Comparison of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of biphasic insulin aspart 50 and 30 in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a single-center, randomized, double-blind, two-period, crossover trial in Japan

Modeling of Pharmacokinetic Profiles of Insulin Aspart and Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30 / 70

The study includes modeling and simulation of insulin aspart pharmacokinetics (PK). The authors used PK data of biosimilar insulins - insulin aspart and biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 - to develop a predictive population PK model for the insulins. The model was built via Monolix software taking into account the weight-based dosing and the dose and body weight effects on the parameters. The model-based simulations were performed using the R package mlxR for various administered doses and various ratios of insulin aspart forms for a better understanding of the insulin behavior. The optimal model was a one-compartment model with a combination of zero- and first-order absorptions with absorption lag for the soluble form of insulin aspart and first-order absorption for the insulin aspart protamine suspension. The assumption of identical behavior of two insulins at the distribution and elimination phases was made. The developed PK model was fitted successfully to the experimental dataand all fitted parameters displayed a moderate coefficient of variation. The PK model allows us to predict PK profiles for various doses and formulations of insulin aspart and can be used to improve the accuracy, safety and ethics of novel clinical trials of insulin. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus: Distinct prandial and basal glucose-lowering effects

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a soluble co-formulation of long-acting insulin degludec (IDeg) and rapid-acting insulin aspart (IAsp). The present study investigated the pharmacodynamic properties of IDegAsp in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, two-period, cross-over trial, 21 Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus received single doses of 0.5 U/kg IDegAsp and biphasic insulin aspart 30 in a randomized sequence (13-21 days washout between treatments). The pharmacodynamic response was evaluated in a 26-h euglycemic glucose clamp (target 5.5 mmol/L). Single-dose IDegAsp glucose infusion rate (GIR) profiles were extrapolated to steady state using modeling.

RESULTS

The IDegAsp single-dose GIR profile showed a clear distinction between the effects of the bolus (IAsp) and basal (IDeg) components in IDegAsp. When simulated to steady state, the GIR profile of IDegAsp was shifted upwards compared with the single-dose profile, and showed a rapid onset of action and a distinct peak from the IAsp component followed by a separate and sustained basal action from the long-acting IDeg component. For biphasic insulin aspart 30, the initial shape of the GIR profile was similar to IDegAsp, but GIR continuously decreased from maximum and reached zero 18-20 h post-dosing. The characteristics of the GIR profile for IDegAsp were retained when simulated to steady state in a twice-daily dosing regimen.

DISCUSSION

In Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus, the pharmacodynamic profile of IDegAsp is characterized by distinct prandial and basal effects from the IAsp and IDeg components, consistent with what has been reported previously in Caucasian patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart produces a dose-proportional glucose-lowering effect in subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

To evaluate the pharmacodynamic dose-response relationship of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp), a novel, soluble co-formulation of the ultra-long-acting basal insulin, insulin degludec (IDeg), with the rapid-acting prandial insulin (IAsp), across different doses in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM).

METHODS

This was a randomized, single-centre, double-blind, four-period, incomplete block, crossover trial. A cohort of 33 people with T1DM received single doses (0.4, 0.6 or 0.8 U/kg) of IDegAsp or the comparator, biphasic insulin aspart 30, in a randomized sequence of four treatment periods, each separated by a washout of 13-21 days. Pharmacodynamic response was assessed using a 26-h euglycaemic glucose clamp, with blood glucose stabilized at a target of 5.5 mmol/l (100 mg/dl).

RESULTS

A rapid onset of action and a distinct peak attributable to IAsp was observed in the glucose infusion rate (GIR) profile, followed by a separate, flat and stable basal glucose-lowering effect attributable to the IDeg component. The mean area under the GIR curve over 24 h (AUC(GIR,0-24 h)), and the mean maximum GIR (GIR(max)) increased with increasing dose level of IDegAsp. A dose-response relationship for IDegAsp was demonstrated for AUC(GIR,0-24 h) and GIR(max), indicating dose proportionality. A dose-concentration relationship was also observed for both the basal and bolus components of IDegAsp.

CONCLUSIONS

IDegAsp has a clear dose-response relationship, indicating the clinical potential for straightforward titration according to individual patient needs.

Distinct Prandial and Basal Glucose-Lowering Effects of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart (IDegAsp) at Steady State in Subjects with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION/AIM

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a soluble co-formulation of long-acting and short-acting insulin analogs. The primary objective of this study was to investigate the pharmacodynamic response of once-daily IDegAsp dosing in patients with type 1 diabetes. Pharmacokinetic response, as well as safety and tolerability, were assessed as secondary objectives.

