MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403834524 · doi:10.1681/asn.2024w22c75k8

Modeling Cardiorenal Protection with SGLT2 Inhibition in Type 1 Diabetes: An Analysis of EASE-2 and -3

2024· article· en· W4403834524 on OpenAlexaff
Luxcia Kugathasan, Pritha Dutta, Massimo Nardone, Vikas S. Sridhar, David J.T. Campbell, Anita T. Layton, Bruce A. Perkins, Sean Barbour, Tony K.T. Lam, Adeera Levin, Leif Erik Lovblom, Istvan Mucsi, Rémi Rabasa‐Lhoret, Valeria E. Rac, Peter Senior, Ronald J. Sigal, Aleksandra Stanimirovic, Alessandro Doria, David Z.I. Cherney

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversité de MontréalUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of WaterlooLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of CalgaryToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiorenal syndromeMedicineType 2 diabetesType 1 diabetesDiabetes mellitusIntensive care medicineInternal medicineEndocrinologyKidney

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors significantly reduce cardiorenal risk in people with type 2 diabetes. It is unknown if these protective effects extend to individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). To better understand the potential benefits of SGLT2 inhibition in T1D, we applied the Steno T1 risk engine (SRE) and Scottish Diabetes Research Network (SDRN) risk prediction models to estimate risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in two large T1D cohorts. Methods: Medical history, demographic and biomarker data were extracted from 730 and 960 participants with T1D from the EASE-2 and 3 trials, respectively. The SRE and SDRN risk prediction models were employed at baseline, week 26 (EASE-3) or 52 (EASE-2), and 3 weeks post drug washout to estimate the 10-year CVD and 5-year ESKD risk. Risk reduction was calculated as the percent change in estimated CVD and ESKD risk from baseline between empagliflozin (pooled 10 and 25mg) vs. placebo groups, and compared using a two-way repeated measures ANOVA. Results: Empagliflozin significantly reduced the estimated 10-year CVD risk following 26 weeks (SRE: -9.6% [-12.1, -7.1] & SDRN: -22.4% [-28.1, -16.6]; p<0.01) and 52 weeks (SRE: -9.2% [-11.6, -6.9] & SDRN: -16.7% [-20.7, -12.7]; p<0.01) of treatment compared with placebo. No significant reduction in 5-year ESKD risk was observed while on treatment. The ESKD risk was significantly lower after a 3-week drug washout (SRE: -8.4% [-15.1, -1.7] (EASE-3) & -9.7% [-13.5, -6.0] (EASE-2); p<0.01), in keeping with the expected rise in eGFR. Conclusion: Empagliflozin improves predicted CVD and ESKD risk in T1D participants, thus demonstrating the need for dedicated outcome trials in patients with T1D and established kidney or cardiovascular disease. ESKD risk estimation using GFR-based models may be best implemented after drug washout as to avoid the reversible hemodynamic eGFR “dip” with SGLT2 inhibition.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicDiabetes Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→