Ultra-Rapid Lispro Improves Postprandial Glucose Control and Time in Range in Type 1 Diabetes Compared to Lispro: PRONTO-T1D Continuous Glucose Monitoring Substudy

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.

Expert Panel Recommendations for a Standardized Ambulatory Glucose Profile Report for Connected Insulin Pens

Background: Connected insulin pens capture data on insulin dosing/timing and can integrate with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices with essential insulin and glucose metrics combined into a single platform. Standardization of connected insulin pen reports is desirable to enhance clinical utility with a single report. Methods: An international expert panel was convened to develop a standardized connected insulin pen report incorporating insulin and glucose metrics into a single report containing clinically useful information. An extensive literature review and identification of examples of current connected insulin pen reports were performed serving as the basis for creation of a draft of a standardized connected insulin pen report. The expert panel participated in three virtual standardization meetings and online surveys. Results: The Ambulatory Glucose Profile (AGP) Report: Connected Insulin Pen brings all clinically relevant CGM-derived glucose and connected insulin pen metrics into a single simplified two-page report. The first page contains the time in ranges bar, summary of key insulin and glucose metrics, the AGP curve, and detailed basal (long-acting) insulin assessment. The second page contains the bolus (mealtime and correction) insulin assessment periods with information on meal timing, insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio, average bolus insulin dose, and number of days with bolus doses recorded. The report's second page contains daily glucose profiles with an overlay of the timing and amount of basal and bolus insulin administered. Conclusion: The AGP Report: Connected Insulin Pen is a standardized clinically useful report that should be considered by companies developing connected pen technology as part of their system reporting/output.

New advances in type 1 diabetes

Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune condition resulting in insulin deficiency and eventual loss of pancreatic β cell function requiring lifelong insulin therapy. Since the discovery of insulin more than 100 years ago, vast advances in treatments have improved care for many people with type 1 diabetes. Ongoing research on the genetics and immunology of type 1 diabetes and on interventions to modify disease course and preserve β cell function have expanded our broad understanding of this condition. Biomarkers of type 1 diabetes are detectable months to years before development of overt disease, and three stages of diabetes are now recognized. The advent of continuous glucose monitoring and the newer automated insulin delivery systems have changed the landscape of type 1 diabetes management and are associated with improved glycated hemoglobin and decreased hypoglycemia. Adjunctive therapies such as sodium glucose cotransporter-1 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists may find use in management in the future. Despite these rapid advances in the field, people living in under-resourced parts of the world struggle to obtain necessities such as insulin, syringes, and blood glucose monitoring essential for managing this condition. This review covers recent developments in diagnosis and treatment and future directions in the broad field of type 1 diabetes.

Fasting and postprandial plasma glucose contributions to hemoglobin A1c and time in range in people with diabetes on multiple daily injection insulin therapy: Results from the PRONTO-T1D and PRONTO-T2D clinical trials

AIMS

To investigate contributions of changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and postprandial glucose (PPG) to changes in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and time-in-range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL) in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin lispro (rapid/ultra-rapid formulations).

METHODS

Multivariate regression models were used to quantify the contributions of FPG and PPG reductions to change in HbA1c and TIR using data from the PRONTO-T1D (N = 1222) and PRONTO-T2D (N = 673) clinical trials. TIR was derived from 10-point self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) profiles overall, as well as from continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the PRONTO-T1D CGM substudy (n = 269/1222).

RESULTS

A 1 mmol/L FPG reduction corresponded with a 0.09-0.12 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.06-0.15 %) HbA1c reduction in PRONTO-T1D and 0.17-0.26 % (95 % CI 0.13-0.30 %) in PRONTO-T2D (both p < 0.0001). A 1 mmol/L PPG reduction corresponded with a 0.05-0.09 % (95 % CI 0.01-0.12 %) HbA1c reduction in PRONTO-T1D (p < 0.001) and 0.10-0.15 % (95 % CI 0.05-0.19 %) in PRONTO-T2D (p < 0.0001). Reductions in FPG and PPG were significantly associated with increased TIR whether derived from SMBG (7.87-12.95 % [95 % CI 6.81-14.23 %]; all p < 0.0001) or CGM (3.35-4.18 % [95 % CI 2.11-5.39 %]; all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

FPG and PPG significantly impact HbA1c and TIR. Balanced management of both FPG and PPG is important to achieve glycemic goals for people with diabetes on MDI insulin therapy.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

PRONTO-T1D ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03214367; PRONTO-T2D ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03214380.

