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

An Investigation Into Local Infusion Site Pain After Infusion of Ultra Rapid Lispro Excipients Across Sites and Depths

BACKGROUND

This phase 1, randomized, one-day, five-period crossover study in adults with type 1 diabetes on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion investigated local infusion site pain following infusion of the excipients of ultra rapid lispro (URLi; without insulin) across infusion sites and depths.

METHODS

Forty participants (mean age, 40.5 years; body mass index [BMI], 27.5) were randomized to one of five infusion site sequences consisting of the arm, thigh, buttock (6 mm cannula depth), and abdomen (6 and 9 mm depth). Basal infusion of sodium citrate and treprostinil in diluent with magnesium chloride was initiated (10 μL/h) and at three, six, and nine hours after basal initiation, 15 unit-equivalent boluses (150 μL) were given. Participants rated their pain on a 0 to 100 mm validated visual analog scale (VAS) at 5 minutes pre-bolus and 1 and 15 minutes post-bolus.

RESULTS

At one minute post-bolus, increased VAS scores were occasionally reported. Most one minute post-bolus scores were ≤10 mm (little to no discomfort) while 7 of 577 were >45 mm (generally considered clinically meaningful pain). Painful infusions were reported more frequently for the arm, and mean VAS scores were higher for the arm compared with the thigh and abdomen. The VAS score distributions were similar between cannula depths. By 15 minutes post-bolus, VAS scores returned to pre-bolus levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Local infusion site discomfort after infusion of URLi excipients was reported by a small subset of participants; it was transient, tolerable, and dependent on infusion site but not infusion depth. Given differences within individuals, patients may consider using a different infusion site if they experience discomfort.

CLINICALTRIAL.GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT05067270.

Prandial Insulins: A Person-Centered Choice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Postprandial hyperglycemia, or elevated blood glucose after meals, is associated with the development and progression of various diabetes-related complications. Prandial insulins are designed to replicate the natural insulin release after meals and are highly effective in managing post-meal glucose spikes. Currently, different types of prandial insulins are available such as human regular insulin, rapid-acting analogs, ultra-rapid-acting analogs, and inhaled insulins. Knowledge about diverse landscape of prandial insulin will optimize glycemic management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Human regular insulin, identical to insulin produced by the human pancreas, has a slower onset and extended duration, potentially leading to post-meal hyperglycemia and later hypoglycemia. In contrast, rapid-acting analogs, such as lispro, aspart, and glulisine, are new insulin types with amino acid modifications that enhance their subcutaneous absorption, resulting in a faster onset and shorter action duration. Ultra-rapid analogs, like faster aspart and ultra-rapid lispro, offer even shorter onset of action, providing better meal-time flexibility. The Technosphere insulin offers an inhaled route for prandial insulin delivery. The prandial insulins can be incorporated into basal-bolus, basal plus, or prandial-only regimens or delivered through insulin pumps. Human regular insulin, aspart, lispro, and faster aspart are recommended for management of hyperglycemia during pregnancy. Ongoing research is focused on refining prandial insulin replacement and exploring newer delivery methods. The article provides a comprehensive overview of various prandial insulin options and their clinical applications in the management of diabetes.

