This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.
What Insulin lispro does in the body
Lispro is human insulin with the last two building blocks of one chain swapped around.
Insulin in a vial does not float around as single molecules. Six of them lock together into a stable ring, and that ring has to come apart before anything can be absorbed, which takes about half an hour. The swap sits exactly where the ring holds itself together, so the ring falls apart almost immediately. Nothing about how the insulin works has changed, only how fast it becomes available.
Why people take it. Fast-acting mealtime insulin for type 1 and type 2 diabetes
What happened in people
Type 1 diabetes: HbA1c 0.15 percentage points lower than regular human insulin across 2,608 participants
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The recorded finding that sits closest to something a person would notice. Written into the record, not signed off, and it carries no population or interval.
Rapid analogues became the default mealtime insulin worldwide and are the only insulins used in modern closed-loop pump systems
Where it acts
Subcutaneous depot, then insulin receptors on liver, muscle and fat cells
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
Supervision
Professional supervision is normally required. A regulator classifies this substance in a way that restricts how it is supplied.
What the registries record it as
The substance registry classes this as protein.
FDA substance registry · GFX7QIS1II · read 2026-08-29
Its recorded molecular formula is C257H383N65O77S6, weighing 5.808 kDa.
US prescribing information · 6ee01d2e-3525-4aa9-8ec1-5fb0f63dd47c · read 2026-08-30
Where each sentence above came from
A person wrote this explanation into the record, with the studies named in the path below.
The recorded use, written for a reader without medical training. Not signed off.
A limit recorded against this substance. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The four opening statements run to 111 words.
Words this page uses
Four words worth knowing first
Chosen from what this page shows, with each one explained before the word it depends on.
Biomarker
A biomarker is a number from a test that stands in for something about health.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A biomarker is like a fuel gauge.
Where that stops being true. A gauge is wired to the tank. Many biomarkers are only loosely tied to health.
What people get wrong. A better number is read as a better life. Several medicines improved a number and helped nobody.
A measurable indicator used as a substitute for a clinical outcome of interest.
Stand-in result
A stand-in result is a number measured because the real result takes too long.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like judging a journey by the speedometer rather than by arriving.
Where that stops being true. Speed does predict arrival. Many stand-in results do not predict the real one.
What people get wrong. A stand-in result is often reported as the result itself.
A surrogate endpoint substituted for a clinical endpoint, valid only where the substitution has been shown to hold.
Absolute difference
An absolute difference is how many more people in a hundred were affected.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like counting heads in two rooms of a hundred.
Where that stops being true. Heads are easy to count. Study results carry a margin of error too.
What people get wrong. It is confused with a percentage change, which can look far larger.
The arithmetic difference in event rates between arms.
Confidence interval
A confidence interval is the range the true answer is likely to sit in.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like a weather forecast giving a range rather than one number.
Where that stops being true. A forecast range covers tomorrow. This one covers what the study could resolve.
What people get wrong. The middle number is read as the answer. A range crossing zero means no change is still possible.
An interval estimate that would contain the true parameter in a stated proportion of repeated studies.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What was measured, goal by goal
One row for each goal a registered study measured something for. One column for each kind of thing that could be measured.
Registered studies list 40 outcome measures that RNAWiki could read. A registered study says what someone planned to measure. It does not say what they found. 0 of the matched studies tested this substance, and 0 posted a result.
There is no single score. A strong test result and a weak life result are different facts.
Goals down the side, kinds of measurement across the top. Each cell says what kind of thing was registered, not what was found.
Goal
Life outcome
What a body can do
How a person feels
A test result
A step in the body
Harms
How long
Who was studied
Blood sugar
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a performance measure for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a symptom measure for this goal.
△Only a number moved13 registered test measure.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a body-step measure for this goal.
…Waiting for a reviewer1 registered harm measure.
—Not recordedNo finished study window is recorded.
…Waiting for a reviewerWho was studied is listed further down the page.
Which registered measures put each goal on this table
Blood sugar
hba1c; addendum 24 week endpoint hba1c; hba1c to week 16; time to maximum serum insulin concentration; maximum serum insulin concentration; insulin auc; postprandial glucose excursion; postprandial glucose excursion following a liquid meal
Sorted by fixed word lists, version v1. A name the rules do not recognise stays unsorted rather than moving to the nearest column.
What each mark on this table means
∅ Nothing in the sources checked
No registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.
△ Only a number moved
13 registered test measure.
… Waiting for a reviewer
1 registered harm measure.
— Not recorded
No finished study window is recorded.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What happened in people
Each card is one study: the exact question it asked, who was in it, and whether it showed what it set out to show.
Results from the one trial this record names
In NCT02273180, Change in HbA1c From Baseline to Week 26 (least squares mean, percentage of HbA1c) was SAR342434 (insulin lispro): least squares mean change -0.42 against Humalog (insulin lispro): least squares mean change -0.47 in the comparison group at Baseline, Week 26. The recorded difference is Least squares mean difference 0.06 versus Humalog (95% CI -0.084 to 0.197).
