AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Case Report
*Corresponding Author: Nasser Mikhail, Endocrinology Division, Department of Medicine, Olive View-UCLA Medical Center, David-Geffen UCLA Medical School, CA, USA.
Citation: Nasser Mikhail, (2023), Appraisal of Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec, Archives of Medical Case Reports and Case Study, 7(6); DOI:10.31579/2692-9392/190
Copyright: © 2023, Nasser Mikhail. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Received: 24 August 2023 | Accepted: 01 November 2023 | Published: 30 November 2023
Keywords: insulin; icodec; glargine; degludec; hypoglycemia; glycated hemoglobin
Insulin icodec is a long-acting basal insulin analog under development that can be administered once weekly. The main purpose of this article is to provide an appraisal on insulin icodec based on available data published in a series of phase 3 clinical trials collectively called the ONWARDS Program. In 3 of the 4 published ONWARDS trials, reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels were slightly superior with insulin icodec compared with once-daily insulin glargine or degludec with a difference of approximately 0.2 percentage points. In the 4th trial, insulin icodec was not inferior to degludec in decreasing HbA1c values. Data analysis of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) showed greater or similar time spent in range (TIR) with insulin icodec versus insulin glargine or degludec. Incidence of level 1 hypoglycemia [blood glucose (BG) levels 54-69 mg/dl] was higher with insulin icodec compared with insulin glargine or degludec with estimated rate ratio (ERR) ranging from 1.25 to 1.88. Incidence of combined level 2 hypoglycemia (clinically significant hypoglycemia with BG < 54 mg/dl) and level 3 hypoglycemia (severe hypoglycemia with cognitive impairment requiring external assistance) was approximately 2-3 times higher with insulin icodec versus insulin glargine or degludec. Preliminary data in patients with type 1 diabetes showed approximately doubling rates of combined level 2 or 3 hypoglycemia with insulin icodec [(19.9 hypoglycemic events per person-year-exposure (PYE)] versus insulin degludec (10.3 hypoglycemic events per PYE). Time spent below range (TBR) in CGM was similar between insulin icodec and insulin glargine or degludec. Weight gain was generally similar with use of insulin icodec and insulin glargine or degludec. Yet, in one trial, weight gain was significantly greater with insulin icodec versus degludec, with an estimated treatment difference (ETD) of 1.7 kg. Allergic reactions were not increased with use of insulin icodec compared with glargine or degludec. In conclusion, insulin icodec may be a convenient basal insulin that is administered once weekly. It is at least as effective as insulin glargine or degludec. Yet, it is associated with increased incidence of all levels of hypoglycemia.
The once-weekly insulin icodec was engineered in an attempt to improve adherence to basal insulin intake. The half-life of insulin icodec is 196 hours (8.1 days) making it suitable for once-weekly administration [1]. Insulin icodec reaches a steady state after 3-4 weeks, then exhibits an evenly distributed glucose-lowering activity throughout the week [1]. The long duration of action of insulin icodec is attributed to 2 main factors. First, binding to albumin through addition of a C20 fatty acid-containing side chain to form an albumin-binding depot from which icodec is slowly released in the circulation. Second, 3 amino acid substitutions that decreases affinity of icodec to insulin receptors leading to its decreased rate of clearance. Normally, insulin clearance occurs primarily through internalization following binding of insulin to its receptors at cell surface. Thus, reduced binding of insulin icodec to insulin receptors will lead to its reduced clearance and further prolongation of its action [1]. Importantly, the reduced affinity of icodec to insulin receptor does not compromise its potency but slows its action [1]. The concentration of formulation of insulin icodec is 7 times higher than that of the standard insulin U100 formulation. It follows that the volume of insulin icodec administered once weekly is similar to other basal insulin dosing volumes given once daily [1]. To support its approval, insulin icodec is being evaluated in a program called ONWARDS. The latter consists of 6 phase 3 clinical trials [2]. The idea of this program is to assess efficacy and safety of insulin icodec in different clinical situations in patients with diabetes. Four of these 6 trials have been recently published and summarized in table 1 [3-6]. The main objective of this article is to review the advantages and limitations of insulin icodec based on results of the ONWARDS program.
