MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Acoramidis has a beneficial effect compared with placebo on change from baseline in NAC ATTR stage at month 30 in patients with ATTR-CM: results from the ATTRibute-CM study

2025· article· en· W7128077415 on OpenAlexaff
J D Gillmore, M Grogan, T Sutton, N M Fine, K Bhatt, D Delgado, C Chen, J F Tamby, Suresh Siddhanti, J C Fox, M Fontana

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAmyloidosis: Diagnosis, Treatment, Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaceboTransthyretinRandomized controlled trialStage (stratigraphy)Heart failureClinical trialRenal functionAmyloidosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The National Amyloidosis Centre (NAC) staging system for transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) is used to classify patients into prognostic categories based on N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). The NAC staging system has been shown to predict ongoing survival throughout the course of ATTR-CM, with survival progressively decreasing from stage I to stage III. Acoramidis, a highly selective, oral transthyretin stabilizer that achieves near-complete (≥90%) transthyretin stabilization, has recently been approved in Europe and the USA for the treatment of wild-type or variant ATTR-CM in adults. In the phase 3 ATTRibute-CM study, acoramidis treatment was well tolerated and led to a 42% relative risk reduction in the composite of all-cause mortality and recurrent cardiovascular hospitalizations over 30 months compared with placebo (p=0.0005). Purpose To evaluate the ability of acoramidis treatment, as compared with placebo, to stabilize or improve NAC stage after 30 months in participants with ATTR-CM from the ATTRibute-CM study. Methods Participants in ATTRibute-CM were randomized 2:1 to receive acoramidis or placebo for 30 months. Efficacy analyses were conducted in the modified intention-to-treat population, which consisted of all randomized participants who had received at least one dose of acoramidis or placebo, had at least one efficacy evaluation after baseline and had a baseline eGFR ≥30 mL/min/1.73 m2. NAC stage at baseline and Month 30 was assessed. Changes from baseline to Month 30 were categorized as "stable", "improved" or "worsened". The "stable" category comprised participants who stayed within the same NAC stage at baseline and Month 30. The "improved" category comprised participants who moved from a higher NAC stage at baseline to a lower stage at Month 30. The "worsened or missing" category comprised participants who moved from a lower NAC stage at baseline to a higher stage at Month 30 and participants whose Month 30 NAC stage was missing. The change in NAC stage was compared between treatment groups using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification factors of genotype, NT-proBNP level and eGFR as recorded in the interactive voice/web response system at randomization. Results Overall, 611 participants were analysed (acoramidis: n=409; placebo: n=202). Baseline characteristics were comparable between treatment groups. Most participants had NAC stage I at baseline (acoramidis: 58.9%; placebo: 59.4%; Table). At Month 30, NAC stage remained stable or improved in 52.1% of acoramidis participants compared with 43.1% of placebo participants (p=0.0351; Figure). Conclusions Acoramidis treatment resulted in a greater proportion of participants whose NAC stage improved or remained stable at Month 30 compared with placebo, indicating better stabilization of their disease.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.242 · 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