ClinicalTrials.gov record · NCT02273180 · read 2026-08-27
Change in HbA1c versus regular human insulin
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
Cochrane CD012161 (type 1 diabetes, 9 pooled randomised trials)
How many people
2693
Study design
Systematic review of Phase 3 trials
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
p < 0.00001 (mean difference -0.15%, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.10)
Repeated elsewhere
Replicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. Every included trial was unblinded, so hypoglycaemia — a subjective, participant-reported outcome — carried a high risk of detection bias in all of them.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Subcutaneous injection by pen, vial or continuous subcutaneous infusion pump
Interval reported. 95% CI -0
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
RNAWiki holds 2 written-up human studies for this substance, each with the question it asked.
How we know it
Each card names the study, the number of people and what the study set out to measure.
What this does not prove
These summaries were written by a person and have not been signed off as reviewed claims.
Why it matters
A study that failed is as informative as one that worked, and both are here.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim exists, so no exact population, effect size or interval is published yet.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
How close this is to real life
The top step is something a person would feel or care about. The bottom is a guess from software. Filled steps are where evidence exists for this substance.
□Living longer, or avoiding a major eventNo evidence recorded. Death, a heart attack, a stroke, a hospital stay.No registered study measures this.
□What a body can do day to dayNo evidence recorded. Walking, dressing, breathing, recovering.No registered study measures this.
□Measured performanceNo evidence recorded. How much was lifted, how far was run, how fast.No registered study measures this.
□Symptoms and quality of lifeNo evidence recorded. Pain, tiredness, mood, sleep, as the person rated it.No registered study measures this.
■A number that stands in for healthEvidence recorded. Cholesterol, blood sugar, bone density. A stand-in, not the thing itself.31 registered measures of this kind.
■A step measured inside a personEvidence recorded. Something measured in human tissue or human cells.A human record sits on the stored organism ladder.
□AnimalsNo evidence recorded. Mice, rats, dogs. Useful for ideas, not proof about people.No animal record is stored.
□Cells in a dishNo evidence recorded. Cells or chemistry on a bench, far from a whole body.No cell or bench record is stored.
□A guess from softwareNo evidence recorded. Nobody measured it. RNAWiki never publishes one as a finding.RNAWiki stores no prediction for this record. Software can suggest a link. RNAWiki does not publish one as a finding.
Higher on these steps means closer to something a person would feel. It does not mean better done.
What it changes in the body◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
The path through the body
From what a person takes to what changes. A solid line is a step measured in people. A dashed line is a step nobody has measured that way.
Where a source records it acting
Muscle: Lowers blood glucose by stimulating peripheral glucose uptake by skeletal muscle and fat
US prescribing information · 0691def8-4a7b-4de3-866f-a280989f47f1 · read 2026-08-27
Liver: Lowers blood glucose by inhibiting hepatic glucose production
US prescribing information · 0691def8-4a7b-4de3-866f-a280989f47f1 · read 2026-08-27
Start
Insulin lispro
What a person takes: Subcutaneous injection by pen, vial or continuous subcutaneous infusion pump.
The measurement behind this step
Clear, colourless solution at 100 or 200 units/mL, injected within about 15 minutes before or immediately after a meal. It is also the standard reservoir insulin for insulin pumps and hybrid closed-loop systems, where its fast off-rate is what makes automated correction possible.
Getting in
Injected as a hexamer that is already unstable
Like all insulins in a vial, it is stored as rings of six molecules. Unlike human insulin, those rings are built to fall apart quickly.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Formulated with zinc and a phenolic ligand as the R6 hexamer for shelf stability. The B28-B29 inversion removes the ProB28 contact that anchors the antiparallel beta-sheet at the monomer-monomer interface, so the dimerisation constant drops by roughly 300-fold.
Dissociates to monomers in the subcutaneous tissue
Once injected and diluted, the rings break into single molecules almost immediately instead of over half an hour.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Dilution below the hexamer dissociation constant, plus loss of zinc and phenolic ligand into the interstitium, drives rapid conversion to dimers and monomers. Only monomers and dimers cross the capillary endothelium efficiently.
Absorbed into the circulation within about 15 minutes
It reaches the bloodstream fast enough that you can inject at the table rather than half an hour before eating.
──Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The measurement behind this step
Capillary uptake of the monomeric form gives an onset around 15 minutes, a peak at 30-90 minutes and a duration of 3-5 hours, against roughly 30 minutes, 2-4 hours and 6-8 hours for regular human insulin.
From here it is ordinary insulin. It docks on the same receptor and gives the same instruction.
──Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The measurement behind this step
The B28-B29 inversion sits at the self-association surface, not the receptor-binding surface, so receptor affinity and downstream signalling are essentially unchanged from human insulin.
Drives glucose out of the blood into muscle and fat
Muscle and fat cells open their glucose doors, and the liver stops adding more sugar to the blood.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
IRS-PI3K-Akt signalling triggers AS160 phosphorylation and GLUT4 vesicle translocation in muscle and adipocytes, while suppressing hepatic gluconeogenic transcription.
The measurable result is a smaller blood sugar spike after eating and less insulin still circulating hours later.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Reduced postprandial excursion and a shorter duration of action. In type 1 diabetes this converts to an HbA1c difference of 0.15 percentage points; in type 2 diabetes the pooled difference is -0.03 percentage points.
No suggested links are held for this record, so nothing is hidden from this path.
What we know
The record describes 6 steps from taking it to an effect in a person.
How we know it
Each step names the study behind it in the technical detail beside it.
What this does not prove
A change inside the body is a reason to look. It is not a result in a person.
Why it matters
A reader can see exactly where the chain stops being measured in people.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim binds any of these steps to a named population.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Felt, measured, or meaningful
Three different things that get called the same word. Registered studies measured all three, and mixing them is how a blood test becomes a health claim.
Felt
Things a person could notice without a test.
No registered study measured anything of this kind.
Things that change how a life goes, not only a number.
No registered study measured anything of this kind.
A registered study says what someone planned to measure. It does not say what they found. A number moving is not the same as a life going better. The two are shown apart here.
Felt, but not shown to help. A person notices a change. No study showed it leads anywhere good.
Measured, but not felt. A number moves. The person notices nothing. Both can be true.
Measured, but not shown to matter. A number moves in the good direction. Nobody showed that lives went better.
Matters, but takes years. The result that counts may take longer than anyone would keep watching.
Names that fit none of the three (9)
who experienced a primary combined outcome
glycemic stability
glycemic control 24 to 100 hours after line change
relative bioavailability
insulin tolerability pk and pd
birth weight per arm
bioequivalence based on pharmacokinetic parameter auc
bioequivalence based on pharmacodynamic parameter auc
cognition
These are harms, study-process measures, or names the rules did not recognise. They are shown rather than dropped.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
How long anything takes
Nine different lengths of time that get confused with each other. None of them is worked out from another.
Before anything is noticed.RNAWiki does not store this separately, and never works it out from another figure on this page.
Before a test result moves.RNAWiki does not store this separately, and never works it out from another figure on this page.
Before performance moves.RNAWiki does not store this separately, and never works it out from another figure on this page.
How long the result was watched.No finished study window is recorded for a study that tested this substance.
How long people took it.How long people actually took it is not stored. The study window is not the same thing.
How long people were followed.Follow-up length is not stored separately. It is never read off the study window, which would be a different thing.
How fast the body clears it. 0.85 to 0.92 hours hours
Read from the label, which states: “Another insulin lispro product, 100 units/mL, demonstrated a mean t 1/2 of 0.85 hours (51 minutes) and 0.92 hours (55 minutes), respectively for 0.1 unit/kg and 0.2 unit/kg doses.”
How long effects linger.RNAWiki does not store this separately, and never works it out from another figure on this page.
Beyond the studies. Nothing is recorded about the long term.
The longest finished study sets the edge of what anyone measured.
A study window is not how long people took it, and neither is how long they were followed. Where RNAWiki holds only one of the three, it shows one.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Were people like you studied?
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it, and where the result stops carrying.
Who was studied
People similar to this profile were included.
Everyone on a basal-bolus regimen for type 1 diabetes, everyone using an insulin pump, and people with type 2 diabetes whose post-meal glucose is not controlled by basal insulin alone.
Who is missing from the studies
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
Who a named study recorded including and excluding
It included: Participants with T1DM diagnosed for at least 12 months and had been treated with insulin glargine and Humalog or Novolog®/Novo Rapid® (at least 3 times daily before each meal) in the 6 months prior to the screening visit; Written informed consent.
ClinicalTrials.gov record · NCT02273180 · read 2026-08-27
It excluded: At screening visit, age under legal age of adulthood; HbA1c <7.0% or >10% at screening; Diabetes other than T1DM; Status post pancreatectomy; Status post pancreas and/or islet cell transplantation; Use of insulin pump in the last 6 months before screening visit.
ClinicalTrials.gov record · NCT02273180 · read 2026-08-27
What the label states about particular groups
On pediatric, the label states: “The safety and effectiveness of HUMALOG to improve glycemic control have been established in pediatric patients with diabetes mellitus.”
US prescribing information · 6ee01d2e-3525-4aa9-8ec1-5fb0f63dd47c · read 2026-08-30
On older people, the label states: “Of the total number of patients (n=2,834) in eight clinical studies of HUMALOG, twelve percent (n=338) were 65 years of age or over.”
