ReviewLa Tunisie medicale
Audit of glycemic control of diabetic patients on insulin analogues: about 2915 insured persons of the CNAM (Tunisia).
Review in La Tunisie medicale. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInsulin analogues are increasingly prescribed in Tunisia. These molecules, covered by the National Health Insurance Fund (CNAM) in Tunisia under certain conditions, have an important and constantly increasing cost.
aimTo audit the diabetes control among insured in the Northern district of the CNAM (Tunisia), treated with insulin analogues in 2019 and to assess factors associated with good glycemic control.
methodsRetrospective observational study including patients with diabetes who applied for renewal of insulin analogues between March and April 2019 in the northern district of the CNAM.
resultsOur study included 2915 diabetic insured. The sex ratio was 1.08. The mean age was 56.5 ±18.56 years. More than half of the diabetic insured were followed by a specialist physician (44% by endocrinologists, 7% by internists, 6% by nutritionists and 4% by other specialists). The average duration of treatment with insulin analogues was 5 years ± 1.41. Almost three quarters (74%) of the diabetic insured were type 2 diabetics. The mean daily dose of rapid-acting, short-acting and premixed insulin analogues were 30±15.49 IU/d, 38±18.36 IU/d and 65±19.38 IU/d respectively. HbA1c targets were achieved in 8% of the diabetic insured. In univariate analysis, the variables significantly associated with diabetes balance were follow-up by a physician specializing in endocrinology (OR=3.14, 95% CI [0.98-10.08]), internal medicine (OR=5.06, 95% CI [1.49-17.21]) or nutrition (OR=2.06, 95% CI [0.54-7.77]), type 1 diabetes (OR=1.67, 95% CI [1.26-2.22]) and basal insulin therapy regimen (OR=1.88, 95% CI [1.39-2.54]). In multivariate analysis, the independent and significant factors associated with glycemic control were type 1 diabetes (ORa=1.81, 95% CI [1.37-2.39]) and basal insulin therapy regimen (ORa= 1.77, 95% CI [1.30-2.40]).
conclusionThis study showed that the majority of diabetic insured on insulin analogues had a poor controlled diabetes. Type 1 diabetes and basal insulin therapy regimen were the two factors associated with good glycemic control after multivariate analysis. A review of criteria for reimbursement of insulin analogues by the National Health Insurance Fund is necessary in order to rationalize the expenses related to these molecules.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36206062PMC9585688W4303514208What 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.