A comparison of the effects of human and animal insulin as well as of the adverse reaction profile did not show clinically relevant differences. Many patient-oriented outcomes like health-related quality of life or diabetes complications and mortality were never investigated in high-quality randomised clinical trials. The story of the introduction of human insulin might be repeated by contemporary launching campaigns to introduce pharmaceutical and technological innovations that are not backed up by sufficient proof of their advantages and safety.
Comparison of human versus porcine insulin in treatment of diabetes in children.
The blood glucose control obtained when using semi-synthetic monocomponent human insulin (insulin A) was compared with that using standard monocomponent porcine insulin (insulin B) in 14 children in a double blind crossover study. At the start of the study age, duration of diabetes, insulin dose, and daily carbohydrate intake were the same in both groups. After a one month run in period of standard treatment with porcine insulin the children were randomly divided into group 1 (three months of insulin A followed by three months of insulin B) and group 2 (three months of insulin B followed by three months of insulin A). During each treatment period blood glucose control was assessed by clinical symptoms, glycosylated haemoglobin, and home blood glucose monitoring. Although a significant difference in the period after lunch during 24 hour blood glucose profiles suggested a shorter onset time and faster peak action time of human insulin, no significant difference in the overall diabetic control was seen between the two types of insulin. There was a trend towards improved blood glucose control (irrespective of insulin) as the trial progressed. No clinical reactions to human insulin occurred, and there was no significant difference in the daily insulin dose between porcine and human insulin.