US prescribing information · 6ee01d2e-3525-4aa9-8ec1-5fb0f63dd47c · read 2026-08-30
On people who are pregnant, the label states: “Risk Summary Published studies with insulin lispro used during pregnancy have not reported an association between insulin lispro and the induction of major birth defects, miscarriage, or adverse maternal or fetal outcomes (see Data) .”
US prescribing information · 6ee01d2e-3525-4aa9-8ec1-5fb0f63dd47c · read 2026-08-30
On people who are breastfeeding, the label states: “Risk Summary Available data from published literature suggests that exogenous human insulin products, including insulin lispro, are transferred into human milk.”
US prescribing information · 6ee01d2e-3525-4aa9-8ec1-5fb0f63dd47c · read 2026-08-30
On people with reduced liver function, the label states: “Patients with hepatic impairment may be at increased risk of hypoglycemia and may require more frequent HUMALOG dose adjustment and more frequent blood glucose monitoring [see Clinical Pharmacology ( 12.3 )] .”
US prescribing information · 6ee01d2e-3525-4aa9-8ec1-5fb0f63dd47c · read 2026-08-30
On people with reduced kidney function, the label states: “Patients with renal impairment may be at increased risk of hypoglycemia and may require more frequent HUMALOG dose adjustment and more frequent blood glucose monitoring [see Clinical Pharmacology ( 12.3 )] .”
US prescribing information · 6ee01d2e-3525-4aa9-8ec1-5fb0f63dd47c · read 2026-08-30
Where the result stopped carrying
No biosimilar entered the US market in the decade after the compound patent expired in 2013
Attempts to demonstrate a quality-of-life advantage produced results the Cochrane reviewers judged unreliable
This is a scope explorer, not a diagnosis engine.
It shows who was studied so you can see whether people similar to you were included.
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Why it might seem to do nothing
A real effect and a noticed effect are different things. These are the recorded reasons the two come apart.
It was studied for a different goal
The studies measured something else entirely.
On this record: Some registered studies measured things that match no goal on this page.
It was studied in different people
The people in the studies were not much like the reader.
On this record: Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
The evidence may simply be wrong
Small early studies often do not hold up.
On this record: RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Other reasons RNAWiki checked and found nothing for (10)
A different form was studied
The studied form is not the form on the shelf. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
There was nothing to correct
Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else had to happen too
In the studies it was paired with training, a diet or another treatment. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The change is too small to feel
A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Day-to-day swing hides it
Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Not enough time yet
The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
It was not taken as studied
Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else changed at the same time
Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The product may not be what it says
Contents of a sold product are not always what the label states. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
No recorded reason
RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
None of these is a reason to take more. Taking more is not a step this page ever suggests.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What taking it involves
The recorded facts about getting hold of it and using it. Nothing here is a suggestion about what you should do.
How it is supplied
Given by a clinician
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Read from the recorded approval status.
No source is stored against this line.
Form and route
Subcutaneous injection by pen, vial or continuous subcutaneous infusion pump
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form and route recorded on this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
Who oversees it
Professional supervision is normally required. A regulator classifies this substance in a way that restricts how it is supplied.
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Suppression classes recorded: S9.
No source is stored against this line.
What is in the pack
Clear, colourless solution at 100 or 200 units/mL, injected within about 15 minutes before or immediately after a meal. It is also the standard reservoir insulin for insulin pumps and hybrid closed-loop systems, where its fast off-rate is what makes automated correction possible.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on how this is sold and what that means for what is in the pack.
No source is stored against this line.
Where it is registered
Regulatory records are listed in the technical disclosure at the foot of this page.
# Counted from records
Where this came from
A count of rows RNAWiki holds. It describes our records, not your body.
Register entries are stored per jurisdiction and shown with their dates.
No source is stored against this line.
Why people stop
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No record of why people stopped taking it is stored for this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What can go wrong
Sorted by where each line came from. A regulator's label and a report somebody sent in are not the same kind of fact.
·Worth asking a clinician aboutWritten into the record from the studies named on this page
Hypoglycaemia is the dose-limiting toxicity. Hypokalaemia, injection-site reactions, lipodystrophy and hypersensitivity are the other labelled risks. In pump use, any interruption of delivery causes ketosis within hours because there is no basal depot to fall back on.
Nobody counted how many people took this and were fine, so this cannot be turned into a rate.
These are reports people sent to a regulator. They do not show the medicine caused the reaction.
Nobody counted how many people took the medicine and reported nothing.
The same event can be reported more than once, and many reports are incomplete.
News coverage, lawsuits and new warnings change how often people report.
A count is not a rate and not a risk.
