MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficacy of Ertugliflozin on Heart Failure–Related Events in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Established Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease

2020· article· en· W3092434593 on OpenAlexaff
Francesco Cosentino, Christopher P. Cannon, David Z.I. Cherney, Urszula Masiukiewicz, Richard E. Pratley, Sam Dagogo‐Jack, Robert Frederich, B Charbonnel, James P. Mancuso, Weichung Shih, Steven G. Terra, Nilo B. Cater, Ira Gantz, Darren K. McGuire

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioPlaceboInternal medicineHeart failureEjection fractionDiabetes mellitusProportional hazards modelType 2 Diabetes MellitusDapagliflozinCardiologyGastroenterologyConfidence intervalEndocrinologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). We assessed the effect of ertugliflozin on HHF and related outcomes. Methods: VERTIS CV (Evaluation of Ertugliflozin Efficacy and Safety Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial), a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and atherosclerotic cardiovascular (CV) disease to once-daily ertugliflozin 5 mg, 15 mg, or placebo. Prespecified secondary analyses compared ertugliflozin (pooled doses) versus placebo on time to first event of HHF and composite of HHF/CV death, overall and stratified by prespecified characteristics. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used with the Fine and Gray method to account for competing mortality risk, and Andersen-Gill modeling to analyze total (first+recurrent) HHF and total HHF/CV death events. Results: A total of 8246 patients were randomly assigned to ertugliflozin (n=5499) or placebo (n=2747); n=1958 (23.7%) had a history of heart failure (HF) and n=5006 (60.7%) had pretrial ejection fraction (EF) available, including n=959 with EF ≤45%. Ertugliflozin did not significantly reduce first HHF/CV death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88 [95% CI, 0.75–1.03]). Overall, ertugliflozin reduced risk for first HHF (HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.54–0.90]; P =0.006). Previous HF did not modify this effect (HF: HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.44–0.90]; no HF: HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.54–1.15]; P interaction=0.40). In patients with HF, the risk reduction for first HHF was similar for those with reduced EF ≤45% versus preserved EF >45% or unknown. However, in the overall population, the risk reduction tended to be greater for those with EF ≤45% (HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.30–0.76]) versus EF >45% (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.58–1.29]). Effect on risk for first HHF was consistent across most subgroups, but greater benefit of ertugliflozin was observed in 3 populations: baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL·min –1 ·1.73 m –2 , albuminuria, and diuretic use (each P interaction <0.05). Ertugliflozin reduced total events of HHF (rate ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.56–0.87]) and total HHF/CV death (rate ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.72–0.96]). Conclusions: In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, ertugliflozin reduced the risk for first and total HHF and total HHF/CV death, adding further support for the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in primary and secondary prevention of HHF. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01986881.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations241
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207