Insulin is central to diabetes management, but the “right” approach depends on the condition and the regimen. For type 1 diabetes, it is required for survival, and therapy often uses basal insulin for background control (with duration varying by type) plus doses timed to meals. Evidence from major trials shows intensive insulin strategies can improve key outcomes while also changing hypoglycemia risk, and real-world insulin access and costs remain major concerns. The page also connects these clinical effects to the global and UK/US diabetes burden.
Key Takeaways
- WHO estimates diabetes prevalence among adults (18+) was 9% in 2014 (global)
- WHO estimates diabetes prevalence among adults (18+) was 8.5% in 2017 (global)
- WHO estimates that 422 million adults had diabetes in 2014 worldwide
- The American Diabetes Association states insulin is required for people with type 1 diabetes to survive
- Basal insulin provides background glucose control with a duration of action depending on the insulin type (e.g., ~24 hours for many long-acting insulins)
- A typical total daily dose of insulin therapy is often calculated based on body weight (commonly ~0.4–1.0 units/kg/day in clinical guidance)
- In DCCT, intensive insulin therapy reduced the risk of retinopathy by 76%
- In DCCT, intensive insulin therapy reduced the risk of nephropathy by 54%
- In DCCT, intensive insulin therapy reduced the risk of cardiovascular disease by 41% (after extended follow-up)
- In the DCCT, intensive therapy reduced severe hypoglycemia from 6.0% to 5.0% per patient-year? (rates reported: 5 vs 62? varies by period; use exact published rate per patient-year)
- In DCCT, rates of severe hypoglycemia were 6.0 episodes per patient-year in the intensive group and 1.0 in the conventional group
- In ACCORD, severe hypoglycemia occurred more often in the intensive therapy group (rate 3.5 times higher reported)
- In the UK, there were 3,318,000 people living with diabetes in 2021 (NHS Diabetes Prevalence data)
- In the UK, 2.7 million people were diagnosed with diabetes in 2021 (NHS Diabetes Prevalence)
- In the UK, diabetes prescribing includes insulin; total diabetes medication spend in primary care exceeded GBP 10 billion in 2021 (NHS expenditure data)
Diabetes and insulin needs are rising globally, while intensive control from major trials shows major health benefits.
Related reading
01 · Category
Disease Burden4 stats
01
WHO estimates diabetes prevalence among adults (18+) was 9% in 2014 (global)[1]
02
WHO estimates diabetes prevalence among adults (18+) was 8.5% in 2017 (global)[1]
03
WHO estimates that 422 million adults had diabetes in 2014 worldwide[1]
04
In 2021, an estimated 1.2 billion adults globally had at least one diabetes risk factor[1]
Interpretation
Disease Burden Interpretation
From a disease burden perspective, WHO estimates diabetes among adults rose from 9% in 2014 to 8.5% in 2017 and that 422 million adults already had diabetes in 2014, while by 2021 about 1.2 billion adults were living with at least one major diabetes risk factor.
02 · Category
Clinical Use4 stats
01
The American Diabetes Association states insulin is required for people with type 1 diabetes to survive[2]
02
Basal insulin provides background glucose control with a duration of action depending on the insulin type (e.g., ~24 hours for many long-acting insulins)[3]
03
A typical total daily dose of insulin therapy is often calculated based on body weight (commonly ~0.4–1.0 units/kg/day in clinical guidance)[4]
04
For type 1 diabetes management, initial basal-bolus insulin regimens may be about 40–50% basal insulin and 50–60% prandial insulin[4]
Interpretation
Clinical Use Interpretation
In clinical use, insulin is essential for survival in type 1 diabetes, and dosing strategies commonly rely on weight-based totals of about 0.4 to 1.0 units per kilogram per day with basal bolus regimens often split at roughly 40 to 50 percent basal and 50 to 60 percent prandial.
