Comparison of morning basal + 1 bolus insulin therapy (insulin glulisine + insulin glargine 300 U/mL vs insulin lispro + insulin glargine biosimilar) using continuous glucose monitoring: A randomized crossover study

Clinical Pharmacology of GP40321 (Insulin Glulisine Biosimilar): Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Comparability in a Hyperinsulinemic-Euglycemic Clamp Procedure

The aim of the study was to compare the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of T-glu (GP40321, test drug), and reference insulin glulisine in a hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp procedure. During this study, 34 healthy male volunteers underwent the hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp procedure following subcutaneous 0.3 U/kg injection of T-glu or reference insulin glulisine in a randomized, double-blind, crossover study. Plasma glucose levels were monitored every 5 minutes for 8 hours. Glucose infusion rate adjustment was based on the blood glucose measurements. Evaluation of PD was performed using the glucose infusion rate values, while PK was calculated using insulin concentrations measured via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The study results showed that the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratios of primary PK and PD of T-glu and reference insulin glulisine were within 80%-125% comparability limits, and that the safety profiles were comparable. PK, PD, and safety similarity of T-glu and reference insulin glulisine was demonstrated.

Use of wearable biometric monitoring devices to measure outcomes in randomized clinical trials: a methodological systematic review

BACKGROUND

Wearable biometric monitoring devices (BMDs) have the potential to transform the conduct of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by shifting the collection of outcome data from single measurements at predefined time points to dense continuous measurements.

METHODS

Methodological systematic review to understand how recent RCTs used BMDs to measure outcomes and to describe the reporting of these RCTs. Electronic search was performed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and EMBASE and completed a page-by-page hand search in five leading medical journals between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2018. Three reviewers independently extracted all primary and secondary outcomes collected using BMDs, and assessed (1) the definitions used to summarize BMD outcome data; (2) whether the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of sensors was reported; (3) the discrepancy with outcomes prespecified in public clinical trial registries; and (4) the methods used to manage missing and incomplete BMD outcome data.

RESULTS

Of the 4562 records screened, 75 RCTs were eligible. Among them, 24% tested a pharmacological intervention and 57% used an inertial measurement sensor to measure physical activity. Included trials involved 464 outcomes (average of 6 [SD = 8] outcomes per trial). In total, 35 trials used a BMD to measure a primary outcome. Several issues affected the value and transparency of trials using BMDs to measure outcomes. First, the definition of outcomes used in the trials was highly heterogeneous (e.g., 21 diabetes trials had 266 outcomes and 153 had different unique definitions to measure diabetes control), which limited the combination and comparison of results. Second, information on the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of sensors used was lacking in 74% of trials. Third, half (53%) of the outcomes measured with BMDs had not been prespecified, with a high risk of outcome reporting bias. Finally, reporting on the management of incomplete outcome data (e.g., due to suboptimal compliance with the BMD) was absent in 68% of RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of BMDs to measure outcomes is becoming the norm rather than the exception in many fields. Yet, trialists need to account for several methodological issues when specifying and conducting RCTs using these novel tools.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/aspart (twice-daily injections), insulin glargine 300 U/mL, and insulin glulisine (basal-bolus therapy)

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

We compared the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/aspart (IDegAsp) twice-daily injections with insulin glargine 300 U/mL and insulin glulisine basal-bolus therapy (Gla300/Glu) using insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla300) and insulin glulisine (Glu).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 20 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were treated with IDegAsp twice-daily injections; achievement of target preprandial glucose concentration of 100-130 mg/dL at breakfast and supper was determined using a wearable flash glucose monitoring system. Patients were later switched to Gla300/Glu basal-bolus therapy before breakfast and before supper. Data were collected on days 2-4 and days 12-14 for each treatment period. The study's primary efficacy end-point was the mean percentage of time with a target glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL, and safety end-points were the mean percentage of time with hypoglycemia having glucose levels <70 mg/dL, clinically important hypoglycemia with glucose levels <54 mg/dL and nocturnal (00.00-06.00) hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

