ArticleScientific reports2021
A nationwide cohort study for comparative vascular safety of long-acting insulin analogue versus intermediate-acting human insulin in type 2 diabetes.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-acting insulin analogues and the risk of diabetic nephropathy among patients with type 2 diabetes: A population-based cohort study.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
- Association Between Insulin Regimen and Cardiovascular Risk in Indonesian Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cross-Sectional Study.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2026Article
- Safety and glycemic control with insulin degludec use in clinical practice: results from a 3-year Japanese post-marketing surveillance study.Diabetology international · 2024Article
- Clinical Outcomes of Switching U-100 Intermediate or Basal Insulin to U-200 Insulin Degludec or U-300 Insulin Glargine.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Little is known about the comparative vascular safety of basal insulins (intermediate-acting human insulin [IAHI] or long-acting insulin analogue [LAIA]) in type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study sought to examine the vascular and hypoglycemic effects associated with IAHI versus LAIA in real-world patients with T2D. We utilized Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database to identify T2D patients who stably used IAHI (N = 11,521) or LAIA (N = 37,651) in the period 2004-2012. A rigorous three-step matching algorithm that considered the initiation date of basal insulin, previous exposure of antidiabetic treatments, comorbidities, diabetes severity and complications, and concomitant medications was applied to achieve the between-group comparability. Study outcomes, including cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), microvascular diseases (MVDs), and hypoglycemia, were assessed up to the end of 2013. Compared with LAIA, the use of IAHI was associated with greater risks of composite CVDs (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.79; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-2.67) and hospitalized hypoglycemia (aHR: 1.82; 95% CI 1.51-2.20), but a lower risk of composite MVDs (aHR: 0.88; 95% CI 0.84-0.91). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed a consistent trend of results with that in the primary analyses. In summary, although the use of IAHI versus LAIA among T2D patients in usual practice may be associated with a lower risk of MVDs, strategies should be optimized for minimizing the risks of hypoglycemia and CVDs in this population.
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.