Comparison of Insulin Analogs and Human Insulins: A Narrative Review

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.

 

MissingLinkText

Keywords

diabetes mellitus - insulin analogs - human insulins

Introduction

The discovery of insulin is regarded as one of the greatest breakthroughs in the history of medicine. Before the availability of insulin, type 1 diabetes was considered a cause for limited life expectancy as patients would develop diabetic ketoacidosis and its fatal complications.[1] The earlier insulin preparations were obtained from animal sources, and it was not until 1982 when human insulin was produced by genetic engineering using recombinant DNA technology. Insulin analogs were developed by altering the chemical structure of insulin, resulting in new insulins that had actions closer to the normal physiological proprieties of insulin. The first insulin analog that became available was the rapid-acting insulin, lispro in 1996, while the first long-acting basal insulin analog, glargine became available in 2000. Other insulins analogs followed such as rapid-acting insulins, aspart and glulisine as well as basal insulins, detemir and degludec along with several forms of premixed insulin analogs such as aspart 70/30, lispro 75/25, lispro 50/50, and degludec/aspart 70/30.

The introduction of insulin analogs was accompanied by great enthusiasm, given their closer pharmacokinetic properties to normal insulin. The administration of rapid-acting insulin analogs results in a rapid increase followed by a quicker fall in insulin levels compared to regular insulin. This resulted in lower postprandial glucose levels which was suggested to translate into better overall glucose control and lower rates of hypoglycemia compared to human insulins.[2] On the other side, the action profile of basal insulin analogs had shown a longer duration of action and less variability compared to human insulins.[3] This newer class of insulin has been heavily promoted as providing more flexible schedules and a reduced risk of hypoglycemia compared to conventional human insulins. Insulin forms a significant part of the health budget of persons with diabetes. The increasing cost of insulin has steadily become a challenge, not only in low-income and middle-income countries but also in resource-rich settings.[4] The cost of insulin analogs is significantly higher than that of human insulins; therefore, the use of insulin analogs should be justified by the demonstration of better glucose control, more favorable safety profile, or cost-effectiveness.

We aimed to perform a narrative review to compare human insulins and insulin analogs, with a particular focus on the efficacy of lowering blood glucose, safety (in terms of rates of hypoglycemia and other side effects), quality of life, and cost consideration, including cost-effective analysis.

 

MissingLinkText

Methods

We performed a literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (from inception until 31 January 2023). Articles related to the comparison of insulin analogs and human insulins in patients with type 1 diabetes and those with type 2 diabetes were searched. The literature search included original articles, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, professional guidelines, and consensus statements published in English. We included articles that assessed aspects of comparison between insulin analogs and human insulins, including glucose control (as assessed by HbA1c levels, fasting blood glucose, and postprandial glucose levels), rates of hypoglycemia (included general, symptomatic, nocturnal, and severe forms), weight gain, rates of cardiovascular disease, quality of life, and cost analysis. We present a summary of the data separately depending on the type of diabetes (type 1 and type 2) along with sections on cost analysis and guidelines from professional organizations on the use of insulin analogs and human insulins.

Type 1 Diabetes

Most clinical studies have shown no difference in glucose control between basal insulin analogs (glargine and detemir) and neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, while some studies have demonstrated a reduction in rates of hypoglycemia with long-acting basal analogs compared to NPH insulin.[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] There are no published clinical studies comparing insulin degludec to NPH insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes. The most recent Cochrane review on the use of basal insulin analogs compared to NPH insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes included 26 randomized controlled trials with 8,784 patients and had shown the following findings: insulin detemir lowered the risk of severe hypoglycemia compared to NPH insulin but this finding was not consistent; there was no difference in the incidence of severe hypoglycemia when comparing insulin glargine to NPH insulin; there was no difference in the occurrence of severe nocturnal hypoglycemia, glucose control, or quality of life when comparing insulin detemir or insulin glargine to NPH insulin; there were no differences in all those outcomes between children and adults.[23] In another systematic review that included 65 randomized and nonrandomized trials with 14,200 patients and was sponsored by the Canadian Health and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, the authors found benefits of using long-acting basal insulin analogs compared to NPH insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes in terms of reduction of HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, weight gain, and the incidence of major, serious, or nocturnal hypoglycemia.[24] A more recent systematic review included 28 randomized controlled trials with 7,394 patients and had shown statistically significant improvement of glucose control with the long-acting basal insulins analog glargine but not insulin detemir compared to NPH insulin (mean reduction of HbA1c of 0.31% with insulin glargine and mean reduction of 0.25% with insulin detemir compared to NPH insulin) and lower risk of severe hypoglycemia with basal insulin analogs.[25] One advantage that was shown with insulin detemir is less weight gain (average 0.6 to 1.6 kilograms) compared to NPH insulin.[7] [8]