Danish Diabetes Birth Registry 2: a study protocol of a national prospective cohort study to monitor outcomes of pregnancies of women with pre-existing diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Despite technological developments and intensified care, pregnancies in women with pre-existing diabetes are still considered high-risk pregnancies. The rate of adverse outcomes in pregnancies affected by diabetes in Denmark is currently unknown, and there is a limited understanding of mechanisms contributing to this elevated risk. To address these gaps, the Danish Diabetes Birth Registry 2 (DDBR2) was established. The aims of this registry are to evaluate maternal and fetal-neonatal outcomes based on 5 years cohort data, and to identify pathophysiology and risk factors associated with short-term and long-term outcomes of pregnancies in women with pre-existing diabetes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The DDBR2 registry is a nationwide 5-year prospective cohort with an inclusion period from February 2023 to February 2028 of pregnancies in women with all types of pre-existing diabetes and includes registry, clinical and questionnaire data and biological samples of mother-partner-child trios. Eligible families (parents age ≥18 years and sufficient proficiency in Danish or English) can participate by either (1) basic level data obtained from medical records (mother and child) and questionnaires (partner) or (2) basic level data and additional data which includes questionnaires (mother and partner) and blood samples (all). The primary maternal outcome is Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels at the end of pregnancy and the primary offspring endpoint is the birth weight SD score. The DDBR2 registry will be complemented by genetic, epigenetic and metabolomic data as well as a biobank for future research, and the cohort will be followed through data from national databases to illuminate possible mechanisms that link maternal diabetes and other parental factors to a possible increased risk of adverse long-term child outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Approval from the Ethical Committee is obtained (S-20220039). Findings will be sought published in international scientific journals and shared among the participating hospitals and policymakers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05678543.

The artificial pancreas: two alternative approaches to achieve a fully closed-loop system with optimal glucose control

INTRODUCTION

Diabetes mellitus type 1 is a chronic disease that implies mandatory external insulin delivery. The patients must monitor their blood glucose levels and administer appropriate insulin boluses to keep their blood glucose within the desired range. It requires a lot of time and endeavour, and many patients struggle with suboptimal glucose control despite all their efforts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This narrative review combines existing knowledge with new discoveries from animal experiments.

DISCUSSION

In the last decade, artificial pancreas (AP) devices have been developed to improve glucose control and relieve patients of the constant burden of managing their disease. However, a feasible and fully automated AP is yet to be developed. The main challenges preventing the development of a true, subcutaneous (SC) AP system are the slow dynamics of SC glucose sensing and particularly the delay in effect on glucose levels after SC insulin infusions. We have previously published studies on using the intraperitoneal space for an AP; however, we further propose a novel and potentially disruptive way to utilize the vasodilative properties of glucagon in SC AP systems.

CONCLUSION

This narrative review presents two lesser-explored viable solutions for AP systems and discusses the potential for improvement toward a fully automated system: A) using the intraperitoneal approach for more rapid insulin absorption, and B) besides using glucagon to treat and prevent hypoglycemia, also administering micro-boluses of glucagon to increase the local SC blood flow, thereby accelerating SC insulin absorption and SC glucose sensor site dynamics.

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.

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.

Hybrid Closed-Loop Control with Ultrarapid Lispro Compared with Standard Insulin Aspart and Faster Insulin Aspart: An In Silico Study

OBJECTIVE

There is room for improvement in the performance of closed-loop regulation algorithms during the prandial period. This in silico study evaluated the efficiency and safety of ultrarapid lispro insulin using the Diabeloop DBLG1® algorithm.

METHODS

We modeled the insulin profile of URLi according to literature data and integrated it to the model used within a simulation platform built from a 60 patients' virtual cohort. We then ran the DBLG1® algorithm in silico with various meal intakes using modeled URLi, Aspart and Faster Aspart. The primary endpoints were glucose metrics (time in 70-180 mg/dL range and time below range).

RESULTS

When insulin time constant values were tuned, time in 70-180 mg/dL range was 69.4 [61.1-75.6] (Aspart) vs 74.7 [65.5-81.5] (URLi). Glucose coefficient of variation was reduced from 34.1 [29.7-37.8] to 28.4 [25.7-34.6]. Time below 70 mg/dL and 54 mg/dL were significantly reduced with URLi, whether or not DBLG1 was specifically tuned to this insulin. Metrics with Faster Aspart were intermediate and did not significantly differ from URLi.

CONCLUSIONS

This simulation study performed on a virtual T1D population suggests that the use of URLi within an unmodified closed-loop DBLG1 regulation algorithm is safe and, with DBLG1 being tuned to this specific insulin type, improved the regulation performances as compared with Aspart. This fact supports the use of such an insulin in clinical investigations.

