A comparison of adding liraglutide versus a single daily dose of insulin aspart to insulin degludec in subjects with type 2 diabetes (<scp>BEGIN</scp>: <scp>VICTOZA ADD‐ON</scp>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Two treatment strategies were compared in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) on basal insulin requiring intensification: addition of once-daily (OD) liraglutide (Lira) or OD insulin aspart (IAsp) with largest meal. METHODS: Subjects completing 104 weeks (52-week main trial BEGIN ONCE-LONG + 52-week extension) on insulin degludec (IDeg) OD + metformin with HbA1c ≥ 7.0% (≥53 mmol/mol) were randomized to IDeg+Lira [n = 88, mean HbA1c: 7.7% (61 mmol/mol)] or IDeg+IAsp (n = 89, mean HbA1c: 7.7%) for 26 weeks, continuing metformin. Subjects completing 104 weeks with HbA1c <7.0% continued IDeg + metformin in a third, non-randomized arm (n = 236). RESULTS: IDeg+Lira reduced HbA1c (-0.74%-points) significantly more than IDeg+IAsp (-0.39%-points); estimated treatment difference (ETD) (IDeg+Lira-IDeg+IAsp) -0.32%-points (95% CI -0.53; -0.12); p = 0.0024. More IDeg+Lira (49.4%) than IDeg+IAsp (7.2%) subjects achieved HbA1c <7.0% without confirmed hypoglycaemia [plasma glucose <3.1 mmol/l (<56 mg/dl) or severe hypoglycaemia) and without weight gain; estimated odds ratio (IDeg+Lira/IDeg+IAsp) 13.79 (95% CI 5.24; 36.28); p < 0.0001. IDeg+Lira subjects had significantly less confirmed and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia, and significantly greater weight loss (-2.8 kg) versus IDeg+IAsp (+0.9 kg); ETD (IDeg+Lira-IDeg+IAsp) -3.75 kg (95% CI -4.70; -2.79); p < 0.0001. Other than more gastrointestinal side effects with IDeg+Lira, no safety differences occurred. Durability of IDeg was established in the non-randomized arm, as mean HbA1c remained <7.0% [mean 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) at end-of-trial]. CONCLUSIONS: IDeg+Lira improved long-term glycaemic control, with weight loss and less hypoglycaemia versus adding a single daily dose of IAsp in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with IDeg + metformin.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".