MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3176403805 · doi:10.7326/m21-0651

Effect of Sotagliflozin on Total Hospitalizations in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Worsening Heart Failure

2021· article· en· W3176403805 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Szarek, Deepak L. Bhatt, Philippe Gabríel Steg, Christopher P. Cannon, Lawrence A. Leiter, Darren K. McGuire, Julia B. Lewis, Matthew C. Riddle, Adriaan A. Voors, Marco Metra, Lars H. Lund, Michel Komajda, Jeffrey M. Testani, Christopher S. Wilcox, Piotr Ponikowski, Renato D. Lópes, Phillip Banks, Eshetu Tesfaye, Justin A. Ezekowitz, Subodh Verma, Bertram Pitt

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of AlbertaSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersSanofi
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusType 1 diabetesInternal medicineIntensive care medicineCardiologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In the SOLOIST-WHF (Effect of Sotagliflozin on Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Post Worsening Heart Failure) trial, sotagliflozin, a sodium–glucose cotransporter-1 and sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor, reduced total occurrences of cardiovascular deaths, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure relative to placebo by 33%. Objective: To determine whether sotagliflozin increased the prespecified efficacy outcome of days alive and out of the hospital (DAOH) in the SOLOIST-WHF trial. Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03521934) Setting: 306 sites in 32 countries. Participants: 1222 patients with type 2 diabetes and reduced or preserved ejection fraction who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure. Intervention: 200 mg of sotagliflozin once daily (with a possible dose increase to 400 mg) or matching placebo. Measurements: The primary analysis included hospitalizations for any reason on the basis of investigator-reported incidence and duration of admissions after randomization. Days alive and out of the hospital and its converse (days dead and days in the hospital) were analyzed using prespecified Poisson regression models. Results: Although similar proportions of patients in the sotagliflozin and placebo groups were hospitalized at least once (38.5% vs. 41.4%), fewer patients in the sotagliflozin group were hospitalized more than once (16.3% vs. 22.1%). There were 64 and 76 deaths in the sotagliflozin and placebo groups, respectively. The DAOH rate in the sotagliflozin group was 3% higher than in the placebo group (rate ratio [RR], 1.03 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.06]; P = 0.027). This difference was primarily driven by a reduction in the rate of days dead (RR, 0.71 [CI, 0.52 to 0.99]; P = 0.041) rather than by a reduction in the rate of days hospitalized for any cause. For every 100 days of follow-up, patients in the sotagliflozin group were alive and out of the hospital for 3% or 2.9 more days than those in the placebo group (91.8 vs. 88.9 days); this difference reflected a 2.6-day difference in days dead (6.3 vs. 8.9 days) and a 0.3-day difference in days in the hospital (1.9 vs. 2.2 days). Limitation: Other than heart failure, the primary reason for each hospitalization was unspecified. Conclusion: Sotagliflozin increased DAOH, a metric that may provide an additional patient-centered outcome to capture the totality of disease burden. Future studies are needed to quantify the consequences of increasing DAOH in terms of health economics and patient quality of life. Primary Funding Source: Sanofi at initiation and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals at completion.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations76
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Internal MedicineSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207