Hubbry Logo
Insulin (medication)Insulin (medication)Main
Open search
Insulin (medication)
Community hub
Insulin (medication)
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Insulin (medication)
Insulin (medication)
from Wikipedia

Insulin
Vials of insulin
Clinical data
Trade namesHumulin, Novolin, Insuman, others
AHFS/Drugs.comMonograph
MedlinePlusa682611
License data
Routes of
administration
Subcutaneous, intravenous, intramuscular, inhalation
ATC code
Legal status
Legal status
Identifiers
CAS Number
PubChem CID
DrugBank
ChemSpider
UNII
KEGG
Chemical and physical data
FormulaC257H383N65O77S6
Molar mass5807.63 g·mol−1
Density1.09 g/cm3 [4]
Melting point233 °C (451 °F) [5]

As a medication, insulin is any pharmaceutical preparation of the protein hormone insulin that is used to treat high blood glucose.[6] Such conditions include type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, gestational diabetes, and complications of diabetes such as diabetic ketoacidosis and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic states.[6] Insulin is also used along with glucose to treat hyperkalemia (high blood potassium levels).[7] Typically it is given by injection under the skin, but some forms may also be used by injection into a vein or muscle.[6] There are various types of insulin, suitable for various time spans. The types are often all called insulin in the broad sense, although in a more precise sense, insulin is identical to the naturally occurring molecule whereas insulin analogues have slightly different molecules that allow for modified time of action. It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines.[8] In 2023, it was the 157th most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than 3 million prescriptions.[9][10]

Insulin can be made from the pancreas of pigs or cows.[11] Human versions can be made either by modifying pig versions, or recombinant technology[11] using mainly E. coli or Saccharomyces cerevisiae.[12] It comes in three main types: short–acting (such as regular insulin), intermediate-acting (such as neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin), and longer-acting (such as insulin glargine).[11]

Medical uses

[edit]
The current standard insulin syringe. It's a disposable plastic one-piece syringe with an integral needle and an orange needle cap (introduced by Becton-Dickinson in 1970). It's also a low dead space syringe.
Giving insulin with an insulin pen.
Insulin pump in use.

Insulin is used to treat a number of diseases including diabetes and its acute complications such as diabetic ketoacidosis and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic states. It is also used along with glucose to treat high blood potassium levels. Use during pregnancy is relatively safe for the baby.[6] Insulin was formerly used in a psychiatric treatment called insulin shock therapy.[13]

Side effects

[edit]

Some side effects are hypoglycemia (low blood sugar), hypokalemia (low blood potassium), and allergic reactions.[6] Allergy to insulin affected about 2% of people, of which most reactions are not due to the insulin itself but to preservatives added to insulin such as zinc, protamine, and meta-cresol. Most reactions are Type I hypersensitivity reactions and rarely cause anaphylaxis. A suspected allergy to insulin can be confirmed by skin prick testing, patch testing and occasionally skin biopsy. First line therapy against insulin hypersensitivity reactions include symptomatic therapy with antihistamines. The affected persons are then switched to a preparation that does not contain the specific agent they are reacting to or undergo desensitization.[14]

Cutaneous adverse effects

Other side effects may include pain or skin changes at the sites of injection. Repeated subcutaneous injection without site rotation can lead to lipohypertrophy and amyloidomas, which manifest as firm palpable nodules under the skin.[15]

Effects of early routine use

[edit]

Early initiation of insulin therapy for the long-term management of conditions such as type 2 diabetes would suggest that the use of insulin has unique benefits, however, with insulin therapy, there is a need to gradually raise the dose and the complexity of the regimen, as well as the likelihood of developing severe hypoglycemia which is why many people and their doctors are hesitant to begin insulin therapy in the early stage of disease management.[16] Many obstacles associated with health behaviors also prevent people with type 2 diabetes mellitus from starting or intensifying their insulin treatment, including lack of motivation, lack of familiarity with or experience with treatments, and time restraints causing people to have high glycemic loads for extended periods of time prior to starting insulin therapy. This is why managing the side effects associated with long-term early routine use of insulin for type 2 diabetes mellitus can prove to be a therapeutic and behavioral challenge.[17]

Principles

[edit]
The idealised diagram shows the fluctuation of blood sugar (red) and the sugar-lowering hormone insulin (blue) in humans during the course of a day containing three meals. In addition, the effect of a sugar-rich versus a starch-rich meal is highlighted.

Insulin is an endogenous hormone, which is produced by the pancreas.[20] The insulin protein has been highly conserved across evolutionary time, and is present in both mammals and invertebrates. The insulin/insulin-like growth factor signalling pathway (IIS) has been extensively studied in species including nematode worms (e.g.C. elegans), flies (Drosophila melanogaster) and mice (Mus musculus). Its mechanisms of action are highly similar across species.[21]

Both type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes are marked by a loss of pancreatic function, though to differing degrees.[20] People who are affected with diabetes are referred to as diabetics. Many diabetics require an exogenous source of insulin to keep their blood sugar levels within a safe target range.[22][23][24]

In 1916, Nicolae C. Paulescu (1869–1931) succeeded in developing an aqueous pancreatic extract that normalized a diabetic dog. In 1921, he published 4 papers in the Society of Biology in Paris centering on the successful effects of the pancreatic extract in diabetic dogs. Research on the Role of the Pancreas in Food Assimilation by Paulescu was published in August 1921 in the Archives Internationales de Physiologie, Liège, Belgium. Initially, the only way to obtain insulin for clinical use was to extract it from the pancreas of another creature. Animal glands were obtainable as a waste product of the meatpacking industry. Insulin was derived primarily from cows (bovine) (Eli Lilly and Company) and pigs (porcine) (Nordisk Insulinlaboratorium). The making of eight ounces of purified insulin could require as much as two tons of pig parts.[25][26][27] Insulin from these sources is effective in humans as it is highly similar to human insulin (three amino acid difference in bovine insulin, one amino acid difference in porcine).[27] Initially, lower preparation purity resulted in allergic reactions to the presence of non-insulin substances. Purity has improved steadily since the 1920s ultimately reaching purity of 99% by the mid-1970s thanks to high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) methods. Minor allergic reactions still occur occasionally, even to synthetic "human" insulin varieties.[27]

Beginning in 1982, biosynthetic "human" insulin has been manufactured for clinical use through genetic engineering techniques using recombinant DNA technology. Genentech developed the technique used to produce the first such insulin, Humulin, but did not commercially market the product themselves. Eli Lilly marketed Humulin in 1982.[28] Humulin was the first medication produced using modern genetic engineering techniques in which actual human DNA is inserted into a host cell (E. coli in this case). The host cells are then allowed to grow and reproduce normally, and due to the inserted human DNA, they produce a synthetic version of human insulin. Manufacturers claim this reduces the presence of many impurities. However, the clinical preparations prepared from such insulins differ from endogenous human insulin in several important respects; an example is the absence of C-peptide which has in recent years been shown to have systemic effects itself. Novo Nordisk has also developed a genetically engineered insulin independently using a yeast process.[29][30]

According to a survey that the International Diabetes Federation conducted in 2002 on the access to and availability of insulin in its member countries, approximately 70% of the insulin that is currently sold in the world is recombinant, biosynthetic 'human' insulin.[31] A majority of insulin used clinically today is produced this way, although clinical experience has provided conflicting evidence on whether these insulins are any less likely to produce an allergic reaction. Adverse reactions have been reported; these include loss of warning signs that patients may slip into a coma through hypoglycemia, convulsions, memory lapse and loss of concentration.[32] However, the International Diabetes Federation's position statement from 2005 is very clear in stating that "there is NO overwhelming evidence to prefer one species of insulin over another" and "[modern, highly purified] animal insulins remain a perfectly acceptable alternative."[33]

Since January 2006, all insulins distributed in the US and some other countries are synthetic "human" insulins or their analogues. A special FDA importation process is required to obtain bovine or porcine derived insulin for use in the US,[34] although there may be some remaining stocks of porcine insulin made by Lilly in 2005 or earlier, and porcine lente insulin is also sold and marketed under the brand name Vetsulin(SM) in the US for veterinary usage in the treatment of companion animals with diabetes.[35]

Basal insulin

[edit]

In type 1 diabetes, endogenous insulin production is extremely low or absent, and as such the body requires exogenous insulin. Some people with type 2 diabetes, particularly those with very high hemoglobin A1c values, may also require a baseline rate of exogenous insulin, as their body is desensitized to the level of insulin being produced by their body. Basal insulin regulates the body's blood glucose between mealtimes, as well as overnight. This basal rate of insulin action is generally achieved via the use of an intermediate-acting insulin (such as NPH) or a long-acting insulin analog. In type 1 diabetics, it may also be achieved via continuous infusion of rapid-acting insulin using an insulin pump. Approximately half of a person's daily insulin requirement is administered as a basal insulin, usually administered once per day at night.[36]

Prandial insulin

[edit]

When a person eats food containing carbohydrates and glucose, insulin helps regulate the body's metabolism of the food. Prandial insulin, also called mealtime or bolus insulin, is designed as a bolus dose of insulin prior to a meal to regulate the spike in blood glucose that occurs following a meal. The dose of prandial insulin may be static, or may be calculated by the patient using either their current blood sugar, planned carbohydrate intake, or both. This calculation may also be performed by an insulin pump in patients using a pump. Insulin regiments that consist of doses calculated in this manner are considered intensive insulin regimens.[37] Prandial insulin is usually administered no more than 15–30 minutes prior to a meal using a rapid-acting insulin or a regular insulin. In some patients, a combination insulin may be used that contains both NPH (long acting) insulin and a rapid/regular insulin to provide both a basal insulin and prandial insulin.[36]

Challenges in treatment

[edit]

There are several challenges involved in the use of insulin as a clinical treatment for diabetes:[38]

  • Mode of administration.
  • Selecting the 'right' dose and timing. The amount of carbohydrates one unit of insulin handles varies widely between persons and over the day but values between 7 and 20 grams per 1 IE is typical.
  • Selecting an appropriate insulin preparation (typically on 'speed of onset and duration of action' grounds).
  • Adjusting dosage and timing to fit food intake timing, amounts, and types.
  • Adjusting dosage and timing to fit exercise undertaken.
  • Adjusting dosage, type, and timing to fit other conditions, for instance the increased stress of illness.
  • Variability in absorption into the bloodstream via subcutaneous delivery
  • The dosage is non-physiological in that a subcutaneous bolus dose of insulin alone is administered instead of combination of insulin and C-peptide being released gradually and directly into the portal vein.
  • It is simply a nuisance for people to inject whenever they eat carbohydrate or have a high blood glucose reading.
  • It is dangerous in case of mistake (such as 'too much' insulin).

Types

[edit]

Medical preparations of insulin mix the peptide hormone with preservatives that adjust the pH and delay denaturation and absorption.[39] Insulin analogues retain the hormone's function while providing improved absorption and biochemical activity. characteristics not currently possible with subcutaneously injected insulin proper. Insulin lispro, insulin aspart, and insulin glulisine are analogues that are rapidly absorbed to mimic real beta cell-produced insulin, while insulin detemir and insulin glargine are steadily absorbed to avoid a rapid decline in insulin action. However, meta-analyses conducted by Cochrane in 2005,[40] Germany's Institute for Quality and Cost Effectiveness in the Health Care Sector [IQWiG] in 2007,[41] and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH) also in 2007[42] have consistently shown that insulin analogues provide no clinical advantage over conventional insulin.[41][42] However, insulin analogues are more temperature-resisitant than human insulin, so they are preferred for clinical use in regions with limited refrigeration and extreme heat.[43]

Commonly used types of insulin are differentiated by the speed of their biochemical activity.[20] Fast/rapid-acting insulin includes insulin analogues aspart, lispro, and glulisine. These begin to work within 5 to 15 minutes and are active for 3 to 4 hours. Most insulins form hexamers, which delay entry into the blood in active form; these analog insulins do not but have normal insulin activity. Newer varieties are now pending regulatory approval in the US which are designed to work rapidly, but retain the same genetic structure as regular human insulin.[44][45] Short-acting insulin includes regular insulin, which begins working within 30 minutes and is active about 5 to 8 hours.[46] Intermediate-acting insulin includes NPH insulin, which begins working in 1 to 3 hours and is active for 16 to 24 hours.[47]

Long-acting insulin includes the analogues glargine U100 and detemir, each of which begins working within 1 to 2 hours and continues to be active, without major peaks or dips, for about 24 hours, although this varies in many individuals.[48][49] Ultra-long acting insulin includes the analogues insulin glargine U300 and degludec, which begin working within 30 to 90 minutes and continues to be active for greater than 24 hours.[19] Newer long-acting insulins, like insulin icodec and insulin efsitora alfa, are designed for once-weekly use. Studies show they provide similar blood sugar control to daily insulins, with a comparable risk of hypoglycemia, while offering a simpler dosing routine.[50] Combination insulin products combine fast- and short-acting insulin with a longer-acting insulin like NPH insulin. The combination products begin to work with the shorter-acting insulin (5–15 minutes for fast-acting, and 30 minutes for short-acting), and remain active for 16–24 hours. There are several variations with different proportions of the mixed insulins (e.g., Novolog Mix 70/30 contains 70% aspart protamine [akin to NPH], and 30% aspart).[51]

Methods of administration

[edit]
Insulin delivery devices

Unlike many medicines, insulin cannot be taken orally at the present time. Like nearly all other proteins introduced into the gastrointestinal tract, it is reduced to fragments (single amino acid components), whereupon all activity is lost. There has been some research into ways to protect insulin from the digestive tract, so that it can be administered in a pill. So far this is entirely experimental.[52]

Subcutaneous

[edit]

Insulin is usually taken as subcutaneous injections by single-use syringes with needles, an insulin pump, or by repeated-use insulin pens with needles. People who wish to reduce repeated skin puncture of insulin injections often use an injection port in conjunction with syringes.[53]

The use of subcutaneous injections of insulin is designed to mimic the natural physiological cycle of insulin secretion, while taking into account the various properties of the formulations used such as half-life, onset of action, and duration of action. In many people, both a rapid- or short-acting insulin product as well as an intermediate- or long-acting product are used to decrease the amount of injections per day. In some, insulin injections may be combined with other injection therapy such as GLP-1 receptor agonists. Cleansing of the injection site and injection technique are required to ensure effective insulin therapy.[36]

Insulin pump

[edit]

Insulin pumps are a reasonable solution for some. Advantages to the person are better control over background or basal insulin dosage, bolus doses calculated to fractions of a unit, and calculators in the pump that may help with determining bolus infusion dosages. The limitations are cost, the potential for hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic episodes, catheter problems, and no "closed loop" means of controlling insulin delivery based on current blood glucose levels.[citation needed]

Insulin pumps may be like 'electrical injectors' attached to a temporarily implanted catheter or cannula. Some who cannot achieve adequate glucose control by conventional (or jet) injection are able to do so with the appropriate pump.[54]

Indwelling catheters pose the risk of infection and ulceration, and some peoples may also develop lipodystrophy due to the infusion sets. These risks can often be minimized by keeping infusion sites clean. Insulin pumps require care and effort to use correctly.[54]

Dosage and timing

[edit]

Dosage units

[edit]

One international unit of insulin (1 IU) is defined as the "biological equivalent" of 34.7 μg pure crystalline insulin.[citation needed]

The first definition of a unit of insulin was the amount required to induce hypoglycemia in a rabbit. This was set by James Collip at the University of Toronto in 1922. Of course, this was dependent on the size and diet of the rabbits. The unit of insulin was set by the insulin committee at the University of Toronto.[55] The unit evolved eventually to the old USP insulin unit, where one unit (U) of insulin was set equal to the amount of insulin required to reduce the concentration of blood glucose in a fasting rabbit to 45 m g/d L (2.5 m mol/L). Once the chemical structure and mass of insulin was known, the unit of insulin was defined by the mass of pure crystalline insulin required to obtain the USP unit.[citation needed]

The unit of measurement used in insulin therapy is not part of the International System of Units (abbreviated SI) which is the modern form of the metric system. Instead the pharmacological international unit (IU) is defined by the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization.[56]

Potential complications

[edit]
Diagram explaining the basal-bolus insulin schedule. The long acting insulin is given once (usually glargine, Lantus) or twice (usually detemir, Levemir) daily to provide a base, or basal insulin level. Rapid acting (RA) insulin is given before meals and snacks. A similar profile can be provided using an insulin pump where rapid acting insulin is given as the basal and premeal bolus insulin.

