Cardiovascular Risk Reduction With Liraglutide: An Exploratory Mediation Analysis of the LEADER Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results (LEADER) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov reg. no. NCT01179048) demonstrated a reduced risk of cardiovascular (CV) events for patients with type 2 diabetes who received the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist liraglutide versus placebo. The mechanisms behind this CV benefit remain unclear. We aimed to identify potential mediators for the CV benefit observed with liraglutide in the LEADER trial. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We performed exploratory analyses to identify potential mediators of the effect of liraglutide on major adverse CV events (MACE; composite of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) from the following candidates: glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), body weight, urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), confirmed hypoglycemia, sulfonylurea use, insulin use, systolic blood pressure, and LDL cholesterol. These candidates were selected as CV risk factors on which liraglutide had an effect in LEADER such that a reduction in CV risk might result. We used two methods based on a Cox proportional hazards model and the new Vansteelandt method designed to use all available information from the mediator and to control for confounding factors. RESULTS Analyses using the Cox methods and Vansteelandt method indicated potential mediation by HbA1c (up to 41% and 83% mediation, respectively) and UACR (up to 29% and 33% mediation, respectively) on the effect of liraglutide on MACE. Mediation effects were small for other candidates. CONCLUSIONS These analyses identify HbA1c and, to a lesser extent, UACR as potential mediators of the CV effects of liraglutide. Whether either is a marker of an unmeasured factor or a true mediator remains a key question that invites further investigation.
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 | 0.035 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".