Does hypoglycaemia increase the risk of cardiovascular events? A report from the ORIGIN trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Hypoglycaemia caused by glucose-lowering therapy has been linked to cardiovascular (CV) events. The ORIGIN trial provides an opportunity to further assess this relationship. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 12 537 participants with dysglycaemia and high CV-risk were randomized to basal insulin glargine titrated to a fasting glucose of ≤ 5.3 mmol/L (95 mg/dL) or standard glycaemic care. Non-severe hypoglycaemia was defined as symptoms confirmed by glucose ≤ 54 mg/dL and severe hypoglycaemia as a requirement for assistance or glucose ≤ 36 mg/dL. Outcomes were: (i) the composite of CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke; (ii) mortality; (iii) CV mortality; and (iv) arrhythmic death. Hazards were estimated before and after adjustment for a hypoglycaemia propensity score. During a median of 6.2 years (IQR: 5.8-6.7), non-severe hypoglycaemic episodes occurred in 41.7 and 14.4% glargine and standard group participants, respectively, while severe episodes occurred in 5.7 and 1.8%, respectively. Non-severe hypoglycaemia was not associated with any outcome following adjustment. Conversely, severe hypoglycaemia was associated with a greater risk for the primary outcome (HR: 1.58; 95% CI: 1.24-2.02, P < 0.001), mortality (HR: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.39-2.19, P < 0.001), CV death (HR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.27-2.30, P < 0.001) and arrhythmic death (HR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.17-2.67, P = 0.007). Similar findings were noted for severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia for the primary outcome and mortality. The severe hypoglycaemia hazard for all four outcomes was higher with standard care than with insulin glargine. CONCLUSION: Severe hypoglycaemia is associated with an increased risk for CV outcomes in people at high CV risk and dysglycaemia. Although allocation to insulin glargine vs. standard care was associated with an increased risk of severe and non-severe hypoglycaemia, the relative risk of CV outcomes with hypoglycaemia was lower with insulin glargine-based glucose-lowering therapy than with the standard glycaemic control. Trial Registration (ORIGIN ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00069784).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".