Long-term efficacy of humalog in subjects with Type 1 diabetes mellitus

Time-action profile and patient assessment of inhaled insulin via the Exubera device in comparison with subcutaneously injected insulin aspart via the FlexPen device

BACKGROUND

The goal of our investigation was to compare the pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics properties of and patient preference for insulin aspart applied with the FlexPen (Novo Nordisk, Bagsvaerd, Denmark) (IAFP) with pulmonary human insulin applied with the Exubera (Pfizer, New York, NY) device (HIEX).

METHODS

Twelve patients with diabetes (six with type 1 and six with type 2; eight men, four women; age, 54.5 +/- 11.0 years; duration of diabetes, 16.5 +/- 10.6 years; hemoglobin A1c, 7.5 +/- 0.7%; body mass index, 29.5 +/- 7.2 kg/m(2); mean +/- SD) participated in an open-label, randomized, euglycemic clamp study. The patients received 11 units of IAFP or a dose-equivalent of (3 + 1 mg) insulin from HIEX in a randomized sequence on two different study days. Insulin plasma levels and the required glucose infusion rate (GIR) were monitored for a time period of 6 h. In addition, the patients' individual ratings from 1 (excellent) to 5 (poor) regarding several different handling items were assessed using a questionnaire.

RESULTS

No significant difference in the pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics parameters could be observed between IAFP and HIEX within the first 120 min. In the second part of the clamp procedure, plasma insulin levels (area under the curve versus time [AUC]) and the GIR was significantly higher after HIEX compared with IAFP (insulin AUC(120-360), 66,232 +/- 4,521 vs. 48,852 +/- 2,999 pmol/L, P < 0.05; GIR AUC(120-360), 8,928 +/- 1,334 vs. 6,805 +/- 1,655 mg/kg/min). A superior patient judgment was obtained for the FlexPen with regard to trust in insulin delivery (2.3 +/- 1.1 vs. 2.8 +/- 1.0), trust in correct insulin dosing (1.8 +/- 1.1 vs. 2.6 +/- 0.9), size (2.3 +/- 1.1 vs. 3.6 +/- 0.9), and appearance of the device (2.4 +/- 1.0 vs. 3.8 +/- 0.9) (P < 0.05, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin treatment with HIEX was found to have pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics properties comparable to IAFP. Both insulin administration technologies were overall evaluated positive, but most patients preferred IAFP.

Insulin Lispro

Insulin lispro, alone (Humalog) or as premixture (Humalog Mix25 or Humalog Mix50) is indicated for the treatment of hyperglycaemia in diabetes mellitus in many countries worldwide. It is a recombinant human insulin analogue and, except for the transposition of two amino acids, is identical to endogenous human insulin. Insulin lispro has a faster onset of action and shorter duration of activity than regular human insulin, and the time-action profile of insulin lispro mimics that of the physiological response of endogenous human insulin to food intake. In diabetic patients, from young children to the elderly, it has demonstrated postprandial blood glucose control similar to or better than that achieved with regular human insulin, without an increased risk of hypoglycaemia. In some trials, the risk of hypoglycaemia, including nocturnal episodes, was less in insulin lispro recipients than in regular human insulin recipients. Insulin lispro alone, or as a premixture with the longer-acting insulin neutral protamine lispro, can be administered immediately before or after meals. This convenient and flexible injection schedule may enable patients, including those with a non-routine lifestyle or unpredictable eating or exercising habits, to achieve the tight glycaemic control required to minimise long-term complications of diabetes and contributes to patient satisfaction with treatment.

