MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407251962 · doi:10.2215/cjn.0000000641

Modeling Cardiorenal Protection with Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibition in Type 1 Diabetes: An Analysis of DEPICT-1 and DEPICT-2

2025· article· en· W4407251962 on OpenAlexaff
Massimo Nardone, Luxcia Kugathasan, Vikas S. Sridhar, Pritha Dutta, David J.T. Campbell, Anita T. Layton, Bruce A. Perkins, Sean Barbour, Tony K.T. Lam, Adeera Levin, Leif E. Lovblom, István Mucsi, Rémi Rabasa‐Lhoret, Valeria E. Rac, Peter Senior, Ronald J. Sigal, Aleksandra Stanimirovic, Frederik Persson, Elisabeth B. Stougaard, Alessandro Doria, David Z.I. Cherney

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversité de MontréalPublic Health OntarioMontreal Clinical Research InstituteUniversity of British ColumbiaSinai Health SystemUniversity of WaterlooLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDapagliflozinMedicineType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusKidney diseaseInternal medicineRelative riskPlaceboType 1 diabetesEndocrinologyConfidence intervalPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key Points Risk modelling analysis of DEPICT trials show that dapagliflozin reduced estimated cardiovascular and kidney disease risk in T1D persons. Greatest reduction in estimated ESKD risk was accompanied by an expected rise in eGFR, after 4 weeks post drug discontinuation. Dedicated outcome trials with SGLT2 inhibitors are warranted in T1D persons with CKD or CVD for best determination of efficacy and risks. Background Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors improve glycemia and reduce insulin requirements in type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes. Although SGLT2 inhibitors lower cardiovascular disease (CVD) and ESKD risk in type 2 diabetes, no dedicated cardiorenal outcome trials in T1D have been conducted to date. Using validated risk prediction models, this study evaluated the effect of SGLT2 inhibition on estimated CVD and ESKD risk in a T1D cohort. Methods Demographics, medical history, and biomarkers were extracted from 1473 participants with T1D enrolled in the Dapagliflozin Evaluation in Patients with Inadequately Controlled Type -1 and -2 trials. Data at baseline, 24, 52, and 56 weeks (4 weeks after drug cessation) were used to estimate 10-year CVD and 5-year ESKD risk using the Steno T1 Risk Engine (SRE) and Scottish Diabetes Research Network (SDRN) risk prediction models. Risk reduction was determined on the basis of relative change in risk from baseline between participants receiving dapagliflozin (pooled 5 and 10 mg) versus placebo. Subgroup analyses were conducted by age, sex, diabetes duration, CVD risk, and CKD status at baseline. Results The relative change in 10-year estimated CVD risk (SRE: –6.50% [–8.04% to –4.95%] and SDRN: –6.77% [–8.40% to –5.13%]; all P < 0.001) and 5-year ESKD risk (SRE: –4.48% [–7.68% to –1.28%]; P = 0.006) were lower at the end of 24 weeks of dapagliflozin treatment compared with placebo. Furthermore, the greatest relative change in 5-year ESKD risk was observed at week 56 (SRE: –12.84% [–16.65% to –9.03%]; P < 0.001), in conjunction with an expected rise in eGFR after drug washout. Subgroup analysis revealed larger relative lowering in 10-year CVD risk in those with CKD compared with those without (SRE: –11.3% versus –5.9%, and SDRN: –11.9% versus –6.1%, respectively; all P interaction < 0.02). Conclusions Dapagliflozin improves estimated CVD and ESKD risk in participants with T1D, emphasizing the need for cardiorenal outcome trials in people living with T1D.

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)0.008
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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