The central problem for those requiring external insulin is picking the right dose of insulin and the right timing.

Physiological regulation of blood glucose, as in the non-diabetic, would be best. Increased blood glucose levels after a meal is a stimulus for prompt release of insulin from the pancreas. The increased insulin level causes glucose absorption and storage in cells, reduces glycogen to glucose conversion, reducing blood glucose levels, and so reducing insulin release. The result is that the blood glucose level rises somewhat after eating, and within an hour or so, returns to the normal 'fasting' level. Even the best diabetic treatment with synthetic human insulin or even insulin analogs, however administered, falls far short of normal glucose control in the non-diabetic.[57]

Complicating matters is that the composition of the food eaten (see glycemic index) affects intestinal absorption rates. Glucose from some foods is absorbed more (or less) rapidly than the same amount of glucose in other foods. In addition, fats and proteins cause delays in absorption of glucose from carbohydrates eaten at the same time. As well, exercise reduces the need for insulin even when all other factors remain the same, since working muscle has some ability to take up glucose without the help of insulin.[58]

Because of the complex and interacting factors, it is, in principle, impossible to know for certain how much insulin (and which type) is needed to 'cover' a particular meal to achieve a reasonable blood glucose level within an hour or two after eating. Non-diabetics' beta cells routinely and automatically manage this by continual glucose level monitoring and insulin release. All such decisions by a diabetic must be based on experience and training (i.e., at the direction of a physician, PA, or in some places a specialist diabetic educator) and, further, specifically based on the individual experience of the person. But it is not straightforward and should never be done by habit or routine. With some care however, it can be done reasonably well in clinical practice. For example, some people with diabetes require more insulin after drinking skim milk than they do after taking an equivalent amount of fat, protein, carbohydrate, and fluid in some other form. Their particular reaction to skimmed milk is different from other people with diabetes, but the same amount of whole milk is likely to cause a still different reaction even in that person. Whole milk contains considerable fat while skimmed milk has much less. It is a continual balancing act for all people with diabetes, especially for those taking insulin.[citation needed]

People with insulin-dependent diabetes typically require some base level of insulin (basal insulin), as well as short-acting insulin to cover meals (bolus also known as mealtime or prandial insulin). Maintaining the basal rate and the bolus rate is a continuous balancing act that people with insulin-dependent diabetes must manage each day. This is normally achieved through regular blood tests, although continuous blood sugar testing equipment (Continuous Glucose Monitors or CGMs) are now becoming available which could help to refine this balancing act once widespread usage becomes common.[citation needed]

Strategies

[edit]

A long-acting insulin is used to approximate the basal secretion of insulin by the pancreas, which varies in the course of the day.[59] NPH/isophane, lente, ultralente, glargine, and detemir may be used for this purpose. The advantage of NPH is its low cost, the fact that you can mix it with short-acting forms of insulin, thereby minimizing the number of injections that must be administered, and that the activity of NPH will peak 4–6 hours after administration, allowing a bedtime dose to balance the tendency of glucose to rise with the dawn, along with a smaller morning dose to balance the lower afternoon basal need and possibly an afternoon dose to cover evening need. A disadvantage of bedtime NPH is that if not taken late enough (near midnight) to place its peak shortly before dawn, it has the potential of causing hypoglycemia. One theoretical advantage of glargine and detemir is that they only need to be administered once a day, although in practice many people find that neither lasts a full 24 hours. They can be administered at any time during the day as well, provided that they are given at the same time every day. Another advantage of long-acting insulins is that the basal component of an insulin regimen (providing a minimum level of insulin throughout the day) can be decoupled from the prandial or bolus component (providing mealtime coverage via ultra-short-acting insulins), while regimens using NPH and regular insulin have the disadvantage that any dose adjustment affects both basal and prandial coverage. Glargine and detemir are significantly more expensive than NPH, lente and ultralente, and they cannot be mixed with other forms of insulin.[citation needed]

A short-acting insulin is used to simulate the endogenous insulin surge produced in anticipation of eating. Regular insulin, lispro, aspart and glulisine can be used for this purpose. Regular insulin should be given with about a 30-minute lead-time prior to the meal to be maximally effective and to minimize the possibility of hypoglycemia. Lispro, aspart and glulisine are approved for dosage with the first bite of the meal, and may even be effective if given after completing the meal. The short-acting insulin is also used to correct hyperglycemia.[60]

Sliding scales

[edit]

First described in 1934,[61] what physicians typically refer to as sliding-scale insulin (SSI) is fast- or rapid-acting insulin only, given subcutaneously, typically at meal times and sometimes bedtime,[62] but only when blood glucose is above a threshold (e.g. 10 mmol/L, 180 mg/dL).[63] The so-called "sliding-scale" method is widely taught, although it has been heavily criticized.[64][65][66][67] Sliding scale insulin (SSI) is not an effective way of managing long-term diabetes in individuals residing in nursing homes.[62][68] Sliding scale insulin leads to greater discomfort and increased nursing time.[68]

Sample regimen using insulin NPH and regular insulin
before breakfast before lunch before dinner at bedtime
NPH dose 12 units 6 units
regular insulin dose if fingerstick
glucose is (mg/dL) [mmol/L]:
70–100       [3.9–5.5] 4 units 4 units
101–150     [5.6–8.3] 5 units 5 units
151–200     [8.4–11.1] 6 units 6 units
201–250     [11.2–13.9] 7 units 7 units
251–300     [14.0–16.7] 8 units 1 unit 8 units 1 unit
>300         [>16.7] 9 units 2 units 9 units 2 units

Sample regimen using insulin glargine and insulin lispro:

  • Insulin glargine: 20 units at bedtime
Insulin lispro to be given as follows:
if fingerstick glucose
is (mg/dL) [mmol/L]:
before breakfast before lunch before dinner at bedtime
70–100       [3.9–5.5] 5 units 5 units 5 units
101–150     [5.6–8.3] 6 units 6 units 6 units
151–200     [8.4–11.1] 7 units 7 units 7 units
201–250     [11.2–13.9] 8 units 8 units 8 units 1 unit
251–300     [14.0–16.7] 9 units 9 units 9 units 2 units
>300         [>16.7] 10 units 10 units 10 units 3 units

Use in pregnancy

[edit]

During pregnancy, spontaneous hyperglycemia can develop and lead to gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), a frequent pregnancy complication . With a prevalence of 6-20% among pregnant women globally, gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is defined as any degree of glucose intolerance developing or initially recognized during pregnancy.[69] Neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin has been the cornerstone of insulin therapy during pregnancy, administered two to four times per day. Women with GDM and pregnant women with type I diabetes mellitus who frequently check their blood glucose levels and utilize glucose monitoring equipment for doing so, use continuous insulin infusion of a rapid-acting insulin analogue, such as lispro and aspart. However, a number of considerations go into choosing a regimen for administering insulin to patients. When managing GDM in pregnant women, these guidelines are crucial and can vary depending on certain physiological and interestingly the sociocultural environment as well. The current perinatal guidelines recommend a low daily dose of insulin and take into account the woman's physiological features and the frequency of self-monitoring. The importance of using specialized insulin therapy planning based on parameters like those stated above rather than a broad approach is emphasized.[70]

Women with pre-existing diabetes have the highest levels of insulin sensitivity early in pregnancy. Close glucose monitoring is required to prevent hypoglycemia, which can potentially result in altered consciousness, seizures, and maternal damage.[71] Low birth weight newborns might also be the result of hypoglycemia, especially in patients with type 1 diabetes, because they are frequently more insulin sensitive than persons with type 2 diabetes and more likely to be unaware of their hypoglycemic state. Close glucose monitoring is essential because after 16 weeks of pregnancy, women with preexisting diabetes become more insulin resistant and their insulin demands may fluctuate weekly. The need for insulin may rise from one pregnancy to the next. Therefore, it is realistic to expect higher needs for glucose control with subsequent pregnancies in multiparous women.[71]

As a performance-enhancing drug

[edit]

The possibility of using insulin in an attempt to improve athletic performance was suggested as early as the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano, Japan, as reported by Peter Sönksen in the July 2001 issue of Journal of Endocrinology. The question of whether non-diabetic athletes could legally use insulin was raised by a Russian medical officer.[72][73] Whether insulin would actually improve athletic performance is unclear, but concerns about its use led the International Olympic Committee to ban use of the hormone by non-diabetic athletes in 1998.[74]

The book Game of Shadows (2001), by reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, included allegations that baseball player Barry Bonds used insulin (as well as other drugs) in the apparent belief that it would increase the effectiveness of the growth hormone he was alleged to be taking.[75] Bonds eventually testified in front of a federal grand jury as part of a government investigation of BALCO.[76]

Bodybuilders in particular are claimed to be using exogenous insulin and other drugs in the belief that they will increase muscle mass. Bodybuilders have been described as injecting up to 10 IU of regular synthetic insulin before eating sugary meals.[74] A 2008 report suggested that insulin is sometimes used in combination with anabolic steroids and growth hormone (GH), and that "Athletes are exposing themselves to potential harm by self‐administering large doses of GH, IGF‐I and insulin".[77][78] Insulin abuse has been mentioned as a possible factor in the deaths of bodybuilders Ghent Wakefield and Rich Piana.[79]

Insulin effects on strength and exercise performance

[edit]

Exogenous insulin significantly boosts the rate of glucose metabolism in training athletes along with a substantial increase in the peak V̇O2.[80] Insulin is thought to enhance performance by increasing protein synthesis, reducing protein catabolism, and facilitating the transfer of certain amino acids in human skeletal muscle. Insulin-treated athletes are perceived to have lean body mass because physiological hyperinsulinemia in human skeletal muscle improves the activity of amino acid transport, which in turn promotes protein synthesis.[80] Insulin stimulates the transport of amino acids into cells and also controls glucose metabolism. It decreases lipolysis and increases lipogenesis which is why bodybuilders and athletes use rhGH in conjunction with it as to offset this negative effect while maximizing protein synthesis. The athletes extrapolated the physiology of the diabetic patient in the sporting arena because they are interested in the suppression of proteolysis. Insulin administration is found to be protein anabolic in the insulin-resistant state of chronic renal failure.[81] It inhibits proteolysis and when administered along with amino acids, it enhances net protein synthesis. Exogenous insulin injection creates an in-vivo hyperinsulinemic clamp, boosting muscle glycogen before and during the recovery phases of intense exercise. Power, strength, and stamina are all expected to increase as a result, and it might also speed up the healing process after intense physical activity. Second, insulin is expected to increase muscle mass by preventing the breakdown of muscle protein when consumed along with a high carb-protein diet. Although a limited number of studies do suggest that insulin medication can be abused as a pharmacological treatment to boost strength and performance in young, healthy people or athletes, a recent assessment of the research argues that this is only applicable to a small group of "drug-naïve" individuals.[80]

Abuse

[edit]

The abuse of exogenous insulin carries with it an attendant risk of hypoglycemic coma and death when the amount used is in excess of that required to handle ingested carbohydrate. Acute risks include brain damage, paralysis, and death. Symptoms may include dizziness, weakness, trembling, palpitations, seizures, confusion, headache, drowsiness, coma, diaphoresis and nausea. All persons with overdoses should be referred for medical assessment and treatment, which may last for hours or days.[82]

Data from the US National Poison Data System (2013) indicates that 89.3% of insulin cases reported to poison centers are unintentional, as a result of therapeutic error. Another 10% of cases are intentional, and may reflect attempted suicide, abuse, criminal intent, secondary gain or other unknown reasons.[82] Hypoglycemia that has been induced by exogenous insulin can be chemically detected by examining the ratio of insulin to C-peptide in peripheral circulation.[83] It has been suggested that this type of approach could be used to detect exogenous insulin abuse by athletes.[84]

Detection in biological fluids

[edit]

Insulin is often measured in serum, plasma or blood in order to monitor therapy in people who are diabetic, confirm a diagnosis of poisoning in hospitalized persons or assist in a medicolegal investigation of suspicious death. Interpretation of the resulting insulin concentrations is complex, given the numerous types of insulin available, various routes of administration, the presence of anti-insulin antibodies in insulin-dependent diabetics and the ex vivo instability of the drug. Other potential confounding factors include the wide-ranging cross-reactivity of commercial insulin immunoassays for the biosynthetic insulin analogs, the use of high-dose intravenous insulin as an antidote to antihypertensive drug over dosage and postmortem redistribution of insulin within the body. The use of a chromatographic technique for insulin assay may be preferable to immunoassay in some circumstances, to avoid the issue of cross-reactivity affecting the quantitative result and also to assist identifying the specific type of insulin in the specimen.[85]

