Efficacy and safety of lixisenatide as add‐on therapy to basal insulin in older adults with type 2 diabetes in the GetGoal‐O Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background This study compared the efficacy and safety of lixisenatide with placebo as add‐on therapy to basal insulin (BI) in adults aged ≥70 years with type 2 diabetes (T2D), with or without moderate renal insufficiency. Methods This post hoc analysis evaluated data from non‐frail patients with T2D inadequately controlled on BI with or without oral antidiabetic drugs (n = 108), randomized to once‐daily lixisenatide 20 μg or placebo for 24 weeks (GetGoal‐O Study). The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24. Secondary endpoints included changes from baseline in fasting plasma glucose, 2‐hour postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), average seven‐point self‐monitored plasma glucose (SMPG), area under the curve for SMPG, daily BI dose, body weight, proportion of patients achieving HbA1c > 0.5%, and composite endpoints. Safety outcomes included the incidence of documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (plasma glucose <60 mg/dL) and gastrointestinal treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Outcomes were also analyzed by the occurrence of moderate renal insufficiency. Results Compared with placebo, lixisenatide‐treated patients had significantly greater reductions in HbA1c, 2‐hour PPG, average seven‐point SMPG, and body weight. Documented symptomatic hypoglycemia was approximately two‐fold higher in patients treated with placebo than lixisenatide (12.7% vs 5.7%). GI TEAEs occurred more frequently in the lixisenatide‐ than placebo‐treated group (34% vs 9.1%). Moderate renal insufficiency (estimated glomerular filtration rate between ≥30 and <60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ) did not negatively affect lixisenatide efficacy or safety. A greater proportion of patients treated with lixisenatide than placebo achieved composite endpoints. Conclusions Add‐on therapy with lixisenatide in non‐frail patients aged ≥70 years with T2D uncontrolled with BI is effective, safe, and well tolerated and should be considered in this population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".