MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281807760 · doi:10.2337/db22-856-p

856-P: Cardiovascular (CV) and Kidney Outcomes with Canagliflozin (CANA) According to Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) Treatment Targets at Baseline (BL) : Data from the CANVAS Program and CREDENCE

2022· article· en· W4281807760 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vincent Woo, MICHAEL TSOUKAS, Sheldon W. Tobe, April Slee, Wally Rapattoni, Fernando G. Ang, JOCHEN SEUFERT, David C. Wheeler

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsManitoba Beekeepers' Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCanagliflozinCreatinineHazard ratioRenal functionType 2 diabetesInternal medicineUrologyKidney diseasePlaceboProportional hazards modelCystatin CDiabetes mellitusEndocrinologyConfidence intervalPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In T2D, treatment targets include maintaining HbA1c ≤7.0%, LDL-C <2 mmol/L (<77 mg/dL) , and BP <130/80 mmHg. It is also recommended to improve urinary albumin:creatinine ratio (UACR) , a marker of renal damage and CV risk. We examined effects of CANA vs. placebo on CV and kidney outcomes in patients with T2D and high CV risk and/or chronic kidney disease according to BL treatment targets and risk factors. Pooled data from the CANVAS Program (N=10,142) and the CREDENCE trial (N=4401) were analyzed according to treatment target achievement and by number of targets achieved at BL. Hazard ratios and 95% CIs were estimated using Cox regression models. Of 14,432 participants at BL, 3683 (26%) had achieved 0, 5851 (41%) had achieved 1, 3680 (25%) had achieved 2, and 1218 (8%) had achieved either 3 or 4 targets. At BL, 8415 (58%) participants had UACR >2 mg/mmol. CANA consistently reduced risk of MACE, HHF/CV death, and ESKD or doubling of serum creatinine vs. placebo, regardless of whether BL targets were met or if UACR was elevated (Figure) . The number of uncontrolled targets at BL did not impact the beneficial effect of CANA on CV and kidney outcomes (all P interaction >0.17) . In conclusion, CANA demonstrated consistent CV and renal benefits in patients with T2D, regardless of risk factor control. Disclosure V.C.Woo: Advisory Panel; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Speaker's Bureau; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. M.Tsoukas: Speaker's Bureau; AstraZeneca, Bausch Health, Canada, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Johnson & Johnson, Novo Nordisk Canada Inc. S.Tobe: Other Relationship; Bayer AG, Speaker's Bureau; AstraZeneca, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. A.Slee: Consultant; Alydia Health, Elixir Medical , IHP Therapeutics , iLumen Scientific, Intuitive Surgical, Janssen Global Services, LLC, Laborie, Providence Medical, Pulse Biosciences, SonoMotion. W.Rapattoni: Employee; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. F.Ang: Employee; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. J.Seufert: Advisory Panel; Abbott, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Research Support; Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Speaker's Bureau; Abbott Diabetes, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH. D.C.Wheeler: Advisory Panel; Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc., Janssen Global Services, LLC, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Mundipharma, Tricida, Inc., Vifor Pharma Management Ltd., Consultant; AstraZeneca, Speaker's Bureau; Amgen Inc., Astellas Pharma Inc. Funding Janssen Inc., Toronto, ON, Canada

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetesSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207