Trial reportESC heart failure2018

Liraglutide and weight loss among patients with advanced heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction: insights from the FIGHT trial.

Abhinav Sharma, Andrew P Ambrosy, Adam D DeVore, Kenneth B Margulies, Steven E McNulty, Robert J Mentz, Adrian F Hernandez, Gary Michael Felker, Lauren B Cooper, Anuradha Lala and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in ESC heart failure, 2018. The graph read 2 numbers from its abstract, feeding 2 cells of the map: it supports the treatment in 2. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

2numbers the graph read from it
2cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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.

← favours the treatmentfavours the comparator →
-60.70 · no effect
Lipidsfavours the treatment · against placebo · obesity, heart_failurefeeds one cell of the map
Δ -33.1-60.7 to -5.60P = 0.019
Liraglutide also significantly reduced triglyceride levels (liraglutide 7.5 mg/dL vs. placebo 12.0 mg/dL; treatment difference -33.1 mg/dL; 95% CI -60.7, -5.6; P = 0.019).
Body weight & compositionfavours the treatment · against placebo · obesity, heart_failurefeeds one cell of the map
Δ -2.07-3.86 to -0.28P = 0.0237
Liraglutide use was associated with a significant weight reduction [liraglutide -1.00 lbs vs. placebo 2.00 lbs; treatment difference -4.10 lbs; 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.94, -0.25; P = 0.0367; percentage treatment difference -2.07%, 95% CI -3.86, -0.28; P = 0.0237].

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.

GLP-1 receptor agonists×lipids

SupportsOpen on the map →What to test next →

9 readable studies in this cell: 2 favour the treatment, 7 find no difference, 0 favour the comparator.

Belief with this paper
0.50one trial · 1 family supports, 0 contradict · against placebo
Without it
0.25This paper moves it by +0.25. It would be no deciding trial.
← favours the treatmentfavours the comparator →
0 · no effect
This paper · 2018
Δ -33.1-60.7 to -5.60
NCT00676338820 enrolled · 2008
Δ -0.01-0.18 to 0.15
NCT00781937422 enrolled · 2008
Treatment Contrast -0.11-0.20 to -0.01
Δ -29.2-55.8 to 2.65
NCT04019197108 enrolled · 2019
β coefficient -7.17-22.2 to 7.85
NCT0488111060 enrolled · 2021
Δ -4.80-32.6 to 22.9
NCT0062028249 enrolled · 2008
Least squares mean -2.24-17.8 to 13.4
NCT0331578012 enrolled · 2017
Δ -15.4-118 to 87.6

GLP-1 receptor agonists×body weight & composition

SupportsOpen on the map →What to test next →

40 readable studies in this cell: 83 favour the treatment, 15 find no difference, 11 favour the comparator.

Belief with this paper
0.90replicated · 64 families support, 7 contradict · against placebo
Without it
0.90This paper does not move the number.
← favours the treatmentfavours the comparator →
0 · no effect
This paper · 2018
Δ -2.07-3.86 to -0.28
NCT012722193,731 enrolled · 2011
Δ -5.39-5.82 to -4.95
Δ -17.3-18.1 to -16.6
NCT017204463,297 enrolled · 2013
Δ -2.95-3.47 to -2.44
NCT035489351,961 enrolled · 2018
Δ -12.4-13.4 to -11.5
NCT039879191,879 enrolled · 2019
Δ -1.70-2.60 to -0.70
NCT026078651,864 enrolled · 2016
Δ -2.50-3.00 to -2.00
NCT056467061,407 enrolled · 2023
Δ -14.8-16.2 to -13.4
NCT018365231,398 enrolled · 2013
Δ -4.90-5.65 to -4.16
NCT035527571,210 enrolled · 2018
Δ -6.21-7.28 to -5.15
NCT007344741,202 enrolled · 2008
Δ -1.50-2.08 to -0.92
Δ -10.4-11.2 to -9.50
NCT020581471,170 enrolled · 2014
Δ 14.38.37 to 20.3
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Abhinav SharmaDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, 2400 Pratt Street, Durham, NC, 27705, USA.
Andrew P AmbrosyDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, 2400 Pratt Street, Durham, NC, 27705, USA.
Adam D DeVoreDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, 2400 Pratt Street, Durham, NC, 27705, USA.
Kenneth B MarguliesPerelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Steven E McNultyDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, 2400 Pratt Street, Durham, NC, 27705, USA.
Robert J MentzDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, 2400 Pratt Street, Durham, NC, 27705, USA.
Adrian F HernandezDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, 2400 Pratt Street, Durham, NC, 27705, USA.
Gary Michael FelkerDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, 2400 Pratt Street, Durham, NC, 27705, USA.
Lauren B CooperInova Heart and Vascular Institute, Fall Church, VA, USA.
Anuradha LalaThe Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Justin VaderWashington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
John D GroakeBrigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA.
Barry A BorlaugMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Eric J VelazquezDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, 2400 Pratt Street, Durham, NC, 27705, USA.
Clinical Research Institute · USDuke University · USAlaska Heart and Vascular Institute · USHarvard University · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · USMount Sinai Hospital · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) U01 HL084861National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) U10 HL084904National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) U10 HL110262National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) U10 HL110297National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) U10 HL110302National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) U10 HL110309National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) U10 HL110312National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) U10 HL110336National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) U10 HL110337National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) U10 HL110338National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) U10 HL110342
8 · The paper itself

Abstract

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

aimsObesity is present in up to 45% of patients with heart failure (HF). Liraglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor antagonist, facilitates weight loss in obese patients. The efficacy of liraglutide as a weight loss agent among patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and a recent acute HF hospitalization remains unknown. METHODS AND

resultsThe Functional Impact of GLP-1 for Heart Failure Treatment study randomized 300 patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤ 40%), both with and without diabetes and a recent HF hospitalization to liraglutide or placebo. The primary outcome for this post hoc analysis was the change in weight from baseline to last study visit. We conducted an 'on-treatment' analysis of patients with at least one follow-up visit on study drug (123 on liraglutide and 124 on placebo). The median age was 61 years, 21% were female, and 69% of patients had New York Heart Association functional Class III or IV symptoms. The median ejection fraction was 25% (25th, 75th percentile 19-32%). Liraglutide use was associated with a significant weight reduction [liraglutide -1.00 lbs vs. placebo 2.00 lbs; treatment difference -4.10 lbs; 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.94, -0.25; P = 0.0367; percentage treatment difference -2.07%, 95% CI -3.86, -0.28; P = 0.0237]. Similar results were seen after multivariable adjustments. Liraglutide also significantly reduced triglyceride levels (liraglutide 7.5 mg/dL vs. placebo 12.0 mg/dL; treatment difference -33.1 mg/dL; 95% CI -60.7, -5.6; P = 0.019).

conclusionsLiraglutide is an efficacious weight loss agent in patients with HFrEF. These findings will require further exploration in a well-powered cardiovascular outcomes trial.

Indexed as

AgedBody WeightDouble-Blind MethodDrug Administration ScheduleFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHeart FailureHumansHypoglycemic AgentsInjections, SubcutaneousLiraglutideMaleMiddle AgedObesityStroke VolumeTreatment OutcomeHypoglycemic AgentsLiraglutideDiabetesHeart failureLiraglutideWeight loss

Identifiers

PMID30120812
PMCPMC6300815
OpenAlexW2886598107

What Socratic holds

Texttitle and abstract
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.