MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295084553 · doi:10.1111/dom.14862

Risk of adverse events with liraglutide in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A post hoc analysis of the <scp>FIGHT</scp> trial

2022· article· en· W4295084553 on OpenAlexaff
João Sérgio Neves, Francisco Vasques‐Nóvoa, Marta Borges‐Canha, Ana Rita Leite, Abhinav Sharma, Davide Carvalho, Milton Packer, Faı̈ez Zannad, Adelino Leite‐Moreira, João Pedro Ferreira

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Obesity and Metabolism · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteFundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
KeywordsMedicineEjection fractionLiraglutideHeart failureLightheadednessInternal medicinePlaceboPost-hoc analysisCardiologyRate ratioHazard ratioMyocardial infarctionConfidence intervalDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To perform a post hoc analysis of the FIGHT trial, evaluating the effect of liraglutide (vs. placebo) on the totality of events in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: FIGHT was a double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) that studied liraglutide versus placebo in 300 recently hospitalized patients with HFrEF followed for 180 days. The main outcome of the present analysis was total events of hospitalizations for heart failure (HF) or all-cause death. Secondary outcomes included total arrhythmic events and prespecified total events of interest (arrhythmias, sudden cardiac death, acute coronary syndrome, worsening HF, cerebrovascular event, venous thromboembolism, lightheadedness, presyncope/syncope or worsening renal function). Treatment effect was evaluated with negative binomial regression. RESULTS: Compared to placebo, there was a trend towards increased risk with liraglutide of total HF hospitalizations or all-cause deaths (96 vs. 143 events, incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-2.04; P = 0.064) and total arrhythmias (21 vs. 39, IRR 1.76, 95% CI 0.92-3.37; P = 0.088). Total prespecified events of interest were increased with liraglutide compared to placebo (196 vs. 295, IRR 1.43, 95% CI 1.06-1.92; P = 0.018). The risk of HF hospitalizations or all-cause deaths with liraglutide was higher among patients in New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III to IV (IRR 1.86, 95% CI 1.21-2.85) than in those in NYHA Class I to II (IRR 0.62, 95% CI 0.31-1.23; interaction P = 0.008), and among patients with diabetes (interaction P = 0.051). The risk of arrhythmic events was higher among those without an implanted cardiac device (interaction P = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HFrEF, liraglutide might increase the risk of cardiovascular adverse effects, an effect possibly driven by excess risk of arrhythmias and worsening HF events. As this was a post hoc analysis, these results should be interpreted as exploratory and hypothesis-generating. Further RCTs must be conducted before drawing definitive conclusions.

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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations75
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes Obesity and MetabolismSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207