3 ms·
"Although long-acting analogues cause less hypoglycemia than NPH does, 27 it has yet to be shown that analogues lead to better long-term outcomes than standard
by cperciva 12y ago
"Although long-acting analogues cause less hypoglycemia than NPH does, 27 it has yet to be shown that analogues lead to better long-term outcomes than standard recombinant human insulin does. 28"
Doctors vs. patients. Regardless of what doctors may think, as a patient I can assure you that not randomly passing out due to hypoglycaemia is a better outcome. Similarly taking one shot of basal insulin per day is better than three shots per day.
"On the whole, insulin today is demonstrably safer and more convenient to use than products available in 1923. But whether each incremental innovation is worth the price we pay, in a world where insulin remains unaffordable to many patients with diabetes, is less certain."
Bovine and porcine insulins didn't go away simply because newer insulins were more profitable. They went away because 99.9% of patients didn't want them any more.
- gwern 12y ago> Regardless of what doctors may think, as a patient I can assure you that not randomly passing out due to hypoglycaemia is a better outcome. I think you are exaggerating. Cite please. You also aren't addressing the other points: you claimed animal insulin was extremely dangerous and this justifies the continued monopoly through recombinant patents, when the paper specifically says that almost all of that safety problem had been dealt with. > Bovine and porcine insulins didn't go away simply because newer insulins were more profitable. That's pretty much what the paper argues, actually...