Risk of adverse events with liraglutide in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A post hoc analysis of the <scp>FIGHT</scp> trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".