METHODOLOGY

This was a single-center, open-label, single-arm study. Twenty-two subjects received once-daily insulin degludec (IDeg) (0.42 U/kg) for five consecutive days [with separate bolus insulin aspart (IAsp) as needed for safety and glycemic control], to achieve clinical steady state of the basal component. On Day 6, they received a single injection of IDegAsp (0.6 U/kg, comprising 0.42 U/kg IDeg and 0.18 U/kg IAsp). Pharmacodynamic response was assessed using a 30-h euglycemic glucose clamp, with blood glucose stabilized at a target of 5.5 mmol/L.

RESULTS

The glucose infusion rate profile showed a rapid onset of action and a distinct peak due to IAsp, followed by a separate, flat and stable basal glucose-lowering effect due to the IDeg component. Modeling data suggested that the pharmacodynamic profile of IDegAsp was retained with twice-daily dosing (allowing for coverage of two main meals daily). IDegAsp was well tolerated and no safety issues were identified in this trial.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the IAsp component of IDegAsp has a fast onset of appearance and a peak covering the prandial phase, while the IDeg component has a flat and an evenly distributed pharmacokinetic profile over 24 h. IDegAsp is the first co-formulation of a basal insulin analog with an ultra-long duration of action and a mealtime insulin analog in a single soluble injection. These properties translate into clinically relevant benefits, including improved glycemic control and reduction in hypoglycemia.

Evidence-based clinical use of insulin premixtures

Brazil is expected to have 19.6 million patients with diabetes by the year 2030. A key concept in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is establishing individualized glycemic goals based on each patient's clinical characteristics, which impact the choice of antihyperglycemic therapy. Targets for glycemic control, including fasting blood glucose, postprandial blood glucose, and glycated hemoglobin (A1C), are often not reached solely with antihyperglycemic therapy, and insulin therapy is often required. Basal insulin is considered an initial strategy; however, premixed insulins are convenient and are equally or more effective, especially for patients who require both basal and prandial control but desire a more simplified strategy involving fewer daily injections than a basal-bolus regimen. Most physicians are reluctant to transition patients to insulin treatment due to inappropriate assumptions and insufficient information. We conducted a nonsystematic review in PubMed and identified the most relevant and recently published articles that compared the use of premixed insulin versus basal insulin analogues used alone or in combination with rapid-acting insulin analogues before meals in patients with T2DM. These studies suggest that premixed insulin analogues are equally or more effective in reducing A1C compared to basal insulin analogues alone in spite of the small increase in the risk of nonsevere hypoglycemic events and nonclinically significant weight gain. Premixed insulin analogues can be used in insulin-naïve patients, in patients already on basal insulin therapy, and those using basal-bolus therapy who are noncompliant with blood glucose self-monitoring and titration of multiple insulin doses. We additionally provide practical aspects related to titration for the specific premixed insulin analogue formulations commercially available in Brazil.

Pharmacodynamic effects of the oral glucokinase activator AZD6370 after single doses in healthy volunteers assessed with euglycaemic clamp

AIMS

This study evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic effects of the glucokinase activator (GKA) AZD6370 in non-diabetic subjects, using the euglycaemic clamp to avoid the risk of hypoglycaemia.

METHODS

Oral single ascending doses of AZD6370 10-650 mg or subcutaneous short-acting insulin 4 or 12 U were given to healthy fasting subjects. AZD6370 safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics were assessed. Pharmacodynamic effects on serum (S)-insulin and glucose infusion rate (GIR) were investigated with euglycaemic clamp. AZD6370 10-20 mg was also assessed when taken with food without euglycaemic clamp.

RESULTS

AZD6370 was well tolerated and no safety concerns were raised. AZD6370 was rapidly absorbed and eliminated, and plasma concentration was proportional to dose. Both S-insulin and GIR increased following AZD6370 administration. The observed increase in GIR correlated with increasing AZD6370 area under the plasma concentration vs. time curve, demonstrating a dose-concentration-dependent pharmacodynamic effect. AZD6370 at doses of 50 and 80 mg had similar effects to short-acting insulin 4 U on peripheral S-insulin levels but greater effects on GIR, suggesting an effect beyond the increase of peripheral S-insulin levels at lower doses. In the food interaction part of the study, performed without euglycaemic clamp, dose escalation was stopped at a low dose (20 mg) because of hypoglycaemia.

CONCLUSION

The euglycaemic clamp was successfully used to avoid hypoglycaemia and to demonstrate pharmacodynamic effects, that is, markedly increased insulin secretion and glucose utilisation, following administration of AZD6370 in healthy fasting subjects. In addition to the effect on pancreatic insulin secretion, the data support an extra-pancreatic (hepatic) component of GKA action.

