LI Liushui , CHEN Jing , LIU Yang , LIU Xianjun
  • Beijing Luhe Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 101149, P. R. China;
LIU Xianjun, Email: xjxianjun@163.com
Drug evaluation; Drug selection; Multi-dimensional quantitative evaluation; Rapid-acting insulin analogue; Insulin aspart; Insulin lispro; Insulin glulisine
10.7507/1672-2531.202403100
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables References Cited by

Objective  This study aims to conduct a multi-dimensional quantitative evaluation of three rapid-acting insulin analogues, aspart (Novolog), lispro (Humalog), and glulisine (Apidra) to provide references for the selection of these drugs in medical institutions. Methods  The recommended methods from the "Quick guideline for drug evaluation and selection in Chinese medical institutions (the second edition)" were employed to evaluate the pharmaceutical characteristics, effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, and other attributes of the three rapid-acting insulin analogues. Results  The total scores of insulins aspart (Novolog), lispro (Humalog), and glulisine (Apidra) were 73.5, 80.4, and 70.9, respectively. Insulin lispro (Humalog) had the highest score, demonstrating a prominent advantage in both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness dimensions. Conversely, insulin glulisine (Apidra) had the lowest score, with ratings in effectiveness and safety dimensions lower than those of the other two rapid-acting insulin analogs. Conclusion  When selecting rapid-acting insulin analogs, healthcare institutions can choose one or more insulins, aspart (Novolog), lispro (Humalog), or glulisine (Apidra), all of which are strongly recommended, with priority given to insulin lispro (Humalog), which has the highest total score.