↓ Skip to main content

Basal Insulin Intensification in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Review

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetes Therapy, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Basal Insulin Intensification in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Review
Published in
Diabetes Therapy, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s13300-018-0395-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jerry Meece

Abstract

As the number of people living with type 2 diabetes (T2D) continues to rise, managing their complex needs presents an increasing challenge to physicians. While treatment guidelines provide evidence-based guidance, they are not prescriptive-rather they emphasize individualization of management based on a patient's clinical needs and preferences. Physicians, therefore, need to be fully aware of the advantages and disadvantages of the multiple and increasing treatment options available to them at each stage of the disease. The progressive nature of T2D means that treatment with basal insulin will become inevitable for many patients, while for some patients basal insulin alone will eventually be insufficient for maintaining glycemic targets. Recent guidelines recommend two basic approaches for intensifying basal insulin: the use of rapid-acting insulin, either as additional prandial injections or as part of premix (biphasic) insulin; and the addition of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) to the insulin therapy, which can be administered via subcutaneous injection once or twice daily, or weekly depending on formulation. More recently, two fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin and a GLP-1 RA that allow for once-daily dosing have been approved. Each of these approaches has potential benefits and drawbacks, particularly in terms of risk for hypoglycemia, weight change, convenience, and side effects. Understanding these differences is central to guiding patient and physician choice. This article discusses the rationale, advantages, disadvantages, and implementation of currently available strategies for basal insulin treatment intensification in patients with T2D. Sanofi US, Inc.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 15%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Master 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 3 5%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 18 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 17 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 26 March 2018.
All research outputs
#15,495,840
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Diabetes Therapy
#580
of 1,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,454
of 331,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetes Therapy
#25
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,038 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 331,324 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.