Ultra-rapid lispro improved postprandial glucose control compared to insulin lispro in predominantly Chinese patients with type 1 diabetes: A prospective, randomized, double-blind phase 3 study

AIMS

To investigate the efficacy and safety of ultra-rapid lispro (URLi) versus insulin lispro in predominantly Chinese patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, treat-to-target, phase 3 study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Following a lead-in period, during which insulin glargine U-100 or insulin degludec U-100 was optimized, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to URLi (n = 176) or insulin lispro (n = 178). The primary objective was to test the noninferiority of URLi to insulin lispro in glycaemic control (noninferiority margin = 0.4% for glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] change from baseline to week 26), with testing for the superiority of URLi to insulin lispro with regard to 1- and 2-hour postprandial glucose (PPG) excursions during a mixed-meal tolerance test and HbA1c change at week 26 as the multiplicity-adjusted objectives.

RESULTS

From baseline to week 26, HbA1c decreased by 0.21% and 0.28% with URLi and insulin lispro, respectively, with a least squares mean treatment difference of 0.07% (95% confidence interval -0.11 to 0.24; P = 0.467). URLi demonstrated smaller 1- and 2-hour PPG excursions at week 26 with least squares mean treatment differences of -1.0 mmol/L (-17.8 mg/dL) and -1.4 mmol/L (-25.5 mg/dL), respectively (p < 0.005 for both) versus insulin lispro. The safety profiles of URLi and insulin lispro were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, URLi administered in a basal-bolus regimen demonstrated superiority to insulin lispro in controlling PPG excursions, with noninferiority of HbA1c control in predominantly Chinese patients with T1D.

The Role of Ultra-Rapid-Acting Insulin Analogs in Diabetes: An Expert Consensus

Ultra-rapid-acting insulin analogs (URAA) are a further development and refinement of rapid-acting insulin analogs. Because of their adapted formulation, URAA provide an even faster pharmacokinetics and thus an accelerated onset of insulin action than conventional rapid-acting insulin analogs, allowing for a more physiologic delivery of exogenously applied insulin. Clinical trials have confirmed the superiority of URAA in controlling postprandial glucose excursions, with a safety profile that is comparable to the rapid-acting insulins. Consequently, many individuals with diabetes mellitus may benefit from URAA in terms of prandial glycemic control. Unfortunately, there are only few available recommendations from authoritative sources for use of URAA in clinical practice. Therefore, this expert consensus report aims to define populations of people with diabetes mellitus for whom URAA may be beneficial and to provide health care professionals with concrete, practical recommendations on how best to use URAA in this context.

Assessing Time in Range with Postprandial Glucose-Focused Titration of Ultra Rapid Lispro (URLi) in People with Type 1 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

To assess time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) with postprandial glucose (PPG)-focused titration of ultra rapid lispro (URLi; Lyumjev®) in combination with insulin degludec in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

This phase 2, single-group, open-label, exploratory study was conducted in 31 participants with T1D on multiple daily injection therapy. Participants were treated with insulin degludec and Lispro for an 11-day lead-in and then URLi for a 46-day treatment period consisting of 35-day titration and 11-day endpoint maintenance period. Glucose targets for the titration period were PPG < 140 mg/dL or < 20% increase from premeal, fasting glucose 80-110 mg/dL, and overnight excursion ± 30 mg/dL or less. Participants used the InPen™ bolus calculator and Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).

