I will say I know of at least one other Fiasp study not mentioned at the bottom of the article; one I saw on a local Endo website for studies they were participating in. It was to compare the speed of plateauing of rapidly rising BG with Fiasp compared to Humalog/Novolog.
I have mixed feelings of Fiasp after using it for a while now. The site irritations are not much different, if at all from Humalog, so that doesn’t bother me. Sites do seem to last a little longer than on Humalog, but not reliable enough to call it a complete win. I have only had one occlusion so far, and it was a clog in the tube/cartridge somewhere. I can’t say for certain it was the insulin’s fault. It seems to lose a lot of effectiveness after about 2.5-3 days for me, and I do think the occlusion was past the 3 day mark. It does seem to work a little faster than Humalog, but it has not been working nearly as fast as it did when I first started using it. I used to get the double down arrows on the CGM sometimes, but now the fastest I get is usually a sloping arrow.
Though I have not had the consistent improvements over Humalog I had hoped, I am probably going to stick with it because it is actually a little cheaper for me surprisingly.
That is interesting, I have not heard of that one, though I suppose it shouldn’t be too much of a surprise that they would be making one. I’m sure Sanofi will be as well.