Improved Postprandial Glycemic Control with Faster-Acting Insulin Aspart in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Using Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion

Are New Ultra-Rapid-Acting Insulins Associated with Improved Glycemic Control and Reduced Hypoglycemia in Comparison to Conventional Rapid-Acting Insulins for Individuals with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: This study aimed to compare efficacy and safety of ultra-rapid-acting insulin analogs (URAIs; faster aspart [FAsp], ultra-rapid lispro [URLi], and technosphere insulin [TI]) with rapid-acting insulin analogs (RAI) in individuals with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods: Searching for randomized control trial comparing the effects of URAI versus RAI that lasted at least 12 weeks, we initially selected 15 studies for analysis. Three studies involving TI were excluded due to a high degree of heterogeneity. The final meta-analysis included only 12 studies with either FAsp or URLi. Results: Mealtime URAI significantly reduced overall early 1 h postprandial glycemia in individuals with T1D (-20.230 mg/dL [95% confidence interval, 95% CI -24.040 to -16.421]; P < 0.001; I2 = 33.42%) and those with T2D (-9.138 mg/dL [95% CI -12.612 to -5.663]; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%). However, the significant reduction in 2 h postprandial glucose remained only in individuals with T1D (-17.620 mg/dL [95% CI -26.047 to -9.193]; P < 0.001; I2 = 65.88%). These benefits were lost when URAI was administered postmeal. At 24-26 weeks, there was no significant difference in HbA1c between groups, but at 52 weeks, a slight reduction in HbA1c with mealtime URAI was observed (-0.080% [95% CI -0.147 to -0.013]; P = 0.019; I2 = 0%). No difference in weight or the rate of severe or confirmed hypoglycemia was observed. Only individuals with T1D showed a small, but significant increase in early 1-h hypoglycemia with URAI (1.468 [95% CI 1.235 to 1.747]; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%). Conclusion: Mealtime URAI improves 1 and 2 h postprandial glycemic control compared to RAI without increasing hypoglycemia or weight gain.

Faster-acting insulin aspart versus insulin aspart in the treatment of type 1 or type 2 diabetes during pregnancy and post-delivery (CopenFast): an open-label, single-centre, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Faster-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) is considered safe for use during pregnancy and breastfeeding but has not been evaluated in this population. We aimed to evaluate the effect of faster aspart versus insulin aspart on fetal growth, in women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes during pregnancy and post-delivery.

METHODS

This open-label, single-centre, superiority trial was conducted at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. Participants aged 18 years or older with type 1 or type 2 diabetes were stratified by diabetes type and insulin treatment modality (multiple daily injections or insulin pump), randomly assigned 1:1 to faster aspart or insulin aspart, from 8 weeks and 0 days (8+0) of gestation to 13+6 weeks of gestation, and followed up until 3 months post-delivery. Primary outcome was infant birthweight SD score. Secondary outcomes included HbA1c as well as maternal and fetal outcomes in all participants during the trial. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03770767.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 11, 2019 and May 10, 2022, 109 participants were included in the faster aspart group and 107 in the insulin aspart group. Primary outcome data were available in 203 (94%) of 216 participants, and no participants discontinued treatment during the trial. Mean birthweight SD score was 1·0 (SD 1·4) in the faster aspart group versus 1·2 (1·3) in the insulin aspart group; estimated treatment difference -0·22 [-0·58 to 0·14]; p=0·23. At 33 weeks of gestation, mean HbA1c was 42 mmol/mol (SD 6 mmol/mol; 6·0% [SD 0·9%]) versus 43 mmol/mol (SD 7 mmol/mol; 6·1% [SD 1·2%]); estimated treatment difference -1·01 (-2·86 to 0·83), p=0·28. No additional safety issues were observed with faster aspart compared with insulin aspart.

INTERPRETATION

Treatment with faster aspart resulted in similar fetal growth and HbA1c, relative to insulin aspart, in women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Faster aspart can be used in women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes during pregnancy and post-delivery with no additional safety issues.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

TRANSLATION

For the Danish translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Efficacy and safety of faster aspart in insulin pumps in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus: A single-center study with real-world data

AIMS

To assess the efficacy and safety of faster aspart (FIAsp) in paediatric population with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and insulin pumps in real-world settings.

METHODS

Of 44 patients, 20 used FIAsp, 16 of which switched from aspart to FIAsp and 24 used aspart/lispro. We performed within-groups and between-groups analyses in three time points for anthropometric data, % of 24-h time in range of 70-180 mg/dl (TIR), time < 70 mg/dl and <54 mg/dl and time > 180 mg/dl and >250 mg/dl, bolus and basal insulins doses (units/kg/day and %), total daily dose (TDD, units/kg/day), glycaemic variability, frequency of set changes, sensor wear per week and meals per day.

RESULTS

Use of FIAsp over time increased TIR (P = 0.002) and TDD (P = 0.008 and P = 0.004, respectively for three months after the switch and recent use) and decreased time in hyperglycaemia (>180 P = 0.003 and > 250 mg/dl, P = 0.004). Frequency of set changes differ in the first 3 months (P = 0.042). Patients with FIAsp consumed more meals per day compared to those with aspart/lispro (P = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

Real-world data confirm that use of FIAsp in insulin pumps in paediatric populations improves glycaemic control long-term.

Faster-acting insulin aspart reduces glycaemic variability in sensor-augmented pump treated type 1 diabetes patients

AIM

To evaluate the effect of faster aspart over glycaemic variability in type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients treated with sensor-augmented pump (SAP) in a real-world scenario.

METHODS

Observational study with SAP-treated adult T1D patients treated with faster aspart for three months. The primary endpoint was the mean amplitude of glucose excursions (MAGE).

RESULTS

Fifty patients were treated with faster aspart. Eleven patients (23%) withdrew during the follow-up mainly due to worsening of diabetes control (9 patients). Mean age was 41.2 yrs. (range 21-59) and T1D duration 22.4±10.0 yrs. Mean SAP treatment duration was 3.6±3.1 yrs. We detected a reduction of -7.0 (95% CI -1.1, -12.9; p=0.021) in MAGE at the end of the study. Other glycemic variability indices were also improved: standard deviation of mean interstitial glucose (-3mg/dl; 95% CI, -1, -5; p=0.01), CONGA4 (-2.2; 95% CI -0.3, -4.2; p=0.029), CONGA6 (-2.6; 95% CI -0.6, -4.6; p=0.011), GRADE (-0.5; 95% CI -0.1, -0.9; p=0.022), HBGI (-0.7; 95% CI -0.2, -1.3; p=0.013), J-index (-2.9; 95% CI -0.7, -5.0; p=0.011) and MODD (-5.7; 95% CI -1.7, -9.7; p=0.006). A slight reduction in mean glucose management indicator was also detected (-0.14%; 95% CI, -0.02, -0.27; -1.4mmol/mol; 95% CI -0.1, -3.3; p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

In SAP-treated T1D patients, faster aspart insulin was associated with reduced glycaemic variability, but also a high percentage of dropouts due to worsened glycaemic control. NCT04233203.

Neonatal diabetes with a rare LRBA mutation

Neonatal diabetes mellitus (NDM) is characterised by onset of persistent hyperglycaemia within the first 6 months of life. NDM is frequently caused by a mutation in a single gene affecting pancreatic beta cell function. We report an infant, born to a non-consanguineous couple, who presented with osmotic symptoms and diabetic ketoacidosis. The genetic analysis showed a mutation in LRBA (lipopolysaccharide-responsive and beige-like anchor protein) gene. We highlight the importance of considering genetic analysis in every infant with NDM, to understand the nature of genetic mutation, associated comorbidities, response to glibenclamide and future prognosis.