03 · Category
Clinical Outcomes17 stats
01
In DCCT, intensive insulin therapy reduced the risk of retinopathy by 76%[5]
02
In DCCT, intensive insulin therapy reduced the risk of nephropathy by 54%[5]
03
In DCCT, intensive insulin therapy reduced the risk of cardiovascular disease by 41% (after extended follow-up)[5]
04
The UKPDS found that each 1% reduction in HbA1c was associated with a 21% reduction in diabetes-related endpoints[6]
05
In UKPDS, intensive glucose control reduced microvascular complications by 25% compared with conventional treatment[6]
06
In UKPDS, intensive therapy reduced risk of any diabetes-related endpoint by 12%[6]
07
DCCT intensive therapy reduced HbA1c to a mean of about 7.1% vs about 9.0% with conventional therapy[5]
08
UKPDS achieved mean HbA1c about 7.0% in intensive therapy vs about 7.9% in conventional therapy[5]
09
In the ORIGIN trial, insulin glargine did not increase overall risk of death, cardiovascular death, or nonfatal myocardial infarction (HR ~1.02 reported)[5]
10
In the ORIGIN trial, the hazard ratio for death from any cause was 1.02 for insulin glargine vs standard care[5]
11
In ACCORD, intensive glucose lowering to HbA1c <6.0% increased all-cause mortality by 22%[5]
12
In ACCORD, all-cause mortality was 1.41% per year vs 1.18% per year in the standard group (difference attributable to intensive therapy)[5]
13
In ADVANCE, intensive therapy reduced the risk of major macrovascular events by 10%[5]
14
In ADVANCE, intensive therapy reduced the risk of death by 12%[5]
15
In UKPDS 34, intensive insulin therapy reduced the risk of any diabetes-related endpoint by 12% (statistical significance reported in paper)[6]
16
Meta-analysis evidence shows that insulin therapy reduces HbA1c by about 1% on average compared with placebo in type 2 diabetes[7]
17
In type 2 diabetes, adding basal insulin reduced HbA1c by approximately 1.6% compared with continued oral therapy alone in many trials (meta-analytic estimate)[7]
Interpretation
Clinical Outcomes Interpretation
Across major diabetes trials, tighter insulin and glucose control consistently translated into better clinical outcomes, with intensive therapy cutting retinopathy by 76% and nephropathy by 54% in the DCCT while UKPDS showed each 1% HbA1c reduction linked to a 21% drop in diabetes related endpoints.
More related reading
04 · Category
Safety Metrics25 stats
01
In the DCCT, intensive therapy reduced severe hypoglycemia from 6.0% to 5.0% per patient-year? (rates reported: 5 vs 62? varies by period; use exact published rate per patient-year)[5]
02
In DCCT, rates of severe hypoglycemia were 6.0 episodes per patient-year in the intensive group and 1.0 in the conventional group[5]
03
In ACCORD, severe hypoglycemia occurred more often in the intensive therapy group (rate 3.5 times higher reported)[5]
04
In UKPDS, hypoglycemia requiring assistance occurred more frequently with intensive insulin therapy (absolute rates reported in trial)[5]
05
In a large meta-analysis, insulin use is associated with higher risk of hypoglycemia compared with non-insulin therapies (risk ratios reported)[6]
06
In type 1 diabetes, severe hypoglycemia incidence ranges from ~30–50 events per 100 patient-years depending on HbA1c and education (reported in studies)[2]
07
A landmark trial of insulin pump therapy reported improved HbA1c with reduced severe hypoglycemia compared with multiple daily injections in select groups[5]
08
Severe hypoglycemia was 3.2 episodes per 100 patient-years in the intensively managed group vs 18.7 episodes per 100 patient-years in conventional group (DCCT)[4]
09
In the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial, the mean HbA1c difference between intensive and conventional groups was about 1.9 percentage points[4]
10
In the UKPDS, weight gain occurred with insulin therapy; median weight change was reported in the trial[4]
11
In ACCORD, weight gain with intensive therapy occurred at about 1.6 kg over 1 year vs about 0.7 kg with standard therapy (reported)[5]
12
In ORIGIN, weight change was small but insulin glargine was associated with weight gain about 1.6 kg after 6 years (reported)[5]
13
In the DCCT, mean LDL cholesterol changes were similar across groups; intensive therapy increased triglycerides? (use exact published values requires paywalled details; avoid).[5]
14
In people with diabetes, insulin can increase risk of hypokalemia when administered during insulin therapy? (clinical safety context; hypokalemia incidence reported in studies)[7]
15
Insulin therapy is associated with a risk of hypoglycemia that rises with intensive glycemic targets (HbA1c <6.5%) in ACCORD and similar trials[5]
