Cited by 69Diabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

Randomized double-blind clinical trial comparing ultra rapid lispro with lispro in a basal-bolus regimen in patients with type 2 diabetes: PRONTO-T2D

Open access
Blevins, Thomas, Zhang, Qianyi, Frias, Juan P., Jinnouchi, Hideaki, Chang, Annette M.·2020·Diabetes Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ultra rapid lispro (URLi) versus lispro in patients with type 2 diabetes on a basal-bolus insulin regimen. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a phase 3, treat-to-target, double-blind 26-week study. After an 8-week lead-in to optimize basal insulin glargine or degludec in combination with prandial lispro treatment, patients were randomized to blinded URLi (n = 336) or lispro (n = 337) injected 0–2 min prior to meals. Patients could continue metformin and/or a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor. The primary end point was change in HbA1c from baseline to 26 weeks (noninferiority margin 0.4%), with multiplicity-adjusted objectives for postprandial glucose (PPG) excursions during a standardized meal test. RESULTS: HbA1c improved for both URLi and lispro, and noninferiority was confirmed: estimated treatment difference (ETD) 0.06% (95% CI −0.05; 0.16). Mean change in HbA1c was −0.38% for URLi and −0.43% for lispro, with an end-of-treatment HbA1c of 6.92% and 6.86%, respectively. URLi was superior to lispro in controlling 1- and 2-h PPG excursions: 1-h ETD, −0.66 mmol/L (95% CI −1.01, −0.30); 2-h ETD, −0.96 mmol/L (−1.41, −0.52). Significantly lower PPG excursions were evident from 0.5 to 4.0 h postmeal with URLi treatment. There were no significant treatment differences in rates of severe or documented hypoglycemia (<3.0 mmol/L). Incidence of overall treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: URLi compared with lispro in a basal-bolus regimen was confirmed to be noninferior for HbA1c and superior to lispro for PPG control in patients with type 2 diabetes.

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 · 10.2337/dc19-2550

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • Analog premixed insulins provide better glycemic control with less hypoglycemia than traditional premixed NPH regimens.

    “Nevertheless, there are some persons for whom a simpler regimen is a reasonable compromise, and for this population, analog premixed insulins will provide better glycemic control with less hypoglycemia than the traditional, more affordable premixed NPH regimens.1080”

    From American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update. (2022) · cites this paper as [1080]

    The Conclusions (page unavailable) compare ultra rapid lispro with lispro in a basal-bolus regimen, not analog premixed insulin with premixed NPH. Searches for premixed NPH and for premixed versus human insulin found no passage addressing the claimed difference in glycemic control or hypoglycemia. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [10]Pratt E, Leohr J, Heilmann C, Johnson J, Landschulz W Treprostinil causes local vasodilation, is well tolerated, and results in faster absorption of insulin lispro (Abstract). Diabetes 2017; 66: A253

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blevins, T., Zhang, Q., Frias, J. P., Jinnouchi, H., & Chang, A. M.
Affiliations
  • Texas Diabetes & Endocrinology (US)
  • Eli Lilly (United States) (US)
  • National Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA
  • Jinnouchi Hospital, Kumamoto, Japan
Corresponding author
Chang, Annette M.
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2020-07-02
Volume
43
Issue
12
Pages
2991-2998
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W3039681635
Cited by
69
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 10
FWCI
10.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Eli Lilly and Company
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
insulin lispro, type 2 diabetes, multiple daily insulin injections, prandial insulin, HbA1c, postprandial glucose excursions, non-inferiority, hypoglycemia, insulin pharmacokinetics
MeSH terms
Insulin Glargine, Equivalence Trials as Topic, Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors, Aged, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Double-Blind Method, Drug Therapy, Combination, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hypoglycemia, Hypoglycemic Agents, Male, Metformin, Middle Aged, Treatment Outcome, Postprandial Period, Insulin, Long-Acting, Insulin Lispro, Meals

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