Insulin Analogs—Is There a Compelling Case to Use Them? No!
Open Access
- 10 May 2014
- journal article
- Published by American Diabetes Association in Diabetes Care
- Vol. 37 (6), 1771-1774
- https://doi.org/10.2337/dc13-2915
Abstract
The availability of insulin analogs has offered insulin replacement strategies that are proposed to more closely mimic normal human physiology. Specifically, there are a considerable number of reports demonstrating that prandial insulin analogs (lispro, aspart, glulisine) have pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles closer to normal, with resulting faster onset and offset of insulin effect when compared with regular human insulin. In addition, basal insulin analogs (glargine, detemir) have been reported to offer longer duration of action, less variability, more predictability, less hypoglycemia (especially nocturnal), and a favorable effect on weight. However, an argument against use of analog insulins as compared with use of regular or NPH insulin is one that states that the effectiveness and risk of hypoglycemia are the only two valid clinical outcomes that should be used to compare the analog and human insulins. Thus, there remains a debate in some circles that analog insulins are no more effective than human insulins, yet at a much higher financial cost. To provide an in-depth understanding of both sides of the argument, we provide a discussion of this topic as part of this two-part point-counterpoint narrative. In the counterpoint narrative presented here, Dr. Davidson provides his argument and defends his opinion that outside of a few exceptions, analog insulins provide no clinical benefit compared with human insulins but cost much more. In the preceding point narrative, Dr. Grunberger provides a defense of analog insulins and their value in clinical management and suggests that when evaluating the “cost” of therapy, a much more global assessment is needed. —William T. Cefalu Editor in Chief, Diabetes CareKeywords
This publication has 24 references indexed in Scilit:
- Insulin glargine compared to NPH among insulin-naïve, U.S. inner city, ethnic minority type 2 diabetic patientsDiabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 2011
- Analysis of glycaemic control and weight change in patients initiated with human or analog insulin in an US ambulatory care settingDiabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, 2009
- Cost-effectiveness of insulin analogues for diabetes mellitusCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2009
- The 12-Month Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Detemir and NPH Insulin in Basal-Bolus Therapy for the Treatment of Type 1 DiabetesDiabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 2004
- Variability of Insulin Absorption and Insulin ActionDiabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 2002
- Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33)The Lancet, 1998
- Reduced Frequency of Severe Hypoglycemia and Coma in Well-Controlled IDDM Patients Treated With Insulin LisproDiabetes Care, 1997
- Intensive insulin therapy with insulin lispro in patients with type 1 diabetes reduces the frequency of hypoglycemic episodesExperimental and Clinical Endocrinology & Diabetes, 1996
- Intensive insulin therapy prevents the progression of diabetic microvascular complications in Japanese patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: a randomized prospective 6-year studyDiabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 1995
- The Variability in the Action of Unmodified Insulin is More Dependent on Changes in Tissue Insulin Sensitivity than on Insulin AbsorptionDiabetic Medicine, 1988