Linagliptin plus metformin in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and marked hyperglycemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Few studies of oral glucose-lowering drugs exist in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients with marked hyperglycemia, and insulin is often proposed as initial treatment. We evaluated the oral initial combination of metformin and linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, in this population. METHODS: We performed a pre-specified subgroup analysis of a randomized study in which newly diagnosed T2D patients with glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 8.5%-12.0% received linagliptin/metformin or linagliptin monotherapy. Subgroups of baseline HbA1c, age, body-mass index (BMI), renal function, race, and ethnicity were evaluated, with efficacy measured by HbA1c change from baseline after 24 weeks. RESULTS: HbA1c reductions from baseline (mean 9.7%) at week 24 in the overall population were an adjusted mean -2.81% ± 0.12% with linagliptin/metformin (n = 132) and -2.02% ± 0.13% with linagliptin (n = 113); treatment difference -0.79% (95% CI -1.13 to -0.46, P < 0.0001). In patients with baseline HbA1c ≥9.5%, HbA1c reduction was -3.37% with linagliptin/metformin (n = 76) and -2.53% with linagliptin (n = 61); difference -0.84% (95% CI -1.32 to -0.35). In those with baseline HbA1c <9.5%, HbA1c reduction was -2.08% with linagliptin/metformin (n = 56) and -1.39% with linagliptin (n = 52); difference -0.69% (95% CI -1.23 to -0.15). Changes in HbA1c and treatment differences between the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups were of similar magnitudes to the overall population across patient subgroups based on age, BMI, renal function, and race. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 8.8% and 5.7% of linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin patients, respectively; no severe hypoglycemia occurred. CONCLUSION: Linagliptin/metformin combination in newly diagnosed T2D patients with marked hyperglycemia was well tolerated and elicited substantial improvements in glycemic control regardless of baseline HbA1c, age, BMI, renal function, or race. Thus, newly diagnosed, markedly hyperglycemic patients may be effectively treated by combinations of oral agents. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier is NCT01512979.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".