ArticleJAMA network open2020
Comparison of Mortality and Major Cardiovascular Events Among Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Using Human vs Analogue Insulins.
Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reporting of Observational Studies Explicitly Aiming to Emulate Randomized Trials: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2023Pooled it
- Design and Implementation of Observational Studies Emulating a Target Trial.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Glycemic Management and Individualized Diabetes Care in Dialysis-Dependent Kidney Failure.Diabetes care · 2025Review
- Safety and glycemic control with insulin degludec use in clinical practice: results from a 3-year Japanese post-marketing surveillance study.Diabetology international · 2024Article
- Article
- Association of Cardiovascular Outcomes and Mortality With Sustained Long-Acting Insulin Only vs Long-Acting Plus Short-Acting Insulin Treatment.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- A nationwide cohort study for comparative vascular safety of long-acting insulin analogue versus intermediate-acting human insulin in type 2 diabetes.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Use of Machine Learning Approaches in Clinical Epidemiological Research of Diabetes.Current diabetes reports · 2020Review
- Audit of glycemic control of diabetic patients on insulin analogues: about 2915 insured persons of the CNAM (Tunisia).La Tunisie medicaleReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: The comparative cardiovascular safety of analogue and human insulins in adults with type 2 diabetes who initiate insulin therapy in usual care settings has not been carefully evaluated using machine learning and other rigorous analytic methods. Objective: To examine the association of analogue vs human insulin use with mortality and major cardiovascular events. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included 127 600 adults aged 21 to 89 years with type 2 diabetes at 4 health care delivery systems who initiated insulin therapy from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2013. Machine learning and rigorous inference methods with time-varying exposures were used to evaluate associations of continuous exposure to analogue vs human insulins with mortality and major cardiovascular events. Data were analyzed from September 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018. Exposures: On the index date (first insulin dispensing), participants were classified as using analogue insulin with or without human insulin or human insulin only. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall mortality, mortality due to cardiovascular disease (CVD), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke or cerebrovascular accident (CVA), and hospitalization for congestive heart failure (CHF) were evaluated. Marginal structural modeling (MSM) with inverse probability weighting was used to compare event-free survival in separate per-protocol analyses. Adjusted and unadjusted hazard ratios and cumulative risk differences were based on logistic MSM parameterizations for counterfactual hazards. Propensity scores were estimated using a data-adaptive approach (machine learning) based on 3 nested covariate adjustment sets. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to address potential residual confounding from unmeasured differences in risk factors across delivery systems. Results: The 127 600 participants (mean [SD] age, 59.4 [12.6] years; 68 588 men [53.8%]; mean [SD] body mass index, 32.3 [7.1]) had a median follow-up of 4 quarters (interquartile range, 3-9 quarters) and experienced 5464 deaths overall (4.3%), 1729 MIs (1.4%), 1301 CVAs (1.0%), and 3082 CHF hospitalizations (2.4%). There were no differences in adjusted hazard ratios for continuous analogue vs human insulin exposure during 10 quarters for overall mortality (1.15; 95% CI, 0.97-1.34), CVD mortality (1.26; 95% CI, 0.86-1.66), MI (1.11; 95% CI, 0.77-1.45), CVA (1.30; 95% CI, 0.81-1.78), or CHF hospitalization (0.93; 95% CI, 0.75-1.11). Conclusions and Relevance: Insulin-naive adults with type 2 diabetes who initiate and continue treatment with human vs analogue insulins had similar observed rates of major cardiovascular events, CVD mortality, and overall mortality.
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.