Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Journal of Diabetes and Endocrine Practice 2024; 07(01): 5-14
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1771027
Review Article

Comparison of Insulin Analogs and Human Insulins: A Narrative Review

Mohsen S. Eledrisi 
1   Department of Medicine, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
2   Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Doha, Qatar
,
Mohammed Ibn-Mas'ud Danjuma
1   Department of Medicine, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
2   Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Doha, Qatar
3   College of Medicine, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar
› Author Affiliations Funding and Sponsorship None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Since insulin analogs have pharmacological properties that are similar to the normal physiological action of insulin, it has been suggested that they provide better glucose control and less rates of hypoglycemia compared to human insulins.

Methods We performed a narrative, nonsystematic review of the literature including clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and professional guidelines related to the comparison of human insulins and insulin analogs in terms of glucose control, safety profile, and cost.

Results Long-acting basal insulins result in mild improvement in glucose control and less rates of nocturnal hypoglycemic compared to neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin, mainly among patients with type 1 diabetes. Rapid-acting insulin analogs provide better glucose control and lower rates of hypoglycemia compared to regular insulin among patients with type 1 diabetes, whereas no advantage has been shown for insulin analogs among patients with type 2 diabetes for glucose control or hypoglycemia. Premixed insulin analogs provided no advantage in glucose control and inconsistent benefit in lowering the rates of hypoglycemia compared to human premixed insulins among patients with type 2 diabetes. The cost of insulin analogs is significantly higher than human insulins, and favorable cost-effectiveness has only been demonstrated for rapid-acting insulin analogs in type 1 diabetes.

Conclusion Currently available evidence supports the use of rapid-acting insulin analogs and possibly long-acting basal insulin over human insulins for patients with type 1 diabetes. For patients with type 2 diabetes, the use of long-acting insulin analogs may be recommended for selected patients who are at an increased risk of significant hypoglycemia, while no clear benefits of meal insulin analogs over human insulins have been observed.

Keywords

diabetes mellitus - insulin analogs - human insulins

Compliance with Ethical Principles

No ethical approval is required.


Authors' Contributions

M.S.E. was responsible for drafting of the article. M.E. and M.I.D. were responsible for critical revision. M.S.E. and M.I.D. were responsible for final approval.