Combination with other antidiabetic drugs

[edit]

A combination therapy of insulin and other antidiabetic drugs appears to be most beneficial in people who are diabetic, who still have residual insulin secretory capacity.[86] A combination of insulin therapy and sulfonylurea is more effective than insulin alone in treating people with type 2 diabetes after secondary failure to oral drugs, leading to better glucose profiles and/or decreased insulin needs.[86]

History

[edit]

Insulin was first used as a medication in Canada by Charles Best and Frederick Banting in 1922.[87][88]

This is a chronology of key milestones in the history of the medical use of insulin. For more details on the discovery, extraction, purification, clinical use, and synthesis of insulin, see Insulin

  • 1921 Research on the role of pancreas in the nutritive assimilation[89]
  • 1922 Frederick Banting, Charles Best and James Collip use bovine insulin extract in humans at Connaught Laboratories in Toronto, Canada.[87]
  • 1922 Leonard Thompson becomes the first human to be treated with insulin.
  • 1922 James D. Havens, son of former congressman James S. Havens, becomes the first American to be treated with insulin.[90][91]
  • 1922 Elizabeth Hughes Gossett, daughter of the US Secretary of State, becomes the first American to be (officially) treated in Toronto.[92][93]
  • 1923 Eli Lilly produces commercial quantities of much purer bovine insulin than Banting et al. had used
  • 1923 Farbwerke Hoechst, one of the forerunners of today's Sanofi Aventis, produces commercial quantities of bovine insulin in Germany
  • 1923 Hans Christian Hagedorn founds the Nordisk Insulinlaboratorium in Denmark – forerunner of today's Novo Nordisk
  • 1923 Constance Collier returns to health after being successfully treated with insulin in Strasbourg[94]
  • 1926 Nordisk receives a Danish charter to produce insulin as a non-profit
  • 1936 Canadians David M. Scott and Albert M. Fisher formulate a zinc insulin mixture at Connaught Laboratories in Toronto and license it to Novo
  • 1936 Hagedorn discovers that adding protamine to insulin prolongs the duration of action of insulin
  • 1946 Nordisk formulates Isophane porcine insulin aka Neutral Protamine Hagedorn or NPH insulin
  • 1946 Nordisk crystallizes a protamine and insulin mixture
  • 1950 Nordisk markets NPH insulin
  • 1953 Novo formulates Lente porcine and bovine insulins by adding zinc for longer lasting insulin
  • 1955 Frederick Sanger determines the amino acid sequence of insulin
  • 1965 Synthesized by total synthesis by Wang Yinglai, Chen-Lu Tsou, et al.
  • 1969 Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin characterizes and describes the crystal structure of insulin by X-ray crystallography
  • 1973 Purified monocomponent (MC) insulin is introduced
  • 1973 The US officially "standardized" insulin sold for human use in the US to U-100 (100 units per milliliter). Prior to that, insulin was sold in different strengths, including U-80 (80 units per milliliter) and U-40 formulations (40 units per milliliter), so the effort to "standardize" the potency aimed to reduce dosage errors and ease doctors' job of prescribing insulin for people. Other countries also followed suit.
  • 1978 Genentech produces biosynthetic human insulin in Escherichia coli bacteria using recombinant DNA techniques, licenses to Eli Lilly
  • 1981 Novo Nordisk chemically and enzymatically converts porcine to human insulin
  • 1982 Genentech synthetic human insulin (above) approved
  • 1983 Eli Lilly and Company produces biosynthetic human insulin with recombinant DNA technology, Humulin
  • 1985 Axel Ullrich sequences a human cell membrane insulin receptor.
  • 1988 Novo Nordisk produces recombinant biosynthetic human insulin
  • 1996 Lilly Humalog "lispro" insulin analogue approved.
  • 2000 Sanofi Aventis Lantus insulin "glargine" analogue approved for clinical use in the US and the EU.
  • 2004 Sanofi Aventis Apidra insulin "glulisine" insulin analogue approved for clinical use in the US.
  • 2006 Novo Nordisk Levemir "detemir" insulin analogue approved for clinical use in the US.
  • 2008 Abott laboratories " FreeStyle Navigator CGM" gets approved.[95]
  • 2013 The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requested more cardiac safety tests for Insulin degludec.
  • 2015 Insulin degludec was approved by the FDA in September 2015.

Society and culture

[edit]

Economics

[edit]

United States

[edit]

The price of insulin in the United States dramatically increased from 1991 to 2019, prompting state governments to sue pharmaceutical companies over alleged price fixing.[96][97] In 2019, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce questioned how the annual cost of insulin for treating Type 1 diabetes rose to $5,705 by 2019 ($7,016 in 2024), which was up to six times higher than prices in other countries.[98][99] In 2020, President Donald Trump established the Part D Senior Savings Model for some Medicare Part D plans to offer insulin at $35 or less per month. In 2022, President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, requiring all Part D plans to adopt this price ceiling and cost sharing under Medicare Part B to follow the same threshold.[100] In 2022, California allocated $100 million for the state to create its own insulin at a close-to-cost price.[101]

Canada

[edit]

Canada, like many other industrialized countries, has price controls on the cost of pharmaceuticals. The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board ensures the price of patented medicine sold in Canada is "not excessive" and remains "comparable with prices in other countries."[99]

United Kingdom

[edit]

Insulin, and all other medications, are supplied free of charge to people who use it to manage their diabetes by the National Health Services of the countries of the United Kingdom.[102]

Sweden

[edit]

All types of insulin is free of charge to patients with insulin-treated diabetes.[103] This includes peripherals for insulin administration as well as blood glucose monitoring devices.[104]

Regulatory status

[edit]

United States

[edit]

In March 2020, the FDA changed the regulatory pathway for approval of new insulin products.[105] Insulin is regulated as a biologic rather than as a drug.[105] The changed status gives the FDA more flexibility for approval and labeling.[106] In July 2021, the FDA approved insulin glargine-yfgn (Semglee), a biosimilar product that contains the long acting analog insulin glargine.[107] Insulin glargine-yfgn is interchangeable and less expensive than the reference product, insulin glargine (Lantus), which had been approved in 2000.[108] The FDA requires that new insulin products are not inferior to existing insulin products with respect to reduction in hemoglobin A1c.[109]

Research

[edit]

Inhalation

[edit]

In 2006, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of Exubera, the first inhalable insulin.[110] It was withdrawn from the market by its maker in 2007 due to lack of acceptance.[111]

Inhaled insulin claimed to have similar efficacy to injected insulin, both in terms of controlling glucose levels and blood half-life. Currently, inhaled insulin is short-acting and is typically taken before meals; an injection of long-acting insulin at night is often still required.[112] When people were switched from injected to inhaled insulin, no significant difference was observed in HbA1c levels over three months. Accurate dosing was a particular problem, although people showed no significant weight gain or pulmonary function decline over the length of the trial when compared to the baseline.[113]

Following its commercial launch in 2005 in the United Kingdom, it was not (as of July 2006) recommended by National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence for routine use, except in cases where there is "proven injection phobia diagnosed by a psychiatrist or psychologist".[112]

In January 2008, the world's largest insulin manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, also announced that the company was discontinuing all further development of the company's own version of inhalable insulin, known as the AERx iDMS inhaled insulin system.[114] Similarly, Eli Lilly and Company ended its efforts to develop its inhaled Air Insulin in March 2008.[115] Afrezza, developed by Mannkind, was authorized by the FDA in June 2014 for use in adults with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, with a label restriction limiting its use only to those who also have asthma, active lung cancer, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).[116] Rapid-acting inhaled insulin is a component of the drug-device combination solution that is used at the start of every meal. It employs technosphere technology, which appears to have a more practical delivery method and more dosing flexibility, and a new inhaled insulin formulation (2.5 m). A thumb-sized inhaler with improved dosage flexibility is used to deliver inhalable insulin. It includes powder-dissolved recombinant human insulin (fumaryl diketopiperazine). Technosphere insulin is quickly absorbed by the lung surface after inhalation. Within 12 hours of inhalation, both substances—insulin, and powder (fumaryl diketopiperazine)—are virtually eliminated from healthy people's lungs. In comparison to Exubera (8–9%), just 0.3% of inhaled insulin was still present in the lungs after 12 hours. However, since serum antibody levels have been reported to increase without substantial clinical changes, acute bronchospasm in asthmatic and COPD patients along with a significant reduction in Diffusing Lung Capacity for Carbon Monoxide, in comparison to subcutaneous insulin, have been reported with its usage, Afrezza was given FDA approval with a warning (Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy).[117][116]

Transdermal

[edit]

There are several methods for transdermal delivery of insulin. Pulsatile insulin uses microjets to pulse insulin into the person, mimicking the physiological secretions of insulin by the pancreas.[118] Jet injection had different insulin delivery peaks and durations as compared to needle injection. Some diabetics may prefer jet injectors to hypodermic injection.[119] Both electricity using iontophoresis[120] and ultrasound have been found to make the skin temporarily porous. The insulin administration aspect remains experimental, but the blood glucose test aspect of "wrist appliances" is commercially available Researchers have produced a watch-like device that tests for blood glucose levels through the skin and administers corrective doses of insulin through pores in the skin. A similar device, but relying on skin-penetrating "microneedles", was in the animal testing stage in 2015.[121] In the last couple of years, the use of chemical enhancers, electrical devices, and microneedle devices has shown tremendous promise for improving the penetration of insulin compared to passive transport via the skin . Transdermal insulin delivery shows a more patient-friendly and minimally invasive approach to daily diabetes care than the conventional hypodermic injection however, additional research is necessary to address issues such as long-term use, delivery efficiency, and reliability, as well as side effects involving inflammation and irritation.[122]

Intranasal

[edit]

Insulin can be delivered to the central nervous system via the intranasal (IN) route with little to no systemic uptake or associated peripheral side effects. It has been demonstrated that intranasally delivered insulin rapidly accumulates in CSF fluid, indicating effective transport to the brain. This accumulation is thought to occur along olfactory and nearby routes. Although numerous studies have published encouraging results, further study is still being conducted to comprehend its long-term impacts in order to begin the successful clinical application.[123]

By mouth

[edit]

The basic appeal of hypoglycemic agents by mouth is that most people would prefer a pill or an oral liquid to an injection. However, insulin is a peptide hormone, which is digested in the stomach and gut and in order to be effective at controlling blood sugar, cannot be taken orally in its current form.[citation needed]

The potential market for an oral form of insulin is assumed to be enormous, thus many laboratories have attempted to devise ways of moving enough intact insulin from the gut to the portal vein to have a measurable effect on blood sugar.[124]

A number of derivatization and formulation strategies are currently being pursued to in an attempt to develop an orally available insulin.[125] Many of these approaches employ nanoparticle delivery systems[126][127][128] and several are being tested in clinical trials.[129][130][131]

Pancreatic transplantation

[edit]

Another improvement would be a transplantation of the pancreas or beta cell to avoid periodic insulin administration. This would result in a self-regulating insulin source. Transplantation of an entire pancreas (as an individual organ) is difficult and relatively uncommon. It is often performed in conjunction with liver or kidney transplant, although it can be done by itself. It is also possible to do a transplantation of only the pancreatic beta cells. However, islet transplants had been highly experimental for many years, but some researchers in Alberta, Canada, have developed techniques with a high initial success rate (about 90% in one group). Nearly half of those who got an islet cell transplant were insulin-free one year after the operation; by the end of the second year that number drops to about one in seven. However, researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) have slightly modified the Edmonton Protocol procedure for islet cell transplantation and achieved insulin independence in diabetic people, with fewer but better-functioning pancreatic islet cells.[132]

Beta cell transplant may become practical. Additionally, some researchers have explored the possibility of transplanting genetically engineered non-beta cells to secrete insulin.[133]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia

is a medication used to manage in mellitus, primarily by enhancing glucose uptake into and while inhibiting hepatic glucose output. It is indispensable for patients with , who produce little to no endogenous insulin due to autoimmune destruction of pancreatic beta cells, and is employed in advanced when oral agents fail to maintain glycemic control. First isolated in 1921 by and Charles Best at the through extraction from canine pancreases, insulin's therapeutic use began in humans in 1922, dramatically reducing mortality from and enabling long-term survival.
Modern insulin formulations include human insulin produced via technology since the 1980s, as well as analogs engineered for modified , categorized by duration of action: rapid-acting (e.g., lispro, aspart), short-acting (regular), intermediate-acting (NPH), and long-acting (e.g., glargine, degludec). These variants enable regimens that approximate physiological insulin profiles, such as basal-bolus combining steady background coverage with mealtime boluses to minimize postprandial spikes. Administration occurs predominantly via subcutaneous injection using syringes, prefilled pens, or continuous infusion pumps, with emerging options like inhaled rapid-acting insulin for select patients. While insulin has saved millions of lives and improved , its use carries risks including , injection-site reactions, and from anabolic effects; moreover, in the United States, escalating list prices—driven by , limited , and pharmacy benefit manager practices—have prompted behaviors among patients, exacerbating disparities despite production costs remaining low. Recent manufacturing disruptions have also caused intermittent shortages, underscoring vulnerabilities for this critical biologic.

Medical Uses

Type 1 Diabetes Management

Type 1 diabetes mellitus results from autoimmune destruction of pancreatic beta cells, leading to absolute insulin deficiency and requiring lifelong exogenous insulin replacement to prevent and sustain life. Without insulin, blood glucose levels rise uncontrollably, causing , osmotic , , and potentially fatal . Intensive insulin therapy, defined as regimens aiming for near-normal glycemia through frequent dosing and monitoring, has been shown to delay microvascular complications such as , nephropathy, and neuropathy, as demonstrated by the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) conducted from 1983 to 1989, which followed 1,441 patients and reported a 76% reduction in progression and 54% in nephropathy with intensive versus conventional therapy. This trial established as a causal factor in these complications via rigorous, randomized evidence. Standard management employs basal-bolus regimens, mimicking physiological insulin secretion with long- or ultra-long-acting basal insulin (e.g., glargine or degludec) providing steady coverage for states and rapid-acting bolus insulin (e.g., lispro or aspart) for meals and corrections. Basal insulin typically comprises 40-50% of total daily dose (TDD), with the remainder as boluses adjusted via carbohydrate counting and insulin-to-carb ratios (often 1 unit per 10-15 grams initially). TDD starts at 0.4-1.0 units/kg body weight daily, titrated based on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or self- of blood glucose (SMBG) to target glucose 70-130 mg/dL and postprandial <180 mg/dL, with HbA1c <7% for most adults per consensus guidelines. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) via pumps delivers variable basal rates and boluses, associating with improved HbA1c reductions (0.3-0.5% greater than multiple daily injections) and lower severe hypoglycemia rates in meta-analyses of adults. Hypoglycemia remains a key risk, mitigated by education on recognition, glucagon use, and CGM alerts, though intensive therapy increases mild episodes threefold per DCCT data, necessitating individualized risk-benefit assessment. Adjunctive therapies like pramlintide (amylin analog) may reduce postprandial spikes by 100-200 mg/dL but are used selectively due to nausea risks. Long-term adherence involves multidisciplinary support, as sustained endogenous insulin secretion (via residual beta cells) correlates with lower HbA1c and complication rates, preservable longer with intensive control. Outcomes improve with pump use in real-world cohorts, showing decreased diabetic ketoacidosis admissions without HbA1c detriment.

