MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092379111 · doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.4511

Association of SGLT2 Inhibitors With Cardiovascular and Kidney Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

2020· review· en· W3092379111 on OpenAlexaff
Darren K. McGuire, Weichung Shih, Francesco Cosentino, B Charbonnel, David Z.I. Cherney, Samuel Dagogo‐Jack, Richard E. Pratley, Michelle Greenberg, Shuai Wang, Susan Huyck, Ira Gantz, Steven G. Terra, Urszula Masiukiewicz, Christopher P. Cannon

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Cardiology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
FundersVetenskapsrådetNovo NordiskSanofiGlaxoSmithKlinePfizerAstraZenecaEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsMedicineType 2 diabetesHazard ratioInternal medicineKidney diseasePopulationDiabetes mellitusStroke (engine)Meta-analysisRandomized controlled trialMyocardial infarctionIntensive care medicineConfidence intervalEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors favorably affect cardiovascular (CV) and kidney outcomes; however, the consistency of outcomes across the class remains uncertain. Objective: To perform meta-analyses that assess the CV and kidney outcomes of all 4 available SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes. Data Sources: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed from January 1, 2015, to January 31, 2020. Study Selection: One hundred forty-five records were initially identified; 137 were excluded because of study design or topic of interest. As a result, a total of 6 randomized, placebo-controlled CV and kidney outcomes trials of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes were identified, with contributory data from 9 publications. All analyses were conducted on the total patient population of these trials. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Standardized data search and abstraction were performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement. Data were analyzed using a fixed-effect model. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included time to the first event of (1) the composite of major adverse CV events of myocardial infarction, stroke, or CV death, and each component, (2) the composite of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) or CV death (HHF/CV death) and each component, and (3) kidney composite outcomes. For outcomes in the overall trial populations and in selected subgroups, hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were pooled and meta-analyzed across trials. Results: Data from 6 trials comprised 46 969 unique patients with type 2 diabetes, including 31 116 (66.2%) with atherosclerotic CV disease. The mean (SD) age of all trial participants was 63.7 (7.9) years; 30 939 (65.9%) were men, and 36 849 (78.5%) were White. The median number of participants per trial was 8246 (range, 4401-17 160). Overall, SGLT2 inhibitors were associated with a reduced risk of major adverse CV events (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.95; Q statistic, P = .27), HHF/CV death (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.73-0.84; Q statistic, P = .09), and kidney outcomes (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.70; Q statistic, P = .09), with no significant heterogeneity of associations with outcome. Associated risk reduction for HHF was consistent across the trials (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.61-0.76; I2 = 0.0%), whereas significant heterogeneity of associations with outcome was observed for CV death (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93; Q statistic, P = .02; I2 = 64.3%). The presence or absence of atherosclerotic CV disease did not modify the association with outcomes for major adverse CV events (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.95 and HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83-1.07, respectively; P = .63 for interaction), with similar absence of associations with outcome modification by prevalent atherosclerotic CV disease for HHF/CV death (P = .62 for interaction), HHF (P = .26 for interaction), or kidney outcomes (P = .73 for interaction). Conclusions and Relevance: In this meta-analysis, SGLT2 inhibitors were associated with a reduced risk of major adverse CV events; in addition, results suggest significant heterogeneity in associations with CV death. The largest benefit across the class was for an associated reduction in risk for HHF and kidney outcomes, with benefits for HHF risk being the most consistent observation across the trials.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.018
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1,212
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA CardiologySame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207