MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3090535413 · doi:10.2215/cjn.14901219

Empagliflozin and Cardiovascular and Kidney Outcomes across KDIGO Risk Categories

2020· article· en· W3090535413 on OpenAlexaff
Adeera Levin, Vlado Perkovic, David C. Wheeler, Stefan Hantel, Jyothis T. George, Maximilian von Eynatten, Audrey Koitka‐Weber, Christoph Wanner

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEli Lilly and CompanyBoehringer Ingelheim
KeywordsMedicineEmpagliflozinInternal medicineBenzhydryl compoundsIntensive care medicineMEDLINEKidneyCardiologyDiabetes mellitusEndocrinologyType 2 diabetes

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objectives In the Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients (EMPA-REG Outcome), empagliflozin, in addition to standard of care, significantly reduced risk of cardiovascular death by 38%, hospitalization for heart failure by 35%, and incident or worsening nephropathy by 39% compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease. Using EMPA-REG Outcome data, we assessed whether the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD classification had an influence on the treatment effect of empagliflozin. Design, setting, participants, & measurements Patients with type 2 diabetes, established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and eGFR≥30 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 at screening were randomized to receive empagliflozin 10 mg, empagliflozin 25 mg, or placebo once daily in addition to standard of care. Post hoc , we analyzed cardiovascular and kidney outcomes, and safety, using the two-dimensional KDIGO classification framework. Results Of 6952 patients with baseline eGFR and urinary albumin-creatinine ratio values, 47%, 29%, 15%, and 8% were classified into low, moderately increased, high, and very high KDIGO risk categories, respectively. Empagliflozin showed consistent risk reductions across KDIGO categories for cardiovascular outcomes ( P values for treatment by subgroup interactions ranged from 0.26 to 0.85) and kidney outcomes ( P values for treatment by subgroup interactions ranged from 0.16 to 0.60). In all KDIGO risk categories, placebo and empagliflozin had similar adverse event rates, the notable exception being genital infection events, which were more common with empagliflozin for each category. Conclusions The observed effects of empagliflozin versus placebo on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes were consistent across the KDIGO risk categories, indicating that the effect of treatment benefit of empagliflozin was unaffected by baseline CKD status. Clinical Trial registry name and registration number: EMPA-REG OUTCOME, NCT01131676

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)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations81
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207