MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3107654124 · doi:10.2215/cjn.08310520

Higher-Dose Sitagliptin and the Risk of Congestive Heart Failure in Older Adults with CKD

2020· article· en· W3107654124 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Flory T. Muanda, Matthew A. Weir, Lavanya Bathini, Kristin K. Clemens, Vlado Perkovic, Manish M. Sood, Eric McArthur, Jessica M. Sontrop, Richard B. Kim, Amit X. Garg

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMitacs
KeywordsSitagliptinMedicineHeart failureHazard ratioInternal medicineConfidence intervalProportional hazards modelCardiologyPopulationRelative riskDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, is commonly prescribed to patients with type 2 diabetes. As this drug is primarily eliminated by the kidney, a reduced dose is recommended for patients with CKD. Some evidence suggests that sitagliptin is associated with a higher risk of congestive heart failure, particularly at higher doses. We compare the 1-year risk of death or hospitalization with congestive heart failure in patients with CKD newly prescribed sitagliptin at >50 versus ≤50 mg/d. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: (but not receiving dialysis) who were newly prescribed sitagliptin between 2010 and 2017 in Ontario, Canada. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting on the basis of propensity scores to balance baseline characteristics. The primary composite outcome was death or hospitalization with congestive heart failure. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization with pancreatitis or hypoglycemia, all-cause hospitalization, and glycemic control. Weighted hazard ratios were obtained using Cox proportional hazards regression, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using bootstrap variance estimators. RESULTS: Of 9215 patients, 6518 started sitagliptin at >50 mg/d, and 2697 started sitagliptin at ≤50 mg/d. The 1-year risk of death or hospitalization with congestive heart failure did not differ significantly between groups (79 versus 126 events per 1000 person-years; weighted hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.67 to 1.14); hospitalization with pancreatitis (weighted hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.32 to 3.03) and hypoglycemia (weighted hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.64 to 1.90) also did not differ significantly between groups. Patients starting sitagliptin at >50 mg/d had lower mean glycated hemoglobin concentrations (weighted between-group difference, -0.12%; 95% confidence interval, -0.19 to -0.06) and a lower risk of all-cause hospitalization (weighted hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.66 to 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of death or congestive heart failure was not higher in older adults with CKD starting sitagliptin at >50 versus ≤50 mg/d. PODCAST: This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2020_11_25_CJN08310520_final.mp3.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicDiabetes Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→