Effect of the Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists Semaglutide and Liraglutide on Kidney Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Pooled Analysis of SUSTAIN 6 and LEADER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We assessed the effect of once-weekly semaglutide and once-daily liraglutide on kidney outcomes in type 2 diabetes. Methods: Pooled (n=12 637) and by-trial data from SUSTAIN 6 (Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-Term Outcomes With Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes; n=3297) and LEADER (Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results; n=9340) were assessed for albuminuria change, annual slope of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) change, and time to persistent eGFR reduction (30%, 40%, 50%, and 57%) from baseline. Results: The median follow-up durations were 2.1 years for SUSTAIN 6 and 3.8 years for LEADER. In the pooled analysis, semaglutide/liraglutide lowered albuminuria from baseline to 2 years after randomization by 24% versus placebo (95% CI, 20%–27%; P <0.001). Significant reductions were also observed in by-trial data analyses ( P <0.001 for all), the largest being with semaglutide 1.0 mg (33% [95% CI, 24%–40%]; P <0.001) at 2 years. With semaglutide 1.0 mg and liraglutide, eGFR slope decline was significantly slowed by 0.87 and 0.26 mL/min/1.73 m 2 /y ( P <0.0001 and P <0.001), respectively, versus placebo. Effects appeared larger in patients with baseline eGFR <60 versus ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ( P interaction =0.06 and 0.008 for semaglutide 1.0 mg and liraglutide, respectively). Semaglutide/liraglutide significantly lowered risk of persistent 40% and 50% eGFR reductions versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86 [95% CI, 0.75–0.99]; P =0.039 and HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.66–0.97]; P =0.023, respectively). Similar, nonsignificant, directional results were observed for 30% and 57% eGFR reductions (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.84–1.02]; P =0.10 and HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.69–1.13]; P =0.34). In patients with baseline eGFR 30 to <60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , the likelihood of persistent reduction for all thresholds was increased, ranging from HR 0.71 for 30% reduction (95% CI, 0.59–0.85; P =0.0003, P interaction =0.017) to 0.54 for 57% reduction (95% CI, 0.36–0.81; P =0.003, P interaction =0.035). Conclusions: In patients with type 2 diabetes, semaglutide/liraglutide offered kidney-protective effects, which appeared more pronounced in patients with preexisting chronic kidney disease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".