Type 2 Diabetes Management

Insulin therapy is indicated in type 2 diabetes mellitus when hyperglycemia persists despite lifestyle interventions and maximal tolerated doses of oral or non-insulin injectable agents, particularly in cases of symptomatic hyperglycemia, HbA1c exceeding 9-10%, or random blood glucose levels above 300 mg/dL (16.7 mmol/L). Basal insulin, typically long-acting analogs such as insulin glargine or degludec, is recommended as the initial insulin regimen to address fasting hyperglycemia while minimizing injection frequency. Starting doses are commonly 0.1-0.2 units/kg/day or a flat 10 units daily, with titration guided by self-monitored fasting glucose targets of 80-130 mg/dL (4.4-7.2 mmol/L), often using patient-led algorithms to achieve glycemic control. Randomized controlled trials demonstrate that basal insulin reduces HbA1c by approximately 1.0-1.5% within 3-6 months, with benefits plateauing at doses above 0.5 units/kg/day, comparable across analogs like glargine U100, U300, and degludec. For patients not reaching target HbA1c (typically <7% individualized), intensification to basal-bolus regimens involves adding prandial rapid-acting insulin before meals, with total daily doses ranging 0.4-1.0 units/kg, adjusted for insulin resistance and carbohydrate intake. Evidence from phase III trials supports this approach for sustained control, though newer once-weekly basal insulins show similar HbA1c reductions with potentially fewer injections. While effective for glycemic management and reducing microvascular complications associated with chronic hyperglycemia, insulin therapy carries risks including weight gain of 2-4 kg on average, driven by anabolic effects and reduced glycosuria, and hypoglycemia, with rates varying by analog—lower with ultra-long-acting options like glargine U300. Some observational and trial analyses have raised concerns about potential increases in cardiovascular events or mortality with insulin intensification compared to alternatives like SGLT2 inhibitors, though large RCTs such as those evaluating basal analogs report neutral cardiovascular outcomes when titrated appropriately. Patient education on injection technique, monitoring, and recognition of adverse effects is essential, with combination therapies (e.g., insulin plus GLP-1 receptor agonists) increasingly used to mitigate weight gain and hypoglycemia risks.

Other Indications

Insulin is employed in the acute management of to facilitate the intracellular shift of potassium ions via stimulation of the Na+/K+-ATPase pump, typically administered as 10 units of regular insulin intravenously alongside 25-50 grams of dextrose to prevent . This intervention lowers serum potassium levels by approximately 0.6-1.2 mEq/L within 15-60 minutes, though it does not promote definitive potassium elimination and is used as a temporizing measure pending other therapies like cation exchange resins or dialysis. Lower doses, such as 5 units, have been explored to minimize risk while achieving comparable potassium reduction in select patients. High-dose insulin euglycemic therapy (HIET), involving a bolus of 0.5-1 unit/kg followed by an infusion of 0.5-1 unit/kg/hour (titratable up to 10 units/kg/hour) with glucose infusion to maintain euglycemia, is utilized in severe or beta-blocker overdose to enhance myocardial contractility and vascular tone. This approach leverages insulin's inotropic effects independent of glycemic changes, improving hemodynamics in cases refractory to standard resuscitation, with onset within 15-30 minutes and monitoring required for hypokalemia and hypoglycemia. In patients receiving total parenteral nutrition (TPN), insulin is incorporated into the infusate or administered separately to control hyperglycemia induced by the high glucose load, applicable even in non-diabetic individuals under critical illness or post-surgical stress. Dosing is often calculated as 0.1 units per gram of dextrose in the TPN formula or adjusted via sliding scale, with regular insulin preferred for its compatibility; this method achieves glycemic targets similar to subcutaneous regimens but requires vigilant monitoring to avoid variability in delivery. Topical application of insulin has shown promise in accelerating wound healing in both diabetic and non-diabetic settings by modulating inflammation, reducing oxidative stress, and promoting granulation tissue formation and epithelialization. Clinical studies indicate faster wound closure rates, with reductions in surface area up to 50-70% more than controls in venous ulcers and burns, though formulations vary (e.g., 1-5 units/mL in gel or cream) and larger randomized trials are needed to standardize protocols.

Mechanism of Action

Physiological Role

Insulin, a 51-amino-acid peptide hormone, is synthesized as preproinsulin in the beta cells of the pancreatic islets of Langerhans and secreted primarily in response to hyperglycemia, such as after meals, through a process involving glucose-stimulated ATP production, potassium channel closure, membrane depolarization, calcium influx, and exocytotic vesicle release. Its secretion occurs in pulsatile bursts, with basal levels around 5-15 μU/mL during fasting and peaks up to 100 μU/mL postprandially, maintaining glucose homeostasis by counteracting 's effects. At the cellular level, insulin binds to the insulin receptor, a transmembrane tyrosine kinase, triggering autophosphorylation and activation of downstream pathways, including the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)-Akt axis. This cascade phosphorylates AS160, relieving inhibition on Rab GTPases and promoting the translocation of GLUT4 glucose transporters from intracellular vesicles to the plasma membrane in skeletal muscle and adipose tissue, thereby enhancing glucose uptake by up to 10-20 fold. In the liver, insulin inhibits gluconeogenesis via FoxO1 suppression and activates glycogen synthase for glycogenesis, while in adipocytes, it curbs hormone-sensitive lipase to prevent lipolysis and promotes triglyceride storage. Beyond glucose regulation, insulin exerts anabolic effects by stimulating amino acid uptake and protein synthesis through mTOR activation in muscle and inhibiting proteolysis. It also modulates potassium uptake in cells, contributing to in overdose scenarios, and influences vascular tone via nitric oxide production, though these are secondary to its core metabolic roles. Circulating insulin has a half-life of approximately 4-6 minutes, primarily degraded by liver and kidney enzymes, ensuring rapid responsiveness to fluctuating nutrient states.

Pharmacological Principles

Insulin exerts its therapeutic effects primarily through pharmacodynamics involving binding to insulin receptors on target cells in the liver, skeletal muscle, and adipose tissue, activating the intrinsic tyrosine kinase activity of the receptor β-subunits. This triggers downstream signaling cascades, including phosphorylation of insulin receptor substrates, which promote translocation of glucose transporter 4 (GLUT4) to the cell membrane, facilitating glucose uptake independent of insulin concentration gradients. In hepatocytes, insulin suppresses gluconeogenesis and glycogenolysis while stimulating glycogen synthesis and lipogenesis; in muscle and fat, it enhances glycolysis and inhibits lipolysis. These actions collectively lower plasma glucose levels, with the glucose-lowering effect (pharmacodynamic response) quantified by the duration and intensity of action, which formulations are designed to optimize for mimicking endogenous pulsatile and basal secretion patterns. Pharmacokinetically, exogenous insulin administered subcutaneously is absorbed into the systemic circulation, bypassing the hepatic portal vein and thus undergoing less first-pass metabolism than endogenous insulin secreted by pancreatic β-cells (approximately 50-80% hepatic extraction for endogenous versus 30-40% for exogenous). Absorption rates vary by injection site, with the abdomen providing the fastest uptake (up to twice that of the thigh due to higher vascularity and less muscle mass), influenced by factors such as local temperature, massage, and physical activity, which can accelerate onset by 20-30%. Soluble monomeric insulin dissociates rapidly from formulations, achieving peak plasma levels in 30-90 minutes for regular human insulin, while protamine-bound or analog-modified forms delay this for basal effects. Distribution occurs rapidly, with insulin equilibrating across plasma and extravascular spaces; certain analogs like insulin detemir bind reversibly to , prolonging residence time and reducing variability. Metabolism involves enzymatic degradation primarily by insulin-degrading enzyme (IDE) and glutathione-insulin transhydrogenase in the liver, kidneys, and peripheral tissues, yielding amino acids and small peptides; the kidneys account for about 60% of exogenous insulin clearance, with total body clearance ranging from 700-800 mL/min. Plasma half-life for unmodified insulin is short, approximately 4-6 minutes, necessitating formulations that modify absorption or solubility to extend effective duration from hours to over 24 hours without altering intrinsic metabolic pathways. Elimination is negligible as intact insulin; renal excretion primarily involves metabolites, with clearance reduced by 30-50% in , requiring dosage adjustments to avoid accumulation and hypoglycemia.

Types of Insulin

Animal-Derived Insulins

Animal-derived insulins, extracted from the pancreases of cattle (bovine) or pigs (porcine), represented the first commercially viable treatments for diabetes following the initial isolation of insulin in 1921. Mass production began in 1922 through collaboration between University of Toronto researchers and Eli Lilly and Company, which scaled extraction from animal sources to meet demand; early processes required processing vast quantities of pancreases, such as over two tons of pig parts to yield eight ounces of purified insulin. These insulins were formulated into regular (short-acting) and intermediate-acting types like NPH (neutral protamine Hagedorn), introduced in the 1940s, providing glycemic control similar in pharmacokinetics to endogenous insulin despite impurities in early batches that caused variability up to 25% in potency. Bovine insulin differs from human insulin by three amino acids (at positions A8, A10, and B30), while porcine insulin differs by only one (at B30, alanine instead of threonine), making porcine generally closer in structure and less immunogenic. This structural variance contributes to higher antibody formation with bovine insulin compared to porcine or human sequences, potentially leading to insulin resistance or localized reactions in some patients, though highly purified "single-peak" formulations from the 1970s reduced such risks significantly. Clinical studies have shown that while animal insulins effectively lower blood glucose, their immunogenicity exceeds that of recombinant human insulin, with bovine eliciting stronger immune responses than porcine in comparative assays. Use of animal-derived insulins dominated diabetes therapy until the late 1970s, when semi-synthetic human insulin emerged in 1978 and recombinant versions in 1982, prompting a shift due to improved purity, reduced allergenicity, and scalable bacterial production. Despite this, some patients reported better awareness of hypoglycemia with animal insulins, though systematic reviews find no conclusive evidence of superiority or inferiority in overall efficacy or safety profiles when compared to highly purified human equivalents. By the 1980s, animal sources supplied less than 10% of global insulin needs in developed markets, with discontinuation accelerating amid preferences for analogs. As of 2025, animal-derived insulins remain available in limited markets, primarily porcine formulations in regions like parts of Europe and developing countries, but production has dwindled; for instance, Canada announced discontinuation of specific pork insulin products in March 2025 due to low demand and supply chain issues. Global market estimates peg animal insulin at around $1.2 billion in 2023, projected to reach $1.9 billion by 2032, though this constitutes a minor fraction amid dominance by recombinant and analog insulins, with ongoing availability tied to niche preferences for perceived stability in long-term use. Regulatory bodies like the FDA continue to monitor legacy products, emphasizing that while effective, animal insulins carry higher risks of species-specific impurities absent in biosynthetic alternatives.

Recombinant Human Insulins

Recombinant human insulins are biosynthetic forms of insulin produced via recombinant DNA technology, featuring an amino acid sequence identical to endogenous human insulin. This approach emerged from advances in genetic engineering, with the first laboratory synthesis achieved in 1978 by inserting the synthetic human insulin gene into Escherichia coli bacteria, as demonstrated by Genentech researchers led by David Goeddel. Commercial production followed, culminating in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's approval of Humulin on October 28, 1982—the first recombinant pharmaceutical approved for human use and the inaugural biosynthetic insulin product. This milestone enabled scalable manufacturing independent of animal sources, addressing prior limitations in supply and purity from porcine or bovine extracts. Production involves cloning the human proinsulin gene into microbial hosts, primarily E. coli for early formulations or Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast for later optimizations, followed by fermentation, cell lysis or secretion, enzymatic cleavage to mature insulin, and purification to exceed 99% purity. Bacterial systems yield inclusion bodies requiring refolding, while yeast enables direct secretion with proper folding and glycosylation-like modifications, enhancing yield and scalability—yeast accounts for roughly half of global insulin production. Post-production, insulin is crystallized or formulated into suspensions for stability, ensuring batch consistency verifiable by high-performance liquid chromatography and bioassays. These methods have supplanted animal-derived insulins, providing unlimited quantities without zoonotic risks or variability from slaughterhouse sourcing. Formulations of recombinant human insulin include short-acting regular insulin (e.g., Humulin R or Novolin R, onset 30-60 minutes, peak 2-3 hours, duration 6-8 hours) for prandial control and intermediate-acting neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin (e.g., Humulin N or Novolin N, onset 1-2 hours, peak 4-12 hours, duration 18-24 hours) for basal coverage, often combined in regimens like 70/30 mixtures. Brand examples include Eli Lilly's Humulin line and Novo Nordisk's Novolin, both FDA-approved generics now available, with global equivalents like Insuman. These maintain pharmacokinetic profiles akin to physiological insulin but without the structural deviations of animal insulins, facilitating precise dosing via subcutaneous injection. Compared to animal insulins, recombinant versions exhibit superior purity (>99% vs. potential impurities in purified porcine/bovine extracts), reduced (lower antibody formation rates, as human sequence minimizes foreign epitopes; bovine insulin is most immunogenic, followed by porcine), and consistent , mitigating risks of or observed in 5-10% of animal insulin users historically. Clinical trials from the 1980s onward confirmed equivalent glycemic control with fewer injection-site reactions, though early adoption lacked randomized superiority data over highly purified porcine insulin—empirical advantages stem from precision rather than inherent bioactivity differences. Long-term use data affirm safety, with no increased or cardiovascular risks versus analogs, positioning recombinant human insulins as a foundational for .

