Liraglutide Reduces Cardiovascular Events and Mortality in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Independently of Baseline Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Levels and Statin Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
liraglutide T he causal relationship between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular events has been well established.1 In people with type 2 diabetes mellitus, LDL-C lowering with statins is strongly endorsed by clinical practice guidelines, with suggested LDL-C target levels including <100 mg/dL for high-risk patients, <70 mg/dL for very high-risk patients, 2-4 and ≤55 mg/dL in patients with cardiovascular disease at extreme risk. 2 Because LDL-C is a dominant pathophysiological mechanism of atherogenesis, questions pertain to whether newer antiatherosclerotic and cardiovascular protective therapies exhibit efficacy, even in the setting of low LDL-C.In this post hoc analysis of the LEADER trial, we evaluated the efficacy of liraglutide on cardiovascular outcomes and mortality across the spectrum of baseline LDL-C and statin use. 5 LEADER (Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov;unique identifier: NCT01179048) was a randomized trial of liraglutide (1.8 mg or maximum tolerated dose) versus placebo in 9340 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular risk (median follow-up, 3.8 years).5 The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACEs]).The key secondary outcome (expanded MACEs) also included coronary revascularization, hospitalization for unstable angina, and hospitalization for heart failure.The ethics committee or institutional review board at each center approved the trial protocol.Patients provided informed consent.Cardiovascular outcomes were prospectively adjudicated by an independent, blinded event adjudication committee.Tests for trends in risk of first MACE and cardiovascular death across the 3 baseline LDL-C groups were performed with the Cochran-Armitage test for trend applied in a logistic regression adjusted for prior cardiovascular disease.The treatment effect of liraglutide versus placebo on cardiovascular outcomes by LDL-C level <50, 50 to 70, and >70 mg/dL and statin use at baseline was estimated with Cox regression with treatment, groups by LDL-C level, and the interactions of both as factors and further adjusted for baseline cardiovascular risk factors (sex, region, smoking history, prior cardiovascular disease, antidiabetes medications, age, diabetes duration, and estimated glomerular filtration rate).5 In LEADER, 9187 patients had baseline LDL-C measured: 926 (10.1%), 2021 (22.0%), and 6240 (67.9%) had LDL-C <50, 50 to 70, or >70 mg/dL, respectively.Baseline demographics and risk factors were well balanced across LDL-C levels, except that the highest LDL-C group had a higher proportion of women, a lower incidence of prior myocardial infarction or stroke, and a lower rate of statin use compared with the other 2 groups.Mean LDL-C in the 3 groups was 38.7 (SD, 7.7), 61.9 (SD, 3.9), and 108.3 (SD, 30.9) mg/dL, respectively.At baseline, 72% were on a statin, with an additional 10% having statin added during the course of the study (9% in the liraglutide and 11% in the placebo group).
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".