Evidence mapPaperPMID 36896906Full record

ReviewCurrent diabetes reviews2024

Insulin Glargine in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Review of Clinical Trials and Real-world Evidence Across Two Decades.

Banshi Saboo, Hemraj Chandalia, Sujoy Ghosh, Jothydev Kesavadev, I P S Kochar, K M Prasannakumar, Archana Sarda, Ganapathi Bantwal, R N Mehrotra, Madhukar Rai

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current diabetes reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

10 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Banshi SabooDepartment of Endocrinology, Diabetes Care & Hormone Clinic, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.
Hemraj ChandaliaDiabetes Endocrine Nutrition Management and Research Centre (DENMARC), Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Sujoy GhoshDepartment of Endocrinology, IPGME&R, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
Jothydev KesavadevDepartment of Endocrinology, Jothydev's Diabetes and Research Centre, Trivandrum, Kerala, India.
I P S KocharDepartment of Endocrinology, Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi, India.
K M PrasannakumarCentre for Diabetes and Endocrine Care, Bangalore Diabetes Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Archana SardaSarda Centre for Diabetes and Self-care, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India.
Ganapathi BantwalDepartment of Endocrinology, St. John's Medical College & Hospital, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
R N MehrotraDepartment of Endocrinology, Apollo Hospitals, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Madhukar RaiDepartment of Medicine, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University (BHU), Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Apollo Hospitals · INBanaras Hindu University · INBangalore Diabetes Centre · INDiabetes Care and Research Foundation · INDiabetes Care & Hormone Clinic · INIndraprastha Apollo Hospitals · INJothydev's Diabetes and Research Center · INMedical College and Hospital, Kolkata · INSt.John's Medical College Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the past two decades, insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) has emerged as the "standard of care" basal insulin for the management of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Both formulations, insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) and glargine 300 U/mL (Gla- 300) have been extensively studied against various comparator basal insulins across various clinical and real-world studies. In this comprehensive article, we reviewed the evidence on both insulin glargine formulations in T1DM across clinical trials and real-world studies.

methodsEvidence in T1DM for Gla-100 and Gla-300 since their approvals in 2000 and 2015, respectively, were reviewed.

resultsGla-100 when compared to the second-generation basal insulins, Gla-300 and IDeg-100, demonstrated a comparable risk of overall hypoglycemia, but the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia was higher with Gla-100. Additional benefits of Gla-300 over Gla-100 include a prolonged (>24- hours) duration of action, a more stable glucose-lowering profile, improved treatment satisfaction, and greater flexibility in the dose administration timing.

conclusionBoth glargine formulations are largely comparable to other basal insulins in terms of glucose-lowering properties in T1DM. Further, risk of hypoglycemia is lower with Gla-100 than Neutral Protamine Hagedorn but comparable to insulin detemir.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2HypoglycemiaBlood GlucoseGlucoseGlycated HemoglobinHumansHypoglycemic AgentsInsulin GlargineBlood GlucoseGlucoseGlycated HemoglobinHypoglycemic AgentsInsulin GlargineBasal insulinGla-100Gla-300glargine.glycemic variabilityhypoglycemia

Identifiers

PMID36896906
PMCPMC10909813
OpenAlexW4323807117

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.