OR30-06 Assessment of Dulaglutide Safety in Older Patient Populations in Rewind
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Dulaglutide (DU) was superior to placebo (PL) in reducing the incidence of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in the Researching Cardiovascular Events with a Weekly INcretin in Diabetes (REWIND Study) broad patient population. The safety of DU treatment is also of interest to health care providers who treat an older patient population (≥65 years of age). Aims: The primary objective of this post-hoc analysis was to evaluate DU safety in the REWIND patient subgroup populations categorized by age (≥ 65 and < 65 years) with regards to the occurrence of the composite safety outcome of overall mortality and severe hypoglycemia. One of the key secondary objectives was first occurrence of severe hypoglycemia. Methods: Patients were grouped into two age groups: ≥65 and <65 years. Time-to-event for the composite safety endpoint as well as individual variables were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards regression. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for between group treatment differences were also calculated. Results: Of the 9,901 patients randomized in REWIND, a total of 5,256 (DU, 2,619; PL, 2,637) were aged ≥65 years. The incidence of the composite safety outcome for patients aged ≥65 years was 399 of 2619 (15.2%) for DU-treated patients and 425 of 2,637 (16.1%) for PL-treated patients. The incidence of the composite safety outcome for those aged <65 years was 188 of 2,330 (8.1%) for DU-treated patients and 224 of 2,315 (9.7%) for PL-treated patients. Between group treatment differences (HR [95% CI]) were 0.94 (0.82, 1.08) for patients ≥65 years of age and 0.82 (0.68, 1.00) for patients <65 years of age; interaction p-value = 0.277. The incidence of the secondary outcome of first occurrence of severe hypoglycemia for patients aged ≥65 years was 46 of 2619 (1.8%) for DU-treated patients and 49 of 2,637 (1.9%) for PL-treated patients. The incidence of this outcome for patients <65 years was 18 of 2,330 (0.8%) for DU-treated patients and 25 of 2,315 (1.1%) for PL-treated patients. Between group treatment differences (HR [95% CI]) were 0.95 (0.63, 1.42) for patients ≥65 years of age and 0.71 (0.39, 1.31) for patients <65 years of age; interaction p-value = 0.443. The safety profile of DU was reviewed based upon the results of subgroup analysis of treatment emergent adverse events and serious adverse events by preferred terms for comparing PL and DU for age subgroups (≥65 years of age versus <65 years). None of the results indicated that DU has a different safety profile across the age subgroups evaluated in this post-hoc analysis. Conclusions: Treatment with DU demonstrated similar safety in REWIND patients aged ≥65 years and those aged <65 years. Dulaglutide can be considered a safe and effective treatment option for use in older adults.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".