status, empagliflozin reduced the primary outcome (with CKD: hazard ratio [HR] 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69–0.94; without CKD: HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60–0.95; interaction p = 0.67) and total (first and recurrent) hospitalizations for HF (with CKD: HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54–0.86; without CKD: HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66–1.21; interaction p = 0.17). Empagliflozin slowed the slope of eGFR decline by 1.43 (1.01–1.85) ml/min/1.73 m2/year in patients with CKD and 1.31 (0.88–1.74) ml/min/1.73 m2/year in patients without CKD (interaction p = 0.70). Empagliflozin did not reduce the pre-specified kidney outcome in patients with or without CKD (with CKD: HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.71–1.34; without CKD: HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.58–1.48; interaction p = 0.86) but slowed progression to macroalbuminuria and reduced the risk of acute kidney injury. The effect of empagliflozin on the primary composite outcome and the key secondary outcomes was consistent across five baseline eGFR categories (all interaction p >0.05). Empagliflozin was well tolerated independent of CKD status. Conclusions In EMPEROR-Preserved, empagliflozin had a beneficial effect on the key efficacy outcomes in patients with and without CKD. Overall, the benefit and safety of empagliflozin was consistent across a wide range of kidney function spectrum, down to a baseline eGFR of 20 ml/min/1.73 m2.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.246
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations65
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Heart FailureSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207