↓ Skip to main content

Major adverse cardiovascular events with basal insulin peglispro versus comparator insulins in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Cardiovascular Diabetology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Major adverse cardiovascular events with basal insulin peglispro versus comparator insulins in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis
Published in
Cardiovascular Diabetology, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12933-016-0393-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Byron J. Hoogwerf, A. Michael Lincoff, Angel Rodriguez, Lei Chen, Yongming Qu

Abstract

To identify possible differences in cardiovascular (CV) risk among different insulin therapies, we performed pre-specified meta-analyses across the clinical program for basal insulin peglispro (BIL), in patients randomized to treatment with BIL or comparator insulin [glargine (IG) or NPH]. One phase 2 (12-week) and 6 phase 3 (26 to 78-week) randomized studies of BIL compared to IG or NPH, in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, were included. The participants were diverse with respect to demographics, baseline glycemic control, and concomitant disease or medications, but treatment groups were comparable in each study. For any potential CV or neurovascular event, relevant medical information was provided to a blinded external clinical events committee (C5Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA) for adjudication. Cox regression analysis was used to compare treatment groups. The primary endpoint was a composite of adjudicated MACE+ [CV death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina]. The pooled population included 5862 patients in the safety evaluation, with randomization to BIL:IG:NPH of 3578:2072:212. Mean age was 54.1 years, 27 % had type 1 diabetes, 56 % were male, and 88 % were white. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, including use of statins or other lipid-lowering drugs, were comparable between BIL and comparators. A total of 83 patients experienced at least 1 MACE+ and 70 patients experienced at least 1 MACE (CV death, MI, or stroke). Overall, there were no treatment-associated differences in time to MACE+ [hazard ratio (HR) for BIL versus comparator insulin (95 % CI): 0.82 (0.53-1.27)] or MACE [0.83 (0.51-1.33)]. In 4297 patients with type 2 diabetes, there were 71 MACE+ events [HR: 1.02 (95 % CI: 0.63-1.65), p = 0.94]. In 1565 patients with type 1 diabetes, there were only 12 MACE+ [0.24 (0.07-0.85), p = 0.027]. There were no differences in all-cause death between BIL and comparators. Sub-group analyses did not identify any sub-population with increased risk with BIL versus comparator insulins. Treatment with BIL versus comparator insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes was not associated with increased risk for major CV events in the studies analyzed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 12%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 13 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 16 38%

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 31 May 2016.
All research outputs
#7,902,269
of 14,054,251 outputs
Outputs from Cardiovascular Diabetology
#365
of 832 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,051
of 262,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cardiovascular Diabetology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,054,251 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 832 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 262,970 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them