MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of Regulatory Guidance on Evaluating Cardiovascular Risk of New Glucose-Lowering Therapies to Treat Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

2020· article· en· W3004095885 on OpenAlexaff
Abhinav Sharma, Neha J. Pagidipati, Robert M. Califf, Darren K. McGuire, Jennifer B. Green, Dave DeMets, Jyothis T. George, Hertzel C. Gerstein, Todd Hobbs, Rury R. Holman, Francesca Lawson, Lawrence A. Leiter, Marc A. Pfeffer, Jane E.B. Reusch, Jeffrey S. Riesmeyer, Matthew T. Roe, Yves Rosenberg, Robert Temple, Stephen D. Wiviott, John J.V. McMurray, Christopher B. Granger

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersNational Institutes of HealthDuke Clinical Research InstituteNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialIntensive care medicineGlycated hemoglobinDiabetes mellitusAdverse effectType 2 Diabetes MellitusMyocardial infarctionType 2 diabetesInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Responding to concerns about the potential for increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, specifically myocardial infarction, associated with certain glucose-lowering therapies, the US Food and Drug Administration and the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency issued guidance to the pharmaceutical industry in 2008. Glucose-lowering therapies were granted regulatory approval primarily from smaller studies that have demonstrated reductions in glycated hemoglobin concentration. Such studies were overall underpowered and of insufficient duration to show any effect on cardiovascular outcomes. The 2008 guidance aimed to ensure the cardiovascular safety of new glucose-lowering therapies to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This resulted in a plethora of new cardiovascular outcome trials, most designed primarily as placebo-controlled noninferiority trials, but with many also powered for superiority. Several of these outcome trials demonstrated cardiovascular benefits of the newer agents, resulting in the first-ever cardiovascular protection indications for glucose-lowering therapies. Determining whether the guidance continues to have value in its current form is critically important as we move forward after the first decade of implementation. In February 2018, a think tank comprising representatives from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies convened to consider the guidance in light of the findings of the completed cardiovascular outcome trials. The group made several recommendations for future regulatory guidance and for cardiovascular outcome trials of glucose-lowering therapies. These recommendations include requiring only the 1.3 noninferiority margin for regulatory approval, conducting trials for longer durations, considering studying glucose-lowering therapies as first-line management of type 2 diabetes mellitus, considering heart failure or kidney outcomes within the primary outcome, considering head-to-head active comparator trials, increasing the diversity of patients enrolled, evaluating strategies to streamline registries and the study of unselected populations, and identifying ways to improve translation of trial results to general practice.

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 score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations108
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207