Efficacy and safety of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide versus the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin in young (<50 years) obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To compare the efficacy and safety of the once-daily prandial glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide with the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin in patients aged <50 years affected by obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This was a 24-week, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study. Obese patients with T2DM inadequately controlled on metformin were randomized to lixisenatide 20 μg once-daily injection (n = 158) or once-daily oral sitagliptin 100 mg (n = 161). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) <7% and ≥5% weight loss at 24 weeks. The proportion of patients that achieved the primary endpoint was 12.0% for lixisenatide versus 7.5% for sitagliptin; weighted average of proportion difference: 4.6%, p = 0.1696). A total of 40.7% of patients achieved HbA1c <7% with lixisenatide versus 40.0% with sitagliptin. Lixisenatide produced greater reductions in body weight (LS mean difference: −1.3 kg, p = 0.0006) and postprandial plasma glucose after a standardized meal test (LS mean difference: −34.4 mg/dL [−1.9 mmol/L], p = 0.0001) versus sitagliptin. There was a similar incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (63.9% vs. 60.9%) and serious treatment-emergent adverse events (1.9% vs. 1.9%), with low rates of symptomatic hypoglycemia (0.6% vs. 1.9%) for lixisenatide and sitagliptin, respectively, and no cases of severe hypoglycemia. In obese patients aged <50 years with T2DM, the proportion of patients with an HbA1c <7% with weight loss ≥5% was similar between groups. Lixisenatide, however, resulted in significantly greater reductions in body weight and postprandial plasma glucose excursions than sitagliptin. Tolerability was similar between groups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".