Evidence mapPaperPMID 39893469Full record

ArticleTrials2025

How to improve the quality of euglycemic glucose clamp tests in long-acting insulin studies.

Yi Yang, Fu Kuang, XueYing Zhu, Li Li, Yao Huang, Yang Liu, Xian Yu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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.

Yi YangDepartment of Phase I Clinical Trial Center, The Second Affiliated Hospital of ChongQing Medical University, ChongQing, China.
Fu KuangDepartment of Phase I Clinical Trial Center, The Second Affiliated Hospital of ChongQing Medical University, ChongQing, China.
XueYing ZhuDepartment of Phase I Clinical Trial Center, The Second Affiliated Hospital of ChongQing Medical University, ChongQing, China.
Li LiDepartment of Phase I Clinical Trial Center, The Second Affiliated Hospital of ChongQing Medical University, ChongQing, China.
Yao HuangDepartment of Phase I Clinical Trial Center, The Second Affiliated Hospital of ChongQing Medical University, ChongQing, China.
Yang LiuDepartment of Phase I Clinical Trial Center, The Second Affiliated Hospital of ChongQing Medical University, ChongQing, China.
Xian YuDepartment of Phase I Clinical Trial Center, The Second Affiliated Hospital of ChongQing Medical University, ChongQing, China. 303671@cqmu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5009-2044

Funding

Kuanren Talents Program of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University and the Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing Province of China CSTB2022NSCQ-MSX0987
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe euglycemic clamp test stands as the best method for assessing the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of long-acting insulin. However, despite its widespread use, there remains a notable absence of an established gold standard for evaluating the test's quality. Existing recommendations from regulatory agencies lack specific threshold values, particularly concerning long-acting insulin. This study aimed to determine the evaluation criteria for assessing the quality of the long-acting insulin euglycemic glucose clamp test and to improve the overall quality of this testing method.

methodsFifty-three healthy volunteers were administered a single dose of insulin degludec (0.4 IU/kg) and underwent a 24-h euglycemic clamp test. Blood samples were collected to evaluate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of insulin degludec. Volunteers were separated into group A (coefficient of variation in blood glucose [CVBG] ≤ 3.5%) and group B (CVBG > 3.5%). The quality difference of the clamp test between the groups was assessed using various quality control indices. Volunteers were also categorized into group C (C-peptide reduction rate < 50%) and group D (C-peptide reduction rate ≥ 50%). The clamp test quality, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of groups C and D were compared.

resultsAccording to CVBG, group A had a mean CVBG of 2.95%, group B had a mean CVBG of 4.15%, and group A had a significantly lower CVBG than group B (p < 0.001). CVBG was positively correlated with other quality control indicators, such as the percentage of glucose excursion from the target range (GEFTR), duration of GEFTR, and area under the curve (AUC) of GEFTR. According to the reduction of C-peptide levels: group D had significantly higher C-peptide reduction than group C (p < 0.001). Groups C and D had CVBG < 3.5%. The quality of groups C and groups D was evaluated by the quality control indicators of the clamp test. Only the AUC of GEFTR was statistically different between Groups C and D (p = 0.043, < 0.05), and there was no statistical difference in other indicators between the two groups.

conclusionsCVBG could be used as a standard for evaluating the quality of long-acting insulin euglycemic glucose clamp test, and the test quality was superior with a CVBG ≤ 3.5%. A C-peptide reduction ratio ≥ 50% indicated sufficient endogenous insulin inhibition; however, when the glucose fluctuation is small (CVBG is maintained at a low level) during the clamp test, even if the clamp test quality is slightly different, it is not sufficient to interfere with endogenous insulin secretion.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseGlucose Clamp TechniqueHypoglycemic AgentsInsulin, Long-ActingAdultBiomarkersC-PeptideFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansMalePredictive Value of TestsQuality ControlReproducibility of ResultsTime FactorsYoung AdultBiomarkersBlood GlucoseC-PeptideHypoglycemic Agentsinsulin degludecInsulin, Long-ActingBlood glucoseC-peptideEuglycemic glucose clamp testHealthy volunteersLong-acting insulinPharmacodynamicsPharmacokineticsQuality assessmentQuality control

Identifiers

PMID39893469
PMCPMC11786465

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.