Albiglutide and atrial fibrillation in patients with Type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease: insights from the Harmony Outcomes trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Atrial fibrillation and flutter (AF) are common in patients with Type 2 diabetes and are associated with worse outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Harmony Outcomes was a multi-centre, event-driven, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing the effects of albiglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, with placebo on a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs; non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, and cardiovascular death) in 9463 patients aged >40 years with Type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease. Herein, the cardiovascular effects of albiglutide in patients with and without AF, as well as the effects on AF events during follow-up, were analysed. Patients with a history of AF (8.9%) exhibited a higher event rate for the primary composite MACE endpoint during 1.6 years of follow-up {12.7 vs. 6.3 events/100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.41 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14-1.74], P = 0.001}. Treatment with albiglutide reduced the occurrence of the primary endpoint irrespective of history of AF at baseline (history of AF: aHR 0.83 [0.58-1.19], no history of AF: aHR 0.77 [0.66-0.90]; Pinteraction = 0.71). During follow-up, 239 patients (2.5%) experienced an AF event. Overall, albiglutide was associated with numerically fewer AF events [108 vs. 131; hazard ratio 0.82 (0.63-1.06), P = 0.12], irrespective of baseline history of AF (Pinteraction = 0.92). CONCLUSION: In patients with Type 2 diabetes, treatment with albiglutide, compared with placebo, reduced the risk of cardiovascular events irrespective of history of AF. Further, albiglutide treatment did not increase AF adverse events but was associated with a trend to a lower rate of AF events during follow-up without reaching statistical significance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".