The benefits of rapid-acting insulin analogs over regular insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes were more obvious as most clinical studies found that the use of rapid-acting insulin analogs has resulted in mild improvements in HbA1c levels, reduction in rates of hypoglycemia and decreased postprandial glucose levels compared to regular insulin.[25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] The most recent Cochrane review on the use of rapid-acting insulin analogs compared to regular insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes included nine randomized controlled trials with 2,693 patients and had shown a slight improvement in HbA1c levels with insulin analogs (reduction by 0.15%) and no clear difference in rates of hypoglycemia.[43] A more recent systematic review that included 6,235 patients with type 1 diabetes found that rapid-acting insulin analogs were associated with lower HbA1c levels (reduction by 0.13%), lower postprandial glucose levels, and lower risk of total hypoglycemia episodes, nocturnal hypoglycemia, and severe hypoglycemia compared to regular insulin.[44]

 

MissingLinkText

Type 2 Diabetes

Some clinical studies have shown that long-acting basal insulin analogs (glargine and detemir) were associated with a reduction in rates of hypoglycemia—mainly nocturnal type—in patients with type 2 diabetes, with no difference in glucose control, when compared to NPH insulin.[45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] There are no published clinical studies that compared insulin degludec to NPH insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes. The latest published Cochrane systematic review on the use of long-acting insulin analogs compared to NPH insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes included 24 randomized controlled trials with 3,419 patients and had shown no difference in glucose control as indicated by HbA1c levels and lower rates of hypoglycemia including severe and nocturnal types with insulin glargine and detemir compared to NPH insulin.[62] A large observational study examined 25,489 patients with type 2 diabetes and found no difference in glucose control or rates of hypoglycemia leading to emergency department visits or hospital admissions when comparing long-acting basal insulin analogs to NPH insulin.[63]

For meal insulins, most studies in patients with type 2 diabetes have shown no difference in rates of hypoglycemia or glucose control but some studies have found a reduction in postprandial glucose levels with rapid-acting insulin analogs when compared to regular insulin.[29] [64] [65] [66] The latest published Cochrane review on the use of rapid-acting insulin analogs compared to regular insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes included 10 randomized controlled trials with 2,751 patients and had shown no difference in glucose control or rates of hypoglycemia.[67] Similarly, the latest published meta-analysis showed no difference in glucose control between rapid-acting insulin analogs and regular insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes.[68]

One advantage of rapid-acting insulin analogs over regular insulin is that their quicker onset of action allows their use at the start of meals or after consuming the meals, compared with regular insulin which should be injected 30 minutes before meals. This feature is important in persons for whom the expected amount of consumed food cannot be anticipated, such as children. In such conditions, rapid-acting insulin is injected immediately after meals and the dose is calculated according to the amount of consumed carbohydrates.[69] Some clinicians use the same principle in elderly people when the quantity of consumed food cannot be predicted, and therefore, rapid-acting insulin may be preferred for easier dose adjustments according to the carbohydrate content of meals. Even though this idea appears attractive, supportive evidence for such practice is limited.[70]

Premixed insulins are used only in some patients with type 2 diabetes, while it is recommended to use a regimen of basal and meal insulin for patients with type 1 diabetes.[71]