Considering efficacy, the mean percentage of time for the target glucose range of IDegAsp was significantly lower than that of Gla300/Glu (73.1 [69.4-81.1] vs 84.2 [80.2-93.1], P = 0.001). Considering safety, the mean percentages of hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL; 2.1 [0.0-9.4] vs 14.4 [4.4-22.3]), clinically important hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL; 0.0 [0.0-0.2] vs 1.9 [0.0-5.6]) and nocturnal (00.00-06.00 hours) hypoglycemia (0.5 [0.0-5.9] vs 8.9 [3.1-11.8]) of Gla300/Glu were significantly lower than those of IDegAsp (P = 0.012, 0.036 and 0.007, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

When compared with the IDegAsp twice-daily injections, Gla300/Glu basal-bolus therapy might achieve more effective glycemic control without hypoglycemic risk.

A comparison of the clinical courses of type 2 diabetic patients whose basal insulin preparation was replaced from insulin glargine 100 units/mL to insulin glargine biosimilar or 300 units/mL: a propensity score-matched observation study

Objective: We compared the clinical course of type 2 diabetic patients whose basal insulin preparations were replaced from insulin glargine (IGlar) 100 units/mL (U100) to IGlar biosimilar or IGlar 300 units/mL (U300).

Methods: After propensity score matching, 34 patients whose basal insulin preparation was switched from IGlar U100 to IGlar biosimilar and 102 switched to IGlar U300 were observed for 6 months.

Results: The HbA1c level and body weight did not change significantly after the replacement in the IGlar biosimilar or IGlar U300 groups. In the IGlar biosimilar group, the frequency of subjects who experienced hypoglycemia after the replacement (12%) was not different from before (12%). However, the frequency was significantly lower after the replacement (2%) than before (13%) in the IGlar U300 group. The change in the HbA1c level after the replacement showed a significant association with the HbA1c level at the baseline but not with the kind of IGlar. Hypoglycemia was frequently observed in subjects who had experienced hypoglycemia before the replacement.

Conclusions: IGlar biosimilar and IGlar U300 induced similar HbA1c and body weight changes among type 2 diabetic patients. IGlar biosimilar is a suitable option for patients with a low risk for hypoglycemia.

Comparison of morning basal + 1 bolus insulin therapy (insulin glulisine + insulin glargine 300 U/mL vs insulin lispro + insulin glargine biosimilar) using continuous glucose monitoring: A randomized crossover study

INTRODUCTION

We compared the effects of morning administration of insulin glulisine + insulin glargine 300 U/mL (G + G300) with that of insulin lispro + insulin glargine biosimilar (L + GB).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 30 patients with type 2 diabetes who wore a continuous glucose monitoring device on admission after glucose levels were stabilized by morning long-acting and ultra-rapid-acting insulins were randomly allocated to groups who received G + G300 on days 1 and 2, and the same dose L + GB on days 3 and 4, or vice versa. Data collected on days 2 and 4 (mean amplitude of glycemic excursion, mean of daily differences: all days) were analyzed. Insulin was injected at 08.00 h. A day was defined as the period from 08.00 h one day, to 08.00 h the next day. Test meals were given.

RESULTS

Increased post-breakfast glucose level, post-breakfast glucose gradient, mean glucose level, standard deviation and M-value (24 h, 00.00-06.00 h), mean amplitude of glycemic excursion, and mean of daily differences were significantly lower in patients taking G + G300 than those taking L + GB (P ≤ 0.0001-0.04). The area over the glucose curve (<70 mg/dL) was not significantly different between groups. Pre-lunch - pre-breakfast glucose levels were significantly lower in patients taking L + GB than those taking G + G300 (P < 0.0001). The difference in the highest post-breakfast glucose level between groups (Δ = G + G300 - L + GB) was significantly correlated to 24-h mean glucose level (r = 0.40, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with L + GB, G + G300 decreases post-breakfast glucose level reducing rate of rise of that, nocturnal and 24-h glucose variability and level without causing hypoglycemia, and daily variance.