A randomized non‐inferiority study comparing the addition of exenatide twice daily to sitagliptin or switching from sitagliptin to exenatide twice daily in patients with Type 2 diabetes experiencing inadequate glycaemic control on metformin and sitagliptin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To test the hypothesis that glycaemic control achieved when switching sitagliptin to exenatide twice daily plus metformin is non-inferior to adding exenatide twice daily to sitagliptin and metformin. METHODS: Patients with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with sitagliptin plus metformin were randomly assigned to 20 weeks of treatment with twice-daily exenatide plus placebo and metformin (SWITCH, n = 127) or twice-daily exenatide plus sitagliptin and metformin (ADD, n = 128). RESULTS: Non-inferiority (0.4% margin) of SWITCH to ADD treatment, measured by change in HbA(1c) from baseline to week 20, was not shown {between-treatment difference in least-squares mean [95% CI 3 mmol/mol (0.30%)] [0.8-5.8 (0.07-0.53)]}. A greater reduction (P = 0.012) in HbA(1c) [least-squares mean (se)] was experienced by patients in the ADD group {-7 mmol/mol [-0.68%] [0.9 (0.08)]}, compared with those in the SWITCH group {-4 mmol/mol [-0.38%] [1.0 (0.09)]} and a greater proportion (P = 0.027) of patients in the ADD group (41.7%) reached < 7.0% (< 53 mmol/mol) HbA(1c) target, compared with those in the SWITCH group (26.6%) by week 20. Patients in the ADD group experienced greater fasting serum glucose (P = 0.038) and daily mean postprandial self-monitored blood glucose (P = 0.048) reductions, compared with patients in the SWITCH group, by week 20. Patients in both groups experienced a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting compared with previous exenatide studies. CONCLUSIONS: Non-inferiority of SWITCH to ADD treatment was not supported by the results of this study. In patients with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with sitagliptin plus metformin, adding exenatide provided better glycaemic control than switching to exenatide. These results are consistent with the clinical approach that adding is better than switching to another oral anti-hyperglycaemic medication.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".