Efficacy and hypoglycaemia outcomes with once‐weekly insulin icodec versus once‐daily basal insulin in type 2 diabetes according to baseline glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonist and sodium‐glucose co‐transporter‐2 inhibitor use: A post hoc analysis of <scp>ONWARDS</scp> 1–5
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To assess the treatment effects of once-weekly insulin icodec (icodec) versus once-daily basal insulin comparators in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) according to baseline glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This post hoc analysis of the randomized ONWARDS 1-5 trials of individuals with T2D assessed treatment outcomes by trial according to baseline GLP-1RA and/or SGLT2i use. RESULTS: At screening, 21.3% (801/3765) and 36.9% (1388/3765) of participants in ONWARDS 1-5 were treated with a GLP-1RA or an SGLT2i, respectively. Baseline characteristics were broadly similar across treatment arms irrespective of GLP-1RA/SGLT2i use; GLP-1RA users had numerically higher body mass indices than non-users. Across trials, there were no statistically significant treatment interactions by GLP-1RA or SGLT2i subgroups with respect to: change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight from baseline to end of treatment (except for body weight change by SGLT2i use in ONWARDS 5); weekly basal insulin dose during the last 2 weeks of treatment (except SGLT2i use in ONWARDS 5); and achievement of HbA1c less than 7% without clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia. Irrespective of GLP-1RA/SGLT2i use, the rates of clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia were less than one episode per patient-year of exposure across all trials except ONWARDS 4 (basal-bolus trial). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and hypoglycaemia profile of icodec versus once-daily comparators was generally consistent across ONWARDS trials irrespective of background GLP-1RA and/or SGLT2i use.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".