MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898602921 · doi:10.2215/cjn.06200518

Long-Term Effects of Intensive Glycemic and Blood Pressure Control and Fenofibrate Use on Kidney Outcomes

2018· article· en· W2898602921 on OpenAlexaff
Amy K. Mottl, John B. Buse, Faramarz Ismail‐Beigi, Ronald J. Sigal, Carolyn F. Pedley, Vasilios Papademetriou, Debra L. Simmons, Lois Katz, Josyf C. Mychaleckyj, Timothy E. Craven

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicineFenofibrateGlycemicBlood pressureIntensive care medicineInternal medicineCardiologyInsulin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Visual Abstract Export Background and objectives In people with type 2 diabetes, aggressive control of glycemia, BP, and lipids have resulted in conflicting short-term (<5 years) kidney outcomes. We aimed to determine the long-term kidney effects of these interventions. Design, setting, participants, & measurements The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) was a multifactorial intervention study in people with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular disease (n=10,251), to examine the effects of intensive glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c <6.0% versus 7%–7.9%), BP control (systolic BP <120 mm Hg versus <140 mm Hg) or fenofibrate versus placebo added to simvastatin on cardiovascular events and death. The glycemia trial lasted 3.7 years and participants were followed for another 6.5 years in ACCORDION, the ACCORD Follow-On Study. The post hoc primary composite kidney outcome was defined as incident macroalbuminuria, creatinine doubling, need for dialysis, or death by any cause. Cox proportional hazards regression estimated the effect of each intervention on the composite outcome and individual components. In secondary outcome analyses, competing risk regression was used to account for the risk of death in incident kidney outcomes. Analyses were adjusted for sociodemographics, randomization groups, and clinical factors. Results There were 988 cases of incident macroalbuminuria, 954 with doubling of creatinine, 351 requiring dialysis, and 1905 deaths. Hazard ratios (HRs) for the composite outcome with intensive glycemic, BP control, and fenofibrate use compared with standard therapy were 0.92 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.86 to 0.98), 1.16 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.28), and 1.16 (95% CI, 1.06 to 1.27). Multivariable, secondary outcome analyses showed that in the glycemia trial, only macroalbuminuria was significantly decreased (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.77). In the BP and lipid trials, only creatinine doubling was affected (HR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.30 to 2.06 and HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.61 to 2.49, respectively). Conclusions In people with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular disease, intensive glycemic control may result in a long-term reduction in macroalbuminuria; however, intensive BP control and fenofibrates may increase the risk for adverse kidney events.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 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

Citations46
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207