Comparison of pharmacodynamic intrasubject variability of insulin lispro protamine suspension and insulin glargine in subjects with type 1 diabetes

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic equivalence of Biocon's biosimilar insulin N with US-licensed Humulin® N formulation in healthy subjects: Results from the RHINE-2 (Recombinant Human INsulin Equivalence-2) study

AIM

To establish the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) equivalence of proposed biosimilar Insulin N (Biocon's Insulin-N; Biocon Biologics Ltd., Bangalore, India) and US-licensed Humulin® N (Humulin-N; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA) in healthy subjects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a phase-1, single-centre, double-blind, randomized, three-period, six-sequence, partially replicated, crossover, 24-h euglycaemic clamp study. Overall, 90 healthy subjects were randomized, of whom 85 completed the study. The subjects received either two single doses of Biocon's Insulin-N and a single dose of Humulin-N or two single doses of Humulin-N and a single dose of Biocon's Insulin-N subcutaneously at a dose of 0.4 IU/kg. The primary PK endpoints were the area under the insulin concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC_ins.0-24h ) and the maximum insulin concentration (C_ins.max ). The primary PD endpoints were the area under the glucose infusion rate (GIR) curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC_GIR.0-24h ) and the maximum GIR (GIR_max ).

RESULTS

Biocon's Insulin-N was found to be equivalent to Humulin-N for the primary PK (geometric 90% confidence interval for the least squares mean ratio: AUC_ins.0-24h , 100.98%-115.66% and C_ins.max , 95.91%-110.16%) and PD endpoints (intra-subject variability ≥0.294; 95% upper confidence interval [(μT - μR)²  - θσ² WR] <0; point estimates of geometric least squares mean ratio: AUC_GIR.0-24h , 104.61% and GIR_max , 100.81%). The safety profile of Biocon's Insulin-N was similar to that of Humulin-N, and no serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

PK and PD equivalence was shown between Biocon's Insulin-N and Humulin-N in healthy subjects, and both treatments were well tolerated and considered safe.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic equivalence of Biocon's biosimilar Insulin 70/30 with US-licensed HUMULIN® 70/30 formulation in healthy subjects: Results from the RHINE-3 (Recombinant Human INsulin Equivalence-3) study

AIM

To establish the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) equivalence of proposed biosimilar insulin 70/30 (Biocon's Insulin-70/30) and HUMULIN® 70/30 (HUMULIN-70/30; Eli Lilly and Company, IN).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this phase 1, automated euglycaemic glucose clamp study, 78 healthy subjects were randomized (1:1) to receive a single dose of 0.4 IU/kg of Biocon's Insulin-70/30 and HUMULIN-70/30. Plasma insulin concentrations and glucose infusion rates (GIRs) were assessed over 24 hours. Primary PK endpoints were area under the insulin concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 hours - AUC_ins.0-24h - and maximum insulin concentration - C_ins.max . Primary PD endpoints were area under the GIR time curve from 0 to 24 hours - AUC_GIR.0-24h - and maximum GIR - GIR_max .

RESULTS

Equivalence was shown between Biocon's Insulin-70/30 and HUMULIN-70/30 for the primary PK/PD endpoints. The 90% confidence intervals of the treatment ratios were entirely within the acceptance range of 80.00%-125.00%. The secondary PK/PD profiles were also comparable. There were no clinically relevant differences in the safety profiles of the two treatments and no serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

PK/PD equivalence was demonstrated between Biocon's Insulin-70/30 and HUMULIN-70/30 in healthy subjects. Treatment with Biocon's Insulin-70/30 and HUMULIN-70/30 was well tolerated.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic equivalence of Biocon's biosimilar Insulin-R with the US-licensed Humulin® R formulation in healthy subjects: Results from the RHINE-1 (Recombinant Human INsulin Equivalence-1) study

AIM

To establish equivalence in the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) endpoints between proposed biosimilar Insulin-R (Biocon's Insulin-R) and Humulin® R using the euglycaemic clamp technique in healthy subjects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this phase-1 automated euglycaemic glucose clamp study, 42 healthy subjects were randomized (1:1) to receive a single dose of 0.3 IU/kg of Biocon's Insulin-R and Humulin-R. Plasma insulin concentrations and glucose infusion rates (GIRs) were assessed over 12 hours. Primary PK endpoints were area under the insulin concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 hours (AUC_ins.0-12h ) and maximum insulin concentration (C_ins.max ). Primary PD endpoints were area under the GIR time curve from 0 to 12 hours (AUC_GIR.0-12h ) and maximum GIR (GIR_max ).

