MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efpeglenatide and Clinical Outcomes With and Without Concomitant Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibition Use in Type 2 Diabetes: Exploratory Analysis of the AMPLITUDE-O Trial

2021· article· en· W3214731876 on OpenAlexaff
Carolyn S.P. Lam, Chinthanie Ramasundarahettige, Kelley R. Branch, Naveed Sattar, Julio Rosenstock, Richard E. Pratley, Stefano Del Prato, Renato D. Lópes, Elisabeth Niemoeller, Nardev S. Khurmi, Seung Jae Baek, Hertzel C. Gerstein

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineHazard ratioType 2 diabetesGlucagon-like peptide 1 receptorUnstable anginaDiabetes mellitusPlaceboAnginaEndocrinologyCardiologyMyocardial infarctionAgonistConfidence intervalReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Both sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists reduce cardiovascular events among patients with type 2 diabetes. However, no cardiovascular outcome trial has evaluated the long-term effects of their combined use. The AMPLITUDE-O trial (Effect of Efpeglenatide on Cardiovascular Outcomes) reported that once-weekly injections of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists efpeglenatide (versus placebo) reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs); MACEs, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina hospitalization (expanded MACEs); a renal composite outcome; and MACEs or death in people with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular or renal disease. The trial uniquely stratified randomization by baseline or anticipated use of SGLT2 inhibitors and included the highest prevalence at baseline (N=618, 15.2%) of SGLT2 inhibitor use among glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist cardiovascular outcome trials to date. Its results were analyzed to estimate the combined effect of SGLT2 inhibitors and efpeglenatide on clinical outcomes. Methods: Cardiovascular and renal outcomes were analyzed with Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for region, SGLT2 inhibitor randomization strata, and the SGLT2 inhibitor–by–treatment interaction. Continuous variables were analyzed with a mixed-effects models for repeated measures that also included an interaction term. Results: The effect (hazard ratio [95% CI]) of efpeglenatide versus placebo in the absence and presence of baseline SGLT2 inhibitors on MACEs (0.74 [0.58–0.94] and 0.70 [0.37–1.30], respectively), expanded MACEs (0.77 [0.62–0.96] and 0.87 [0.51–1.48]), renal composite (0.70 [0.59–0.83] and 0.52 [0.33–0.83]), and MACEs or death (0.74 [0.59–0.93] and 0.65 [0.36–1.19]) did not differ by baseline SGLT2 inhibitor use ( P for all interactions >0.2). The reduction of blood pressure, body weight, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio by efpeglenatide also appeared to be independent of concurrent SGLT2 inhibitor use (all interaction P ≥0.08). Last, adverse events did not differ by baseline SGLT2 inhibitor use. Conclusions: The efficacy and safety of efpeglenatide appear to be independent of concurrent SGLT2 inhibitor use. These data support combined SGLT2 inhibitor and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist therapy in type 2 diabetes. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT03496298.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations127
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207