MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139300663 · doi:10.1161/jaha.120.020053

Cardio/Kidney Composite End Points: A Post Hoc Analysis of the EMPA‐REG OUTCOME Trial

2021· article· en· W3139300663 on OpenAlexaff
João Pedro Ferreira, Bettina J. Kraus, Isabella Zwiener, Sabine Lauer, Bernard Zinman, David Fitchett, Audrey Koitka‐Weber, Jyothis T. George, Anne Pernille Ofstad, Christoph Wanner, Faı̈ez Zannad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsSinai Health SystemSt. Michael's HospitalMount Sinai HospitalLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersSanofi GenzymeInterdisziplinäres Zentrum für Klinische Forschung, Universitätsklinikum WürzburgLivaNovaBoston Scientific CorporationNovo NordiskSanofiAstraZenecaEli Lilly and CompanyGlaxoSmithKlineAmgen
KeywordsEmpagliflozinMedicinePost-hoc analysisInternal medicineRenal functionHeart failureHazard ratioKidney diseaseProportional hazards modelCreatinineCardiologyDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesEndocrinologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Cardio/kidney composite end points are clinically relevant but rarely analyzed in cardiovascular trials. This post hoc analysis of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME (Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients) trial evaluated cardio/kidney composite end points by 2 statistical approaches. Methods and Results A total of 7020 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular disease were treated with empagliflozin 10 or 25 mg (n=4687) or placebo (n=2333) on top of standard care. Cardio/kidney composite end points studied were: (1) cardiac or kidney death, kidney failure, hospitalization for heart failure, sustained decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥40% from baseline, or sustained progression to macroalbuminuria; (2) cardiac or kidney death, kidney failure, hospitalization for heart failure, or sustained estimated glomerular filtration rate decline ≥40% from baseline; and (3) cardiac or kidney death, kidney failure, hospitalization for heart failure, or sustained doubling in serum creatinine from baseline. Cox regression using time-to-first-event analysis and win ratio (WR) using hierarchical order of events were applied. Empagliflozin reduced the risk of all cardio/kidney composites. The results varied only slightly between Cox and WR (eg, composite 1: hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.49-0.64]; WR, 1.76 [95% CI, 1.53-2.02]. WR prioritizes events by clinical importance; in particular, all fatal events are evaluated, whereas Cox regression ignores deaths when preceded by nonfatal events. Of the 285 cardio/kidney deaths in the analysis, 44 to 56 (15%-20%), depending on the composite, occurred after a nonfatal event and were not evaluated in Cox regression but evaluated by the WR. Conclusions By considering the clinical relevance of different event types, the WR represents an appropriate method to complement the traditional time-to-first-event analysis in cardio/kidney outcomes. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01131676.

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)0.015
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.291
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

Citations21
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207