MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402211609 · doi:10.1681/asn.0000000000000491

Effects of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors on Kidney Outcomes across Baseline Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Conditions

2024· article· en· W4402211609 on OpenAlexaff
Tariq Jamal Siddiqi, David Z.I. Cherney, Hasan Fareed Siddiqui, Tazeen H. Jafar, James L. Januzzi, Muhammad Shahzeb Khan, Adeera Levin, Nikolaus Marx, Janani Rangaswami, Jeffrey M. Testani, Muhammad Usman, Christoph Wanner, Faı̈ez Zannad, Javed Butler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesMedical Research Council
KeywordsMedicineKidney diseaseInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusRenal functionHazard ratioHeart failureType 2 Diabetes MellitusType 2 diabetesAlbuminuriaCreatinineEmpagliflozinClinical endpointPlaceboEndocrinologyCardiologyConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key Points Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors slowed the rate of eGFR slope decline in patients with heart failure, CKD, and type 2 diabetes mellitus and in all combinations of multimorbid conditions among these diseases. SGLT2 inhibitors decreased kidney composite outcomes among all disease states and different combinations of multimorbidity, except in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and heart failure without type 2 diabetes mellitus. SGLT2 inhibitors were found to decrease the risk of kidney failure in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and also in those with CKD. Background The effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) on kidney outcomes in patients with varying combinations of heart failure, CKD, and type 2 diabetes mellitus have not been quantified. Methods PubMed and Scopus were queried up to December 2023 for primary and secondary analyses of placebo-controlled trials of SGLT2is in patients with heart failure, CKD, or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Outcomes of interest were composite kidney end point (combination of eGFR <15 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 , sustained doubling of serum creatinine, varying percent change in eGFR, and need for KRT), rate of eGFR slope decline, and albuminuria progression. Hazard ratios (HRs) and mean differences with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted onto an Excel sheet, and the results were then pooled using a random-effect model through Review Manager (version 5.3, Cochrane Collaboration). Results Eleven trials ( n =80,928 patients) were included. Compared with the placebo, SGLT2is reduced the risk of the composite kidney end point by 41% (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.83) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, 36% (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.73) in CKD, and 38% (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.69) in type 2 diabetes mellitus. A similar pattern of benefit was observed in combinations of these comorbidities and in patients without baseline heart failure, CKD, or type 2 diabetes mellitus. SGLT2is slowed the rate of eGFR slope decline and reduced the risk of sustained doubling of serum creatinine by 36% (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.72) in the overall population, and a consistent effect on kidney outcomes was observed in most subpopulations with available data. Conclusions SGLT2i improved kidney outcomes in cohorts with heart failure, CKD, and type 2 diabetes mellitus, and these effects were consistent across patients with different combinations of these comorbidities.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.011
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207