Clinical studies have shown that premixed insulin analogs are similar to premixed human insulins in reducing fasting glucose levels and HbA1c levels, with some studies showing a reduction in postprandial glucose levels with premixed insulin analogs. There was no difference in rates of hypoglycemia between premixed insulin analogs and premixed human insulins.[72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality in the United States examined the comparative effectiveness of premixed insulin analogs compared to premixed human insulins and found no difference in lowering fasting glucose, reducing HbA1c levels, rates of hypoglycemia, or weight gain and found only decreased postprandial glucose levels with premixed insulin analogs.[78] A meta-analysis has found that premixed degludec/aspart, a long-acting basal analog with rapid-acting insulin, is associated with a reduction of fasting glucose levels compared to human premixed insulin, with no difference in HbA1c levels or rates of hypoglycemia.[79]

[Table 1] includes a summary of the most recent systematic reviews comparing insulin analogs and human insulins.

Table 1 Recent systematic reviews comparing insulin analogs and human insulins

Reference	Population	Comparators	Study details	Outcomes
Melo et al. (2019)[44]	Children and adults with type 1 diabetes	Rapid-acting insulins analogs and regular insulin	22 trails Total participants: 6,235 Duration: 4 to 64 wk	- Better glucose control (HbA1c and postprandial glucose) with rapid-acting insulins - Less total, nocturnal and severe hypoglycemia with rapid-acting insulins
Hemmingsen et al. (2021)[23]	Adults with type 1 diabetes	Long-acting insulins (glargine, detemir) with NPH insulin	18 trials Total participants: 7,412 Duration: 24 to 104 wk	- No difference in glucose control (HbA1c levels) - Less severe hypoglycemia with insulin detemir (inconsistent finding) - No difference in health-related quality of life
Tricco et al. (2021)[24]	Adults with type 1 diabetes	Long-acting insulins (glargine and detemir) with NPH insulin	25 studies Total participants: 8,327 Duration: 1 to 104 wk	- Better glucose control (HbA1c levels, fasting glucose) with long acting insulins - Less major, serious and nocturnal hypoglycemia - Less weight gain with long-acting insulins
Veroniki et al. (2022)[25]	Adults with type 1 diabetes	Long-acting insulins (glargine and detemir) with NPH insulin	27 trials Total participants: 7,394 patients Duration: 4 to 104 wk	- Better glucose control with long-acting insulins - Less severe hypoglycemia with long-acting insulins
Fullerton et al. (2018)[43]	Adults with type 2 diabetes	Rapid-acting insulin analogs with regular insulin	10 trials Total participants: 2,751 Duration: 24 to 104 wk	- No difference in glucose control (HbA1c levels) - No difference in hypoglycemia
Semlitsch et al. (2020)[62]	Adults with type 2 diabetes	Long-acting insulins (glargine and detemir) with NPH insulin	24 trials: 16 trials compared insulin glargine to NPH and 8 trials compared insulin detemir to NPH insulin Total participants: 4,740 Duration: 24 wk to 5 y	- No difference in glucose control (HbA1c levels) - Less hypoglycemia with long-acting insulins - No difference in weight gain

 

MissingLinkText

Cost Considerations

For patients who use insulin, the medication forms a significant part of their health budget. The limited availability and unaffordability of insulin constitutes a big challenge in low-income countries and is a major cause for higher rates of uncontrolled glucose leading to acute and chronic complications of diabetes.[80] [81] [82] [83] As an example, in the United States, the cost of insulin was estimated at $6,000 annually per person and accounted for about 20% of the direct medical costs of diabetes in 2018.[84] The prices of insulin have increased significantly over the past two decades. In the United States and just from 2005 to 2011, the cost increase was 114% for regular insulin and NPH insulin, 116% for insulin glargine, 117% for insulin aspart, and 134% for insulin lispro.[84] For the period from 2002 and 2013, there was an increase in the cost of all insulin preparations by more than 300%, while the cost of insulin analogs was higher than human insulins by more than 200%.[85] In the United Kingdom and between 2000 and 2009, the overall spending on insulin doubled which was attributed to the major shift from human insulins to insulin analogs as the use of insulin analogs increased enormously from 12 to 85%.[86]

