↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Intensive Glucose Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes — 15-Year Follow-up

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, June 2019
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 (99th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
179 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
305 Mendeley
Title
Intensive Glucose Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes — 15-Year Follow-up
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, June 2019
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1806802
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter D Reaven, Nicholas V Emanuele, Wyndy L Wiitala, Gideon D Bahn, Domenic J Reda, Madeline McCarren, William C Duckworth, Rodney A Hayward

Abstract

We previously reported that a median of 5.6 years of intensive as compared with standard glucose lowering in 1791 military veterans with type 2 diabetes resulted in a risk of major cardiovascular events that was significantly lower (by 17%) after a total of 10 years of combined intervention and observational follow-up. We now report the full 15-year follow-up. We observationally followed enrolled participants (complete cohort) after the conclusion of the original clinical trial by using central databases to identify cardiovascular events, hospitalizations, and deaths. Participants were asked whether they would be willing to provide additional data by means of surveys and chart reviews (survey cohort). The prespecified primary outcome was a composite of major cardiovascular events, including nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, new or worsening congestive heart failure, amputation for ischemic gangrene, and death from cardiovascular causes. Death from any cause was a prespecified secondary outcome. There were 1655 participants in the complete cohort and 1391 in the survey cohort. During the trial (which originally enrolled 1791 participants), the separation of the glycated hemoglobin curves between the intensive-therapy group (892 participants) and the standard-therapy group (899 participants) averaged 1.5 percentage points, and this difference declined to 0.2 to 0.3 percentage points by 3 years after the trial ended. Over a period of 15 years of follow-up (active treatment plus post-trial observation), the risks of major cardiovascular events or death were not lower in the intensive-therapy group than in the standard-therapy group (hazard ratio for primary outcome, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.06; P = 0.23; hazard ratio for death, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.18). The risk of major cardiovascular disease outcomes was reduced, however, during an extended interval of separation of the glycated hemoglobin curves (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.99), but this benefit did not continue after equalization of the glycated hemoglobin levels (hazard ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.75). Participants with type 2 diabetes who had been randomly assigned to intensive glucose control for 5.6 years had a lower risk of cardiovascular events than those who received standard therapy only during the prolonged period in which the glycated hemoglobin curves were separated. There was no evidence of a legacy effect or a mortality benefit with intensive glucose control. (Funded by the VA Cooperative Studies Program; VADT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00032487.).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 293 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 305 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 305 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 10%
Student > Bachelor 31 10%
Other 30 10%
Researcher 29 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 9%
Other 77 25%
Unknown 80 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 149 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 3%
Other 21 7%
Unknown 93 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 311. 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 31 October 2023.
All research outputs
#111,933
of 25,758,211 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#2,721
of 32,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,058
of 368,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#60
of 260 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,758,211 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,673 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 122.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 368,144 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 260 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.