Cited by 24Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes and associated disorders

Efficacy and safety of ultra‐rapid lispro versus lispro in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: The PRONTO‐Peds trial

Open access
Wadwa, R. Paul, Laffel, Lori M., Franco, Denise R., Dellva, Mary Anne, Knights, Alastair W., Pollom, Robyn K.·2023·Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ultra‐rapid lispro (URLi) versus lispro in a paediatric population with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in a Phase 3, treat‐to‐target study. Materials and Methods: After a 4‐week lead‐in to optimize basal insulin, participants were randomized to double‐blind URLi ( n = 280) or lispro ( n = 298) injected 0 to 2 minutes prior to meals (mealtime), or open‐label URLi ( n = 138) injected up to 20 minutes after start of meals (postmeal). Participants remained on pre‐study basal insulin (degludec, detemir or glargine). The primary endpoint was glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change from baseline after 26 weeks (noninferiority margin 4.4 mmol/mol [0.4%]). Results: Both mealtime and postmeal URLi demonstrated noninferiority to lispro for HbA1c: estimated treatment difference (ETD) for mealtime URLi −0.23 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval [CI] −1.84, 1.39) and postmeal URLi −0.17 mmol/mol (95% CI −2.15, 1.81). Mealtime URLi reduced 1‐hour postprandial glucose (PPG) daily mean ( P = 0.001) and premeal to 1 hour postmeal PPG excursion daily mean ( P < 0.001) versus lispro. The rate and incidence of severe, nocturnal or documented hypoglycaemia (<3.0 mmol/L [54 mg/dL]) were similar for all treatments. With mealtime URLi versus lispro, the rate of postdose hypoglycaemia (<3.0 mmol/L) was higher at ≤2 hours ( P = 0.034). The incidence of treatment‐emergent adverse events was similar for all treatments. More participants reported an injection site reaction with mealtime URLi (7.9%) versus postmeal URLi (2.9%) and lispro (2.7%). Conclusions: In children and adolescents with T1D, URLi demonstrated good glycaemic control, and noninferiority to lispro in HbA1c change for mealtime and postmeal URLi. When dosed at the beginning of meals, URLi reduced 1‐hour PPG and PPG excursions versus lispro.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/dom.14849

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • This finding aligns with those of previous clinical trials that showed faster-acting insulins improve postprandial glucose without compromising overall glycaemic management or safety.

    “This finding aligns with those of previous clinical trials that showed fasteracting insulins improve postprandial glucose without compromising overall glycaemic management or safety.80,81”

    From The future of type 1 diabetes therapy (2025) · cites this paper as [81]

    The Results (Efficacy) and Discussion report that mealtime ultra-rapid lispro improved postprandial glucose versus lispro while remaining noninferior for HbA1c in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. The Results (Safety) report similar overall rates of severe and documented hypoglycaemia, but higher early postdose hypoglycaemia and more injection-site reactions with mealtime ultra-rapid lispro. Thus, the unqualified claim that safety was not compromised overlooks reported safety differences. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 22 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wadwa, R. P., Laffel, L. M., Franco, D. R., Dellva, M. A., Knights, A. W., & Pollom, R. K.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
  • Joslin Diabetes Center (US)
  • CPCLIN/DASA Clinical Research Center São Paulo Brazil
  • Eli Lilly (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Pollom, Robyn K.
Venue
Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-09-08
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
89-97
ISSN
  • 1462-8902 (ISSN-L)
  • 1463-1326
OpenAlex
W4293013401
Cited by
24
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2
FWCI
3.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Eli Lilly and Company
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Diabetes and associated disorders
Keywords
insulin lispro, type 1 diabetes, children and adolescents, HbA1c, non-inferiority, postprandial blood glucose, hypoglycemia, basal insulin, glycemic control, treatment-emergent adverse events, injection site reactions, insulin analogues, insulin degludec
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Humans, Insulin, 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