MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026963340 · doi:10.2337/dc14-1850

Saxagliptin and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Moderate or Severe Renal Impairment: Observations From the SAVOR-TIMI 53 Trial

2014· article· en· W2026963340 on OpenAlexaff
Jacob A. Udell, Deepak L. Bhatt, Eugene Braunwald, Matthew A. Cavender, Ofri Mosenzon, Philippe Gabríel Steg, Jaime A. Davidson, José Carlos Nicolau, Ramón Corbalán, Boaz Hirshberg, Robert Frederich, KyungAh Im, Amarachi Umez-Eronini, Ping He, Darren K. McGuire, Lawrence A. Leiter, Itamar Raz, Benjamin M. Scirica

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Care · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersAstraZenecaBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsMedicineSaxagliptinInternal medicineRenal functionAlogliptinTIMIType 2 diabetesMyocardial infarctionHazard ratioDiabetes mellitusHeart failureGlycemicCardiologyEndocrinologyPercutaneous coronary interventionSitagliptinConfidence intervalInsulin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The glycemic management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and renal impairment is challenging, with few treatment options. We investigated the effect of saxagliptin in the Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus (SAVOR)-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 53 trial according to baseline renal function. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients with T2DM at risk for cardiovascular events were stratified as having normal or mildly impaired renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] >50 mL/min/1.73 m(2); n = 13,916), moderate renal impairment (eGFR 30-50 mL/min/1.73 m(2); n = 2,240), or severe renal impairment (eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m(2); n = 336) and randomized to receive saxagliptin or placebo. The primary end point was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. RESULTS: After a median duration of 2 years, saxagliptin neither increased nor decreased the risk of the primary and secondary composite end points compared with placebo, irrespective of renal function (all P for interactions ≥ 0.19). Overall, the risk of hospitalization for heart failure among the three eGFR groups of patients was 2.2% (referent), 7.4% (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.38 [95% CI 1.95-2.91], P < 0.001), and 13.0% (adjusted HR 4.59 [95% CI 3.28-6.28], P < 0.001), respectively. The relative risk of hospitalization for heart failure with saxagliptin was similar (P for interaction = 0.43) in patients with eGFR >50 mL/min/1.73 m(2) (HR 1.23 [95% CI 0.99-1.55]), eGFR 30-50 mL/min/1.73 m(2) (HR 1.46 [95% CI 1.07-2.00]), and in patients with eGFR <30 (HR 0.94 [95% CI 0.52-1.71]). Patients with renal impairment achieved reductions in microalbuminuria with saxagliptin (P = 0.041) that were similar to those of the overall trial population. CONCLUSIONS: Saxagliptin did not affect the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events, increased the risk of heart failure hospitalization, and reduced progressive albuminuria, irrespective of baseline renal function.

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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations164
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes CareSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207