Insulin lispro appears in spontaneous reports to regulators. Across the 10 most-reported reaction terms, 6975 reaction mentions were counted. One report can name several reactions.
diabetes mellitus inadequate control — 311 reaction mentions
blood glucose abnormal — 236 reaction mentions
visual impairment — 207 reaction mentions
open-targets-adr · recorded 2026-06-24 · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Over a long time. No completed tested study window is recorded, so long-term effects are not established by the registry record.
Groups the studies covered thinly. Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Does the exact form matter?
Evidence belongs to the exact thing that was tested. A different salt, a different mixture or a different preparation is a different question.
The form that was studied
Subcutaneous injection by pen, vial or continuous subcutaneous infusion pump
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form used in the studies cited on this page.
No source is stored against this line.
What is sold
It is also the standard reservoir insulin for insulin pumps and hybrid closed-loop systems, where its fast off-rate is what makes automated correction possible.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on which forms are sold and how they compare.
No source is stored against this line.
What is recorded as being sold
54 products list this as an active ingredient in the United States drug directory. 54 of them contain it and nothing else.
FDA National Drug Code directory · 0002-7510 · read 2026-08-29
They are sold as crystal, injection, solution and injection, suspension, taken intravenous and subcutaneous.
FDA National Drug Code directory · 0002-7510 · read 2026-08-29
The regulator's established pharmacologic class for it is insulin analog [epc] and insulin [chemical/ingredient].
FDA National Drug Code directory · 0002-7510 · read 2026-08-29
13 published labels name it as an active ingredient. 12 of them describe this substance alone, which is where its own label text on this page comes from.
US prescribing information · 6ee01d2e-3525-4aa9-8ec1-5fb0f63dd47c · read 2026-08-29
Those labels are classed as human prescription drug.
US prescribing information · 6ee01d2e-3525-4aa9-8ec1-5fb0f63dd47c · read 2026-08-29
901 marketed supplement labels list this ingredient, classed as botanical, non-nutrient/non-botanical and other combinations.
Those labels carry all other and structure/function claims. A claim of that kind is written by the manufacturer and is not assessed by any regulator, so its presence says nothing about whether it is true.
ADMELOG is injection: clear and colorless solution (multiple-dose vials and single-patient-use solostar prefilled pens) at Injection: 100 units/mL (U-100), recorded as prescription product; fda label in effect 2025-06-04 in the United States.
US prescribing information · 0691def8-4a7b-4de3-866f-a280989f47f1 · read 2026-08-27
Recorded price in US: 2.40277–10.19376 USD per one millilitre, across 2 priced products whose strengths and pack forms differ, as of 2026-08-26, paid by retail pharmacies buying the product, as surveyed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It is not a list price, an insurance price, or what anyone pays at a counter..
Recorded source · 2026-08-26 · read 2026-08-28
Evidence carries across two names for one substance. It does not carry across a salt, a mirror form or a mixture.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What you could measure
This one is decided with a clinician, so this section holds questions to ask rather than a plan to run.
Self-experiment planning is not offered for a prescription or clinician-supervised medicine. The questions below are for a clinician or pharmacist.
Questions worth asking
Which of the trials of Insulin lispro studied people like me?
What was measured, and for how long?
Was the result a laboratory value or a health outcome?
What would we watch for, and when would we stop?
Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.
RNAWiki records evidence. It does not say whether this substance is right for you.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Claims that go past the evidence
Things said about this substance that sound reasonable, and the exact step that is missing between the evidence and the claim.
✗Goes past the evidence
That rapid analogues reduce severe hypoglycaemia — the pooled odds ratio in type 1 diabetes was 0.89 with a confidence interval crossing 1
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That better post-meal curves reduce retinopathy, nephropathy, neuropathy or death — no trial in either review was designed to look
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That the price difference over human insulin reflects a proportionate clinical difference
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What nobody knows yet
Open questions, each with why it is open and what would close it.
Missing populations
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing long-term data
No completed tested study window is recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
No reviewed conclusion
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing interaction studies
No interaction was found in the registers checked. Not finding one is not the same as showing there is none.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Formulation uncertainty
Several salts, forms or products of Insulin lispro are recorded. Results from one form may not transfer to another.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Mechanism not reviewed
No reviewed mechanism story exists for this substance.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Check any of this yourself
Every line above traced back to the study it came from. This is the technical layer, and the vocabulary changes here.
Every line above can be traced to the study named beside it. Follow the link and read it.
Cochrane, type 1 diabetes: HbA1c 0.15 percentage points lower than human insulin
In plain words
Nine trials and 2,693 people. The blood sugar advantage over ordinary human insulin was real but small, and the evidence for fewer severe lows was very weak.
