ArticleDiabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders2018
Similar Efficacy and Safety of Basaglar
Article in Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01421459 (A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Comparison of a Long-Acting Basal Insulin Analog LY2963016 to Lantus in Adult Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Comparison of a Long-Acting Basal Insulin Analog LY2963016 to Lantus in Adult Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: The ELEMENT 2 Study
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- An exploratory analysis of the cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine 300 units/mL versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL over a lifetime horizon using the BRAVO diabetes model.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2024Trial
- Immunogenicity and Efficacy of Insulin Glargine Biosimilar Ezelin versus Originator Insulin Glargine in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2021Article
- Lilly Insulin Glargine Versus LantusDiabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2019Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo compare efficacy and safety of Basaglar
methodsThis subgroup analysis of a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multinational, 24-week study compared LY IGlar and SA IGlar on several clinical efficacy (change in glycated hemoglobin (A1c), basal insulin dose, weight) and safety outcomes (incidence of adverse events, insulin antibodies, hypoglycemia incidence and rates) in patients either ≥ 65 or < 65 years.
resultsCompared with patients aged < 65 years (N = 542), patients aged ≥ 65 years (N = 214) had a significantly longer duration of diabetes; lower baseline A1c and body weight; and body mass index; and were more likely to report prestudy SA IGlar use. Compared to patients < 65 years, patients ≥ 65 years needed a lower basal insulin dose and experienced lower body weight gain. There were no significant treatment-by-age interactions for the clinical efficacy and safety outcomes, indicating that there was no differential treatment effect (LY IGlar vs SA IGlar) for patients ≥ 65 years vs those < 65 years. Moreover, within each age subgroup, LY IGlar and SA IGlar were similar for all clinical efficacy and safety outcomes.
conclusionsLY IGlar and SA IGlar exhibit similar efficacy and safety in patients with T2D who are ≥ 65 years and in those < 65 years.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov trial registration: NCT01421459.
fundingEli Lilly and Company and Boehringer-Ingelheim.
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.