Study of Once Daily Levemir (SOLVE™): insights into the timing of insulin initiation in people with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this analysis is to determine the timing of insulin initiation in routine clinical practice, especially in relation to glycaemic control and use of oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). METHODS: Study of Once Daily Levemir was a 24-week international observational study involving 10 countries which evaluated the safety and effectiveness of initiating once-daily insulin detemir in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) being treated with one or more OADs (clinical trial number NCT00825643 and NCT00740519). RESULTS: A total of 17 374 participants were enrolled in the study: aged 62 ± 12 years, 53% male, T2DM duration 10 ± 7 years, body mass index 29.3 ± 5.4 kg/m(2) . Pre-insulin HbA1c was 8.9 ± 1.6%. The proportion of patients with HbA1c ≥9.0% ranged from 64% (UK) to 23% (Poland). Pre-insulin OAD treatment included metformin (81%), sulphonylureas (59%), glinides (16%), thiazolidinediones (TZD) (12%), α-glucosidase inhibitors (12%) and dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-IV inhibitors (7%). The mean starting dose of insulin detemir for the total cohort was 0.16 ± 0.09 U/kg. Differences in OAD use and insulin doses at initiation were evident among participating countries. The largest proportional changes in OAD prescribing at insulin initiation were seen with glinides (+15%), sulphonylureas (-19%), TZD (-31%) and DPP-IV inhibitors (-28%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite well-documented benefits of timely glycaemic control and consensus guidelines encouraging earlier use of insulin, considerable clinical inertia exists with respect to initiating appropriate insulin therapy in people with T2DM. Considerable regional differences exist in the timing of insulin initiation and in the use of OADs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".