ArticleInternational journal of clinical practice2012
Outcomes with insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes previously on NPH insulin: evidence from clinical practice in Spain.
Article in International journal of clinical practice, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Twenty Years of Insulin Gla-100: A Systematic Evaluation of Its Efficacy and Safety in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2022Review
- The Comparative Dosing and Glycemic Control of Intermediate and Long-Acting Insulins in Adult Patients With Type 1 and 2 Diabetes Mellitus.The Journal of pharmacy technology : jPT : official publication of the Association of Pharmacy Technicians · 2022Review
- Insulin glargine effectively achieves glycemic control and improves insulin resistance in patients with early type 2 diabetes that exhibit a high risk for cardiovascular disease.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimWe evaluated the effectiveness of insulin glargine (glargine)-based regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in clinical practice in Spain.
methodsThis was a retrospective, registry-based study of 1482 patients treated with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) who were either switched to glargine or maintained on NPH at investigators' discretion. The primary outcomes were HbA(1c) change over a period of 4-9 months follow-up and incidence of hypoglycaemia.
resultsPrior to switching treatment, mean ± standard deviation HbA(1c) was worse in the glargine vs. the NPH group (8.3 ± 1.2% vs. 7.9 ± 1.1% respectively; p < 0.0001). After 4-9 months of treatment, mean reductions in HbA(1c) were greater with glargine vs. NPH (-1.0 ± 1.0% vs. -0.2 ± 0.8% respectively; p < 0.0001) and the incidence of hypoglycaemia in the month prior to the study visit was lower (21.8% vs. 47.6% respectively; p < 0.0001). An expected reduction in dosing frequency, as well as in the basal insulin dose was reported for glargine vs. NPH, with 97.3% of glargine-treated patients on once-daily injections and 81.2% on NPH receiving twice-daily therapy. Improvements in treatment satisfaction were significantly higher with glargine (p < 0.0001).
conclusionsIn a Spanish clinical practice setting, patients with T2DM who switched to glargine from NPH experienced significantly greater reductions in mean HbA(1c) and a lower incidence of hypoglycaemia than patients maintained on NPH.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.