Improved Clinical Outcomes Associated With Metformin in Patients With Diabetes and Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Metformin is considered contraindicated in patients with heart failure because of concerns over lactic acidosis, despite increasing evidence of potential benefit. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between metformin and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure and type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Using the Saskatchewan Health databases, 12,272 new users of oral antidiabetic agents were identified between the years 1991 and 1996. Subjects with incident heart failure (n = 1,833) were identified through administrative records based on ICD-9 code 428 and grouped according to antidiabetic therapy: metformin monotherapy (n = 208), sulfonylurea monotherapy (n = 773), or combination therapy (n = 852). Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess differences in all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalization, and the combination (i.e., all-cause hospitalization or mortality). RESULTS: Average age of subjects was 72 years, 57% were male, and average follow-up was 2.5 +/- 2.0 (SD) years. Compared with sulfonylurea therapy, fewer deaths occurred in subjects receiving metformin: 404 (52%) for sulfonylurea monotherapy versus 69 (33%) for metformin monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70 [95% CI 0.54-0.91]) and 263 (31%) for combination therapy (0.61 [0.52-0.72]). A reduction in deaths or hospitalizations was also observed: 658 (85%) for sulfonylurea monotherapy versus 160 (77%) for metformin monotherapy (0.83 [0.70-0.99]) and 681 (80%) for combination therapy (0.86 [0.77-0.96]). There was no difference in time to first hospitalization between study groups. CONCLUSIONS: Metformin, alone or in combination, in subjects with heart failure and type 2 diabetes was associated with lower morbidity and mortality compared with sulfonylurea monotherapy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".