MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3128371024 · doi:10.1681/asn.20203110s1349c

Effects of Semaglutide on CKD Outcomes: A Post Hoc Pooled Analysis from the SUSTAIN 6 and PIONEER 6 Trials

2020· article· en· W3128371024 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine R. Tuttle, David Cherney, Samy Hadjadj, Thomas Idorn, Ofri Mosenzon, Vlado Perkovic, Soren Rasmussen, Benjamin Ole Wolthers, Stephen C. Bain

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemaglutidePost-hoc analysisPost hocPooled analysisMedicinePsychologyInternal medicineMeta-analysisEndocrinologyType 2 diabetesLiraglutideDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The SUSTAIN 6 cardiovascular outcomes trial (CVOT) indicated a benefit on kidney disease with subcutaneous (s.c.) once-weekly (OW) semaglutide vs placebo (PBO) in subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at high CV risk. The PIONEER 6 CVOT reported CV safety with oral once-daily (OD) semaglutide in a similar cohort. This post hoc analysis evaluated the potential benefit of semaglutide vs PBO on chronic kidney disease (CKD) outcomes. Methods: Data from 6,480 subjects (SUSTAIN 6: N=3,297; median follow-up, 2.1 years; mean baseline [BL] estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR], 76 mL/min/1.73 m2; PIONEER 6: N=3,183; median follow-up, 1.3 years; mean BL eGFR, 74 mL/min/1.73 m2) were pooled for semaglutide (0.5 and 1.0 mg s.c. OW, 14 mg oral OD) or PBO. Time to onset of persistent eGFR reduction (≥30, ≥40, ≥50, ≥57% [corresponding to doubling of serum creatinine]) was evaluated overall and by BL eGFR subgroup (≥30-<60, ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2). Analyses used a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment group and eGFR subgroup and interaction between both as fixed factors stratified by trial. Results: In the overall population, hazard ratios (HRs) for onset of persistent eGFR reductions with semaglutide vs PBO were not statistically significantly different from 1, but estimated HRs were <1.0, favoring semaglutide. Estimated HRs for semaglutide vs PBO in the eGFR ≥30-<60 mL/min/1.73 m2 subgroup were generally lower than in the overall population; semaglutide significantly reduced the risk of developing a persistent 30% eGFR reduction vs PBO (p=0.03; Figure). No significant interactions between treatment and eGFR subgroup were observed. Conclusions: This analysis of semaglutide CVOTs supports the possibility of a smaller magnitude of eGFR decline with semaglutide vs PBO and suggests a potential kidney disease benefit of semaglutide vs PBO in people with T2D and established CKD. Funding: Commercial Support - Novo Nordisk

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)0.013
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: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.016
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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 venueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicDiabetes Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→