These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A comparison of the rapid-acting insulin analogue glulisine with lispro and aspart for the pump treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes.
    Author: Bramlage P, Tittel SR, Müther S, Reinhart-Steininger B, Haberland H, Khodaverdi S, Zimny S, Ohlenschläger U, Lanzinger S, Haak T.
    Journal: Acta Diabetol; 2022 Nov; 59(11):1453-1460. PubMed ID: 35933650.
    Abstract:
    AIMS: (1) To describe the population of patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) using the rapid-acting insulin analogue glulisine versus lispro and aspart during continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII); (2) to describe insulin relative effectiveness based on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose (FBG) and dose; (3) to determine rates of hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). METHODS: The analysis used March 2021 data from the Diabetes-Patienten-Verlaufsdokumentation registry, which contains data of 618,903 patients with diabetes. Patients were propensity-matched by age, sex, and diabetes duration. RESULTS: Overall, 42,736 patients of any age were eligible for analysis based on insulin pump usage with either glulisine (N = 707) or lispro/aspart (N = 42,029) between 2004 and 2020. Patients receiving glulisine were older (median 20.0 vs. 16.2 years), equally often male (47.2% vs. 47.8%) and had a longer diabetes duration (median 9.4 vs. 7.4 years). After propensity score matching, 707 pairs remained (total N = 1414). Patient characteristics between groups were similar. Achieved HbA1c values were also comparable: 8.04%, 64 mmol/mol versus 7.96%, 63 mmol/mol for glulisine and lispro/aspart [LS mean difference 0.08 (95%CI - 0.08, 0.25)]. FBG was 9.37 mmol/L (168.9 mg/dL) and 9.58 mmol/L (172.6 mg/dL) in the glulisine and lispro/aspart groups [LS mean diff. - 0.21; (95%CI - 1.13, 0.72)]. Total daily insulin doses and prandial to total insulin ratios were also similar. Glulisine group patients had higher rates of lipodystrophy (0.85% vs. 0.71%) (LS mean diff. 0.18 [95% CI - 1.01, 1.38]) and non-severe DKA (3.11% vs. 0.57%; p = 0.002). Fewer patients in the glulisine group had severe hypoglycemic events (7.66 vs. 9.09; p = 0.333) and severe ketoacidosis events (0.57% vs. 1.56%; p = 0.082) but more had hypoglycemic coma events (p = 0.773), although the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin glulisine had comparable glucose control to lispro/aspart. The use of glulisine was less frequent in the present analysis compared to the previous trials.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]