RESULTS

Primary endpoint mean TIR (70-180 mg/dL) with URLi during the maintenance period was 70.2%. TIR (70-180 mg/dL) and times below/above range were not significantly different with URLi (maintenance) versus lispro (lead-in). HbA1c decreased from 7.1% at screening to 6.8% at endpoint (least squares mean [LSM] change from baseline, - 0.36%; P < 0.001). Fructosamine and 1,5-anhydroglucitol improved (P < 0.001). Mean hourly glucose using CGM was reduced from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM with URLi. Overall highest PPG excursion across meals was significantly reduced at URLi endpoint compared with lispro lead-in (mean 56.5 vs 72.4 mg/dL; P < 0.001). Insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio (U/X g) was reduced (more insulin given) at breakfast at URLi endpoint vs lead-in (LSM 9.0 vs 9.7 g; P = 0.002) and numerically decreased at other meals. Total daily insulin dose (TDD) was higher at URLi endpoint compared with lispro lead-in (mean 50.2 vs 47.0 U; P = 0.046) with similar prandial/TDD ratio (mean 52.1% vs 51.2%). There were no severe hypoglycemia events during the study.

CONCLUSIONS

URLi in a basal-bolus regimen focusing on PPG targets demonstrated improved overall glycemic control and reduced PPG excursions without increased hypoglycemia in participants with T1D.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT04585776.

Increased Time in Range with Ultra Rapid Lispro Treatment in Participants with Type 2 Diabetes: PRONTO-Time in Range

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate time in range metrics and HbA1c in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with ultra rapid lispro (URLi) using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the first time in this population.

METHODS

This was a Phase 3b, 12-week, single-treatment study in adults with T2D on basal-bolus multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy using basal insulin glargine U-100 along with a rapid-acting insulin analog. Following a 4-week baseline period, 176 participants were newly treated with prandial URLi. Participants used unblinded CGM (Freestyle Libre). Primary endpoint was time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dl) during the daytime period at Week 12 compared to baseline with gated secondary endpoints of HbA1c change from baseline and 24-h TIR (70-180 mg/dl).

RESULTS

Improved glycemic control was observed at Week 12 versus baseline including mean daytime TIR (change from baseline [Δ] 3.8%; P = 0.007), HbA1c (Δ - 0.44%; P < 0.001), and 24-h TIR (Δ 3.3%; P = 0.016) with no significant difference in time below range (TBR). After 12 weeks, there was a statistically significant decrease in postprandial glucose incremental area under curve, overall, across all meals, within 1 h (P = 0.005) or 2 h (P < 0.001) after the start of a meal. Basal, bolus, and total insulin dose were intensified with increased bolus/total dose ratio at Week 12 (50.7%) versus baseline (44.5%; P < 0.001). There were no severe hypoglycemia events during the treatment period.

CONCLUSIONS

In people with T2D, URLi in an MDI regimen was efficacious with improved glycemic control including TIR, HbA1c, and postprandial glucose without increased hypoglycemia/TBR. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04605991.

Hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes mellitus: risks and practical prevention strategies

Hypoglycaemia, which occurs when blood levels of glucose fall below what is considered a normal range, is a well-known complication of insulin therapy in individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Despite advances in diabetes mellitus management, hypoglycaemia has continued to affect the majority of these individuals, leading to suboptimal care and decreased quality of life. Multiple epidemiological studies have demonstrated the risks associated with hypoglycaemic events. With this understanding, various advances have been made in therapeutics for diabetes mellitus management. Diabetes mellitus education continues to form the foundation for management and prevention of hypoglycaemia. The advent of newer diabetes mellitus technologies and newer insulins herald improvements in management strategies and hypoglycaemia prevention. Improved understanding of these newer approaches is needed to ensure delivery of safe and effective care to individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus, leading to reductions in both the short-term and long-term morbidity and mortality associated with hypoglycaemic events.

[Diagnosis and insulin therapy of type 1 diabetes mellitus (Update 2023)]

This guideline summarizes diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, including accompanying autoimmune disorders, insulin therapy regimens and glycemic target values.