| ONWARDS 1 [3] | ONWARDS 2 [4] | ONWARDS 3 [5] | ONWARDS 4 [6] | |
| Main purpose | Compare icodec with once-daily glargine in insulin-naïve patients | Compare icodec vs once-daily degludec in basal-insulin treated patients | Compare icodec vs once-daily degludec in insulin naïve-patients | Compare icodec vs once-daily glargine in patients treated with basal-bolus regimen |
| Design | Randomized, open-label, treat-to-target multi-national | Randomized, open-label, treat-to-target, multi-national | Randomized, double-masked, treat-to-target, multinational | Randomized, open-label, treat-to-target, multi-national |
| Duration | Main phase: 52 weeks. Extension phase 26 week. Safety monitoring until 83 weeks | 26 weeks. | 26 weeks. Safety monitoring up to 31 weeks. | 26 weeks |
| Patients | N=984, 60% men in icodec group higher than 53% in the glargine group, 59 year-old, type 2 diabetes of 11 year-duration | N=526, 57% men, 62 year-old, type 2 diabetes of 16 year-duration | N=598, 63% men, 58 year-old, type 2 diabetes of 10 year-duration | N= 582, 52% men, 60 year-old, type 2 diabetes of 17 year-duration |
| Baseline HbA1c | 8.5% | 8.1% | 8.5% | 8.3% |
| Total insulin doses per week | 214 units with icodec vs 222 units with glargine (no significant difference) | 268 units with icodec vs 244 units with degludec, ETR 1.10 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.20) P=0.03 | 204 units with icodec vs 187 units with degludec (no significant difference) | 514 units (73 units/d) with icodec vs 559 units (80 units/d) with glargine. ETR 0.92 (95% CI, 0.85 to 0.99, P=0.034). |
| Effects on HbA1c | Superior HbA1c reduction with icodec vs glargine at week 52 , ETD -0.19%, 95% CI, -0.36 to -0.03, P=0.02 | Superior HbA1c reduction with icodec vs degludec, ETD -0.22% (95% CI, -0.37 to -0.08), P=0.003 | Superior HbA1c reduction with icodec vs degludec, ETD -0.2% (95% CI, -0.1 to -0.3), P=0.002 | Icodec was non-inferior to glargine. ETD 0.02% (95% CI, -0.11 to +0.15), P<0> |
| Time of glucose in range (70-180 mg/dl) in CGM | 71.9% with icodec vs 66.9% with glargine, ETD 4.27% (95% CI, 1.92 to 6.62), p<0> | 63.1% with icodec vs 59.5% with degludec, ETR 1.10 (95% CI, -0.84 to +5.65) p=0.15 | Not evaluated | 66.9% with icodec vs 66.4% with glargine |
| Hypoglycemia level 1 (BG 54-69 mg/dl) | At week 83: 2308 events with icodec (3.02/PYE) vs 1067 events with glargine (1.39/PYE), statistical significance not mentioned) | 1209 episodes with icodec vs 589 episodes with degludec. ERR 1.88 (95% CI, 1.4 to 263, p=0.0002) | 28% (359 events in 84 patients) with icodec vs 20.1% (159 events in 59 patients) with degludec. At week 31: rates are 2.3/PYE with icodec vs 1.08 with degludec | 84% with icodec vs 86% with glargine. Yet, rate of hypoglycemic episodes was higher with icodec than glargine, ERR 1.25 (95% CI, 1.03 to 1.52), P 0.025 |
| Incidence of combined hypoglycemia level 2 (BG <54> | At week 83: 226 events in 12.4% of patients receiving icodec vs 114 events in 13.4% receiving glargine. Event rate 0.30 with icodec vs 0.16/PYE with glargine. ERR 1.71 (95% CI, 1.02 to 2.76) | 14% with icodec vs 7% with degludec, EOR 1.89 (95% CI, 1.05 to 3.41, p=0.034). | At 26 weeks: 8.2% with icodec vs 4.4% with degludec. ERR, 3.12 (95% CI, 1.30 to 7.51, P=0.01). At 31 weeks difference was not significant. | 52% with icodec vs 56% with glargine. 7 events of level 3 hypoglycemia with icodec vs 3 events with glargine. ERR 0.99 (95% CI, 0.73 to 1.33) |
| Weight changes | +2.2 kg with icodec at week 52 vs +1.83 kg with glargine (no significant difference) | +1.4 kg with icodec vs -0.30 kg with degludec, ETD, 1.7 kg (95% CI, 0.76 to 2.63, P=0.0004) | +2.8 kg with icodec vs 2.3 kg with degludec, ETD 0.46 kg (no significant difference) | + 2.7 kg with icodec vs 2.2 kg with glargine (no significant difference) |
| Patient satisfaction score | Not evaluated | +4.22 with icodec vs +2.96 with degludec, ETD 1.25, 95% CI, 0.41 to 2.100, P=0.0035) | Not evaluated | Not evaluated |
*The primary outcome in all trials was reduction of HbA1c versus comparator. Values are means.