Performance of Fast-Acting Aspart Insulin as Compared to Aspart Insulin in Insulin Pump for Managing Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

No meta-analysis has analysed efficacy and safety of fast-acting aspart insulin (FIAsp) with insulin pump in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving T1DM patients on insulin pump receiving FIAsp in intervention arm, and placebo/active comparator insulin in control arm. Primary outcome was to evaluate changes in 1- and 2-hour post-prandial glucose (1hPPG and 2hPPG). Secondary outcomes were to evaluate alterations in percentage time with blood glucose <3.9 mmol/L (hypoglycaemia), time in range (TIR) blood glucose 3.9 to 10 mmol/L, insulin requirements and adverse events.

RESULTS

Data from four RCTs involving 640 patients was analysed. FIAsp use in insulin pump was associated with significantly greater lowering of 1hPPG (mean difference [MD], -1.35 mmol/L; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.72 to -0.98; P<0.01; I2=63%) and 2hPPG (MD, -1.19 mmol/L; 95% CI, -1.38 to -1.00; P<0.01; I2=0%) as compared to controls. TIR was comparable among groups (MD, 1.06%; 95% CI, -3.84 to 5.96; P=0.67; I2=70%). Duration of blood glucose <3.9 mmol/L was lower in FIAsp group, approaching significance (MD, -0.91%; 95% CI, -1.84 to 0.03; P=0.06; I2=0%). Total hypoglycaemic episodes (risk ratio [RR], 1.35; 95% CI, 0.55 to 3.31; P=0.51; I2=0%), severe hypoglycaemia (RR, 2.26; 95% CI, 0.77 to 6.66; P=0.14), infusion site reactions (RR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.63 to 2.93; P=0.77; I2=0%), and treatment-emergent adverse events (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.60; P=0.50; I2=0%) were comparable.

CONCLUSION

FIAsp use in insulin pump is associated with better post-prandial glycaemic control with no increased hypoglycaemia or glycaemic variability.

Insulin delivery patterns required to maintain postprandial euglycemia in type 1 diabetes following consumption of traditional Egyptian Ramadan Iftar meal using insulin pump therapy: A randomized crossover trial

OBJECTIVES

During Ramadan, traditional Egyptian Iftar meals have large amounts of high-glycemic index carbohydrate and fat. The efficacy of different bolus regimens on optimizing post prandial glucose (PPG) excursion following this Iftar meal was assessed.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial evaluating 4-h PPG measured by continuous glucose-monitoring was conducted. A total of 25 youth with T1DM using insulin pumps were given the same Iftar meal (fat [45 g], protein [28 g], CHO [95 g]) on seven consecutive days. Insulin to carbohydrate ratio (ICR) was individualized, and all boluses were given upfront 20 min before Iftar. Participants were randomized to receive a standard bolus and six different split boluses delivered over 4 h in the following splits: dual wave (DW) 50/50; DW 50/50 with 20% increment (120% ICR); DW60/40; DW 60/40 with 20% increment; DW 70/30 and DW 70/30 with 20% increment.

RESULTS

Standard bolus and split 70/30 with 20% increment resulted in significantly lower early glucose excursions (120 min) with mean excursions of less than 40 mg/dL (2.2 mmol/L) compared to other conditions (p < 0.01). The split 70/30 with 20% increment significantly optimized late PPG excursion (240 min) in comparison to standard bolus (p < 0.01), as well as resulting in a significantly lower post meal glucose area under the curve compared with all other conditions (p < 0.01), with no late hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSION

To achieve physiologic PPG profile in traditional Iftar meal, a DW bolus with 20% increment given 20 min preprandial as split bolus 70/30 over 4 h, optimized both early and delayed PPG excursions.

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.

Faster Insulin Aspart for Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion: Is It Worth It?

Introduction

Faster insulin aspart (fASP) is the new formulation of insulin aspart (ASP) with a left-shifted pharmacokinetic profile, allowing better control of early postprandial hyperglycemia and a reduction in the risk of late post-meal hypoglycemia. However, it can be associated with more frequent infusion set changes. The purpose of this study is to evaluate efficacy and safety one, three, and six months after starting fASP in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) systems.