Efficacy and safety of ultra-rapid lispro versus lispro in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: The PRONTO-Peds trial

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ultra-rapid lispro (URLi) versus lispro in a paediatric population with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in a Phase 3, treat-to-target study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After a 4-week lead-in to optimize basal insulin, participants were randomized to double-blind URLi (n = 280) or lispro (n = 298) injected 0 to 2 minutes prior to meals (mealtime), or open-label URLi (n = 138) injected up to 20 minutes after start of meals (postmeal). Participants remained on pre-study basal insulin (degludec, detemir or glargine). The primary endpoint was glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change from baseline after 26 weeks (noninferiority margin 4.4 mmol/mol [0.4%]).

RESULTS

Both mealtime and postmeal URLi demonstrated noninferiority to lispro for HbA1c: estimated treatment difference (ETD) for mealtime URLi -0.23 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval [CI] -1.84, 1.39) and postmeal URLi -0.17 mmol/mol (95% CI -2.15, 1.81). Mealtime URLi reduced 1-hour postprandial glucose (PPG) daily mean (P = 0.001) and premeal to 1 hour postmeal PPG excursion daily mean (P < 0.001) versus lispro. The rate and incidence of severe, nocturnal or documented hypoglycaemia (<3.0 mmol/L [54 mg/dL]) were similar for all treatments. With mealtime URLi versus lispro, the rate of postdose hypoglycaemia (<3.0 mmol/L) was higher at ≤2 hours (P = 0.034). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar for all treatments. More participants reported an injection site reaction with mealtime URLi (7.9%) versus postmeal URLi (2.9%) and lispro (2.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

In children and adolescents with T1D, URLi demonstrated good glycaemic control, and noninferiority to lispro in HbA1c change for mealtime and postmeal URLi. When dosed at the beginning of meals, URLi reduced 1-hour PPG and PPG excursions versus lispro.

What is the value of faster acting prandial insulin? Focus on ultra rapid lispro

Rapid-acting insulins (RAIs) have been instrumental in the management of diabetes because of their improved postprandial glucose (PPG) control compared with regular human insulin. However, their absorption rate and time action following subcutaneous administration still falls short of the normal physiological response to meal consumption, increasing the risk of early postmeal hyperglycaemia and late postmeal hypoglycaemia. Increased demand for faster acting insulins, which can quickly control PPG excursions without increasing the risk of late hypoglycaemia, led to the development of ultra-rapid-acting insulins, including ultra-rapid lispro (URLi). URLi is a novel formulation of insulin lispro with accelerated absorption driven by two excipients: treprostinil, which increases local vasodilation, and citrate, which increases local vascular permeability. Clinical pharmacology studies consistently showed an earlier onset and shorter duration of action with URLi compared with Lispro. In a head-to-head study with Faster aspart, Aspart and Lispro, URLi was absorbed faster, provided earlier insulin action, and more closely matched physiological glucose response than the other insulins tested. URLi's unique pharmacokinetic properties increase its potential for improved PPG control beyond that achieved with RAIs. Indeed, in pivotal phase 3 trials, URLi was superior to Lispro for PPG control both at 1 and 2 hours after a meal in type 1 and type 2 diabetes with multiple daily injections, and in type 1 diabetes with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. This was achieved without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. In this review, we focus on the clinical and pharmacological evidence for URLi in the treatment of diabetes and discuss the potential benefits and considerations with URLi compared with RAIs.

Current Status and Emerging Options for Automated Insulin Delivery Systems

Combining technologies including rapid insulin analogs, insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors, and control algorithms has allowed for the creation of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems. These systems have proven to be the most effective technology for optimizing metabolic control and could hold the key to broadly achieving goal-level glycemic control for people with type 1 diabetes. The use of AID has exploded in the past several years with several options available in the United States and even more in Europe. In this article, we review the largest studies involving these AID systems, and then examine future directions for AID with an emphasis on usability.

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.

