Once-weekly basal insulin icodec: Looking ONWARDS from pharmacology to clinical trials

Insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: Insights into clinical efficacy, patient-reported outcomes, and adherence challenges

Insulin therapy plays a crucial role in the management of type 2 diabetes as the disease progresses. Over the past century, insulin formulations have undergone significant modifications and bioengineering, resulting in a diverse range of available insulin products. These products show distinct pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles. Consequently, various insulin regimens have em-erged for the management of type 2 diabetes, including premixed formulations and combinations of basal and bolus insulins. The utilization of different insulin regimens yields disparate clinical outcomes, adverse events, and, notably, patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PROs provide valuable insights from the patient's perspective, serving as a valuable mine of information for enhancing healthcare and informing clinical decisions. Adherence to insulin therapy, a critical patient-reported outcome, significantly affects clinical outcomes and is influenced by multiple factors. This review provides insights into the clinical effectiveness of various insulin preparations, PROs, and factors impacting insulin therapy adherence, with the aim of enhancing healthcare practices and informing clinical decisions for individuals with type 2 diabetes.

Once-weekly insulins: a promising approach to reduce the treatment burden in people with diabetes

Despite the availability of new classes of glucose-lowering drugs that improve glycaemic levels and minimise long-term complications, at least 20-25% of people with type 2 diabetes require insulin therapy. Moreover, a substantial proportion of these individuals do not achieve adequate metabolic control following insulin initiation. This is due to several factors: therapeutic inertia, fear of hypoglycaemia and/or weight gain, poor communication, complexity of insulin titration, and the number of injections needed, with the associated reduced adherence to insulin therapy. Once-weekly insulins provide a unique opportunity to simplify basal insulin therapy and to allow good glycaemic control with a low risk of hypoglycaemia. Several approaches to developing a stable and effective once-weekly insulin have been proposed, but, to date, insulin icodec and basal insulin Fc (insulin efsitora alfa) are the only two formulations for which clinical studies have been reported. The results of Phase I and II studies emphasise both efficacy (in term of glucose levels) and potential risks and adverse events. Phase III studies involving insulin icodec are reassuring regarding the risk of hypoglycaemia compared with daily basal insulin analogues. Despite some concerns raised in ongoing clinical trials, the available data suggest that weekly insulins may also be an option for individuals with type 1 diabetes, especially when adherence is suboptimal. For the first time there is an opportunity to make an important breakthrough in basal insulin therapy, particularly in people with type 2 diabetes, and to improve not only the quality of life of people with diabetes, but also the practice of diabetologists.

Pharmacological and Benefit-Risk Profile of Once-Weekly Basal Insulin Administration (Icodec): Addressing Patients' Unmet Needs and Exploring Future Applications

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a chronic metabolic disease affecting over 500 million people worldwide, which leads to severe complications and to millions of deaths yearly. When therapeutic goals are not reached with diet, physical activity, or non-insulin drugs, starting/adding insulin treatment is recommended by international guidelines. A novel recombinant insulin is icodec, a once-weekly insulin that successfully completed phase III trials and that has recently obtained the marketing authorization approval from the European Medicines Agency. This narrative review aims to assess icodec pharmacological and clinical features concerning evidence on benefit-risk profile, as compared to other basal insulins, addressing the potential impact on patients' unmet needs. Icodec is a full agonist, recombinant human insulin analogue characterized by an ultra-long half-life (196 h), enabling its use in once-weekly administration. Phase III randomized clinical trials involving more than 4000 diabetic patients, mostly type 2 DM, documented non-inferiority of icodec, as compared to currently available basal insulins, in terms of estimated mean reduction of glycated hemoglobin levels; a superiority of icodec, compared to control, was confirmed in insulin-naïve patients (ONWARDS 1, 3, and 5), and in patients previously treated with basal insulin (ONWARDS 2). Icodec safety profile was comparable to the currently available basal insulins. Once-weekly icodec has the potential to improve patients' adherence, thus positively influencing patients' treatment satisfaction as well as quality of life, especially in type 2 DM insulin-naïve patients. An improved adherence might positively influence glycemic target achievement, reduce overall healthcare costs and overcome some of the unmet patients' needs. Icodec has the potential to emerge as a landmark achievement in the evolution of insulin therapy, with a positive impact also for the National Health Services and the whole society.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec compared to once-daily insulin g U-100 in patients with type II diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND//OBJECTIVE