Insulin Analogs

Insulin analogs are synthetic versions of human insulin produced via technology, with specific modifications to alter their pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties, such as onset, peak, and duration of action, aiming to more closely replicate physiological insulin secretion patterns. These modifications distinguish analogs from recombinant human insulins, which retain the native sequence, by enabling tailored profiles for basal or bolus needs in . Rapid-acting analogs, including (approved 1996), insulin aspart, and insulin glulisine, feature accelerated absorption due to structural changes like proline-lysine inversion in lispro, resulting in onset within 5-15 minutes, peak at 30-90 minutes, and duration of 3-5 hours, compared to regular human insulin's slower profile. Long-acting analogs, such as (approved 2000), , and insulin degludec (ultra-long-acting), incorporate modifications like acidic residues or chains for prolonged, steady release, providing 20-24 hours or more of basal coverage with reduced peak-related risk. Development of analogs accelerated in the following recombinant human insulin's establishment, with introducing lispro to address postprandial limitations of , followed by basal analogs to improve overnight stability. Clinical trials demonstrated rapid-acting analogs reduce postprandial glucose excursions and nocturnal versus human , while basal analogs offer flatter profiles and lower glucose variability. However, meta-analyses indicate no consistent superiority in HbA1c reduction or overall rates over human insulins in all populations, with analogs costing 2-10 times more, prompting debates on cost-effectiveness absent clear long-term outcome benefits. Safety profiles generally align with human insulins, though early preclinical data raised concerns about mitogenic potential in due to IGF-1 receptor affinity, leading to retrospective studies exploring cancer risk associations; subsequent large trials like ORIGIN found no increased malignancy incidence with glargine versus neutral Hagedorn insulin. Analogs' immunogenicity remains low, but injection-site reactions or rare allergic responses occur, underscoring the need for individualized selection based on glycemic patterns rather than routine substitution.

Administration Methods

Subcutaneous Injection

Subcutaneous injection delivers insulin into the fatty layer beneath the skin, serving as the primary administration method since its introduction in 1922, when Canadian researchers administered the first successful dose to a 14-year-old boy with on January 23. This route allows for controlled absorption mimicking physiological insulin release, avoiding rapid intravascular uptake associated with intravenous administration. Common sites include the , thighs, upper arms, and , selected for sufficient to ensure depot formation and gradual release. Injection technique emphasizes a 90-degree angle into the skin fold or lifted tissue to deposit insulin in the subcutaneous layer, preventing intramuscular delivery which accelerates absorption and risks . Needles as short as 4 mm suffice for most adults, reducing pain and likelihood, with slow plunger depression followed by a 5-10 second hold before withdrawal to minimize leakage. Site rotation within anatomical areas—spaced at least 1 cm apart—is critical to prevent , a localized accumulation that impairs absorption and causes glycemic variability. Failure to rotate increases incidence to over 50% in some cohorts, with lesions showing reduced insulin uptake due to . Absorption rates vary by site, influencing onset and duration: abdominal injections yield the fastest uptake (approximately 20-30% quicker than ), followed by arms, , and slowest in , attributable to differences in flow and tissue composition. For pre-mixed insulins, morning doses favor abdominal sites for prompt action, while evening or injections suit slower needs. Devices include traditional syringes with detachable (typically 28-31 gauge, 6-12.7 mm length) drawn from vials, requiring manual dosing, or pre-filled/reusable pens offering dial-set doses from 0.01 to 80 units for precision and discretion. Pens reduce dosing s compared to syringes ( rates dropping from 10-20% to under 5% in studies) and enhance adherence through ease of use. Single-use per injection minimize and dulling-related trauma. Rare complications like subcutaneous or arise from repeated trauma or improper depth, managed by site change and technique refinement.

Insulin Pumps and Automated Delivery

Insulin pumps provide continuous subcutaneous insulin (CSII), delivering small, programmable basal doses throughout the day and larger bolus doses for meals or corrections, mimicking physiological insulin secretion more closely than multiple daily injections. Developed from early prototypes like Arnold Kadish's 1963 wearable device, commercial pumps emerged in the , with the first model, the Auto-Syringe "blue brick," introduced in 1976. Modern pumps consist of a battery-powered device with an insulin , tubing, and infusion set inserted subcutaneously, allowing variable basal rates adjustable in increments as fine as 0.025 units per hour and bolus calculations via built-in software. Meta-analyses of randomized trials demonstrate that CSII reduces HbA1c by 0.37% to 1.0% compared to multiple daily injections, lowers mean blood glucose, decreases total daily insulin requirements, and cuts severe risk, particularly in patients with poor control or frequent lows. These benefits stem from precise dosing flexibility, reducing glycemic variability, though real-world uptake varies due to cost and training needs. Risks include infusion site infections (incidence 2-9% per site change), pump occlusion or battery failure potentially leading to if undetected, and skin irritation from adhesives, necessitating regular site rotation every 2-3 days. Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, often hybrid closed-loop (HCL), integrate pumps with continuous glucose monitors (CGM) and algorithms that automatically adjust basal rates based on real-time glucose levels, while requiring user-initiated boluses. The first FDA-approved HCL, MiniMed 670G, launched in 2017; subsequent systems like MiniMed 780G (2020) and t:slim X2 with Control-IQ (2019) incorporate predictive algorithms to preempt highs and lows. Clinical trials and reviews from 2023-2025 show HCL increases time in range (70-180 mg/dL) by 10-15% over sensor-augmented pumps, reduces HbA1c by 0.3-0.5%, and minimizes severe without increasing risks, with efficacy varying by system—e.g., advanced HCL outperforming earlier versions in youth and adults. Despite these gains, HCL systems demand user oversight for meals and alerts, and failures in CGM accuracy or algorithm conservatism can lead to nocturnal or persistence; meta-analyses confirm no elevated acute complication rates versus open-loop pumps, though long-term data remain limited. Adoption is higher in , with emerging evidence for type 2, but equity issues persist due to high costs (often $5,000-8,000 annually) and access barriers.

Emerging Non-Injection Methods

Oral insulin delivery remains investigational due to insulin's susceptibility to enzymatic degradation in the gastrointestinal tract and poor mucosal permeability, necessitating protective carriers like nanoparticles, liposomes, or self-microemulsifying systems to enhance bioavailability. Preclinical studies have demonstrated that chitosan-coated nanoparticles can achieve up to 15-20% bioavailability in diabetic rats, significantly lowering blood glucose levels compared to unmodified insulin. A 2024 review of recent advancements notes that formulations incorporating permeation enhancers and enzyme inhibitors, such as trypsin inhibitors, have progressed to phase I/II clinical trials, with one candidate showing dose-proportional pharmacokinetics but requiring 6-10 times higher doses than subcutaneous equivalents for equivalent efficacy. As of 2025, no oral insulin has received regulatory approval for routine diabetes management, with ongoing challenges including inter-subject variability and potential long-term gut irritation. Transdermal microneedle patches offer a minimally invasive alternative by breaching the with arrays of micron-scale needles, enabling painless insulin diffusion into the dermal vasculature. Dissolving or hydrogel-based microneedles loaded with insulin have reduced postprandial glucose excursions by 40-60% in rodent models of , with drug release kinetics tunable via composition. Glucose-responsive variants, incorporating phenylboronic or enzyme-cleavable linkers, autonomously release insulin payloads in hyperglycemic conditions, maintaining normoglycemia for up to 10 hours in preclinical tests without risking . A 2024 study integrated microneedles with micropumps and biosensors for closed-loop delivery, demonstrating stability enhancements and rapid manufacturing feasibility, though human trials remain limited to early-phase assessments. Scalability issues, such as needle uniformity and insulin stability during storage, continue to hinder commercialization. Inhaled insulin, while approved for adults via technosphere formulations like Afrezza since 2014, features emerging extensions including pediatric applications. A June 2025 clinical trial reported that inhaled insulin achieved comparable glycemic control to subcutaneous rapid-acting analogs in children with , with no significant differences in function or adverse respiratory events over 26 weeks. MannKind Corporation's 2025 supplemental application seeks FDA approval for ages 4-17, supported by data showing onset within 12 minutes and reduced injection burden, though contraindications persist for smokers or those with disease due to potential risks. Integration with is under evaluation, with hybrid closed-loop trials indicating improved time-in-range metrics. Nasal insulin sprays have primarily demonstrated neurotrophic effects, enhancing in Alzheimer's models via olfactory pathway delivery, but exhibit low systemic (under 10%) for control, limiting their role to adjunctive . Phase II trials as of 2025 report modest HbA1c reductions but inconsistent absorption influenced by .

Dosage and Timing Strategies

Basal-Bolus Regimens

The basal-bolus insulin regimen simulates the physiological pattern of insulin secretion by combining a long-acting basal insulin to maintain steady glucose levels between meals and overnight with rapid-acting bolus insulins administered before meals to cover intake and correct . This approach is recommended as the standard for management and for many patients with requiring insulin therapy. Basal insulin, typically comprising 40-50% of the total daily dose (TDD), is administered once or twice daily using analogs such as glargine or detemir to provide continuous background coverage. Bolus doses, making up the remaining 50-60%, are calculated based on carbohydrate counting, insulin-to-carbohydrate ratios (often starting at 1 unit per 10-15 grams), and correction factors for high blood glucose. Initial basal dosing for is commonly 0.1-0.2 units per kg body weight per day, titrated upward by 10-15% or 2-4 units every 3-7 days until fasting glucose targets (70-130 mg/dL) are achieved. Frequent self-monitoring of blood glucose (4-8 times daily) is essential for adjusting boluses and ensuring safety, with targets including pre-meal levels of 80-130 mg/dL and postprandial under 180 mg/dL per American Diabetes Association guidelines. In clinical trials, such as the RABBIT 2 study involving hospitalized type 2 diabetes patients, basal-bolus regimens achieved mean daily glucose levels of 140 mg/dL compared to 201 mg/dL with sliding-scale insulin alone, reducing composite complications by 42% (infection, neuropathy, acute renal failure). Similar inpatient randomized trials confirm lower rates of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia events relative to correction-only strategies. For , basal requirements are approximately 30-50% of TDD, with prandial boluses tailored via algorithms to minimize variability. Compared to premixed insulins, basal-bolus therapy often yields better HbA1c reductions (e.g., 0.4-0.9% greater in meta-analyses) but demands greater and adherence to avert risks like severe . Outpatient studies, including those with insulin degludec in basal-bolus, demonstrate sustained HbA1c improvements below 7.5% over 52 weeks with reduced nocturnal rates.

Sliding Scale Approaches

Sliding scale insulin (SSI) therapy involves administering doses of short-acting insulin, such as or rapid-acting analogs, adjusted according to the patient's current blood glucose level, typically measured before meals or as needed for correction. This approach originated in the mid-20th century for management but operates reactively, addressing elevated glucose after it occurs rather than providing physiologic basal coverage to prevent excursions. Protocols often specify fixed increments, for example, 2-4 units for glucose 140-180 mg/dL, escalating to 10+ units for levels above 300 mg/dL, with adjustments based on patient factors like weight or sensitivity, though implementation varies widely across institutions. Despite its simplicity and historical prevalence—used in up to 70% of hospitalized diabetic patients in some U.S. cohorts as late as 2017—SSI as a standalone regimen fails to achieve sustained glycemic control, resulting in higher mean glucose levels, increased variability, and more frequent compared to basal-bolus strategies. A 2018 Cochrane of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in non-critically ill adults found insufficient high-quality evidence to definitively favor basal-bolus over SSI, but subsequent studies, including a 2022 RCT, demonstrated that intensive SSI supplementation does not improve outcomes over nonintensive approaches and may elevate risk without reducing overall duration. Prospective data from over 1,800 hospitalized patients showed SSI linked to poorer control and adverse events, including prolonged stays, contrasting with physiologic regimens that mimic endogenous insulin patterns. Major guidelines, including the (ADA) Standards of Care (updated 2025) and American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) consensus (2023), explicitly discourage SSI as the primary or sole inpatient therapy for , recommending basal insulin with bolus corrections only for supplemental use in patients already at target most of the time. The AACE advises against exclusive SSI reliance due to its inability to prevent postprandial spikes or account for insulin needs tied to carbohydrate intake, potentially exacerbating in stressed hospitalized patients. In nursing homes and long-term settings, bodies like the American Medical Directors Association deem ongoing SSI indicative of inadequate control, associating it with medication errors—such as dosing overlaps—and adverse outcomes like falls from . Critics attribute SSI's persistence to familiarity and ease despite evidence of inferiority, with analyses labeling it a "false idol" for lacking proactive basal components and promoting a cycle of -hypoglycemia swings that undermine causal glycemic . In critical care, a 2023 evaluation found SSI yielded lower variability than basal-plus in some ventilated cohorts but at the cost of delayed correction and higher overall glucose exposure, reinforcing that it suits transient, mild perturbations rather than structured . Transitioning from SSI requires multidisciplinary protocols, as abrupt shifts without basal dosing can precipitate , yet empirical shifts to basal-bolus have reduced hospital rates by 20-30% in implemented programs.

Individualization Factors

Insulin dosing requires individualization to optimize glycemic control, accounting for patient-specific physiological, , and clinical variables that influence insulin sensitivity, clearance, and needs. Initial total daily doses typically range from 0.4 to 1 unit per of body weight, with higher requirements often observed in cases of , such as in longstanding or . Adjustments are guided by self-monitored blood glucose patterns, continuous glucose monitoring data, and A1c levels, with typically increasing or decreasing doses by 10-20% based on persistent or . Body weight and composition serve as foundational metrics for estimating starting doses, with basal insulin often initiated at 0.1-0.2 units per daily, divided into components proportional to intake via insulin-to-carbohydrate ratios (e.g., 1 unit per 10-15 grams initially). Higher (BMI) and waist circumference correlate with increased insulin requirements due to reduced peripheral sensitivity, necessitating upward titration in obese patients. Age influences dosing conservatism; elderly patients require lower starting doses (e.g., 0.1 units/kg or less) to mitigate risk from diminished renal function, counterregulatory responses, and comorbidities, with guidelines emphasizing individualized targets above 7.5-8% A1c to balance benefits against harms. Renal and hepatic impairment demand dose reductions, as insulin clearance decreases with glomerular filtration rates below 30 mL/min, prolonging and elevating incidence; for example, basal doses may be halved in end-stage renal disease, with frequent monitoring. Concurrent medications, such as glucocorticoids, elevate requirements by inducing , often necessitating 20-50% increases in total daily insulin. Lifestyle factors, including and dietary patterns, further modulate needs—exercise enhances sensitivity, potentially halving doses on active days, while irregular meals or high-glycemic loads require dynamic bolus adjustments via correction factors (e.g., 1 unit lowers blood glucose by 50 mg/dL). Patient education on self-adjustment, incorporating factors like illness-induced stress (which raises counterregulatory hormones and doses) or (nocturnal prompting basal increases), is essential for adherence and efficacy. Genetic variations in insulin , though less routinely assessed, may contribute to variability, underscoring the need for empirical over rigid algorithms.

