↓ Skip to main content

Real-world therapeutic benefits of patients on insulin glargine versus NPH insulin

Overview of attention for article published in Acta Diabetologica, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Real-world therapeutic benefits of patients on insulin glargine versus NPH insulin
Published in
Acta Diabetologica, April 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00592-016-0862-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Albrecht Fiesselmann, Tobias Wiesner, Holger Fleischmann, Peter Bramlage

Abstract

The addition of a single injection of insulin to the oral drugs (basal supported oral therapy; BOT) has been shown to greatly reduce blood glucose levels. The intermediate-acting NPH insulin (NPH) and the long-acting insulin glargine (Lantus(®)) have been compared for use in BOT in numerous clinical trials; however, their efficacy and safety in a real-life setting have not been described. TIP (therapeutic benefits of patients on insulin glargine vs. NPH insulin being poorly controlled on prior short-time basal-insulin supported therapy with NPH insulin or insulin glargine) is a non-interventional, multicentre, observational study over 24 weeks. A total of 2629 patients were enrolled and 1931 were fully evaluable (1614 insulin glargine, 303 NPH insulin). Propensity scoring (PSM) was used to match 570 patients into 2 similar cohorts of 285 patients. In the PSM cohort, a slightly greater reduction in FBG and HbA1c levels was seen in the insulin glargine group compared to the NPH group. A weight loss, which was slightly more pronounced in insulin glargine patients despite receiving a lower insulin dose relative to the NPH group, was seen in both the groups. Additionally, hypoglycaemia, including nocturnal and severe events, was more prevalent in the patients receiving BOT with NPH. The occurrence of new micro- or macro-vascular complications and adverse events was low for both groups. A large proportion of patients changed from NPH therapy to insulin glargine therapy during the study, which was mainly attributable to insufficient glucose modulation. Improvements in quality of life and treatment satisfaction were found for both types of insulin. This observational study provides evidence from a real-life setting that BOT with insulin glargine provides slightly greater reductions in weight, FBG and HbA1c levels, with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia than patients receiving NPH. This conclusion indicates that insulin glargine may be preferable to NPH insulin for BOT.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 41%
Student > Bachelor 4 24%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 12%
Librarian 2 12%
Student > Postgraduate 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 47%
Unspecified 3 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 12%
Psychology 1 6%
Other 1 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 April 2016.
All research outputs
#6,596,628
of 12,221,976 outputs
Outputs from Acta Diabetologica
#193
of 489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,566
of 276,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Diabetologica
#7
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,221,976 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 489 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,415 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.