Inhaled insulin

The Challenges of Quantitative Measurement of Lung Deposition Using 99mTc-DTPA from Delivery Systems with Very Different Delivery Times

In quantifying aerosol delivery, the drug is often mixed with a radiolabel such as (99m)Tc-DTPA whose deposition is used as a proxy for the drug. (99m)Tc-DTPA deposited in the lung is cleared by a combination of absorption into the pulmonary circulation and mucociliary clearance. If administration is not instantaneous, the image will not include that clearance during administration, a problem raised if comparing devices with different administration times. However, if rates of clearance are measured, it will be possible to "correct" the initial image for the clearance that occurred during administration and before counting. Five adult males inhaled a 5-mL solution containing (99m)Tc-DTPA from a breath enhanced jet nebulizer (LC Plus)over the course of 10 min and a 1.25-mL solution from a vibrating membrane device (eFlow), which was delivered in 2.5 min. Quality assurance was the radioactivity count balance (RCB) defined as the difference in the total radioactivity pre-nebulization less post, divided by pre, and expressed as a percentage. Attenuation calculations used a (57)Co flood source (Macey and Marshall). The "correction" for the clearance of (99m)Tc-DTPA was 0.91 +/- 0.04 (mean +/- SD) for the LC Plus) and 0.96 +/- 0.02 for the eFlow). RCB was -0.6 +/- 3.5% for the LC Plus and -4.7 +/- 6.4% for the eFlow, implying acceptable accuracy. For the LC Plus, lung deposition was 15.9(13.4, 18.4)% (mean and 95% CI) of the charge dose, and for the eFlow it was 32.0(29.0, 35.0)%. This technique gave an acceptable level of accuracy for quantitative planar imaging and allowed the comparison of delivery from devices with very different rates of delivery.

Inhaled insulin as adjunctive therapy in subjects with type 2 diabetes failing oral agents: a controlled proof-of-concept study

AIM

This controlled proof-of-concept study investigated inhaled insulin (INH) as adjunctive therapy to existing oral antidiabetic agents in subjects with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Twenty-four subjects with type 2 diabetes [19 men and 5 women, 56.1 +/- 6.6 years, body mass index 32.7 +/- 4.2 kg/m(2), glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 8.4 +/- 0.8% (mean +/- s.d.)] inadequately controlled by metformin and/or sulfonylureas were randomized to receive additional therapy with either INH administered preprandially using a metered-dose inhaler (MDI), or insulin glargine (GLA) injected subcutaneously at bedtime for 4 weeks. Both inhaled and injected insulin doses were titrated to predefined blood glucose (BG) targets.

RESULTS

INH and GLA improved metabolic control to a similar extent. Mean daily BG decreased by 2.8 mmol/l in the INH group (p < 0.001) and by 2.4 mmol/l in the GLA group (p < 0.001). Accordingly, fasting BG (-2.7 vs. -3.6 mmol/l for INH vs. GLA), preprandial- and 2-h postprandial BG, HbA1c (-1.23 vs. -1.05%), body weight (-1.9 vs. -2.3 kg) and serum fructosamine were similarly and significantly reduced in both groups (p < 0.05). Triglycerides decreased significantly with INH (-1.15 micromol/l; p < 0.001) but not with GLA [-0.52 micromol/l; not significant (NS)]. Incidence rates of adverse events did not differ significantly, and there were no indications of respiratory tract irritation.

CONCLUSIONS

In subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by oral agents, preprandial administration of INH delivered by a MDI provided a comparable metabolic control to bedtime GLA and did not show any safety concerns during a 4-week treatment. These results warrant a more extensive investigation of preprandial treatment with INH in longer term studies.