Abbreviations in the table: ETD: estimated treatment difference, ERR: estimated rate ratio, HbA1c: glycated hemoglobin, CGM: continuous glucose monitoring, PYE: hypoglycemic event per person-year of exposure.
Table 1. *Overview of phase 3a trials of once-weekly insulin icodec
Overview of the ONWARDS trials
There are several common features in trials of the ONWARD Program. All included studies were randomized, multinational and treat-to target phase 3a clinical trials [3-6]. All trials were open-label except ONWARDS 3 trial, which was double masked [5]. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c levels from baseline to the end of the study. The target of fasting self-measured BG was 80-130 mg/dl. To achieve that target, doses of insulin icodec, glargine and degludec were adjusted weekly based on 3 pre-breakfast BG readings (measured on 2 days prior to and on the day of the weekly titration [3]. Thus, if the mean of the 3 BG values are > 130 mg/dl, insulin icodec dose is increased by 20 units weekly and doses of glargine or degludec are increased by 3 units daily. On the other hand, if the lowest of the 3 fasting BG values is < 80 n=984)>
Effects of insulin icodec on glycemic control
In ONWARDS 1, 2, and 3, insulin icodec was shown to be slightly but statistically superior to both glargine glargine and degludec in lowering HbA1c levels, with estimated treatment difference (ETD) of approximately 0.2 percentage points (table 1) [3-5]. In ONWARDS 4, insulin icodec was non-inferior to insulin degludec (table 1) [6]. In the 4 trials, the mean reduction in HbA1c levels by insulin icodec was approximately 1.5 percentage points compared with baseline [3-6]. Inspection of time curves of HbA1c values of insulin icodec revealed that reductions in HbA1c values were evident 10 weeks following its initiation, then reached a trough at week 26 followed by a plateau [3-6]. Similar trajectory was observed with insulin glargine and degludec [3-6]. Data from CGM was used for a duration of 4 weeks in ONWARDS 1 and 2 trials to identify the diurnal pattern of BG [3,4]. Overall, no significant differences in time spent in range (70-180 mg/dl) was identified between icodec groups and glargine or degludec groups [3,4]. Yet, in ONWARDS 1 trial, the percentage of time spent with BG levels above the range (ie. > 180 mg/dl) was approximately 1 hour less with insulin icodec than with insulin glargine [3].
Patient satisfaction with insulin icodec
Patient satisfaction with insulin icodec versus degludec was evaluated in ONWARDS 2 trial using the “Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire” (DTSQ) with higher score indicating greater satisfaction [4]. At week 26, the DTSQ was slightly but significantly higher in patients randomized to insulin icodec 4.22 versus insulin degludec 2.96, ETD 1.25 (95% CI, 0.41 to 2.10, P=0.003) (table 1) [4].
