Long‐term maintenance of efficacy of dapagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the long-term efficacy, safety and tolerability of dapagliflozin versus placebo added to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS: Data were pooled from two phase III studies (NCT01031680 and NCT01042977) in high-risk patients (N = 1887) with T2DM and CVD treated with dapagliflozin (10 mg/day) or placebo. Patients completing the double-blind treatment studies (24 weeks) entered one or two sequential double-blind, long-term (LT) extensions of 28 (LT1; n = 1649) and 52 (LT2; n = 568) weeks. RESULTS: Baseline and CVD characteristics were similar in the two groups. Patients entering LT1 and LT2 on dapagliflozin maintained a greater mean reduction in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) versus placebo at 52 weeks [LT1, -0.58% (95% confidence interval -0.68, -0.49)] and 104 weeks [LT2, -0.35% (95% confidence interval -0.59, -0.12)]. Mean body weight and systolic blood pressure (SBP) reductions versus placebo were maintained in patients entering LT1 (52 weeks; -2.23 kg and -3.25 mmHg, respectively) and LT2 (104 weeks; -3.16 kg and -2.03 mmHg, respectively). Patients on dapagliflozin had a better three-item composite endpoint of clinical benefit (glycaemia, weight and SBP) compared with placebo at week 24 (LT1, 10.1% vs. 1.1%) and week 104 (LT2, 6.7% vs. 1.4%). Genital and urinary tract infections were more frequent with dapagliflozin than with placebo. Events of hypoglycaemia, renal impairment/failure and volume depletion were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term efficacy of dapagliflozin to maintain reductions in HbA1c, SBP and body weight over 2 years, together with its tolerability profile, make dapagliflozin an appropriate option in high-risk patients with T2DM and CVD.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".