Improvement of Glycemic Control in Subjects With Poorly Controlled Type 2 Diabetes
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE—Large prospective studies have demonstrated that optimum glycemic control is not routinely achieved in clinical practice. Barriers to optimal insulin therapy include hypoglycemia, weight gain, and suboptimal initiation and dose titration. This study compared two treatment algorithms for insulin glargine initiation and titration: algorithm 1 (investigator led) versus algorithm 2 (performed by study subjects). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—A prospective, multicenter (n = 611), multinational (n = 59), open-label, 24-week randomized trial in 4,961 (algorithm 1, n = 2,493; algorithm 2, n = 2,468) suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetic subjects. RESULTS—At baseline, mean diabetes duration was 12.3 ± 7.2 years, and 72% of subjects were pretreated with insulin. At end point, there was no significant difference in the incidence of severe hypoglycemia between algorithms 1 and 2 (0.9 vs. 1.1%). There was a significant reduction in HbA1c from 8.9 ± 1.3 to 7.8 ± 1.2%, with a greater decrease (P < 0.001) with algorithm 2 (−1.22%) versus algorithm 1 (−1.08%). Fasting blood glucose decreased from 170 to 110 mg/dl, with a greater decrease (P < 0.001) with algorithm 2 (−62 mg/dl) versus algorithm 1 (−57 mg/dl). Mean basal insulin dose increased from 22.9 ± 15.5 to 43.0 ± 25.5 IU, with a significant difference (P < 0.003) between algorithm 2 (21.6 IU) and algorithm 1 (18.7 IU). CONCLUSIONS—Glargine is safe and effective in improving glycemic control in a large, diverse population with longstanding type 2 diabetes. A simple subject-administered titration algorithm conferred significantly improved glycemic control with a low incidence of severe hypoglycemia compared with physician-managed titration.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Several insulin treat-to-target trials have safely used dose titration protocols in individuals not at target A1C to reach lower than traditional FPG and PPG targets, including FPG levels of 4.5 to 5.5 mmol/L in type 2 diabetes, FPG levels of 4.0 to 5.5 mmol/L in type 2 diabetes, FPG levels of 3.9 to 5.0 mmol/L in type 1 diabetes, and protocols targeting both FPG 4.5-5.5 and 2-hour PG 5.0-7.0 in类型
“In addition, several insulin treat-to-target trials have safely used dose titration protocols in individuals not at target A1C to reach lower than”
From Targets for Glycemic Control (2018) · cites this paper as [45]
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 21 · Cited by 314
- Authors
- Davies, M., Storms, F., Shutler, S., Bianchi-Biscay, M., Gomis, R., & for the AT.LANTUS Study Group
- Affiliations
- University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (GB)
- Mesos Diabetes Centrum, Bilthoven, the Netherlands
- Sanofi (United Kingdom) (GB)
- Sanofi (France) (FR)
- Hospital Clínic Universitari, Barcelona, Spain
- ORCID
- Davies, Melanie
- Venue
- Diabetes Care
- Publisher
- American Diabetes Association
- Published
- 2005-06-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1282-1288
- ISSN
- 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-5548
- OpenAlex
- W2155568871
- Cited by
- 314
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 26
- FWCI
- 17.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Sanofi
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
- Keywords
- type 2 diabetes, glycemic control, insulin glargine, basal insulin initiation, insulin dose adjustment, severe hypoglycemia, HbA1c, fasting blood glucose
- MeSH terms
- Insulin Glargine, Algorithms, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Male, Middle Aged, Safety, Body Mass Index, Treatment Outcome, Patient Selection, Insulin, Long-Acting
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review