MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dapagliflozin and Cardiac, Kidney, and Limb Outcomes in Patients With and Without Peripheral Artery Disease in DECLARE-TIMI 58

2020· article· en· W3046814568 on OpenAlexaff
Marc P. Bonaca, Stephen D. Wiviott, Thomas A. Zelniker, Ofri Mosenzon, Deepak L. Bhatt, Lawrence A. Leiter, Darren K. McGuire, Erica L. Goodrich, Remo Holanda de Mendonça Furtado, John Wilding, Avivit Cahn, Ingrid Gause‐Nilsson, Per Johanson, Martin Fredriksson, Peter A. Johansson, Anna Maria Langkilde, Itamar Raz, Marc S. Sabatine

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDapagliflozinMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineHazard ratioStroke (engine)Kidney diseaseDiabetes mellitusCardiologyMaceType 2 diabetesPercutaneous coronary interventionEndocrinologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) are at heightened risk of cardiovascular complications. The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduces the risk for hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) and kidney events in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. An increased risk of amputation has been observed with canagliflozin in 1 previous trial. We examined cardiovascular and kidney efficacy and the risk of limb-related events in patients with and without PAD in an exploratory analysis. Methods: A total of 17 160 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, including 1025 (6%) with PAD, were randomized. Key efficacy outcomes were MACE (cardiovascular [CV] death, myocardial infarction, stroke), CV death/HHF, and progression of kidney disease. Amputations, peripheral revascularization, and limb ischemic adverse events were site-reported and categorized by a blinded reviewer. Results: Patients in the placebo arm with PAD versus those without tended to have higher adjusted risk of CV death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.23 [95% CI, 0.97–1.56], P =0.094) and significantly higher adjusted risk of CV death/HHF (adjusted HR, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.21–2.12], P =0.0010) and progression of kidney disease (adjusted HR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.13 – 2.03], P =0.0058), and limb adverse events (adjusted HR, 8.37, P <0.001). The relative risk reductions with dapagliflozin for CV death/HHF (HR, 0.86, PAD; HR, 0.82, no-PAD; P -interaction=0.79) and progression of kidney disease (HR, 0.78, PAD; HR, 0.76, no-PAD; P -interaction=0.84) were consistent regardless of PAD. There were 560 patients who had at least 1 limb ischemic event, 454 patients with at least 1 peripheral revascularization, and 236 patients with at least 1 amputation, with a total of 407 amputations reported. Overall, there were no significant differences in any limb outcome with dapagliflozin versus placebo including limb ischemic adverse events (HR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.90–1.26]) and amputation (HR, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.84–1.40]), with no significant interactions by a history of PAD versus not ( P -interactions=0.30 and 0.093, respectively). Conclusions: Patients with versus without PAD are at a higher risk of CV death of CV death, HHF, and kidney outcomes, and have a consistent benefits for CV death/HHF and progression of kidney disease with dapagliflozin. Patients with PAD had a higher risk of limb events, with no consistent pattern of incremental risk observed with dapagliflozin. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01730534.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 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

Citations76
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207