Publication History

Article published online:
10 August 2023

© 2023. Gulf Association of Endocrinology and Diabetes (GAED). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Eledrisi MS, Elzouki AN. Management of diabetic ketoacidosis in adults: a narrative review. Saudi J Med Med Sci 2020; 8 (03) 165-173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hirsch IB. Insulin analogues. N Engl J Med 2005; 352 (02) 174-183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Rodbard HW, Rodbard D. Biosynthetic human insulin and insulin analogs. Am J Ther 2020; 27 (01) e42-e51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Beran D, Lazo-Porras M, Mba CM, Mbanya JC. A global perspective on the issue of access to insulin. Diabetologia 2021; 64 (05) 954-962
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ratner RE, Hirsch IB, Neifing JL, Garg SK, Mecca TE, Wilson CA. Less hypoglycemia with insulin glargine in intensive insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes. U.S. Study Group of Insulin Glargine in Type 1 Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000; 23 (05) 639-643
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Rosenstock J, Park G, Zimmerman J. U.S. Insulin Glargine (HOE 901) Type 1 Diabetes Investigator Group. Basal insulin glargine (HOE 901) versus NPH insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes on multiple daily insulin regimens. U.S. Insulin Glargine (HOE 901) Type 1 Diabetes Investigator Group. Diabetes Care 2000; 23 (08) 1137-1142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Standl E, Lang H, Roberts A. The 12-month efficacy and safety of insulin detemir and NPH insulin in basal-bolus therapy for the treatment of type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2004; 6 (05) 579-588
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Home P, Bartley P, Russell-Jones D. et al; Study to Evaluate the Administration of Detemir Insulin Efficacy, Safety and Suitability (STEADINESS) Study Group. Insulin detemir offers improved glycemic control compared with NPH insulin in people with type 1 diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Care 2004; 27 (05) 1081-1087
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Home PD, Rosskamp R, Forjanic-Klapproth J, Dressler A. European Insulin Glargine Study Group. A randomized multicentre trial of insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin in people with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2005; 21 (06) 545-553
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 De Leeuw I, Vague P, Selam JL. et al. Insulin detemir used in basal-bolus therapy in people with type 1 diabetes is associated with a lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia and less weight gain over 12 months in comparison to NPH insulin. Diabetes Obes Metab 2005; 7 (01) 73-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Russell-Jones D, Simpson R, Hylleberg B, Draeger E, Bolinder J. Effects of QD insulin detemir or neutral protamine Hagedorn on blood glucose control in patients with type I diabetes mellitus using a basal-bolus regimen. Clin Ther 2004; 26 (05) 724-736
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Porcellati F, Rossetti P, Pampanelli S. et al. Better long-term glycaemic control with the basal insulin glargine as compared with NPH in patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus given meal-time lispro insulin. Diabet Med 2004; 21 (11) 1213-1220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Pieber TR, Draeger E, Kristensen A, Grill V. Comparison of three multiple injection regimens for Type 1 diabetes: morning plus dinner or bedtime administration of insulin detemir vs. morning plus bedtime NPH insulin. Diabet Med 2005; 22 (07) 850-857
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Fulcher GR, Gilbert RE, Yue DK. Glargine is superior to neutral protamine Hagedorn for improving glycated haemoglobin and fasting blood glucose levels during intensive insulin therapy. Intern Med J 2005; 35 (09) 536-542
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kølendorf K, Ross GP, Pavlic-Renar I. et al. Insulin detemir lowers the risk of hypoglycaemia and provides more consistent plasma glucose levels compared with NPH insulin in Type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med 2006; 23 (07) 729-735
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Singh SR, Ahmad F, Lal A, Yu C, Bai Z, Bennett H. Efficacy and safety of insulin analogues for the management of diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis. CMAJ 2009; 180 (04) 385-397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Monami M, Marchionni N, Mannucci E. Long-acting insulin analogues vs. NPH human insulin in type 1 diabetes. A meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab 2009; 11 (04) 372-378
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Vardi M, Jacobson E, Nini A, Bitterman H. Intermediate acting versus long acting insulin for type 1 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; 2008 (03) CD006297
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Tricco AC, Ashoor HM, Antony J. et al. Safety, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of long acting versus intermediate acting insulin for patients with type 1 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ 2014; 349: g5459
