MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Does dulaglutide impact a composite outcome reflecting atherosclerosis? A post-hoc analysis of the REWIND trial

2022· article· en· W4306319388 on OpenAlexaff
Giulia Ferrannini, Linda Mellbin, Faith Kirabo, Chinthanie Ramasundarahettige, H G Herstein, Lars Rydén

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDulaglutidePost-hoc analysisInternal medicineHazard ratioMyocardial infarctionClinical endpointPlaceboType 2 diabetesStroke (engine)CardiologyDiabetes mellitusRandomized controlled trialLiraglutideConfidence intervalEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background It has been postulated that the cardioprotective effect of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) may retard the progression of atherosclerosis. Purpose The aim of this post-hoc analysis of the REWIND trial was to test the hypothesis that treatment with dulaglutide impacts a clinical outcome that reflects atherosclerosis in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Methods In the double-blind, placebo-controlled REWIND trial recruiting 9901 patients (46.3% women, mean age 66 years) with T2DM and cardiovascular disease (CVD) or varying levels of CV risk, a weekly subcutaneous injection of dulaglutide 1.5 mg reduced the hazard of MACE by 12% versus placebo. This post hoc analysis assessed the impact of dulaglutide on atherosclerosis-related outcomes comprising a composite of the first of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal ischaemic stroke and any revascularization including coronary, peripheral or carotid. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the effect of randomized treatment. The effect in selected subgroups (Table 1) was estimated by including each subgroup and an interaction term in the model for the primary outcome. The composite of any component of the primary endpoint and non-cardiovascular death was considered as a secondary outcome. Results The primary endpoint occurred in 799 (16.1%) patients in the dulaglutide group and 870 (17.6%) patients in the placebo group (incidence rates: 3.25/100 person-years vs 3.58/100 person-years; HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83–1.00; p=0.05) during a median follow-up of 5.4 years. This finding was consistent regardless of sex, body mass index, previous CVD or not and diabetes duration. The incidence of the secondary outcome was also lower in the dulaglutide group (HR; 95% CI: 0.91; 0.83–0.99; p=0.03). Conclusion Dulaglutide was associated with a 9% reduced index of atherosclerosis in patients with T2DM and CVD or high CV risk. This finding supports the hypothesis that dulaglutide may retard progression of atherosclerosis. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): EliLilly and Company

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicDiabetes Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→