↓ Skip to main content

DEVOTE 3: temporal relationships between severe hypoglycaemia, cardiovascular outcomes and mortality

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetologia, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
13 news outlets
twitter
107 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
123 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
167 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
DEVOTE 3: temporal relationships between severe hypoglycaemia, cardiovascular outcomes and mortality
Published in
Diabetologia, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00125-017-4422-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas R. Pieber, Steven P. Marso, Darren K. McGuire, Bernard Zinman, Neil R. Poulter, Scott S. Emerson, Richard E. Pratley, Vincent Woo, Simon Heller, Martin Lange, Kirstine Brown-Frandsen, Alan Moses, Jesper Barner Lekdorf, Lucine Lehmann, Kajsa Kvist, John B. Buse, on behalf of the DEVOTE Study Group

Abstract

The double-blind Trial Comparing Cardiovascular Safety of Insulin Degludec vs Insulin Glargine in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes at High Risk of Cardiovascular Events (DEVOTE) assessed the cardiovascular safety of insulin degludec. The incidence and rates of adjudicated severe hypoglycaemia, and all-cause mortality were also determined. This paper reports a secondary analysis investigating associations of severe hypoglycaemia with cardiovascular outcomes and mortality. In DEVOTE, patients with type 2 diabetes were randomised to receive either insulin degludec or insulin glargine U100 (100 units/ml) once daily (between dinner and bedtime) in an event-driven, double-blind, treat-to-target cardiovascular outcomes trial. The primary outcome was the first occurrence of an adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke). Adjudicated severe hypoglycaemia was the pre-specified secondary outcome. In the present analysis, the associations of severe hypoglycaemia with both MACE and all-cause mortality was evaluated in the pooled trial population using time-to-event analyses, with severe hypoglycaemia as a time-dependent variable and randomised treatment as a fixed factor. An investigation with interaction terms indicated that the effect of severe hypoglycaemia on the risk of MACE and all-cause mortality were the same for both treatment arms, and so the temporal association for severe hypoglycaemia with subsequent MACE and all-cause mortality is reported for the pooled population. There was a non-significant difference in the risk of MACE for individuals who had vs those who had not experienced severe hypoglycaemia during the trial (HR 1.38, 95% CI 0.96, 1.96; p = 0.080) and therefore there was no temporal relationship between severe hypoglycaemia and MACE. There was a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality for patients who had vs those who had not experienced severe hypoglycaemia during the trial (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.79, 3.50; p < 0.001). There was a higher risk of all-cause mortality 15, 30, 60, 90, 180 and 365 days after experiencing severe hypoglycaemia compared with not experiencing severe hypoglycaemia in the same time interval. The association between severe hypoglycaemia and all-cause mortality was maintained after adjustment for the following baseline characteristics: age, sex, HbA1c, BMI, diabetes duration, insulin regimen, hepatic impairment, renal status and cardiovascular risk group. The results from these analyses demonstrate an association between severe hypoglycaemia and all-cause mortality. Furthermore, they indicate that patients who experienced severe hypoglycaemia were particularly at greater risk of death in the short term after the hypoglycaemic episode. These findings indicate that severe hypoglycaemia is associated with higher subsequent mortality; however, they cannot answer the question as to whether severe hypoglycaemia serves as a risk marker for adverse outcomes or whether there is a direct causal effect. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01959529.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 107 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 167 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 167 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 12%
Other 17 10%
Student > Master 16 10%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Student > Postgraduate 13 8%
Other 34 20%
Unknown 52 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Neuroscience 4 2%
Other 16 10%
Unknown 58 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 156. 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 09 January 2018.
All research outputs
#266,624
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Diabetologia
#157
of 5,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,582
of 324,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetologia
#5
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,376 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 324,352 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.