ReviewCurrent diabetes reviews2024
Insulin Glargine in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Review of Clinical Trials and Real-world Evidence Across Two Decades.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adverse drug events associated with insulin glargine: a real-world pharmacovigilance study based on the FAERS database.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Article
- Safety Profiles Related to Dosing Errors of Rapid-Acting Insulin Analogs: A Comparative Analysis Using the EudraVigilance Database.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Insulin Access Enhancement in India: Expert Views on Integrating Interchangeable Biosimilar Insulin Glargine.Cureus · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.