Efficacy and Safety of Degludec Compared to Glargine 300 Units/mL in Insulin-Experienced Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Trial Protocol Amendment (NCT03078478)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A head-to-head trial (NCT03078478) between insulin degludec and insulin glargine U300 with the primary objective of comparing the risk of hypoglycemia is being conducted. During trial conduct, safety concerns related to the glycemic data collection system led to a postinitiation protocol amendment, described here. METHODS: This randomized (1:1), open-label, treat-to-target, multinational trial was initiated in March 2017 with a planned treatment period of 52 weeks (16 weeks titration + 36 weeks maintenance). Overall, ~1600 insulin-experienced patients at risk of developing hypoglycemia based on predefined risk factors were included. The protocol amendment implemented in February 2018 resulted in assuring patient safety and an extension of the total treatment period up to 88 weeks (16 weeks titration + variable maintenance 1 + 36 weeks maintenance 2). The original glycemic data collection system (MyGlucoHealth blood glucose meter + electronic diary) was discontinued because of safety concerns and replaced with an Abbott blood glucose meter and paper diary to collect self-measured blood glucose and hypoglycemic episodes. The primary endpoint of number of severe or blood-glucose confirmed symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes will be evaluated with the same analysis duration and statistical methods as the original protocol. Only relevant changes were implemented to maintain patient safety while permitting evaluation of the scientific objectives of the trial. CONCLUSIONS: These observations highlight the importance of safety surveillance during trial conduct despite the use of currently marketed glucose monitoring devices. The prompt protocol amendment and ensuing actions ensured that the scientific integrity of the trial was not compromised.
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 | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.004 |
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".