Insulin Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes: Initiation, Titration, Incretin Combinations and Renal Dosing

Key Takeaways

• Although insulin retains its distinction as the sole glucose-lowering therapy with no ceiling on efficacy, it has lost this position with the establishment of agents with proven cardiorenal benefits in second-line therapy. Today, the primary dilemma is not whether to use insulin, but rather how to integrate it into treatment in a way that prevents clinical inertia or over-basalization from harming the patient. In the presence of basal insulin use exceeding 0.5 U/kg/day, a significant difference between bedtime and morning glucose measurements, or recurrent nocturnal hypoglycemia, the treatment regimen should be changed rather than continuing dose titration.
• Type 2 diabetes is a condition characterized by the combination of progressive beta-cell secretory failure and a near-complete loss of the incretin effect. Therefore, combining basal insulin with a GLP-1 receptor agonist controls fasting and postprandial hyperglycemia through complementary mechanisms while limiting weight gain and hypoglycemia compared with transitioning to a full basal-bolus regimen.
• In practice, treatment is initiated with 10 units at bedtime or a dose of 0.1 to 0.2 U/kg/day, and is titrated by 2 units every three days to bring fasting plasma glucose into the 80 to 130 mg/dL range. Mealtime insulin is started at 4 units or 10 percent of the basal dose with the largest meal. Continuous glucose monitoring targets are a time in range greater than 70 percent, time below 70 mg/dL less than 4 percent, and time below 54 mg/dL less than 1 percent.
• Renal dysfunction prolongs the half-life of insulin: the total daily dose should be reduced by approximately 25 percent when the eGFR is between 10 and 50 mL/min/1.73 m2, and by up to 50 percent when it falls below 10 mL/min/1.73 m2. In advanced chronic kidney disease, HbA1c targets should be relaxed to a range of 7.5 to 8.0 percent.
• In the first year of treatment, two important and underemphasized safety issues stand out: hypoglycemia-associated arrhythmia and cardiovascular risk, and the early worsening of retinopathy following rapid glycemic correction. This latter condition necessitates a dilated fundus examination before and after rapid treatment intensification.

Introduction and Clinical Background

A century after its first therapeutic use, insulin occupies a paradoxical place in the management of type 2 diabetes. Insulin is both the most potent glucose-lowering agent available and the medication whose initiation is most often delayed, mistimed, and incorrectly titrated. While current treatment algorithms position metformin and lifestyle modification as the foundation of therapy, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors are rapidly ascending to higher tiers due to their cardiovascular, renal, and heart failure benefits. This has allowed GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors to gain prominence in glycemic algorithms^[1], relegating insulin to a therapeutic step reserved for clinical pictures such as marked hyperglycemia, catabolic decompensation, intercurrent acute illnesses, or failure of multiple oral therapies.

This repositioning has not ultimately reduced the number of patients who require insulin therapy. Beta-cell function declines inexorably, and a non-negligible proportion of patients will reach a point where no incretin-based or glucosuric strategy can achieve their individualized glycemic target. The classic indications remain valid: failure to achieve glycemic targets with oral agents, metabolic deterioration, significant comorbidity, perioperative management, pregnancy, and contraindications to oral therapy. The current therapeutic armamentarium includes short-acting, long-acting, and premixed human insulins and their analogues, which are administered as basal-supported oral therapy, supplemental prandial injections, conventional twice-daily premixed regimens, or full basal-bolus therapy^[2].

Missed opportunities cluster at two extremes. At one end is therapeutic inertia: the decision to initiate basal insulin is repeatedly postponed, and patients are followed for years with HbA1c levels above 9%, during which time irreversible microvascular damage accumulates. At the other end is over-basalization, where basal insulin is indefinitely uptitrated against postprandial hyperglycemia—which it cannot physiologically control—leading to weight gain, nocturnal hypoglycemia, and a false impression of treatment failure. Both errors reflect the same fundamental problem: insulin is initiated and adjusted based on a single fasting blood glucose value rather than a mechanistic understanding of which glycemic component is driving the elevated HbA1c.