A review of modern insulin analogue pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles in type 2 diabetes: improvements and limitations

Insulin analogues have been engineered to enhance desired molecular properties without altering immunogenicity. The majority of insulin pharmacology studies are conducted in healthy volunteers and patients with type 1 diabetes. At present, there are more patients with type 2 than type 1 diabetes receiving insulin treatment. As the responsibility for initiating insulin therapy in these patients continues to shift to primary care, it will be important for general practitioners to understand the different pharmacological properties of insulin preparations in patients with type 2 diabetes, so that treatment can be adapted to meet patients' physiological and lifestyle requirements. The purpose of this review is to summarize pharmacological studies of insulin analogues in patients with type 2 diabetes. Faster onset of action of rapid acting insulin analogues has improved postprandial glycaemic control. Biphasic insulin analogues are associated with a lower incidence of nocturnal hypoglycaemia compared with human biphasic preparations and allow for intensification from once to twice or thrice daily dosing. More predictable glycaemic-lowering profiles of the insulin analogues have also led to reductions in nocturnal hypoglycaemia, particularly comparing long-acting insulin analogues with protaminated human insulin. Enhancing insulin self-association and reversible binding with albumin has led to further reductions in variability. However, improvements can still be made. Effective once daily clinical dosing of long-acting insulin analogues is not possible in all patients. In addition, the protaminated component of biphasic insulin analogues do not provide the duration of action or profile for physiological basal insulin replacement and neither insulin glargine nor insulin detemir are suitable for mixing with other insulin analogues as this would substantially alter their pharmacokinetic properties. Enhancing the pharmacological predictability and extending the duration of action could simplify insulin titration and further reduce the incidence of hypoglycaemia.

Continuous glucose monitoring with Humalog Mix 25 versus Humalog Mix 50, twice daily: a comparative pilot study -results from the Jikei-EValuation of insulin Lispro mixture on pharmacodynamics and glycemic VariancE (J-EVOLVE) study

Objective

To evaluate glycemic variability associated with two different premixed insulin analogue formulations when used in a twice-daily regimen.

Patients and Methods

Subjects comprised type 2 diabetic patients aged 20-79 years, treated with twice daily premixed insulin or insulin analogue formulations. All subjects were hospitalized for 6 days and randomized to receive either Humalog Mix 25 (Mix 25) or Humalog Mix 50 (Mix 50). They were then crossed over to the other arm between day 3 and day 4 of the study. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was performed on all subjects to examine the differences in glycemic variability.

Results

Eleven type 2 diabetic patients were enrolled. No significant difference was found in 24-hour mean glucose values and their SDs, pre-meal glucose values, increases from pre-meal to peak glucose values, or time to peak glucose levels between either group. However, the mean glucose values observed during 0-8 hrs were significantly lower with Mix 25 compared to Mix 50 (128 vs. 147 mg/dL; p = 0.024).

Conclusions

The twice-daily Mix 25 regimen provided superior overnight glycemic control compared to the Mix 50 regimen in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. However, both twice-daily regimens with either Mix 25 or Mix 50 provided inadequate post-lunch glycemic control.

Trial Registration

Current Controlled Trials UMIN000001327

The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of different formulations of biphasic insulin aspart: a randomized, glucose clamp, crossover study

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes patients on premixed insulin are commonly prescribed biphasic insulin with low prandial insulin content, such as biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp) 30, comprising 30% insulin aspart (IAsp). The new formulations BIAsp 50 and BIAsp 70 contain 50% and 70% soluble IAsp, respectively. We compared the pharmacodynamics (PD) and pharmacokinetics (PK) of BIAsp 30, 50, and 70 and IAsp in a glucose clamp trial.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, crossover study at a clinical research institute, 32 type 1 diabetes patients on basal-bolus therapy each underwent four glucose clamps (clamp level 5 mmol/L, duration 28 h post-dosing [12 h for IAsp]) and received a single dose of 0.4 U/kg BIAsp 30, 50, or 70 and IAsp. Main PD/PK outcome parameters measured were early- and late-phase glucose disposal (area under the curve of glucose infusion rate [AUC(GIR)]), nonesterified fatty acid concentrations, and IAsp concentrations.

RESULTS

With increasing proportions of soluble IAsp, the insulin formulations showed significantly higher early metabolic activity (ratio of AUC(GIR) 0-6 h: BIAsp 50/BIAsp 30 = 1.28 [P < 0.001], BIAsp 70/BIAsp 50 = 1.18 [P < 0.001), IAsp/BIAsp 70 = 1.15 [P < 0.01]) and lower late metabolic activity (ratio of AUC(GIR) 12-28 h: BIAsp 50/BIAsp 30 = 0.17 [P < 0.01], BIAsp 70/BIAsp 50 = 0.21 [P < 0.05]). Likewise, early IAsp levels were significantly greater and late PK concentrations were significantly lower with increasing proportion of soluble IAsp.

CONCLUSIONS

There are significant differences between the early and late PD and PK effects among BIAsp 30, 50, and 70 and IAsp that should allow tailored treatment with the convenience of prandial and basal insulin in each injection.