Side Effects and Risks

Acute Adverse Effects

Hypoglycemia represents the primary acute adverse effect of insulin therapy, occurring when exogenous insulin administration exceeds the body's glucose utilization or intake, leading to blood glucose levels below 70 mg/dL. Symptoms arise from counter-regulatory hormone release and glucose deprivation, manifesting as adrenergic responses (e.g., sweating, , tremors) or neuroglycopenic effects (e.g., , seizures, ). Severe episodes, defined as those requiring assistance for recovery, affect approximately 1 in 14 insulin-treated patients annually, with visits linked to such events numbering in the hundreds of thousands yearly in large populations. Incidence varies by diabetes type and regimen; prospective studies report over 95% of insulin users experiencing at least one episode, though severe hypoglycemia rates range from 0.06 to 7.10 events per patient-year in intensive therapy trials. Risk factors include dosing errors, skipped meals, exercise, and alcohol, with insulin analogs potentially reducing but not eliminating occurrence compared to human insulin. Local injection-site reactions constitute another common acute issue, typically appearing within minutes to hours of and including , swelling, pruritus, or . These affect up to 32% of self-injecting patients, with occasional reported by over 70% and infections in about 3%, often attributable to improper technique, reuse of needles, or insulin formulation excipients. , involving accumulation at sites, emerges acutely but persists if is neglected, altering absorption kinetics and exacerbating glycemic instability. Such reactions resolve with site or formulation changes but can delay insulin onset if severe. Hypersensitivity reactions, though rare (0.1-3% prevalence), pose acute risks ranging from localized urticaria to systemic shortly after injection. These encompass type I IgE-mediated events (immediate wheal-and-flare), type III immune complex responses, or type IV delayed cellular reactions, potentially triggered by insulin proteins, preservatives like , or additives such as . Incidence has declined with recombinant human and analog insulins, but cases persist, necessitating skin testing and desensitization protocols for confirmation and management. , involving or , requires epinephrine and insulin alternatives.

Long-Term Health Concerns

Long-term use of exogenous insulin in is associated with , primarily due to its promotion of into , reduction in caloric loss from , and anabolic effects that suppress and enhance fat storage. Clinical studies indicate average weight increases of 1.8–4.0 kg in the first year of therapy, with greater gains in patients starting from poorer glycemic control or lower baseline BMI. This effect persists over years, contributing to obesity-related comorbidities, though some insulin analogs like detemir may attenuate it compared to neutral Hagedorn insulin. Injection-site , characterized by localized accumulation from repeated , affects up to 50% of long-term users and impairs insulin absorption, leading to erratic glycemic control and increased risk. This fibrotic tissue alteration requires site rotation and can necessitate higher doses for efficacy, exacerbating and dependency; resolution may take months after discontinuation of injections in affected areas. Lipoatrophy, a rarer atrophic variant, involves immune-mediated loss and has decreased with modern insulin formulations but persists in some cases. Debated associations exist between prolonged insulin therapy and elevated risks of and certain cancers, potentially stemming from hyperinsulinemia's mitogenic and pro-atherogenic signaling via insulin receptors on vascular and tumor cells. Observational data link insulin use to higher colorectal and incidence in cohorts, with a reporting a 20–50% increased overall cancer risk, though confounding by indication (advanced disease prompting insulin initiation) and reverse complicate causality. Cardiovascular outcomes show inconsistency, with some analyses finding no excess events from insulin versus alternatives, while others note heightened risk or adverse profiles (e.g., elevated triglycerides, pulse rate) at higher doses. Randomized trials like ORIGIN report neutral long-term cardiovascular impact, underscoring that benefits in glycemic control often predominate despite these signals.

Overuse and Dependency Issues

Excessive insulin administration, whether accidental or intentional, poses significant risks primarily through severe , which can lead to seizures, , irreversible brain damage, or death. In the United States, insulin-induced accounts for approximately 100,000 visits annually, with severe episodes contributing to 4-10% of deaths in patients. Therapeutic errors, such as miscalculation of doses or failure to adjust for meals and activity, exacerbate these risks, particularly in settings where insulin dosing inaccuracies have been documented in scoping reviews of care. In , insulin dependency arises from progressive beta-cell dysfunction and worsening , often necessitating exogenous insulin when oral agents fail to control . However, early or excessive reliance on insulin can promote —typically 3-9 kg within the first year of initiation—due to its anabolic effects, including enhanced into and reduced , which may further aggravate and . This is evidenced in clinical trials, where basal insulin regimens showed less increase compared to insulin but still contributed to net adiposity. Long-term dependency issues include potential suppression of endogenous insulin production by exogenous administration, complicating disease management and increasing vulnerability to iatrogenic . In type 2 patients, factors like delayed lifestyle interventions or overprescription of insulin amid progressive can lock individuals into lifelong therapy, with studies indicating that 10% of patients experience excessive (≥5 kg) shortly after starting, inversely correlated with initial glycemic improvements but linked to dosing intensity. Intentional overuse, often in suicidal contexts among , highlights accessibility as a , with forensic data showing rare but fatal outcomes from overdoses exceeding 1000 units, requiring prolonged glucose support beyond the insulin's .

Treatment Challenges

Insulin Resistance

Insulin resistance is characterized by impaired cellular responsiveness to insulin, primarily in , liver, and , resulting in elevated hepatic glucose production and reduced peripheral . This condition, central to pathophysiology, compels clinicians to prescribe escalating doses of exogenous insulin to overcome defective signaling pathways, such as those involving IRS-1/PI3K/Akt, often disrupted by factors like ectopic accumulation and chronic inflammation. In insulin-treated patients, resistance manifests as persistent despite high-dose regimens, with studies indicating that individuals with marked resistance may require over 2 units/kg/day, far exceeding typical basal needs of 0.3-0.5 units/kg. A primary treatment challenge arises from the dose-response mismatch: while exogenous insulin can acutely lower glucose, chronic may perpetuate resistance via downregulation of insulin receptors or promotion of , leading to averaging 4-6 kg in the first year of intensified therapy. Empirical data from cohort studies show that up to 30% of patients on insulin exhibit severe resistance, correlating with poorer HbA1c outcomes (<7% target achieved in <50% of cases) and heightened hypoglycemia risk due to variable absorption and counterregulatory hormone surges. Moreover, in subsets with extreme resistance (e.g., >3 units/kg/day ineffective), standard human insulins prove inadequate, prompting shifts to concentrated formulations like U-500 , which delivers 5-fold potency but demands meticulous titration to avert overdose. Quantifying resistance aids management; indices like HOMA-IR (>2.5 threshold) or euglycemic clamp-derived glucose disposal rates (<4 mg/kg/min) identify affected patients, revealing prevalence rates of 40-50% among insulin-dependent type 2 cohorts. Causal factors include visceral adiposity (odds ratio 2.5 per 10% increase) and sedentary behavior, which impair mitochondrial function and amplify free fatty acid flux, independent of genetic predispositions like PPARγ variants. Addressing these through adjunctive interventions—such as metformin (reduces hepatic gluconeogenesis by 20-30%) or GLP-1 receptor agonists (enhance sensitivity via 5-10% weight reduction)—mitigates dose escalation needs, though monotherapy insulin rarely suffices without lifestyle modifications yielding sustained fat loss. In resistant type 1 diabetes cases (prevalence ~17%), overlapping mechanisms like inflammation necessitate hybrid approaches, underscoring insulin's limitations in reversing underlying defects.

Patient Adherence Barriers

Patient adherence to insulin therapy is frequently suboptimal, with systematic reviews indicating adherence rates ranging from 43% to 59% among individuals with type 2 diabetes. Non-adherence contributes to poorer glycemic control, increased hospitalization risks, and higher all-cause mortality. Psychological barriers predominate, including psychological insulin resistance, where patients perceive starting insulin as an admission of treatment failure or irreversible disease progression, fostering reluctance or discontinuation. Up to 28% of type 2 diabetes patients express unwillingness to initiate insulin if prescribed, often citing fears that it signals worsening health or dependency. Additional concerns involve anticipated complications like hypoglycemia or weight gain, needle phobia, and beliefs that insulin lacks efficacy or induces harm. Logistical and behavioral factors exacerbate non-adherence, such as regimen complexity requiring multiple daily injections or monitoring, leading to forgetfulness or intentional omission. Common triggers include busy schedules, travel disruptions, skipped meals, or suboptimal self-management skills, with patients and providers consistently ranking these as top reasons for missed doses. Inadequate diabetes education correlates strongly with non-adherence, as patients lacking knowledge of proper dosing or storage often deviate from protocols. Economic and social barriers further impede adherence, particularly high insulin costs, which patients in resource-limited settings cite alongside side effects like . Social stigma, personal beliefs against injectables, and distress from healthcare interactions also play roles, though evidence on targeted interventions remains limited.

Clinical Management Complications

Clinical management of insulin therapy involves precise dosing, administration, and monitoring to maintain euglycemia, but errors in these processes frequently lead to severe complications such as hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. Hypoglycemia, defined as blood glucose below 70 mg/dL, is the most prevalent acute issue, often resulting from excessive insulin administration, inadequate carbohydrate intake, or failure to adjust for exercise or illness; in hospitalized patients, iatrogenic hypoglycemia accounts for up to 20-30% of cases due to mismatches between insulin and nutritional status or abrupt protocol changes. Hyperglycemia can arise from insulin omissions (reported in 24.7% of errors), underdosing, or delays in intravenous-to-subcutaneous transitions, exacerbating risks like diabetic ketoacidosis in vulnerable patients. In inpatient settings, common management pitfalls include "insulin stacking"—administering overlapping doses without accounting for prior effects—and errors during corticosteroid taper, which can precipitate hypoglycemia by unmasking insulin sensitivity; national estimates from 2007-2011 indicate over 96,000 emergency department visits annually for insulin-related hypoglycemia and errors in the U.S. alone. Transition errors, such as suboptimal glucose monitoring during shifts from intravenous to subcutaneous insulin, contribute to glycemic instability, with studies highlighting the need for standardized protocols to mitigate these. Device and formulation mix-ups, like confusing rapid-acting with long-acting insulins, further compound risks, leading to unintended hypoglycemia in approximately 41.6% of outpatient error cases presenting to emergency care. Local complications from improper administration techniques, such as repeated injections into the same site without rotation, include lipohypertrophy—a hypertrophic fat deposit affecting up to 30% of patients—which impairs insulin absorption and necessitates higher doses, perpetuating poor control. In clinical practice, these issues underscore insulin's status as a high-alert medication, where multidisciplinary oversight, including pharmacist involvement in dosing verification and staff education on error-prone processes, is essential to reduce adverse events. Overall, rigorous adherence to evidence-based guidelines, such as frequent point-of-care testing and individualized regimens, minimizes these management-derived complications.

Special Populations

Use in Pregnancy

Insulin is the preferred pharmacologic agent for managing pregestational , , and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) during pregnancy, as it does not cross the placenta and avoids fetal exposure to oral antidiabetic agents like or glyburide, which may carry higher risks of neonatal hypoglycemia or other complications. For women with , insulin therapy is essential to maintain euglycemia, while in and GDM, it is initiated if lifestyle modifications fail to achieve target glucose levels, such as fasting glucose below 95 mg/dL (5.3 mmol/L) or postprandial below 140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L). Tight glycemic control with insulin reduces maternal risks like preeclampsia and neonatal risks including macrosomia (birth weight ≥4000 g), which affects up to 15-20% of poorly controlled diabetic pregnancies due to fetal hyperinsulinemia induced by maternal hyperglycemia. Insulin requirements typically rise progressively during pregnancy, beginning around 16 weeks' gestation due to placental hormones increasing , with total daily doses escalating linearly by approximately 5% per week until week 36, often reaching 2-3 times pre-pregnancy levels. Multiple daily injections (basal-bolus regimen) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion via pumps are recommended, with frequent adjustments based on self-monitored blood glucose or continuous glucose monitoring to target preconceptional hemoglobin A1c below 6.5% and avoid hypoglycemia, which occurs in up to 50% of type 1 pregnancies but correlates with worse neonatal outcomes like respiratory distress when severe. Short-acting analogs like insulin aspart or lispro, and long-acting analogs like glargine or detemir, demonstrate comparable safety to human insulin in meta-analyses of observational studies, showing no elevated risks of maternal hypoglycemia, congenital anomalies, or perinatal mortality. Postpartum, insulin needs decline abruptly—often by 30-50% within hours of delivery due to resolution of pregnancy-related insulin resistance—necessitating immediate dose reduction to prevent iatrogenic hypoglycemia, with breastfeeding further lowering requirements by enhancing glucose utilization. In GDM, insulin-treated pregnancies achieve similar fetal outcomes to diet-controlled cases when glucose targets are met, though overall diabetic pregnancies carry 2-4 times higher odds of cesarean delivery and neonatal intensive care admission compared to non-diabetic ones, primarily from macrosomia and associated birth trauma. Evidence from randomized trials supports four-times-daily dosing over twice-daily for better control and reduced perinatal morbidity without added maternal risk.

Pediatric and Geriatric Considerations

In pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes, insulin therapy is essential as the primary treatment, with total daily doses typically ranging from 0.7 to 1 unit per kilogram of body weight in prepubertal children, increasing to 1 to 1.5 units per kilogram during puberty due to heightened insulin resistance from growth hormone effects. Initial dosing at diagnosis often starts at 0.5 to 1 unit per kilogram per day, divided into basal (25-30% of total in young children) and bolus components to mimic physiological secretion and prevent diabetic ketoacidosis recurrence. Glycemic targets are individualized by age to balance control with hypoglycemia risk, aiming for HbA1c below 8% in children under 6 years, 7.5% for ages 6-12, and 7% for adolescents, as stricter control correlates with higher severe hypoglycemia incidence in youth. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion via pumps is recommended for youth on multiple daily injections who can manage the technology, reducing variability and improving adherence compared to injections alone. Hypoglycemia poses a heightened risk in pediatrics due to unpredictable eating, activity, and counter-regulatory hormone immaturity, with exercise necessitating 20% reductions in basal insulin to avert delayed lows. Long-term, insulin supports normal growth when dosed appropriately, but overtreatment can impair linear growth via induced hypoglycemia suppressing growth hormone, while undertreatment risks microvascular complications like retinopathy emerging in adolescence. Multidisciplinary care, including family education on carb counting and sick-day rules, is critical, as adherence barriers like needle phobia or pubertal rebellion elevate HbA1c and ketoacidosis rates. Geriatric patients on insulin face amplified hypoglycemia vulnerability from factors including renal insufficiency reducing clearance, blunted glucagon responses, erratic meal intake, and polypharmacy interactions prolonging insulin action. Severe hypoglycemia occurs at rates up to threefold higher in those over 75 compared to younger adults, associating with falls, fractures, dementia progression, and mortality independent of cardiovascular events. Guidelines advocate simplified regimens, prioritizing once-daily long-acting basal analogs like glargine over mixed or prandial insulins to minimize injection burden and nocturnal lows, with titration guided by less stringent HbA1c targets (7.5-8.5% in frail elderly) to prioritize safety over tight control. Comorbidities such as cognitive decline and sarcopenia complicate self-management, with up to one-third of insulin-treated elderly experiencing undetected nocturnal hypoglycemia via self-monitoring, underscoring needs for continuous glucose monitoring and caregiver involvement. De-prescribing insulin in favor of non-hypoglycemic agents is considered in advanced frailty where benefits diminish against risks, emphasizing comprehensive geriatric assessments for functional status and patient goals. Regular screening for hypoglycemia unawareness, which affects over 20% of elderly insulin users, is essential, as recurrent episodes erode quality of life and heighten hospitalization odds.

