Ertugliflozin Delays Insulin Initiation and Reduces Insulin Dose Requirements in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Analyses From VERTIS CV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: VERTIS CV evaluated the cardiovascular safety of ertugliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). OBJECTIVE: The aim of these analyses was to assess the insulin requirements of VERTIS CV patients over the trial duration. METHODS: Patients received ertugliflozin 5 mg, 15 mg, or placebo once daily; mean follow-up was 3.5 years. Time to insulin initiation in patients who were insulin naïve at baseline, change in insulin dose in patients receiving baseline insulin, and hypoglycemia incidence in both patient groups were assessed. RESULTS: In VERTIS CV, mean duration of type 2 diabetes was 13.0 years; glycated hemoglobin was 8.2%. Among 4348 (53%) insulin-naïve patients, the likelihood of insulin initiation was significantly reduced with ertugliflozin vs placebo (ertugliflozin 5 mg: hazard ratio [HR] 0.70, 95% CI 0.58-0.84; ertugliflozin 15 mg: HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.53-0.78). Time to insulin initiation was delayed with ertugliflozin; the estimated delay in reaching a 10% cumulative incidence of new insulin initiations vs placebo was 399 days with ertugliflozin 5 mg and 669 days with ertugliflozin 15 mg. Among 3898 (47%) patients receiving baseline insulin, the likelihood of requiring a ≥20% increase in insulin dose was significantly reduced with ertugliflozin vs placebo (ertugliflozin 5 mg: HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.52-0.75; ertugliflozin 15 mg: HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.41-0.62). The incidence of hypoglycemia events was not increased with ertugliflozin treatment. CONCLUSION: In VERTIS CV patients, ertugliflozin reduced the likelihood of insulin initiation, delayed the time to insulin initiation by up to ∼1.8 years, and reduced insulin dose requirements vs placebo, without increasing hypoglycemia events.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".