Efficacy and safety of ultra-rapid insulin analogues in insulin pumps in patients with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To assess the efficacy and safety of ultra-rapid insulin analogues used with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion systems (CSII) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1DM).

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and Cochrane Library up to May 2022 for randomized controlled trials comparing ultra-rapid with rapid-acting insulin analogues (RAIAs) used with CSII. We performed random effects meta-analyses for % of 24-h time in range of 70-180 mg/dl (TIR), time in hypoglycaemia (<70 mg/dl) and hyperglycaemia (>180 mg/dl), 1- and 2-hour post-prandial glucose [PPG] increment after a meal test, HbA1c and average insulin dose at endpoint, unplanned infusion set changes and severe hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

Nine studies (1,156 participants) were included. Ultra-rapid insulins were superior to RAIAs on TIR (mean difference [MD] 1.1 %, 95 % CI 0.11-2.11), time spent in hypoglycaemia (MD -0.47 %, 95 % CI -0.63 to -30), and 1- and 2-hour PPG (MD -12.20 mg/dl, 95 % CI -19.85 to -4.54 and MD -17.61 mg/dl, 95 % CI -28.55 to -6.66, respectively). Ultra-rapid insulins increased odds of unplanned infusion set changes (odds ratio 1.60, 95 % CI 1.26-2.03).

CONCLUSION

Ultra-rapid acting insulins provided better PPG control compared to RAIAs but their use might result in more infusion set changes.

Significance of Glycemic Variability in Diabetes Mellitus

The goal of diabetes treatment is to maintain good glycemic control, prevent the development and progression of diabetic complications, and ensure the same quality of life and life expectancy as healthy people. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is used as an index of glycemic control, but strict glycemic control using HbA1c as an index may lead to severe hypoglycemia and cardiovascular death. Glycemic variability (GV), such as excessive hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, is associated with diabetic vascular complications and has been recognized as an important index of glycemic control. Here, we reviewed the definition and evaluated the clinical usefulness of GV, and its relationship with diabetic complications and therapeutic strategies to reduce GV.

Can Faster Aspart Be Used to Optimize Glycemic Control With Insulin Pump Therapy? From Expectations to Lessons Learned After a Year of Use in the United States

Fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) is an ultra-rapid-acting formulation of insulin aspart developed to more closely match the prandial endogenous insulin profile, and its accelerated absorption kinetics are expected to provide clinical benefits for patients using insulin pump therapy. A head-to-head trial versus the original insulin aspart formulation in pump therapy did not demonstrate superiority of faster aspart in terms of A1C reduction, but pump settings were not optimized for the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile of faster aspart. Nevertheless, meal test and continuous glucose monitoring data suggest that faster aspart is beneficial for postprandial glucose control, and a case study is presented illustrating excellent results using this insulin in pump therapy. Frequent blood glucose monitoring and appropriate patient education are vital for success.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensor Glucose Levels and Insulin Pump Infusion Set Wear-Time During Treatment with Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart: A Post Hoc Analysis of Onset 5

Background: In the onset 5 trial, fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) was noninferior to insulin aspart (IAsp) for change from baseline glycated hemoglobin at 16 weeks, when used in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion by participants with type 1 diabetes. The aim of this post hoc analysis was to investigate whether infusion set wear-time was associated with changes in sensor glucose, measured using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Materials and Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of onset 5 data. Mean infusion set wear-time and duration of CGM-wearing period were assessed. Mean CGM sensor glucose 24 h before and 24 h after were used to calculate the before-after difference (CGM sensor glucose drift). Results: Mean infusion set wear-time was 2.9 and 3.0 days in the faster aspart and IAsp arms, respectively. At 16 weeks, the average duration of the CGM wearing period was 13.7 and 13.8 days, respectively. Mean CGM sensor glucose before versus after an infusion set change, at week 16, was 10.14 versus 9.39 mmol/L with faster aspart and 9.48 versus 9.47 mmol/L with IAsp. The estimated treatment difference in CGM sensor glucose drift at 16 weeks for faster aspart versus IAsp was +0.72 mmol/L (95% confidence interval: 0.48-0.96, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Mean infusion set wear-time and duration of CGM-wearing period were similar for faster aspart and IAsp. A significantly greater upward drift in CGM sensor glucose values measured during an infusion set wearing period was observed with faster aspart versus IAsp. Clinical trial registration: NCT02825251.

The impact of "faster aspart" on blood glucose control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes treated using a sensor-augmented insulin pump

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Post-prandial glucose control is essential to achieve metabolic goals in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). The new "faster aspart" insulin has a pharmacological profile noted for its faster absorption and onset of action, and increased early availability, resulting in improved blood glucose control after meals. The main objective of the study was to analyse the efficacy of "faster aspart" vs. "insulin aspart" in children and adolescents with DM1 on sensor-augmented pump treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Multicentre, longitudinal and prospective analytical trial evaluating the use of faster aspart insulin for three months in children with T1DM with MiniMed640G® sensor-augmented pumps previously treated with aspart insulin. At the beginning and end of the study the following variables were analysed for subsequent comparison: mean sensor glucose, percentage of time in range, hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia, area under the curve (AUC) <70 and >180 mg/dL, mean sensor glucose pre- and postprandial in main meals, daily insulin requirements, basal/bolus percentage, and HbA1c. Acute complications, adverse events and satisfaction survey were assessed.

RESULTS

The study included 32 patients with a mean of 13.49 ± 2.42 years of age and with T1DM of 7.0 ± 3.67 years of onset. The use of faster aspart was associated with lower time in hyperglycaemia >180 mg/dL (25.8 ± 11.3 vs. 22.4 ± 9.5; p = .011) and >250 mg/dL (5.2±4.9 vs. 4.0 ± 3.6; p = .04), lower AUC >180 mg/dL (10.8 ± 6.5 vs. 9.3 ± 6.1; p = .03), and increased time in range (71.4 ± 10.0 vs. 74.3 ± 9.2; p = .03). No significant changes in hypoglycaemia, HbA1c, insulin requirements, and basal/bolus percentages were detected. Faster aspart was safe and well-evaluated by patients and caregivers.

CONCLUSIONS

Faster aspart achieves better glycaemic control by increasing glucose time in range in children and adolescents with T1DM on treatment with sensor-augmented pumps.

Dual-hormone artificial pancreas for management of type 1 diabetes: Recent progress and future directions

Over the last few years, technological advances have led to tremendous improvement in the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D). Artificial pancreas systems have been shown to improve glucose control compared with conventional insulin pump therapy. However, clinically significant hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic episodes still occur with the artificial pancreas. Postprandial glucose excursions and exercise-induced hypoglycemia represent major hurdles in improving glucose control and glucose variability in many patients with T1D. In this regard, dual-hormone artificial pancreas systems delivering other hormones in addition to insulin (glucagon or amylin) may better reproduce the physiology of the endocrine pancreas and have been suggested as an alternative tool to overcome these limitations in clinical practice. In addition, novel ultra-rapid-acting insulin analogs with a more physiological time-action profile are currently under investigation for use in artificial pancreas devices, aiming to address the unmet need for further improvements in postprandial glucose control. This review article aims to discuss the current progress and future outlook in the development of novel ultra-rapid insulin analogs and dual-hormone closed-loop systems, which offer the next steps to fully closing the loop in the artificial pancreas.

Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart Versus Insulin Aspart Using a Second-Generation Hybrid Closed-Loop System in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized, Open-Label, Crossover Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate glucose control using fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) compared with insulin aspart (IAsp) delivered by the MiniMed Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (AHCL) system in adults with type 1 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this randomized, open-label, crossover study, participants were assigned to receive faster aspart or IAsp in random order. Stages 1 and 2 comprised of 6 weeks in closed loop, preceded by 2 weeks in open loop. This was followed by stage 3, whereby participants changed directly back to the insulin formulation used in stage 1 for 1 week in closed loop. Participants chose their own meals except for two standardized meal tests, a missed meal bolus and late meal bolus. The primary outcome was the percentage of time sensor glucose values were from 70 to 180 mg/dL (time in range; [TIR]).

RESULTS

Twenty-five adults (52% male) were recruited; the median (interquartile range) age was 48 (37, 57) years, and the median HbA1c was 7.0% (6.6, 7.2) (53 [49, 55] mmol/mol). Faster aspart demonstrated greater overall TIR compared with IAsp (82.3% [78.5, 83.7] vs. 79.6% [77.0, 83.4], respectively; mean difference 1.9% [0.5, 3.3]; P = 0.007). Four-hour postprandial glucose TIR was higher using faster aspart compared with IAsp for all meals combined (73.6% [69.4, 80.2] vs. 72.1% [64.5, 78.5], respectively; median difference 3.5% [1.0, 7.3]; P = 0.003). There was no ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Faster aspart safely improved glucose control compared with IAsp in a group of adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes using AHCL. The modest improvement was mainly related to mealtime glycemia. While the primary outcome demonstrated statistical significance, the clinical impact may be small, given an overall difference in TIR of 1.9%.

Improvements in Glycemic Control Achieved by Altering the tmax Setting in the iLet® Bionic Pancreas When Using Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart: A Randomized Trial

INTRODUCTION

We investigated the safety of, and glucose control by, the insulin-only configuration of the iLet^® bionic pancreas delivering fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart), using the same insulin-dosing algorithm but different time to maximal serum drug concentration (t_max) settings, in adults with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

We performed a single-center, single-blinded, crossover (two 7-day treatment periods) escalation trial over three sequential cohorts. Participants from each cohort were randomized to a default t_max setting (t₆₅ [t_max = 65 min]) followed by a non-default t_max setting (t₅₀ [t_max = 50 min; cohort 1], t₄₀ [t_max = 40 min; cohort 2], t₃₀ [t_max = 30 min; cohort 3]), or vice versa, all with faster aspart. Each cohort randomized eight new participants if escalation-stopping criteria were not met in the previous cohort.

RESULTS

Overall, 24 participants were randomized into three cohorts. Two participants discontinued treatment, one due to reported 'low blood glucose' during the first treatment period of cohort 3 (t₃₀). Mean time in low sensor glucose (< 54 mg/dl, primary endpoint) was < 1.0% for all t_max settings. Mean sensor glucose in cohorts 1 and 2 was significantly lower at non-default versus default t_max settings, with comparable insulin dosing. The mean time sensor glucose was in range (70-180 mg/dl) was > 70% for all cohorts, except the default t_max setting in cohort 1. No severe hypoglycemic episodes were reported. Furthermore, there were no clinically significant differences in adverse events between the groups.

CONCLUSION

There were no safety concerns with faster aspart in the iLet at non-default t_max settings. Improvements were observed in mean sensor glucose without increases in low sensor glucose at non-default t_max settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03816761.

Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart: A Review of its Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Properties and the Clinical Consequences

Fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) is insulin aspart (IAsp) with two added excipients, l-arginine and niacinamide, to ensure formulation stability with accelerated initial absorption after subcutaneous administration compared with previously developed rapid-acting insulins. The pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties of faster aspart have been characterised in clinical pharmacology trials with comparable overall methodology. In subjects with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 (T2D) diabetes, the serum IAsp concentration–time and glucose-lowering effect profiles are left-shifted for faster aspart compared with IAsp. In addition, faster aspart provides earlier onset, doubling of initial exposure, and an up to 2.5-fold increase in initial glucose-lowering effect within 30 min of subcutaneous injection, as well as earlier offset of exposure and effect. Similar results have been shown using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). The improved pharmacological properties of faster aspart versus IAsp are consistent across populations, i.e. in the elderly, children, adolescents and the Japanese. Thus, the faster aspart pharmacological characteristics more closely resemble the mealtime insulin secretion in healthy individuals, giving faster aspart the potential to further improve postprandial glucose control in subjects with diabetes. Indeed, change from baseline in 1-h postprandial glucose increment is in favour of faster aspart versus IAsp when used as basal-bolus or CSII treatment in phase III trials in subjects with T1D or T2D. This review summarises the currently published results from clinical pharmacology trials with faster aspart and discusses the potential clinical benefits of faster aspart compared with previous rapid-acting insulin products.

Fast Acting Insulin Aspart Compared with Insulin Aspart in the Medtronic 670G Hybrid Closed Loop System in Type 1 Diabetes: An Open Label Crossover Study

This is a single-center randomized open label active-controlled crossover trial comparing efficacy and safety of fast acting insulin aspart (FA) (FIASP^®) versus insulin aspart (IAsp) (NovoLog^®) when used in the Medtronic 670G system in auto mode in patients with type 1 diabetes. Forty patients were randomized to either IAsp or FA. Each treatment period was 7 weeks and a standardized meal test was administered 6 weeks after the start of each treatment period. The primary endpoint was postprandial glucose (PPG) increment after the meal test at 1 h. Treatment with FA using the MiniMed 670G hybrid closed loop (HCL) led to a greater reduction in 1-h postprandial glucose increase compared with treatment with IAsp during the standardized mixed meal test. Change in glucose: [estimated treatment difference (ETD ± standard deviation [SD]); 95% confidence interval]: 70.27 (±17.36) mg/dL (3.9 ± 1.0 mmol/L) with FA versus 98.42 (±17.36) mg/dL (5.5 ± 1.0 mmol/L) with IAsp (P = 0.008). Patients spent 1.81% (P = 0.016) more time (equivalent to 26 min per day) in the 70-180 mg/dL (3.89-9.99 mmol/L) range with FA than with IAsp. The entire sample spent only 0.5% of time <54 mg/dL (<3.0 mmol/L) range. The increment in the 1 h postmeal test glucose was significantly lower with FA versus IAsp. FA in a HCL setting is safe and effective with patients spending more time in the 70-180 mg/dL (3.89-9.99 mmol/L) target range than with IAsp. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03977727.

Glycaemic efficacy and safety of mealtime faster-acting insulin aspart administered by injection as compared to insulin aspart in people with diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

To summarize all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and provide precise effect estimates of glycaemic efficacy/safety of faster-acting insulin aspart administered by injection as compared to insulin aspart in people with diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

PubMed/Cochrane Library were systematically searched till October 10, 2020, to identify RCTs with duration ≥16 weeks, evaluating efficacy/safety of mealtime injections of faster aspart compared to insulin aspart in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Studies using faster aspart as continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion were excluded. Continuous and dichotomous outcome variables (expressed as estimated treatment difference and rate ratio in RCTs, respectively) were pooled using generic inverse variance method with fixed/random-effects model. For each outcome variable, subgroup analysis between type 1 diabetes mellitus and type 2 diabetes mellitus was performed.

RESULTS

We included five RCTs; three of type 1 diabetes mellitus (n = 1963) and two of type 2 diabetes mellitus (n = 1780). All had low risk of bias. Faster aspart was associated with small but significant improvement in HbA_1c than insulin aspart (MD: -0.06%, 95% CI: -0.10, -0.02, p = 0.005, I²  = 19%). HbA_1c reduction was statistically significant only in type 1 diabetes mellitus on subgroup analysis (MD: -0.08%, 95% CI: -0.14, -0.02, p = 0.005, I²  = 47%). Besides, faster aspart was associated with reduced postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) increment at 1 h/2 h after meal test and increased 1,5-anhydroglucitol compared to insulin aspart. Early postprandial hypoglycaemic episodes were higher with faster aspart; however, overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes were not different from insulin aspart.

