MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4396229502 · doi:10.2196/56067

Effects of Empagliflozin in Type 2 Diabetes With and Without Chronic Kidney Disease and Nondiabetic Chronic Kidney Disease: Protocol for 3 Crossover Randomized Controlled Trials (SiRENA Project)

2024· article· en· W4396229502 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Steffen Flindt Nielsen, Camilla Lundgreen Duus, Niels Henrik Buus, Jesper Nørgaard Bech, Frank Holden Mose

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpagliflozinMedicineKidney diseaseType 2 diabetesRandomized controlled trialDiseaseDiabetes mellitusCrossover studyClinical trialProtocol (science)Internal medicineAlternative medicineEndocrinologyPathologyPlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Sodium-glucose-cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) have revolutionized the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) and chronic kidney disease (CKD), reducing the risk of cardiovascular and renal end points by up to 40%. The underlying mechanisms are not fully understood. Objective The study aims to examine the effects of empagliflozin versus placebo on renal hemodynamics, sodium balance, vascular function, and markers of the innate immune system in patients with DM2, DM2 and CKD, and nondiabetic CKD. Methods We conducted 3 double-blind, crossover, randomized controlled trials, each with identical study protocols but different study populations. We included patients with DM2 and preserved kidney function (estimated glomerular filtration rate >60 mL/min/1.73 m2), DM2 and CKD, and nondiabetic CKD (both with estimated glomerular filtration rate 20-60 mL/min/1.73 m2). Each participant was randomly assigned to 4 weeks of treatment with either 10 mg of empagliflozin once daily or a matching placebo. After a wash-out period of at least 2 weeks, participants were crossed over to the opposite treatment. End points were measured at the end of each treatment period. The primary end point was renal blood flow measured with 82Rubidium positron emission tomography–computed tomography (82Rb-PET/CT). Secondary end points include glomerular filtration rate measured with 99mTechnetium-diethylene-triamine-pentaacetate (99mTc-DTPA) clearance, vascular function assessed by forearm venous occlusion strain gauge plethysmography, measurements of the nitric oxide (NO) system, water and sodium excretion, body composition measurements, and markers of the complement immune system. Results Recruitment began in April 2021 and was completed in September 2022. Examinations were completed by December 2022. In total, 49 participants completed the project: 16 participants in the DM2 and preserved kidney function study, 17 participants in the DM2 and CKD study, and 16 participants in the nondiabetic CKD study. Data analysis is ongoing. Results are yet to be published. Conclusions This paper describes the rationale, design, and methods used in a project consisting of 3 double-blind, crossover, randomized controlled trials examining the effects of empagliflozin versus placebo in patients with DM2 with and without CKD and patients with nondiabetic CKD, respectively. Trial Registration EU Clinical Trials Register 2019-004303-12; https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2019-004303-12, EU Clinical Trials Register 2019-004447-80; https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2019-004447-80, EU Clinical Trials Register 2019-004467-50; https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=and+2019-004467-50 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/56067

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.008
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.004

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.412 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicDiabetes Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→