MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 15586: Burden of Cardiovascular or Fatal Outcomes in People With Type 2 Diabetes and Cardiovascular Risk Factors Treated With Dulaglutide a Post Hoc Analysis From the Rewind Trial

2020· article· en· W3161227007 on OpenAlexaff
Gilles R. Dagenais, Mark Lakshmanan, Leanne Dyal, Charles Atisso, Helen M. Colhoun, Lars Rydén, Hertzel C. Gerstein

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research InstituteInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDulaglutideMaceHazard ratioInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionType 2 diabetesUnstable anginaDiabetes mellitusPlaceboProportional hazards modelCardiologyLiraglutideConfidence intervalEndocrinologyPercutaneous coronary intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: In the REWIND (Researching cardiovascular Events with a Weekly INcretin in Diabetes) trial, weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide 1.5 mg, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, compared with matched placebo reduced MACE (cardiovascular [CV] death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke) (594 versus 663 events) in 9901 participants with type 2 diabetes at moderate CV risk [mean (SD) age 66.2 (6.5) years, 46.3% women, 31% with chronic CV disease and the others with CV risk factors] and followed for a median of 5.4 years. These findings, based on a time to first event analysis, do not reflect total CV event or mortality burden. Objective: To better reflect the burden of disease, the following outcomes were assessed: 1) total number of MACE or fatal events and 2) total number of CV (MACE, unstable angina, heart failure or revascularization) or fatal events in the REWIND participants. Methods: Incidence was estimated per 1000 person-years (py), and hazard ratios (HR) were calculated using conditional time gap and proportional means models. Results: A total of 1972 MACE outcomes or deaths and of 3673 CV outcomes or deaths occurred in the 9901 participants. Of the1128 all-cause deaths, 465 were non-CV. The incidence of total MACE or deaths was 35.8 in the dulaglutide group versus 40.3/1000 py in the placebo group [absolute reduction=4.5/1000 py; conditional time gap HR, 0.90 (95%CI, 0.82-0.98), P =0.020, and proportional means HR, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.80-0.98), P =0.022]. The incidence of total CV or fatal events on dulaglutide was 67.1 and 74.7/1000 py on placebo [absolute reduction=7.6/1000 py; conditional time gap HR, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.87-0.99), P =0.023, and proportional means HR, 0.90 (95% CI 0.82-0.99), P =0.028]. Similar effect sizes were noted for the first occurrence of MACE or deaths such that the absolute risk reduction was 4.1/ 1000 py. Conclusions: These findings suggest that weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide was associated with reduced total MACE, CV or fatal event burden in people with type 2 diabetes and moderate CV risk. This analysis illustrates the clinical relevance of assessing total events in addition to first events in clinical trials. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier NCT01394952)

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.217
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicDiabetes Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→