CONCLUSIONS

Faster aspart is associated with reduced HbA_1c , PPG increment and comparable overall hypoglycaemic episodes with regard to insulin aspart.

Engineering biopharmaceutical formulations to improve diabetes management

Insulin was first isolated almost a century ago, yet commercial formulations of insulin and its analogs for hormone replacement therapy still fall short of appropriately mimicking endogenous glycemic control. Moreover, the controlled delivery of complementary hormones (such as amylin or glucagon) is complicated by instability of the pharmacologic agents and complexity of maintaining multiple infusions. In this review, we highlight the advantages and limitations of recent advances in drug formulation that improve protein stability and pharmacokinetics, prolong drug delivery, or enable alternative dosage forms for the management of diabetes. With controlled delivery, these formulations could improve closed-loop glycemic control.

Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart Use with the MiniMedTM 670G System

Background: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of ultrarapid insulin Fiasp^® in the hybrid closed-loop MiniMed™ 670G system. Methods: This was a pilot randomized double-blinded crossover study among established MiniMed™ 670G users comparing percentage time in range (TIR) and hypoglycemia for Novolog^® and Fiasp. After 2 weeks optimization with their home insulin, participants were randomized to receive Novolog or Fiasp for 2 weeks, followed by the other insulin for the next 2 weeks. Data from the second week of blinded insulin use were analyzed to allow 1 week for 670G adaptation. During the second week, individuals were asked to eat the same breakfast for 3 days to assess differences in meal pharmacodynamics. Results: Nineteen adults were recruited with mean age of 40 ± 18 years, diabetes duration of 27 ± 12 years, and median hemoglobin A1c of 7.1% (6.9, 7.5), using 0.72 (0.4, 1.2) units/(kg·day). For Novolog and Fiasp, respectively, the %TIR (70-180 mg/dL) was 75.3 ± 9.5 and 78.4 ± 9.3; %time <70 mg/dL was 3.1 ± 2.1 and 2.3 ± 2.0; %time >180 mg/dL was 21.6 ± 9.0 and 19.3 ± 8.9; mean glucose was 147 ± 12 and 146 ± 12 mg/dL; coefficient of variation was 28.6% ± 4.5% and 26.8% ± 4.4%; %time in auto mode 86.4 ± 9.2 and 84.4 ± 9.2. All comparisons were nonsignificant for insulin type. Total daily dose (Novolog 48.8 ± 28.4 vs. Fiasp 52.4 ± 31.7 units; P = 0.01) and daily basal (Novolog 17.6 [15.5, 33.8] vs. Fiasp 19.1 [15.3, 38.5] units; P = 0.07) correlated with TIR and %time >180 mg/dL. For insulin delivery in auto mode there was no statistical difference in total daily dose or daily basal between arms. Paired analysis for matched breakfast meals revealed no significant differences in time to maximum glucose, peak glucose, or glucose excursion. Conclusions: In this pilot study, the use of either Novolog or Fiasp in a commercially available MiniMed 670G system operating in auto mode resulted in clinically similar glycemic outcomes, with a slight increase in daily insulin requirements using Fiasp.

[The impact of «faster aspart» on blood glucose control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes treated using a sensor-augmented insulin pump]

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Post-prandial glucose control is essential to achieve metabolic goals in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). The new «faster aspart» insulin has a pharmacological profile noted for its faster absorption and onset of action, and increased early availability, resulting in improved blood glucose control after meals. The main objective of the study was to analyse the efficacy of «faster aspart» vs. «insulin aspart» in children and adolescents with DM1 on sensor-augmented pump treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Multicentre, longitudinal and prospective analytical trial evaluating the use of faster aspart insulin for three months in children with T1DM with MiniMed640G® sensor-augmented pumps previously treated with aspart insulin. At the beginning and end of the study the following variables were analysed for subsequent comparison: mean sensor glucose, percentage of time in range, hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia, area under the curve (AUC) < 70 and > 180 mg/dL, mean sensor glucose pre and postprandial in main meals, daily insulin requirements, basal/bolus percentage, and HbA1c. Acute complications, adverse events and satisfaction survey were assessed.

RESULTS

The study included 31 patients with a mean of 13.49 ± 2.42 years of age and with T1DM of 7.0 ± 3.67 years of onset. The use of faster aspart was associated with lower time in hyperglycaemia > 180 mg/dL (25.8 ± 11.3 vs. 22.4 ± 9.5; p = 0.011) and > 250 mg/dL (5.2 ± 4.9 vs. 4.0 ± 3.6; p = 0.04), lower AUC > 180 mg/dL (10.8 ± 6.5 vs. 9.3 ± 6.1; p = 0.03), and increased time in range (71.4 ± 10.0 vs. 74.3 ± 9.2; p = 0.03). No significant changes in hypoglycaemia, HbA1c, insulin requirements, and basal/bolus percentages were detected. Faster aspart was safe and well-evaluated by patients and caregivers.

CONCLUSIONS

Faster aspart achieves better glycaemic control by increasing glucose time in range in children and adolescents with T1DM on treatment with sensor-augmented pumps.

Insulin Pump Therapy

BACKGROUND

Advances in pump technology have increased the popularity of this treatment modality among patients with type 1 diabetes and recently also among patients with type 2 diabetes.

AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY

Four decades after the incorporation of the insulin pump in clinical use, questions regarding its efficacy, occurrence rate of short-term complications as hypoglycemia and diabetes ketoacidosis, timing of pump initiation, and selected populations for use remain unanswered.

DATA SOURCES

A review of the literature was performed using the PubMed database to identify all articles published up till December 2018, with the search terms including insulin pump therapy/continuous subcutaneous insulin delivery. The Cochrane database was searched for meta-analysis evaluating controlled randomized trials. Consensuses guidelines published by the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, American Diabetes Association, and Advanced Technologies and Treatments for Diabetes year books were additionally reviewed for relevant cited articles.

THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES

Insulin pump therapy offers flexible management of diabetes. It enables adjustment of basal insulin to daily requirements and circadian needs, offers more precise treatment for meals and physical activity, and, when integrated with continuous glucose monitoring, allows glucose responsive insulin delivery. The ability to download and transmit data for analysis allow for treatment optimization. Newer pumps are simple to operate and increase user experience. Studies support the efficacy of pump therapy in improving glycemic control and reducing the occurrence of hypoglycemia without increasing episodes of diabetes ketoacidosis. They also improve quality of life. Recent evidence suggests a role for pump therapy in reducing microvascular and macrovascular diabetes-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin pump therapy appears to be effective and safe in people with T1D regardless of age. Future advancements will include incorporation of closed loop and various decision support systems to aid and improve metabolic control and quality of life.

Are newer insulin analogues better for people with Type 1 diabetes?

Achieving optimal blood glucose control in Type 1 diabetes is a delicate balance between ensuring tight glycaemic control and achieving this without the expense of hypoglycaemia and weight gain, two major factors impacting quality of life. This is a real challenge for people with Type 1 diabetes and underpins many of the struggles they face in self-managing on a day-to-day basis. The main goals of insulin delivery are to try to simulate the physiology of β-cell insulin secretion as closely as possible and to overcome the challenges of peripheral insulin administration by achieving rapidity of onset with mealtime insulins and stability of the glucose-lowering effects of long-acting insulins. Since the early days of human insulin use, there have been many developments in insulin formulations that aim to achieve these goals as much as possible, thus contributing to better glycaemic control whilst minimizing hypoglycaemia. In the present review we discuss the currently available insulin analogues and the challenges of achieving glucose control using current analogues in those on multiple daily injections, and appraise the evidence base for newer-generation insulin analogues, such as insulin degludec, glargine U300, faster-acting insulin aspart and BioChaperone lispro. We also highlight new insulins in development and unmet needs in people with Type 1 diabetes.

