Cited by 96Diabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

Short-acting insulin analogues vs. regular human insulin in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis

Mannucci, E., Monami, M., Marchionni, N.·2009·Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism

Abstract

Aim Short-acting insulin analogues, in comparison with regular human insulin (HRI), provide a greater control of postprandial glucose, while their superiority on haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is controversial. Method All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a duration >4 weeks comparing short-acting insulin analogues (lispro, aspart or glulisine) with HRI in type 2 diabetic patients were retrieved; data on HbA1c and postprandial glucose et end-point and incidence of severe hypoglycaemia were extracted and meta-analysed. Results A total of 13 RCTs (7, 4 and 2 with lispro, aspart and glulisine, respectively) were retrieved and included in the analysis. Short-acting analogues reduced HbA1c by 0.4% (0.1-0.6%) (p = 0.027) in comparison with HRI. A significant improvement was observed also in self-monitored 2 h postbreakfast and dinner blood glucose. The overall rate of severe hypoglycaemia was not significantly different with short-acting analogues and HRI [Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for 95% confidence interval 0.61 (0.25-1.45)]. Conclusion In type 2 diabetic patients, short-acting insulin analogues provide a better control of HbA1c and postprandial glucose than regular human insulin, without any significant reduction of the risk of severe hypoglycaemia.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1463-1326.2008.00934.x

Cites

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?

  • Meta-analyses of trials comparing rapid-acting insulin analogs with human regular insulin in type 2 diabetes have not reported meaningful differences in A1C or hypoglycemia.

    “Meta-analyses of trials comparing rapid-acting insulin analogs with human regular insulin in type 2 diabetes have not reported meaningful differences in A1C or hypoglycemia (175,176).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mannucci, E., Monami, M., & Marchionni, N.
Affiliations
Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi (IT)
Corresponding author
Mannucci, E.
Venue
Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-12-22
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
53-59
ISSN
  • 1462-8902 (ISSN-L)
  • 1463-1326
OpenAlex
W2150197163
Cited by
96
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
FWCI
3.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Florence Research (University of Florence) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
short-acting insulin analogues, regular insulin, type 2 diabetes, insulin lispro, insulin aspart, glulisine, HbA1c, postprandial blood glucose, severe hypoglycemia, glycemic control
MeSH terms
Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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