Trial reportAdvances in therapy2022
Efficacy of IDegLira Versus IDegAsp Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Crossover Study by isCGM.
Trial report in Advances in therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Effect of iGlarLixi on continuous glucose monitoring-measured time in range in insulin-naive adults with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2025Trial
- Comparison of efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/liraglutide and insulin glargine U-100/lixisenatide in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus using professional continuous glucose monitoring.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2024Trial
- Transition from Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion to IDeg-Based Regimens in Hospitalized T2DM Patients: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2026Article
- Time in range-A new gold standard in type 2 diabetes research?Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2025Review
- IDegLira improves time in range in a cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes: TiREX study.Acta diabetologica · 2025Observational
- Efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/aspart in patients with type 2 and type 1 diabetes mellitus: real-world evidence from Indonesia.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of insulin degludec/liraglutide versus insulin degludec/insulin aspart in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.Diabetology international · 2024Article
- [Fixed ratio combinations GLP-1RA and basal insulin: literature review].Problemy endokrinologii · 2024Review
- Retrospective Study of IDegLira, a New Fixed-Ratio Combination, in Japanese Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Analysis of Background Factors Affecting Effectiveness After 6 Months of Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2023Article
- Fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists as a promising strategy for treating diabetes.World journal of diabetes · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe aimed to compare the efficacy of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) and insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) in controlling glucose fluctuation and suppressing postprandial glucose levels using intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring.
methodsTwenty-four patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomly allocated to receive either IDegLira or IDegAsp followed by IDegAsp or IDegLira, respectively. A crossover study was conducted with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring. We compared the postprandial blood glucose level, time in range, and time below range from a 3-day intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring period for each treatment group.
resultsThe time in range was significantly higher in IDegLira than in IDegAsp. Postprandial glucose levels 90 and 120 min after breakfast and 60, 90, and 120 min after lunch were significantly lower for IDegLira than for IDegAsp. However, postprandial glucose levels 90 and 120 min after supper were significantly lower for IDegAsp than for IDegLira. There was no significant difference in the time below range between IDegLira and IDegAsp.
conclusionIDegLira was more effective in treating type 2 diabetes mellitus than IDegAsp, as indicated by a higher time in range and lower postprandial glucose level at breakfast and lunch. This study was registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry (UMIN 000039221).
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.