Cited by 110Diabetes Management and ResearchAdvanced Drug Delivery SystemsInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery

Safety of intranasal human insulin: A review

Schmid, Vera, Kullmann, Stephanie, Gfrörer, Wieland, Hund, Verena, Hallschmid, Manfred, Lipp, Hans‐Peter, Häring, Hans‐Ulrich, Preissl, Hubert +2 more·2018·Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism

Abstract

Aims: To conduct a review in order to assess the safety of intranasal human insulin in clinical studies as well as the temporal stability of nasal insulin sprays. Material and methods: An electronic search was performed using MEDLINE. We selected original research on intranasal human insulin without further additives in humans. The studies included could be of any design as long as they used human intranasal insulin as their study product. All outcomes and adverse side effects were extracted. Results: A total of 38 studies in 1092 individuals receiving acute human intranasal insulin treatment and 18 studies in 832 individuals receiving human intranasal insulin treatment lasting between 21 days and 9.7 years were identified. No cases of symptomatic hypoglycaemia or severe adverse events (AEs) were reported. Transient local side effects in the nasal area were frequently experienced after intranasal insulin and placebo spray, while other AEs were less commonly reported. There were no reports of participants being excluded as a result of AEs. No instances of temporal stability of nasal insulin were reported in the literature. Tests on insulin that had been repacked into spray flasks showed that it had a chemical stability of up to 57 days. Conclusions: Our retrospective review of published studies on intranasal insulin did not reveal any safety concerns; however, there were insufficient data to ensure the long‐term safety of this method of chronic insulin administration. Improved insulin preparations that cause less nasal irritation would be desirable for future treatment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/dom.13279

Cites

77 of 77 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?

  • The used dose of 160 U resulted in substantial effects on brain activity, comparable to oral glucose ingestion, and has been widely used in previous trials on acute brain effects of insulin.

    “Despite the lack of data on the exact amount of insulin reaching the brain, previous trials found that the used dose of 160 U resulted in substantial effects on brain activity6,7, comparable to oral glucose ingestion, and this dose has been widely used in previous trials on acute brain effects of insulin38.”
  • Irritation of the nasal mucosa is the most commonly reported side effect of IN insulin, and the IN route for insulin delivery is safe and well-tolerated during acute and chronic use.

    “It was concluded that irritation of the nasal mucosa is the most commonly reported side effect of IN insulin and that the IN route for insulin delivery is safe and well-tolerated both during acute and chronic use.”

    From Intranasal insulin (2021) · cites this paper as [51]

  • Eighteen studies used chronic IN insulin administration with daily doses between 20 and 160 IU, or 0.5 and 1.5 U kg-1 body weight, for 21 days to 9.7 years, with 832 participants.

    “Eighteen studies used chronic administration with daily doses of between 20 and 160 IU, or 0.5 and 1.5 U kg -1 body weight, for time periods between 21 days and 9.7 years with a combined number of 832 participants.”

    From Intranasal insulin (2021) · cites this paper as [51]

  • Until 2 November 2017, 38 studies on acute IN insulin administration at doses between 10 and 160 IU and including 1092 participants did not yield adverse events or cases of hypoglycaemia.

    “Until 2 November 2017, 38 studies on acute IN insulin administration at doses between 10 and 160 IU and including 1092 participants did not yield adverse events or cases of hypoglycaemia.”

    From Intranasal insulin (2021) · cites this paper as [51]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schmid, V., Kullmann, S., Gfrörer, W., Hund, V., Hallschmid, M., Lipp, H., Häring, H., Preissl, H., Fritsche, A., & Heni, M.
Affiliations
  • German Center for Diabetes Research (DE)
  • Universitätsklinikum Tübingen (DE)
  • Helmholtz Munich (DE)
Corresponding author
Heni, Martin
Venue
Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-04-06
Volume
20
Issue
7
Pages
1563-1577
ISSN
  • 1462-8902 (ISSN-L)
  • 1463-1326
OpenAlex
W2792857395
Cited by
110
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 3
FWCI
1.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Site cant be reached (submittedVersion)
Funders
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01GI0925)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmaceutical Science › Advanced Drug Delivery Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Inhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
Keywords
intranasal insulin, human insulin, drug safety, adverse events, hypoglycemia, nasal irritation, temporal stability, chemical stability, insulin delivery, long-term safety
MeSH terms
Administration, Intranasal, Aerosols, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Drug Compounding, Drug Stability, Humans, Hyperglycemia, Hypoglycemia, Hypoglycemic Agents, Recombinant Proteins, Protein Stability, Insulin, Regular, Human

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