MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Acoramidis leads to clinically meaningful improvements from baseline in NT-proBNP and 6-minute walk distance in patients with transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy: observations from ATTRibute-CM

2025· article· en· W7127965144 on OpenAlexaff
Francesco Cappelli, M Fontana, T Coelho, Kai Vogtländer, Antonio Ciaccia, J F Tamby, J C Fox, T Damy, D P Judge, A Masri, P Garcia-Pavia, J D Gillmore

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAmyloidosis: Diagnosis, Treatment, Outcomes
Canadian institutionsBayer (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransthyretinClinical endpointPlaceboBaseline (sea)DiseaseClinical trialSurrogate endpointPhases of clinical research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background/Introduction Transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) is a progressive myocardial disease that leads to repeated cardiovascular hospitalisations and death within 3 to 10 years if left untreated. A progressive rise in NT-proBNP (>30% and >300 pg/mL) can be a prognostic marker of disease progression and is associated with an increased risk of mortality in people with ATTR-CM. In addition, the 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) test is a tool for evaluating functional capacity and is associated with prognosis in patients with ATTR-CM. Although targeted therapies have shown clinical efficacy, thresholds for clinically meaningful improvements from baseline in ATTR-CM remain unclear. Acoramidis, an oral transthyretin (TTR) stabiliser that achieves near-complete (≥90%) TTR stabilisation, is approved in the US and Europe for the treatment of ATTR-CM. In the phase 3 randomised controlled study ATTRibute-CM, acoramidis demonstrated significant efficacy on the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular-related hospitalization, change from baseline (CFB) in NT-proBNP, and CFB in 6MWD (p<0.0001). Purpose We assessed the capacity for acoramidis to achieve clinically meaningful improvements from baseline through 30 months in NT-proBNP and 6MWD in participants with ATTR-CM from the phase 3 ATTRibute-CM study. Methods Randomised participants in the ATTRibute-CM study received acoramidis or placebo (2:1) for 30 months. Clinically meaningful improvements from baseline for NT-proBNP were adopted as the inverse of those used to denote progression (reduction of >30% with a minimum decrease of >300 pg/mL) and defined improvement in 6MWD as an increase of >30 m. The proportion of participants who met clinically meaningful improvement in NT-proBNP and/or 6MWD were evaluated at month 30. Participants with missing assessments at month 30 were categorised as worsened. Univariate logistic regression with treatment group as an independent variable was performed to compute the odds ratio (OR) for response. Results A total of 611 participants were analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (acoramidis: 409; placebo: 202). Participant baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. A total of 106 (25.9%) participants in the acoramidis group showed improvement in at least one parameter compared with 19 (9.4%) in the placebo group (Table 1; OR 3.4, 95% CI 2.0–5.7, p<0.0001). Among those meeting both improvement criteria, 12 (2.9%) were in the acoramidis group compared with two (1.0%) in the placebo group (Table 2; OR 3.0, 95% CI 0.7–13.6, p<0.1502). Conclusion(s) Acoramidis treatment resulted in clinically meaningful improvements from baseline in NT-proBNP and/or 6MWD across 30 months in >25% of patients with ATTR-CM, a finding inconsistent with the natural history of this progressive disease. Further studies are needed to understand patient characteristics and factors that influence these improvements on acoramidis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicAmyloidosis: Diagnosis, Treatment, OutcomesFrench-language works237,207