Insulina lispro
Sources réglementaires consultées
Indications approuvées
- Traitement des patients atteints de diabète sucré nécessitant une insuline pour maintenir l'homéostasie normale du glucose.
Contre-indications
Absolues
- Hypoglycémie ou hypersensibilité à l'insuline lispro ou aux excipients.
Mises en garde cliniques
- Mise en garde majeure · Ne pas administrer par voie intraveineuse. L'hypoglycémie peut être grave; les changements de type ou de marque d'insuline doivent se faire sous stricte supervision médicale. — CIMA, Ficha técnica Humalog Mix25
Effets indésirables
Communs (≥1%)
Hipoglucemia · Reacciones en el lugar de inyección · Edema
Rares mais graves
Hipoglucemia grave · Reacción alérgica sistémica
Grossesse et allaitement
Les données issues d'un grand nombre de grossesses n'indiquent pas d'effets indésirables de l'insuline lispro; maintenir le contrôle glycémique et le suivi clinique.
Bibliographie récente (PubMed)
Tirzepatide is a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Efficacy and safety of adding tirzepatide vs prandial insulin to treatment in patients with inadequate glycemic control with basal insulin have not been described. To assess the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide vs insulin lispro as an adjunctive therapy to insulin glargine. This open-label, phase 3b clinical trial was conducted at 135 sites in 15 countries (participants enrolled from October 19, 2020, to November 1, 2022) in 1428 adults with type 2 diabetes taking basal insulin. Participants were randomized (in a 1:1:1:3 ratio) to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide (5 mg [n = 243], 10 mg [n = 238], or 15 mg [n = 236]) or prandial thrice-daily insulin lispro (n = 708). Outcomes included noninferiority of tirzepatide (pooled cohort) vs insulin lispro, both in addition to insulin glargine, in HbA1c change from baseline at week 52 (noninferiority margin, 0.3%). Key secondary end points included change in body weight and percentage of participants achieving hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) target of less than 7.0%. Among 1428 randomized participants (824 [57.7%] women; mean [SD] age, 58.8 [9.7] years; mean [SD] HbA1c, 8.8% [1.0%]), 1304 (91.3%) completed the trial. At week 52, estimated mean change from baseline in HbA1c with tirzepatide (pooled cohort) was -2.1% vs -1.1% with insulin lispro, resulting in mean HbA1c levels of 6.7% vs 7.7% (estimated treatment difference, -0.98% [95% CI, -1.17% to -0.79%]; P < .001); results met noninferiority criteria and statistical superiority was achieved. Estimated mean change from baseline in body weight was -9.0 kg with tirzepatide and 3.2 kg with insulin lispro (estimated treatment difference, -12.2 kg [95% CI, -13.4 to -10.9]). The percentage of participants reaching HbA1c less than 7.0% was 68% (483 of 716) with tirzepatide and 36% (256 of 708) with insulin lispro (
The comparative effectiveness of basal insulins has been examined in several studies. However, current treatment algorithms provide a list of options with no clear differentiation between different basal insulins as the optimal choice for initiation. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, ISI, and Scopus, and a reference list of retrieved studies and reviews were performed up to November 2023. We identified phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of basal insulin regimens. The primary outcomes evaluated were HbA1c reduction, weight change, and hypoglycemic events. The revised Cochrane ROB-2 tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. A random-effects frequentist network meta-analysis was used to estimate the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals considering the critical assumptions in the networks. The certainty of the evidence and confidence in the rankings was assessed using the GRADE minimally contextualized approach. Of 20,817 retrieved studies, 44 RCTs (23,699 participants) were eligible for inclusion in our network meta-analysis. We found no significant difference among various basal insulins (including Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH), ILPS, insulin glargine, detemir, and degludec) in reducing HbA1c. Insulin glargine, 300 U/mL (IGlar-300) was significantly associated with less weight gain (mean difference ranged from 2.9 kg to 4.1 kg) compared to other basal insulins, namely thrice-weekly insulin degludec (IDeg-3TW), insulin degludec, 100 U/mL (IDeg-100), insulin degludec, 200 U/mL (IDeg-200), NPH, and insulin detemir (IDet), but with low to very low certainty regarding most comparisons. IDeg-100, IDeg-200, IDet, and IGlar-300 were associated with significantly lower odds of overall, nocturnal, and severe hypoglycemic events than NPH and insulin lispro protamine (ILPS) (moderate to high certainty evidence). NPH was as
