MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034861499 · doi:10.2337/db20-956-p

956-P: Efficacy and Safety of Oral Semaglutide When Added to Basal, Premix, or Basal-Bolus Insulin

2020· article· en· W3034861499 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ofri Mosenzon, Vanita R. Aroda, Erik Christiansen, Stewart B. Harris, Karen Boje Pedersen, Mads Jeppe Tarp-Johansen, Bernard Zinman

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBolus (digestion)InsulinRegimenInternal medicineSemaglutideBasal (medicine)Diabetes mellitusEndocrinologyPlaceboType 2 diabetesInsulin aspartHypoglycemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An exploratory subgroup analysis of the 52-week, double-blind PIONEER 8 trial (NCT03021187) evaluated the effect of background insulin regimen (basal, premixed, or basal-bolus) with or without metformin on the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide (sema). Patients (pts) (N=731) with type 2 diabetes and treated with insulin were randomized to once-daily oral sema (3, 7, or 14 mg) or placebo (pbo). Endpoints included change from baseline in HbA1c, body weight (BW), and total daily insulin dose at week 52. Baseline age and HbA1c were similar across insulin regimen subgroups whereas BW was greater and diabetes duration was longer in pts on basal-bolus vs. basal and premix subgroups. There were greater dose-dependent HbA1c and BW reductions with oral sema vs. pbo; these were generally similar across all insulin subgroups (Table). Total daily insulin dose at week 52 was decreased for pts on basal (oral sema 7 and 14 mg), premix (oral sema 14 mg), and basal-bolus (oral sema 3, 7, and 14 mg), mainly driven by the bolus component for pts on basal-bolus (Table). Most hypoglycemic episodes were in pts on basal-bolus insulin. Fewer pts had hypoglycemia with oral sema vs. pbo except in the basal-bolus subgroup (Table). In conclusion, oral sema reduced HbA1c and BW in a dose-dependent manner, and reduced insulin dose regardless of background insulin regimen, with a safety profile similar to other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. Disclosure O. Mosenzon: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk A/S. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. V.R. Aroda: Consultant; Self; Duke, Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. Employee; Spouse/Partner; Merck & Co., Inc. Research Support; Self; Applied Therapeutics, Fractyl Laboratories, Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. Other Relationship; Self; IMNE, Medscape. E. Christiansen: None. S.B. Harris: Advisory Panel; Self; Abbott, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. Consultant; Self; Abbott, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Eli Lilly and Company, Health Canada/First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., JDRF, Lawson Foundation, Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. Other Relationship; Self; AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. K. Pedersen: Employee; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. M. Tarp-Johansen: Employee; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. B. Zinman: Advisory Panel; Self; Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi-Aventis. Funding Novo Nordisk A/S

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetesSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207