Empagliflozin as adjunct to insulin in Japanese participants with type 1 diabetes: Results of a 4‐week, double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled phase 2 trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02702011) with 4 sites in Japan investigated the pharmacodynamics (PD), pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety profile of empagliflozin in Japanese participants with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) as adjunctive therapy to insulin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants using multiple daily injections of insulin for ≥12 months, with HbA1c of 7.5%-10.0%, entered a 2-week, open-label, placebo run-in period, followed by a 4-week, double-blind period during which participants were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive empagliflozin 2.5 mg (n = 13), empagliflozin 10 mg (n = 12), empagliflozin 25 mg (n = 12) or placebo (n = 11). The primary objective was to assess the effect of empagliflozin vs placebo on urinary glucose excretion (UGE) after 7 days of treatment. RESULTS: PD: Empagliflozin resulted in a dose-dependent significant increase in 24-hour UGE compared with placebo (UGE placebo-corrected mean [95% confidence interval] change from baseline: 2.5 mg, 65.10 [43.29, 86.90] g/24 h; 10 mg, 81.19 [58.80, 103.58] g/24 h; 25 mg, 98.11 [75.91, 120.31] g/24 h). After 4 weeks of treatment, UGE increase was associated with improved glycaemic control, reduced body weight and decreased insulin needs. Empagliflozin treatment also resulted in dose-dependent increases in serum ketone bodies and free fatty acids. PK: Plasma empagliflozin levels increased in a dose-dependent manner and peaked at 1.5 hours. In this short study, empagliflozin was well tolerated, with no increase in rate of hypoglycaemia and no diabetic ketoacidosis events reported. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this short-duration phase 2 study, the PK/PD profile of empagliflozin in Japanese participants with T1DM is comparable to that of non-Japanese participants.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".