MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398252010 · doi:10.1093/ndt/gfae069.446

#2459 Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of eGFR in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy treated with Nefecon (TRF budesonide) or sparsentan

2024· article· en· W4398252010 on OpenAlexaff
Heather N. Reich, Mit Patel, Agnieszka Kopiec, Shuai Fu, Noemi Hummel, Richard Lafayette

Bibliographic record

VenueNephrology Dialysis Transplantation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBudesonideNephropathyMedicineAntibodyMatching (statistics)Internal medicineGastroenterologyImmunologyPathologyEndocrinologyCorticosteroidDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background and Aims Primary immunoglobulin A nephropathy (IgAN) is an immune-mediated disease that can lead to kidney failure, need for dialysis and kidney transplantation, and early death. IgAN is the most common type of primary glomerulonephritis globally, with an estimated worldwide incidence of 2.5 per 100 000 individuals per year. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is a measure of renal function and is accepted as a surrogate endpoint for clinical trials evaluating kidney function deterioration. In December 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted full approval to Nefecon (marketed as Tarpeyo® by Calliditas Therapeutics), a targeted-release formulation of budesonide, to reduce the loss of kidney function in adults with IgAN at risk of disease progression, based on the Phase 3 NefIgArd clinical trial. In February 2023, sparsentan (marketed as Filspari™ by Travere Therapeutics) was granted accelerated approval by the FDA to reduce proteinuria in adults with primary IgAN at risk of rapid disease progression, generally a urine protein–creatinine ratio (UPCR) ≥1.5 g/g, based on the Phase 3 PROTECT study. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) is a widely accepted and relevant methodology for comparing treatments across trials in the absence of head-to-head comparisons. In this analysis, we aimed to compare the effects of Nefecon and sparsentan on kidney function deterioration in patients with IgAN, as assessed by eGFR. Method An anchored MAIC was performed to estimate the relative effect of Nefecon and sparsentan on the absolute eGFR change from baseline at 9, 12 and 24 months, with common comparators of optimized renin–angiotensin system inhibition for NefIgArd and irbesartan for PROTECT. Patient-level data from NefIgArd were used to select a population matched to PROTECT, and the following baseline characteristics were used to determine the weights: mean age (years), sex (% male), race (% white), mean eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2), mean UPCR (g/g), urine albumin–creatinine ratio (UACR) (% with UACR >1.1 g/g), and urinary protein excretion (% with urinary protein excretion >1.8 g/day). Absolute change in eGFR was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) method, including baseline, 3-, 6-, 9-, 12-, 18- and 24-month data, baseline eGFR, baseline eGFR-by-time interaction, treatment, and treatment-by-time interaction. The MAIC weights were incorporated into the MMRM. A Bayesian fixed-effects network meta-analysis was performed on the relative effect from PROTECT and the weighted relative effect from NefIgArd, measured by the estimated absolute change from baseline in eGFR. Results The matching-adjustment of the NefIgArd patient population to the PROTECT population is shown in Table 1. The weighted NefIgArd population exhibits very similar baseline characteristics to the PROTECT population. The effective sample size of the weighted NefIgArd population is 208. Results from the anchored MAIC showed statistically and clinically significant favorable effects of Nefecon versus sparsentan on eGFR for all time points analyzed (Fig. 1). Mean differences in the absolute change in eGFR of 5.68 mL/min/1.73 m2 (95% credible interval [Crl] 3.14, 8.20; p < 0.001), 3.48 mL/min/1.73 m2 (95% Crl 0.97, 5.97; p = 0.006) and 3.28 mL/min/1.73 m2 (95% Crl 0.02, 6.51; p = 0.048) were observed when comparing Nefecon with sparsentan at 9 months vs 36 weeks, 12 months vs 48 weeks, and 24 months vs 106 weeks, respectively. Conclusion After accounting for differences in the patient populations from the NefIgArd and PROTECT trials, the anchored MAIC showed that treatment with Nefecon 16 mg/day for 9 months was associated with greater eGFR benefit compared with continuous treatment with sparsentan 400 mg/day over 2 years, with significant differences observed as early as 9 months after treatment initiation and sustained up to 2-years of follow-up.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.007
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNephrology Dialysis TransplantationSame topicLiver Disease Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207