MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398194417 · doi:10.1016/j.ekir.2024.04.028

Effects of Once-Weekly Semaglutide on Kidney Disease Outcomes by KDIGO Risk Category in the SUSTAIN 6 Trial

2024· article· en· W4398194417 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine R. Tuttle, Stephen C. Bain, Heidrun Bosch‐Traberg, Kamlesh Khunti, Søren Rasmussen, Ekaterina Sokareva, David Z. Cherney

Bibliographic record

VenueKidney International Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNovo Nordisk
KeywordsSemaglutideMedicineKidney diseaseIntensive care medicineInternal medicineEndocrinologyDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesLiraglutide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IntroductionGlucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are recommended by Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) as risk-based treatment for hyperglycemia, weight management, and cardiovascular (CV) risk reduction in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). The aim of this post hoc analysis was to assess treatment effects of once weekly semaglutide on kidney disease outcomes by KDIGO risk category and on changes in KDIGO risk category, compared with placebo.MethodsParticipants with T2D and established CV disease or at high CV risk treated with once weekly semaglutide or placebo in SUSTAIN 6 (NCT01720446) were stratified by baseline KDIGO risk category (low [n = 1596], moderate [n = 831], high [n = 445], very high [n = 366]). Treatment effect was analyzed for a kidney disease composite end point (macroalbuminuria, serum creatinine doubling and estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] < 45 ml/min per 1.73 m2, kidney replacement therapy, or death due to kidney disease) from baseline to 2 years.ResultsThe treatment effect of semaglutide versus placebo was consistent across KDIGO categories for the kidney disease composite end point (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.35 [0.07–1.72], 0.42 [0.25–0.72], 0.87 [0.45–1.71], and 0.72 [0.42–1.23] for low, moderate, high, and very high risk categories, respectively; P interaction = 0.28). Participants receiving semaglutide were more likely to move to a lower KDIGO risk category (odds ratio: 1.69; 95% CI: [1.32–2.16]) and less likely to move to a higher KDIGO risk category versus placebo (odds ratio: 0.71; 95% CI: [0.59–0.86]).ConclusionOnce weekly semaglutide versus placebo reduced risks of kidney disease end points and improved risk categories irrespective of baseline KDIGO risk.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations26
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKidney International ReportsSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207