413-P: Intensive Insulin Therapy Delays the “Breakpoint” to Progressive Kidney Function Decline—New Findings and Implications of eGFR Trajectory Analysis in DCCT/EDIC Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patterns of kidney function decline vary among those with T1D. End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) develops after progressive kidney function decline that begins when kidney function is normal, regardless of albuminuria. We aimed to determine if these findings were observed in the DCCT/EDIC cohort, which enrolled 1,441 individuals and randomly assigned them to intensive insulin therapy (n=711) or conventional insulin therapy (n=730). Baseline mean eGFR and AER were 125 ml/min/1.73m2 and 12 mg/24 hours, respectively. During 27 years of follow-up 129 individuals reached reduced eGFR <60ml/min/1.73m2 or ESKD. For these individuals we applied latent class trajectory analysis minimizing sum of squares of linear spline models with varying knot placement to identify patterns of eGFR decline. We identified two patterns: i) slow decline without eGFR breakpoint (n=56) and ii) fast decline with clear breakpoint (n=73). Slow decliners reached reduced eGFR but rarely ESKD (2%), while many fast decliners progressed to ESKD (35%) within 5-15 years after the breakpoint. Fast decline was less frequent in intensive compared to conventional insulin therapy [26 (3.7%) vs 47 (6.4%), respectively, p=0.022] and had longer median time from enrollment to breakpoint (18 vs 13 years, respectively, p=0.0004). However, the slope of annual loss of eGFR after breakpoint did not differ. In conclusion, we identified a unique phenotype - the “breakpoint” to fast decline in eGFR - as the main predictor of ESKD in T1D. This breakpoint started while eGFR was normal, subsequent decline was linear, and the onset of the breakpoint was substantially delayed by intensive insulin therapy rather than the slope of decline itself. Research on biomarkers that predict the onset of the eGFR ‘breakpoint’ is needed. Disclosure K.Ihara: None. J.K.Skupien: None. E.Satake: None. B.A.Perkins: Advisory Panel; Dexcom, Inc., Insulet Corporation, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, Other Relationship; Abbott, Medtronic, Sanofi, Research Support; Novo Nordisk, Bank of Montreal (BMO). A.Krolewski: None.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".