A post-hoc pooled analysis to evaluate efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes with/without prior use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate treatment advancement with insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300), with or without prior glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) therapy in type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: Efficacy and safety outcomes of insulin-naïve patients intensifying with Gla-300, with/without prior GLP-1 RA therapy, were evaluated in three analyses (N = 3562): a pooled analysis of seven interventional studies, a subanalysis comparing participants who stopped GLP-1 RA therapy and initiated Gla-300 with those who received add-on Gla-300, and an expanded analysis including two observational studies. RESULTS: Glycaemic outcomes, including HbA1c improvement and fasting plasma glucose, were similar between groups with/without prior GLP-1 RA use. HbA1c least squares mean change from baseline was - 1.7 % and - 1.6 % with and without prior GLP-1 RA, respectively. Glycaemic outcomes were similar between participants who stopped GLP-1 RA therapy when initiating Gla-300 and those who received add-on Gla-300, although more participants receiving add-on Gla-300 achieved HbA1c targets. The expanded analysis yielded similar results. Incidence of hypoglycaemia was low with no clinically relevant weight changes in all analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment advancement with Gla-300 in patients with T2D, with/without prior GLP-1 RA therapy, improved glycaemic outcomes with no relevant impact on weight, while maintaining a low hypoglycaemia risk.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".