The burden of type 2 diabetes in Europe: Current and future aspects of insulin treatment from patient and healthcare spending perspectives

Due to the progressive nature of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), initiation of insulin therapy is very likely in the disease continuum. This article aims at highlighting the current situation with regard to insulin therapy in people with T2DM in Europe and at presenting the associated unmet need. Challenges for both people with T2DM and healthcare professionals include clinical inertia also derived from fear of hypoglycaemia, weight gain and injections as well as increased need for a comprehensive diabetes management. We compare national and international guidelines and recommendations for the initiation and intensification of insulin therapy with the real-world situation in six European countries, demonstrating that glycaemic targets are only met in a minority of people with T2DM on insulin therapy. Furthermore, this work evaluates currently recorded numbers of people with T2DM treated with insulin in Europe, the proportion not achieving the stated glycaemic targets and thus in need to enhance insulin therapy e.g. by a change in means of insulin delivery including, but not limited to, insulin pens, wearable mealtime insulin delivery patches, patch pumps, and conventional insulin pumps with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion.

Evolution of Diabetes Technology

Technological innovations have fundamentally changed diabetes care. Insulin pump use and continuous glucose monitoring are associated with improved glycemic control along with a better quality of life; automated insulin-dosing advisors facilitate and improve decision making. Glucose-responsive automated insulin delivery enables the highest targets for time in range, lowest rate and duration of hypoglycemia, and favorable quality of life. Clear targets for time in ranges and a standard visualization of the data will help the diabetes technology to be used more efficiently. Decision support systems within and integrated cloud environment will further simplify, unify, and improve modern routine diabetes care.

Faster Compared With Standard Insulin Aspart During Day-and-Night Fully Closed-Loop Insulin Therapy in Type 1 Diabetes: A Double-Blind Randomized Crossover Trial

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the safety and efficacy of day-and-night fully closed-loop insulin therapy using faster (Faster-CL) compared with standard insulin aspart (Standard-CL) in young adults with type 1 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In a double-blind, randomized, crossover trial, 20 participants with type 1 diabetes on insulin pump therapy (11 females, aged 21.3 ± 2.3 years, HbA_1c 7.5 ± 0.5% [58.5 ± 5.5 mmol/mol]) underwent two 27-h inpatient periods with unannounced afternoon moderate-vigorous exercise and unannounced/uncovered meals. We compared Faster-CL and Standard-CL in random order. During both interventions, the fuzzy-logic control algorithm DreaMed GlucoSitter was used. Glucose sensor data were analyzed by intention-to-treat principle with the difference (between Faster-CL and Standard-CL) in proportion of time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) over 27 h as the primary end point.

RESULTS

The proportion of TIR was similar for both arms: 53.3% (83% overnight) in Faster-CL and 57.9% (88% overnight) in Standard-CL (P = 0.170). The proportion of time in hypoglycemia <70 mg/dL was 0.0% for both groups. Baseline-adjusted interstitial prandial glucose increments 1 h after meals were greater in Faster-CL compared with Standard-CL (P = 0.017). The gaps between measured plasma insulin and estimated insulin-on-board levels at the beginning, at the end, and 2 h after the exercise were smaller in the Standard-CL group (P = 0.029, P = 0.003, and P = 0.004, respectively). No severe adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Fully closed-loop insulin delivery using either faster or standard insulin aspart was safe and efficient in achieving near-normal glucose concentrations outside postprandial periods. The closed-loop algorithm was better adjusted to the standard insulin aspart.

Short-term fully closed-loop insulin delivery using faster insulin aspart compared with standard insulin aspart in type 2 diabetes

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of short-term fully closed-loop insulin delivery using faster versus standard insulin aspart in type 2 diabetes. Fifteen adults with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes underwent 22 hours of closed-loop insulin delivery with either faster or standard insulin aspart in a double-blind randomized crossover design. Basal-bolus regimen was replaced by model predictive control algorithm-directed insulin delivery based on sensor glucose levels. The primary outcome was time with plasma glucose in target range (5.6-10.0 mmol/L) and did not differ between treatments (mean difference [95% CI] 3.3% [-8.2; 1.7], P = 0.17). Mean glucose and glucose variability were comparable, as was time spent below and above target range. Hypoglycaemia (<3.5 mmol/L) occurred once with faster insulin aspart and twice with standard insulin aspart. Mean total insulin dose was higher with faster insulin aspart (mean difference [95% CI] 3.7 U [0.7; 6.8], P = 0.021). No episodes of severe hypoglycaemia or other serious adverse events occurred. In conclusion, short-term fully closed-loop in type 2 diabetes may require higher dose of faster insulin aspart compared with standard insulin aspart to achieve comparable glucose control.

Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart: The Rationale for a New Mealtime Insulin

Attenuating postprandial hyperglycaemia is a critical factor in the achievement of optimal glucose control. Prandial insulin analogues have been developed to replicate the physiology of normal endogenous insulin secretion and action, with the aim of limiting postprandial glucose excursions. There is still, however, a significant unmet need, with many people failing to achieve desired glycaemic control targets despite the current armamentarium of prandial insulin analogues. Such insulins have a delayed onset and a longer duration of action than endogenous insulin production. There has been considerable focus on attempts to accelerate the time-action profile of prandial exogenous insulin in order to produce a more physiological profile. One such approach is to modify the insulin formulation. Fast-acting insulin aspart is a modified formulation of insulin aspart containing niacinamide and L-arginine. It has an earlier onset of action than aspart. In an extensive trial programme, this faster aspart demonstrated similar HbA1c reductions to those achieved with aspart but superior postprandial glucose reductions, with no increase in hypoglycaemia. Furthermore, administration of faster aspart up to 20 min after the start of a meal permitted similar glucose control to aspart given preprandially. These data, taken in totality, illustrate the potential role of faster insulin aspart in clinical practice.

Use of fast-acting insulin aspart in insulin pump therapy in clinical practice

Fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) is a novel formulation of insulin aspart (IAsp) containing the additional excipients niacinamide and L-arginine. The improved pharmacological profile and greater early glucose-lowering action of faster aspart compared with IAsp suggests that faster aspart may be advantageous for people with diabetes using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). The recent onset 5 trial was the first to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an ultra-fast-acting insulin in CSII therapy in a large number of participants with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Non-inferiority of faster aspart to IAsp in terms of change from baseline in HbA1c was confirmed, with an estimated treatment difference (ETD) of 0.09% (95% CI, 0.01; 0.17; P < 0.001 for non-inferiority [0.4% margin]). Faster aspart was superior to IAsp in terms of change from baseline in 1-hour post-prandial glucose (PPG) increment after a meal test (ETD [95% CI], -0.91 mmol/L [-1.43; -0.39]; P = 0.001), with statistically significant improvements also at 30 minutes and 2 hours. The overall rate of severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemia was not statistically significantly different between treatments, with an estimated rate ratio of 1.00 (95% CI, 0.85; 1.16). A numerical imbalance in severe hypoglycaemic episodes between faster aspart and IAsp was seen in the treatment (21 vs 7) and the 4-week run-in periods (4 vs 0). Experience from clinical practice indicates that all pump settings should be reviewed when initiating faster aspart with CSII, and that the use of continuous glucose monitoring or flash glucose monitoring, along with a good understanding of meal content and bolus type, may also facilitate optimal use. This review summarizes the available clinical evidence for faster aspart administered via CSII and highlights practical considerations based on clinical experience that may help healthcare providers and individuals with T1D successfully initiate and adjust faster aspart with CSII.

