MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221072938 · doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2022.01.042

Comparative effectiveness of SGLT2i versus GLP1-RA on cardiovascular outcomes in routine clinical practice

2022· article· en· W4221072938 on OpenAlexaff
Edouard L. Fu, Catherine M. Clase, Roemer J. Janse, Bengt Lindholm, Friedo W. Dekker, Meg Jardine, Juan Jesús Carrero

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cardiology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMaceHazard ratioInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionStroke (engine)Proportional hazards modelHeart failurePropensity score matchingConfidence intervalPopulationPercutaneous coronary intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To investigate the comparative effectiveness of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RA) on cardiovascular outcomes in routine clinical practice, which have never been directly compared in head-to-head outcome trials. METHODS: We compared outcomes of adults who newly started SGLT2i or GLP1-RA therapy in Stockholm, Sweden, during 2013-2019. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction and stroke. Secondary outcomes included the individual MACE components and hospitalization for heart failure. Cox regression with propensity score overlap weighting was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals and adjust for 57 covariates. RESULTS: We included 12,375 individuals, of which 5489 initiated SGLT2i and 6886 GLP1-RA therapy, followed for median 1.6 years. Mean age was 61 years and 37.6% were women. Compared with GLP1-RA, SGLT2i new users had similar risk of MACE risk (adjusted HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.83-1.31). The adjusted HRs (95% CI) for SGLT2i vs. GLP1-RA were 0.80 (0.59-1.09) for heart failure hospitalization, 0.95 (0.58-1.55) for cardiovascular death, 0.91 (0.67-1.24) for myocardial infarction and 1.71 (1.14-2.59) for ischemic stroke (5-year absolute risk difference for stroke 1.9% [95% CI 0.8-3.0]). CONCLUSIONS: In a largely primary-prevention population of people undergoing routine care, no differences were observed in MACE risk among initiators of SGLT2i and GLP1-RA. However, compared with GLP1RA, the use of SGLT2i was associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke that was small in absolute magnitude.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Citations32
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of CardiologySame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207