A controlled study of prolonged study with semi-synthetic human insulin

Drury, R.; Keenan, P; McEvoy, Mark; Cregan, Donal F.; Drury, M. I.; Reeves, W G

doi:10.1007/bf02958704

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a few studies, human insulin has been compared with purified porcine insulin in newly diagnosed patients, in pregnant women, and in children. Few studies of human insulin have been both of sufficient duration and included an adequate follow-up period (Drury et al 1983;Home et al 1984;Paus et al 1983); thus further adequately designed trials are needed to confirm the findings reported to date. Thus, only those studies conducted under blind conditions have been discussed in this review (table III).…”

Section: Therapeutic Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In several studies, diabetic patients receIvmg conventional or highly purified bovine or porcine insulin have been entered into parallel trials in which randomly selected patients have been allocated to receive human insulin or continue with their usual insulin (Beyer et al 1982;Birtwell et al 1984;Drury et al 1983;Karam et al 1983;Paus et al 1983). However, a greater number of studies have been of crossover design, in which patients have received both human insulin and their previous insulin during consecutive periods of up to 3 months, or those receiving bovine insulin have been changed to porcine insulin at the beginning of the run-in period and then entered a crossover study of porcine and human insulin (Clark et al 1982a;Francis et al 1986;Greene et al 1983;Hol-363 man et al 1984;Larsen et al 1984;Leiper & MacCuish 1982;Pedersen & H0egholm 1987).…”

Section: Changing From Insulin Of Animal Origin To Human Insulinmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Human Insulin

Brogden¹,

Heel²

1987

Drugs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human insulin, whether produced by recombinant DNA techniques (biosynthetic, insulin crb) or enzymatic modification of porcine insulin (semisynthetic, insulin emp) is equivalent in biological activity to porcine insulin following intravenous administration. Slight differences between human and porcine insulin in hypoglycaemic activity after subcutaneous injection appear to be related to differences in absorption, and are unlikely to be of major clinical importance. Similarly, reported minor differences in counterregulator hormone response to human insulin compared with porcine insulin need further study, but they are unlikely to have important clinical implications. In clinical use the therapeutic efficacy of human insulin is similar to that of porcine insulin. The lower antigenicity with human insulin relative to purified porcine insulin is of potential therapeutic value, and it is logical to use human insulin in newly diagnosed diabetics, in patients treated intermittently with insulin, in cases of immunological insulin resistance, and in patients with allergy and local reaction against animal insulin. Thus, human insulin seems to have no disadvantages compared with purified porcine insulin and may have some advantages. While there appears to be no compelling reason to change patients whose diabetes is presently well controlled with purified porcine insulin to human insulin, the availability of human insulin at a price equal to or less than that of animal origin makes such a change logical. In the meantime, human insulin should be considered the insulin of 'first choice' for newly diagnosed diabetics requiring insulin therapy and in carbohydrate intolerance and diabetes occurring during pregnancy.

show abstract

Section: Therapeutic Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%