Effect of liraglutide 3.0 mg in individuals with obesity and moderate or severe obstructive sleep apnea: the SCALE Sleep Apnea randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obesity is strongly associated with prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and weight loss has been shown to reduce disease severity. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether liraglutide 3.0 mg reduces OSA severity compared with placebo using the primary end point of change in apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) after 32 weeks. Liraglutide's weight loss efficacy was also examined. SUBJECTS/METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind trial, non-diabetic participants with obesity who had moderate (AHI 15-29.9 events h(-1)) or severe (AHI ⩾30 events h(-1)) OSA and were unwilling/unable to use continuous positive airway pressure therapy were randomized for 32 weeks to liraglutide 3.0 mg (n=180) or placebo (n=179), both as adjunct to diet (500 kcal day(-1) deficit) and exercise. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (mean age 48.5 years, males 71.9%, AHI 49.2 events h(-1), severe OSA 67.1%, body weight 117.6 kg, body mass index 39.1 kg m(-2), prediabetes 63.2%, HbA1c 5.7%). RESULTS: After 32 weeks, the mean reduction in AHI was greater with liraglutide than with placebo (-12.2 vs -6.1 events h(-1), estimated treatment difference: -6.1 events h(-1) (95% confidence interval (CI), -11.0 to -1.2), P=0.0150). Liraglutide produced greater mean percentage weight loss compared with placebo (-5.7% vs -1.6%, estimated treatment difference: -4.2% (95% CI, -5.2 to -3.1%), P<0.0001). A statistically significant association between the degree of weight loss and improvement in OSA end points (P<0.01, all) was demonstrated post hoc. Greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) were seen with liraglutide versus placebo (both P<0.001). The safety profile of liraglutide 3.0 mg was similar to that seen with doses ⩽1.8 mg. CONCLUSIONS: As an adjunct to diet and exercise, liraglutide 3.0 mg was generally well tolerated and produced significantly greater reductions than placebo in AHI, body weight, SBP and HbA1c in participants with obesity and moderate/severe OSA. The results confirm that weight loss improves OSA-related parameters.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".