Rapid-acting insulin analogues: Theory and best clinical practice in type 1 and type 2 diabetes

Since the discovery of insulin 100 years ago, insulin preparations have improved significantly. Starting from purified animal insulins, evolving to human insulins produced by genetically modified organisms, and ultimately to insulin analogues, all in an attempt to mimic physiological insulin action profiles seen in individuals without diabetes. Achieving strict glucose control without hypoglycaemia and preventing chronic complications of diabetes while preserving quality of life remains a challenging goal, but the advent of newer ultra-rapid-acting insulin analogues may enable intensive insulin therapy without being too disruptive to daily life. Ultra-rapid-acting insulin analogues can be administered shortly before meals and give better coverage of mealtime-induced glucose excursions than conventional insulin preparations. They also increase convenience with timing of bolus dosing. In this review, we focus on the progress that has been made in rapid-acting insulins. We summarize pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data, clinical trial data supporting the use of these new formulations as part of a basal-bolus regimen and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, and provide a clinical perspective to help guide healthcare professionals when and for whom to use ultra-fast-acting insulins.

Ultrarapid Lispro Demonstrates Similar Time in Target Range to Lispro with a Hybrid Closed-Loop System

Background: Automated insulin delivery systems are associated with improved glycemic outcomes for patients with diabetes. Ultrarapid lispro (URLi), which has an accelerated pharmacokinetic profile and shows superior postprandial glucose control compared to lispro (Humalog^®), is a potential candidate for use in these systems. Methods: In this double-blind, crossover trial over two 4-week treatment periods, we evaluated URLi in a hybrid closed-loop system using the Medtronic MiniMed™ 670G system (670G). After a 2-week lead-in on lispro, 42 adults with type 1 diabetes were randomized to 1 of 2 treatment sequences of URLi and lispro delivered via the 670G. Primary endpoint was the percentage of time with glucose values within target range 3.9-10.0 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL; %TIR). Results: Both treatments achieved %TIR over the 24-h period that was above the 70% minimum recommended by the International Consensus Guidance: URLi, 77.0%; lispro, 77.8%; P = 0.339. %Time <3.0 mmol/L (54 mg/dL) was similar between treatments (URLi, 0.3%; lispro, 0.4%; P = 0.548) and %time <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) was lower with URLi (1.5%) versus lispro (2.2%); P = 0.009, while %time >10.0 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) was higher with URLi (21.5% [309.4 min] vs. 19.9% [287.2 min]; P = 0.088). Mean sensor glucose was significantly higher with URLi versus lispro with least squares mean difference of 0.17 mmol/L or 3.0 mg/dL (P = 0.011) between treatments. Insulin dose, %time in Auto Mode per week, and pump settings were similar between treatments. No serious adverse events (AEs) (including severe hypoglycemia) or discontinuations occurred, and the incidence of treatment-emergent AEs was similar between treatments. Although the overall incidence and rate of unplanned infusion set changes were similar between treatments, a significantly higher rate of unplanned infusion set changes due to infusion site reactions was seen during URLi treatment compared with lispro: 0.12 versus 0.00 events/30 days (P = 0.063). Conclusions: URLi demonstrated good glycemic control that was comparable to lispro and showed a similar safety profile to lispro with the 670G hybrid closed-loop system. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03760640.

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.

Improved postprandial glucose control with ultra rapid lispro versus lispro with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in type 1 diabetes: PRONTO-Pump-2

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ultra rapid lispro (URLi) versus lispro (Humalog^® ) in people with type 1 diabetes on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a phase 3, 16-week, treat-to-target study in patients randomized to double-blind URLi (N = 215) or lispro (N = 217). The primary endpoint was change from baseline HbA1c (non-inferiority margin 4.4 mmol/mol [0.4%]), with multiplicity-adjusted objectives for postprandial glucose (PPG) levels during a meal test, and time spent in the target range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR).