Diabetes affects millions of people globally, despite treatment options, adherence and other factors pose obstacles. Once-weekly Insulin Icodec, a novel basal Insulin analog with a week-long half-life, offers potential benefits, enhancing convenience, adherence, and quality of life for improved glycemic control. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly Insulin Icodec compared to once-daily Insulin Glargine U-100 in individuals with type II diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases before September 2023 to identify relevant Randomized control trials (RCTs) with no language restrictions following PRISMA guidelines. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used for quality assessment. All statistical analyses were conducted using RevMan (version 5.4; Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014).

RESULT

Four RCTs published from 2020 to 2023 with a cumulative sample size of 1035 were included. The pooled mean difference (MD) revealed a 4.68% longer TIR (%) with Insulin Icodec compared to Insulin Glargine U-100 [{95% CI (0.69, 8.68), p = 0.02}], the estimated mean changes in HbA1c (%) and FPG (mg%) were found to be insignificant between the two groups [MD = - 0.12 {95% CI (- 0.26, 0.01), p = 0.07}] and [MD = - 2.59 {95% CI (- 6.95, 1.78), p = 0.25}], respectively. The overall OR for hypoglycemia was also nonsignificant between the two regimens 1.04 [{95% CI (0.71, 1.52), p = 0.84}]. Other safety parameters were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from daily Insulin Glargine U-100 to weekly Insulin Icodec showed longer TIR (%) as well as similar blood glycemic control and safety profile. Hence, it may be a good alternate option for management of longstanding T2D.

Current usage of long-acting insulin analogs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

INTRODUCTION

Insulin treatment is fundamental to diabetes management. Basal insulin therapy reduces intraday glycemic fluctuations upon reaching a steady state. Besides better blood glucose regulation and achieving target HbA1c values in patients, it also offers protection from diabetes complications. In this review, we aimed to compare basal-acting insulins in light of the literature.

AREAS COVERED

We reviewed current evidence related to diabetes treatment with basal insulins. This includes discussions on clinical trials and meta-analyses concerning first and second-generation ultra-long-acting basal insulins. Treatment indications for long-acting basal insulins, which have shown benefits and are considered superior or comparable to others in the literature, are derived from current clinical studies and meta-analyses, which form the basis of the recommendations in this review.

EXPERT OPINION

First and second-generation basal insulins do not show much superiority over each other in terms of blood glucose regulation and reaching the target HbA1c. However, second-generation basal insulins cause fewer hypoglycemic events. We recommend using the appropriate basal insulin in patient-based, individualized treatments. Basal insulin Icodec may become more widely used over time, owing to its association with less hypoglycemia and a reduction in the number of injections.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec in type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of ONWARDS phase 3 randomized controlled trials

AIM

Insulin icodec is a novel ultra-long action basal insulin analogue designed for once-weekly administration. With the merit of once-a-week administration, it promises better adherence and greater treatment satisfaction because of reduced injection frequency. The purpose of this study was to ascertain the efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec in comparison with other basal insulin analogues in the management of type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PRISMA guidelines were followed during the conduct of this study. For the eligible studies, five databases and ClinicalTrials.gov were screened until July 2023. All randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of insulin icodec in type 2 diabetes versus other insulin analogues were included. The extracted data were then analysed for meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Five clinical trials with 3764 participants were included. The meta-analysis showed that once-weekly insulin icodec had higher glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction [mean difference -0.17%, 95% confidence interval (CI; -0.28 to -0.06), p = .003], with no significant difference in fasting plasma glucose compared with other insulin analogues. HbA1c achievement <7% [odds ratio 1.51, 95% CI (1.14-1.99), p = .004] and HbA1c achievement <7% without hypoglycaemia [odds ratio 1.45, 95% CI (1.26-1.67), p < .00001] were observed in higher proportions with insulin icodec compared with the comparator group. The percentage of time spent in the target glycaemic range was comparatively similar between insulin icodec and the comparator [mean difference 2.42%, 95% CI (0.01-4.84), p = .05]. There was a significantly higher incidence of level 1 hypoglycaemia with insulin icodec but no significant difference was seen for the incidence of levels 2, 3 and combined 2/3 hypoglycaemia. Any adverse events and adverse events related to basal insulin were comparably similar in insulin icodec and comparators. The subgroup analysis of once-weekly insulin icodec with individual insulin analogues (glargine U100 and degludec) showed that insulin icodec had similar efficacy with insulin glargine U100 but superior efficacy with higher HbA1c reduction with insulin icodec compared with insulin degludec. The safety profile was comparable between insulin icodec and glargine U100, whereas insulin icodec reported higher incidence of hypoglycaemia events and any adverse events when compared with degludec.

CONCLUSION

Once-weekly insulin icodec showed a better HbA1c reduction with a higher proportion of patients achieving HbA1c targets in comparison with once-daily basal insulin analogues. They were no major safety concerns with respect to hypoglycaemia or adverse events.

Evaluating Patient and Provider Preferences for a Once-Weekly Basal Insulin in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes

Purpose

The global burden of disease of type 2 diabetes (T2D) is significant, and insulin currently plays a central role in T2D management. This study sought to assess the preferences of patients with T2D and healthcare providers (HCPs) involved in T2D care regarding a hypothetical once-weekly basal insulin in comparison to current basal insulin options.

Patients and Methods

In a survey-based study in the United States that included a discrete choice experiment (DCE), patients with T2D (insulin naïve and current insulin users) and providers who treat individuals with T2D were asked to evaluate current basal insulins and identify attributes of importance regarding a hypothetical once-weekly basal insulin. A regression analysis was conducted to identify drivers of preference by relevant demographics, attitudes, and behaviors.

Results

Most respondents (91% of patients with T2D and 89% of HCPs in the base case scenario) would choose a once-weekly basal insulin product over another type of basal insulin. Both patients with T2D and HCPs rated insulin type and delivery method to be attributes of highest importance in the discrete choice exercise. Current basal insulin users ("insulin experienced") reported higher levels of confidence that a once-weekly insulin would help them to achieve their desired blood sugar levels compared to their current basal insulin (5.7 vs 5.2 on a 7-point Likert scale). Most insulin-experienced respondents (88%) were likely to inquire about once-weekly basal insulin, and most HCPs (85%) indicated willingness to educate patients on management of their T2D using a once-weekly basal insulin.

Conclusion

Discussing preferences for T2D medication management is important for patients and HCPs to ensure treatments are offered for patients based on their preferences. This study showed that patient and provider preferences are similar towards a once-weekly basal insulin over current basal insulin preparations.

Once-weekly Insulin Icodec as Compared to Once-daily Basal Insulins: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Once-weekly basal insulin icodec has been tested in clinical trials for efficacy and safety over currently available glargine-100 and degludec in different clinical settings for type 2 diabetes. We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate its overall safety and efficacy as compared to glargine-100 and degludec (nonicodec), from all available randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

Seven trials comparing once-daily basal insulin analogs to once-weekly basal insulin icodec were included. Based on available information, outcomes in terms of HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose reduction, and increase in time in range (TIR) were compared. Side-effects were compared for overall hypoglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, and weight gain. The pooled effect size for continuously distributed data was measured as a reduction in "estimated differences in mean (with 95% CI)." For categorical data, the pooled effect size was measured as the Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio (with 95% CI).

RESULTS

Analyzing against the nonicodec comparators together, the "estimated mean changes" in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose favoring icodec were -0.22% (-0.35, -0.10) and -1.59 mg% (-9.26, 6.08) respectively. The "estimated mean increment" in weight for icodec was 0.64 kg (0.61, 0.67). The "estimated mean percentage" increment in TIR for icodec was 4.24% (2.99, 5.49). The Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios for all hypoglycemic events and severe hypoglycemia for icodec were 1.24 (1.02, 1.50) (P = .03) and 0.81 (0.31, 2.08) (P is not significant), respectively, suggesting a 24% increased incidence of all hypoglycemia with icodec.

CONCLUSION

Once-weekly basal insulin icodec as compared to once-daily basal insulin analogs had a slight increase in the risk of overall hypoglycemia and weight gain, without any difference in severe hypoglycemia, with similar glycemic control (in terms of fasting plasma glucose, HbA1c, and TIR).

Once-weekly Insulin Icodec Versus Once-daily Long-acting Insulin for Type II Diabetes: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Insulin icodec is a novel basal insulin analog with once-weekly subcutaneous administration. We aim to estimate the efficacy and safety of insulin icodec vs long-acting insulin (insulin glargine and degludec) in type II diabetic patients.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which were retrieved by systematically searching PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Cochrane through May 29, 2023. We used RevMan V. 5.4 to pool dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and continuous data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Our primary outcome was glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) change.

Results

We included 7 RCTs with a total of 3183 patients. Insulin icodec was associated with significantly decreased HbA1C (MD: -0.15 with 95% CI [-0.24, -0.06], P = .002) and increased percentage of time with glucose in range (TIR) (MD: 4.06 with 95% CI [2.06, 6.06], P = .0001). However, insulin icodec was associated with increased body weight (MD: 0.57 with 95% CI [0.45, 0.70], P = .00001). Also, there was no difference regarding any serious adverse events (AEs) (RR: 0.96 with 95% CI [0.76, 1.20], P = .7) or AEs leading to withdrawal (RR: 1.54 with 95% CI [0.84, 2.82], P = .16). However, insulin icodec was associated with increased any AEs incidence (RR: 1.06 with 95% CI [1.01, 1.12], P = .02).

Conclusion

Insulin icodec was associated with decreased HbA1C, increased TIR, with similar hypoglycemic and serious AEs. However, it was also associated with increased body weight and the incidence of any AEs.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly basal insulin versus once-daily basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Once-weekly insulin is expected to improve treatment compliance and durability and lead to better glycemic control. Several clinical trials on once-weekly insulin have recently been published. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin versus once-daily insulin in type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

The following databases were searched for studies: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library (From January 1, 1946 to May 9, 2023). All randomized trials comparing weekly versus daily insulin in T2D were eligible for inclusion. Data analysis was performed using STATA 17.0 software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX). The main outcomes and indexes included reduction in Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose and bodyweight, proportion of patients achieving HbA1c < 7%, time-in-range 70 to 180 mg/dL and adverse events.

RESULTS

This systematic review and meta-analysis included 7 randomized controlled studies involving 2391 patients (1347 receiving 1-week insulin and 1044 receiving 1-day insulin). Once-weekly insulin was not inferior to once-daily insulin in HbA1c change [estimated treatment difference (ETD) = -0.05; 95% confidence intervals (CI): -0.14 to 0.04), HbA1c  < 7% (odds ratio = 1.14; 95% CI: 0.87-1.50), fasting plasma glucose (ETD = 0.09; 95% CI: -0.19 to 0.36) and body weight loss (ETD = 0.27; 95% CI: -0.36 to 0.91). In terms of time-in-range 70 to 180 mg/dL, weekly insulin was superior to daily insulin (MTD = 3.84; 95% CI: 1.55-6.08). Icodec was associated with higher incidence of all adverse events (odds ratio = 1.20; 95% CI: 1.03-1.48; P = .024), but did not result in high risk of serious and severe adverse events. Moreover, icodec and Basal Insulin Fc did not result in higher incidence of hypoglycemia compared with insulin daily.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis found that insulin weekly was well tolerated and effective for glycemic control. Once-weekly insulin was not inferior to once-daily insulin in both efficacy and safety in T2D.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly versus once-daily basal insulin analogues in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To summarize the evidence of recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying efficacy, in terms of glycaemic control, and safety of the newly developed once-weekly basal insulin analogues.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted through Medline (via PubMed), Cochrane Library and Google Scholar until June 30, 2023. Double-independent study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed. Results were summarized with random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 3962 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) among nine RCTs were analysed. All RCTs had low risk of bias according to the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool (RoB2). Once-weekly insulins demonstrated better efficacy in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction (mean difference [MD] -0.13%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.23, -0.03; P = 0.08) and a significantly greater time in range compared with once-daily insulin analogues (MD 3.54%, 95% CI 1.56, 5.53; P = 0.005). Based on subgroup analyses, the reduction in HbA1c and the odds of achieving an end-of-treatment HbA1c <6.5% were significantly greater for icodec compared to the once-daily insulin (MD -0.18%, 95% CI -0.27, -0.09 [P < 0.001] and odds ratio [OR] 1.75, 95% CI 1.34, 2.29 [P < 0.001], respectively). Once-weekly insulins were associated with higher odds of level 1 hypoglycaemia during the 24-hour period (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.04, 1.64; P = 0.02) but were safer in terms of level 2 or 3 nocturnal hypoglycaemic events (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56, 0.97; P = 0.03). No difference was observed regarding serious adverse events between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The once-weekly basal insulin analogues seem to be at least equally efficient in glycaemic management and safe compared to once-daily injections in people with T2DM. Phase 4 RCTs are expected to shed further light on the effectiveness and safety of once-weekly insulin therapy over the long term.

Diselenide-bond replacement of the external disulfide bond of insulin increases its oligomerization leading to sustained activity

Seleno-insulin, a class of artificial insulin analogs, in which one of the three disulfide-bonds (S-S's) of wild-type insulin (Ins) is replaced by a diselenide-bond (Se-Se), is attracting attention for its unique chemical and physiological properties that differ from those of Ins. Previously, we pioneered the development of a [C7UA,C7UB] analog of bovine pancreatic insulin (SeIns) as the first example, and demonstrated its high resistance against insulin-degrading enzyme (IDE). In this study, the conditions for the synthesis of SeIns via native chain assembly (NCA) were optimized to attain a maximum yield of 72%, which is comparable to the in vitro folding efficiency for single-chain proinsulin. When the resistance of BPIns to IDE was evaluated in the presence of SeIns, the degradation rate of BPIns became significantly slower than that of BPIns alone. Furthermore, the investigation on the intermolecular association properties of SeIns and BPIns using analytical ultracentrifugation suggested that SeIns readily forms oligomers not only with its own but also with BPIns. The hypoglycemic effect of SeIns on diabetic rats was observed at a dose of 150 μg/300 g rat. The strategy of replacing the solvent-exposed S-S with Se-Se provides new guidance for the design of long-acting insulin formulations.

Optimal use of once weekly icodec insulin in type-2 diabetes: An updated meta-analysis of phase-2 and phase-3 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Previously published meta-analysis have analysed data from 3 small phase-2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Since then, 5 big phase-3 RCTs have been published on use of icodec in type-2 diabetes (T2D). This updated systematic review aimed to establish the best practices and safety of icodec in T2D.

METHODS

Databases were searched for RCTs involving T2D patients receiving icodec. Primary outcome was change in HbA1c. Secondary outcomes were alterations in glycaemic parameters and adverse events.

RESULTS

Data from 8 studies (4317 patients) was analysed. Compared to other basal insulins, icodec had comparable HbA1c lowering at 16-weeks [MD-0.19 %(95%CI: 0.58-0.20); P = 0.35; I2 = 92 %], better HbA1c lowering at 26-weeks [MD-0.19 %(95%CI: 0.35-0.013); P = 0.02; I2 = 94 %] and 52-weeks [MD -0.28 %(95%CI: 0.45-0.12); P = 0.0008; I2 = 100 %]. Percentage of participants achieving HbA1c<7 % with icodec was higher at 16-weeks [OR2.37(95%CI:1.05-5.35); P = 0.04], comparable at 26-weeks [OR1.38(95%CI:0.91-2.11); P = 0.13; I2 = 80 %], and higher at 52-weeks [OR1.55(95%CI:1.30-1.85); P < 0.00001; I2 = 0 %]. Percentage of participants achieving HbA1c<7 % without level 2/3 hypoglycaemia was higher with icodec at 26-weeks [OR1.37(95%CI:1.10-1.71); P = 0.004; I2 = 28 %] and 52-weeks [OR1.48(95%CI:1.24-1.77); P < 0.001; I2 = 0 %]. At 26-weeks, injection-site reactions was higher with icodec [OR1.95(95%CI:1.06-3.56); P = 0.03; I2 = 0 %]. At 26-weeks level-1 hypoglycemia [OR1.40(95%CI:1.02-1.94); P = 0.04; I2 = 58 %], but not level-2/3 hypoglycaemia was higher with icodec. Subset analysis revealed increased occurrence of level-1 [OR 4.19 (95 % CI: 3.20-5.50); P < 0.00001] and level-2 [OR 3.97 (95 % CI: 3.04-5.18); P < 0.00001] hypoglycaemia in participants who received one-time additional 50 % icodec loading dose as compared to those who did not. At 26-weeks, weight-gain was significantly higher with icodec [MD0.61 kg(95%CI:0.38-0.84); P < 0.00001; I2 = 98 %].

CONCLUSION

Icodec insulin is well tolerated with glycaemic efficacy similar to all other available basal insulins.

Current Status of Weekly Insulin Analogs and Their Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Evaluation by the Euglycemic Clamp Technique

Diabetes mellitus represents a significant global health threat characterized by hyperglycemia caused by inadequate insulin secretion and/or insulin resistance. Exogenous insulin supplements had been recognized as a crucial treatment for achieving successful glycemic control in patients with Type 1 and most patients with Type 2 diabetes. Over the past century, substantial progress has been made in the development of novel insulin formulations, including the super-fast-acting and long-acting basal insulin analogs, of which the latter is indispensable for the management of nocturnal fasting and intraprandial blood glucose within the normal physiological range. Recently, combining chemical and genetic engineering with drug optimization have resulted in a formidable evolution in ultra-long-acting weekly insulin. Here, the current state of once-weekly insulin analogs and the euglycemic clamp technique used in the early clinical development to elucidate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of this type of novel weekly insulin analogs were systematically overviewed.

Chitosan/Albumin Coating Factorial Optimization of Alginate/Dextran Sulfate Cores for Oral Delivery of Insulin

The design of nanoparticle formulations composed of biopolymers, that govern the physicochemical properties of orally delivered insulin, relies on improving insulin stability and absorption through the intestinal mucosa while protecting it from harsh conditions in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Chitosan/polyethylene glycol (PEG) and albumin coating of alginate/dextran sulfate hydrogel cores are presented as a multilayer complex protecting insulin within the nanoparticle. This study aims to optimize a nanoparticle formulation by assessing the relationship between design parameters and experimental data using response surface methodology through a 3-factor 3-level optimization Box–Behnken design. While the selected independent variables were the concentrations of PEG, chitosan and albumin, the dependent variables were particle size, polydispersity index (PDI), zeta potential, and insulin release. Experimental results showed a nanoparticle size ranging from 313 to 585 nm, with PDI from 0.17 to 0.39 and zeta potential ranging from −29 to −44 mV. Insulin bioactivity was maintained in simulated GI media with over 45% cumulative release after 180 min in a simulated intestinal medium. Based on the experimental responses and according to the criteria of desirability on the experimental region’s constraints, solutions of 0.03% PEG, 0.047% chitosan and 1.20% albumin provide an optimum nanoparticle formulation for insulin oral delivery.

Clinical pharmacology of antidiabetic drugs: What can be expected of their use?

The pharmacotherapy of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has markedly evolved in the last two decades. Classical antidiabetic agents (sulphonylureas, metformin, insulin) are now in competition with new glucose-lowering medications. Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors and thiazolidinediones (glitazones) were not able to replace older agents, because of insufficient efficacy and/or poor tolerability/safety. In contrast, incretin-based therapies, both dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is or gliptins, oral agents) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs, subcutaneous injections) are a major breakthrough in the management of T2DM. Because they are not associated with hypoglycaemia and weight gain, DPP-4is tend to replace sulphonylureas as add-on to metformin while GLP-1RAs tend to replace basal insulin therapy after failure of oral therapies. Furthermore, placebo-controlled cardiovascular outcome trials demonstrated neutrality for DPP-4is, but cardiovascular protection for GLP-1RAs in patients with T2DM at high cardiovascular risk. More recently sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is or gliflozins, oral agents) also showed cardiovascular protection, especially a reduction in hospitalization for heart failure, as well as a renal protection in patients with and without T2DM, at high cardiovascular risk, with established heart failure and/or with chronic kidney disease. Thus, GLP-1RAs and SGLT2is are now considered as preferred drugs in T2DM patients with or at high risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease whereas SGLT2is are more specifically recommended in patients with or at risk of heart failure and renal (albuminuric) disease. The management of T2DM is moving from a glucocentric approach to a broader strategy focusing on all risk factors, including overweight/obesity, and to an organ-disease targeted personalized approach.