What was measured
HbA1c mean difference -0.15% (95% CI -0.20 to -0.10) across 2,608 participants
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Cochrane systematic review of randomised trials of at least 24 weeks in adults with type 1 diabetes. Mean HbA1c difference -0.15% (95% CI -0.20 to -0.10, low-quality evidence) favouring analogues. Severe hypoglycaemia odds ratio 0.89 (95% CI 0.71-1.12, p = 0.31, very low-quality evidence). No trial was blinded, and none was designed to measure mortality or diabetic complications.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
In type 2 diabetes the HbA1c difference is zero
In plain words
Ten trials, 2,751 people. The average difference in blood sugar control between the expensive analogue and ordinary human insulin was -0.03 percentage points, which is indistinguishable from nothing.
What was measured
That a faster pharmacokinetic profile delivers better glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Cochrane systematic review, adult non-pregnant patients with type 2 diabetes, interventions of at least 24 weeks. Mean HbA1c difference -0.03% (95% CI -0.16 to 0.09, p = 0.60; prediction interval -0.31% to 0.25%; low-certainty evidence). Severe hypoglycaemia was reported too heterogeneously to pool and showed no clear difference. Non-severe hypoglycaemic episodes per participant per month were 0.08 higher with analogues (95% CI 0.00 to 0.16, very low certainty). The review authors concluded there were no clear benefits.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
No trial in this class was designed to measure a hard outcome
In plain words
Across nineteen randomised trials in both Cochrane reviews, not one was built to find out whether these insulins change death rates, eye disease, kidney disease or nerve damage.
What was measured
That better post-meal glucose curves translate into fewer diabetic complications or longer life
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Both Cochrane reviews state explicitly that no included trial was designed to investigate long-term effects such as all-cause mortality or microvascular and macrovascular complications, and that none reported socioeconomic outcomes. In the type 2 review, six trials reported deaths at all: 5 of 1,272 on analogues and 3 of 1,247 on human insulin, Peto odds ratio 1.66 (95% CI 0.41-6.64, p = 0.48). Health-related quality of life was assessed in two trials and judged unreliable.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The molecular claim is exact and checkable
In plain words
The label states the chemistry precisely: proline and lysine at positions 28 and 29 of the B chain are swapped. The formula and the weight are identical to human insulin.
What was measured
C257H383N65O77S6, 5,808 Da; two-residue inversion at B28-B29
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Insulin lispro is Lys(B28), Pro(B29) human insulin analogue, empirical formula C257H383N65O77S6, molecular weight 5.808 kDa, both identical to human insulin. The inversion disrupts the B-chain C-terminal beta-sheet contacts that stabilise the dimer interface, so hexamers dissociate to monomers rapidly after subcutaneous injection. This is one of the few therapeutic proteins where the entire mechanism of improvement is a self-association property rather than a receptor property.
Source
HUMALOG US prescribing information, Description section
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
verified
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Price rose for a molecule whose patent expired in 2013
In plain words
Published cost models put a year of mealtime analogue at around a hundred dollars to make. US list prices ran far above that for a decade after the patent expired, and only came down when the issue became political.
What was measured
That patent expiry on a biologic produces price competition the way it does for a small molecule
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
The 2018 model estimated a biosimilar price of $95-$130 per patient per year for insulin lispro. The 2024 update put a full basal-bolus analogue regimen at $111 per patient per year including reusable pen and needles. Lilly announced a 70% list-price cut in March 2023 and set unbranded Insulin Lispro Injection at $25 per vial from 1 May 2023, describing that price as lower than a Humalog vial cost in 1999. No competitor entered with a biosimilar in the decade after patent expiry; the price fell when the manufacturer chose to compete with itself.
This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.
What is not here
3 questions this page could not answer
These sections were prepared and left out because there was nothing to put in them. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gaps in this record are visible.
What it may clash with — found nothing in the sources checked.
Other ways to the same goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
What changed on this page — found nothing in the sources checked.
The record as stored
The full record, for auditing
Everything above is built from what is below. This layer keeps the technical vocabulary, record identifiers and every stored row, so a reader who wants to check the page can.
The older medicine-wide conclusion held in this record
Written for a clinical reader, and about the medicine as a whole rather than about one indication, population and set of trials. RNAWiki does not treat it as a programme conclusion and no reviewer has signed it off in that form. It is here word for word because it is what the record holds.
Swapping two adjacent amino acids at the end of the B chain stops insulin molecules from clumping into slow-dissolving hexamers, which cuts the onset from around 30 minutes to around 15; the measured glycaemic gain over ordinary human insulin is an HbA1c difference of 0.15 percentage points in type 1 diabetes and none at all in type 2.
Recorded evidence blocks (11)
Q2
What did Insulin lispro's largest trial (2091 people) and its longest (7.3 years) measure?
2091 people in Insulin lispro's largest registered study, 7.3 years in its longest registered window, measuring Grip strength. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
67 phase1, 44 phase3, 43 phase4, 28 phase2, 22 na, 2 na or unstated; NCT01269047; 2016-12. Last human test completed 2025, NCT06370715.
