The effects of canagliflozin compared to sitagliptin on cardiorespiratory fitness in type 2 diabetes mellitus and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: The <scp>CANA‐HF</scp> study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Canagliflozin reduces hospitalizations for heart failure (HF) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Its effect on cardiorespiratory fitness and cardiac function in patients with established HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is unknown. Methods We conducted a double‐blind randomized controlled trial of canagliflozin 100 mg or sitagliptin 100 mg daily for 12 weeks in 88 patients, and measured peak oxygen consumption (VO2) and minute ventilation/carbon dioxide production (VE/VCO2) slope (co‐primary endpoints for repeated measure ANOVA time_x_group interaction), lean peak VO2, ventilatory anaerobic threshold (VAT), cardiac function and quality of life (ie, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire [MLHFQ]), at baseline and 12‐week follow‐up. Results The study was terminated early due to the new guidelines recommending canagliflozin over sitagliptin in HF: 17 patients were assigned to canagliflozin and 19 to sitagliptin, total of 36 patients. There were no significant changes in peak VO2 and VE/VCO2 slope between the two groups (P = .083 and P = .98, respectively). Canagliflozin improved lean peak VO2 (+2.4 mL kgLM−1 min−1, P = .036), VAT (+1.5 mL kg−1 min−1, P = .012) and VO2 matched for respiratory exchange ratio (+2.4 mL Kg−1 min−1, P = .002) compared to sitagliptin. Canagliflozin also reduced MLHFQ score (−12.1, P = .018). Conclusions In this small and short‐term study of patients with T2DM and HFrEF, interrupted early after only 36 patients, canagliflozin did not improve the primary endpoints of peak VO2 or VE/VCO2 slope compared to sitagliptin, while showing favourable trends observed on several additional surrogate endpoints such as lean peak VO2, VAT and quality of life.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".