MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403834188 · doi:10.1681/asn.2024d423pzjp

Aprocitentan in Patients with CKD: Subgroup Analysis of the PRECISION Trial

2024· article· en· W4403834188 on OpenAlexaff
Markus P. Schlaich, George L. Bakris, Peter Cornelisse, Roland F. Dreier, Bruno Flamion, Johannes F.E. Mann, Patrick Rossignol

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElectrolyte and hormonal disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubgroup analysisMedicineInternal medicineMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Resistant hypertension is common and often difficult to control in patients with CKD. Hyperkalemia and decrease in eGFR are two main limitations of available antihypertensive therapies. The phase-3 PRECISION trial demonstrated that aprocitentan, a dual endothelin receptor antagonist, lowers blood pressure in patients with resistant hypertension and is safe. We now investigated the subgroup with CKD of the PRECISION trial. Methods: Of the730 patients with resistant hypertension on a standardized fixed-dose combination of amlodipine, valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide, 147 were classified as high-risk or very high-risk based on the KDIGO criteria. They were randomized to 2 doses of aprocitentan or placebo in PRECISION. Changes in office systolic blood pressure (SBP), the primary endpoint in PRECISION, urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were assessed at multiple time points: a) the end of the double-blind treatment phase at Week 4; b) the single-blind aprocitentan 25mg treatment phase at Week 36; c) the double-blind withdrawal phase at Week 40. Results: Changes in office SBP and UACR are summarized in Table 1. At Week 4, aprocitentan reduced office SBP by 13.5 mm Hg and 16.6 mm Hg in the 12.5 mg and 25 mg groups, respectively, compared with a 4.4 mm Hg reduction in the placebo group. At Week 36, the reduction in office SBP was maintained (16.4 mm Hg vs baseline). UACR was also reduced by 62% at Week 36 in the 25 mg group. Baseline eGFR of the subgroup was 50 ml/min/1.73 m2. Changes in eGFR (mL/min/1.73m2) from baseline to Week 4 were 0.5 and -2.5 in the 12.5 mg and 25 mg groups, respectively, and -0.4 in placebo. An eGFR slope of -0.9 mL/min/1.73m2/year was observed (“chronic slope”) from Week 6 to Week 36 (all patients on 25 mg aprocitentan). At Week 4, edema or fluid retention occurred in 14% and 17% of patients receiving aprocitentan 12.5mg and 25mg, respectively, vs 1% in the placebo group. Conclusion: In patients with CKD and resistant hypertension, aprocitentan substantially reduced BP and UACR vs placebo. Funding: Commercial Support - Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd.Table 1: Office SBP and UACR reduction in PRECISION: high-risk and very high-risk patients

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicElectrolyte and hormonal disordersFrench-language works237,207