Comparison of the efficacy and safety of rapid-acting insulin analogs, lispro versus aspart, in the treatment of diabetes: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated a potential move from one rapid-acting insulin analog to another, or their biosimilars, to aid better and faster decisions for diabetes management. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed according to PRISMA reporting guidelines. The MEDLINE/EMBASE/COCHRANE databases were searched for randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing aspart/lispro in type-1 (T1D) and type-2 (T2D) diabetes. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias assessment criteria. RESULTS: Of the 753 records retrieved, the six selected efficacy/safety RCTs and the additional three hand-searched pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics RCTs showed some heterogeneity in the presentation of the continuous variables; however, collectively, the outcomes demonstrated that lispro and aspart had comparable efficacy and safety in adult patients with T1D and T2D. Both treatments yielded a similar decrease in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and had similar dosing and weight changes, with similar treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) and serious adverse event (SAE) reporting, similar hypoglycemic episodes in both T1D and T2D populations, and no clinically significant differences for hyperglycemia, occlusions or other infusion site/set complications. CONCLUSIONS: Aspart and lispro demonstrate comparative safety and efficacy in patients with T1D/T2D. Since both are deemed equally suitable for controlling prandial glycemic excursions and both have similar safety attributes, they may be used interchangeably in clinical practice. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023376793.

Women and heart disease: the role of diabetes and hyperglycemia.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the primary cause of death in women, and women with type 2 diabetes mellitus are at greater risk of CVD compared with nondiabetic women. The increment in risk attributable to diabetes is greater in women than in men. The extent to which hyperglycemia contributes to heart disease risk has been examined in observational studies and clinical trials, although most included only men or did not analyze sex differences. The probable adverse influence of hyperglycemia is potentially mediated by impaired endothelial function, and/or by other mechanisms. Beyond high blood glucose level, a number of other common risk factors for CVD, including hypertension, dyslipidemia, and cigarette smoking, are seen in women with diabetes and require special attention. Presentation and diagnosis of CVD may differ between women and men, regardless of the presence of diabetes. Recognizing the potential for atypical presentation of CVD in women and the limitations of common diagnostic tools are important in preventing unnecessary delay in initiating proper treatment. Based on what we know today, treatment of CVD should be at least as aggressive in women-and especially in those with diabetes-as it is in men. Future trials should generate specific data on CVD in women, either by design of female-only studies or by subgroup analysis by sex.