The comparative evidence base has matured considerably. On behalf of the American College of Physicians, a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 84 randomized trials—each lasting at least 52 weeks and enrolling at least 500 adult patients—was conducted to compare SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and long-acting insulins as monotherapy or in combination. This work established, for the first time, a formal hierarchy among mortality, cardiovascular, and renal endpoints^[3]. Insulin must now be justified within this hierarchy, rather than being accepted as the default endpoint of every treatment pathway.

Molecular and Pathophysiological Mechanisms

Beta-Cell Failure and the Collapse of the Incretin Effect

The incretin effect describes the markedly greater insulin secretory response to oral glucose compared with an isoglycemic intravenous glucose infusion; in type 2 diabetes, this effect is substantially diminished or entirely absent. The predominant lesion is the loss of insulinotropic potential of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), a state attributable either to global beta-cell dysfunction or to specific defects in the GIP receptor signaling pathway. The insulinotropic effect of GLP-1, however, is much better preserved, allowing pharmacologic GLP-1 exposure to still stimulate insulin secretion, suppress glucagon, and lower both fasting and postprandial glucose levels^[4]. This asymmetry provides the pharmacologic rationale for using GLP-1 receptor agonism as an insulin-sparing strategy: the residual beta-cell mass remains responsive to a physiologically augmented signal even when it has become unresponsive to nutrient-stimulated GIP.

Glucagon Dysregulation and Complementary Receptor Pharmacology

Postprandial hyperglucagonemia contributes at least as much to postprandial glucose excursions as does insufficient insulin secretion. GIP and GLP-1 act divergently on the alpha cell: GIP is glucagonotropic during hypoglycemia, whereas GLP-1 is glucagonostatic during hyperglycemia. Dual receptor agonism can thereby restrain inappropriate glucagon release while preserving counterregulatory mechanisms. GIP also stimulates lipogenesis, whereas GLP-1 indirectly promotes lipolysis; together, these effects reduce ectopic fat deposition and increase adiponectin secretion from adipocytes^[5]. Beyond the islet, GLP-1 receptor agonists slow gastric emptying, act directly on hypothalamic nuclei to increase satiety, alter the intestinal microbiome, and, in large randomized trials, reduce cardiovascular risk and slow progression to renal failure in high-risk populations^[6]. These are precisely the pleiotropic effects that exogenous insulin lacks.

The first dual agonist to reach clinical development, LY3298176, was designed as a fatty-acid-modified peptide that activates both incretin receptors with a once-weekly subcutaneous pharmacokinetic profile. The molecule’s activity was characterized in cell lines expressing recombinant or endogenous incretin receptors and in murine models of food intake and insulin secretion before a phase 1 program tested single doses of 0.25 to 8 mg in healthy individuals and doses of 0.5 to 15 mg over four weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes^[7].

Pharmacokinetic Engineering of Extended-Action Basal Insulins

The limitation of first-generation extended-action insulins was not their efficacy but their variability. Suspensions requiring homogenization led to wide fluctuations in exposure and unpredictable glycemic effects. Although the soluble long-acting analogs developed over the past two decades have offered flatter and less variable pharmacokinetic profiles and have reduced nocturnal hypoglycemia, adherence and persistence with daily basal insulin remain low. A soluble insulin with an even longer and flatter exposure curve would be expected to further reduce pharmacodynamic variability, simplify the regimen, and increase persistence—the explicit design logic behind the once-weekly insulin icodec and insulin efsitora alfa^[8]. Icodec achieves its duration of action through strong, reversible albumin binding and reduced receptor-mediated clearance, whereas efsitora uses an Fc-fusion construct. Both reduce the basal insulin decision from 365 injections per year to 52.

Clinical Evidence and Guideline Comparison

Incretin-Based Combinations and Basal-Bolus Escalation

The most important comparative data address whether prandial insulin is still needed when a potent incretin agent is added to basal therapy. Across the SURPASS 1 through 5 program, weekly tirzepatide 5 to 15 mg reduced HbA1c by 1.24 to 2.58 percentage points and body weight by 5.4 to 11.7 kg; 23.0% to 62.4% of participants achieved an HbA1c below 5.7%, and 20.7% to 68.4% lost more than 10% of their baseline weight. The agent was shown to be significantly more effective than weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg and titrated basal insulin, with adverse effects that were predominantly gastrointestinal and dose-related^[9]. In a patient with an HbA1c of 8.5% on maximal basal insulin therapy, the expected incremental benefit of adding a dual agonist now rivals or exceeds that of adding three prandial injections, and it does so without the weight gain and hypoglycemia burden associated with prandial insulin.

