Antihyperglycemic agents and cardiovascular outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) with antihyperglycemic agents conducted since 2008 US Food and Drug Administration guidance. RECENT FINDINGS: A series of large CVOTs since 2008 have included patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), who are otherwise treated according to standard of care. After the initial trials with incretin agents demonstrated cardiovascular safety, two recent CVOTs with currently available antihyperglycemic agents - EMPA-REG OUTCOME with empagliflozin and LEADER with liraglutide - show a significant reduction of the primary composite outcome, including a significant difference in the cardiovascular death end-point in both trials [EMPA-REG OUTCOME: hazard ratio = 0.62, confidence interval (CI) = 0.49-0.77, P < 0.001 and LEADER: hazard ratio = 0.78, CI = 0.66-0.93, P = 0.007]. Number needed to treat to prevent one cardiovascular death of 46 and 77 for empagliflozin and liraglutide, respectively, over 3 years is comparable with other currently employed evidence-based cardioprotective strategies. In addition, EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial had a robust reduction in hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio = 0.65, CI = 0.50-0.85, P = 0.002). SUMMARY: New-generation CVOTs are shifting the focus in the treatment of T2D to the prevention of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".