Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27234693›Full record

Trial reportDiabetes, obesity & metabolism2016

Randomized double-blind clinical trial comparing basal insulin peglispro and insulin glargine, in combination with prandial insulin lispro, in patients with type 2 diabetes: IMAGINE 4.

T Blevins, T R Pieber, G Colón Vega, S Zhang, E J Bastyr, A M Chang, IMAGINE 4 Investigators

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Insulin Therapy for the Management of Diabetes Mellitus: A Narrative Review of Innovative Treatment Strategies.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. How Can a Good Idea Fail? Basal Insulin Peglispro [LY2605541] for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2017
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

T BlevinsTexas Diabetes and Endocrinology, Austin, TX, USA.
T R PieberDivision of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
G Colón VegaAmerican Telemedicine Center, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
S ZhangEli Lilly and Company, Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
E J BastyrEli Lilly and Company, Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
A M ChangEli Lilly and Company, Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA. chang_anne_m@lilly.com.
IMAGINE 4 Investigators
Eli Lilly (United States) · USAmerican University of Puerto Rico · PRIndiana University School of MedicineMedical University of Graz · ATTexas Diabetes & Endocrinology · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of basal insulin peglispro (BIL) with those of insulin glargine, both in combination with prandial insulin lispro, in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

methodsIn this phase III, multicentre, double-blind, 26-week study, we randomized patients with T2D [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7 and <12%, on ≥1 insulin injections daily) to BIL (n = 691) or glargine (n = 678), in combination with lispro.

resultsAt week 26, the primary objective of non-inferiority of BIL versus glargine for HbA1c reduction was achieved (least squares mean difference -0.21%; 95% confidence interval -0.31 to -0.11%), with statistical superiority of BIL with multiplicity adjustment (p < 0.001). HbA1c at baseline was 8.4% versus 8.5% for BIL versus glargine and at 26 weeks it was 6.8% versus 7.0%. At 26 weeks, more patients reached HbA1c <7% with BIL than with glargine (63.3% vs 53.3%; p < 0.001), the nocturnal hypoglycaemia rate (≤3.9 mmol/l) was lower with BIL (0.51 vs 0.92 events/30 days; p < 0.001), but the daytime hypoglycaemia rate was higher with BIL (5.47 vs 4.53 events/30 days; p < 0.001). The total hypoglycaemia relative rate was 1.10 (p = 0.053). At 26 weeks, patients in the BIL group had lower fasting serum glucose levels, higher basal insulin dosing, with no statistically significant difference in prandial or total insulin dosing, reduced glucose variability and less weight gain (1.3 kg vs 2.2 kg) compared with the glargine group. The BIL group had higher mean triglyceride and aminotransferase levels.

conclusionsIn patients with T2D, BIL with insulin lispro provided greater improvement in glycaemic control with less nocturnal hypoglycaemia, lower glucose variability and less weight gain compared with glargine. The daytime hypoglycaemia rate and mean triglyceride and aminotransferase levels were higher with BIL.

Indexed as

AgedBlood GlucoseDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Double-Blind MethodDrug Administration ScheduleDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleGlycated HemoglobinHumansInsulin GlargineInsulin LisproMaleMealsMiddle AgedPolyethylene Glycolsbasal insulin peglisproBlood GlucoseGlycated HemoglobinInsulin GlargineInsulin LisproPolyethylene Glycolsbasal insulinglycaemic controlhypoglycaemiarandomized trialtype 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID27234693
PMCPMC5096023
OpenAlexW2406227915

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.