Basal-bolus regimen with insulin analogues versus human insulin in medical patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial in Latin America
Abstract
Objective Few randomized studies have focused on the optimal management of non-intensive care unit patients with type 2 diabetes in Latin America. We compared the safety and efficacy of a basal-bolus regimen with analogues and human insulins in general medicine patients admitted to a University Hospital in Asunción, Paraguay. Methods In a prospective, open-label trial, we randomized 134 nonsurgical patients with blood glucose (BG) between 140 and 400 mg/dL to a basal-bolus regimen with glargine once daily and glulisine before meals (n = 66) or Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) twice daily and regular insulin before meals (n = 68). Major outcomes included differences in daily BG levels and frequency of hypoglycemic events between treatment groups. Results There were no differences in the mean daily BG (157 ± 37 mg/dL versus 158 ± 44 mg/dL; P = .90) or in the number of BG readings within target Conclusion The basal-bolus regimen with insulin analogues resulted in equivalent glycemic control and frequency of hypoglycemia compared to treatment with human insulin in hospitalized patients with diabetes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Use of insulin analogs or human insulin results in similar glycemic outcomes in the hospital setting, but human insulin may increase the risk of hypoglycemic events.
“Use of insulin analogs or human insulin results in similar glycemic outcomes in the hospital setting, but human insulin may increase the risk of hypoglycemic events (68).”
From 16. Diabetes Care in the Hospital: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2026 (2026) · cites this paper as [68]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 23 · Cited by 56
- Authors
- Bueno, E., Benitez, A., Rufinelli, J., Figueredo, R., Alsina, S., Ojeda, A., Samudio, S., Cáceres, M., Argüello, R., Romero, F., Echagüe, G., Pasquel, F., & Umpierrez, G. E.
- Affiliations
- Universidad Nacional de Asunción (PY)
- Emory University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Umpierrez, Guillermo E.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Endocrine Practice
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-07
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 807-813
- ISSN
- 1530-891X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2219592183
- Cited by
- 56
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 5.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Endocrine Practice (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR025008)
- 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 › Hyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
- Keywords
- type 2 diabetes, multiple daily insulin injections, insulin analogues, glargine, glulisine, NPH insulin, regular insulin, glycemic control, hypoglycemia, hospitalized patients, insulin dose, Latin America
- MeSH terms
- Insulin Glargine, Adult, Aged, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Male, Middle Aged, Paraguay, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Insulin, Regular, Human
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