Postprandial Glucose Control in Type 1 Diabetes: Importance of the Gastric Emptying Rate

The achievement of optimal post-prandial (PP) glucose control in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) remains a great challenge. This review summarizes the main factors contributing to PP glucose response and discusses the likely reasons why PP glucose control is rarely achieved in T1DM patients. The macronutrient composition of the meal, the rate of gastric emptying and premeal insulin administration are key factors affecting the PP glucose response in T1DM. Although the use of continuous insulin infusion systems has improved PP glucose control compared to conventional insulin therapy, there is still need for further ameliorations. T1DM patients frequently present a delayed gastric emptying (GE) that produces a lower but more prolonged PP hyperglycemia. In addition, delayed GE is associated with a longer time to reach the glycemic peak, with a consequent mismatch between PP glucose elevation and the timing of premeal insulin action. On this basis, including GE time and meal composition in the algorithms for insulin bolus calculation of the insulin delivery systems could be an important step forward for optimization of PP glucose control in T1DM.

BioChaperone Lispro versus faster aspart and insulin aspart in patients with type 1 diabetes using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion: A randomized euglycemic clamp study

We investigated the pharmacodynamics (PD) and pharmacokinetics (PK) of BioChaperone insulin Lispro (BCLIS), faster insulin aspart (FIA) and insulin aspart (ASP) in patients with type 1 diabetes using an insulin pump. In this randomized, double-blind, three-way crossover glucose clamp study, 43 patients received a bolus dose of each insulin (0.15 U/kg) in addition to a basal rate (0.01 U/kg/h), delivered via an insulin pump. With BCLIS, the AUC-GIR,0-60 minutes (primary endpoint) was improved compared to ASP (least square means ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.44-1.88; P < 0.0001) and was similar compared to FIA (least square means ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.94-1.18; P = 0.4609). BCLIS showed faster-on PD (t_{early0.5GIRmax} ) than ASP and faster-off PD (t_{late0.5GIRmax} ) than both FIA and ASP. BCLIS also demonstrated significantly higher early exposure (AUCins, 0-60 minutes) and lower late exposure (AUCins,120-600 minutes) than both other insulins. In patients with type 1 diabetes using an insulin pump, BCLIS better mimics prandial insulin secretion and action than ASP and shows a faster off-PD than FIA.

A randomized, multicentre trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of fast-acting insulin aspart in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in adults with type 1 diabetes (onset 5)

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) vs insulin aspart (IAsp) used in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in participants with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a double-blind, treat-to-target, randomized, 16-week trial investigating CSII treatment with faster aspart (n = 236) or IAsp (n = 236). All available information, regardless of treatment discontinuation, was used for the evaluation of effect.

RESULTS

Faster aspart was non-inferior to IAsp regarding the change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c; primary endpoint). The mean HbA1c changed from 58.4 mmol/mol (7.5%) at baseline to 57.8 mmol/mol (7.4%) with faster aspart and to 56.8 mmol/mol (7.4%) with IAsp after 16 weeks' treatment, with an estimated treatment difference (ETD) of 1.0 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14; 1.87) or 0.09% (95% CI 0.01; 0.17; P < 0.001) for non-inferiority (0.4% margin; P < 0.02 for statistical significance in favour of IAsp). Faster aspart was superior to IAsp in change from baseline in 1-hour postprandial glucose (PPG) increment after a meal test (ETD -0.91 mmol/L [95% CI -1.43; -0.39] or -16.4 mg/dL [95% CI -25.7; -7.0]; P = 0.001), with statistically significant reductions also at 30 minutes and 2 hours. The improvement in PPG was reflected in the change from baseline in 1-hour interstitial glucose increment after all meals (ETD -0.21 mmol/L [95% CI -0.31; -0.11] or -3.77 mg/dL [95% CI -5.53; -2.01]). There was no statistically significant difference in the overall rate of severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemia (estimated rate ratio 1.00 [95% CI 0.85; 1.16]). A numerical imbalance in severe hypoglycaemic episodes between faster aspart and IAsp was seen in the treatment (21 vs 7) and 4-week run-in periods (4 vs 0).

CONCLUSIONS

Faster aspart provides an effective and safe option for CSII treatment in T1D.

Glucose Targets and Insulin Choice in Pregnancy: What Has Changed in the Last Decade?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review current glycaemic targets and the potential use of newer insulin formulations in pregnancy.

RECENT FINDINGS

The impact of stricter glycaemic control on perinatal outcomes remains controversial, showing conflicting results. Current ongoing randomised trials investigating the role of tighter glucose targets in pregnancy should help clarify the benefit of tighter glucose control. Optimal timing for self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) remains debatable. Data suggest that post-prandial SMBG, particularly at 1 h, offers the best prediction of adverse perinatal outcome. To achieve these targets, insulin is the standard therapy. Novel insulin formulations offer benefits outside of pregnancy. Recent data on the use of new insulins in pregnancy (e.g. insulin degludec and glargine (U 300)) is limited to case reports. Glycaemic targets have remained unchanged in the last decade. Studies using stricter glycaemic targets may improve perinatal outcomes. Newer insulin formulations may offer increased flexibility and glycaemic control. Clinicians caring for women with diabetes striving to minimise adverse perinatal outcomes will find this review of interest.

Duration of Catheter Use in Patients with Diabetes Using Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion: A Review

Increasing proportions of patients with diabetes use continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy mostly due to its clinical efficacy and flexibility for insulin dosing and adjustments. Some challenges are nevertheless associated with this technology. A key and underlooked component of CSII technical difficulties is the subcutaneous catheter used to infuse insulin. Several adverse events (AEs) have been experienced by patients in relation to catheters, such as blockage, kinking, and insertion site reactions, including irritation, infections, lipohypertrophies etc., all of which could compromise the metabolic control. With the objective of minimizing these AEs, recommendations for changing catheters every 2-3 days have historically been provided by manufacturers based on reports derived from small studies and anecdotal data. The aim of this review was to provide an updated analysis of current recommendations and patients' practices in relation to frequency of catheter change. Our main findings are: (1) adequately designed and powered studies investigating optimal catheter wearing time are still lacking; (2) increasing catheter wearing time is generally associated with increased frequency of catheter AEs; (3) however, interpatient variability is large, with some individuals needing to change their catheters every 2-3 days, whereas others probably being able to keep them in place for longer periods without problems. Further research is thus warranted to provide more solid and evidence-based recommendations while exploring personalized approaches at the same time. Increasing catheter wear life without significant side effects is an important goal to simplify CSII therapy and reduce its associated costs and burdens.

The value of fast-acting insulin aspart compared with insulin aspart for patients with diabetes mellitus treated with bolus insulin from a UK health care system perspective

BACKGROUND

Fast-acting insulin aspart is a new formulation of the rapid-acting insulin analogue insulin aspart and represents an advancement over current rapid-acting insulin analogues in terms of onset of action and postprandial glucose control. The objective of the current analysis was to demonstrate the cost impact of prescribing fast-acting insulin aspart instead of insulin aspart, to highlight the value of fast-acting insulin aspart for the treatment of people with diabetes requiring mealtime insulin.

METHODS

A cost-impact analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS). The analysis excluded patients' out-of-pocket expenses, carers' costs and lost productivity. The time horizon of the analysis was 1 year, and no discounting was therefore applied.

