MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109808840 · doi:10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.3316

Effects of canagliflozin on cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure by baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate: integrated analyses from the CANVAS Program and CREDENCE

2020· article· en· W3109808840 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth W. Mahaffey, George L. Bakris, Jaime D. Blais, Christopher P. Cannon, David Z.I. Cherney, C. V. Damaraju, Jagadish Gogate, Tom Greene, Hiddo J.L. Heerspink, James L. Januzzi, Mikhail Kosiborod, Adeera Levin, Ildiko Lingvay, Matthew R. Weir, Vlado Perkovic

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Toronto
FundersJanssen Scientific Affairs
KeywordsMedicineCanagliflozinRenal functionHazard ratioInternal medicineHeart failureDiabetes mellitusProportional hazards modelPlaceboEmpagliflozinConfidence intervalType 2 diabetesCardiologyUrologyEndocrinologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background People with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have a greater risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease, including hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), a complication that is more common as renal function declines. The sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor canagliflozin (CANA) reduced the risk of HHF in patients with T2DM and high CV risk or nephropathy in the CANVAS Program and CREDENCE trials, respectively. Methods This post hoc analysis included integrated, pooled data from the CANVAS Program and the CREDENCE trial. The effects of CANA compared with placebo on CV death or HHF, HHF, and CV death were assessed in subgroups defined by baseline eGFR (<45, 45–60, and >60 mL/min/1.73 m2). Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox regression models, with subgroup by treatment interaction terms added to test for heterogeneity. Interaction P values were calculated by including treatment group and baseline eGFR in the model. Results A total of 14,543 participants from the CANVAS Program (N=10,142) and CREDENCE (N=4,401) were included, with mean age, 65 y; 65% male; 75% white; mean eGFR 70.3 mL/min/1.73 m2. 1919 (13.2%) participants had baseline eGFR <45 mL/min/1.73 m2 (mean, 36.7 mL/min/1.73 m2), 2972 (20.4%) participants had eGFR 45–60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (mean, 53.1 mL/min/1.73 m2), and 9649 (66.3%) participants had eGFR >60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (mean, 82.3 mL/min/1.73 m2). Rates of CV death or HHF, HHF, and CV death increased as eGFR declined (Figure). CANA significantly reduced the risk of CV death or HHF and HHF compared with PBO, with consistent effects observed across subgroups. Conclusions CV death or HHF, HHF, and CV death event rates increased with lower baseline eGFR. CANA significantly reduced the risk of CV death or HHF, jointly and individually, in participants with T2DM and high CV risk or CKD in the CANVAS Program and the CREDENCE trial, with consistent benefits observed regardless of baseline eGFR. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Private company. Main funding source(s): Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.011
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207