Secondary Failure Rates Associated with Metformin and Sulfonylurea Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine whether metformin therapy, compared with sulfonylurea therapy, is associated with a delayed onset of secondary failure in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. DATA SOURCE: Outpatient prescription database from Saskatchewan Health, Saskatchewan, Canada. PATIENTS: Two cohorts-5077 individuals receiving sulfonylurea monotherapy and 1652 receiving metformin monotherapy for 2 years or longer-identified from a population of 12,272 new users of oral antidiabetic agents between 1991 and 1996 and who were followed through 1999. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The association between initial drug therapy and onset of secondary failure was evaluated using multivariate Cox proportional hazard models in which the sulfonylurea monotherapy cohort was the reference group. Secondary failure was defined as progression to combination oral therapy or a switch in oral therapy; each component (e.g., time to combination therapy or first switch) of this definition, including start of insulin therapy, was assessed as a secondary outcome. The subjects' mean age was 63.8 years, and 3787 (56.3%) were men. Subjects were followed for a mean +/- SD of 5.7 +/- 1.8 years. Metformin monotherapy was associated with a delay in the onset of secondary failure (hazard ratio [HR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-0.98), in the progression to combination therapy (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.87), and in the start of insulin therapy (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51-0.82). Of note, patients receiving metformin monotherapy first were more likely than those receiving sulfonylurea monotherapy first to switch treatments (HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.17-1.75). CONCLUSION: Compared with sulfonylurea therapy, metformin therapy appears to be associated with a delay in the onset of secondary failure.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".