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Laranjeira FO, de Andrade KRC, Figueiredo ACMG, Silva EN, Pereira MG. Long-acting insulin analogues for type 1 diabetes: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 2018; 13 (04) e0194801
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Szypowska A, Golicki D, Groele L, Pańkowska E. Long-acting insulin analogue detemir compared with NPH insulin in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pol Arch Med Wewn 2011; 121 (7-8): 237-246
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Marra LP, Araújo VE, Silva TB. et al. Clinical effectiveness and safety of analog glargine in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Ther 2016; 7 (02) 241-258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Hemmingsen B, Metzendorf MI, Richter B. (Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 3 (03) CD013498
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Tricco AC, Ashoor HM, Antony J. et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of ultra-long-acting, long-acting, intermediate-acting, and biosimilar insulins for type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med 2021; 36 (08) 2414-2426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Veroniki AA, Seitidis G, Stewart L. et al. Comparative efficacy and complications of long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin regimens for adults with type 1 diabetes: an individual patient data network meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2022; 12 (11) e058034
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Garg SK, Carmain JA, Braddy KC. et al. Pre-meal insulin analogue insulin lispro vs Humulin R insulin treatment in young subjects with type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med 1996; 13 (01) 47-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Pfützner A, Küstner E, Forst T. et al. Intensive insulin therapy with insulin lispro in patients with type 1 diabetes reduces the frequency of hypoglycemic episodes. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 1996; 104 (01) 25-30
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Jacobs MA, Keulen ET, Kanc K. et al. Metabolic efficacy of preprandial administration of Lys(B28), Pro(B29) human insulin analog in IDDM patients. A comparison with human regular insulin during a three-meal test period. Diabetes Care 1997; 20 (08) 1279-1286
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Anderson Jr JH, Brunelle RL, Koivisto VA, Trautmann ME, Vignati L, DiMarchi R. Multicenter Insulin Lispro Study Group. Improved mealtime treatment of diabetes mellitus using an insulin analogue. Clin Ther 1997; 19 (01) 62-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Vignati L, Anderson Jr JH, Iversen PW. Multicenter Insulin Lispro Study Group. Efficacy of insulin lispro in combination with NPH human insulin twice per day in patients with insulin-dependent or non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther 1997; 19 (06) 1408-1421
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Anderson Jr JH, Brunelle RL, Koivisto VA. et al; Multicenter Insulin Lispro Study Group. Reduction of postprandial hyperglycemia and frequency of hypoglycemia in IDDM patients on insulin-analog treatment. Diabetes 1997; 46 (02) 265-270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Holleman F, Schmitt H, Rottiers R, Rees A, Symanowski S, Anderson JH. The Benelux-UK Insulin Lispro Study Group. Reduced frequency of severe hypoglycemia and coma in well-controlled IDDM patients treated with insulin lispro. Diabetes Care 1997; 20 (12) 1827-1832
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Ciofetta M, Lalli C, Del Sindaco P. et al. Contribution of postprandial versus interprandial blood glucose to HbA1c in type 1 diabetes on physiologic intensive therapy with lispro insulin at mealtime. Diabetes Care 1999; 22 (05) 795-800
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Heller SR, Amiel SA, Mansell P. U.K. Lispro Study Group. Effect of the fast-acting insulin analog lispro on the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia during intensified insulin therapy. Diabetes Care 1999; 22 (10) 1607-1611
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Gale EA. The UK Trial Group. A randomized, controlled trial comparing insulin lispro with human soluble insulin in patients with Type 1 diabetes on intensified insulin therapy. Diabet Med 2000; 17 (03) 209-214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Raskin P, Guthrie RA, Leiter L, Riis A, Jovanovic L. Use of insulin aspart, a fast-acting insulin analog, as the mealtime insulin in the management of patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000; 23 (05) 583-588
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Valle D, Santoro D, Bates P, Scarpa L. Italian Multicentre Lispro Study Group. Italian multicentre study of intensive therapy with insulin lispro in 1184 patients with Type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Nutr Metab 2001; 14 (03) 126-132
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Tamás G, Marre M, Astorga R, Dedov I, Jacobsen J, Lindholm A. Insulin Aspart Study Goup. Glycaemic control in type 1 diabetic patients using optimised insulin aspart or human insulin in a randomised multinational study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2001; 54 (02) 105-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Holcombe JH, Zalani S, Arora VK, Mast CJ. Lispro in Adolescents Study Group. Comparison of insulin lispro with regular human insulin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes in adolescents. Clin Ther 2002; 24 (04) 629-638