Methods

This is a retrospective study that included adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus, users of CSII ≥3 months, who started fASP. Exclusion criteria included less than one month of follow-up after the intervention, concomitant initiation of pharmacological therapy, pre-conception period, and non-use of continuous glucose monitoring.

Results

A total of 77 individuals were included, of which 52 (67.5%) were female, aged 39.87 ± 13.10 years, with a mean time under CSII of 7.30 ± 3.58 years and a median follow-up time after transition to fASP of six months. There was a trend to a global glycemic control improvement at six months after starting fASP: numeric increase in time in range (56.40 ± 12.62% vs 60.15 ± 13.53%, p=0.148), reduction in time above range (37.76 ± 13.05% vs 34.67 ± 14.94%, p=0.557), time below range (6.00 (5.00)% vs 4.50 (5.25)%, p=0.122), and mean glucose (174.29 ± 25.14 mg/dL vs 167.00 ± 25.30 mg/dL, p=0.207). There was a reduction in body mass index (BMI) at six months after switching to fASP (25.08 (4.59) kg/m² vs 24.45 (3.05) kg/m², p=0.010), despite the absence of a significant variation in total daily insulin. Adverse event and discontinuation rates were 7.8% and 6.5%, respectively, with no documented episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia.

Conclusions

fASP proved to be a safe and effective therapeutic option in CSII systems associated with a significant BMI reduction, aspects that might justify its preference.

Practical aspects of diabetes technology use: Continuous glucose monitors, insulin pumps, and automated insulin delivery systems

There have been tremendous advances in diabetes technology in the last decade. Continuous glucose monitors (CGM), insulin pumps, and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems aim to improve glycemic control while simultaneously decreasing the burden of diabetes management. Although diabetes technologies have been shown to decrease both hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia and to improve health-related quality of life in individuals with type 1 diabetes, the impact of these devices in individuals with cystic fibrosis-related diabetes (CFRD) is less clear. There are unique aspects of CFRD, including the different underlying pathophysiology and unique lived health care experience and comorbidities, that likely affect the use, efficacy, and uptake of diabetes technology in this population. Small studies suggest that CGM is accurate and may be helpful in guiding insulin therapy for individuals with CFRD. Insulin pump use has been linked to improvements in lean body mass and hemoglobin A1c among adults with CFRD. A recent pilot study highlighted the promise of AID systems in this population. This article provides an overview of practical aspects of diabetes technology use and device limitations that clinicians must be aware of in caring for individuals with CF and CFRD. Cost and limited insurance coverage remain significant barriers to wider implementation of diabetes technology use among patients with CFRD. Future studies exploring strategies to improve patient and CF provider education about these devices and studies showing the effectiveness of these technologies on health and patient-reported outcomes may lead to improved insurance coverage and increased rates of uptake and sustained use of these technologies in the CFRD community.

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.

Insulin Centennial: Milestones influencing the development of insulin preparations since 1922

During 1921 to 1922, a team effort by Banting, Macleod, Collip and Best isolated and purified insulin and demonstrated its life-giving properties, giving rise to the birth of insulin therapy. In the early years (1922-1950), priorities revolved around the manufacture of insulin to meet demand, improving purity to avoid allergic reactions, establishing insulin standards and increasing its duration of action to avoid multiple daily injections. Shortly after the emergence of insulin, Joslin and Allen advocated the need to achieve and maintain good glycaemic control to realize its full potential. Although this view was opposed by some during a dark period in the history of insulin, it was subsequently endorsed some 60 years later endorsed by the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial and United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study. Major scientific advances by the Nobel Laureates Sanger, Hodgkin, Yalow and Gilbert and also by Steiner have revolutionized the understanding of diabetes and facilitated major advances in insulin therapy. The more recent advent of recombinant technology over the last 40 years has provided the potential for unlimited source of insulin, and the ability to generate various insulin 'analogues', in an attempt to better replicate normal insulin secretory patterns. The emerging biosimilars now provide the opportunity to improve availability at a lower cost.

