Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec vs Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100 in Combination with Bolus Insulin in Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes on Basal-Bolus Regimens (ONWARDS 4)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective ONWARDS 4 was a 26-week, randomised, treat-to-target, phase 3 trial, designed to assess efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec (icodec) vs once-daily insulin glargine U100 (glargine) in a basal-bolus insulin regimen in type 2 diabetes(T2D). Method Adults (n=582) with T2D (HbA1c 7.0–10.0%) on a basal-bolus regimen were randomised 1:1 to icodec or glargine, both in combination with multiple daily injections of insulin aspart. Primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26(non-inferiority margin 0.3%). Result At week 26, from a mean baseline of 8.3%, estimated HbA1c reductions were -1.16% (icodec) and -1.18% (glargine), confirming non-inferiority for icodec vs glargine (estimated treatment difference [ETD]: 0.02% [95% CI, -0.11 to 0.15]; p<0.0001). Overall rates of combined level 2 or level 3 hypoglycaemia were comparable between treatments (5.64 [icodec] and 5.62 [glargine] per patient year of exposure; estimated rate ratio: 0.99 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.33]; p=0.929). Mean total weekly basal component of the total insulin dose from week 24–26 was significantly higher in the icodec arm vs the glargine arm (305 U/week vs 279 U/week; p=0.0286), while the mean total weekly bolus insulin component was significantly lower (197 U/week vs 255 U/week; p<0.0001). Estimated mean body weight change was 2.73 kg(icodec) and 2.16 kg (glargine) (ETD: 0.57 kg [95% CI, -0.39 to 1.54]; p=0.2444). Conclusion Once-weekly icodec demonstrated comparable improvements in glycaemic control with fewer basal insulin injections, with a comparable hypoglycaemia profile vs once-daily glargine in individuals with T2D on a basal-bolus regimen. Publication History Article published online: 02 May 2023 © 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".