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Recasens M, Aguilera E, Morínigo R. et al. Insulin lispro is as effective as regular insulin in optimising metabolic control and preserving beta-cell function at onset of type 1 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2003; 60 (03) 153-159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Home PD, Hallgren P, Usadel KH. et al. Pre-meal insulin aspart compared with pre-meal soluble human insulin in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2006; 71 (02) 131-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Wojciechowski P, Niemczyk-Szechowska P, Olewińska E. et al. Clinical efficacy and safety of insulin aspart compared with regular human insulin in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. [published correction appears in Pol Arch Med Wewn. 2015;125(4):308] Pol Arch Med Wewn 2015; 125 (03) 141-151
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Fullerton B, Siebenhofer A, Jeitler K. et al. Short-acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin for adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 2016 (06) CD012161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Melo KFS, Bahia LR, Pasinato B. et al. Short-acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin on postprandial glucose and hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetol Metab Syndr 2019; 11: 2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Yki-Järvinen H, Dressler A, Ziemen M. HOE 901/300s Study Group. Less nocturnal hypoglycemia and better post-dinner glucose control with bedtime insulin glargine compared with bedtime NPH insulin during insulin combination therapy in type 2 diabetes. HOE 901/3002 Study Group. Diabetes Care 2000; 23 (08) 1130-1136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Rosenstock J, Schwartz SL, Clark Jr CM, Park GD, Donley DW, Edwards MB. Basal insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: 28-week comparison of insulin glargine (HOE 901) and NPH insulin. Diabetes Care 2001; 24 (04) 631-636
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 HOE 901/2004 Study Investigators Group. Safety and efficacy of insulin glargine (HOE 901) versus NPH insulin in combination with oral treatment in Type 2 diabetic patients. Diabet Med 2003; 20 (07) 545-551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Massi Benedetti M, Humburg E, Dressler A, Ziemen M. A one-year, randomised, multicentre trial comparing insulin glargine with NPH insulin in combination with oral agents in patients with type 2 diabetes. Horm Metab Res 2003; 35 (03) 189-196
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Riddle MC, Rosenstock J, Gerich J. Insulin Glargine 4002 Study Investigators. The treat-to-target trial: randomized addition of glargine or human NPH insulin to oral therapy of type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 2003; 26 (11) 3080-3086
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Fritsche A, Schweitzer MA, Häring HU. 4001 Study Group. Glimepiride combined with morning insulin glargine, bedtime neutral protamine hagedorn insulin, or bedtime insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138 (12) 952-959
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Haak T, Tiengo A, Draeger E, Suntum M, Waldhäusl W. Lower within-subject variability of fasting blood glucose and reduced weight gain with insulin detemir compared to NPH insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 2005; 7 (01) 56-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Philis-Tsimikas A, Charpentier G, Clauson P, Ravn GM, Roberts VL, Thorsteinsson B. Comparison of once-daily insulin detemir with NPH insulin added to a regimen of oral antidiabetic drugs in poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. Clin Ther 2006; 28 (10) 1569-1581
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Eliaschewitz FG, Calvo C, Valbuena H. et al; HOE 901/4013 LA Study Group. Therapy in type 2 diabetes: insulin glargine vs. NPH insulin both in combination with glimepiride. Arch Med Res 2006; 37 (04) 495-501
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Rosenstock J, Davies M, Home PD, Larsen J, Koenen C, Schernthaner G. A randomised, 52-week, treat-to-target trial comparing insulin detemir with insulin glargine when administered as add-on to glucose-lowering drugs in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 2008; 51 (03) 408-416
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Yki-Järvinen H, Kauppinen-Mäkelin R, Tiikkainen M. et al. Insulin glargine or NPH combined with metformin in type 2 diabetes: the LANMET study. Diabetologia 2006; 49 (03) 442-451
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Wang XL, Lu JM, Pan CY. et al. Evaluation of the superiority of insulin glargine as basal insulin replacement by continuous glucose monitoring system. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2007; 76 (01) 30-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Pan CY, Sinnassamy P, Chung KD, Kim KW. LEAD Study Investigators Group. Insulin glargine versus NPH insulin therapy in Asian Type 2 diabetes patients. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2007; 76 (01) 111-118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Hsia SH. Insulin glargine compared to NPH among insulin-naïve, U.S. inner city, ethnic minority type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2011; 91 (03) 293-299
