Immunogenicity of highly purified bovine insulin: a comparison with conventional bovine and highly purified human insulins

16Citations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Twenty-six Type 1 diabetic patients previously treated for 10-20 months with twice daily conventional bovine isophane insulin (containing at least 1000 ppm proinsulin) were changed to highly purified (<1 ppm proinsulin) bovine isophane for 6 months (Switch group). Insulin antibody levels fell significantly from a geometric mean of 14.9 to 9.1 μg/l. Thirty-two patients with newly diagnosed Type 1 diabetes were treated with the same highly purified bovine isophane insulin twice daily for 6 months (Starter group). Their insulin antibody levels rose from a geometric mean of 1.9 to 8.2 μg/l in contrast to values of 1.4 rising to 16.3 μg/l in an age and sex matched historical control group treated from diagnosis only with twice daily conventional bovine isophane insulin. Lipoatrophy at injection sites developed in three (9%) in the Starter group treated with highly purified bovine isophane compared to 7 (22%) of those on conventional bovine isophane. Insulin dose and diabetic control did not differ between the groups. Starterand Switch groups were subsequently treated with semi-synthetic human isophane insulin for 6 months during which insulin antibody levels fell significantly from a geometric mean of 8.5 to 4.4 μg/l (p<0.001). We conclude that bovine insulin purified to less than 1 ppm proinsulin is significantly less immunogenic than its conventional proinsulin contaminated counterpart but even at this level of purity is still more immunogenic than human insulin of equivalent purity. © 1985 Springer-Verlag.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wilson, R. M., Douglas, C. A., Tattersall, R. B., & Reeves, W. G. (1985). Immunogenicity of highly purified bovine insulin: a comparison with conventional bovine and highly purified human insulins. Diabetologia, 28(9), 667–670. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00291973

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free