MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Improvement in Cardiovascular Outcomes With Empagliflozin Is Independent of Glycemic Control

2018· letter· en· W2897613436 on OpenAlexaff
Silvio E. Inzucchi, Mikhail Kosiborod, David Fitchett, Christoph Wanner, Uwe Hehnke, Stefan Kaspers, Jyothis T. George, Bernard Zinman

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmpagliflozinGlycemicDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesInternal medicineCardiologyIntensive care medicineInsulinEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key Words: blood glucose ◼ sodiumglucose transporter 2 ◼ treatment outcome ◼ type 2 diabetes mellitus C ardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). 1 However, control of the major metabolic derangement of T2DM, hyperglycemia, as denoted by hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), does not substantively impact its cardiovascular complications. 2 In the EMPA-REG OUT-COME trial (Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients) involving 7020 patients with T2DM and established CVD, the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin reduced the risk of 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death) by 14%. 3 This effect was driven by a 38% reduction in cardiovascular death. 3Empagliflozin also reduced heart failure (HF) hospitalization by 35%. 3 Until EMPA-REG OUTCOME, such cardiovascular benefits had not been demonstrated by any glucose-lowering agent, and the data led to a label indication for empagliflozin to reduce cardiovascular mortality.We have previously reported no heterogeneity in the cardiovascular effects of empagliflozin in subgroups by HbA1c < versus ≥8.5% at baseline. 3,4Building on this, we analyzed the risks of cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization, and the composite of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death (1) in subgroups stratified by baseline HbA1c (<7%; 7% to <8%; 8% to <9%; ≥9%) and (2) after adjustment for HbA1c control (defined as <7.5%; yes/no) during the trial as a time-dependent factor.In the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, background glucose-lowering therapy was to remain unchanged for the first 12 weeks.We therefore also analyzed the risks of cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization, and HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death after week 12 in subgroups stratified by reduction in HbA1c from baseline to week 12 using 3 thresholds: (1) 0.5% (used by the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes to categorize glucose-lowering efficacy as low versus intermediate); (2) 0.3% (the U.S. Food and Drug Administration definition for a minimal clinically meaningful reduction), and (3) the median reduction across all patients (0.4%).In subgroup analyses, P values were derived from tests of heterogeneity of treatment group differences without adjustment for multiple testing.An independent ethics committee or institutional review board approved the clinical protocol at each participating center.All patients provided written informed consent.The reductions in risks of cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization, and HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death with empagliflozin versus placebo were consistent across categories of baseline HbA1c (Figure).In analyses adjusted for HbA1c control at baseline and during the trial, the relative reductions were similar to those in the main analyses (Figure).At week 12, the median HbA1c reduction was 0.4% (placebo, 0.1%; empagliflozin, 0.6%).The benefits of empagliflozin on these outcomes were evident regardless of whether the reduction in HbA1c reached thresholds of 0.5%, 0.3%, or the median (Figure).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations162
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207