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.

The Evolution of Insulin Administration in Type 1 Diabetes

Insulin has been utilized in the treatment of type 1 diabetes (T1D) for 100 years. While there is still no cure for T1D, insulin administration has undergone a remarkable evolution which has contributed to improvements in quality of life and life expectancy in individuals with T1D. The advent of faster-acting and longer-acting insulins allowed for the implementation of insulin regimens more closely resembling normal insulin physiology. These improvements afforded better glycemic control, which is crucial for limiting microvascular complications and improving T1D outcomes. Suspension of insulin delivery in response to actual and forecasted hypoglycemia has improved quality of life and mitigated hypoglycemia without compromising glycemic control. Advances in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and insulin pumps, efforts to model glucose and insulin kinetics, and the application of control theory to T1D have made the automation of insulin delivery a reality. This review will summarize the past, present, and future of insulin administration in T1D.

Ultra-rapid-acting insulins for adults with diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy and safety of the novel, ultra-rapid-acting insulins aspart and lispro in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Our primary outcome was change in HbA1c from baseline. We additionally assessed eight efficacy and six safety endpoints. We calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes, alongside 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We additionally assessed statistical heterogeneity among studies with the I² statistic, considering values greater than 60% as indicative of substantial heterogeneity. Nine studies comprising 5931 patients were included in the systematic review; eight active-controlled studies could be synthesized in terms of a meta-analysis. Treatment with ultra-rapid-acting insulins had a similar effect on change in HbA1c compared with rapid-acting insulins (WMD -0.02%, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.05, I²  = 61% for patients with type 1 diabetes and -0.02%, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.04, I²  = 19% for patients with type 2 diabetes). Similarly, no difference was evident in terms of change in fasting plasma glucose, self-measured plasma glucose, body weight, basal or bolus insulin dose, incidence of serious adverse events and hypoglycaemia. Compared with rapid-acting insulins, ultra-rapid-acting insulins reduced 1- and 2-hour postprandial glucose (PPG) increment based on a liquid meal test, both in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes (WMD -0.94 mmol/L, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.72, I²  = 0% and -0.56 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.32, I²  = 0%, respectively, for change in 1-hour PPG increment). In conclusion, ultra-rapid-acting insulins were as efficacious and safe as rapid-acting insulins, showing a favourable effect solely on PPG control.

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%.

Living with Insulin: The story of insulin from people with diabetes

The history of insulin is rightly considered one of the most beautiful stories in medicine which goes even further than the extraordinary result of tens of millions of lives saved. Without a doubt, it constitutes a major achievement for medical science which, especially in the last 50 years, has led to an impressive acceleration in the succession of new treatment opportunities. We are going to describe the history of insulin therapy, the history we lived from two different angles as people living with type 1 diabetes, and obviously also as diabetologists, but as diabetologists with diabetes. Without a doubt, insulin and his story constitutes a major achievement for medical science which has led to an impressive acceleration in the succession of new treatment opportunities. Care opportunities that have not only allowed fundamental improvements in outcomes, but have also and above all impacted the quality of life of people with diabetes. Summarizing one hundred years of insulin is no simple endeavor. In our view, it would be easier, and probably more befitting, to focus on the last 50 years, namely the period we have lived closely and personally together with insulin. More to the point, these last 50 years have witnessed a dramatic acceleration of research and innovation. In our opinion, it is precisely the innovations in insulin therapy introduced from the last decades that fully justify the description of events in this incredible period as "the miracle of insulin". We'll describe how the most important innovations introduced in the last decades had impact on what we have nowadays, as patients and diabetologits: today, we can finally adapt insulin therapy to the patient's life or lifestyle, reversing what was the perception of patients until 20 years, when insulin was considered, by the most, as an obstacle, which seemed insurmountable to some, to a free and unconstrained life.

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.

