SaO010EFFECTS OF THE GLUCAGON-LIKE PEPTIDE-1 (GLP-1) ANALOGUES SEMAGLUTIDE AND LIRAGLUTIDE ON RENAL OUTCOMES – A POOLED ANALYSIS OF THE SUSTAIN 6 AND LEADER TRIALS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In the randomised cardiovascular (CV) outcomes trials SUSTAIN 6 and LEADER, semaglutide and liraglutide improved CV and renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and high CV risk. This post hoc analysis of pooled data from the trials investigated the effects of GLP-1 analogues semaglutide and liraglutide vs placebo on renal outcomes defined by a range of clinically relevant reductions in estimated GFR (eGFR). METHODS: SUSTAIN 6 and LEADER compared semaglutide and liraglutide vs placebo in 3297 and 9340 patients, respectively. Primary outcome for both trials was major adverse CV events, with a nephropathy composite as secondary outcome. In this pooled analysis (N=12637), time to onset of persistent eGFR reduction (30%, 40%, 50% and 57% [corresponding to doubling of serum creatinine]) from baseline was assessed across the overall pooled population and by baseline kidney disease subgroups: eGFR ≥30 to <60 mL/min/1.73m² and micro- or macroalbuminuria (urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio [UACR] ≥30 mg/g) compared with eGFR ≥60 mL/min/1.73m² or normoalbuminuria (UACR <30 mg/g). Analyses were performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide/liraglutide, placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by trial. RESULTS: Overall fewer patients on the GLP-1 analogues vs placebo reached the eGFR reduction thresholds. For the overall population, event rates declined and effect sizes tended to increase (reduced hazard ratios [HRs]) with increasing eGFR reduction thresholds; p<0.05 for persistent 40% and 50% eGFR reduction, although few events of 57% eGFR reduction occurred. A similar pattern was seen for those with pre‑existing kidney disease, although with higher event rates and larger effect sizes (HR≤0.65; p<0.05 for all comparisons, p-interaction <0.1) (Figure). CONCLUSIONS: This pooled analysis indicates lower rates of substantial loss of kidney function with the GLP-1 analogues semaglutide and liraglutide vs placebo using a range of clinically relevant endpoints. The treatment effect appears larger in patients with pre-existing kidney disease.
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 | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".