Similar efficacy and safety of once‐weekly dulaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes aged ≥65 and <65 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dulaglutide 1.5 and 0.75 mg in elderly patients (aged ≥65 years) with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in six phase III clinical trials. METHODS: Patients were grouped into two age groups: ≥65 and <65 years. Pooled analysis for glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change from baseline, percentage of patients achieving HbA1c targets, and gastrointestinal tolerability were evaluated at 26 weeks for each dulaglutide dose. Change in weight from baseline and rates of hypoglycaemia were evaluated for each individual study. RESULTS: A total of 958 of 5171 (18.5%) patients were aged ≥65 years. The reductions in HbA1c were similar between age groups for dulaglutide 1.5 mg-treated patients {least squares [LS] mean for patients aged ≥65 years: -1.24 [95% confidence interval (CI) -1.36, -1.12] and for patients aged <65 years: -1.29 [95% CI -1.38, -1.20]} and for dulaglutide 0.75 mg-treated patients [LS mean for patients aged ≥65 years: -1.16 (95% CI -1.29, -1.03) and for patients aged <65 years: -1.10 (95% CI -1.19, -1.01)] at 26 weeks. The percentages of patients who achieved HbA1c targets of <7, <8 or <9% were also similar in the two groups with both dulaglutide doses. Patients aged ≥65 years had similar weight change to patients aged <65 years. Severe hypoglycaemic events were infrequent. A similar incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events was observed in each age group with both dulaglutide doses. CONCLUSION: Both dulaglutide doses were well tolerated, with similar efficacy in patients with T2D aged ≥65 years to those aged <65 years. Dulaglutide can be considered a safe and effective treatment option for use in older adults.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".