'Human' insulin versus animal insulin in people with diabetes mellitus
- 21 July 2003
- reference entry
- Published by Wiley
- No. 3,p. CD003816
- https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd003816
Abstract
Human insulin was introduced for the routine treatment of diabetes mellitus in the early 1980s without adequate comparison of efficacy to animal insulin preparations. First reports of altered hypoglycaemia awareness after transfer to human insulin made physicians and especially patients uncertain about potential adverse effects of human insulin. To assess the effects of different insulin species by evaluating their efficacy (in particular glycaemic control) and adverse effects profile (mainly hypoglycaemia). A highly sensitive search for randomised controlled trials combined with key terms for identifying studies on human versus animal insulin was performed using the Cochrane Library (issue 2, 2002), Medline (1966 to May, 2002) and Embase (1974 to February, 2002). We also searched reference lists and databases of ongoing trials. Date of latest search: May 2002. We included randomised controlled clinical trials with diabetic patients of all ages that compared human to animal (for the most part purified porcine) insulin. Trial duration had to be at least one month in order to achieve reliable results on the main outcome parameter glycated haemoglobin. Trial selection as well as evaluation of study quality was performed by two independent reviewers. The quality of reporting of each trial was assessed according to a modification of the quality criteria as specified by Schulz and by Jadad. Altogether 2156 participants took part in the 45 randomised controlled studies that were discovered through extensive search efforts. Though many studies were of a randomised, double-blind design, most studies were of poor methodological quality. Purified porcine and semi-synthetic insulin were most often investigated. No significant differences in metabolic control or hypoglycaemic episodes between various insulin species could be elucidated. Insulin dose and insulin antibodies did not show relevant dissimilarities. A comparison of the effects of human and animal insulin as well as of the adverse reaction profile did not show clinically relevant differences. Many patient-oriented outcomes like health-related quality of life or diabetes complications and mortality were never investigated in high-quality randomised clinical trials. The story of the introduction of human might be repeated by contemporary launching campaigns to introduce pharmaceutical and technological innovations that are not backed up by sufficient proof of their advantages and safety.Keywords
This publication has 62 references indexed in Scilit:
- Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?Controlled Clinical Trials, 1996
- Changing from Porcine to Human InsulinDrugs, 1994
- Adverse Effects of Exogenous InsulinDrug Safety, 1993
- Double blind clinical and laboratory study of hypoglycaemia with human and porcine insulin in diabetic patients reporting hypoglycaemia unawareness after transferring to human insulin.BMJ, 1993
- Human InsulinDrugs, 1987
- A Comparison of Semisynthetic Human NPH Insulin and Porcine NPH Insulin in the Treatment of Insulin‐dependent Diabetes MellitusDiabetic Medicine, 1987
- Comparison of the Absorption and Biological Activity of NPH Human Insulin (Recombinant DNA) and NPH Porcine Insulin Injected Subcutaneously in Type II Diabetic PatientsHormone and Metabolic Research, 1986
- Wirkungsvergleich von protaminverzögertem NPH-Schweineinsulin und NPH-Humaninsulin bei Typ-I- und Typ-II-DiabetesDeutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 1986
- Transfer from Porcine Insulin to Human Insulin in Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus: Effects on Insulin Binding to IgG and Glycemic ControlHormone and Metabolic Research, 1986
- Langzeittherapie mit Humaninsulin: Klinische ErfahrungenDeutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 1985