The high cost of insulin leading to missing or underuse of insulin is becoming an important barrier to proper patient care not only in low-income and middle-income countries but also in high-income countries. One study has shown that about 25% of patients who were prescribed insulin reported its underuse due to cost issues.[87] A survey conducted by the American Diabetes Association on the use of insulin raised concerns as it revealed that the increase in insulin costs had negatively affected patient care. Because of the high cost of insulin, patients asked their physicians to change their insulin to less expensive types or brands, had to involuntarily take less doses than advised, and, very worryingly, had to miss insulin altogether. Furthermore, a significant percentage of patients had to make the choice between purchasing insulin or paying for other vital requirements such as other health amenities, home utilities, or transportation.[88]

Since the cost of insulin analogs is considerably higher than that of human insulin, several authorities have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of insulin analogs in comparison to human insulins. It was suggested that insulin analogs are worth the high cost by enhancing patients' satisfaction and adherence to therapy, improving quality of life, and possibility of reducing rates of diabetes complications.[89] This led to the evaluation of cost-effectiveness of insulin analog therapy in comparison to human insulins. These studies were based on models that analyzed the projected advantages of insulin analogs such as flexibility, convenience, satisfaction, improvement in HbA1c levels, the expected lowering of diabetes complications, and decreased costs for hypoglycemia including visits to the emergency department and hospitalization, and decreased fear of hypoglycemia. Many of these studies were based on computer models and projected costs based on the assumed decreased incidence of long-term diabetes complications and improved quality-adjusted life expectancy. However, the mean difference in HbA1c levels between insulin analogs and human insulins was 0.01 to 0.23%,[84] a change that is likely not clinically significant.[90] This was supported by findings from a cohort study that included 127,600 patients with type 2 diabetes and found no difference in major cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, and overall mortality when insulin analogs were compared to human insulins.[91] A systematic review found that insulin analogs were cost-effective in patients with type 1 diabetes but not for those with type 2 diabetes.[92] A cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that cost-effectiveness was only shown in patients with type 1 diabetes who used rapid-acting insulin analogs and concluded that the routine use of insulin analogs, particularly long-acting basal analogs in type 2 diabetes, is unlikely to be associated with efficient use of health care resources.[93] A cohort study that included 14,635 patients with type 2 diabetes found that switching insulin analogs to human insulins resulted in a minimal increase in HbA1c levels (by 0.14%), no difference in serious hypoglycemic or hyperglycemic episodes and a significant cost savings to the health care system.[94] Despite the borderline advantage of basal insulin analogs over NPH insulin, the lack of clinical evidence of rapid-acting insulins over regular insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes and the substantial higher cost, the use of insulin analogs has been steadily increasing compared to human insulins over the last decades leading to the dominance of insulin analogs particularly in developed and high-income countries.[84] [95] [96] Heavy promotion of insulin analogs by the pharmaceutical industry is an important contributing factor.[97] The different types of insulin analogs and human insulins along with their costs are listed in [Table 2].

Table 2 Types of insulins and the cost of 1,000 units[a]

Insulin type	Insulin product	Dosage form[b] Cost
Human insulins Short-acting	Regular	10 mL vial	$3.0
Intermediate-acting	NPH	10 mL vial	$3.0
Premixed	NPH/Regular 70/30	10 mL vial	$3.0
Insulin analogs Rapid-acting	Lispro Lispro Aspart Aspart Fast-acting Aspart[c] Glulisine[c]	10 mL vial 3 mL pen 10 mL vial 3 mL pen 3 mL pen 3 mL pen	$17.9 $36.5 $15.6 $22.9 $42.5 $34.5
Long-acting	Glargine U-100 Glargine U-100 Glargine U-300 Detemir Degludec U-100	10 mL vial 3 mL pen 1.5 mL pen 3 mL pen 3 mL pen	$37.5 $31.7 $50.0 $39.8 $55.6
Premixed	Lispro 75/25 Lispro 50/50[c] Aspart 70/30 Degludec/Aspart 70/30[c]	3 mL pen 3 mL pen 3 mL pen 3 ml pen	$21.4 $38.5 $24.3 $80.9

Abbreviation: NPH, neutral protamine Hagedorn.

