MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Exploring the Relationship Between Efpeglenatide Dose and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes: Insights From the AMPLITUDE-O Trial

2023· article· en· W4321374183 on OpenAlexafffund
Hertzel C. Gerstein, Zhuoru Li, Chinthanie Ramasundarahettige, Seung Jae Baek, Kelley R. Branch, Stefano Del Prato, Carolyn S.P. Lam, Renato D. Lópes, Richard E. Pratley, Julio Rosenstock, Naveed Sattar

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Institutes of HealthImpulse DynamicsNational Medical Research CouncilCytokineticsAmarin CorporationBoston Scientific CorporationBristol-Myers SquibbEli Lilly and CompanyAstraZenecaMcMaster UniversityAmgenPfizerNovo NordiskReCor MedicalIntarcia TherapeuticsDaiichi Sankyo EuropeKowa CompanySanofiAbbott Laboratories
KeywordsMedicineMaceHazard ratioInternal medicinePlaceboMyocardial infarctionRenal functionDiabetes mellitusCardiologyType 2 diabetesStroke (engine)AnginaPercutaneous coronary interventionEndocrinologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In the AMPLITUDE-O (Effect of Efpeglenatide on Cardiovascular Outcomes) cardiovascular outcomes trial, adding either 4 mg or 6 mg weekly of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist efpeglenatide to usual care reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in people with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk. Whether these benefits are dose related remains uncertain. Methods: Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to placebo, 4 mg or 6 mg of efpeglenatide. The effect of 6 mg versus placebo and of 4 mg versus placebo on MACE (a nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or unknown causes) and on all the secondary composite cardiovascular and kidney outcomes was assessed. A dose-response relationship was assessed using the log-rank test and χ 2 statistic for trend. Results: During a median follow-up of 1.8 years, MACE occurred in 125 (9.2%) participants assigned to placebo, 84 (6.2%) participants assigned to 6 mg of efpeglenatide (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.5–0.86]; P =0.0027), and 105 (7.7%) assigned to 4 mg of efpeglenatide (HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.63–1.06]; P =0.14). Participants receiving high-dose efpeglenatide also experienced fewer secondary outcomes, including the composite of MACE, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina (HR, 0.73 for 6 mg, P =0.011; HR, 0.85 for 4 mg, P =0.17), a kidney composite outcome comprising sustained new macroalbuminuria, a ≥40% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate or renal failure (HR, 0.63 for 6 mg, P <0.0001; HR, 0.73 for 4 mg, P =0.0009), MACE or any death (HR, 0.67 for 6 mg, P =0.0021; HR, 0.81 for 4 mg, P =0.08), a kidney function outcome comprising a sustained ≥40% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate, renal failure, or death (HR, 0.61 for 6 mg, P =0.0072; HR, 0.97 for 4 mg, P =0.83), and the composite of MACE, any death, heart failure hospitalization, or the kidney function outcome (HR, 0.63 for 6 mg, P =0.0002; HR, 0.81 for 4 mg, P =0.067). A clear dose-response was noted for all primary and secondary outcomes (all P for trend ≤0.018). Conclusions: The graded salutary relationship between efpeglenatide dose and cardiovascular outcomes suggests that titrating efpeglenatide and potentially other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists to high doses may maximize their cardiovascular and renal benefits. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03496298.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.127 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicDiabetes Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→