RESULTS

Equivalence was demonstrated between Biocon's Insulin-R and Humulin-R for the primary PK and PD endpoints. The 90% confidence intervals were within 80.00% to 125.00% limits. The PK and PD profiles were comparable. There were no significant differences in the safety profiles of the two treatments, and no serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

PK and PD equivalence was demonstrated between Biocon's Insulin-R and Humulin-R in healthy subjects. Treatment with Biocon's Insulin-R and Humulin-R was well tolerated.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic bioequivalence of proposed biosimilar MYL-1501D with US and European insulin glargine formulations in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

To report phase 1 bioequivalence results comparing MYL-1501D, US reference insulin glargine (US IG), and European reference insulin glargine (EU IG).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The double-blind, randomized, three-way crossover study compared the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) characteristics of MYL-1501D, US IG and EU IG. In total, 114 patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) received 0.4 U/kg of each study treatment under automated euglycaemic clamp conditions. Insulin metabolite M1 concentrations, insulin glargine (IG) and glucose infusion rates (GIRs) were assessed over 30 hours. Primary PK endpoints were area under the serum IG concentration-time curve from 0 to 30 hours (AUCins.0-30h ) and maximum serum IG concentration (Cins.max ). Primary PD endpoints were area under the GIR-time curve from 0 to 30 hours (AUCGIR0-30h ) and maximum GIR (GIRmax ).

RESULTS

Bioequivalence among MYL-1501D, US IG and EU IG was demonstrated for the primary PK and PD endpoints. Least squares mean ratios were close to 1, and 90% confidence intervals were within 0.80 to 1.25. The PD GIR-time profiles were nearly superimposable. There were no noticeable differences in the safety profiles of the three treatments, and no serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Equivalence with regard to PK and PD characteristics was shown among MYL-1501D, US IG and EU IG in patients with T1DM, and each treatment was well tolerated and safe.

Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Properties of Faster-Acting Insulin Aspart versus Insulin Aspart Across a Clinically Relevant Dose Range in Subjects with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

Background

Absorption of current rapid-acting insulins is too slow for patients with diabetes mellitus to achieve optimal postprandial glucose control. Faster-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) is insulin aspart in a new formulation with faster early absorption. We compared the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties of faster aspart and insulin aspart across a clinically relevant dose range.

Methods

In this randomised, double-blind, crossover trial, 46 subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus received single subcutaneous doses of faster aspart and insulin aspart at 0.1, 0.2 (repeated three times to estimate within-subject variability) and 0.4 U/kg in a euglycaemic clamp setting (target 5.5 mmol/L).

Results

Consistently for the three doses, faster aspart demonstrated faster onset and greater early absorption and glucose-lowering effect versus insulin aspart. Across all three doses, onset of appearance occurred approximately twice as fast (approximately 5 min earlier) and early insulin exposure (AUC_{IAsp,0–30min}) was approximately 1.5- to 2-fold greater for faster aspart versus insulin aspart. Likewise, onset of action occurred approximately 5 min faster and early glucose-lowering effect (AUC_{GIR,0–30min}) was approximately 1.5- to 2-fold larger for faster aspart versus insulin aspart. Relative bioavailability was approximately 100% and total glucose-lowering effect was similar for faster aspart versus insulin aspart. Dose–concentration and dose–response relationships were comparable between faster aspart and insulin aspart. Within-subject variability in glucose-lowering effect was low for faster aspart (coefficient of variation approximately 20%) and not significantly different from insulin aspart.