This does not eliminate the role of prandial insulin. Patients with severe insulinopenia, marked catabolism, unexplained weight loss, or glucose toxicity above 300 mg/dL require full replacement therapy, and incretin therapy should be initiated only after the acute metabolic derangement is corrected. The clinically useful differentiator is postprandial reserve: if the two-hour postprandial excursion exceeds 60 to 70 mg/dL despite adequate fasting control, some form of prandial control—whether pharmacologic or through incretin-mediated slowing of gastric emptying—is required.

Glucose Monitoring as an Intervention, Not Just a Measurement

Structured glucose data have acquired a therapeutic quality of their own. In a two-phase, crossover clinical trial involving 47 adults with type 2 diabetes not using insulin who were at high cardiovascular risk (mean age, 63; mean BMI, 37 kg/m2; baseline HbA1c, 8.4%), unblinding continuous glucose monitoring data reduced the mean glucose level from 184.0 mg/dL to 147.2 mg/dL and increased time in target range from 57.8% to 82.8% within 90 days. This was accompanied by concurrent reductions in HbA1c, BMI, triglycerides, blood pressure, and total cholesterol^[10]. Effects of this magnitude in a non-insulin-using population provide a strong rationale for deploying sensor technology before, not after, insulin initiation.

Algorithmic and Decision-Support Titration

Titration failure is a systems problem. In a multicenter, single-blind, randomized trial conducted on the endocrinology services of three medical centers, hospitalized adults with an HbA1c between 7.0% and 11.0% were randomized to insulin dose titration by either an artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support system or senior endocrinologists for five consecutive days. The primary endpoint was the percentage of time spent in the 70 to 180 mg/dL range, with a noninferiority margin of 6 percentage points^[11]. The takeaway is that expert-level titration can be safely emulated by algorithms in the inpatient setting, but long-term prospective validation is needed before these models can be deployed in outpatient and primary care settings where expertise is limited.

Insulin Use and Cardiorenal Risk Modification

Patients on insulin therapy constitute the highest tier of cardiorenal risk and should not be excluded from disease-modifying therapies. In an analysis of FIDELIO-DKD stratified by baseline insulin use, 3,637 of 5,674 participants with type 2 diabetes, a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of 30 to 5,000 mg/g, and an eGFR of 25 to less than 75 mL/min/1.73 m2 were receiving insulin at randomization. The renal and cardiovascular benefits of finerenone were found to be preserved irrespective of insulin therapy and whether baseline HbA1c was above or below 7.5%^[12]. Therefore, in patients on insulin therapy, cardiovascular risk reduction depends more on the added adjuvant agents than on incremental reductions in HbA1c.

Practical Implications and Safety Profile

Initiation and Titration Workflow

Basal insulin therapy is initiated at a single daily dose of 10 units or 0.1-0.2 U/kg/day; the upper end of this range is preferred in cases where HbA1c exceeds 10% or fasting glucose exceeds 250 mg/dL. Targeting a fasting plasma glucose of 80 to 130 mg/dL, the dose is titrated by increasing it by 2 units every three days or 4 units weekly. After any episode of stage 2 hypoglycemia below 54 mg/dL, a 10% to 20% dose reduction is mandatory. Metformin therapy is continued; the dose of sulfonylureas should be halved at treatment initiation and discontinued entirely when prandial insulin is added.