Insulin efsitora alfa (efsitora) is a once-weekly basal insulin. This phase 3 study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of efsitora compared with insulin degludec (degludec) in adults with type 1 diabetes. This randomised, 52-week, parallel-design, open-label, treat-to-target non-inferiority study conducted at 82 global health-care centres, randomly assigned (1:1) adults (ie, those aged ≥18 years) with type 1 diabetes glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 7·0-10·0% (53·0-85·8 mmol/mol) to efsitora (n=343) or, degludec (n=349), both in combination with insulin lispro. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline to week-26 (non-inferiority margin=0·4%). The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05463744) and is completed. Between Aug 12, 2022, and May 7, 2024, of 893 participants enrolled, 692 (77%) participants were randomly assigned to once-weekly efsitora or once-daily degludec, and 623 (90%) participants completed the study. Mean HbA1c decreased from 7·88% (62·66 mmol/mol) at baseline to 7·41% (57·5 mmol/mol) at week 26 with efsitora and from 7·94% (63·3 mmol/mol) at baseline to 7·36% (56·9 mmol/mol) at week 26 with degludec. Mean HbA1c change from baseline to week 26 was -0·51% with efsitora and -0·56% with degludec (estimated treatment difference 0·052%, 95% CI -0·077 to 0·181; p=0·43), confirming a non-inferiority margin of 0·4% for efsitora compared with degludec. Rates of combined level 2 (<54 mg/dL [3·0 mmol/L]) or level 3 severe hypoglycaemia were higher with efsitora compared with degludec (14·03 vs 11·59 events per patient year of exposure; estimated rate ratio 1·21, 95% CI 1·04 to 1·41; p=0·016) during weeks 0-52, with the highest rates during weeks 0-12. Severe hypoglycaemia incidence was higher with efsitora (35 [10%] of 343) versus degludec (11 [3%] of 349) during weeks 0-52. Overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar across treatment groups. One death not related to the study treatment occurred in the de
Insulin efsitora alfa (efsitora), a once-weekly basal insulin, has the potential to reduce the treatment burden of people with type 2 diabetes who require insulin. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly efsitora compared with insulin glargine U100 in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with basal and prandial insulin. This phase 3, randomised, 26-week, parallel-design, open-label, treat-to-target, non-inferiority study was done at 78 outpatient clinics and hospitals in Argentina, Germany, India, Italy, Mexico, Spain, and the USA (including Puerto Rico). Participants with type 2 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7·0-10·0%) treated with basal and prandial insulin and up to three non-insulin glucose-lowering agents were randomly assigned (1:1) to efsitora or glargine U100, both with prandial insulin lispro. Randomisation was stratified by country, baseline HbA1c (<8% vs ≥8%; <63·9 mmol/mol vs ≥63·9 mmol/mol), and routine use of personal continuous glucose monitoring or flash glucose monitoring at randomisation (yes vs no). The primary endpoint was HbA1c change from baseline to week 26 (non-inferiority margin 0·4%). The completed trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05462756). Between Aug 11, 2022, and Feb 27, 2024, 1037 study participants were screened and 730 were randomly assigned to efsitora (n=365) or glargine U100 (n=365). 369 (51%) of 730 participants were female and 361 (49%) were male, the mean participant age was 58·9 years (SD 10·5), and the mean participant BMI was 31·85 kg/m2 (SD 5·47). Using the treatment regimen estimand, the least-squares mean baseline HbA1c was 8·18% (SE 0·04; 65·9 mmol/mol [SE 0·47]) in the efsitora group and 8·18% (0·04; 65·9 mmol/mol [0·47]) in the glargine U100 group. At week 26, the least-squares mean HbA1c was 7·17% (SD 0·05; 54·8 mmol/mol [0·51]) in the efsitora group and 7·18 (0·05; 55·0 mmol/mol [0·51]) in the glargine U100 group. The change from baseline to week 26 using the treatment regimen e