Minimising hypoglycaemia in the real world: the challenge of insulin

Insulin therapy has been a life saver for people with type 1 diabetes and has been an essential tool in the therapy of people with type 2 diabetes, but the risk for hypoglycaemia has been a major hurdle to achieving good glycaemic control for most. Insulin analogues, the availability of novel technologies for the administration of insulin, like insulin pumps, and, in particular, tools to measure glucose levels, evolving from capillary measurements to continuous glucose monitoring, have revolutionised the way in which people living with diabetes use insulin. Novel insulin concepts, like once-weekly or oral insulin administration, will have to demonstrate safety on the side of hypoglycaemia before they will be able to move into the clinic.

Hundert Jahre – Insulin bleibt aktuell und notwendig

In der Behandlung des Typ-1-Diabetes ist die Therapie mit Insulin auch 100 Jahre nach seiner Entdeckung weiterhin eine lebensnotwendige Therapie. Der pharmakologische Fortschritt hat die Behandlung erheblich erleichtert und nähert sich der physiologischen Insulin-Sekretion zunehmend an. In der Behandlung des Typ-2-Diabetes hingegen ist die Insulin-Therapie bei den meisten Patienten zunächst nicht notwendig. Lebensstil-Interventionen und moderne Nicht-Insulin Antidiabetika können häufig zu einer lang andauernden Kontrolle der Erkrankung führen. Die Heterogenität des Typ-2-Diabetes führt jedoch dazu, dass einige Patienten früh von einer Insulin-Therapie profitieren. Auch beim Typ-2-Diabetes können moderne Insulin Präparate die Insulin-Behandlung deutlich erleichtern, auch in Kombination mit anderen Antidiabetika. Einleitung und Begleitung einer Insulin-Therapie gehören somit weiterhin zu den Kernaufgaben der Diabetologie.

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Three Different Formulations of Insulin Aspart: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Crossover Study in Men With Type 1 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties and safety of a novel formulation of insulin aspart (AT247) versus two currently marketed insulin aspart formulations (NovoRapid [IAsp] and Fiasp [faster IAsp]).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This single-center, randomized, double-blind, three-period, crossover study was conducted in 19 men with type 1 diabetes, receiving single dosing of trial products (0.3 units/kg) in a random order on three visits. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics were assessed during a euglycemic clamp lasting up to 8 h.

RESULTS

Onset of insulin appearance was earlier for AT247 compared with IAsp (-12 min [95% CI -14; -8], P = 0.0004) and faster IAsp (-2 min [-5; -2], P = 0.0003). Onset of action was accelerated compared with IAsp (-23 min [-37; -15], P = 0.0004) and faster IAsp (-9 min [-11; -3], P = 0.0006). Within the first 60 min, a higher exposure was observed for AT247 compared with IAsp by the area under the curve (AUC) glucose infusion rate (GIR) from 0 to 60 min (AUC_Asp0-60min: treatment ratio vs. IAsp 2.3 [1.9; 2.9] vs. faster IAsp 1.5 [1.3; 1.8]), which was underpinned by a greater early glucose-lowering effect (AUC_GIR,0-60min: treatment ratio vs. IAsp 2.8 [2.0; 5.5] vs. faster IAsp 1.7 [1.3; 2.3]). Furthermore, an earlier offset of exposure was observed for AT247 compared with IAsp (-32 min [-58; -15], P = 0.0015) and faster IAsp (-27 min [-85; -15], P = 0.0017), while duration of the glucose-lowering effect, measured by time to late half-maximum effect, did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

AT247 exhibited an earlier insulin appearance, exposure, and offset, with corresponding enhanced early glucose-lowering effect compared with IAsp and faster IAsp. It therefore represents a promising candidate in the pursuit for second-generation prandial insulin analogs to improve postprandial glycemic control.

Ultrafast acting insulin analog - a new way to prevent postprandial hyperglycemia and improve quality of life in type 1 diabetes patients - case reports

The aim of modern insulin therapy used in the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus is to mimic the physiological secretion of insulin in order to ensure stable normoglycemia while maintaining the greatest possible comfort of life for diabetic patients. New ultra-fast insulin analogs that can be administered immediately before a meal contribute to the improvement of postprandial glycemia and the quality of life of patients. We presented two cases illustrating the effectiveness and safety of the use of an ultra-fast-acting insulin analog in the treatment of postprandial hyperglycemia in children with type 1 diabetes.

