Research Evidence / Overview of Studies for Fiasp
Evidence for Use in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM)
The primary body of evidence for the use of this medicine in Type 1 Diabetes comes from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and specialized pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) studies. These trials included adults, adolescents, and children (down to one year of age). Researchers monitored long-term glucose control, measured by Glycosylated Hemoglobin (HbA1c), and glucose levels immediately following a meal (postprandial glucose).
Studies consistently described patterns of significantly greater insulin concentration measured in the bloodstream during the first hour after injection compared to conventional rapid-acting insulin aspart. This accelerated presence was studied alongside measurements of postprandial glucose levels in some trials, where some findings described patterns of lower glucose levels. Major trials generally reported HbA1c level measurements after several months that were consistent with the primary goal of the study when compared to the conventional rapid-acting insulin aspart comparator.
Evidence for Use in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM)
The research for Type 2 Diabetes also relies heavily on randomized controlled trials involving adults who were often already using basal insulin or other oral anti-diabetic medications. The trials were designed to examine outcomes related to long-term blood sugar management, with the main outcome being the change in HbA1c concentration from the start of the study.
Research highlights changes measured during the study period, describing HbA1c level measurements that were consistent with the primary goal of the trial when compared to those measured in patients using the conventional rapid-acting insulin aspart. Studies reported how symptoms evolved in the observed populations, with some findings indicating differences in the control of post-meal glucose compared to the standard rapid-acting comparator.
Research on Rapid Action and Limitations
Specialized, tightly controlled PK/PD studies were conducted to explore the medicine's fundamental characteristics, measuring the time it takes for the medicine to appear in the blood and the subsequent change in glucose levels. The findings consistently indicate that the medicine appears to enter the bloodstream more quickly than conventional rapid-acting insulin aspart. This quicker absorption pattern was studied alongside a subsequent measured change in glucose levels in the studied populations.
However, the main limitations noted by scientific reviewers include the generally shortened follow-up durations of the core efficacy trials, typically spanning 18 to 26 weeks. This means that long-term effects, such as the development or progression of diabetes-related complications, are not fully established. Comparative evidence is also lacking in some areas, as most head-to-head research focused only on comparing the medicine against its conventional counterpart (insulin aspart).