RESULTS

The displacement of insulin aspart with fast-acting insulin aspart is cost neutral for the UK NHS. Fast-acting insulin aspart is at price parity to insulin aspart in terms of the vial and Penfill® cartridge and is available in the FlexTouch® pen at the same price as the insulin aspart FlexPen® (and thus cheaper than the insulin aspart FlexTouch® pen). Patients using the insulin aspart FlexPen® will be upgraded to the FlexTouch® pen device, which is preferred by patients and healthcare professionals, on switching to fast-acting insulin aspart, at no additional cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Fast-acting insulin aspart offers additional clinical benefit but at no additional cost when compared with insulin aspart, and thus provides value to the UK NHS.

Glucose Variability: A Review of Clinical Applications and Research Developments

Glycemic variability (GV) is a major consideration when evaluating quality of glycemic control. GV increases progressively from prediabetes through advanced T2D and is still higher in T1D. GV is correlated with risk of hypoglycemia. The most popular metrics for GV are the %Coefficient of Variation (%CV) and standard deviation (SD). The %CV is correlated with risk of hypoglycemia. Graphical display of glucose by date, time of day, and day of the week, and display of simplified glucose distributions showing % of time in several ranges, provide clinically useful indicators of GV. SD is highly correlated with most other measures of GV, including interquartile range, mean amplitude of glycemic excursion, mean of daily differences, and average daily risk range. Some metrics are sensitive to the frequency, periodicity, and complexity of glycemic fluctuations, including Fourier analysis, periodograms, frequency spectrum, multiscale entropy (MSE), and Glucose Variability Percentage (GVP). Fourier analysis indicates progressive changes from normal subjects to children and adults with T1D, and from prediabetes to T2D. The GVP identifies novel characteristics for children, adolescents, and adults with type 1 diabetes and for adults with type 2. GVP also demonstrated small rapid glycemic fluctuations in people with T1D when using a dual-hormone closed-loop control. MSE demonstrated systematic changes from normal subjects to people with T2D at various stages of duration, intensity of therapy, and quality of glycemic control. We describe new metrics to characterize postprandial excursions, day-to-day stability of glucose patterns, and systematic changes of patterns by day of the week. Metrics for GV should be interpreted in terms of percentiles and z-scores relative to identified reference populations. There is a need for large accessible databases for reference populations to provide a basis for automated interpretation of GV and other features of continuous glucose monitoring records.

Emerging Technologies for Diabetes Care

New therapies, monitoring, and revolutionary enabling technologies applied to healthcare represent an historic opportunity to improve the lives of people with diabetes. These advances enable more meaningful monitoring of blood glucose values with the facilitation of more optimal insulin dosing and delivery. Newer insulins and delivery systems are in development that seek to mitigate both hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia and increase time in range. Information systems now exist that may be leveraged to merge data from previously discrete systems into new models of connected care. This review highlights important developments that serve to increase effectiveness while reducing the burden of diabetes care in the near future.

Pharmacotherapy of type1 diabetes in children and adolescents: more than insulin?

For paediatric patients with type 1 diabetes, intensified insulin therapy with either multiple daily injection or insulin pump therapy is currently the only method of treatment. To optimize this therapy, insulin analogues are fixed parts of all therapy regimens. New ultra-rapid insulins seem to be beneficial not only in adults but also in this age group. New developments in long-acting analogues have demonstrated safety and will be regular in paediatrics, we hope, soon. Furthermore, the psychosocial approach for consideration of real-life aspects becomes more the focus of therapeutic regimens and is implemented into international guidelines. Technical improvements, such as continuous glucose monitoring, particularly in combination with pump therapy, support the great success of rapid-acting analogues by reducing hypoglycaemias. Non-insulin agents such as SGLT2-inhibitors show beneficial aspects in people with type 1 diabetes. For outpatient care with these currently off-label-used drugs, special training for measurement of ketones should be imperative.

Artificial pancreas treatment for outpatients with type 1 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of artificial pancreas treatment in non-pregnant outpatients with type 1 diabetes.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and grey literature up to 2 February 2018.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials in non-pregnant outpatients with type 1 diabetes that compared the use of any artificial pancreas system with any type of insulin based treatment. Primary outcome was proportion (%) of time that sensor glucose level was within the near normoglycaemic range (3.9-10 mmol/L). Secondary outcomes included proportion (%) of time that sensor glucose level was above 10 mmol/L or below 3.9 mmol/L, low blood glucose index overnight, mean sensor glucose level, total daily insulin needs, and glycated haemoglobin. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool was used to assess study quality.

RESULTS

40 studies (1027 participants with data for 44 comparisons) were included in the meta-analysis. 35 comparisons assessed a single hormone artificial pancreas system, whereas nine comparisons assessed a dual hormone system. Only nine studies were at low risk of bias. Proportion of time in the near normoglycaemic range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was significantly higher with artificial pancreas use, both overnight (weighted mean difference 15.15%, 95% confidence interval 12.21% to 18.09%) and over a 24 hour period (9.62%, 7.54% to 11.7%). Artificial pancreas systems had a favourable effect on the proportion of time with sensor glucose level above 10 mmol/L (-8.52%, -11.14% to -5.9%) or below 3.9 mmol/L (-1.49%, -1.86% to -1.11%) over 24 hours, compared with control treatment. Robustness of findings for the primary outcome was verified in sensitivity analyses, by including only trials at low risk of bias (11.64%, 9.1% to 14.18%) or trials under unsupervised, normal living conditions (10.42%, 8.63% to 12.2%). Results were consistent in a subgroup analysis both for single hormone and dual hormone artificial pancreas systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Artificial pancreas systems are an efficacious and safe approach for treating outpatients with type 1 diabetes. The main limitations of current research evidence on artificial pancreas systems are related to inconsistency in outcome reporting, small sample size, and short follow-up duration of individual trials.

Hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes: technological treatments, their limitations and the place of psychology

Advances in technology allowing improved insulin delivery and glucose monitoring can significantly reduce the burden of hypoglycaemia when used appropriately. However, limitations of the current technology, and the skills, commitment and motivation required to use them, mean that it does not work for all people. Education and informed professional support are key to success. In the context of problematic hypoglycaemia, data suggest that newer technology has lower efficacy and uptake in those with most need. Identifying the causes of hypoglycaemia and understanding some of the underlying behavioural drivers may prove useful and psycho-educational strategies may be effective in selected individuals. Ultimately, as in many spheres of medicine, successful management of problematic hypoglycaemia depends upon matching the right treatment to the right individual.

Dual-hormone artificial pancreas: benefits and limitations compared with single-hormone systems

Technological advances have made the artificial pancreas a reality. This has the potential to improve the lives of individuals with Type 1 diabetes by reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia, achieving better overall glucose control, and enhancing quality of life. Both single-hormone (insulin-only) and dual-hormone (insulin and glucagon) systems have been developed; however, a focused review of the relative benefits of each artificial pancreas system is needed. We reviewed studies that directly compared single- and dual-hormone systems to evaluate the efficacy of each system for preventing hypoglycaemia and maintaining glycaemic control, as well as their utility in specific situations including during exercise, overnight and during the prandial period. We observed additional benefits with the dual-hormone artificial pancreas for reducing the risk of hypoglycaemic events overall and during exercise over the study duration. The single-hormone artificial pancreas was sufficient for maintenance of euglycaemia in the overnight period and for preventing late-onset post-exercise hypoglycaemia. Future comparative studies of longer duration are required to determine whether one system is superior for improving mean glucose control, eliminating severe hypoglycaemia, or improving quality of life.

