Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of insulin detemir and insulin glargine 300 U/mL in healthy dogs

A dose titration protocol for once-daily insulin glargine 300 U/mL for the treatment of diabetes mellitus in dogs

BACKGROUND

In purpose-bred dogs, insulin glargine 300 U/mL (IGla300) has long duration of action, peakless time-action profile, and low potency, making it suitable for use as a basal insulin.

HYPOTHESIS

To evaluate IGla300 in client-owned diabetic dogs monitored using a flash glucose monitoring system (FGMS).

ANIMALS

Ninety-five client-owned diabetic dogs, newly diagnosed or previously treated with other insulin formulations, with or without concurrent diseases.

METHODS

Prospective multi-institutional study. Clinical signs and standardized assessment of FGMS data, using treatment and monitoring guidelines established a priori, guided dose adjustments and categorization into levels of glycemic control.

RESULTS

The initial IGla300 dose was 0.5 U/Kg q24h for newly diagnosed dogs and (median dose [range]) 0.8 U/Kg (0.2-2.5) q24h for all dogs. Glycemic control was classified as good or excellent in 87/95 (92%) dogs. The IGla300 was administered q24h (1.9 U/kg [0.2-5.2]) and q12h (1.9 U/kg/day [0.6-5.0]) in 56/95 (59%) and 39/95 (41%) dogs, respectively. Meal-time bolus injections were added in 5 dogs (0.5 U/kg/injection [0.3-1.0]). Clinical hypoglycemia occurred in 6/95 (6%) dogs. Dogs without concurrent diseases were more likely to receive IGla300 q24h than dogs with concurrent diseases (72% vs 50%, respectively; P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE

Insulin glargine 300 U/mL can be considered a suitable therapeutic option for once-daily administration in diabetic dogs. Clinicians should be aware of the low potency and wide dose range of IGla300. In some dogs, twice-daily administration with or without meal-time bolus injections may be necessary to achieve glycemic control. Monitoring with FGMS is essential for dose titration of IGla300.

Insulin Therapy Part 3: Cats

No insulin formulation should be considered best by default for management of feline diabetes. Rather, the choice of insulin formulation should be tailored to the specific clinical situation. In most cats that have some residual beta cell function, administering only a basal insulin might lead to complete normalization of blood glucose concentrations. Basal insulin requirements are constant throughout the day. Therefore, for an insulin formulation to be effective and safe as a basal insulin, its action should be roughly the same every hour of the day. At present, only insulin glargine U300 approaches this definition in cats.

Insulin Therapy in Small Animals, Part 1: General Principles

Understanding the pharmacology of insulin and how it relates to the pathophysiology of diabetes can lead to better clinical outcomes. No insulin formulation should be considered "best" by default. Insulin suspensions (NPH, NPH/regular mixes, lente, and PZI) as well as insulin glargine U100 and detemir are intermediate-acting formulations that are administered twice daily. For a formulation to be an effective and safe basal insulin, its action should be roughly the same every hour of the day. Currently, only insulin glargine U300 and insulin degludec meet this standard in dogs, whereas in cats, insulin glargine U300 is the closest option.

Insulin Therapy in Small Animals, Part 3: Dogs

Insulin therapy should ideally mimic a basal-bolus pattern. Lente, NPH, NPH/regular mixes, PZI, glargine U100, and detemir are intermediate-acting formulations that are administered twice daily in dogs. To minimize hypoglycemia, intermediate-acting insulin protocols are usually geared towards alleviating (but not eliminating) clinical signs. Insulin glargine U300 and insulin degludec meet the criteria for an effective and safe basal insulin in dogs. In most dogs, good control of clinical signs is achieved when using a basal insulin alone. In a small minority, bolus insulin at the time of at least one meal per day may be added to optimize glycemic control.