Once-weekly basal insulins alter this calculation. In the phase 3b ONWARDS 9 trial, a treat-to-target study in insulin-naïve adults, icodec was initiated at 70 U/week, and the dose was adjusted weekly guided by pre-breakfast sensor values according to a target range of 80 to 130 mg/dL; at week 26, mean HbA1c decreased from 8.18% to 7.00%, a reduction of 1.17 percentage points^[13]. When switching a patient currently on daily basal insulin, the weekly dose is equal to the daily dose multiplied by seven, and a one-time additional loading dose of approximately 50% is administered in the first week to compensate for the slower attainment of steady state. When switching back to daily basal insulin, the first daily injection should be delayed until seven days after the last weekly dose. Detailed practical recommendations covering initiation, switching in either direction, titration, and use in renal or hepatic impairment, pregnancy, and hospitalized patients have been compiled from data from the ONWARDS 1 through 6 program^[14].

Choosing Between Basal-Bolus and Incretin Intensification

If HbA1c is not at target despite fasting glucose being within range, the basal insulin dose should not be increased. A GLP-1 receptor agonist or a dual GIP/GLP-1 agonist should be added to the regimen, or the patient should be switched to a fixed-ratio combination. Semaglutide is initiated at 0.25 mg weekly for four weeks, then increased to 0.5 mg, then 1.0 mg, and if necessary, 2.0 mg; tirzepatide is initiated at 2.5 mg weekly for four weeks, with the dose increased in 2.5 mg increments no more frequently than every four weeks to a maximum of 15 mg. When adding any incretin agent to insulin therapy, the basal dose should be reduced by 20% if the HbA1c is 8.0% or lower to prevent hypoglycemia. Fixed-ratio combinations simplify this process further: the combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide is initiated at 16 dose steps per day, up to a maximum of 50; the combination of insulin glargine and lixisenatide can be initiated at 15 or 30 units, up to a maximum of 60. If prandial insulin is still required despite these measures, it should be initiated with 4 units or 10% of the basal dose before the largest meal and titrated by increasing the dose by 1 to 2 units every three days based on the pre-next-meal or bedtime value.

Dose Adjustment for Low eGFR

The kidney is responsible for a significant portion of insulin degradation, and insulin clearance decreases in parallel with the filtration rate. When eGFR falls to between 10 and 50 mL/min/1.73 m2, the total daily insulin dose should be reduced by approximately 25%, and when it falls below 10 mL/min/1.73 m2 or during dialysis, it should be reduced by up to 50%; additional dose reductions may be necessary on dialysis days. The metformin dose should be reduced when eGFR is below 45 and discontinued below 30; in advanced chronic kidney disease, HbA1c becomes unreliable due to shortened erythrocyte lifespan, so titration should be guided by sensor-derived glucose management indicators and time in range. Incretin agents retain their benefit at low filtration rates: in a retrospective cohort of 76 patients with stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease or on dialysis, 96% of whom had type 2 diabetes, with a mean age of 66.8 years and a mean BMI of 36.2 kg/m2, semaglutide was initiated and its glycemic efficacy and tolerability were assessed^[15]. In this patient group, the main treatment-limiting concerns are gastrointestinal adverse effects and volume depletion.

Monitoring, Hypoglycemia, and Retinopathy Surveillance

Hypoglycemia is not merely a nuisance endpoint. It has been associated with cardiac arrhythmia, cardiovascular events, and mortality through mechanisms demonstrated in experimental and clinical studies, and while part of this association can be explained by confounding from comorbidities, a true cardiovascular effect triggered by hypoglycemia appears to exist in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes^[16]. Glycemic targets should therefore be set with explicit consideration of hypoglycemia risk; in frail, elderly individuals and those with advanced kidney disease, a range of 7.5% to 8.0% should be targeted for HbA1c.

Sensor technology is increasingly recommended by guidelines for patients with type 2 diabetes on insulin therapy, based on evidence for its role in reducing hypoglycemia risk and managing glycemic variability. In a real-world analysis of 74,679 adults stratified into cohorts not using insulin, using basal insulin, and using prandial insulin, switching from fingerstick monitoring to continuous glucose monitoring was associated with significant reductions in all-cause hospitalizations, diabetes-related acute hospitalizations, and diabetes-related emergency department visits at both 6 and 12 months^[17].