Conclusion

The faster onset and greater early insulin exposure and glucose-lowering effect with faster aspart versus insulin aspart are preserved across a broad range of doses and consistently observed from day to day.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier

NCT02033239.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40262-016-0473-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Factors Affecting the Absorption of Subcutaneously Administered Insulin: Effect on Variability

Variability in the effect of subcutaneously administered insulin represents a major challenge in insulin therapy where precise dosing is required in order to achieve targeted glucose levels. Since this variability is largely influenced by the absorption of insulin, a deeper understanding of the factors affecting the absorption of insulin from the subcutaneous tissue is necessary in order to improve glycaemic control and the long-term prognosis in people with diabetes. These factors can be related to either the insulin preparation, the injection site/patient, or the injection technique. This review highlights the factors affecting insulin absorption with special attention on the physiological factors at the injection site. In addition, it also provides a detailed description of the insulin absorption process and the various modifications to this process that have been utilized by the different insulin preparations available.

A Review of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart: Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Properties and Their Implications in Clinical Use

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp; 70 % IDeg and 30 % IAsp) is a soluble combination of two individual insulin analogues in one product, designed to provide mealtime glycaemic control due to the IAsp component and basal glucose-lowering effect from the IDeg component. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of IDegAsp have been investigated in a series of clinical pharmacology studies with generally comparable designs, methodologies and patient inclusion/exclusion criteria. The glucose-lowering effect profile of IDegAsp during once-daily dosing at steady state shows distinct and clearly separated action from the prandial and basal components of IDegAsp. The IAsp component provides rapid onset and peak glucose-lowering effect followed by a flat glucose-lowering effect lasting beyond 30 h due to IDeg. During twice-daily dosing, the distinct peak effect and the flat basal effect are retained following each dose. The pharmacological properties of IDegAsp are maintained in the elderly, children, adolescents, Japanese patients and those with hepatic or renal impairment. The potential clinical benefits associated with the pharmacological properties of IDegAsp have been verified in phase III clinical trials comparing IDegAsp with three other currently available treatment options: premixed insulin, basal-bolus regimens and basal-only therapy. IDegAsp shows favourable clinical benefits compared with biphasic insulin aspart 30 and is a viable alternative to basal-bolus and basal-only therapy. This review presents the results from clinical pharmacology studies conducted with IDegAsp to date, and extrapolates these results to clinical use of IDegAsp in the context of findings from the IDegAsp clinical therapeutic studies.

Glucodynamics of long-acting basal insulin peglispro compared with insulin glargine at steady state in patients with type 1 diabetes: substudy of a randomized crossover trial

AIMS

To compare, in an open-label, randomized, crossover phase II substudy, the glucodynamics of insulin glargine and those of basal insulin peglispro (BIL) in patients with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

Patients (n = 23) underwent 24-h euglycaemic clamps after 8 weeks of treatment with glargine or with BIL. Clinically-titrated basal insulin doses (BIL group 16-64 U; glargine group 19-60 U) were administered on the morning of the clamp.

RESULTS

At baseline, the patients' mean ± standard deviation (s.d.) body mass index was 26.78 ± 4.20 kg/m² and glycated haemoglobin was 7.69 ± 0.99%. The mean ± s.d. endpoint dose for the BIL group was 0.42 ± 0.13 U/kg and for the glargine group was 0.42 ± 0.10. The daily mean ± s.d. blood glucose concentration was 7.7 ± 1.2 in the BIL group and 7.9 ± 1.2 mmol/l in the glargine group (p = 0.641). The mean ± s.d. total and nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates/30 days were 2.7 ± 2.3 and 0.5 ± 0.8, respectively, for the BIL group, and 3.0 ± 2.4 and 0.7 ± 1.1, respectively, for the glargine group (p = 0.112 and 0.428). The mean glucose infusion rate (GIR) normalized to insulin unit was lower for BIL than for glargine. One patient in the glargine group and eight patients in the BIL group had minimal (<0.8 g/kg) GIRs over 24 h. The mean ± s.d. total glucose infused over 24 h (G_TOT(0-24) ) was 1.22 ± 0.82 g/kg in the BIL group and 1.90 ± 1.01 g/kg in the glargine group (p = 0.002). The mean ± s.d. total glucose infused during hours 0-6 (G_TOT(0-6) ) was 0.21 ± 0.22 in the BIL group and 0.41 ± 0.22 g/kg in the glargine group (p < 0.001), while the mean total glucose infused during hours 18-24 (G_TOT(18-24) ) in the BIL group was 0.28 ± 0.18 g/kg and in the glargine group was 0.35 ± 0.23 g/kg (p = 0.198). The peak-to-trough ratio was 1.41 for BIL versus 2.22 for glargine.

