Glyburide use is associated with a greater likelihood of mortality or rehospitalization after acute coronary syndrome compared to gliclazide use in adults with type 2 diabetes: A cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To examine the likelihood of mortality or rehospitalization following acute coronary syndrome with glyburide versus gliclazide use in adults with type 2 diabetes undergoing cardiac catheterization. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used clinical data linked with administrative health data from Alberta, Canada between April 2008 and March 2021. Three methods were used to define exposure to glyburide and gliclazide in the year before catheterization. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare the likelihood of a composite outcome of 1-year mortality or rehospitalization with use of glyburide versus use of gliclazide. RESULTS: A total of 11 140 individuals with type 2 diabetes had a cardiac catheterization for acute coronary syndrome. Their mean age was 66 years and 31% were female. In the year before catheterization, 5% used glyburide and 19% used gliclazide. Any glyburide or gliclazide exposure in the year before catheterization was associated with a similar likelihood of all-cause mortality or rehospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-1.41; p = 0.20). However, current glyburide exposure (aOR 1.37, 95% CI 1.06-1.79; p = 0.018) and long exposure to glyburide (aOR 1.37, 95% CI 1.03-1.83; p = 0.030) were associated with a higher likelihood of the composite outcome compared to current and long exposure to gliclazide, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Current and long exposure to glyburide was associated with a greater likelihood of mortality or rehospitalization following cardiac catheterization for acute coronary syndrome, when compared to similar gliclazide exposure definitions. This study adds further evidence of the need to avoid using glyburide if a sulphonylurea is required for type 2 diabetes management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".