Finally, rapid glycemic correction carries an underappreciated ocular hazard. Early worsening of diabetic retinopathy occurs following large and rapid drops in blood glucose in various situations—such as insulin initiation, intensification of non-insulin therapies, bariatric surgery, and pregnancy—and precedes the long-term benefits of glycemic optimization^[18]. In any patient with an HbA1c above 10% or with known retinopathy, a dilated fundus examination should be performed before treatment intensification and repeated at three and six months. In those with pre-existing proliferative disease, the goal should be to avoid lowering HbA1c by more than 2 percentage points over any three-month period. Renal function, potassium, and volume status should be reviewed every three to six months and more frequently after any change in the dose of a diuretic, renin-angiotensin blocker, or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist.

Future Perspectives and Open Questions

Many questions remain unresolved. The first concerns the durability of insulin-sparing strategies. Although incretin-based intensification produces impressive short-term responses in HbA1c and body weight, the decline in beta-cell function continues, and no study has yet established how long the use of a dual agonist can postpone the need for prandial insulin in patients with a disease duration longer than fifteen years. The second question relates to body composition: the loss of muscle and bone mass accompanying the marked weight loss induced by incretins is now established, but the functional consequences in elderly, insulin-using patients with sarcopenic obesity and the patterns of weight regain after treatment discontinuation are unknown.

A third question is cardiorenal combination therapy in patients on insulin. In the CONFIDENCE trial—a completed, randomized, double-blind, multicenter phase 2 study—adult patients with type 2 diabetes on maximally tolerated renin-angiotensin system blockade, an eGFR of 30 to 90 mL/min/1.73 m2, and a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of 100 to 5,000 mg/g were randomized 1:1:1 to finerenone plus empagliflozin, finerenone alone, or empagliflozin alone to test whether early combination therapy is superior to monotherapy in reducing albuminuria within six months^[19]. Whether this additive signal on albuminuria will translate to hard kidney and cardiovascular endpoints in insulin-using populations, and how such quadruple regimens will interact with insulin dose requirements and hypoglycemia risk, will require dedicated outcomes trials to answer.

A fourth area of investigation is digital titration. The feasibility of decision support and telemonitoring systems has been demonstrated in inpatient and protocol settings, and a three-arm randomized controlled trial has been designed to test this approach in the outpatient setting, investigating decision-supported telemonitoring in individuals with type 2 diabetes using insulin^[20]. The pending questions here are more practical than technical: it is unclear who would bear the medicolegal responsibility for an algorithmic dose recommendation, how such systems would perform in populations with limited digital literacy, and whether the observed glycemic gains would persist beyond the study duration.

An honest limitation of the current evidence base is that nearly all comparative insulin trials are treat-to-target designs powered for HbA1c non-inferiority, not for cardiovascular or renal outcomes. Insulin itself has not demonstrated cardiovascular benefit beyond glycemic control, and the cardiovascular safety of once-weekly formulations rests on adjudicated case counts from programs not designed to detect modest hazard ratios. Until dedicated endpoint data become available, insulin should be prescribed for what it reliably does—lower glucose without a ceiling effect—while cardiorenal protection should be provided by agents proven to confer this benefit.