Non-Therapeutic Uses

Performance Enhancement in Athletics

Insulin has been employed illicitly by some athletes, particularly in strength and power sports such as and , to augment muscle growth and recovery due to its anabolic properties. It facilitates rapid uptake of glucose and amino acids into muscle cells, enhancing glycogen replenishment and protein synthesis while suppressing muscle protein breakdown, effects that are amplified when combined with anabolic-androgenic steroids or . This misuse exploits insulin's role in shifting metabolism toward anabolism, potentially allowing for greater training volume and lean mass gains beyond natural limits, though empirical evidence from controlled studies is limited owing to ethical constraints. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has prohibited insulin since 1998, classifying it under section S4.4.2 of the Prohibited List as a hormone and metabolic modulator, except for athletes with diabetes who obtain a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE). Initial recognition of insulin as a doping agent emerged during the 1998 Nagano Winter Olympics, when a Russian team physician inquired about its detectability, highlighting concerns in endurance and strength disciplines. Despite the ban, detection remains challenging due to insulin's short plasma half-life (approximately 4-6 minutes for endogenous forms) and the similarity of exogenous synthetic insulins to natural ones, complicating assays; ongoing research focuses on insulin mimetic peptides and isotopic signatures for urine and blood testing. Prevalence appears higher among non-elite strength athletes than Olympic competitors, with surveys and case reports indicating self-administration via subcutaneous injection post-workout, often without medical oversight. A 2001 needle exchange program for bodybuilders revealed insulin syringes among returned equipment, suggesting widespread underground use in gym communities. Documented cases include severe hypoglycemia episodes in bodybuilders, such as a 2019 report of a user presenting with blood glucose below 20 mg/dL after cryptic dosing, underscoring the narrow therapeutic window outside diabetic management. Misuse carries acute risks of life-threatening , manifesting as confusion, seizures, coma, or death if carbohydrates are not promptly consumed, with athletes sometimes relying on glucose monitors or co-administration of . Chronic overuse may contribute to , weight gain, and metabolic dysregulation, as evidenced by elevated ALT-to-AST ratios in doping cohorts. No performance benefits have been verified in legitimate athletic contexts without underlying pathology, and the practice violates WADA criteria by posing health risks and conferring unfair advantages through non-physiological metabolic enhancement.

Abuse Patterns and Detection

Insulin abuse, distinct from therapeutic use in diabetes management, predominantly occurs among non-diabetic athletes, particularly bodybuilders and power-sport competitors, who exploit its anabolic properties to enhance muscle hypertrophy and recovery. Exogenous insulin facilitates nutrient uptake into muscle cells by promoting glucose transport via GLUT4 transporters and inhibiting lipolysis, thereby synergizing with anabolic steroids and growth hormone to amplify protein synthesis and glycogen storage. Users typically administer rapid-acting insulin analogs (e.g., lispro or aspart) subcutaneously post-exercise, followed by high-carbohydrate meals to counteract hypoglycemia, with doses ranging from 5-15 units—far exceeding physiological needs and risking acute blood glucose drops below 50 mg/dL. This pattern is documented in surveys and case reports, revealing prevalence among competitive weightlifters: in a series of 41 self-reported insulin users, 56.8% experienced hypoglycemia symptoms such as shakiness and confusion, with one instance of unconsciousness requiring emergency intervention; insulin was sourced illicitly from pharmacies, veterinary suppliers, or peers. Severe outcomes include coma and death from neuroglycopenic seizures, as in a 30-year-old bodybuilder presenting with unprovoked hypoglycemia (glucose 12 mg/dL) necessitating repeated dextrose infusions; autopsy or toxicology often confirms elevated insulin levels without corresponding C-peptide elevation. Abuse extends to non-athletes, including suicide attempts via overdose in non-diabetics, where 4 cases in New Mexico involved self-injection leading to fatal hypoglycemia, though survival depends on rapid glucose administration. Detection of insulin abuse remains challenging due to its structural similarity to endogenous hormone, short plasma half-life (4-6 minutes for regular insulin), and rapid hepatic clearance, evading standard immunoassays that cannot distinguish origin. Primary method relies on the insulin-to-C-peptide ratio in plasma: exogenous administration suppresses endogenous secretion, yielding low C-peptide (<0.2 ng/mL) relative to insulin (>100 μU/mL), indicative of , though variability in stress or renal function limits sensitivity (false negatives in ~20-30% of cases). For synthetic analogs like , urine metabolite profiling via liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry detects unique fragments up to 24-48 hours post-dose, as developed for anti-doping; blood sampling windows extend detection to 3 days in research protocols. (WADA) prohibits insulin since 1997, yet enforcement gaps persist, with indirect markers like atypical in competition or elevated IGF-1 proposed but unvalidated for routine use.

Combination with Other Therapies

Synergies with Oral Agents

Combination therapy involving insulin and oral antidiabetic agents targets complementary aspects of glucose dysregulation in , often yielding additive or synergistic improvements in glycemic control, insulin dose requirements, and metabolic outcomes compared to insulin alone. Basal insulin analogs, such as glargine, combined with oral agents like metformin, suppress hepatic glucose production while enhancing peripheral insulin sensitivity, leading to sustained HbA1c reductions of approximately 0.7% over 24 months in long-term studies. This approach minimizes hyperinsulinemia-driven and hypoglycemic events, as metformin's insulin-sparing effects permit lower exogenous insulin doses without compromising . Evidence from comparative trials further indicates that such regimens improve postprandial glucose excursions more effectively than insulin monotherapy, attributed to metformin's reduction of intestinal glucose absorption and . Sulfonylureas, which stimulate endogenous insulin secretion from pancreatic beta cells, can synergize with exogenous insulin by augmenting overall insulin availability, particularly in early with residual beta-cell function; however, this combination elevates risk due to overlapping secretory mechanisms. Clinical data show that insulin plus achieves comparable HbA1c lowering to insulin plus metformin but with higher rates of severe (odds ratio approximately 2.5), necessitating careful dose . In contrast, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors enhance effects to primarily lower postprandial glucose, providing additive benefits when paired with basal insulin; randomized trials report incremental HbA1c decreases of 0.5-0.7% without increased , as DPP-4 inhibitors do not provoke insulin secretion independently of glucose levels. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors offer synergistic advantages through urinary glucose excretion, which alleviates glucose and promotes (typically 2-3 kg), counteracting insulin-induced adiposity while reducing insulin needs by 10-20%. When combined with insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors yield greater HbA1c reductions (up to 0.8%) and cardiovascular risk mitigation compared to DPP-4 inhibitors in metformin backgrounds, though they may elevate levels and necessitate monitoring for dehydration or genital infections. guidelines endorse continuing metformin and considering SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP-4 inhibitors alongside insulin for patients with established , emphasizing individualized assessment to balance efficacy against adverse events like with . Overall, these synergies underscore mechanism-based , with meta-analyses confirming improved long-term adherence and outcomes when oral agents address or deficits unmet by insulin alone.

Integration with Newer Antidiabetics

Combination therapy integrating insulin with agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in enhances glycemic control, promotes weight loss, and reduces risk compared to insulin monotherapy, as evidenced by randomized controlled trials showing approximately 0.4% greater HbA1c reduction and 5 kg body weight loss with agents like added to basal insulin. Fixed-ratio combinations, such as insulin degludec/ (IDegLira) or insulin glargine/lixisenatide (iGlarLixi), simplify administration and yield superior HbA1c reductions (e.g., 1.8-2.0% from baseline) versus either component alone in trials like DUAL and LixiLan, with insulin dose reductions of up to 20-30 units daily. The (ADA) recommends such combinations (level A evidence) for patients requiring insulin escalation, emphasizing dose reassessment to mitigate , which occurs at rates similar to basal insulin alone when titrated properly. Gastrointestinal adverse effects from GLP-1 RAs, such as , affect 10-20% of patients initially but diminish over time, without increasing severe beyond insulin's baseline risk. Integration with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) complements insulin by further lowering HbA1c (0.5-1.0%), fasting plasma glucose, and body weight while decreasing required insulin doses by 10-20%, as demonstrated in studies with dapagliflozin or empagliflozin added to insulin regimens. This approach yields cardiovascular and renal benefits, including reduced heart failure hospitalizations and progression of chronic kidney disease, particularly in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or eGFR 20-60 mL/min/1.73 m², per ADA guidelines (level A). Hypoglycemia risk remains low without sulfonylureas, though insulin adjustments are essential; diabetic ketoacidosis risk rises slightly (0.1-0.7 events per 100 patient-years), necessitating monitoring for euglycemic presentations. Genitourinary infections occur in 5-10% of users, more frequently with female patients or poor hygiene, but overall safety profiles support continuation alongside insulin per expert consensus. Triple therapy incorporating insulin, GLP-1 RAs, and SGLT2is is emerging for high-risk patients, offering additive effects on HbA1c (up to 1.5% further reduction), weight, and cardiorenal outcomes without proportional hypo increases, though gastrointestinal and dehydration risks compound. ADA advises prioritizing these agents in insulin-requiring with comorbidities, maintaining them during insulin initiation while discontinuing less beneficial oral agents like to optimize efficacy and safety. Long-term data from observational cohorts confirm sustained benefits, with no signals.

History

Discovery and Early Development

In 1920, Canadian physician conceived the idea of isolating the internal secretion of the by ligating its ducts to degenerate acinar cells while leaving the islets of Langerhans intact, inspired by prior research on and pancreatic extracts. This approach aimed to extract an antidiabetic factor, building on earlier failed attempts by others to identify such a substance from degenerated pancreases. Banting approached J.J.R. , head of the physiology department at the , who provided laboratory space and equipment in May 1921; medical student Best assisted Banting in the initial experiments on depancreatized dogs. By July 27, 1921, Banting and Best successfully reduced blood glucose levels in diabetic dogs using saline extracts from canine pancreases, demonstrating the extract's hypoglycemic effect. These results were replicated with pancreases, confirming the extract's potency despite impurities. Biochemist joined the team in December 1921 to purify the extract for human use through alcohol precipitation, yielding a more stable and less toxic form. On January 11, 1922, 14-year-old Leonard Thompson, dying from at , received the first human injection of this impure extract, which initially caused a local but failed to fully control his . A refined dose administered on January 23, 1922, dramatically lowered his blood sugar and ketones, enabling weight gain and remission of diabetic symptoms, marking the first successful clinical application. This breakthrough, though credited primarily to Banting and Best, involved Macleod's oversight and Collip's purification, leading to the 1923 in or awarded to Banting and Macleod (with Banting sharing his portion with Best).

Commercialization and Key Milestones

The , holders of the insulin patent, entered into an exclusive manufacturing agreement with in May 1922 to enable large-scale production, as initial extracts from canine pancreases proved insufficient for clinical needs. refined extraction and purification processes using porcine and bovine pancreases, leading to the launch of Iletin—the world's first commercially available insulin product—in 1923. Shipments of Iletin began in October 1923, marking the transition from experimental therapy to a standardized treatment that dramatically reduced mortality rates from near-certainty to manageable chronicity. Parallel efforts in Europe saw Nordisk Insulinlaboratorium (predecessor to ) begin commercial production of animal-derived insulin in by late 1923, establishing early global supply chains amid surging demand. Refinements followed rapidly: in 1924, Danish researchers introduced insulin, a modified formulation for prolonged action, which entered commercial distribution and laid groundwork for intermediate-acting insulins. By 1946, Nordisk commercialized neutral Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, the first widely used intermediate-duration product, enhancing basal coverage and adopted globally within years. A pivotal shift occurred with technology. In 1978, successfully produced the first synthetic human insulin using Escherichia coli bacteria, eliminating reliance on animal sources and potential issues. , partnering with , obtained FDA approval for Humulin—the first biosynthetic human insulin—on October 28, 1982, after a expedited five-month review, revolutionizing production scalability and purity. Subsequent milestones included the 1996 FDA approval of Humalog (), Eli Lilly's rapid-acting analog mimicking postprandial secretion more closely than regular insulin, followed by Sanofi's Lantus () in 2000 for smoother basal profiles. These analog introductions expanded market competition, with global insulin sales reaching billions annually by the 2000s, driven by improved validated in clinical trials.

