MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409189802 · doi:10.1007/s00125-025-06414-6

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

2025· article· en· W4409189802 on OpenAlexaff
Michael C. Riddell, Simon Heller, Lisbeth Carstensen, Thaís Rocha, Sara Kehlet Watt, Vincent Woo

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetologia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaYork University
FundersNovo NordiskEuropean Foundation for the Study of DiabetesAmerican Diabetes Association
KeywordsMedicineBasal (medicine)InsulinDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineType 2 diabetesHypoglycemiaPost-hoc analysisEndocrinologyBasal insulinType 1 diabetes

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.010
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetologiaSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207