A randomized, open-label, comparative, crossover trial on preference, efficacy, and safety profiles of lispro insulin U-100 versus concentrated lispro insulin U-200 in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a possible contribution to greater treatment adherence
Abstract
Background Several outstanding pharmacological advances making innovative drugs sophisticateddevices available during the last few years. Nevertheless too many patients still disappointingly fail to meetthe metabolic targets suggested by current guidelines. Incorrect insulin administration techniques may greatly affect metabolic control in T2DM people. The aim of our study was to compare glycemic control associated with a concentrated insulin analog preparation (U-200 lispro) in people with T2DM to the one observed with standard U-100 lispro. The secondary endpoint of our study was patients' preference and performance ratings of U-200 lispro. Methods 126 patients with T2DM were enrolled. They were also assessed for limited joint mobility syndrome (LJMS),defined as limitation in at least two anatomical areas of the dominant upper extremity. After a 4-weekstructured insulin injection education period. Half of them were randomized to U-100 lispro, half to U-200 and after 12 weeks they were switched to the other preparation for 12 weeks. At the end a questionnaire was also administered to investigate patient preference. Results No significant variation in fasting blood glucose, HbA1c, severe or mild hypoglycemic rate and daily fast-acting insulin analog dose was observed with U-100 lispro while U-200 lispro treatment was associated with a significant improvement of all the above mentioned parameters and with around 20% decrease in insulin requirement. Moreover patients' answers t…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The U-200 formulations of insulin degludec, insulin lispro, and insulin lispro-aabc have pharmacokinetics similar to those of their U-100 counterparts.
“The U-200 formulations of insulin degludec, insulin lispro, and insulin lispro-aabc have pharmacokinetics similar to those of their U-100 counterparts (182-184).”
From 9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2025 (2025) · cites this paper as [184]
Cites
Zoungas, S., Arima, H., Gerstein, H. C., Holman, R. R., Woodward, M., Reaven, P., Hayward, R. A., Craven, T., Coleman, R. L., & Chalmers, J. (2017) · The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology · doi:10.1016/s2213-8587(17)30104-3 · Cited by 529 · see citing works
New insulin delivery recommendations
Frid, A. H., Kreugel, G., Grassi, G., Halimi, S., Hicks, D., Hirsch, L. J., Smith, M. J., Wellhoener, R., Bode, B. W., Hirsch, I. B., et al. (2016) · Mayo Clinic Proceedings · doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.06.010 · Cited by 286 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2025
American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee, ElSayed, N. A., McCoy, R. G., Aleppo, G., Bajaj, M., Balapattabi, K., Beverly, E. A., Briggs Early, K., Bruemmer, D., Echouffo-Tcheugui, J. B., et al. (2025) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc25-s009 · Cited by 728 · see citing works
Landgraf, R., Aberle, J., Birkenfeld, A. L., Gallwitz, B., Kellerer, M., Klein, H., Müller-Wieland, D., Nauck, M. A., Reuter, H.-M., & Siegel, E. (2019) · Experimental and Clinical Endocrinology & Diabetes · doi:10.1055/a-1018-9106 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Landgraf, R., Aberle, J., Birkenfeld, A. L., Gallwitz, B., Kellerer, M., Klein, H., Müller-Wieland, D., Nauck, M. A., Wiesner, T., & Siegel, E. (2022) · Experimental and Clinical Endocrinology & Diabetes · doi:10.1055/a-1624-3449 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gentile, S., Fusco, A., Colarusso, S., Piscopo, M., Improta, M. R., Corigliano, M., Martedi, E., Oliva, D., Santorelli, A., Simonetti, R., Giammarco, A., Colella, C., Miretto, L., D’Alessandro, A., Russo, V., Guarino, G., Marino, G., Corigliano, G., & Strollo, F.
- Affiliations
- University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" (IT)
- AID, Diabetes Unit, Napoli, Italy
- AID, Diabetes Unit, Benevento, Italy
- AID, Diabetes Unit, Nola, Italy
- AID, Diabetes Unit, Castellammare, Italy
- AID, Diabetes Unit, Portici, Italy
- Diabetes Canada (CA)
- AID, Diabetes Unit, Caserta, Italy
- Federico II University Hospital (IT)
- IRCCS San Raffaele Roma (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Fusco, Alessandra
- ORCID
- Venue
- Expert Opinion on Drug Safety
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-04-18
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 445-450
- ISSN
- 1474-0338 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-764X
- OpenAlex
- W2792628484
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 2.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Expert Opinion on Drug Safety (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca - Università degli Studi della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- AID Foundation
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
- Keywords
- insulin lispro, U-100 insulin, type 2 diabetes, glycemic control, insulin requirement, hypoglycemia, patient preferences, medication adherence, insulin injection technique, insulin pen devices, insulin analogues
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Injections, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Cross-Over Studies, Medication Adherence, Patient Preference, Insulin Lispro
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review