CONCLUSIONS

BIL has a flatter profile than glargine, with potentially more stable metabolic control. The lower G_TOT(0-24) observed in the BIL group is consistent with BIL's reduced peripheral action.

Euglycaemic glucose clamp: what it can and cannot do, and how to do it

The hyperinsulinaemic-euglycaemic glucose clamp has always been regarded as the "gold standard" for the assessment of pharmacodynamic (PD) properties of insulin preparations; however, there has been controversy over a variety of methodogical details, such as study population, dosing time and the initial stabilization of blood glucose (BG) concentrations at the clamp target level, among clamp groups. As the impact of these details on PD results is unclear, the present review provides an overview of different methodological approaches for both the manual and the automated hyperinsulinaemic-euglycaemic glucose clamp. The advantages and limitations of several methodological details are discussed as well as the relevance of clamp results for the prediction of clinical outcomes. Overall, the best method strongly depends on the exact objective of the trial. If, for instance, duration of action is the primary objective, studies should be carried out in patients with type 1 diabetes to avoid any interference of endogenous insulin. This is less important for variables such as onset of action or early metabolic activity. The hyperinsulinaemic-euglycaemic glucose clamp has a high sensitivity to detect even minor differences between different insulin preparations. The practical relevance of potential differences, however, needs to be investigated in clinical studies. A major prerequisite for obtaining reliable glucose clamp results is the attainment of high clamp quality (i.e. keeping BG concentrations close to the clamp target throughout the experiments). Unfortunately, measures of clamp quality are often under-reported, as is the variability in PD profiles, although these might explain some unconfirmed extreme results obtained in a few clamp studies.

Use of Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension in Pregnancy

Maternal metabolism changes substantially during pregnancy, which poses numerous challenges to physicians managing pregnancy in women with diabetes. Insulin is the agent of choice for glycemic control in pregnant women with diabetes, and the insulin analogs are particularly interesting for use in pregnancy. These agents may reduce the risk of hypoglycemia and promote a more physiological glycemic profile than regular human insulin in pregnant women with type 1 (T1D), type 2 (T2D), or gestational (GDM) diabetes. However, there have been concerns regarding potential risk for crossing the placental barrier, mitogenic stimulation, teratogenicity, and embryotoxicity. Insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS), an intermediate- to long-acting insulin, has a stable and predictable pharmacological profile, and appears to have a favorable time–action profile and produce desirable basal and postprandial glycemic control. As the binding of insulin lispro is unaffected by the protamine molecule, ILPS is likely to have the same mitogenic and immunogenic potential as insulin lispro. Insulin lispro produces similar outcomes to regular insulin in pregnant women with T1D, T2D, or GDM, does not cross the placental barrier, and is considered a useful treatment option for pregnant women with diabetes. Clinical data support the usefulness of ILPS for basal insulin coverage in non-pregnant patients with T1D or T2D, and suggest that the optimal regimen, in terms of balance between efficacy and hypoglycemic risk, is a once-daily injection, especially in patients with T2D. Available data concerning use of ILPS in pregnant women are currently derived from retrospective analyses that involved, in total, >1200 pregnant women. These analyses suggest that ILPS is at least as safe and effective as neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin. Thus, available experimental and clinical data suggest that ILPS once daily is a safe and effective option for the management of diabetes in pregnant women.

Funding: Eli Lilly and Company.

Glucose-lowering effect and glycaemic variability of insulin glargine, insulin detemir and insulin lispro protamine in people with type 1 diabetes

AIM

To compare, using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system, the effect on glycaemic variability of insulin glargine, detemir and lispro protamine.

