↓ Skip to main content

Clinical Effects and Safety of Direct-Acting Insulin Analogs in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes: A Nation-Wide Observational Cohort Study

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetes Therapy, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Clinical Effects and Safety of Direct-Acting Insulin Analogs in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes: A Nation-Wide Observational Cohort Study
Published in
Diabetes Therapy, August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s13300-016-0191-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vincent Lak, Ann-Marie Svensson, Mervete Miftaraj, Stefan Franzén, Björn Eliasson

Abstract

Studies comparing direct-acting insulin analogs (DAIs) in terms of effectiveness and long-term safety are scarce. Our aim was to explore these variables in clinical practice among patients with type 1 diabetes, including the elderly and those with renal impairment. We linked four national registers in a population-based cohort study. Patients with type 1 diabetes and continuous use of all currently available DAIs (lispro, aspart, or glulisine) in 2005-2013 were monitored for up to 7.5 years. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between treatment groups. Unadjusted mean HbA1c and weights were plotted. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals of cardiovascular events (CVEs) and mortality were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression models. We included 41,165 patients-14,047 lispro, 26,813 aspart, and 305 glulisine users. At baseline, the mean age was highest among glulisine users (49.4 years), followed by 41.0 years for lispro users and 40.1 years for aspart users. A total of 9.2% of the patients were 65 years or older. Diabetes duration was shortest among glulisine users (11.6 years), followed by 15.4 years for aspart users and 19.5 years for lispro users. The mean HbA1c and weights during the follow-up period were similar. The numerical differences at baseline were subsequently adjusted for. There were no significant differences between groups regarding hyperglycemia requiring hospitalization, CVE, or mortality, while Cox regression suggested lower rates of hypoglycemia among glulisine users. Severe hypoglycemia was more common, and severe hyperglycemia was less common among patients aged 65 years or older, while severe hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia were more common in patients with low renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate). There were no pronounced differences in effectiveness and long-term cardiovascular safety and mortality between the DAIs, although there were some differences in clinical characteristics between patients using the three types of insulin. Severe hypoglycemia was more common among older patients, while severe hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia were more common among patients with impaired renal function. Sanofi.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 21%
Researcher 3 16%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Other 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 5 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Social Sciences 2 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 August 2016.
All research outputs
#13,907,273
of 23,576,969 outputs
Outputs from Diabetes Therapy
#439
of 1,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,123
of 357,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetes Therapy
#9
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,576,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,055 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 357,839 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.