Megumi Oshima1,2, Bruce Neal1,3,4, Tadashi Toyama2, Toshiaki Ohkuma1, Qiang Li1, Dick de Zeeuw5, Hiddo J L Heerspink1,5, Kenneth W Mahaffey6, Gregory Fulcher7, William Canovatchel8, David R Matthews9, Vlado Perkovic10. 1. Department of Renal and Metabolic, The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 2. Department of Nephrology and Laboratory Medicine, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan. 3. The Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 4. Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. 5. Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 6. Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 7. Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 8. Janssen Global Services, LLC, Raritan, New Jersey. 9. Harris Manchester College, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. 10. Department of Renal and Metabolic, The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia vlado.perkovic@unsw.edu.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditionally, clinical trials evaluating effects of a new therapy with creatinine-based renal end points use doubling of serum creatinine (equivalent to a 57% eGFR reduction), requiring large sample sizes. METHODS: To assess whether eGFR declines <57% could detect canagliflozin's effects on renal outcomes, we conducted a post hoc study comparing effects of canagliflozin versus placebo on composite renal outcomes using sustained 57%, 50%, 40%, or 30% eGFR reductions in conjunction with ESKD and renal death. Because canagliflozin causes an acute reversible hemodynamic decline in eGFR, we made estimates using all eGFR values as well as estimates that excluded early measures of eGFR influenced by the acute hemodynamic effect. RESULTS: Among the 10,142 participants, 93 (0.9%), 161 (1.6%), 352 (3.5%), and 800 (7.9%) participants recorded renal outcomes on the basis of 57%, 50%, 40%, or 30% eGFR reduction, respectively, during a mean follow-up of 188 weeks. Compared with a 57% eGFR reduction (risk ratio [RR], 0.51; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.34 to 0.77), the effect sizes were progressively attenuated when using 50% (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.83), 40% (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.86), or 30% (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.93) eGFR reductions. In analyses that controlled for the acute hemodynamic fall in eGFR, effect sizes were comparable, regardless of whether a 57%, 50%, 40%, or 30% eGFR reduction was used. Estimated sample sizes for studies on the basis of lesser eGFR reductions were much reduced by controlling for this early hemodynamic effect. CONCLUSIONS: Declines in eGFR <57% may provide robust estimates of canagliflozin's effects on renal outcomes if the analysis controls for the drug's acute hemodynamic effect. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER: CANagliflozin cardioVascular Assessment Study (CANVAS), NCT01032629 and CANVAS-R, NCT01989754.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Traditionally, clinical trials evaluating effects of a new therapy with creatinine-based renal end points use doubling of serum creatinine (equivalent to a 57% eGFR reduction), requiring large sample sizes. METHODS: To assess whether eGFR declines <57% could detect canagliflozin's effects on renal outcomes, we conducted a post hoc study comparing effects of canagliflozin versus placebo on composite renal outcomes using sustained 57%, 50%, 40%, or 30% eGFR reductions in conjunction with ESKD and renal death. Because canagliflozin causes an acute reversible hemodynamic decline in eGFR, we made estimates using all eGFR values as well as estimates that excluded early measures of eGFR influenced by the acute hemodynamic effect. RESULTS: Among the 10,142 participants, 93 (0.9%), 161 (1.6%), 352 (3.5%), and 800 (7.9%) participants recorded renal outcomes on the basis of 57%, 50%, 40%, or 30% eGFR reduction, respectively, during a mean follow-up of 188 weeks. Compared with a 57% eGFR reduction (risk ratio [RR], 0.51; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.34 to 0.77), the effect sizes were progressively attenuated when using 50% (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.83), 40% (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.86), or 30% (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.93) eGFR reductions. In analyses that controlled for the acute hemodynamic fall in eGFR, effect sizes were comparable, regardless of whether a 57%, 50%, 40%, or 30% eGFR reduction was used. Estimated sample sizes for studies on the basis of lesser eGFR reductions were much reduced by controlling for this early hemodynamic effect. CONCLUSIONS: Declines in eGFR <57% may provide robust estimates of canagliflozin's effects on renal outcomes if the analysis controls for the drug's acute hemodynamic effect. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER: CANagliflozin cardioVascular Assessment Study (CANVAS), NCT01032629 and CANVAS-R, NCT01989754.
Authors: Andrew S Levey; Lesley A Inker; Kunihiro Matsushita; Tom Greene; Kerry Willis; Edmund Lewis; Dick de Zeeuw; Alfred K Cheung; Josef Coresh Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Bruce Neal; Vlado Perkovic; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Dick de Zeeuw; Greg Fulcher; Ngozi Erondu; Wayne Shaw; Gordon Law; Mehul Desai; David R Matthews Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-06-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hiddo J Lambers Heerspink; Misghina Weldegiorgis; Lesley A Inker; Ron Gansevoort; Hans-Henrik Parving; Jamie P Dwyer; Hasi Mondal; Josef Coresh; Tom Greene; Andrew S Levey; Dick de Zeeuw Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2013-11-06 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Christoph Wanner; Silvio E Inzucchi; John M Lachin; David Fitchett; Maximilian von Eynatten; Michaela Mattheus; Odd Erik Johansen; Hans J Woerle; Uli C Broedl; Bernard Zinman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-06-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Vlado Perkovic; Dick de Zeeuw; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Greg Fulcher; Ngozi Erondu; Wayne Shaw; Terrance D Barrett; Michele Weidner-Wells; Hsiaowei Deng; David R Matthews; Bruce Neal Journal: Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 32.069
Authors: Brendon L Neuen; Toshiaki Ohkuma; Bruce Neal; David R Matthews; Dick de Zeeuw; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Greg Fulcher; Mehul Desai; Qiang Li; Hsiaowei Deng; Norm Rosenthal; Meg J Jardine; George Bakris; Vlado Perkovic Journal: Circulation Date: 2018-10-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Bethany Warren; Casey M Rebholz; Yingying Sang; Alexandra K Lee; Josef Coresh; Elizabeth Selvin; Morgan E Grams Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Hongyan Liu; Vikas S Sridhar; Bruce A Perkins; Julio Rosenstock; David Z I Cherney Journal: Curr Diab Rep Date: 2022-05-28 Impact factor: 4.810
Authors: Brendon L Neuen; Hocine Tighiouart; Hiddo J L Heerspink; Edward F Vonesh; Juhi Chaudhari; Shiyuan Miao; Tak Mao Chan; Fernando C Fervenza; Jürgen Floege; Marian Goicoechea; William G Herrington; Enyu Imai; Tazeen H Jafar; Julia B Lewis; Philip Kam-Tao Li; Francesco Locatelli; Bart D Maes; Ronald D Perrone; Manuel Praga; Annalisa Perna; Francesco P Schena; Christoph Wanner; Jack F M Wetzels; Mark Woodward; Di Xie; Tom Greene; Lesley A Inker Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2021-12-03 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: David Z I Cherney; Francesco Cosentino; Samuel Dagogo-Jack; Darren K McGuire; Richard Pratley; Robert Frederich; Mario Maldonado; Chih-Chin Liu; Jie Liu; Annpey Pong; Christopher P Cannon Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2021-06-18 Impact factor: 10.614
Authors: Natalie Staplin; Alistair J Roddick; Jonathan Emberson; Christina Reith; Alex Riding; Alexa Wonnacott; Apexa Kuverji; Sunil Bhandari; Colin Baigent; Richard Haynes; William G Herrington Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2021-10-26