Interpretation These counts include studies where Insulin lispro was a comparison treatment, a background treatment or an exposure in an observational study, and the longest window may be a planned end date. Trial roles have not yet been classified for this record.
Show the evidence
phase1
67
phase3
44
phase4
43
phase2
28
na
22
na or unstated
2
1 more recorded row
Last recorded human testNCT06370715
2025-09-02
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q3
Insulin lispro was tested only in human — what did it show?
"See termination reason in detailed description."; 20 of 198 registered studies
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT00356421
terminated; "See termination reason in detailed description."
NCT00428207
terminated; "Treatment differences not detected with 7 point fingerstick monitoring"
NCT00700622
terminated; "Sponsor stopped development of the MedTone inhaler in favor of an improved device (Gen2 inhaler)"
NCT01035801
terminated; "This study was temporarily paused due to an unanticipated bioanalytical issue."
NCT01136746
terminated; "Low enrollment"
NCT01398670
withdrawn; "Study was not initiated"
14 further recorded trials
NCT01399255
withdrawn; "Study was not initiated"
NCT01400789
withdrawn; "Study was not initiated"
NCT01400802
withdrawn; "Study was not initiated"
NCT02446028
suspended; "IND Withdrawn"
NCT02623452
withdrawn; "Change in clinical strategy"
NCT02623465
withdrawn; "Change in clinical strategy"
NCT02623478
withdrawn; "Change in clinical strategy"
NCT03229850
withdrawn; "Study was suspended due to current COVID 19 research curtailment"
NCT03248271
withdrawn; "Study design was changed to the study was changed to Insulin, hypotension and sarcopenia."
NCT03262116
terminated; "Devices are not available"
NCT03307512
terminated; "Termination due to incomplete enrollment; planned data analysis not performed"
NCT03660553
terminated; "PI left University of Miami"
NCT04254380
withdrawn; "GanLee cancelled study -FDA Draft Guidance: "Clinical Immunogenicity Considerations for Biosimilar \& Interchangeable Insulin Products" released 11/25/2019"
NCT04416269
terminated; "The study was suspended and during this time recruitment and study activities were halted. The study was ultimately terminated in April 2026 without having re-opened for recruitment additional participants."
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q5
Human studies of Insulin lispro used Humalog Mix75/25 (75% insulin lispro protamine suspension and 25% insulin lispro injection) — over how long?
Insulin lispro's half-life is 0.85 to 0.92 hours — which schedules were studied?
0.85 to 0.92 hours, the half-life Insulin lispro's label states. openfda-label · b34cd3ff-d0af-4852-b4ef-2a8b4a93aeae · 2026-08-27
bioavailability 55% to 77% %.
Show the evidence
half life
0.85 to 0.92 hours hours; Another insulin lispro product, 100 units/mL, demonstrated a mean t 1/2 of 0.85 hours (51 minutes) and 0.92 hours (55 minutes), respectively for 0.1 unit/kg and 0.2 unit/kg doses.
bioavailability
55% to 77% %; The absolute bioavailability of another insulin lispro product, 100 units/mL, after subcutaneous injection ranges from 55% to 77% with doses between 0.1 to 0.2 unit/kg, inclusive.
metabolism
12 CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY 12.1 Mechanism of Action The primary activity of insulin including HUMALOG Mix50/50 is the regulation of glucose metabolism.
recorded 2026-08-27 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q7
Which of addendum 24 week endpoint hba1c, bioequivalence based on pharmacodynamic parameter auc and bioequivalence based on pharmacokinetic parameter auc did Insulin lispro's trials measure?
addendum 24 week endpoint hba1c, bioequivalence based on pharmacodynamic parameter auc and bioequivalence based on pharmacokinetic parameter auc lead 40 outcome terms across Insulin lispro's trials. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
addendum 24 week endpoint hba1c, glycosylated hemoglobin a1c at end of treatment, glycosylated hemoglobin, hemoglobin a1c at 36 week endpoint, hemoglobin a1c at 16 week endpoint and glycosylated hemoglobin value at 12 week endpoint follow.
