MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033670772 · doi:10.1093/ndt/gfaa140.mo051

MO051EFFECTS OF SEMAGLUTIDE ON CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE OUTCOMES: A POST HOC POOLED ANALYSIS FROM THE SUSTAIN 6 AND PIONEER 6 TRIALS

2020· article· en· W3033670772 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine R. Tuttle, David Cherney, Samy Hadjadj, Thomas Idorn, Ofri Mosenzon, Vlado Perkovic, Søren Rasmussen, Benjamin Ole Wolthers, Stephen C. Bain

Bibliographic record

VenueNephrology Dialysis Transplantation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemaglutideMedicineHazard ratioPlaceboKidney diseaseInternal medicinePost-hoc analysisPopulationCohortUrologyConfidence intervalDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesEndocrinologyLiraglutidePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background and Aims The SUSTAIN 6 cardiovascular outcomes trial (CVOT) indicated a renal benefit with subcutaneous (s.c.) once-weekly (OW) semaglutide vs placebo. The PIONEER 6 CVOT reported cardiovascular safety with oral semaglutide in a similar cohort using a similar trial design. In the present post hoc study, eGFR data from the SUSTAIN 6 and PIONEER 6 trials were pooled to evaluate the potential benefit of semaglutide (s.c. or oral) vs placebo on chronic kidney disease (CKD) outcomes. Method Data from 6,480 subjects from SUSTAIN 6 (N=3,297; median follow-up, 2.1 years; mean baseline eGFR, 76 mL/min/1.73 m2) and PIONEER 6 (N=3,183; median follow-up, 1.3 years; mean baseline eGFR, 74 mL/min/1.73 m2) were pooled for semaglutide (0.5 mg s.c. OW, 1.0 mg s.c. OW or 14 mg oral once daily) or placebo. We evaluated time to onset of persistent eGFR reduction (thresholds of ≥30%, ≥40%, ≥50% and ≥57% [57% corresponds to a doubling of serum creatinine]) from baseline in the overall pooled population and by baseline CKD subgroups (≥30–<60 mL/min/1.73 m2, n=1,699; ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2, n=4,762; data were missing for 19 subjects). Analyses were performed using a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment group (semaglutide vs placebo) and CKD subgroup as fixed factors and the interaction between both stratified by trial. Results In the overall population, the hazard ratios (HRs) for time to onset of persistent eGFR reductions with semaglutide vs placebo were <1.0, but did not achieve statistical significance. In subjects with baseline eGFR ≥30–<60 mL/min/1.73 m2, HRs for semaglutide vs placebo were consistently lower compared with the overall population and, in this subgroup, semaglutide significantly reduced the risk of developing a persistent 30% eGFR reduction vs placebo (Figure; p=0.03). Numerically larger effects were seen with increasing eGFR reduction thresholds in this subgroup, with the exception of the 57% eGFR reduction threshold. No statistically different interactions between treatment and CKD subgroup were observed. Conclusion The findings of this post hoc analysis of pooled data from SUSTAIN 6 and PIONEER 6 on clinically relevant outcomes for CKD support a smaller magnitude of eGFR decline with semaglutide vs placebo, despite relatively short follow-up times. The small number of events at both the 50% and 57% thresholds, and the associated broad confidence intervals, limit the interpretability of the results. In line with previous findings, the data suggest a renal benefit of semaglutide vs placebo in subjects with established CKD. The FLOW trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03819153), which is dedicated to exploring CKD outcomes with semaglutide treatment, is ongoing to test this hypothesis in patients with CKD at baseline.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.019
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNephrology Dialysis TransplantationSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207