^a Cost at Hamad Medical Corporation pharmacy, Qatar.

^b 10 mL vial contains 1,000 units of insulin; 3 mL pen contains 300 units of insulin.

^c Items not available at the Hamad Medical Corporation; prices from outside pharmacy.

 

MissingLinkText

Professional Guidelines

Given the presumed advantages and cost difference between insulin analogs and human insulins, several professional organizations have issued recommendations on the proper selection of insulin for patients with diabetes. The American Diabetes Association recommends the use of rapid-acting insulin analogs and suggests the use of long-acting insulin analogs over NPH to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia for patients with type 1 diabetes. For patients with type 2 diabetes, the association notes that the advantages of long-acting analogs over NPH are modest and may not persist and highlights the importance of cost consideration while it emphasizes that there are no differences between rapid-acting insulin analogs and human insulin.[71]

The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health recommends that NPH insulin be considered as first-line therapy in both type 1 and 2 diabetes and acknowledges that although the evidence is limited and inconsistent, long-acting insulin analogs can be used for patients who experience significant hypoglycemia with NPH. For bolus insulin therapy, the agency recommends either regular human insulin or rapid-acting insulin analogs for patients with type 1 diabetes except adolescent patients for whom rapid-acting insulin analogs are recommended. For patients with type 2 diabetes requiring meal insulin, the agency recommends that regular human insulin be considered first and rapid-acting insulin analogs reserved for those who experience significant hypoglycemia while taking human insulin with acknowledgment that the evidence is limited and inconsistent.[98]

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom recommends the use of insulin detemir for patients with type 1 diabetes and to use insulin glargine or degludec if detemir is not tolerated, in the presence of nocturnal hypoglycemia or in case of patient's preference.[99] Rapid-acting insulin is recommended for patients with type 1 diabetes. For patients with type 2 diabetes, the institute recommends NPH insulin as the first option and to use insulin detemir or glargine if there is recurrent symptomatic hypoglycemia or for those using NPH twice daily. Regular insulin is recommended as an initial option and rapid-acting insulin is to be used in case of hypoglycemia, patient's preference, or high postprandial glucose levels.[100]

The World Health Organization issued recommendations on the use of insulin for patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes in low-resource settings that are directed to both low- and high-income countries.[101] The organization assigned a strong recommendation for the use of human insulins (regular and NPH insulins) for patients with type 1 diabetes and those with type 2 diabetes for whom insulin is prescribed and assigned a weak recommendation for the use of long-acting insulin analogs for adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who develop recurrent severe hypoglycemia while on human insulins. [Table 3] includes a summary of professional guidelines on the use of human and analog insulins in patients with type 1 diabetes as well as those with type 2 diabetes.

Table 3 Professional guidelines on the use of human and analog insulins in adults

