MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4397042963 · doi:10.1681/asn.20233411s1367a

Long-Term Safety of Hypoxia-Inducible Factor Prolyl Hydroxylase Inhibitors in CKD: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

2023· review· en· W4397042963 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey T. Ha, Swapnil Hiremath, Min Jun, Suetonia C. Palmer, David C. Wheeler, Daniel W. Coyne, Vlado Perkovic, Sunil V. Badve

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer, Hypoxia, and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisMedicineRandomized controlled trialHypoxia (environmental)Hypoxia-inducible factorsInternal medicineBioinformaticsBiologyChemistryGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors are an oral treatment for anemia of chronic kidney disease (CKD). We assessed long-term safety of HIF prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors in CKD. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched to March 2023. Randomized trials comparing HIF prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors with an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) or placebo with ≥48 weeks of follow-up were eligible. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), individual components of composite cardiovascular endpoints, thrombotic events, and non-cardiovascular adverse events were evaluated. We conducted analyses separately in people with CKD treated with dialysis and those not treated with dialysis (PROSPERO registration CRD42021278011). Results: Twenty-five trials involving 26,478 participants proved eligible. Of these, 13 trials were conducted in 13,230 participants with dialysis-dependent CKD, and 12 trials involved 13,248 participants with CKD not requiring dialysis. There was no evidence that HIF prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors and ESA had different effects on MACE in people with dialysis-dependent CKD (relative risk [RR] 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.08) and non-dialysis CKD (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.22). Similarly, there was no evidence that HIF prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors and placebo had different effects on MACE (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.27) in people with non-dialysis CKD. The lack of difference between HIF prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors and ESA or placebo was observed for individual components of MACE, and for cardiovascular death. The safety of HIF prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors for other outcomes was similar to ESA in dialysis-dependent CKD. In non-dialysis CKD, dialysis access thrombosis, infections, hyperkalemia and seizures occurred more frequently in the HIF prolyl hydroxylase inhibitor group than the placebo group. In non-dialysis CKD, esophageal or gastric erosion was more frequent with HIF prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors than ESA. Conclusions: The long-term effects of HIF prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors were similar to ESA in dialysis-dependent CKD. However, HIF prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors increased the incidence of some adverse outcomes in non-dialysis CKD.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.033
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicCancer, Hypoxia, and Metabolism→French-language works237,207→