Insulin lispro is as effective as regular insulin in optimising metabolic control and preserving beta-cell function at onset of type 1 diabetes mellitus

The aim of the study was to examine the effects of intensive insulin therapy using lispro on metabolic control, immunogenicity and beta-cell function of newly diagnosed type 1 diabetic subjects in comparison with intensive insulin therapy using regular insulin. An open study was conducted in 45 newly diagnosed type 1 diabetic subjects. Patients were randomly assigned to intensive insulin therapy using insulin lispro (lispro) (lispro, n=22; 22.8 years) or intensive insulin therapy using regular insulin (regular) (regular, n=23; 24.4 years): three to five injections of subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin before meals and Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) before dinner/bed-time. GAD, IA2, insulin antibodies, basal and stimulated plasma C-peptide and HbA(1c) were measured initially and at months 1, 4, 8 and 12. Daily blood glucose profiles tended to be lower in the lispro group, particularly values after breakfast, without reaching statistical significance. There were no differences in terms of HbA(1c) throughout the study. The proportion of subjects achieving an HbA(1c)<6% at the end of the study was similar in both groups (regular 73.9%, lispro 68.0%). The number of mild hypoglycemic episodes tended to be lower with lispro, but not significantly. beta-Cell function was not significantly different in both groups. During follow-up there were no differences in antibodies, including IAAb. In summary, insulin lispro used in intensive insulin therapy is as effective as regular insulin in optimizing metabolic control and preserving beta-cell function at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.

Insulin lispro therapy in pregnancies complicated by type 1 diabetes: glycemic control and maternal and fetal outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate glycemic control and maternal and fetal outcomes of patients with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin lispro before and during pregnancy.

METHODS

We undertook a retrospective review of medical records of 62 women with type 1 diabetes who were treated with insulin lispro before and during pregnancy in an outpatient center specializing in the care of patients with diabetes. Outcome measures included maternal glycemic control, hypoglycemic episodes, microvascular complications, duration of gestation, fetal birth weight, and major congenital malformations.

RESULTS

The mean hemoglobin A1c level (+/- standard error) was reduced from 7.2 +/- 0.2% at conception to 5.8 +/- 0.1% at the time of delivery. Of the 62 patients, 14 experienced at least one episode of severe hypoglycemia. No significant change was found in mean eye grade score for retinopathy or in albumin excretion rate during pregnancy. The mean duration of gestation was 37 weeks. The mean infant birth weight was 3.4 kg, with 24% of the pregnancies resulting in macrosomia. Major congenital malformations occurred in 2 of the 62 infants (3.2%).

CONCLUSION

In our experience, insulin lispro therapy during pregnancy in patients with type 1 diabetes resulted in normalization of glycemic control and had no detectable adverse effects on maternal or fetal outcomes. A prospective, randomized study with adequate sample size needs to be performed in order to confirm these conclusions.

17. Immunologic endocrine disorders

Immune-mediated tissue destruction or disregulation is the cause of multiple common, as well as rare, endocrine disorders including type 1 diabetes, Graves' disease, Hashimoto thyroiditis, and Addison's disease. Each of these disorders can be divided into a series of stages beginning with genetic susceptibility, environmental triggering events, and active autoimmunity, followed by metabolic abnormalities with overt disease. Common genetic susceptibility is suggested by the clustering of a series of disorders in the same individual and his or her family. A major portion of the genetic susceptibility lies in the HLA region, but for several disorders, mutation of transcription factors underlies disease susceptibility (eg, X-linked polyendocrinopathy, immune deficiency and diarrhea, and autoimmune polyendocrine syndrome type 1). With improving immunogenetic and pathogenic understanding, type 1A diabetes is now predictable, and excellent autoantibody screening assays are available. This knowledge, combined with studies in animal models, has led to trials for the prevention of diabetes. In addition, aberrant immunologic reactions (eg, insulin autoantibodies after insulin therapy, Graves' disease after monoclonal anti-T-cell therapy in multiple sclerosis) can complicate standard and experimental therapies. We therefore believe that an understanding of the immunogenetics and immunopathogenesis of endocrine disorders can aid in the prevention of morbidity and mortality for these related diseases.