New technical approach to the diabetes therapy

Optimal glycemic control remains challenging in individuals with type 1 diabetes. With the comprehensive clinical evidence on safety and efficiency, the adoption of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), insulin pumps, and control algorithms merging the two into closed-loop systems is rapidly increasing. Particularly the CGM and intermittently scanned CGM improved diabetes management outcomes in large populations. A meaningful translation from clinical trials in highly controlled settings to numerous evaluations of closed-loop technology in the unrestricted home environment ended with its commercialization and use in routine clinical practice. Although it is still not a cure, the closed-loop currently seems to be the most promising advancement in the treatment of diabetes, with promising results also reported from routine clinical practice in children and adults with type 1 diabetes. We summarize different aspects of a technological approach to diabetes care, list currently available devices and systems in the pipeline, and the key supporting clinical evidence for their use. We consider human factors associated with technology use and the importance of health economics to support implementation and reimbursement.

The continuing quest for better subcutaneously administered prandial insulins: a review of recent developments and potential clinical implications

The class of rapid-acting insulin analogues were introduced more than 20 years ago to control postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) excursions better than unmodified regular human insulin. Insulins, lispro, aspart and glulisine all achieved an earlier onset of action, greater peak effect and shorter duration of action resulting in lower PPG levels and a reduced risk of late postprandial hypoglycaemia. However, the subcutaneous absorption rate of these analogues still fails to match the physiological profile of insulin in the systemic circulation following a meal. Recent reformulations of aspart and lispro have generated a second generation of more rapid-acting insulin analogue candidates, including fast-acting aspart (faster aspart), ultra-rapid lispro and BioChaperone Lispro. These modifications have the potential to mimic physiological prandial insulin secretion better with an even earlier onset of action with improved PPG control, shorter duration of effect and reduced risk of hypoglycaemia. Recent phase 3 trials in type 1 and type 2 diabetes show that faster aspart and ultra-rapid lispro compared with conventional aspart and lispro, achieved fewer PPG excursions with a small increase in post-meal hypoglycaemia but similar or marginally superior glycated haemoglobin levels, and suggest the need for parallel optimization of basal insulin replacement. Phase 1 trials for BioChaperone Lispro are equally encouraging with phase 3 trials yet to be initiated. Comparative analysis of the clinical and pharmacological evidence for these new prandial insulin candidates in the treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes is the main focus of this review.

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.

Impact of insulin pump therapy on glycemic control among adult Saudi type-1 diabetic patients. An interview-based case-control study

Context:

Diabetes is associated with several potential preventable complications like the efficacy of insulin pump over multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) in glycemic control.

Aims:

To assess the outcomes of insulin pump as compared to insulin injection therapy.

Setting and Design:

Case-control study conducted among adult type-1 diabetic patients using insulin pump therapy and alternative insulin injection therapy from the University Diabetes Center (UDC), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia during 1^st June–30^th October, 2017.

Materials and Methods:

Interview-based questionnaires were used on of 200 subjects using insulin therapy and control (conventional and MDI). Results of each were compared.

Statistical Analysis Used:

t-test was used for continuous variables and Chi-square test was used for categorical variables. P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

Patients on pump therapy showed a non-significant higher mean of hypoglycemic episodes per week and a lower mean of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) episodes per year as compared to the injection therapy patients 1.97 vs. 1.77 and 0.35 vs. 0.37, respectively. However, statistically significant differences were found between the pump and MDI, the pump and conventional, and the MDI and conventional when HbA1c levels were tested.

Conclusion:

Among adult patients with type-1 diabetes, insulin pump as compared to insulin injection was associated with better glycemic control. However, for acute complications, non-significant higher mean of hypoglycemic episodes per week and a lower mean of DKA episodes per year were reported in pump therapy as compared to the injection therapy patients.

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.