Organization	Type 1 diabetes	Type 2 diabetes
American Diabetes Association[71]	- The use of long-acting insulin analogs is suggested to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia - The use of rapid-acting insulin analogs is recommended	- The advantages of long-acting analogs over NPH are modest and may not persist - Cost should be considered when selecting between long-acting insulin and NPH - There are no differences between rapid-acting insulin analogs and human insulin
The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health[98]	- NPH insulin to be considered as first-line therapy - Long-acting insulin analogs can be used for patients who experience significant hypoglycemia with NPH - Either regular insulin or rapid-acting insulin analogs can be used except adolescent patients for whom rapid-acting insulin analogs are recommended	- NPH insulin to be considered as first-line therapy - Long-acting insulin analogs can be used for patients who experience significant hypoglycemia with NPH - Regular insulin to be considered first and rapid-acting insulin analogues reserved for those who experienced significant hypoglycemia while taking regular insulin
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (United Kingdom)[99] [100]	- Insulin detemir is recommended - Use insulin glargine or degludec if detemir is not tolerated, in the presence of nocturnal hypoglycemia or in case of patient's preference - Rapid-acting insulin is recommended	- NPH insulin is recommended - Use insulin detemir or glargine if there is recurrent symptomatic hypoglycemia or for those using NPH twice daily - Regular insulin is recommended - Rapid-acting insulins in cases of hypoglycemia, patient's preference or high postprandial glucose levels
World Health Organization[101]	- NPH as first choice - Long-acting insulin analogs for those who developed recurrent severe hypoglycemia while on human insulins - Regular insulin as first choice	- NPH as first choice - Long-acting insulin analogs for those who developed recurrent severe hypoglycemia while on human insulins. - Regular insulin as first choice

Abbreviation: NPH, neutral protamine Hagedorn.

 

MissingLinkText

 

MissingLinkText

Conclusion

Patient's profile, including the type of diabetes, risks and occurrence of hypoglycemia, and expense of insulin therapy should be considered when clinicians decide between insulin analogs and human insulins. For patients with type 1 diabetes, rapid-acting insulin analogs are preferred over regular human insulins given the associated benefits of better glucose control, decreased risk of hypoglycemia, and cost-effectiveness. Long-acting basal insulins may be considered in patients with type 1 diabetes with attention to the cost and are recommended for patients who develop significant hypoglycemia while on NPH insulin. For patients with type 2 diabetes who require insulin, NPH insulin is still a reasonable option, particularly when cost is an important factor; long-acting basal analogs can be considered in patients who develop significant hypoglycemia-particularly nocturnal, while on NPH insulin. Rapid-acting insulin analogs offer no obvious clinical advantages over regular human insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes except convenience and considerable attention to the cost difference compared to human insulin should be contemplated before implementing their routine use. Similarly, premixed insulin analogs have not shown clear advantages over premixed human insulins and their routine use cannot be justified.

 

MissingLinkText

 

MissingLinkText

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

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.

• 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
• 2 Hirsch IB. Insulin analogues. N Engl J Med 2005; 352 (02) 174-183
• 3 Rodbard HW, Rodbard D. Biosynthetic human insulin and insulin analogs. Am J Ther 2020; 27 (01) e42-e51
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 69 Danne T. Flexibility of rapid-acting insulin analogues in children and adolescents with diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther 2007; 29 (suppl D ): S145-S152
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 80 Eledrisi MS, Beshyah SA, Malik RA. Management of diabetic ketoacidosis in special populations. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2021; 174: 108744
• 81 Grant P. Management of diabetes in resource-poor settings. Clin Med (Lond) 2013; 13 (01) 27-31
• 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
• 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
• 84 Davidson MB. Insulin analogs—is there a compelling case to use them? No!. Diabetes Care 2014; 37 (06) 1771-1774
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 88 American Diabetes Association. . Insulin affordability survey, 2018 . Accessed March 21, 2023 at: http://main.diabetes.org/dorg/PDFs/2018-insulin-affordability-survey.pdf
• 89 Grunberger G. Insulin analogs-are they worth it? Yes!. Diabetes Care 2014; 37 (06) 1767-1770
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 93 Cameron CG, Bennett HA. Cost-effectiveness of insulin analogues for diabetes mellitus. CMAJ 2009; 180 (04) 400-407
• 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
• 95 Lipska KJ. Insulin analogues for type 2 diabetes. JAMA 2019; 321 (04) 350-351
• 96 Lipska KJ, Hirsch IB, Riddle MC. Human insulin for type 2 diabetes: an effective, less-expensive option. JAMA 2017; 318 (01) 23-24
• 97 Siebenhofer-Kroitzsch A, Horvath K, Plank J. Insulin analogues: too much noise about small benefits. CMAJ 2009; 180 (04) 369-370
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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

Publication History

Article published online:
10 August 2023