Cited by 314Diabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

Improvement of Glycemic Control in Subjects With Poorly Controlled Type 2 Diabetes

Open access
Davies, Melanie, Storms, Fred, Shutler, Simon, Bianchi-Biscay, Monique, Gomis, Ramon, for the AT.LANTUS Study Group·2005·Diabetes Care

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2337/diacare.28.6.1282

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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
Venue
Diabetes Care
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
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