Optimal prandial timing of bolus insulin in diabetes management: a review

The inability to achieve optimal diabetes glucose control in people with diabetes is multifactorial, but one contributor may be inadequate control of postprandial glucose. In patients treated with multiple daily injections of insulin, both the dose and timing of meal-related rapid-acting insulin are key factors in this. There are conflicting opinions and evidence on the optimal time to administer mealtime insulin. We performed a comprehensive literature search to review the published data, focusing on the use of rapid-acting insulin analogues in patients with Type 1 diabetes. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies of rapid-acting insulin analogues, together with postprandial glucose excursion data, suggest that administering these 15-20 min before food would provide optimal postprandial glucose control. Data from clinical studies involving people with Type 1 diabetes receiving structured meals and rapid-acting insulin analogues support this, showing a reduction in post-meal glucose levels of ~30% and less hypoglycaemia when meal insulin was taken 15-20 min before a meal compared with immediately before the meal. Importantly, there was also a greater risk of postprandial hypoglycaemia when patients took rapid-acting analogues after eating compared with before eating.

Blood glucose monitoring during aerobic and anaerobic physical exercise using a new artificial pancreas system

AIM

To assess an artificial pancreas system during aerobic (AeE) and anaerobic exercise (AnE).

METHODS

A pilot clinical trial on five subjects with type 1 diabetes (4 males) aged 37±10.9 years, diabetes diagnosed 21.2±12.2 years before, insulin pump users, and with a mean HbA_1c level of 7.8±0.5%. Every subject did three AeE and three AnE sessions. Blood glucose levels were monitored by the artificial pancreas system during exercise and up to four hours later. Before the start of exercise, 23g of carbohydrates were administered orally.

RESULTS

The mean glucose level was 124.0±25.1mg/dL in the AeE studies and 152.1±34.1mg/dL in the AnE studies. Percent times in the different glucose ranges of 70-180, >180 and <70mg/dL were 89.8±18.6% and 75.9±27.6%; 7.7±18.4% and 23.2±28.0%; and 2.5±6.3% and 1.0±3.6% during the AeE and AnE sessions, respectively. Only six rescues with carbohydrates (15g) were required during the studies (4 in AeE and 2 in AnE). Total insulin dose during the five hours of the study was 3.1±1.0IU in the AeE studies and 3.5±1.3IU in the AnE studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Blood glucose response to AeE and AnE exercise is different. The evaluated artificial pancreas system appeared to achieve effective and safe blood glucose control during exercise and up to four hours later. However, new control strategies that minimize patient intervention should be designed.

Investigation of Pump Compatibility of Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart in Subjects With Type 1 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Ultra-fast-acting insulins, such as fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart), have pharmacokinetic properties that may be advantageous for patients using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), provided that they are compatible with and safe to use in CSII.

METHODS

Randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, actively controlled trial evaluating compatibility, efficacy, and safety of faster aspart in adults with type 1 diabetes using their own MiniMed Paradigm pump with Quick-Set or Silhouette infusion sets. Following run-in, subjects were randomized (2:1) to faster aspart (n = 25) or insulin aspart (n = 12) for 6 weeks. Primary endpoint was the number of microscopically confirmed episodes of infusion-set occlusions.

RESULTS

No microscopically confirmed episodes of infusion-set occlusions were observed in either arm. Seven possible infusion-set occlusions were reported by five subjects (all faster aspart); none were prompted by a plug observed by the subject (prompted by unexplained hyperglycemia [n = 6] or leakage [n = 1]) and none were confirmed. Macroscopic and microscopic evaluation showed no color change or particle/crystal formation in the infusion sets. Premature infusion-set changes were reported in 44% and 16.7% of subjects in the faster aspart and insulin aspart groups, respectively. A nonsignificant trend toward better efficacy was observed with faster aspart (estimated treatment difference [ETD] [95% CI] in HbA1c change: -0.14% [-0.40, 0.11]). No new safety issues were found in either treatment group.

CONCLUSIONS

Over 6 weeks of treatment, no microscopically confirmed infusion-set occlusions were observed for faster aspart or insulin aspart, indicating similar compatibility with CSII use.

Pharmacological Properties of Faster-Acting Insulin Aspart

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Faster aspart is a new formulation of insulin aspart (IAsp) produced by adding the excipients niacinamide and L-arginine. As this new, "ultra-rapid insulin" is available in the EU-market and Canada, the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics data is summarized.

RECENT FINDINGS

Faster aspart shows an earlier onset of appearance of insulin in the bloodstream after subcutaneous administration and an earlier onset of glucose-lowering action and a higher glycemic effect within the first 30 min. Faster aspart administered by pump is indeed faster than conventional aspart with a faster on (- 11 min), faster off (- 24 min), and more than 100% greater insulin action within the first 30 min. Tolerability of faster aspart is similar to that of Iasp; the same holds true for compatibility in pump use. Faster aspart shows a faster occurrence of insulin in the blood compared with IAsp in subcutaneous injection. Improvements over current analogs may be more pronounced in pumps than with injections. Data from phase IIIa studies confirm the reduction of postprandial glucose excursions that can be achieved with faster aspart.

Insulin analogues in type 1 diabetes mellitus: getting better all the time

The treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus consists of external replacement of the functions of β cells in an attempt to achieve blood levels of glucose as close to the normal range as possible. This approach means that glucose sensing needs to be replaced and levels of insulin need to mimic physiological insulin-action profiles, including basal coverage and changes around meals. Training and educating patients are crucial for the achievement of good glycaemic control, but having insulin preparations with action profiles that provide stable basal insulin coverage and appropriate mealtime insulin peaks helps people with type 1 diabetes mellitus to live active lives without sacrificing tight glycaemic control. Insulin analogues enable patients to achieve this goal, as some have fast action profiles, and some have very slow action profiles, which gives people with type 1 diabetes mellitus the tools to achieve dynamic insulin-action profiles that enable tight glycaemic control with a risk of hypoglycaemia that is lower than that with human short-acting and long-acting insulins. This Review discusses the established and novel insulin analogues that are used to treat patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and provides insights into the future development of insulin analogues.

Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart Improves Glycemic Control in Basal-Bolus Treatment for Type 1 Diabetes: Results of a 26-Week Multicenter, Active-Controlled, Treat-to-Target, Randomized, Parallel-Group Trial (onset 1)

OBJECTIVE

This multicenter, treat-to-target, phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) versus conventional insulin aspart (IAsp) in adults with type 1 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The primary end point was change from baseline in HbA_1c after 26 weeks. After an 8-week run-in, subjects were randomized (1:1:1) to double-blind mealtime faster aspart (n = 381), IAsp (n = 380), or open-label postmeal faster aspart (n = 382)-each with insulin detemir.

RESULTS

HbA_1c was reduced in both treatment groups, and noninferiority to IAsp was confirmed for both mealtime and postmeal faster aspart (estimated treatment difference [ETD] faster aspart-IAsp, mealtime, -0.15% [95% CI -0.23; -0.07], and postmeal, 0.04% [-0.04; 0.12]); mealtime faster aspart statistically significantly reduced HbA_1c versus IAsp (P = 0.0003). Postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) increments were statistically significantly lower with mealtime faster aspart at 1 h (ETD -1.18 mmol/L [95% CI -1.65; -0.71], -21.21 mg/dL [-29.65; -12.77]; P < 0.0001) and 2 h (-0.67 mmol/L [-1.29; -0.04], -12.01 mg/dL [-23.33; -0.70]; P = 0.0375) after the meal test; superiority to IAsp for the 2-h PPG increment was confirmed. The overall rate of severe or blood glucose-confirmed (plasma glucose <3.1 mmol/L [56 mg/dL]) hypoglycemic episodes and safety profiles were similar between treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Faster aspart effectively improved HbA_1c, and noninferiority to IAsp was confirmed, with superior PPG control for mealtime faster aspart versus IAsp. Subjects randomized to postmeal faster aspart for all meals maintained HbA_1c noninferior to that obtained with mealtime IAsp.