ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2024
Exploring disparities: A comparative analysis of insulin-naïve, regular users, and inertia patients among type 2 diabetes mellitus outpatients in India.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2024. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Insulin utilization pattern varies greatly in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. Clinical inertia in treatment intensification hinders glycemic control in T2DM management. This study investigated insulin prescription trends and various predictors among insulin naive, user, and insulin inertia (II) patients in T2DM. Methodology: A retrospective analysis of T2DM patient records from the diabetes clinic at a tertiary care center was conducted. Data on socio-demographics, anthropometry, disease characteristics, comorbidities, adherence, and medication prescribing patterns were collected. Analysis was done using tests of significance, odds ratio (OR), and multivariate logistic regression. Results: A total of 950 records were analyzed, with 17.3% of patients identified as insulin users (IU), 70.9% being insulin-naïve (IN), and 11.8% having II. IUs had significantly higher glycemic levels including HbA1c, fasting, postprandial, and random blood sugars compared to the other groups. Higher HbA1c levels were associated with significantly increased odds of insulin usage (OR: 3.46, confidence interval (CI): 1.94-6.16), while individuals taking sulfonylureas had lower odds of insulin usage (OR: 0.27, CI: 0.08-0.91). A significant association was also seen with the total number of oral antidiabetic drugs prescribed (four drugs; OR: 15.6, and five drugs; OR: 9.1). Other factors did not show a significant association. The regression model showed HbA1c level as low as 7.9% could indicate a future insulin requirement in 22% of patients. Conclusion: The study outlines differences in characteristics and parameters among T2DM patients who require or do not require insulin and highlights the challenges in insulin initiation in Indian T2DM patients. Findings on II underscore the need for timely treatment intensification.
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.