The effect of once-weekly insulin icodec vs once-daily basal insulin on physical activity-attributed hypoglycaemia in type 2 diabetes: a post hoc analysis of ONWARDS 1–5
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Physical activity increases the risk of hypoglycaemia in individuals with type 2 diabetes when basal or basal-bolus insulin therapy is administered. Once-weekly basal insulins may elevate the risk of physical activity-attributed hypoglycaemia compared with other basal insulins because the administered levels cannot be reduced in anticipation of increased physical activity. This post hoc analysis of five separate randomised trials (ONWARDS 1-5) aimed to examine physical activity-attributed hypoglycaemic episodes in adults with type 2 diabetes receiving either once-weekly basal insulin icodec (herein referred to as 'icodec') or once-daily basal insulins. METHODS: The ONWARDS 1-5 Phase 3a randomised controlled trials compared the efficacy and safety of once-weekly basal icodec vs once-daily basal insulin in insulin-naive (ONWARDS 1, 3 and 5) and insulin-experienced (ONWARDS 2 and 4) adults with type 2 diabetes. Participants self-monitored their blood glucose levels using a blood glucose meter and a digital diary. In each trial, suspected hypoglycaemia symptoms triggered additional self-measured blood glucose readings, and values indicative of hypoglycaemia were recorded in the participants' digital diary. Participants who experienced hypoglycaemic episodes were instructed to note any relation of each episode to physical activity. Hypoglycaemic episodes were classified as alert value (level 1: blood glucose <3.9 but ≥3.0 mmol/l), clinically significant (level 2: blood glucose <3.0 mmol/l) or severe (level 3: cognitive impairment requiring external assistance). The proportions of hypoglycaemic episodes that were attributed to physical activity and the ORs of having a physical activity-attributed hypoglycaemic episode were calculated for the two basal insulin types (once-weekly vs once-daily) for each of the five trials. RESULTS: Across all trials, there were no consistent differences between icodec and the once-daily insulin comparators in the proportions of hypoglycaemic episodes that were attributed to physical activity; these episodes were mainly alert value or clinically significant hypoglycaemic episodes. In both insulin-naive and insulin-experienced participants, the incidence of physical activity-attributed clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemic episodes was consistently ≤3.0% in ONWARDS 1, 2, 3 and 5. In ONWARDS 4, the incidence of physical activity-attributed hypoglycaemic episodes was numerically higher in both treatment groups (18.6% [icodec] vs 17.9% [insulin glargine U100]), which was expected given the basal-bolus insulin regimen. Across all trials, there were no statistically significant differences in the odds of experiencing a physical activity-attributed clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemic episode with icodec vs once-daily insulin comparators. The frequency of recurrent clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemic episodes in the 24 h after a physical activity-attributed clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemic episode was low, with no such episodes in ONWARDS 1, 3 and 5. In contrast, in ONWARDS 2 and 4, the frequency of recurrent clinically significant hypoglycaemic episodes in the 24 h after a physical activity-attributed clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemic episode was numerically higher with icodec vs the once-daily insulin comparators, whilst no additional severe episodes were reported in any participants across the trials. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: These findings do not suggest that there is an additional increase in hypoglycaemia risk attributed to physical activity with once-weekly basal icodec vs once-daily basal insulins in adults with type 2 diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04460885 (ONWARDS 1), NCT04770532 (ONWARDS 2), NCT04795531 (ONWARDS 3), NCT04880850 (ONWARDS 4) and NCT04760626 (ONWARDS 5).
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".