Safety of insulin icodec
Hypoglycemia
Given the long duration of action of insulin icodec, there is a major concern about increased risk of prolonged hypoglycemia, slow recovery and recurrence of hypoglycemic episodes. In a short-term (7 weeks) cross-over trial including selected patients with type 2 diabetes (n=43, mean age 56 years) without co-morbidities, Pieber et al [7] compared the frequency and severity of hypoglycemia in patients randomized to insulin icodec versus glargine. These authors induced hypoglycemia to a target plasma glucose levels of 54 mg/dl by doubling and tripling the doses of insulin icodec and glargine. Overall, they observed no significant differences between insulin icodec and glargine in the proportions of patients who developed hypoglycemia, hypoglycemic symptoms, time to recovery, and in the extent of rise in insulin counterregulatory hormones in response to hypoglycemia [7]. Despite these preliminary reassuring findings, results of clinical trials including higher number of patients who were followed for longer duration clearly showed increased risk of hypoglycemia with insulin icodec versus either insulin glargine or degludec. Thus, in ONWARDS 1 trial, at week 83, the rates of combined clinically significant (level 2) or severe hypoglycemia (level 3) were significantly greater with insulin icodec compared with glargine, 0.30 and 0.16 hypoglycemic events per PYE, respectively, ERR 1.63 (95% CI, 1.02 to 2.61) [3]. Furthermore, the difference in these rates between insulin icodec and glargine widened with duration of use [3]. Interestingly, the increased rates of hypoglycemia associated with use of insulin icodec was largely attributed to 3 patients who experienced 105 clinically significant hypoglycemic episodes [3]. Unfortunately, the authors did not mention any possible causes for clustering and recurrent hypoglycemia in these 3 patients such as kidney dysfunction, intermittent sickness with decreased oral intake, medications errors, use of a sulfonylurea, etc) [3]. Rates of level 1 hypoglycemic events were also higher with insulin icodec versus glargine in ONWRDS 1 trial, 3.02 events per PYE versus 1.39 events per PEY at 83 weeks [3]. In ONWARDS 3 trial, combined level 2 and 3 hypoglycemia from baseline to week 26 was approximately 3-fold higher with insulin icodec versus degludec; ERR 3.012 (95% 1.30 to 7.51, P=0.01) [5]. Furthermore, increased risk of hypoglycemia (level 1, and combined level 2 and 3) with insulin icodec was observed compared with insulin degludec in ONWARS 2 and 3 trials (table 1) [4,5]. As mentioned earlier, ONWARDS 4 trial was the only study that compared insulin icodec with insulin glargine on a background of pre-meal bolus insulin aspart [6]. Again, the latter trial showed increased risk of level 1 hypoglycemia with insulin icodec versus glargine, ERR 1.25 (95% CI, 1.03 to 1.52) P=0.025 (table 1) [6]. In ONWARDS 4 study, combined level 2 and 3 hypoglycemia as well as nocturnal hypoglycemia were not increased in the insulin icodec group compared with the insulin glargine group. However, there was numerical increase in event rate of level 3 hypoglycemia in the insulin icodec group versus glargine group, 0.04 event per PYE vs 0.02 event per PYE, ERR 2.19, 95% CI 0.2 to 24.4, P=0.53) [6]. In type 1 diabetes, preliminary results of ONWARDS 6 trial showed that rates of level 2 and 3 hypoglycemia with insulin icodec were approximately double the rates with degludec at 26 weeks, 19.9 versus 10.3 events per person-year [8]. Meanwhile, the use of CGM for 4 weeks during the ONWARDS 1 and 2 trials revealed similar time spent under BG levels of 54 mg/dl in patients receiving insulin icodec versus glargine or degludec [3,4].
Weight gain
There was a trend towards more weight gain associated with use of insulin icodec versus glargine or degludec in ONWARDS 1, 3, and 4 trials (table 1). In ONWARDS 2 trial, patients randomized to insulin icodec had a mean weight gain of 1.4 kg, whereas those randomized to insulin degludec had 0.3 kg weight loss, ETD 1.7 kg (95% CI, 0.76 to 2.63, P=0.0004) (table 1) [4].
Advantages of insulin icodec
The major advantage of insulin icodec is the convenience and simplicity of administration once weekly avoiding 6 extra injections per week compared with traditional basal insulins. In addition, if necessary, the day of administration may be changed by up to 3 days ensuring a minimum of 4 days between injections [6]. Moreover, a single dose-study showed that pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of icodec did not change significantly whether injected in the thigh, abdomen or upper arm [9]. In terms of efficacy, insulin icodec proved to be at least as effective, if not slightly more effective, as once-daily insulin glargine and degludec in patients with long duration of type 2 diabetes. However, the mean difference in HbA1c levels of 0.2 percentage points between insulin icodec and glargine or degludec is unlikely to have any major clinical significance. It also reassuring that available evidence do not suggest that insulin icodec is more immunogenic than other basal insulins as reflected by the low number of allergic and injection site reactions that were generally similar to insulin glargine and degludec [3-6].
