Acute vs cumulative benefits of metformin use in patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the association between metformin use and heart failure (HF) exacerbation in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and pre-existing HF using alternative exposure models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed data for patients with T2D and incident HF from a national US insurance claims database. We compared the results of several multivariable Cox models where time-varying use of metformin was modelled as: (1) current use; (2) total duration of past use; and (3) use within the past 30 days or 10 days. The outcome was defined as time to HF-related hospitalization. We then re-analysed the data using flexible weighted cumulative exposure (WCE) models. RESULTS: A total of 7620 patients with diabetes and incident HF were analysed. The mean (SD) patient age was 54 (8) years, and 58% (n = 4440) were men. In all, 3799 individuals (50%) were exposed to metformin, and 837 HF hospitalizations (11%) occurred (mean follow-up 1.7 years). Results of conventional models suggested potential acute benefits in reducing HF exacerbation with metformin use in the past 10 days (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60-0.97), while WCE models, which provided a better fit for the data, suggested lack of a systematic effect (aHR 0.91, 95% CI 0.69-1.20). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that cumulative metformin exposure does not decrease the risk of HF-related exacerbation. Use of other anti-hyperglycaemic agents with proven efficacy in patients with HF should also be considered as treatment options in this population.
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) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".