A placebo‐controlled trial of exenatide twice‐daily added to thiazolidinediones alone or in combination with metformin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To test the hypothesis that glycaemic control with exenatide added to thiazolidinediones (TZDs) with or without metformin was superior to placebo. METHODS: A 26-week, multi-country (Canada, Mexico, Romania, South Africa and the USA), randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study compared exenatide twice-daily vs. placebo in 165 subjects suboptimally controlled with TZDs with or without metformin [HbA(1c) 8.2% (s.d. 0.9), fasting serum glucose 9.1 (2.6) mmol/l, body weight 93.9 (17.8) kg, diabetes duration 6.4 (4.3) years]. After a 2-week, single-blind, lead-in period, subjects were randomly assigned (2 : 1) to add exenatide or placebo to current regimens. The primary endpoint was HbA(1c) change at endpoint (Week 26 or last-observation-carried-forward). RESULTS: Only 8 subjects were treated with concomitant TZD alone. Exenatide reduced HbA(1c) significantly more than placebo [-0.84% (s.e. 0.20) vs. -0.10% (0.23), treatment difference -0.74% (0.16), p < 0.001)]. Mean reductions in body weight were similar in both treatments at endpoint [exenatide, -1.4 (s.e. 0.6) kg vs. placebo, -0.8 (0.7) kg, p = 0.176)]. Nearly 71% of subjects had both a reduction in HbA(1c) and body weight with exenatide compared with 54% with placebo. The most common adverse events (exenatide vs. placebo) were nausea (12% vs. 2%, p = 0.037), vomiting (8% vs. 0%, p = 0.031) and headache (4% vs. 4%). Confirmed (blood glucose <3.0 mmol/l) minor hypoglycaemia was experienced by 4 and 2% of subjects treated with exenatide and placebo, respectively. Incidence of hypoglycaemia was not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Exenatide added to TZDs alone or in combination with metformin significantly improved glycaemic control as determined by significant improvement in HbA(1c) without associated hypoglycaemia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".