Semaglutide and NT-proBNP in Obesity-Related HFpEF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, semaglutide, improved health status and reduced body weight in patients with obesity-related heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in the STEP-HFpEF (Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with Obesity and HFpEF) program. Whether benefits were due to mechanical unloading or effects on HF pathobiology is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine if semaglutide 2.4 mg reduced N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in patients with obesity-related HFpEF and compare treatment responses by baseline NT-proBNP. METHODS: This was a prespecified secondary analysis of pooled data from 2 double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trials (STEP-HFpEF [Research Study to Investigate How Well Semaglutide Works in People Living With Heart Failure and Obesity] and STEP-HFpEF DM [Research Study to Look at How Well Semaglutide Works in People Living With Heart Failure, Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes]) testing effects of semaglutide in patients with obesity-related HFpEF. The main outcomes were change in NT-proBNP at 52 weeks and change in the dual primary endpoints of Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score and body weight by baseline NT-proBNP. RESULTS: In total, 1,145 patients were randomized. Semaglutide compared with placebo reduced NT-proBNP at 52 weeks (estimated treatment ratio: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.74-0.91; P = 0.0002). Improvements in health status were more pronounced in those with higher vs lower baseline NT-proBNP (estimated difference: tertile 1: 4.5 points, 95% CI: 0.8-8.2; tertile 2: 6.2 points, 95% CI: 2.4-10.0; tertile 3: 11.9 points, 95% CI: 8.1-15.7; P interaction = 0.02; baseline NT-proBNP as a continuous variable: P interaction = 0.004). Reductions in body weight were consistent across baseline NT-proBNP levels (P interaction = 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with obesity-related HFpEF, semaglutide reduced NT-proBNP. Participants with higher baseline NT-proBNP had a similar degree of weight loss but experienced larger reductions in HF-related symptoms and physical limitations with semaglutide than those with lower NT-proBNP.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".