Trial reportCardiovascular diabetology2021

Effect of canagliflozin on N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic heart failure according to baseline use of glucose-lowering agents.

Atsushi Tanaka, Shigeru Toyoda, Takumi Imai, Kazuki Shiina, Hirofumi Tomiyama, Yasushi Matsuzawa, Takahiro Okumura, Yumiko Kanzaki, Katsuya Onishi, Arihiro Kiyosue and 4 more

Open access · goldFull text readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cardiovascular diabetology, 2021. The graph read 1 number from its abstract, feeding 1 cell of the map, but none could be read as for or against, so it casts no vote. Cited by 8 papers.

1number the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

Read, but not usablea number the graph found but could not read as for or against

Cardiac & vascular functiondirection of benefit for this outcome is not defined · head-to-head · t2d, heart_failurefeeds one cell of the map
change 0.950.76 to 1.18p = 0.618
The group ratio (canagliflozin vs. glimepiride) of proportional changes in the geometric means of NT-proBNP concentration was 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 1.18, p = 0.618) for the naïve subgroup, 0.92 (95% CI 0.79 to1.07, p = 0.288) for the non-naïve subgroup, 0.90 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.20, p = 0.473) for the metformin-user subgroup, and 0.91 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.08, p = 0.271) for the DPP-4 inhibitor-user subgroup.

clause the extractor read what became the number

2 · Its place on the map

Where it lands on the map

Rows are treatments, columns are outcomes. The coloured squares are the cells this paper feeds, coloured by the vote it casts there. Click one to jump to what this paper adds to it.

supports the treatmentfavours the comparatorno clear differenceread, but no usable result
3 · What it changes

What it adds to each cell

For every cell the paper feeds: the belief in the claim with and without this paper, and this paper's estimate drawn against every other readable study in the cell. The ringed dot is this paper.

SGLT2 inhibitors×cardiac & vascular function

No readable resultOpen on the map →What to test next →

12 readable studies in this cell: 6 favour the treatment, 6 find no difference, 0 favour the comparator.

Belief with this paper
0.50contested · 6 families support, 3 contradict · against placebo
Without itNot a counted family in this claim, so removing it changes nothing.
← favours the comparatorfavours the treatment →
0 · no effect
NCT030579515,988 enrolled · 2017
Δ 1.320.45 to 2.19
NCT030579773,730 enrolled · 2017
Δ 2.060.16 to 3.96
NCT04252287476 enrolled · 2020
Δ 4.300.80 to 7.80
NCT03448406315 enrolled · 2018
Δ 4.00-5.00 to 13.0
NCT03448419312 enrolled · 2018
Δ -4.00-16.0 to 6.00
NCT0297347745 enrolled · 2017
Coefficient 0.01-0.23 to 0.25

This paper's own estimate is on a different scale from the rest of the cell, so it is not drawn here.

4 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

5 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
6 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

7 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.

Atsushi TanakaDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Saga University, 5-1-1 Nabeshima, Saga, 849-8501, Japan. tanakaa2@cc.saga-u.ac.jp.ORCID 0000-0003-3352-7661
Shigeru ToyodaDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Dokkyo Medical University School of Medicine, Mibu, Japan.
Takumi ImaiDepartment of Medical Statistics, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka City University, Osaka, Japan.
Kazuki ShiinaDepartment of Cardiology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Hirofumi TomiyamaDepartment of Cardiology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Yasushi MatsuzawaDivision of Cardiology, Yokohama City University Medical Center, Yokohama, Japan.
Takahiro OkumuraDepartment of Cardiology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan.
Yumiko KanzakiDepartment of Cardiology, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Takatsuki, Japan.
Katsuya OnishiOnishi Heart Clinic, Tsu, Japan.
Arihiro KiyosueDepartment of Cardiology, Moriyama Memorial Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Masami NishinoDivision of Cardiology, Osaka Rosai Hospital, Sakai, Japan.
Yasushi SakataDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan.
Koichi NodeDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Saga University, 5-1-1 Nabeshima, Saga, 849-8501, Japan.
CANDLE trial investigators
Saga University · JPTokyo Medical University · JPDokkyo Medical University · JPMaruyama Memorial General Hospital · JPNagoya University · JPOsaka City University · JPOsaka Rosai Hospital · JPOsaka University of Pharmaceutical Sciences · JPThe University of Osaka · JPYokohama City University Medical Center · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

8 · The paper itself

Abstract

The marked sentences are the ones the graph read a number from.

backgroundSodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors reduce the risk of a deterioration in heart failure (HF) and mortality in patients with a broad range of cardiovascular risks. Recent guidelines recommend considering the use of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and HF, irrespective of their glycemic control status and background use of other glucose-lowering agents including metformin. However, only a small number of studies have investigated whether the effects of SGLT2 inhibitor in these patients differ by the concomitant use of other glucose-lowering agents.

methodsThis was a post-hoc analysis of the CANDLE trial (UMIN000017669), an investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial. The primary aim of the analysis was to assess the effect of 24 weeks of treatment with canagliflozin, relative to glimepiride, on N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentration in patients with T2D and clinically stable chronic HF. In the present analysis, the effect of canagliflozin on NT-proBNP concentration was assessed in the patients according to their baseline use of other glucose-lowering agents.

resultsAlmost all patients in the CANDLE trial presented as clinically stable (New York Heart Association class I to II), with about 70% of participants having HF with a preserved ejection fraction phenotype (defined as a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 50%) at baseline. Of the 233 patients randomized to either canagliflozin (100 mg daily) or glimepiride (starting dose 0.5 mg daily), 85 (36.5%) had not been taking any glucose-lowering agents at baseline (naïve). Of the 148 patients who had been taking at least one glucose-lowering agent at baseline (non-naïve), 44 (29.7%) and 127 (85.8%) had received metformin or a dipeptidyl dipeptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, respectively. The group ratio (canagliflozin vs. glimepiride) of proportional changes in the geometric means of NT-proBNP concentration was 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 1.18, p = 0.618) for the naïve subgroup, 0.92 (95% CI 0.79 to1.07, p = 0.288) for the non-naïve subgroup, 0.90 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.20, p = 0.473) for the metformin-user subgroup, and 0.91 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.08, p = 0.271) for the DPP-4 inhibitor-user subgroup. No heterogeneity in the effect of canagliflozin, relative to glimepiride, on NT-proBNP concentration was observed in the non-naïve subgroups compared to that in the naïve subgroup.

conclusionThe impact of canagliflozin treatment on NT-proBNP concentration appears to be independent of the background use of diabetes therapy in the patient population examined. Trial registration University Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry, number 000017669. Registered on May 25, 2015.

Indexed as

Glycemic ControlAgedBiomarkersBlood GlucoseCanagliflozinChronic DiseaseDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleHeart FailureHumansJapanMaleMiddle AgedNatriuretic Peptide, BrainPeptide FragmentsProspective StudiesBiomarkersBlood GlucoseCanagliflozinNatriuretic Peptide, BrainPeptide Fragmentspro-brain natriuretic peptide (1-76)Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 InhibitorsChronic heart failureDipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitorMetforminSodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitorType 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID34479543
PMCPMC8417990
OpenAlexW3197609532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.