Cushing Syndrome and Other Causes of Insulin Resistance in Dogs

The most common causes of insulin resistance in diabetic dogs are Cushing syndrome, diestrus, and obesity. Cushing-associated effects include insulin resistance, excessive postprandial hyperglycemia, perceived short duration of insulin action, and/or substantial within-day and/or day-to-day glycemic variability. Successful strategies to manage excessive glycemic variability include basal insulin monotherapy and combined basal-bolus insulin treatment. Ovariohysterectomy and insulin treatment can achieve diabetic remission in about 10% of cases of diestrus diabetes. Different causes of insulin resistance have an additive effect on insulin requirements and the risk of progression to clinical diabetes in dogs.

One hundred years of insulin: Is it time for smart?

Smarter understanding of diabetes pathophysiology and pharmacology of insulin therapy can lead to better clinical outcomes. Rather than looking for an insulin formulation that is considered "best" for a general population, it could be appropriate to seek the "smart" insulin choice, tailored to the specific clinical situation. Different treatment goals should be considered, with pros and cons to each. Ideally, insulin therapy in most diabetic dogs should mimic a "basal-bolus" pattern. The "intermediate"-acting insulin formulations might provide better "bolus" treatment in dogs than the rapid-acting formulations used in people. In patients with some residual beta cell function such as many diabetic cats, administering only a "basal" insulin might lead to complete normalisation of blood glucose concentrations. Insulin suspensions (neutral protamine Hagedorn, neutral protamine Hagedorn/regular mixes, lente and protamine zinc insulin) as well as insulin glargine U100 and detemir are "intermediate"-acting formulations that are administered twice daily. For a formulation to be an effective and safe "basal" insulin, its action should be roughly the same every hour of the day. Currently, only insulin glargine U300 and insulin degludec meet this standard in dogs, whereas in cats, insulin glargine U300 is the closest option.

Insulins for the long term management of diabetes mellitus in dogs: a review

The year 2021 marked the centenary of the isolation of a therapeutic form of insulin and its successful use in dogs. This was a landmark moment that subsequently and rapidly led to the commercial manufacture of insulin for use in humans. The impact of insulin was almost miraculous as those destined to die from their diabetes mellitus returned to life. Over the past 100 years, insulin formulations have been modified to attempt to provide a predictable and prolonged duration of action while avoiding the development of hypoglycaemia. This has led to an ever-growing variety of insulin types in human medicine, many of which have subsequently been used in dogs. The purpose of this review article is to provide an overview of available insulin types and their application to the chronic management of canine diabetes mellitus.

Day-to-day variability of porcine lente, insulin glargine 300 U/mL and insulin degludec in diabetic dogs

Background

Day‐to‐day variability impacts safety of insulin therapy and the choice of monitoring strategies. Side‐by‐side comparisons of insulin formulations in diabetic dogs are scarce.

Hypothesis/Objectives

Insulin glargine 300 U/mL (IGla300) and insulin degludec (IDeg) are associated with less day‐to‐day glucose variability compared to porcine lente (PL) in diabetic dogs.

Animals

Seven intact male purpose‐bred beagles with toxin‐induced diabetes.

Methods

In this repeated measured study, PL, IGla300 and IDeg were compared in 2 phases: once‐daily (q24h) and twice‐daily (q12h) administration. Interstitial glucose concentrations (IG) were measured continuously throughout the study. For each formulation, maximal q24h dose was determined using the same algorithm (while avoiding hypoglycemia) and then maintained for 72 hours. In phase 2, 70% of the maximal q24h dose was administered q12h and maintained for 5 days regardless of hypoglycemia. Coefficient of variation (CV) and glycemic variability percentage (GVP) were calculated to determine day‐to‐day and intraday variability, respectively.

Results

There was no difference in day‐to‐day variability between PL, IGla300, and IDeg in the q24h phase. In the q12h phase, day‐to‐day variability was higher (P = .01) for PL (CV = 42.6 ± 6.8%) compared to IGla300 and IDeg (CV = 30.1 ± 7.7%, 25.2 ± 7.0%, respectively). The GVP of PL was lower (P = .02) compared to IGla300. There was no difference between PL, IGla300 and IDeg in %time IG < 70 mg/dL.

Conclusions and Clinical Importance

Insulin degludec and IGla300 administered q12h were associated with lower day‐to‐day variability, which might be advantageous in minimizing monitoring requirements without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia.