MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321182840 · doi:10.2337/dc22-1889

Effects of Semaglutide on Albuminuria and Kidney Function in People With Overweight or Obesity With or Without Type 2 Diabetes: Exploratory Analysis From the STEP 1, 2, and 3 Trials

2023· article· en· W4321182840 on OpenAlexaff
Hiddo J.L. Heerspink, Ellen M. Apperloo, Melanie J. Davies, Dror Dicker, Kristian Kandler, Julio Rosenstock, Rasmus Sørrig, Jack Lawson, Niels Zeuthen, David Z.I. Cherney

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Care · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNIHR Leicester Biomedical Research CentreTakeda Pharmaceuticals InternationalIntarcia TherapeuticsNovo NordiskNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchGilead SciencesMaze TherapeuticsSanofiPfizerGenentechAstraZenecaEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsSemaglutideMedicinePlaceboRenal functionAlbuminuriaType 2 diabetesUrologyInternal medicineOverweightCreatinineDiabetes mellitusEndocrinologyObesityLiraglutide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: These post hoc analyses of the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with obesity (STEP) 1-3 trials (NCT03548935, NCT03552757, and NCT03611582) explored the effects of semaglutide (up to 2.4 mg) on kidney function. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: STEP 1-3 included adults with overweight/obesity; STEP 2 patients also had type 2 diabetes. Participants received once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 1.0 mg (STEP 2 only), 2.4 mg, or placebo for 68 weeks, plus lifestyle intervention (STEP 1 and 2) or intensive behavioral therapy (STEP 3). Changes in urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) and UACR status from baseline to week 68 were assessed for STEP 2. Changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were assessed from pooled STEP 1-3 data. RESULTS: In STEP 2, 1,205 (99.6% total cohort) patients had UACR data; geometric mean baseline UACR was 13.7, 12.5, and 13.2 mg/g with semaglutide 1.0 mg, 2.4 mg, and placebo, respectively. At week 68, UACR changes were -14.8% and -20.6% with semaglutide 1.0 mg and 2.4 mg, respectively, and +18.3% with placebo (between-group differences [95% CI] vs. placebo: -28.0% [-37.3, -17.3], P < 0.0001 for semaglutide 1.0 mg; -32.9% [-41.6, -23.0], P = 0.003 for semaglutide 2.4 mg). UACR status improved in greater proportions of patients with semaglutide 1.0 mg and 2.4 mg versus placebo (P = 0.0004 and P = 0.0014, respectively). In the pooled STEP 1-3 analyses, 3,379 participants had eGFR data; there was no difference between semaglutide 2.4 mg and placebo in eGFR trajectories at week 68. CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide improved UACR in adults with overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes. In participants with normal kidney function, semaglutide did not have an effect on eGFR decline.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations90
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes CareSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207