Observational Study of the Use of Insulin Glargine as Basal Therapy in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Morocco
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim of the study was to assess the real-life efficacy and safety of insulin glargine (Lantus ® , Sanofi) as a basal regimen in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who are poorly controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) and/or other insulins. Methods: This observational, multicenter study was carried out in Morocco in 2011 and included 497 adult patients with T2DM and a baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) between 7.5% and 10.5% and for whom a basal regimen with insulin glargine was initiated. Two follow-up visits were scheduled at 12 and 26 weeks after starting treatment. The primary outcome target was HbA1c < 7%. Safety was assessed by the frequency of hypoglycemic episodes. Results: The target HbA1c level of < 7% was reached by 11.5% of patients after 3 months of insulin glargine treatment and 32% after 6 months. Mean HbA1c decreased significantly from 9.37±1.14% at baseline to 7.43±0.87% at 6 months (P < 0.001). Mean fasting blood glucose also decreased significantly from 237.5 ± 66.9 mg/dL at baseline to 129.5 ± 35.1 mg/dL at 6 months (P < 0.001). Approximately 12% of patients reported at least one hypoglycemic episode. No adverse event other than hypoglycemia was reported. Conclusions: This study shows that in a real-life setting, a basal regimen with insulin glargine significantly improves glycemic control in patients with T2DM who are inadequately controlled with OADs or other insulin regimens, with an acceptable hypoglycemia profile. J Endocrinol Metab. 2015;5(6):333-336 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jem315w
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".