Acute Declines in eGFR During Treatment with Canagliflozin (CANA) and Its Implications for Clinical Practice: Insights from CREDENCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: CANA slows progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in people with type 2 diabetes. CANA also induces a reversible acute decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), which is believed to be a hemodynamic effect. Predictors of the initial decline and its association with long-term eGFR trajectories and safety outcomes are unknown. Methods: This post hoc study of CREDENCE included 4289 patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD who had eGFR measured at both baseline and week 3. Participants were categorized by percentage decline in eGFR at week 3: greater than 10% decline; between 0 and 10% decline; and no decline. Baseline characteristics associated with acute eGFR drop >10% were evaluated using logistic regression. Long-term eGFR decline and safety outcomes were estimated in each eGFR decline category by linear mixed effects models and Cox regression after adjustment for laboratory measures and medication use. Results: More participants in the CANA (956 [45%]) versus placebo (PBO) group (450 [21%]) had an acute eGFR decline >10% (p<0.001). A >30% decline occurred infrequently (89 [4%] with CANA and 39 [2%] with PBO; p<0.001). In the CANA but not in the PBO group, older age (OR CANA 1.17, 95% CI 1.05-1.31; per 10 years) and history of heart failure (OR CANA 0.77, 0.59-0.99) were associated with a higher and lower likelihood of an acute eGFR decline >10%, respectively (both p interaction<0.05). Following the initial eGFR change, long-term eGFR trajectories were similar across eGFR decline categories (all p>0.05). Safety profiles were also similar except when the drop unusually exceeded 30%, in which case adverse events and renal related adverse events occurred more frequently. Results were consistent in subgroup analysis by baseline eGFR (30-<45, 45-<60, and 60-<90 mL/min/1.73m2). Conclusions: Although acute eGFR declines >10% occurred in nearly half of all patients following initiation of CANA, the benefit of CANA compared with PBO was observed regardless of the acute eGFR decline and safety profiles were similar. Funding: Commercial Support - Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC
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 | 0.007 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".