Novel insulins: expanding options in diabetes management

Management of type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus with intensive insulin therapy usually includes an intermediate- or long-acting basal component for between-meal and nocturnal glycemic control, together with preprandial bolus injections of a short-acting insulin for control of meal-stimulated increases in serum glucose levels. Although the ideal basal/bolus insulin combination has yet to be found, recent developments may provide safer and more effective options. Two new short-acting semisynthetic analogs--insulin lispro and insulin aspart--can be administered as preprandial bolus injections closer to mealtime than regular human insulin, thereby synchronizing insulin administration and food absorption. In clinical trials, postprandial increases in blood glucose levels were significantly less after treatment with insulin lispro or insulin aspart than with premeal regular insulin. Because of their short duration of action, a slightly greater basal insulin supply may be needed when insulin lispro or insulin aspart is used. Inhalation devices for aerosolized regular human insulin offer another alternative to premeal subcutaneous bolus injections. Inhaled insulin is absorbed more rapidly than subcutaneous regular insulin and may therefore be given closer to mealtime. For basal therapy, insulin glargine, a new long-acting analog, is absorbed more slowly after subcutaneous administration than are conventional neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) and ultralente insulin, and has a relatively flat metabolic effect. Clinical trials indicate that insulin glargine is at least as effective as NPH insulin and ultralente insulin, and is associated with a reduced risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia. Other long-acting analogs, such as fatty acid acylated insulins, have been tested in animal models and are being evaluated in clinical studies.

Insulin lispro: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in diabetes mellitus

Insulin lispro is a recombinant insulin analogue with transposed amino acids (proline and lysine) at positions 28 and 29 near the C-terminus of the B-chain. The most prominent practical advantage of insulin lispro over human soluble insulin lies in its very rapid onset of action. This property allows it to be injected immediately before meals and minimises the demands made on patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus, and those with type 2 disease who require insulin, by the ongoing need for careful meal planning and timing. Numerous clinical studies have shown significant improvements in postprandial glycaemic control, with some evidence of reduced rates of severe or nocturnal hypoglycaemia, relative to conventional human insulin in patients receiving lispro-based insulins. Quality-of-life studies show consistent preferences by patients for and increased treatment satisfaction with insulin lispro over human soluble insulin, particularly with variations of the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire. Willingness of patients and taxpayers to pay additional costs for insulin lispro or a premixed lispro-based formulation over conventional human insulins, and cost benefits favouring formulary inclusion, have been shown in well designed studies carried out in Australia and Canada. Spanish data suggest cost effectiveness in terms of episodes of severe hypoglycaemia avoided, and preliminary German resource utilisation data indicate cost savings related to reduced hospitalisation and general practice costs, with insulin lispro relative to human soluble insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin lispro and premixed formulations of lispro-based insulins offer quality-of-life improvements relative to conventional human insulins in patients with diabetes mellitus. Participants in well designed studies have expressed a preference for lispro-based insulins and have been shown to be willing to pay for the advantages they offer, and current cost-benefit data favour the inclusion of these insulins in formularies and their reimbursement by third party payers. Further research into the pharmacoeconomic implications of insulin lispro use in the long term is needed, particularly with respect to effects on indirect costs and those associated with complications of diabetes mellitus.

Recombinant DNA technology in the treatment of diabetes: insulin analogs

After more than half a century of treating diabetics with animal insulins, recombinant DNA technologies and advanced protein chemistry made human insulin preparations available in the early 1980s. As the next step, over the last decade, insulin analogs were constructed by changing the structure of the native protein with the goal of improving the therapeutic properties of it, because the pharmacokinetic characteristics of rapid-, intermediate-, and long-acting preparations of human insulin make it almost impossible to achieve sustained normoglycemia. The first clinically available insulin analog, lispro, confirmed the hopes by showing that improved glycemic control can be achieved without an increase in hypoglycemic events. Two new insulin analogs, insulin glargine and insulin aspart, have recently been approved for clinical use in the United States, and several other analogs are being intensively tested. Thus, it appears that a rapid acceleration of basic and clinical research in this arena will be seen, which will have direct significance to both patients and their physicians. The introduction of new short-acting analogs and the development of the first truly long-acting analogs and the development of analogs with increased stability, less variability, and perhaps selective action, will help to develop more individualized treatment strategies targeted to specific patient characteristics and to achieve further improvements in glycemic control. Data on the currently available and tested analogs, as well as data on those currently being developed, are reviewed.

