Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17443605›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007

Long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (human isophane insulin) for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

K Horvath, K Jeitler, A Berghold, S H Ebrahim, T W Gratzer, J Plank, T Kaiser, T R Pieber, A Siebenhofer

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 126 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
126citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
14.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

126 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 365 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Insulin detemir versus insulin glargine for type 2 diabetes mellitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011
    Pooled it
  12. Efficacy and safety of insulin analogues for the management of diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2009
    Pooled it
  13. Guideline
  14. Intermediate acting versus long acting insulin for type 1 diabetes mellitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008
    Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Review

66 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

K HorvathMedical University Graz, Department of Internal Medicine, Auenbruggerplatz 15, Graz,Austria, 8036. horvath.karl@klinikum-graz.at
K Jeitler
A Berghold
S H Ebrahim
T W Gratzer
J Plank
T Kaiser
T R Pieber
A Siebenhofer
Medical University of Graz · ATInstitute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite indications from epidemiological trials that higher blood glucose concentrations are associated with a higher risk for developing micro- and macrovascular complications, evidence for a beneficial effect of antihyperglycaemic therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus is conflicting. Two large studies, the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) and the University Group Diabetes Program (UGDP), did not find a reduction of cardiovascular endpoints through improvement of metabolic control. The theoretical benefits of newer insulin analogues might result in fewer macrovascular and microvascular events.

objectivesTo assess the effects of long-term treatment with long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine and insulin detemir) compared to NPH insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. SEARCH STRATEGY: Studies were obtained from computerised searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and communication with experts in the field as well as insulin producing companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials in adults with diabetes mellitus type 2 and had a trial duration of at least 24 weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Pooling of studies by means of random-effects meta-analyses was performed. MAIN

resultsSix studies comparing insulin glargine to NPH (Neutral Protamine Hagedorn) insulin and two studies comparing insulin detemir to NPH insulin were identified. In these trials, 1715 patients were randomised to insulin glargine and 578 patients to insulin detemir. Duration of the included trials ranged from 24 to 52 weeks. Metabolic control, measured by glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) as a surrogate endpoint, and adverse effects did not differ in a clinical relevant way between treatment groups. While no statistically significant difference for severe hypoglycaemia rates was shown in any of the trials, the rate of symptomatic, overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia was statistically significantly lower in patients treated with either insulin glargine or detemir. No evidence for a beneficial effect of long-acting analogues on patient-oriented outcomes like mortality, morbidity, quality of life or costs could be obtained. AUTHORS'

conclusionsOur analysis suggests, if at all only a minor clinical benefit of treatment with long-acting insulin analogues for patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 treated with "basal" insulin regarding symptomatic nocturnal hypoglycaemic events. Until long-term efficacy and safety data are available, we suggest a cautious approach to therapy with insulin glargine or detemir.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2HumansHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinInsulin DetemirInsulin GlargineInsulin, IsophaneInsulin, Long-ActingRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinInsulin DetemirInsulin GlargineInsulin, IsophaneInsulin, Long-Acting

Identifiers

PMID17443605
OpenAlexW1953393606

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.