MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3108024872 · doi:10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.3350

Cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and reduced eGFR and albuminuria: a REWIND post hoc subgroup analysis

2020· article· en· W3108024872 on OpenAlexaff
Helen M. Colhoun, Raleigh Malik, Fady T. Botros, Charles Atisso, Hertzel C. Gerstein

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMedicineAlbuminuriaHazard ratioMaceType 2 diabetesInternal medicinePost-hoc analysisSubgroup analysisDulaglutideRenal functionMyocardial infarctionDiabetes mellitusPlaceboClinical endpointRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalEndocrinologyPercutaneous coronary interventionExenatidePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background/Introduction Diabetic kidney disease affects up to 40% of people with diabetes and is associated with higher cardiovascular (CV) risk. REWIND was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with a primary outcome of first occurrence of the composite endpoint of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke (Major Adverse Cardiovascular Event [MACE]-3). Dulaglutide treatment reduced the incidence of MACE-3 in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with or without established CV disease. Purpose This REWIND post hoc subgroup analysis evaluated the effect of dulaglutide on MACE-3 in patients with an eGFR<60 and ≥60 mL/min/1.73m2 and patients with micro-/macro-albuminuria (UACR ≥30 mg/g) or normoalbuminuria (UACR <30 mg/g). Methods Eligible patients were those ≥50 years old with T2D who had either a previous CV event or CV risk factors. Patients were randomised (1:1) to dulaglutide 1.5 mg or placebo, both in addition to standard of care. A Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, eGFR subgroup (<60 and ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2), and treatment by eGFR subgroup interaction was used to analyse time to the first occurrence of MACE-3. These analyses were also conducted for albuminuria subgroups (micro-/macro-albuminuria or normoalbuminuria). Estimates of hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each subgroup. Results At baseline, 2,199 of 9,901 patients (22.2%) had an eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, 2,676 (27.0%) had microalbuminuria, and 791 (8.0%) had macroalbuminuria. This post hoc subgroup analysis showed that dulaglutide treatment was consistently associated with MACE-3 risk reduction in patients with eGFR <60 and ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (HR [95% CI]: 0.93 [0.76–1.13] and 0.86 [0.75–0.99], respectively; interaction p=0.545). Similarly, MACE-3 risk reduction was consistent in patients with micro-/macro-albuminuria or normoalbuminuria (HR [95% CI]: 0.84 [0.72–0.99] and 0.93 [0.79–1.10], respectively; interaction p=0.374). Conclusions Regardless of baseline eGFR or albuminuria status, dulaglutide reduces MACE-3 outcomes in patients with T2D and established CV disease or multiple CV risk factors. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Private company. Main funding source(s): Eli Lilly and Company

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.017
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicDiabetes Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→