ReviewDiabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders2018
Efficacy and Safety of Rapid-Acting Insulin Analogs in Special Populations with Type 1 Diabetes or Gestational Diabetes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Regular human insulins versus rapid-acting insulin analogues in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- An evidence gap map of interventions for noncommunicable diseases and risk factors among children and adolescents.Nature medicine · 2024Article
- Gestational Diabetes Mellitus-Recent Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Proteomic Changes to the Updated Discovery of Engineered Insulin and Its Analogs: Pros and Cons.Current issues in molecular biology · 2022Review
- Current treatment options and challenges in patients with Type 1 diabetes: Pharmacological, technical advances and future perspectives.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2021Review
- Insulin Therapy in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: a Narrative Review.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2020 · on this mapReview
- Serum trace elements in insulin-dependent and non-insulin-dependent diabetes: a comparative study.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo assess the efficacy and safety of three available rapid-acting insulin analogs (insulins lispro, aspart and glulisine, respectively) in pregnant women, children/adolescents and people using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with type 1 diabetes.
methodsPubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Reviews were searched electronically, and their bibliographies examined to identify suitable studies for review and inclusion in a meta-analysis. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that reported data on relevant clinical outcomes. A different reviewer abstracted data for each of the three subpopulations, and one reviewer abstracted data for all three. Any differences were resolved by consensus or by consulting a fourth reviewer.
resultsIn people on CSII, rapid-acting insulin analogs lowered postprandial plasma glucose post-breakfast to a greater extent than did regular human insulin (RHI) (mean difference: - 1.63 mmol/L [95% confidence interval - 1.71; - 1.54]), with a comparable risk of hypoglycemia and a trend for lower glycated hemoglobin. In the pediatric population, glycemic control was similar with rapid-acting insulin analogs and RHI, with no safety concerns. Meta-analysis indicated severe hypoglycemic events were comparable for rapid-acting insulin analogs versus RHI (risk difference: 0.00 [95% confidence interval - 0.01; 0.01]). In the pregnancy group, insulin lispro and insulin aspart were safe and effective for both mother and fetus, with glycemic control being at least as good as with RHI. There were no data on insulin glulisine during pregnancy.
conclusionRapid-acting insulin analogs appear generally safe and effective in these special populations; however, additional trials would be helpful.
fundingNovo Nordisk A/S.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.