ArticlePharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2026
Emulating a Randomized Controlled Trial of Long-Acting Insulins and Cardiovascular Events Using Real-World Data for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.
Article in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) have high internal validity but often have limited generalizability. To our knowledge, there have been no previous studies emulating RCTs using real-world data to evaluate the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with long-acting insulin analogues.
methodsWe emulated the DEVOTE trial of insulin degludec vs. glargine among patients with T2DM using data from the United Kingdom's Clinical Practice Research Datalink. DEVOTE eligible and ineligible subpopulations were created. Cox proportional hazards models with inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding confidence intervals (CIs) for MACE comparing new users of insulin degludec to new users of insulin glargine overall and in the eligible/ineligible subpopulations.
resultsThere were 10 430 patients in the overall population, 5280 in the DEVOTE eligible population, and 5150 in the DEVOTE ineligible population. The overall (HR: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.83, 1.86) and DEVOTE eligible populations (HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.63, 1.58) were compatible with findings from the DEVOTE trial (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.78, 1.06) for the risk of MACE. Due to a low number of events, the DEVOTE ineligible population had deviations in point estimates and wider CIs (HR: 2.19, 95% CI: 0.30, 3.83).
conclusionThe risk of MACE among patients with T2DM newly prescribed insulin degludec compared to insulin glargine was consistent between the overall population and the DEVOTE eligible subpopulation, while the DEVOTE ineligible population had discrepant point estimates.
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.