MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Empagliflozin and Left Ventricular Remodeling in People Without Diabetes: Primary Results of the EMPA-HEART 2 CardioLink-7 Randomized Clinical Trial

2022· article· en· W4308294046 on OpenAlexafffund
Kim A. Connelly, C. David Mazer, Pankaj Puar, Hwee Teoh, Chao‐Hung Wang, Farhad Akhavein, Ching‐Wen Chang, Min‐Hui Liu, Ning‐I Yang, Wei-Siang Chen, Yu‐Hsiang Juan, Erika Opingari, Yaseen Salyani, William Barbour, Aryan Pasricha, Shamon Ahmed, Andrew Kosmopoulos, Raj Verma, Michael Moroney, Ehab Bakbak, Aishwarya Krishnaraj, Deepak L. Bhatt, Javed Butler, Mikhail Kosiborod, Carolyn S.P. Lam, David A. Hess, Otávio R. Coelho‐Filho, Myriam Lafrenière‐Roula, Kevin E. Thorpe, Adrian Quan, Lawrence A. Leiter, Andrew T. Yan, Subodh Verma

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalWestern UniversityPublic Health OntarioUniversity of British ColumbiaRobarts Clinical TrialsOntario Council of University LibrariesUniversity of Toronto
FundersDaiichi Sankyo EuropeNational Institutes of HealthSt. Jude MedicalAssistance publique-Hôpitaux de ParisCleveland ClinicUniversity of TorontoBoston VA Research InstituteRegado BiosciencesBoston Scientific CorporationAstraZenecaBristol-Myers SquibbAmgenMyoKardiaDuke Clinical Research InstituteNovo NordiskAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsEmpagliflozinMedicineHeart failureInternal medicineCardiologyEjection fractionDiabetes mellitusPlaceboInterquartile rangeType 2 diabetesEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors have been demonstrated to promote reverse cardiac remodeling in people with diabetes or heart failure. Although it has been theorized that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors might afford similar benefits in people without diabetes or prevalent heart failure, this has not been evaluated. We sought to determine whether sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition with empagliflozin leads to a decrease in left ventricular (LV) mass in people without type 2 diabetes or significant heart failure. Methods: Between April 2021 and January 2022, 169 individuals, 40 to 80 years of age, without diabetes but with risk factors for adverse cardiac remodeling were randomly assigned to empagliflozin (10 mg/d; n=85) or placebo (n=84) for 6 months. The primary outcome was the 6-month change in LV mass indexed (LVMi) to baseline body surface area as measured by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Other measures included 6-month changes in LV end-diastolic and LV end-systolic volumes indexed to baseline body surface area and LV ejection fraction. Results: Among the 169 participants (141 men [83%]; mean age, 59.3±10.5 years), baseline LVMi was 63.2±17.9 g/m 2 and 63.8±14.0 g/m 2 for the empagliflozin- and placebo-assigned groups, respectively. The difference (95% CI) in LVMi at 6 months in the empagliflozin group versus placebo group adjusted for baseline LVMi was –0.30 g/m 2 (–2.1 to 1.5 g/m 2 ; P =0.74). Median baseline (interquartile range) NT-proBNP (N-terminal-pro B-type natriuretic peptide) was 51 pg/mL (20–105 pg/mL) and 55 pg/mL (21–132 pg/mL) for the empagliflozin- and placebo-assigned groups, respectively. The 6-month treatment effect of empagliflozin versus placebo (95% CI) on blood pressure and NT-proBNP (adjusted for baseline values) were –1.3 mm Hg (–5.2 to 2.6 mm Hg; P =0.52), 0.69 mm Hg (–1.9 to 3.3 mm Hg; P =0.60), and –6.1 pg/mL (–37.0 to 24.8 pg/mL; P =0.70) for systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and NT-proBNP, respectively. No clinically meaningful between-group differences in LV volumes (diastolic and systolic indexed to baseline body surface area) or ejection fraction were observed. No difference in adverse events was noted between the groups. Conclusions: Among people with neither diabetes nor significant heart failure but with risk factors for adverse cardiac remodeling, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition with empagliflozin did not result in a meaningful reduction in LVMi after 6 months. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04461041.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations33
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207