Evolution of Formulations

The earliest insulin formulations, introduced in 1923, consisted of extracted from bovine or porcine pancreatic tissue, offering rapid onset but short duration of action, typically 5-8 hours, necessitating multiple daily injections. To extend duration and reduce injection frequency, modifications emerged , including zinc insulin in 1936, which formed a depot for prolonged release over 24-36 hours, and globin zinc insulin shortly thereafter. These animal-derived intermediate-acting preparations addressed some limitations of but still carried risks of and variability in absorption due to species differences. A significant advancement occurred in 1946 with the development of neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin by Danish researcher Hans Christian Hagedorn, which balanced intermediate action (onset 1-2 hours, peak 4-12 hours, duration up to 18-24 hours) through isophane ratios of insulin and protamine, becoming commercially available around 1950. NPH, initially produced from animal sources, facilitated twice-daily regimens and remained a cornerstone for decades. By the 1970s, efforts to mitigate allergic reactions and purity issues with animal insulins led to semisynthetic human insulin via enzymatic modification of porcine insulin, though full transition awaited recombinant technology. Recombinant DNA technology enabled the first biosynthetic human insulin in 1978, produced in bacteria by , achieving high purity without animal sourcing. The U.S. approved Humulin—the inaugural recombinant human regular and NPH insulins—in October 1982, marking the shift to scalable, non-immunogenic production using or bacterial hosts, which by the 1990s largely supplanted animal insulins. This era standardized formulations like U-100 concentrations for consistent dosing. The late 1990s introduced insulin analogs, genetically modified for altered to better approximate endogenous secretion. Rapid-acting analogs debuted with in 1996, featuring inverted proline-lysine residues at B28-B29 for faster absorption (onset 15 minutes) compared to regular human insulin. Subsequent rapid analogs included (2001) and glulisine (2004). Long-acting basal analogs followed, with approved in 2000, engineered with at A21 and additions for acidic precipitation at neutral pH, yielding peakless action over 24 hours. (2005 U.S. approval) incorporated fatty acid binding for albumin-mediated prolongation, while insulin degludec (2015 U.S. approval) formed multi-hexamer chains for ultra-long duration exceeding 42 hours, enabling flexible dosing. These analogs improved glycemic control and reduced nocturnal in clinical trials, though higher costs sparked debates on cost-effectiveness versus human insulins.

Economics and Market Dynamics

Pricing Structures and Controversies

Insulin pricing in the United States has been dominated by an of three manufacturers—Eli Lilly, , and —which control over 90% of the market, leading to list prices significantly higher than in other high-income countries, often exceeding nine times the international average. List prices, distinct from net prices after rebates, have driven out-of-pocket costs for uninsured patients and those in high-deductible plans, with a typical escalating from approximately $21 in 1996 to $275 by the late for products like Humalog. This structure relies on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) negotiating confidential rebates from manufacturers, which favor higher list prices to maximize rebate values, though net revenues to manufacturers are lower; critics argue this system distorts access for patients facing list-price exposure. Patent evergreening—minor formulation tweaks to extend exclusivity—has delayed generic or entry, exacerbating price rigidity despite insulin's century-old origins. Controversies intensified in the 2010s as annual price hikes averaged 15-20% across brands, tripling costs from 2002 to 2013 amid stagnant innovation in core insulin molecules, prompting allegations of coordinated pricing among the big three, though no criminal convictions have resulted. In September 2024, the Federal Trade Commission sued the largest PBMs—CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and UnitedHealth's OptumRx—for allegedly perpetuating a rebate system that prioritized expensive insulins over cheaper alternatives, artificially inflating costs and limiting competition. Ongoing class-action lawsuits accuse manufacturers and PBMs of collusion to suppress competition and overcharge, with settlements pending as of 2025. Public backlash, including patient deaths linked to rationing due to costs, spurred voluntary list-price cuts in March 2023: Eli Lilly reduced prices up to 70% and capped out-of-pocket costs at $35 for insured patients, followed by similar moves from Novo Nordisk (up to 75% for NovoLog) and Sanofi. These reductions, alongside emerging biosimilars, lowered average per-unit prices by 42% from 2019 to mid-2024, yet U.S. costs remain elevated compared to peers due to persistent market barriers. Federal reforms under the 2022 addressed Medicare beneficiaries by capping monthly out-of-pocket insulin costs at $35 starting January 2023 for Part D plans and July 2023 for Part B-administered products, benefiting over 1 million enrollees without altering manufacturer list prices directly. State-level caps, such as $35 monthly limits in and since 2020, had marginal uptake due to eligibility restrictions and insurer pushback, highlighting limits of fragmented interventions. While these measures mitigate immediate access issues for seniors, broader pricing opacity and PBM influence continue to fuel debate over whether rebate-driven models serve patients or entrench high gross prices, with calls for transparency and antitrust scrutiny persisting.

United States Market Specifics

The United States insulin market is dominated by three multinational pharmaceutical companies—, , and —which collectively control over 90% of the supply, limiting competition and contributing to elevated prices relative to other nations. These firms produce the majority of branded insulin analogs and human insulins available, with analog formulations holding the largest share due to their pharmacokinetic advantages over traditional human insulin. Industry revenue for domestic insulin manufacturing is projected to reach $6.5 billion in 2025, reflecting a compound annual decline amid pricing pressures and shifting demand toward biosimilars. Insulin's classification as a biologic under U.S. regulations imposes stringent approval pathways for s, creating barriers such as high development costs and abbreviated pathway limitations that deter new entrants compared to small-molecule generics. This has resulted in minimal penetration; as of 2025, only a handful of from manufacturers like and have gained approval, but market uptake remains low due to rebate-driven pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) preferences for originators. Ongoing antitrust lawsuits allege among the big three producers and PBMs like and to inflate list prices through rebate schemes, with pretrial proceedings continuing into late 2025. Federal interventions have targeted affordability, particularly for Medicare beneficiaries. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 capped out-of-pocket costs for insulin at $35 per month in Part D plans effective January 1, 2023, prompting voluntary list price reductions; for instance, Eli Lilly announced a 70% cut on select insulins in March 2023 to align with the cap. This provision remains intact as of 2025, unaffected by executive actions reversing other drug pricing executive orders, and has improved adherence among seniors by reducing financial barriers. At the state level, California's CalRx program, launched in 2025, enables pharmacies to sell state-manufactured insulin pens for $45–$55 per five-pack, marking the first public production initiative to counter perceived price gouging. Despite these measures, average list prices for insulin remain among the highest globally, averaging over $300 per vial before discounts, driven by opaque rebate systems that prioritize formulary placement over net cost reductions.

Global Access and Reforms

Access to insulin remains uneven globally, with low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) facing significant barriers including low availability of essential formulations and high out-of-pocket costs relative to income levels. A 2018 analysis across 73 countries found that human insulin was available in only 55% of facilities surveyed in LMICs, while affordability—measured as the number of daily wages needed to purchase a month's supply—exceeded 10% of average monthly income in over half of surveyed sites.30233-X/abstract) These challenges persist, as evidenced by ongoing underdiagnosis and suboptimal glycemic control, affecting an estimated 150 million worldwide reliant on insulin as of 2025.00217-7/abstract) Reforms have focused on enhancing supply through and generics, alongside controls. The (WHO) launched prequalification programs in 2019 to certify insulins from manufacturers in countries like , , and , aiming to reduce costs by enabling competitive imports into LMICs where patented brands dominate. regular human insulin (RHI) and neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) could theoretically cost as little as $72 per year per patient, with up to $133 annually, based on production cost estimates excluding excessive mark-ups. Nationally, has leveraged compulsory licensing and local production to cap insulin prices, though retail mark-ups still inflate costs despite wholesale regulations. In , high import tariffs—up to 20% on insulin in some cases—have prompted manufacturing initiatives, but availability gaps endure due to reliance on over cheaper human insulins. In the , through health systems has maintained lower prices—often under $10 per vial for human insulin—via tender processes that favor generics and biosimilars, serving as a model for reforms elsewhere. The WHO's Global Compact, initiated in recent years, seeks political commitments to prioritize insulin access, including delisting expensive long-acting analogues from lists in favor of proven human insulins amid market withdrawals of the latter.00292-X/fulltext) However, progress is hampered in regions like , where care investment constitutes just 1% of health budgets, exacerbating rationing and mortality risks. These efforts underscore a shift toward cost-based and supply chain diversification, though implementation varies by regulatory enforcement and trade policies.

Ongoing Research

Novel Delivery Innovations

Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, integrating continuous glucose monitoring with algorithmic control of insulin pumps, automate basal insulin adjustments to maintain euglycemia, marking a shift from manual therapy. Hybrid closed-loop variants, such as the Medtronic MiniMed 780G approved in 2023 and the Omnipod 5 system, require user-initiated boluses but have improved time-in-range by 10-15% in clinical trials compared to sensor-augmented pumps. Fully closed-loop systems, aiming to automate prandial dosing, remain in development, with prototypes incorporating AI for predictive adjustments showing reduced hypoglycemia in simulations but pending large-scale human validation. Multihormonal closed-loop innovations, delivering insulin alongside or pramlintide via dual-chamber pumps, address limitations of insulin-only systems by countering and improving postprandial control; phase 2 trials of such devices reported 71% time-in-range versus 61% for single-hormone systems. Intraperitoneal delivery variants, using implantable pumps to mimic physiologic absorption, reduce site reactions but require surgical intervention and face risks, with ongoing studies exploring long-term feasibility. Microneedle array patches enable painless insulin delivery by breaching the without stimulating nerves, offering potential for self-applied, needle-free administration. Glucose-responsive microneedles, incorporating phenylboronic acid or triggers, release insulin proportionally to in models, achieving normoglycemia for up to 10 hours post-application. Human trials remain sparse, with eight registered studies as of 2021 focusing on , but integrated basal-bolus patches demonstrated physiologic coverage in diabetic swine, suggesting viability for ambulatory use pending safety data. Oral insulin innovations leverage nanoparticles, cell-penetrating peptides, or natural polymers like to shield against enzymatic degradation and enhance intestinal absorption, targeting bioavailability below 5% in current subcutaneous standards. Preclinical formulations, such as insulin-loaded trimethyl chitosan nanoparticles, achieved 20-30% relative in rats, but phase 1 trials in 2024 reported inconsistent glycemic control due to variable gastric emptying. No oral insulin has gained regulatory approval by , with experts citing persistent enzymatic and permeability barriers as primary hurdles despite over a century of research.

Biosimilars and Competition

Biosimilars of insulin are biological products highly similar to approved reference insulins, with no clinically meaningful differences in safety, purity, or potency, developed to foster and reduce costs in the treatment market. Unlike small-molecule generics, insulin biosimilars require extensive analytical, preclinical, and clinical studies to demonstrate similarity due to the complexity of biologic manufacturing processes involving technology. In the United States, the first insulin , Semglee (insulin glargine-yfgn) referencing Lantus, was approved by the FDA in July 2021, followed by its interchangeable designation in July 2022, allowing pharmacy-level substitution without prescriber intervention in most states. By March 2025, three insulin were FDA-approved, including additional glargine variants, though uptake remained limited, with capturing less than 5% for glargine by mid-2024 due to payer formulary preferences favoring originator products tied to rebates. In February 2025, the FDA approved the first , Merilog (insulin aspart-szjj) referencing Novolog, with further approvals like Kirsty (insulin aspart-xjhz) in July 2025, signaling potential expansion in mealtime insulin competition. Europe has seen earlier and broader biosimilar entry, with the EMA approving biosimilars as early as 2014 under guidelines established in 2005, leading to price reductions of up to 40% in some markets upon launch. A 2025 study of European markets found biosimilar introductions correlated with sustained price erosion, though gains were uneven, averaging 20-30% in countries with automatic substitution policies. Competition faces structural barriers, including patent thickets from originators like , , and , which extend exclusivity through secondary patents on formulations and devices, delaying full market access until 2027-2030 for key products. Pharmacy benefit managers in the often prioritize rebate-heavy originator insulins over lower-priced s, suppressing uptake despite launches, as evidenced by 2023 data showing insulin access restricted on preferred formularies. challenges, such as achieving precise and isoform profiles, further limit entrants, with only a handful of firms like and achieving approvals. Despite these hurdles, launches have prompted originator price concessions in the , with list prices for some insulins dropping 70-90% between 2022 and 2024 amid legislative caps and competitive pressure. Overall, while introduce cost-saving potential, their impact on insulin affordability remains modest without reforms addressing rebate distortions and substitution barriers.

Alternative Approaches to Insulin Therapy

Allogeneic pancreatic islet transplantation offers a potential alternative to lifelong exogenous insulin administration for select patients with type 1 diabetes, particularly those experiencing severe hypoglycemic unawareness. The procedure entails isolating insulin-producing islet cells from deceased donor pancreases and infusing them into the patient's hepatic portal vein, where they engraft and restore endogenous insulin secretion. Clinical outcomes indicate that approximately 70-80% of recipients achieve insulin independence within the first year, with some maintaining euglycemia for over five years without immunosuppression withdrawal. However, long-term graft function declines in many cases due to immune-mediated rejection and progressive beta-cell exhaustion, necessitating ongoing immunosuppressive therapy that carries risks of infection and malignancy. In June 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Lantidra, the first allogeneic cellular therapy for type 1 diabetes, specifically for adults unable to achieve target glycemia despite intensive management, based on trials showing 21 of 30 patients insulin-independent at one year post-infusion. Stem cell-derived islet therapies represent an emerging regenerative approach to replace lost beta cells, addressing donor shortages inherent in allogeneic transplantation. These involve differentiating pluripotent stem cells into functional insulin-secreting , which are then implanted, often with encapsulation to mitigate . A June 2025 phase 1/2 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrated that stem cell-derived islets engrafted successfully in participants with , enabling endogenous insulin production and insulin independence in multiple subjects, with normalized responses and reduced hypoglycemic events over 12 months. Similarly, ' VX-880 program, using CRISPR-edited stem cells, has shown participants achieving target HbA1c levels without insulin in early trials as of 2023, though risks of immune rejection and potential off-target genetic effects persist. Scalability challenges and the need for or bioengineering solutions, such as vascularized implants, limit widespread adoption, but preclinical data suggest improved engraftment when co-transplanted with endothelial cells. Oral insulin formulations seek to bypass injection-related barriers by enabling gastrointestinal absorption, potentially improving adherence for type 1 and management. Nanoencapsulation techniques, such as chitosan-coated nanoparticles or conjugates, protect insulin from enzymatic degradation and enhance paracellular uptake, with studies demonstrating postprandial glucose control comparable to subcutaneous dosing. phase 1 trials for glucose-responsive oral insulin, incorporating protective polymers, are slated to commence in early 2025, following preclinical efficacy in diabetic models; prior formulations like ORMD-0801 showed modest HbA1c reductions in trials but faced issues below 5%. Despite promise, clinical translation remains hindered by variable absorption, gastric variability, and higher dosing requirements, with no formulations approved as of October 2025. Whole pancreas transplantation, typically combined with transplant in end-stage renal , provides a more invasive alternative achieving near-physiological insulin regulation. Success rates exceed 80% for one-year graft survival in experienced centers, with most recipients insulin-independent indefinitely, though risks (around 5%) and chronic allograft rejection constrain its use to brittle cases. Autologous autotransplantation after total for has preserved insulin independence in up to 70% of patients at one year, averting surgical . These biological replacements contrast with mechanical aids like hybrid closed-loop systems, which automate insulin delivery but do not restore native beta-cell function. Ongoing refinements, including gene-edited xenogeneic islets from pigs, may expand options but require rigorous safety validation against zoonotic risks.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.