Efficacy and hypoglycaemia outcomes of once‐weekly insulin icodec versus once‐daily basal insulin comparators across baseline <scp>HbA1c</scp> , <scp>BMI</scp> and duration of type 2 diabetes subgroups: A post hoc analysis of <scp>ONWARDS</scp> 1–5
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This post hoc analysis assessed efficacy and hypoglycaemia outcomes of once-weekly insulin icodec (icodec) versus once-daily (OD) basal insulin comparators across different baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), body mass index (BMI) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) duration subgroups using data from five phase 3a trials of icodec in adults with T2D. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ) and baseline T2D duration (<5 years, ≥5 to <10 years, ≥10 to <15 years, ≥15 years) subgroups. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from baseline to planned end of treatment. The achievement of HbA1c <7% (<53 mmol/mol) without clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia and the rate of hypoglycaemic episodes were also assessed. RESULTS: Across trials, the estimated treatment differences for change in HbA1c and odds ratios for achievement of HbA1c <7% without clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia between icodec and OD basal insulin comparators were overall consistent across baseline HbA1c, BMI and T2D duration subgroups; no statistically significant treatment by subgroup interactions were seen. Hypoglycaemia rates were numerically low for both treatment arms and consistent across subgroups in ONWARDS 1-3 and 5. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and hypoglycaemia profile of icodec versus OD basal insulin comparators was overall consistent across trial populations irrespective of baseline HbA1c, BMI or T2D duration.
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".