Cited by 96Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and Education

Insulin Glulisine Compared to Insulin Aspart and to Insulin Lispro Administered by Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial

van Bon, Arianne C., Bode, Bruce W., Sert-Langeron, Caroline, DeVries, J. Hans, Charpentier, Guillaume·2011·Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

Abstract

Background In a previous pilot study comparing insulin glulisine (GLU) with insulin aspart (ASP) administered by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), GLU-treated patients did show a trend toward fewer catheter occlusions compared with ASP-treated patients. Here we performed a randomized open-label, three-way crossover, controlled multicenter study comparing GLU with ASP and insulin lispro (LIS). Methods Subjects with type 1 diabetes were allocated to one of three treatment orders-GLU-ASP-LIS, ASP-LIS-GLU, or LIS-GLU-ASP-with each insulin used for 13 weeks. The study was designed to demonstrate the superiority of GLU over ASP and LIS on unexplained hyperglycemia and/or perceived infusion set occlusion. A prespecified P value of 0.025 was considered significant to correct for multiple testing. Results Percentages of subjects with at least one unexplained hyperglycemia and/or infusion set occlusion were not significantly different between GLU and ASP (68.4% [62.7-74.1%] vs. 62.1% [56.2-68.1%], P = 0.04) and GLU and LIS (68.4% [62.7-74.1%] vs. 61.3% [55.4-67.3%], P = 0.03). No differences were seen in hemoglobin A1c at end point, most points of the seven-point glucose curves, severe hypoglycemia, and symptomatic ketoacidosis. The overall rate of hypoglycemia with a plasma glucose level below 70 mg/dL per patient-year was significantly different between GLU and ASP (73.84 vs. 65.01, P = 0.008) and GLU and LIS (73.84 vs. 62.69, P Conclusions GLU was not superior to ASP…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/dia.2010.0224

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • A definite link between the frequency of insulin pump occlusions and elevation of A1C has not been demonstrated.

    “Insulin pump occlusions are felt by many diabetes professionals to impair blood glucose control,1 although a definite link between occlusion frequency and elevation of A1C has not been demonstrated.2,3”
  • At the end of that study, each subject had used all three analogs.

    “At the end of the study they had each used all three analogs.”
  • For the multivariate statistical analysis, P was set at the .025 level for treatment effect.

    “For the multivariate statistical analysis, P was set at the .025 level for treatment effect.2”
  • In a follow-up study comparing the occlusion rate of pumps delivering GLU against those of both ASP and LIS, 256 subjects with type 1 diabetes received three sequences of insulin analogs, each for 13 weeks for a total of 39 weeks.

    “In a follow-up study comparing the occlusion rate of pumps delivering GLU against those of both APS and LIS, 256 subjects with type 1 diabetes received three sequences of insulin analogs, each for 13 weeks for a total of 39 weeks.”
  • Percentages of subjects with at least one unexplained hyperglycemia and/or IIS occlusion were not significantly different between GLU and ASP (68.4% vs 62.1%, P = .04) and between GLU and LIS (68.4% vs 61.3%, P = .03).

    “Percentages of subjects with at least one unexplained hyperglycemia and/or IIS occlusion were not significantly different between GLU and ASP (68.4% vs 62.1%, P = .04) and between GLU and LIS (68.4% vs 61.3%, P = .03).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van Bon, A. C., Bode, B. W., Sert-Langeron, C., DeVries, J. H., & Charpentier, G.
Affiliations
  • Academic Medical Center
  • Emory University (US)
  • Sanofi (France) (FR)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Centre Hospitalier Sud Francilien (FR)
Corresponding author
DeVries, J. Hans
Venue
Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
Published
2011-06
Volume
13
Issue
6
Pages
607-614
ISSN
  • 1520-9156 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-8593
OpenAlex
W2002371885
Cited by
96
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 9
FWCI
7.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Sanofi
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 glulisine, insulin aspart, insulin lispro, insulin pump therapy, type 1 diabetes, hypoglycemia, HbA1c, insulin analogues, insulin dose, glucose curves, insulin overdose, catheter occlusion prevention
MeSH terms
Adult, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hyperglycemia, Hypoglycemia, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Insulin Infusion Systems, Male, Middle Aged, Statistics as Topic, Time Factors, Diabetic Ketoacidosis, Cross-Over Studies, Insulin Aspart, 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