Safety and efficacy of insulin degludec/liraglutide (<scp>ID</scp>egLira) added to sulphonylurea alone or to sulphonylurea and metformin in insulin‐naïve people with Type 2 diabetes: the <scp>DUAL IV</scp> trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim To investigate the safety and efficacy of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira), a novel combination product, as add‐on therapy for people with Type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on sulphonylurea therapy. Methods In this 26‐week, double‐blind trial, adults with Type 2 diabetes [HbA1c 53–75 mmol/mol (7.0–9.0%)] were randomized to IDegLira (n = 289) or placebo (n = 146) as add‐on to pre‐trial sulphonylurea ± metformin, titrating to a fasting glycaemic target of 4.0–6.0 mmol/l. Treatment initiation was at 10 dose steps, and maximum dose was 50 dose steps (50 units insulin degludec/1.8 mg liraglutide). Results The mean HbA1c decreased from 63 mmol/mol (7.9%) to 46 mmol/mol (6.4%) with IDegLira and to 57 mmol/mol (7.4%) with placebo [estimated treatment difference –11 mmol/mol (95% CI –13; –10) or –1.02% (95% CI –1.18; –0.87); P < 0.001]. The HbA1c target of 53 mmol/mol (<7%) was achieved by 79.2% of participants in the IDegLira group vs 28.8% in the placebo group [estimated odds ratio 11.95 (95% CI 7.22; 19.77); P < 0.001]. Mean weight change was +0.5 kg with IDegLira vs –1.0 kg with placebo [estimated treatment difference 1.48 kg (95% CI 0.90; 2.06); P < 0.001]. Confirmed hypoglycaemia occurred in 41.7 and 17.1% of IDegLira‐ and placebo‐treated participants, respectively, with rates of 3.5 vs 1.4 events/patient‐years of exposure [estimated rate ratio 3.74 (95% CI 2.28; 6.13); P < 0.001]. IDegLira was generally well tolerated. The rates of serious adverse events were 20.3 and 8.0 per 100 patient‐years of exposure with IDegLira and placebo, respectively, without obvious patterns in the type of events. Conclusions IDegLira can be used in people uncontrolled with sulphonylurea ± metformin to improve efficacy with a safety profile in line with previous DUAL trials.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".