[Conversion of fast insulin intensive therapy to lispro insulin in type I diabetes. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of cost-effectiveness]

In order to analyze the initial cost-effectiveness of transfer to two treatments with insulin lispro in type 1 diabetes, a pharmaco-economic study was conducted for nine months. After an educational reinforcement, a group of 30 C-peptide-negative patients (31.8 +/- 11.5 years [mean +/- SD], time since diagnosis of diabetes of 9.2 +/- 7.1 years, and on intensive therapy for 5.3 +/- 3.1 years) initiated a 3-month basal period with their usual therapy (preprandial rapid insulin and nocturnal NPH). Patients were then randomly assigned to one of the two groups, changing rapid insulin to either lispro (L1) or lispro combined with 15% to 20% NPH insulin (L2). Cross-over was made 3 months after the first treatment. Efficacy and safety were established by the assessment of HbA1c, self-monitoring blood glucose and hypoglycemia rates. Therapy cost was measured by systematic examination of the injection devices and wastage of insulin. The mean prescribed and actually consumed doses for R, L1, L2 groups were 52.9, 57.1, 55.2 U and 60.3, 64.1, 63 U per day, respectively (p < 0.001). The average of postprandial peak glucose (9.7, 8.4, 8.3 mM; p < 0.001) and HbA1c (7.6%, 7.2%, 7.1%; p < 0.01) were significantly lower after L1 or L2 lispro therapy. Although no statistical differences in overall hypoglycemia rates were observed, fewer nocturnal episodes were detected (0.72, 0.37, 0.41 events/month). The mean daily cost for regular insulin treatment was lower (186.8, 241.8; 215.7 pts and 53.7 pts per day. Efficacy and safety for two MIT regimens containing lispro were similar in the short run. Nevertheless, the preprandial use of the fast-acting insulin analog lispro in combination with a 15%-20% intermediate-acting NPH seemed to be more cost-effective than the premeal lispro therapy alone.

Type 1 diabetes: new perspectives on disease pathogenesis and treatment

As our knowledge of type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes increases, so does our appreciation for the pathogenic complexity of this disease and the challenges associated with its treatment. Many new concepts about the pathogenesis of this disorder have arisen. The role of genetics versus environment in disease formation has been questioned, and the basis on which type 1 diabetes is characterised and diagnosed is the subject of much debate. Additionally, the care and treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes has seen a rapid evolution; with genetically engineered insulins, glucose monitoring devices, and algorithms all contributing to a decrease in disease-related complications. We focus this seminar on these changing views, and offer a new perspective on our understanding of the pathogenesis of type 1 diabetes and on principles for therapeutic management of patients with this disorder.

The impact of the diabetes control and complications trial and humalog insulin on glycohemoglobin levels and severe hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

This study was performed to determine the effects of the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) report in 1993 and the introduction of Lispro (Humalog) insulin in 1996 on glycemic control and on the number of severe hypoglycemic episodes in type 1 diabetic patients of various ages.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Diabetes care parameters and HbA1c data from 884 subjects with type 1 diabetes were entered into our database at the time of clinic visits from 1993 through 1998. In addition, a questionnaire was sent to all patients to validate the number of insulin injections per day, the incidence of severe hypoglycemic episodes (as defined by the DCCT), and the use of Humalog insulin. Data were divided into four age-groups: < 5, 5-12, 13-18, and > 18 years of age.

RESULTS

Longitudinal HbA1c levels declined significantly after the DCCT report in 1993-1996 (P < 0.001), but the number of severe hypoglycemic events increased (P < 0.001). A second decline in HbA1c levels was observed after the introduction of Humalog insulin in 1996 (P < 0.001). However, severe hypoglycemic episodes did not change (P = 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of Humalog resulted in an additional reduction in HbA1c levels beyond the reduction in HbA1c values after the DCCT report. In contrast to the increase in severe hypoglycemic events after the DCCT results, the number of severe hypoglycemic episodes did not increase after the introduction of Humalog, despite a further decrease in HbA1c values.