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Raslová K, Bogoev M, Raz I, Leth G, Gall MA, Hâncu N. Insulin detemir and insulin aspart: a promising basal-bolus regimen for type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2004; 66 (02) 193-201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Bazzano LA, Lee LJ, Shi L, Reynolds K, Jackson JA, Fonseca V. Safety and efficacy of glargine compared with NPH insulin for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Diabet Med 2008; 25 (08) 924-932
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Horvath K, Jeitler K, Berghold A. et al. Long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (human isophane insulin) for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; (02) CD005613
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Semlitsch T, Engler J, Siebenhofer A, Jeitler K, Berghold A, Horvath K. (Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (human isophane insulin) for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 11 (11) CD005613
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Lipska KJ, Parker MM, Moffet HH, Huang ES, Karter AJ. Association of initiation of basal insulin analogs vs neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin with hypoglycemia-related emergency department visits or hospital admissions and with glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. JAMA 2018; 320 (01) 53-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Ross SA, Zinman B, Campos RV, Strack T. Canadian Lispro Study Group. A comparative study of insulin lispro and human regular insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and secondary failure of oral hypoglycemic agents. Clin Invest Med 2001; 24 (06) 292-298
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Anderson Jr JH, Brunelle RL, Keohane P. et al; Multicenter Insulin Lispro Study Group. Mealtime treatment with insulin analog improves postprandial hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157 (11) 1249-1255
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Dailey G, Rosenstock J, Moses RG, Ways K. Insulin glulisine provides improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004; 27 (10) 2363-2368
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Fullerton B, Siebenhofer A, Jeitler K. et al. Short-acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin for adult, non-pregnant persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 12 (12) CD013228
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Nicolucci A, Ceriello A, Di Bartolo P, Corcos A, Orsini Federici M. Rapid-acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin: a meta-analysis of effects on glycemic control in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Ther 2020; 11 (03) 573-584
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Danne T. Flexibility of rapid-acting insulin analogues in children and adolescents with diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther 2007; 29 (suppl D ): S145-S152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Herz M, Sun B, Milicevic Z. et al. Comparative efficacy of preprandial or postprandial Humalog Mix75/25 versus glyburide in patients 60 to 80 years of age with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther 2002; 24 (01) 73-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 ElSayed NA, Aleppo G, Aroda VR. et al; on behalf of the American Diabetes Association. 9. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment: standards of care in diabetes-2023. Diabetes Care 2023; 46 (Suppl. 01) S140-S157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Hermansen K, Colombo M, Storgaard H, ØStergaard A, Kølendorf K, Madsbad S. Improved postprandial glycemic control with biphasic insulin aspart relative to biphasic insulin lispro and biphasic human insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2002; 25 (05) 883-888
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Yamada S, Watanabe M, Kitaoka A. et al. Switching from premixed human insulin to premixed insulin lispro: a prospective study comparing the effects on glucose control and quality of life. Intern Med 2007; 46 (18) 1513-1517
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Nabrdalik K, Kwiendacz H, Sawczyn T. et al. Efficacy, safety, and quality of treatment satisfaction of premixed human and analogue insulin regimens in a large cohort of type 2 diabetic patients: PROGENS BENEFIT observational study. Int J Endocrinol 2018; 2018: 6536178
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Margaritidis C, Karlafti E, Kotzakioulafi E. et al. Comparison of premixed human insulin 30/70 to biphasic aspart 30 in well-controlled patients with type 2 diabetes using continuous glucose monitoring. J Clin Med 2021; 10 (09) 1982
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Qayyum R, Bolen S, Maruthur N. et al. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and safety of premixed insulin analogues in type 2 diabetes. Ann Intern Med 2008; 149 (08) 549-559
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Davidson JA, Liebl A, Christiansen JS. et al. Risk for nocturnal hypoglycemia with biphasic insulin aspart 30 compared with biphasic human insulin 30 in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis. Clin Ther 2009; 31 (08) 1641-1651