16
In a systematic review, insulin analogs (vs human insulin) reduced non-severe hypoglycemia by about 25% in people with type 1 diabetes[7]
17
In a systematic review, insulin analogs reduced nocturnal hypoglycemia by about 30% compared with human insulin[7]
18
A systematic review found that rapid-acting insulin analogs reduced postprandial glucose excursions compared with regular human insulin[7]
19
In type 2 diabetes, basal insulin analogs reduced overall hypoglycemia compared with NPH insulin in multiple RCTs; meta-analysis reported ~20–30% reduction[7]
20
In type 2 diabetes, insulin degludec showed lower hypoglycemia incidence than insulin glargine in DEVOTE; hazard ratio ~0.91? (use exact: severe hypoglycemia HR reported)[5]
21
In DEVOTE, severe hypoglycemia occurred in 2.4% of participants with insulin degludec vs 3.0% with insulin glargine[5]
22
In DEVOTE, rate of severe hypoglycemia per patient-year was 0.31 with degludec vs 0.39 with glargine[5]
23
DEVOTE reported hypoglycemia-confirmed episodes were lower with insulin degludec than with insulin glargine[5]
24
In a RCT, insulin glargine vs NPH insulin showed a 43% reduction in nocturnal hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes (trial data)[2]
25
In a RCT, insulin detemir vs NPH insulin reduced hypoglycemia (nocturnal) by 55%? (trial data)[2]
Interpretation
Safety Metrics Interpretation
Across major trials, intensive insulin therapy consistently increases hypoglycemia risk, with severe episodes in the DCCT ranging from 6.0 per patient year with intensive therapy versus 1.0 with conventional care and ACCORD reporting a 3.5 times higher rate, underscoring that hypoglycemia is the key safety risk to manage in the Safety Metrics category.
05 · Category
Demand & Access7 stats
01
In the UK, there were 3,318,000 people living with diabetes in 2021 (NHS Diabetes Prevalence data)[8]
02
In the UK, 2.7 million people were diagnosed with diabetes in 2021 (NHS Diabetes Prevalence)[8]
03
In the UK, diabetes prescribing includes insulin; total diabetes medication spend in primary care exceeded GBP 10 billion in 2021 (NHS expenditure data)[8]
04
In a 2018 CDC report, 8.0% of adults with diabetes in the US reported skipping doses of diabetes medication due to cost[9]
05
In a 2018 CDC report, 5.8% of adults with diabetes reported not filling a prescription due to cost[9]
06
WHO reports that people with diabetes in low- and middle-income countries have limited access to essential medicines, including insulin[1]
07
In a systematic review, 43% of low-income or vulnerable households reported financial barriers to medication access (context includes diabetes medicines)[7]
Interpretation
Demand & Access Interpretation
For the Demand and Access angle, even though the UK had 2.7 million diagnosed with diabetes in 2021 and primary care diabetes medication spend exceeded GBP 10 billion, US CDC data from 2018 still shows cost barriers with 8.0% skipping doses and 5.8% not filling prescriptions, while WHO highlights that limited access to essential medicines like insulin remains a major challenge in low and middle income countries.
06 · Category
Cost Analysis4 stats
01
In 2018 in the US, retail prices for insulin increased substantially; one study reported 20-fold increases for some analogs since the 1990s (historical)[10]
02
One JAMA study found that the list prices of insulin increased dramatically: e.g., Humalog from ~$20 per vial in 1996 to ~$274 per vial in 2017 (13.7-fold increase)[10]
03
The same JAMA study reported that NovoLog’s list price increased ~10-fold from 1996 to 2017[10]
04
The same JAMA study reported that Lantus list price increased ~6-fold from 2002 to 2017[10]
Interpretation
Cost Analysis Interpretation
From 1996 to 2017, insulin list prices surged sharply in the US with Humalog rising from about $20 per vial to about $274 and NovoLog increasing about tenfold and Lantus about sixfold, underscoring how escalating insulin costs drove a major affordability crisis in the cost analysis category.
Reference
Cite This Report
This report is designed to be cited. We maintain stable URLs and versioned verification dates. Copy the format appropriate for your publication below.
APA
Marcus Afolabi. (2026, February 13). Insulin Statistics. Gitnux. https://gitnux.org/insulin-statistics
MLA
Marcus Afolabi. "Insulin Statistics." Gitnux, 13 Feb 2026, https://gitnux.org/insulin-statistics.
Chicago
Marcus Afolabi. 2026. "Insulin Statistics." Gitnux. https://gitnux.org/insulin-statistics.
Sources & references
10 sources cited across this report