MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886598107 · doi:10.1002/ehf2.12334

Liraglutide and Weight Loss Among Patients with Advanced Heart Failure and a Reduced Ejection Fraction: Insights from the FIGHT Trial

2018· article· en· W2886598107 on OpenAlexaff
Abhinav Sharma, Andrew P. Ambrosy, Adam D. DeVore, Kenneth B. Margulies, Steven E. McNulty, Robert J. Mentz, Adrian F. Hernandez, G. Michael Felker, Lauren B. Cooper, Anuradha Lala, Justin Vader, John D. Groake, Barry A. Borlaug, Eric J. Velazquez

Bibliographic record

VenueESC Heart Failure · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersBiosense WebsterDuke Clinical Research InstituteNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteSanofiGlaxoSmithKlineAmgen
KeywordsLiraglutideEjection fractionMedicinePlaceboHeart failureWeight lossInternal medicineCardiologyConfidence intervalDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesEndocrinologyObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Obesity is present in up to 45% of patients with heart failure (HF). Liraglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor antagonist, facilitates weight loss in obese patients. The efficacy of liraglutide as a weight loss agent among patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and a recent acute HF hospitalization remains unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Functional Impact of GLP-1 for Heart Failure Treatment study randomized 300 patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤ 40%), both with and without diabetes and a recent HF hospitalization to liraglutide or placebo. The primary outcome for this post hoc analysis was the change in weight from baseline to last study visit. We conducted an 'on-treatment' analysis of patients with at least one follow-up visit on study drug (123 on liraglutide and 124 on placebo). The median age was 61 years, 21% were female, and 69% of patients had New York Heart Association functional Class III or IV symptoms. The median ejection fraction was 25% (25th, 75th percentile 19-32%). Liraglutide use was associated with a significant weight reduction [liraglutide -1.00 lbs vs. placebo 2.00 lbs; treatment difference -4.10 lbs; 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.94, -0.25; P = 0.0367; percentage treatment difference -2.07%, 95% CI -3.86, -0.28; P = 0.0237]. Similar results were seen after multivariable adjustments. Liraglutide also significantly reduced triglyceride levels (liraglutide 7.5 mg/dL vs. placebo 12.0 mg/dL; treatment difference -33.1 mg/dL; 95% CI -60.7, -5.6; P = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Liraglutide is an efficacious weight loss agent in patients with HFrEF. These findings will require further exploration in a well-powered cardiovascular outcomes trial.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueESC Heart FailureSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207