METHODS

A total of 49 white people with type 1 diabetes, not well controlled by three times daily insulin lispro, taken for at least 2 months before study and on a stable dose, were enrolled. The study participants were randomized to add insulin glargine, detemir or lispro protamine, once daily, in the evening. We used a CGM system, the iPro Digital Recorder (Medtronic MiniMed, Northridge, CA, USA) for 1 week. Glycaemic control was assessed according to mean blood glucose values, the area under the glucose curve above 3.9 mmol/l (AUC(>3.9)) or above 10.0 mmol/l (AUC(>10.0)), and the percentage of time spent with glucose values >3.9 or >10.0 mmol/l. Intraday glycaemic variability was assessed using standard deviation (s.d.) values, the mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions and continuous overlapping of net glycaemic action. Day-to-day glycaemic variability was assessed using the mean of daily differences.

RESULTS

The s.d. was found to be significantly lower with insulin lispro protamine and glargine compared with insulin detemir. AUC(>3.9) was higher and AUC(>10.0) was lower with insulin lispro protamine and glargine compared with detemir. The mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions and continuous overlapping net glycaemic action values were lower with insulin lispro protamine and glargine compared with detemir. In addition, the mean of daily differences was significantly lower with insulin lispro protamine and glargine compared with detemir. Fewer hypoglycaemic events were recorded during the night-time with insulin lispro protamine compared with glargine and detemir.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that insulin lispro protamine and glargine are more effective than detemir in reducing glycaemic variability and improving glycaemic control in people with type 1 diabetes. Insulin lispro protamine seems to lead to fewer hypoglycaemic events than other insulin regimens.

Diabetic pregnancy outcomes in mothers treated with basal insulin lispro protamine suspension or NPH insulin: a multicenter retrospective Italian study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to study the efficacy and safety of long-acting insulin analog insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) in diabetic pregnant women.

METHODS

In a multicenter observational retrospective study, we evaluated pregnancy outcome in 119 women affected by type 1 diabetes and 814 with gestational diabetes (GDM) treated during pregnancy with ILPS, compared with a control group treated with neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH) insulin.

RESULTS

Among type 1 diabetic patients, fasting blood glucose at the end of pregnancy was significantly lower in ILPS-treated than in NPH-treated patients. HbA1c levels across pregnancy did not differ between groups. Caesarean section and preterm delivery rates were significantly lower in the ILPS-women. Fetal outcomes were similar in the ILPS and NPH groups. Among GDM women, fasting blood glucose at the end of pregnancy was significantly lower in ILPS-treated than in NPH-treated patients. Duration of gestation was significantly longer, caesarian section and preterm delivery rates were lower in the ILPS-treated group. In addition, there were significantly fewer babies with an excessive ponderal index or neonatal hypoglycemic episodes in the ILPS group than in the NPH group.

CONCLUSIONS

Association of ILPS with rapid-acting analogs in pregnancy is safe in terms of maternal and fetal outcomes.

Old and new basal insulin formulations: understanding pharmacodynamics is still relevant in clinical practice

Long-acting insulin analogues have been developed to mimic the physiology of basal insulin secretion more closely than human insulin formulations (Neutral Protamine Hagedorn, NPH). However, the clinical evidence in favour of analogues is still controversial. Although their major benefit as compared with NPH is a reduction in the hypoglycaemia risk, some cost/effectiveness analyses have not been favourable to analogues, largely because of their higher price. Nevertheless, these new formulations have conquered the insulin market. Human insulin represents currently no more than 20% of market share. Despite (in fact because of) the widespread use of insulin analogues it remains critical to analyse the pharmacodynamics (PD) of basal insulin formulations appropriately to interpret the results of clinical trials correctly. Importantly, these data may help physicians in tailoring insulin therapy to patients' individual needs and, additionally, when clinical evidence is not available, to optimize insulin treatment. For patients at low risk for/from hypoglycaemia, it might be acceptable and also cost-effective not to use long-acting insulin analogues as basal insulin replacement. Conversely, in patients with a higher degree of insulin deficiency and increased risk for hypoglycaemia, analogues are the best option due to their more physiological profile, as has been shown in PD and clinical studies. From this perspective optimizing basal insulin treatment, especially in type 2 diabetes patients who are less prone to hypoglycaemia, would be suitable making significant resources available for other relevant aspects of diabetes care.

