↓ Skip to main content

Patient-reported outcomes in transition from high-dose U-100 insulin to human regular U-500 insulin in severely insulin-resistant patients with type 2 diabetes: analysis of a randomized clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Patient-reported outcomes in transition from high-dose U-100 insulin to human regular U-500 insulin in severely insulin-resistant patients with type 2 diabetes: analysis of a randomized clinical trial
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12955-016-0541-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samaneh Kabul, Robert C. Hood, Ran Duan, Amy M. DeLozier, Julie Settles

Abstract

Initiation and titration of human regular U-500 insulin (U-500R) with a dosing algorithm of either thrice daily (TID) or twice daily (BID) improved glycemic control with fewer injections in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with high-dose, high-volume U-100 insulin. The objective of this analysis was to compare patient-reported outcomes between U-500R TID and BID treatment groups in this titration-to-target randomized, clinical trial. In this 24-week, open-label, parallel trial, 325 patients were randomized to TID (n = 162) or BID (n = 163) U-500R after a 4-week lead-in period (screening). The Treatment Related Impact Measure-Diabetes (TRIM-D) and EQ-5D-5L questionnaires were administered at screening, baseline/randomization, and endpoint (24 weeks). The Visual Analog Scale-Injection Site Pain (VAS-ISP) was assessed at baseline/randomization, 12 weeks, and endpoint. The TRIM-D showed statistically significant improvements in overall scores from baseline to endpoint for both BID and TID groups, most domains in the TID group, and all domains in the BID group. The BID group achieved better scores than the TID patients in overall and in treatment burden, daily life, and compliance domains (p < .05). EQ-5D-5L index scores showed no statistically significant differences for TID and BID groups (and no differences between TID and BID groups) from baseline to endpoint. VAS-ISP scores improved for both treatment groups (-5.60 TID; -6.47 BID; p < .05 for both) from baseline to endpoint. U500 can be successfully titrated for improved glycemic control using BID and TID regimens with diabetes-specific Patient-Reported Outcomes showing improvements in both arms; however, BID had better scores than TID in overall, treatment burden, daily life, and compliance domains. These secondary analyses are based on the study first received January 22, 2013 and reported in Clinical Trial Registry No.: NCT01774968 .

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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 69 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 10%
Other 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 33 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Psychology 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 34 48%
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 30 September 2016.
All research outputs
#18,473,108
of 22,890,496 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,671
of 2,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,709
of 322,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#32
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,890,496 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,160 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 322,482 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.