Re: Happy Birthday, Biotechnology

Maggie Douglas — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:10:18 -0000

I'm afraid I must be a party-pooper. The most comprehensive medical review on animal vs. 'human' insulin concluded:

"A comparison of the effects of human and animal insulin as well as of the adverse reaction profile did not show clinically relevant differences." [1]

Where's the "stunning breakthrough"? In fact, this drug established a dangerous precedent, since the claims made at its introduction were not backed by evidence:

"The story of the introduction of human insulin might be repeated by contemporary launching campaigns to introduce pharmaceutical and technological innovations that are not backed up by sufficient proof of their advantages and safety." [1]

Furthermore, Eli Lilly (licensing from Genentech) and Novo Nordisk hold a virtual duopoly on insulin, and both companies have discontinued animal insulin. A recent editorial in a medical journal recounted Novo's introduction of GE insulin:

"Far from responding to the market, a manufacturer now set a new precedent by telling the market what it was going to get. As a result, and within the space of 6 years, the insulin-requiring population of Europe had been changed to a more expensive insulin that it did not really need." [3]

The story of GE insulin is a cautionary tale, not a cause for celebration.

SOURCES:

[1] Richter, B., Neises, G. (2005) “’Human’ insulin versus animal insulin in people with diabetes mellitus.” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 1 Art. No.: CD003816

[2] Hirst, Jenny (2007) "30 Years of Synthetic Insulin, Are People with Diabetes Getting the Best Deal?" The Insulin Dependent Diabetes Trust. Available: http://www.dri-ft.co.uk/insulin.pdf

[3] Holleman, F. and A. Gale (2007) "Nice insulins, pity about the evidence" Diabetologia 50: 1783-1790.

Disqus - Latest Comments for Maggie Douglas

Re: Happy Birthday, Biotechnology