References

1. Weinberg Sibony R, Segev O, Dor S, Raz I. Drug Therapies for Diabetes. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(24):17147. doi:10.3390/ijms242417147. PubMed
2. Lechleitner M, Hoppichler F. Insulin therapy. Wien Med Wochenschr. 2011;161(11-12):300-4. doi:10.1007/s10354-011-0889-3. PubMed
3. Drake T, Landsteiner A, Langsetmo L, MacDonald R, Anthony M, Kalinowski C, et al. Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2024;177(5):618-632. doi:10.7326/M23-1490. PubMed
4. Nauck MA, Müller TD. Incretin hormones and type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia. 2023;66(10):1780-1795. doi:10.1007/s00125-023-05956-x. PubMed
5. Liu QK. Mechanisms of action and therapeutic applications of GLP-1 and dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonists. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2024;15:1431292. doi:10.3389/fendo.2024.1431292. PubMed
6. Rosen CJ, Ingelfinger JR. GLP-1 Receptor Agonists. N Engl J Med. 2026;394(13):1313-1324. doi:10.1056/NEJMra2500106. PubMed
7. Coskun T, Sloop KW, Loghin C, Alsina-Fernandez J, Urva S, Bokvist KB, et al. LY3298176, a novel dual GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: From discovery to clinical proof of concept. Mol Metab. 2018;18:3-14. doi:10.1016/j.molmet.2018.09.009. PubMed
8. Rosenstock J, Juneja R, Beals JM, Moyers JS, Ilag L, McCrimmon RJ. The Basis for Weekly Insulin Therapy: Evolving Evidence With Insulin Icodec and Insulin Efsitora Alfa. Endocr Rev. 2024;45(3):379-413. doi:10.1210/endrev/bnad037. PubMed
9. Nauck MA, D’Alessio DA. Tirzepatide, a dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor co-agonist for the treatment of type 2 diabetes with unmatched effectiveness regrading glycaemic control and body weight reduction. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2022;21(1):169. doi:10.1186/s12933-022-01604-7. PubMed
10. Reed J, Dong T, Eaton E, Friswold J, Porges J, Al-Kindi SG, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring for glycaemic control and cardiovascular risk reduction in patients with type 2 diabetes not on insulin therapy: A clinical trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2024;26(7):2881-2889. doi:10.1111/dom.15608. PubMed
11. Ying Z, Fan Y, Chen C, Liu Y, Tang Q, Chen Z, et al. Real-Time AI-Assisted Insulin Titration System for Glucose Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2025;8(5):e258910. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.8910. PubMed
12. Rossing P, Burgess E, Agarwal R, Anker SD, Filippatos G, Pitt B, et al. Finerenone in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease and Type 2 Diabetes According to Baseline HbA1c and Insulin Use: An Analysis From the FIDELIO-DKD Study. Diabetes Care. 2022;45(4):888-897. doi:10.2337/dc21-1944. PubMed
13. Bergenstal RM, Ásbjörnsdóttir B, Johanning Bari T, Hulkund S, Winhofer Y, Wysham C. Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Based Titration of Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec in Insulin-Naive Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes (ONWARDS 9): A Phase 3b, Multicenter, Single-Arm, Treat-to-Target Clinical Trial. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2025;27(7):527-536. doi:10.1089/dia.2025.0050. PubMed
14. Philis-Tsimikas A, Aberle J, Bajaj H, Lingvay I, Mu Y, Shaikh S, et al. Clinical Use of Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec: Translating Clinical Trial Data into Practical Guidance for Diabetes Management. Drugs. 2025;85(10):1253-1268. doi:10.1007/s40265-025-02201-0. PubMed
15. Long JJ, Sahi SS, Lemke AI, Na J, Garcia Valencia OA, Budhiraja P, et al. The Use of Semaglutide in Patients With Renal Failure-A Retrospective Cohort Study. Endocr Pract. 2024;30(10):963-969. doi:10.1016/j.eprac.2024.07.008. PubMed
16. International Hypoglycaemia Study Group. Hypoglycaemia, cardiovascular disease, and mortality in diabetes: epidemiology, pathogenesis, and management. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019;7(5):385-396. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(18)30315-2. PubMed
17. Garg SK, Hirsch IB, Repetto E, Snell-Bergeon J, Ulmer B, Perkins C, et al. Impact of continuous glucose monitoring on hospitalizations and glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes: real-world analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2024;26(11):5202-5210. doi:10.1111/dom.15866. PubMed
18. Bain SC, Klufas MA, Ho A, Matthews DR. Worsening of diabetic retinopathy with rapid improvement in systemic glucose control: A review. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2019;21(3):454-466. doi:10.1111/dom.13538. PubMed
19. Agarwal R, Green JB, Heerspink HJL, Mann JFE, McGill JB, Mottl AK, et al. COmbinatioN effect of FInerenone anD EmpaglifloziN in participants with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes using a UACR Endpoint (CONFIDENCE) trial: baseline clinical characteristics. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2025;40(8):1559-1569. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfaf022. PubMed
20. Thomsen CHN, Nørlev JTD, Hangaard S, Jensen MH, Kristensen SNS, Aradóttir TB, et al. Intelligent Diabetes Telemonitoring for Patients on Insulin Therapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2024;316:1737-1738. doi:10.3233/SHTI240762. PubMed

Share this article

LinkedIn X Facebook WhatsApp Copy Link