The Extinction of Animal Insulin?
Earlier this month, pharma giant Eli Lilly announced plans to discontinue production of Iletin II, the Company's lone non-synthetic insulin product. With Iletin out of the picture, there are now no animal-based insulins remaining on the U.S. market.
Animal insulins are manufactured by extracting insulin from cow (bovine insulin) and pig (porcine insulin) pancreases. Lilly discontinued its beef-pork Iletin product in 1998. These older insulins began to be phased out by their biosynethic counterparts in the mid-1980s.
So what's the problem? There have been anecdotal reports of long-time animal insulin users reporting sensitivity to synthetically-derived insulins, including an increased incidence of hypoglycemic unawareness when switching from animal insulin to human insulins or insulin analogues. This hasn't been demonostrated conclusively in the clinical literature, however. Several foreign manufacturers of animal insulins remain, and the FDA and USDA do have animal insulin import procedures in place for those patients that can prove a clinical need to import animal insulin for their diabetes control.
Lilly reports that the discontinuation will impact an estimated 2,000 U.S. and 700 Canadian consumers of Iletin insulin. Based on their current inventory, Eli Lilly predicts that patients should be able to continue to purchase Iletin in U.S. pharmacies through the end of 2005.
Read More on Animal Insulin: The IDF Position Statement on Animal, Human, and Analogue Insulins
Comments
- At 12:30 PM on Mon, Nov 7, 2005 Derek Beatty wrote:
www.dri-ft.co.uk Diabetes Research information - Facts for Treatment published details of diabetic patient experiences and hypoglycaemia unawareness with treatment with human insulin and shows the Low Task Force Report which we were allowed to publish last year. This should help your readers.
- At 08:34 AM on Tue, Aug 30, 2005 Melody wrote:
The following article, which appeared in the Indianapolis Star on 08/27/05, indicates the "callousness" of Eli Lilly . . . but does not address the fact of how the insulin-using population has been manipulated to ensure that Lilly has a monopolistic stranglehold on the market.
Since the mid-1980s, Lilly has promoted its cheaply-produced rDNA insulin, warning doctors and patients of the impending withdrawal of the old standard animal insulins. AND, they have systematically withdrawn one animal insulin after another from the market. New diabetics, new doctors and new pharmacists do not even KNOW about animal insulin, and its safety and efficacy (compared to the new stuff.) They have been "brainwashed" to believe that animal insulins are dirty.
Without a true basis for comparison, and with a manufacturer who essentially controls the marketplace, they can now--after 20 years--say that their rDNA insulin is "the most popular" and/or "the most used." With powerful Bush-family backing, they have stayed below the radar of consumer advocates as well as the Justice Department's anti-trust overseers. The number of diabetics who have been harmed by the rDNA insulin is unknowable, but the entire chronicle is appalling.
That diabetics have over the course of 20 years been forced to "choose" between a couple of inferior products to manage their disease should have the media's watchful eyes fully opened. Alas, no one seems to recognize that when a marketing/business plan serves to enslave one needful group of patients . . . it will work for others, and eventually, it will work for the masses. You can see that a small news article, presented in an informative but non-confrontational manner, does little to arouse a sleepy public to the dangers being permitted by our governmental watchdog agencies. Pleas to the FDA are answered by a "canned" response that they cannot force a manufacturer to produce (or to continue to produce) a product, regardless of its medical necessity.
The government may not be able to "force" such an action . . . but by requiring a drug to be as safe and efficacious as an already-approved drug . . . by requiring batch testing of insulin production . . . by correctly placing rDNA insulin under bio-tech regulations instead of the more prosaic “medicine” category, and by CAREFULLY scrutinizing the studies supporting approval request, they could certainly serve their purpose of protecting the public. Until someone arouses a sleeping public, Lilly and its ilk continue to profit and grow fat while diabetics continue to become statistics in some unread governmental report.
[Isn’t is newsworthy that another Lilly product—Zyprexa—actually causes those users to become diabetic. Talk about market manipulation!—Lilly is actually ADDING to its customer base. Somehow, this seems to be the ULTIMATE in market manipulation!]
My son has been a diabetic since the age of 8 years and did so well on the old Iletin 1 that we had no problems at all. He was strong and always felt so well. He is now 44 and has been having a horrible time ever since he had to change from Iletin 1. There seems to be no help whatsoever expect personal experimentation and this is totally frustrating. We hate the entire medical profession because we have tried and tried their specialists and not one can offer a bit of helpful information.Even Lilly's slogan "Lilly Cares" means nothing because if they cared, they would have continued carrying Iletin 1!!!! It seems there are no doctors that are familiar at all with this "old" animal insulin so we are left to fend for ourselves. Lilly does NOT CARE!