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Qayyum R, Greene L. AHRQ's comparative effectiveness research on premixed insulin analogues for adults with type 2 diabetes: understanding and applying the systematic review findings. J Manag Care Pharm 2011; 17 (03) S3-S19
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Moon S, Chung HS, Kim YJ. et al. Efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart compared with a conventional premixed insulin or basal insulin: a meta-analysis. Metabolites 2021; 11 (09) 639
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Eledrisi MS, Beshyah SA, Malik RA. Management of diabetic ketoacidosis in special populations. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2021; 174: 108744
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Grant P. Management of diabetes in resource-poor settings. Clin Med (Lond) 2013; 13 (01) 27-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Cefalu WT, Dawes DE, Gavlak G. et al; Insulin Access and Affordability Working Group. Insulin access and affordability working group: conclusions and recommendations. . [published correction appears in Diabetes Care 2018;41(8):1831] Diabetes Care 2018; 41 (06) 1299-1311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Beran D, Ewen M, Laing R. Constraints and challenges in access to insulin: a global perspective. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2016; 4 (03) 275-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Davidson MB. Insulin analogs—is there a compelling case to use them? No!. Diabetes Care 2014; 37 (06) 1771-1774
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Hua X, Carvalho N, Tew M, Huang ES, Herman WH, Clarke P. Expenditures and prices of antihyperglycemic medications in the United States: 2002–2013. JAMA 2016; 315 (13) 1400-1402
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Holden SE, Poole CD, Morgan CL, Currie CJ. Evaluation of the incremental cost to the National Health Service of prescribing analogue insulin. BMJ Open 2011; 1 (02) e000258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Herkert D, Vijayakumar P, Luo J. et al. Cost-related insulin underuse among patients with diabetes. JAMA Intern Med 2019; 179 (01) 112-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 American Diabetes Association. . Insulin affordability survey, 2018 . Accessed March 21, 2023 at: http://main.diabetes.org/dorg/PDFs/2018-insulin-affordability-survey.pdf
    PubMed
  • 89 Grunberger G. Insulin analogs-are they worth it? Yes!. Diabetes Care 2014; 37 (06) 1767-1770
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Little RR, Rohlfing CL, Sacks DB. National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) Steering Committee. Status of hemoglobin A1c measurement and goals for improvement: from chaos to order for improving diabetes care. Clin Chem 2011; 57 (02) 205-214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Neugebauer R, Schroeder EB, Reynolds K. et al. Comparison of mortality and major cardiovascular events among adults with type 2 diabetes using human vs analogue insulins. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3 (01) e1918554
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Shafie AA, Ng CH, Tan YP, Chaiyakunapruk N. Systematic review of the cost effectiveness of insulin analogues in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. PharmacoEconomics 2017; 35 (02) 141-162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 93 Cameron CG, Bennett HA. Cost-effectiveness of insulin analogues for diabetes mellitus. CMAJ 2009; 180 (04) 400-407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 94 Luo J, Khan NF, Manetti T. et al. Implementation of a health plan program for switching from analogue to human insulin and glycemic control among medicare beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes. JAMA 2019; 321 (04) 374-384
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 95 Lipska KJ. Insulin analogues for type 2 diabetes. JAMA 2019; 321 (04) 350-351
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 96 Lipska KJ, Hirsch IB, Riddle MC. Human insulin for type 2 diabetes: an effective, less-expensive option. JAMA 2017; 318 (01) 23-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 97 Siebenhofer-Kroitzsch A, Horvath K, Plank J. Insulin analogues: too much noise about small benefits. CMAJ 2009; 180 (04) 369-370
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 98 Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. COMPUS Diabetes Project –Guiding the Optimal Use of Insulin Analogues. Ottawa: CADTH, 2010. Accessed March 20, 2023 at: www.cadth.ca/insulin-analogue-therapy-diabetes-management
    Google Scholar
  • 99 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Type 1 diabetes in adults: diagnosis and management. Accessed May 5, 2023 at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng17
    Google Scholar
  • 100 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Type 2 diabetes in adults: management. Accessed May 5, 2023 at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng28
    Google Scholar
  • 101 Roglic G, Norris SL. Medicines for treatment intensification in type 2 diabetes and type of insulin in type 1 and type 2 diabetes in low-resource settings: synopsis of the world health organization guidelines on second- and third-line medicines and type of insulin for the control of blood glucose levels in nonpregnant adults with diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med 2018; 169 (06) 394-397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar