Insulin glargine is more potent in activating the human IGF-I receptor than human insulin and insulin detemir

Choice of basal insulin therapy is associated with weight and height development in type 1 diabetes: A multicenter analysis from the German/Austrian DPV registry in 10 338 children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Available basal insulin regimes differ in pharmacokinetic profiles, which may be related to subsequent changes in anthropometry in patients with type 1 diabetes. This analysis elucidates the standardized height and body mass index development (height and BMI standard deviation score [height-SDS and BMI-SDS]) in pediatric type 1 diabetes patients depending on the choice of basal insulin.

METHODS

Longitudinal data of 10 338 German/Austrian patients from the Diabetes Prospective Follow-up (DPV, Diabetes Patienten Verlaufsdokumentation) database were analyzed. Patients aged 5.0 to 16.9 years were treated exclusively with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH), insulin detemir (IDet), insulin glargine (IGla), or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) for at least 3 years. Population-based German reference data were used to calculate height-SDS and BMI-SDS. Multiple linear regression was conducted.

RESULTS

BMI-SDS increased significantly in all regimes (NPH P = .0365; IDet P = .0003; IGla P < .0001; and CSII P < .0001). Direct comparison of the therapies revealed a favorable association only for NPH vs IGla. A rise in BMI-SDS was observed for all insulins in females, but only for IGla in males. BMI-SDS increment was not observed before 8 years of age. Initially and at the end of the observation period, mean height was above the 50th percentile of the reference population. Across the cohort, height-SDS declined during the observation period, except for CSII. Apart from the 5.0- to 7.9-year-old subgroup, long-acting insulin analogues were associated with a significant loss of height-SDS.

CONCLUSIONS

Choice of basal insulin regimen might influence height development. CSII appeared to have a favorable effect on growth trajectories. All therapies were associated with an increase of BMI-SDS, most evident in females.

The Influence of Anti-Diabetic Drugs on Prostate Cancer

The incidences of prostate cancer (PC) and diabetes are increasing, with a sustained trend. The occurrence of PC and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is growing with aging. The correlation between PC occurrence and diabetes is noteworthy, as T2DM is correlated with a reduced risk of incidence of prostate cancer. Despite this reduction, diabetes mellitus increases the mortality in many cancer types, including prostate cancer. The treatment of T2DM is based on lifestyle changes and pharmacological management. Current available drugs, except insulin, are aimed at increasing insulin secretion (sulfonylureas, incretin drugs), improving insulin sensitivity (biguanides, thiazolidinediones), or increasing urinary glucose excretion (gliflozin). Comorbidities should be taken into consideration during the treatment of T2DM. This review describes currently known information about the mechanism and impact of commonly used antidiabetic drugs on the incidence and progression of PC. Outcomes of pre-clinical studies are briefly presented and their correlations with available clinical trials have also been observed. Available reports and meta-analyses demonstrate that most anti-diabetic drugs do not increase the risk during the treatment of patients with PC. However, some reports show a potential advantage of treatment of T2DM with specific drugs. Based on clinical reports, use of metformin should be considered as a therapeutic option. Moreover, anticancer properties of metformin were augmented while combined with GLP-1 analogs.

The insulin-like growth factor-I receptor stimulating activity (IRSA) in health and disease

Determination of true IGF-I bioactivity in serum and other biological fluids is still a substantial challenge. The IGF-IR Kinase Receptor Activation assay (IGF-IR KIRA assay) is a novel tool to asses IGF-IR stimulating activity (IRSA) and has opened a new era in studying the IGF system. In this paper we discuss many studies showing that measuring IRSA by the IGF-IR KIRA assay often provides fundamentally different information about the IGF system than the commonly used total IGF-I immunoassays. With the IGF-IR KIRA assay phosphorylation of tyrosine residues of the IGF-IR is used as read out to quantify IRSA in unknown (serum) samples. The IGF-IR KIRA assay gives information about net overall effects of circulating IGF-I, IGF-II, IGFBPs and IGFBP-proteases on IGF-IR activation and seems especially superior to immunoreactive total IGF-I in monitoring therapeutic interventions. Although the IRSA as measured by the IGF-IR KIRA assay probably more closely reflects true bioactive IGF-I than measurements of total IGF-I in serum, the IGF-IR KIRA assay in its current form does not give information about all the post-receptor intracellular events mediated by the IGF-IR. Interestingly, in several conditions in health and disease IRSA measured by the IGF-IR KIRA assay is considerably higher in interstitial fluid and ascites than in serum. This suggests that both the paracrine (local) and endocrine (circulating) IRSA should be measured to get a complete picture about the role of the IGF system in health and disease.

Serum Insulin Bioassay Reflects Insulin Sensitivity and Requirements in Type 1 Diabetes

CONTEXT

Insulin resistance could increase insulin requirements in type 1 diabetes (T1D). Current insulin immunoassays do not detect insulin analogs. Kinase insulin receptor (IR) activation (KIRA) bioassays specific for human IR isoforms A (IR-A) and B (IR-B) permit assessment of all circulating insulin bioactivity. We studied whether IR-A and IR-B KIRA assays are related to direct measures of insulin sensitivity or insulin doses in T1D.

DESIGN

We evaluated 31 adult patients with T1D (age 45.7 ± 1.6 years, body mass index 28.8 ± 0.7 kg/m2). Serum IR-A and IR-B bioactivities were measured by KIRA bioassays. Insulin sensitivity of glucose production (Ra) was measured by the euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp technique in which a low insulin dose (0.4 mU/kg/min for 240 minutes) was combined with D-[3-3H] glucose infusion to measure rates of Ra and utilization and insulin action on antilipolysis from suppression of serum free fatty acids.

RESULTS

Baseline circulating IR-A bioactivity was 53 ± 7 pmol/L, and IR-B bioactivity was 81 ± 11 pmol/L. Compared with baseline, insulin infusion significantly increased IR-A (P < 0.001) and IR-B (P < 0.001) bioactivities. Fasting IR-A and IR-B bioactivities were positively related to endogenous Ra (r = 0.44, P = 0.01 and r = 0.38, P < 0.05). Fasting IR-A (r = 0.43, P = 0.02) and IR-B (r = 0.47, P = 0.01) bioactivities were significantly correlated with insulin requirements and glycosylated hemoglobin (IR-A: r = 0.52, P = 0.002; IR-B: r = 0.48, P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Circulating IR-A and IR-B bioactivities are associated with insulin resistance, high insulin requirements, and poor glycemic control in T1D. Measurement of IR bioactivity by KIRA assays provides a tool to assess the amount of biologically active insulin in groups of T1D patients treated with insulin analogs.

Prevention of tumour cell apoptosis associated with sustained protein kinase B phosphorylation is more sensitive to regulation by insulin signalling than stimulation of proliferation and extracellular signal-regulated kinase

Insulin controls blood glucose while insulin-like growth factor (IGF) 1 is an important growth factor. Interestingly, both hormones have overlapping bioactivities and can activate the same intracellular signal transduction cascades. Growth control (mainly by IGF1) and metabolic function (predominantly by insulin) are believed to depend on activation of extracellular signal-regulated kinases (ERKs) 1/2 and protein kinase B (Akt/PKB), respectively. Therefore, insulin analogues that are used to normalize blood glucose are tested for their ability to preferentially activate Akt/PKB but not ERK1/2 and mitogenesis. Growth hormone, IGF1, and hyperinsulinemia are associated with increased risk of growth progression of some cancer types. To test if continuous exposure to insulin can favour tumour growth, we studied insulin/IGF1-dependent activation of ERK1/2 and Akt/PKB by Western blotting, inhibition of apoptosis by ELISA, and induction of proliferation by [³H]-thymidine incorporation in Saos-2/B10 osteosarcoma cells. IGF1 and insulin both induced proliferation and prevented apoptosis effectively. Regulation of apoptosis was far more sensitive than regulation of proliferation. IGF1 and insulin activated PKB (Akt/PKB) rapidly and consistently maintained its phosphorylation. Activation of ERK1/2 was only observed in response to IGF1. Loss of p-Akt/PKB (but not of p-ERK1/2) was associated with increased apoptosis, and protection from apoptosis was lost when activation of Akt/PKB was inhibited. These findings in Saos-2/B10 cells were also replicated in the A549 cell line, originally derived from a human lung carcinoma. Therefore, IGF1 and insulin more likely (at lower concentrations) enhance tumour cell survival than proliferation, via activation and maintenance of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase activity and p-Akt/PKB.

Use of Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension in Pregnancy

Maternal metabolism changes substantially during pregnancy, which poses numerous challenges to physicians managing pregnancy in women with diabetes. Insulin is the agent of choice for glycemic control in pregnant women with diabetes, and the insulin analogs are particularly interesting for use in pregnancy. These agents may reduce the risk of hypoglycemia and promote a more physiological glycemic profile than regular human insulin in pregnant women with type 1 (T1D), type 2 (T2D), or gestational (GDM) diabetes. However, there have been concerns regarding potential risk for crossing the placental barrier, mitogenic stimulation, teratogenicity, and embryotoxicity. Insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS), an intermediate- to long-acting insulin, has a stable and predictable pharmacological profile, and appears to have a favorable time–action profile and produce desirable basal and postprandial glycemic control. As the binding of insulin lispro is unaffected by the protamine molecule, ILPS is likely to have the same mitogenic and immunogenic potential as insulin lispro. Insulin lispro produces similar outcomes to regular insulin in pregnant women with T1D, T2D, or GDM, does not cross the placental barrier, and is considered a useful treatment option for pregnant women with diabetes. Clinical data support the usefulness of ILPS for basal insulin coverage in non-pregnant patients with T1D or T2D, and suggest that the optimal regimen, in terms of balance between efficacy and hypoglycemic risk, is a once-daily injection, especially in patients with T2D. Available data concerning use of ILPS in pregnant women are currently derived from retrospective analyses that involved, in total, >1200 pregnant women. These analyses suggest that ILPS is at least as safe and effective as neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin. Thus, available experimental and clinical data suggest that ILPS once daily is a safe and effective option for the management of diabetes in pregnant women.

Funding: Eli Lilly and Company.

Insulin analogs and cancer: a note of caution

In view of the lifelong exposure and large patient populations involved, insulin analogs with an increased mitogenic effect in comparison to human insulin may potentially constitute a major health problem, since these analogs may possibly induce the growth of pre-existing neoplasms. At present, the available data suggest that insulin analogs are safe. In line with these findings, we observed that serum of diabetic patients treated with insulin analogs, compared to that of diabetic patients treated with human insulin, did not induce an increased phosphorylation of tyrosine residues of the insulin-like growth factor-I receptor (IGF-IR). However, the classical model of the IGF-IR signaling may be insufficient to explain (all) mitogenic effects of insulin analogs since also non-canonical signaling pathways of the IGF-IR may play a major role in this respect. Although phosphorylation of tyrosine residues of the IGF-IR is generally considered to be the initial activation step within the intracellular IGF-IR signaling pathway, it has been found that cells undergo a signaling switch under hyperglycemic conditions. After this switch, a completely different mechanism is utilized to activate the mitogenic (mitogen-activated protein kinase) pathways of the IGF-IR that is independent from tyrosine phosphorylation of the IGF-IR. At present it is unknown whether activation of this alternative intracellular pathway of the IGF-IR occurs during hyperglycemia in vivo and whether it is stronger in patients treated with (some) insulin analogs than in patients treated with human insulin. In addition, it is unknown whether the insulin receptors (IRs) also undergo a signaling switch during hyperglycemia. This should be investigated in future studies. Finally, relative overexpression of IR isoform A (IR-A) in (pre) cancer tissues may play a key role in the development and progression of human cancers during treatment with insulin (analogs). Further studies are required to unravel whether the IR-A is involved in the development of cancers and whether, in this respect (some) insulin analogs differ from human insulin.

Insulin and its analogues and their affinities for the IGF1 receptor

Insulin analogues have been developed in an attempt to achieve a more physiological replacement of insulin and thereby a better glycaemic control. However, structural modification of the insulin molecule may result in altered binding affinities and activities to the IGF1 receptor (IGF1R). As a consequence, insulin analogues may theoretically have an increased mitogenic action compared to human insulin. In view of the lifelong exposure and large patient populations involved, insulin analogues with an increased mitogenic effect in comparison to human insulin may potentially constitute a major health problem, since these analogues may possibly induce the growth of pre-existing neoplasms. This hypothesis has been evaluated extensively in vitro and also in vivo by using animal models. In vitro, all at present commercially available insulin analogues have lower affinities for the insulin receptor (IR). Although it has been suggested that especially insulin analogues with an increased affinity for the IGF1R (such as insulin glargine) are more mitogenic when tested in vitro in cells expressing a high proportion of IGF1R, the question remains whether this has any clinical consequences. At present, there are several uncertainties which make it very difficult to answer this question decisively. In addition, recent data suggest that insulin (or insulin analogues)-mediated stimulation of IRs may play a key role in the progression of human cancer. More detailed information is required to elucidate the exact mechanisms as to how insulin analogues may activate the IR and IGF1R and how this activation may be linked to mitogenesis.

Molecular characterisation of long-acting insulin analogues in comparison with human insulin, IGF-1 and insulin X10

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

There is controversy with respect to molecular characteristics of insulin analogues. We report a series of experiments forming a comprehensive characterisation of the long acting insulin analogues, glargine and detemir, in comparison with human insulin, IGF-1, and the super-mitogenic insulin, X10.

METHODS

We measured binding of ligands to membrane-bound and solubilised receptors, receptor activation and mitogenicity in a number of cell types.

RESULTS

Detemir and glargine each displayed a balanced affinity for insulin receptor (IR) isoforms A and B. This was also true for X10, whereas IGF-1 had a higher affinity for IR-A than IR-B. X10 and glargine both exhibited a higher relative IGF-1R than IR binding affinity, whereas detemir displayed an IGF-1R:IR binding ratio of ≤ 1. Ligands with high relative IGF-1R affinity also had high affinity for IR/IGF-1R hybrid receptors. In general, the relative binding affinities of the analogues were reflected in their ability to phosphorylate the IR and IGF-1R. Detailed analysis revealed that X10, in contrast to the other ligands, seemed to evoke a preferential phosphorylation of juxtamembrane and kinase domain phosphorylation sites of the IR. Sustained phosphorylation was only observed from the IR after stimulation with X10, and after stimulation with IGF-1 from the IGF-1R. Both X10 and glargine showed an increased mitogenic potency compared to human insulin in cells expressing many IGF-1Rs, whereas only X10 showed increased mitogenicity in cells expressing many IRs.

CONCLUSIONS

Detailed analysis of receptor binding, activation and in vitro mitogenicity indicated no molecular safety concern with detemir.

Addition of insulin glargine or NPH insulin to metformin monotherapy in poorly controlled type 2 diabetic patients decreases IGF-I bioactivity similarly

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this study was to compare IGF-I bioactivity 36 weeks after the addition of insulin glargine (A21Gly,B31Arg,B32Arg human insulin) or NPH insulin to metformin therapy in type 2 diabetic patients who had poor glucose control under metformin monotherapy.

METHODS

In the Lantus plus Metformin (LANMET) study, 110 poorly controlled insulin-naive type 2 diabetic patients were randomised to receive metformin with either insulin glargine (G+MET) or NPH insulin (NPH+MET). In the present study, IGF-I bioactivity was measured, retrospectively, in 104 out of the 110 initially included LANMET participants before and after 36 weeks of insulin therapy. IGF-I bioactivity was measured using an IGF-I kinase receptor activation assay.

RESULTS

After 36 weeks of insulin therapy, insulin doses were comparable between the G+MET (68 ± 5.7 U/day) and NPH+MET (71 ± 6.2 U/day) groups (p = 0.68). Before insulin therapy, circulating IGF-I bioactivity was similar between the G+MET (134 ± 9 pmol/l) and NPH+MET (135 ± 10 pmol/l) groups (p = 0.83). After 36 weeks, IGF-I bioactivity had decreased significantly (p = 0.001) and did not differ between the G+MET (116 ± 9 pmol/l) and NPH+MET (117 ± 10 pmol/l) groups (p = 0.91). At baseline and after insulin therapy, total IGF-I concentrations were comparable in both groups (baseline: G+MET 13.3 ± 1.0 vs NPH+MET 13.3 ± 1.0 nmol/l, p = 0.97; and 36 weeks: 13.4 ± 1.0 vs 13.1 ± 0.9 nmol/l, p = 0.71). Total IGF-I concentration did not change during insulin therapy (13.3 ± 0.7 vs 13.3 ± 0.7 nmol/l, baseline vs 36 weeks, p = 0.86).

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Addition of insulin glargine or NPH insulin to metformin monotherapy in poorly controlled type 2 diabetic patients decreases serum IGF-I bioactivity in a similar manner.

Insulin therapy in diabetes and cancer risk: current understanding and implications for future study: proceedings from a meeting of a European Insulin Safety Consensus Panel, convened and sponsored by Novo Nordisk, held Tuesday October 5, 2010 at The Radisson Edwardian Heathrow Hotel, Hayes, Middlesex, UK

INTRODUCTION

Interest in the possibility of certain insulin treatments having the potential to modify cancer development and prognosis was reawakened in 2009, following publication of several epidemiological studies addressing this issue. This interest extends to how diabetes itself and cancer might be linked, and makes desirable an exchange of expert views and knowledge to enhance understanding in this subject among those treating diabetes and cancer, or those developing diabetes therapies.

METHODS

A European meeting was convened with participants invited based on known relevant interests in endocrinology, oncology, epidemiology, and insulin analog design and investigation. Experts in these fields were invited to present on relevant topics, with open discussions held after each presentation.

RESULTS

Concern over the potential mitogenic properties of certain insulin analogs has arisen from some (but not all) epidemiological studies, although confounding factors render interpretation controversial. Future epidemiological studies are likely to strengthen confidence in drawing conclusions. Meanwhile, pharmacological studies, and a consideration of cancer pathophysiology, implicate increased insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor affinity, and/or deranged insulin receptor interaction/signaling properties as possible a priori causes for concern with some insulin analogs. Again, interpretation of the body of pharmacological evidence is confounded by the array of test systems and methodologies used, and by studies frequently succumbing to methodological pitfalls. Reassuringly, most available insulin analogs do not differ in their receptor interaction response profile to human insulin, and for those that do there are reasons to question any potential clinical relevance. Nevertheless, it is desirable that new experimental models are devised that can better determine the likely clinical consequences of any variance in receptor response profile versus human insulin.

CONCLUSION

More data are required to increase our understanding of this issue. To facilitate and disseminate such understanding, close cooperation and communication between diabetologists, epidemiologists, oncologists, and insulin engineers will be essential.

Differences in bioactivity between human insulin and insulin analogues approved for therapeutic use- compilation of reports from the past 20 years

In order to provide comprehensive information on the differences in bioactivity between human insulin and insulin analogues, published in vitro comparisons of human insulin and the rapid acting analogues insulin lispro (Humalog®), insulin aspart ( NovoRapid®), insulin glulisine (Apidra®), and the slow acting analogues insulin glargine (Lantus®), and insulin detemir (Levemir®) were gathered from the past 20 years (except for receptor binding studies). A total of 50 reports were retrieved, with great heterogeneity among study methodology. However, various differences in bioactivity compared to human insulin were obvious (e.g. differences in effects on metabolism, mitogenesis, apoptosis, intracellular signalling, thrombocyte function, protein degradation). Whether or not these differences have clinical bearings (and among which patient populations) remains to be determined.