Combination therapy with sulfonylureas and metformin and the prevention of death in type 2 diabetes: a nested case‐control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether combination of sulfonylureas and metformin increases the risk of death from any cause in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A nested case-control study was conducted within a population-based cohort from the UK General Practice Research Database (GPRD). The cohort included patients over the age of 40 who were prescribed a first oral hypoglycaemic agent between 1 January 1988 and 30 June 2008. Cases included all patients who deceased during follow-up. Up to 10 controls were matched to each case on year of birth, date of cohort entry (+/-1 year) and duration of follow-up. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate rate ratios (RRs) of death from any cause associated with the use of combination of sulfonylureas and metformin, relative to sulfonylurea monotherapy. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 84 231 users of oral hypoglycaemic agents, of whom 14 996 died from any cause during a mean of 4.3 years of follow-up (mortality rate 4.1 per 100 per year). Patients currently exposed to a combination of sulfonylureas and metformin were at a decreased risk of death from any cause compared to patients exposed to sulfonylurea monotherapy (adjusted RR: 0.77, 95%CI: 0.70, 0.85). Similar results were obtained for patients currently exposed to metformin monotherapy (adjusted RR: 0.70, 95%CI: 0.64, 0.75) when compared to sulfonylurea monotherapy. Patients had to be exposed to the combination therapy for at least 4 months prior to index date to experience a lower risk of mortality compared to sulfonylurea monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of sulfonylureas and metformin does not increase the risk of death. In contrast, it may moderately reduce this risk compared to sulfonylurea monotherapy.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".