MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399011335 · doi:10.1681/asn.0000000000000418

Effect of Avenciguat on Albuminuria in Patients with CKD

2024· article· en· W4399011335 on OpenAlexaff
Hiddo J.L. Heerspink, David Cherney, Abdul Halim Abdul Gafor, José Luis Górriz, Pablo E. Pérgola, Sydney Tang, Marc Desch, Hristo Iliev, Zhichao Sun, Dominik Steubl, Masaomi Nangaku

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlbuminuriaMedicineUrologyInternal medicineKidney disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key Points Despite new treatments for CKD, kidney failure risk remains high, particularly where albuminuria remains. We report a prespecified pooled analysis of two randomized controlled trials assessing a soluble guanylate cyclase activator for CKD. Avenciguat led to improvements in albuminuria in patients with CKD with/without type 2 diabetes mellitus, with acceptable safety. Background Avenciguat is a novel, potent soluble guanylate cyclase activator in development for CKD. Two trials investigated avenciguat in diabetic (NCT04750577) and non-diabetic (NCT04736628) CKD. Methods A prespecified pooled analysis of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of identical design. Adults with CKD (eGFR ≥20 and <90 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 , urine albumin–creatinine ratio [UACR] ≥200 and <3500 mg/g) were randomized to 20 weeks of placebo or avenciguat 1, 2, or 3 mg three times daily (TID), adjunctive to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker. The primary end point was change from baseline in UACR in 10-hour urine at week 20, analyzed per protocol. The secondary end point was UACR change from baseline in first morning void urine at week 20. Safety was monitored throughout. Results Overall, 500 patients (mean age 62 years [SD 13]; mean eGFR 44 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 [SD 18] and median 10-hour UACR 719 [interquartile range, 379–1285] mg/g) received placebo ( n =122) or avenciguat 1 mg ( n =125), 2 mg ( n =126), or 3 mg ( n =127) TID. All 243 patients in study one and 27 of 261 patients in study two had diabetes mellitus. Avenciguat 1, 2, and 3 mg TID reduced UACR in 10-hour and first morning void urine versus placebo throughout the treatment period. At week 20, placebo-corrected geometric mean changes (95% confidence interval) from baseline in UACR in 10-hour urine with avenciguat 1, 2, and 3 mg TID were −15.5% (−26.4 to −3.0), −13.2% (−24.6 to −0.1), and −21.5% (−31.7 to −9.8), respectively, analyzed per protocol. Corresponding changes in first morning void urine were −19.4% (−30.0 to −7.3), −15.5% (−26.9 to −2.5), and −23.4% (−33.5 to −11.8), respectively. Avenciguat was well tolerated; the overall frequency of adverse events was low and similar to placebo. The number of patients who discontinued the study drug because of adverse events with avenciguat 1, 2, and 3 mg TID were five (4%), 11 (9%), and 11 (9%), respectively, compared with four (3%) in the placebo group. Conclusions Avenciguat lowered albuminuria and was well tolerated in patients with CKD. Clinical Trial registry name and registration number: A Study to Test the Effect of Different Doses of BI 685509 on Kidney Function in People With Diabetic Kidney Disease, NCT04750577, and A Study to Test the Effect of Different Doses of Avenciguat (BI 685509) on Kidney Function in People With Chronic Kidney Disease, NCT04736628. Podcast This article contains a podcast at https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/JASN/2024_06_27_ASN0000000000000418.mp3

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations36
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207