Limitations of insulin icodec
The main limitation of insulin icodec is the increased incidence of all levels of hypoglycemia as detailed above. When expressed in absolute terms, this high risk of hypoglycemia can be substantial as illustrated by the difference in rates of combined level 2 and 3 hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes between insulin icodec and insulin degludec, 19.9 events per PYE and 10.4 events per PYE, respectively [8]. In fact, in the latter study, the absolute difference in hypoglycemic episodes between insulin icodec and degludec is sufficiently high to question the safety of use of insulin icodec in patients with type 1 diabetes. Unfortunately, insulin icodec was not studied in patients with end-stage kidney disease and those with baseline HbA1c levels > 11.0
Insulin icodec represents a new class of long-acting basal insulin analogs that can be administered once weekly. Available evidence suggest insulin icodec may have similar or slightly higher efficacy than once-daily insulin glargine or degludec. However, the use of insulin icodec is associated with increased risk of hypoglycemia. The latter may be due to its prolonged duration of action and possibly aggressive dose titration. In fact, the titration schedule of the ONWARDS trials was based on an earlier study by Lingvay et al [10]. This study showed that insulin icodec dose adjustment by ±20 units weekly to attain the fasting BG target of 80-130 mg/dl achieved the best balance between efficacy and hypoglycemia compared with 2 other more aggressive titration regimens [10]. It is possible that less aggressive titration of insulin icodec might result in less frequency of hypoglycemia, e.g. an increase of its dose by 10 units per week instead of 20 units. The combination of once-weekly icodec with once weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) in one single formulation may be an attractive treatment strategy that potentially lowers icodec doses and therefore incidence of hypoglycemia. In addition, the weight loss-inducing effect of the GLP-1 may help attenuate or even override the weight gain induced by insulin icodec. In fact, multiple phase 3 clinical trials are underway to compare the combination of insulin icodec with semaglutide (called icosema) with each component alone and with glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes [11-13]. Although data derived from the ONWARDS trials was useful in demonstrating the short-term efficacy and safety profile of insulin icodec, well-designed studies are needed to establish its long-term efficacy and safety.
Conflict of interest
The author does not have a conflict of interest to declare.
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions I testity the covering of the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, we deeply appreciate the interest shown in our work and its publication. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you. The peer review process, as well as the support provided by the editorial office, have been exceptional, and the quality of the journal is very high, which was a determining factor in our decision to publish with you.
The peer reviewers process is quick and effective, the supports from editorial office is excellent, the quality of journal is high. I would like to collabroate with Internatioanl journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews journal clinically in the future time.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude for the trust placed in our team for the publication in your journal. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you on this project. I am pleased to inform you that both the peer review process and the attention from the editorial coordination have been excellent. Your team has worked with dedication and professionalism to ensure that your publication meets the highest standards of quality. We are confident that this collaboration will result in mutual success, and we are eager to see the fruits of this shared effort.
Dear Dr. Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator 0f Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I hope this message finds you well. I want to express my utmost gratitude for your excellent work and for the dedication and speed in the publication process of my article titled "Navigating Innovation: Qualitative Insights on Using Technology for Health Education in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients." I am very satisfied with the peer review process, the support from the editorial office, and the quality of the journal. I hope we can maintain our scientific relationship in the long term.
Dear Monica Gissare, - Editorial Coordinator of Nutrition and Food Processing. ¨My testimony with you is truly professional, with a positive response regarding the follow-up of the article and its review, you took into account my qualities and the importance of the topic¨.
Dear Dr. Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator 0f Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, The review process for the article “The Handling of Anti-aggregants and Anticoagulants in the Oncologic Heart Patient Submitted to Surgery” was extremely rigorous and detailed. From the initial submission to the final acceptance, the editorial team at the “Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions” demonstrated a high level of professionalism and dedication. The reviewers provided constructive and detailed feedback, which was essential for improving the quality of our work. Communication was always clear and efficient, ensuring that all our questions were promptly addressed. The quality of the “Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions” is undeniable. It is a peer-reviewed, open-access publication dedicated exclusively to disseminating high-quality research in the field of clinical cardiology and cardiovascular interventions. The journal's impact factor is currently under evaluation, and it is indexed in reputable databases, which further reinforces its credibility and relevance in the scientific field. I highly recommend this journal to researchers looking for a reputable platform to publish their studies.
Dear Editorial Coordinator of the Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing! "I would like to thank the Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing for including and publishing my article. The peer review process was very quick, movement and precise. The Editorial Board has done an extremely conscientious job with much help, valuable comments and advices. I find the journal very valuable from a professional point of view, thank you very much for allowing me to be part of it and I would like to participate in the future!”
Dealing with The Journal of Neurology and Neurological Surgery was very smooth and comprehensive. The office staff took time to address my needs and the response from editors and the office was prompt and fair. I certainly hope to publish with this journal again.Their professionalism is apparent and more than satisfactory. Susan Weiner