RESULTS

URLi was non-inferior to lispro for change in HbA1c, with a least-squares mean (LSM) difference of 0.3 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.6, 1.2) or 0.02% (95% CI -0.06, 0.11). URLi was superior to lispro in controlling 1- and 2-h PPG levels after the meal test: LSM difference -1.34 mmol/L (95% CI -2.00, -0.68) or -24.1 mg/dL (95% CI -36.0, -12.2) at 1 h and -1.54 mmol/L (95% CI -2.37, -0.72) or -27.8 mg/dL (95% CI -42.6, -13.0) at 2 h; both p < .001. TIR and time in hyperglycaemia were similar between groups but URLi resulted in significantly less time in hypoglycaemia (<3.0 mmol/L [54 mg/dL]) over the daytime, night-time and 24-h period: LSM difference -0.41%, -0.97% and -0.52%, respectively, all p < .05. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was higher with URLi (60.5% vs. 44.7%), driven by infusion-site reaction and infusion-site pain, which was mostly mild or moderate. Rates of severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

URLi was efficacious, providing superior PPG control and less time in hypoglycaemia but with more frequent infusion-site reactions compared with lispro when administered by CSII.

Prospective Independent Evaluation of the Carbohydrate Counting Accuracy of Two Smartphone Applications

INTRODUCTION

Smartphone applications (apps) have been designed that help patients to accurately count their carbohydrate intake in order to optimize prandial insulin dose matching. Our aim was to evaluate the accuracy of two carbohydrate (carb) counting apps.

METHODS

Medical students, in the role of mock patients, evaluated meals using two smartphone apps: Foodvisor^® (which uses automatic food photo recognition technology) and Glucicheck^® (which requires the manual entry of carbohydrates with the help of a photo gallery). The macronutrient quantifications obtained with these two apps were compared to a reference quantification.

RESULTS

The carbohydrate content of the entire meal was underestimated with Foodvisor^® (Foodvisor^® quantification minus gold standard quantification = - 7.2 ± 17.3 g; p < 0.05) but reasonably accurately estimated with Glucicheck^® (Glucicheck^® quantification minus gold standard quantification = 1.4 ± 13.4 g; ns). The percentage of meals with an absolute error in carbohydrate quantification above 20 g was greater for Foodvisor^® compared to Glucicheck^® (30% vs 14%; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The carb counting accuracy was slightly better when using Glucicheck^® compared to Foodvisor^®. However, both apps provided a lower mean absolute carb counting error than that usually made by T1D patients in everyday life, suggesting that such apps may be a useful adjunct for estimating carbohydrate content.

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Ultra Rapid Lispro (URLi) in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: The PRONTO-T1D Extension

INTRODUCTION

The PRONTO-T1D study, which evaluated the efficacy and safety of ultra rapid lispro (URLi) versus lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), met the primary endpoint of noninferiority of HbA1c change from baseline compared to lispro at 26 weeks. We present results of an additional 26-week treatment phase evaluating long-term efficacy and safety of URLi.

METHODS

In this phase 3, treat-to-target study, subjects were randomized to double-blind mealtime URLi, lispro, or open-label postmeal URLi with insulin degludec or glargine for 26 weeks. Subjects in the double-blind URLi (n = 451) and lispro (n = 442) groups continued for another 26 weeks to assess long-term efficacy and safety.

RESULTS

HbA1c increased marginally during the long-term maintenance period (week 26-52) in both groups to 7.47% (URLi) and 7.54% (lispro). At week 52, there were no statistically significant treatment differences in change from baseline HbA1c with a least-squares mean treatment difference (95% confidence interval) of - 0.06% (- 0.16, 0.03). Proportions of patients with HbA_1c < 7% at week 52 were similar (URLi, 26.8%; lispro, 24.5%). Self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) showed that 1-h (9.23 versus 10.14 mmol/L) and 2-h (8.40 versus 9.53 mmol/L) postmeal daily mean glucose was statistically significantly (p < 0.001) lower with URLi than lispro. The rate and incidence of severe, documented, and postprandial hypoglycemia (< 54 mg/dl [3.0 mmol/L]) were similar between treatments, but URLi demonstrated a 31% lower rate in the period more than 4 h after meals, (p = 0.023). Injection site reactions were reported by 3.3% of patients on URLi and 0.9% on lispro. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between treatments.

CONCLUSION

Overall glycemic control and improved postprandial glucose via SMBG were maintained after 52 weeks with URLi versus lispro, suggesting that the efficacy of URLi is preserved during long-term treatment in patients with T1D. No long-term safety issues were identified with URLi.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03214367.