[18F]-FDG brain uptake; Part A: Number of participants with one or more Adverse Event (s) (AEs), and Serious Adverse Event(s) (SAEs) considered by the investigator to be related to study drug…; latest 2028-12
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT05748990
"Does Abnormal Insulin Action in the Brain Underlie Cognitive and Metabolic Dysfunction in Schizophrenia"; n 20; "[18F]-FDG brain uptake"; 2026-08-01
NCT06280703
"A Study of LY3938577 in Healthy Participants and Participants With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM)"; n 118; "Part A: Number of participants with one or more Adverse Event (s) (AEs), and Serious Adverse Event(s) (SAEs) considered by the investigator to be related to study drug administration."; 2026-09
NCT06419777
"Strict Versus Permissive Thresholds for Initiation of Pharmacotherapy in Gestational Diabetes"; n 430; "Neonatal Composite Outcome"; 2026-05
NCT06419803
"Strict Versus Permissive Thresholds for Initiation of Pharmacotherapy in Gestational Diabetes (START 2)"; n 430; "Neonatal Composite Outcome"; 2026-05
NCT06532461
"A Trial of Three- and Seven-days Insulin Infusions Set"; n 80; "Occurence of hyperchogenicity at last two positions for infusions sets"; 2026-12-31
NCT06765655
"Perioperative Glucose Monitoring and Treatment to Reduce Risk of Surgical Site Infections and Complications"; n 266; "Surgical Site Infections"; 2025-01-31
1 further recorded trialNCT07109245
"Do Antipsychotics Block Insulin Action in the Brain: is it a Class Effect?"; n 35; "RsFC between the anterior cingulate cortex of the salience network and the lateral parietal cortex of the DMN"; 2028-12
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q9
Which 60 trials of Insulin lispro posted no result?
Posted no result
60 of 60 completed trials
Registrations
NCT01336751, NCT00071448, NCT00097071, NCT00115570, NCT00553488 and NCT00849576, and 54 more
Completion dates
oldest 2002-12; newest 2023-08-24
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT01336751
2002-12
NCT00071448
2004-06
NCT00097071
2006-05
NCT00115570
2006-11
NCT00553488
2008-01
NCT00849576
2008-08
14 further recorded trials
NCT00803972
2009-08-28
NCT01235039
2009-09
NCT01334151
2011-08
NCT01311076
2012-01
NCT01908894
2012-03
NCT01638325
2012-09
NCT01811849
2012-12
NCT02273258
2013-07
NCT01871493
2013-09
NCT01792323
2014-01
NCT02165566
2014-05
NCT02029924
2014-08
NCT02221323
2014-11
NCT02146651
2014-12
Q10
At the median, Insulin lispro's trials enrolled 41 people — anything larger?
Median enrolment
41
Largest enrolment
2091
Registered trials counted
198
Q11
What do 6975 spontaneous reports say about Insulin lispro — and not say?
These are reports people sent to a regulator. They do not show the medicine caused the reaction. Nobody counted how many people took the medicine and reported nothing. The same event can be reported more than once, and many reports are incomplete. News coverage, lawsuits and new warnings change how often people report. A count is not a rate and not a risk.
Insulin lispro appears in spontaneous reports to regulators. Across the 10 most-reported reaction terms, 6975 reaction mentions were counted: blood glucose increased 2265; hypoglycaemia 1810; blood glucose decreased 583; diabetic ketoacidosis 474. open-targets-adr · CHEMBL1201538 · 2026-06-24
Show the evidence
blood glucose increased
2265
hypoglycaemia
1810
blood glucose decreased
583
diabetic ketoacidosis
474
hyperglycaemia
432
premature baby
339
4 more recorded rows
glycosylated haemoglobin increased
318
diabetes mellitus inadequate control
311
blood glucose abnormal
236
visual impairment
207
recorded 2026-06-24 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q12
Was Insulin lispro studied with fasting?
fasting is named in Insulin lispro's label sentences: "A multinational, randomized, open-label trial that compared insulin lispro low mixture (LM25; n = 236) twice daily with a basal-prandial regimen of insulin glargine once daily and insulin lispro once daily (IGL; n = 240) over 24 weeks in patients with HbA1c 7.5-10.5% and fasting plasma glucose ≤…" openfda-label+europepmc · 2014-05-06
1 recorded statement; fasting
Show the evidence
fasting
A multinational, randomized, open-label trial that compared insulin lispro low mixture (LM25; n = 236) twice daily with a basal-prandial regimen of insulin glargine once daily and insulin lispro once daily (IGL; n = 240) over 24 weeks in patients with HbA1c 7.5-10.5% and fasting plasma glucose ≤ 6.7 mmol/l.
recorded 2014-05-06 · last checked 2026-09-04
Where it is registeredIdentifiers, relations and other names
ChEMBL ATC CC BY-SA · ClinicalTrials.gov — US Government work · Europe PMC — metadata only, under the recorded legal gate · Open Targets 26.06 — CC0 · derived from this page's own recorded fields; no external licence · mixed register set; per-register licences in docs/specs/corpus-20k-sources.md · openFDA / DailyMed — US Government work
✗ required summary fields resolved: 5 required field(s) not terminal: Why people use it, Best-supported result, Most important common problem, Biggest unanswered question, Human evidence
✓ public claims reviewed: 0 reviewed claim(s); drafts are never rendered
✓ source coverage passed: 9 source rows
✓ no critical contamination: no quarantine open
✓ canonical metadata passed: slug and display name present
✓ no raw internal fields: enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
This is a record of evidence. It is not medical advice, and it does not say this substance suits you. Nothing here says any substance on RNAWiki is appropriate for a child.