MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392137095 · doi:10.1177/23969873241234238

Risk of major adverse cardiovascular events and stroke associated with treatment with GLP-1 or the dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4392137095 on OpenAlexaff
Maria‐Ioanna Stefanou, Aikaterini Theodorou, Konark Malhotra, Diana Aguiar de Sousa, Mira Katan, Lina Palaiodimou, Aristeidis H. Katsanos, Ioanna Koutroulou, Vaia Lambadiari, Robin Lemmens, Sotirios Giannopoulos, Andrei V. Alexandrov, Gerasimos Siasos, Georgios Tsivgoulis

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Stroke Journal · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMaceInternal medicineStroke (engine)Type 2 diabetesPlaceboGlucagon-like peptide 1 receptorLiraglutideAdverse effectType 2 Diabetes MellitusGastroenterologyOdds ratioDiabetes mellitusMeta-analysisDulaglutideEndocrinologyMyocardial infarctionAgonistReceptorPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Mounting evidence suggests that glucagon-like-peptide-1 receptor-agonists (GLP-1 RAs) attenuate cardiovascular-risk in type-2 diabetes (T2DM). Tirzepatide is the first-in-class, dual glucose-dependent-insulinotropic-polypeptide GIP/GLP-1 RA approved for T2DM. Patients and methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) was performed to estimate: (i) the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE); and (ii) incidence of stroke, fatal, and nonfatal stroke in T2DM-patients treated with GLP-1 or GIP/GLP-1 RAs (vs placebo). Results: Thirteen RCTs (9 and 4 on GLP-1 RAs and tirzepatide, respectively) comprising 65,878 T2DM patients were included. Compared to placebo, GLP-1RAs or GIP/GLP-1 RAs reduced MACE (OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.81–0.94; p < 0.01; I 2 = 37%), all-cause mortality (OR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.82–0.96; p < 0.01; I 2 = 21%) and cardiovascular-mortality (OR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.80–0.96; p < 0.01; I 2 = 14%), without differences between GLP-1 versus GIP/GLP-1 RAs. Additionally, GLP-1 RAs reduced the odds of stroke (OR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.76–0.93; p < 0.01; I 2 = 0%) and nonfatal stroke (OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.76–0.94; p < 0.01; I 2 = 0%), whereas no association between fatal stroke and GLP-1RAs was uncovered (OR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.61–1.05; p = 0.105; I 2 = 0%). In secondary analyses, GLP-1 RAs prevented ischemic stroke (OR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.61–0.91; p < 0.01; I 2 = 0%) and MACE-recurrence, but not hemorrhagic stroke (OR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.51–1.66; p = 0.792; I 2 = 0%). There was no association between GLP-1RAs or GIP/GLP-1 RAs and fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction. Discussion and conclusion: GLP-1 and GIP/GLP-1 RAs reduce cardiovascular-risk and mortality in T2DM. While there is solid evidence that GLP-1 RAs significantly attenuate the risk of ischemic stroke in T2DM, dedicated RCTs are needed to evaluate the efficacy of novel GIP/GLP-1 RAs for primary and secondary stroke prevention.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.035
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations52
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Stroke JournalSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207