Trial reportDiabetes, obesity & metabolism2014
Health status and hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec versus insulin glargine: a 2-year trial in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes.
Trial report in Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Insulin degludec/insulin aspart combination for the treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes.Vascular health and risk management · 2014Review
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 at 5 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Insulin degludec (IDeg) is a new basal insulin with an ultra-long and stable glucose-lowering effect. We compared once-daily IDeg and insulin glargine (IGlar), both in combination with metformin ± dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, in a 52-week, open-label, treat-to-target trial in patients with type 2 diabetes followed by a 52-week extension trial in which subjects [n = 725/1030 (70.4%)] maintained their initial randomised treatment. Health status was assessed at baseline and 105 weeks using the Short Form-36 (SF-36 v2) questionnaire. SF-36 scores were analysed (ITT population) using anova, with adjustments for covariates. At 105 weeks, the overall physical component score was significantly better with IDeg versus IGlar [treatment contrast (TC): 1.1 (0.1; 2.1)95% CI , p < 0.05]. This was largely because of significantly better physical functioning [TC: 1.1 (0.0; 2.3)95% CI , p < 0.05] and bodily pain sub-domain scores [TC: 1.5 (0.2; 2.9)95% CI , p < 0.05]. Improvements in health status with IDeg compared to IGlar were maintained after 2 years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.