Single-dose pharmacokinetics and glucodynamics of the novel, long-acting basal insulin LY2605541 in healthy subjects

LY2605541 is a novel basal insulin analog with a prolonged duration of action. Two Phase I studies assessed LY2605541 pharmacokinetics (PK), glucodynamics (GD), and tolerability in healthy subjects. In Study 1, 33 subjects received single subcutaneous (SC) doses of LY2605541 (0.01-2.22 U/kg) and insulin glargine (0.5-0.8 U/kg) followed by euglycemic clamp for up to 24-36 hours. In Study 2, absolute bioavailability of SC LY2605541 was assessed in 8 subjects by comparing dose normalized area under concentration versus time curve of SC against IV administration. Time-to-maximum plasma concentration (medians) and geometric means for half-life (t½ ) and apparent clearance, respectively, ranged from 18.0 to 42.0 hours, 24.4-45.5 hours, and 1.8-2.8 L/h for SC LY2605541, versus 10.0-12.0 hours, 12.2-14.9 hours, and 51.4-65.2 L/h for SC insulin glargine. LY2605541 glucose infusion rate (GIR) profiles were sustained for ≥36 hours versus glargine GIR profiles, which waned at 24 hours. After IV administration, LY2605541's geometric mean t½ was 2.3 hours. LY2605541 intra-subject variability (CV%) was <18% for PK and <32% for GD parameters. The most common adverse events were related to study procedures and were mild-moderate in severity. These results established a well-tolerated baseline dose for LY2605541 with a relatively flat PK profile and low intra-subject variability.

Comparison of insulin lispro protamine suspension versus insulin glargine once daily added to oral antihyperglycaemic medications and exenatide in type 2 diabetes: a prospective randomized open-label trial

AIMS

To compare efficacy and safety of two, once-daily basal insulin formulations [insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) vs. insulin glargine (glargine)] added to oral antihyperglycaemic medications (OAMs) and exenatide BID in suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients.

METHODS

This 24-week, open-label, multicentre trial randomized patients to bedtime ILPS (n = 171) or glargine (n = 168). Non-inferiority of ILPS versus glargine was assessed by comparing the upper limit of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for change in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to week 24 (adjusted for baseline HbA1c) with non-inferiority margin 0.4%.

RESULTS

Non-inferiority of ILPS versus glargine was demonstrated: least-squares mean between-treatment difference (ILPS minus glargine) (95% CI) was 0.22% (0.06, 0.38). Mean HbA1c reduction was less for ILPS- versus glargine-treated patients (-1.16 ± 0.84 vs. -1.40 ± 0.97%, p = 0.008). Endpoint HbA1c < 7.0% was achieved by 53.7% (ILPS) and 61.7% (glargine) (p = NS). Overall hypoglycaemia rates (p = NS) and severe hypoglycaemia incidence (p = NS) were similar. Nocturnal hypoglycaemia rate was higher in patients treated with ILPS versus glargine (p = 0.004). Weight gain was similar between groups (ILPS: 0.27 ± 3.38 kg; glargine: 0.66 ± 3.93 kg, p = NS). Endpoint total insulin doses were lower in patients treated with ILPS versus glargine (0.30 ± 0.17 vs. 0.37 ± 0.17 IU/kg/day, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

ILPS was non-inferior to glargine for HbA1c change over 24 weeks, but was associated with less HbA1c reduction and more nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Treat-to-target basal insulin therapy improves glycaemic control and is associated with minimal weight gain when added to OAMs and exenatide BID for suboptimally controlled T2D.

Pharmacodynamics of the long-acting insulin analogues detemir and glargine following single-doses and under steady-state conditions in patients with type 1 diabetes

AIM

The pharmacodynamic characteristics of the basal insulin analogues insulin detemir (IDet) and insulin glargine (IGlar) have been examined extensively via euglycaemic clamp studies. However, differences in clamp methodology and in the analysis of clamp data between trials have led to confusion over the duration of action of these two insulins. The aim of this study was to address these ambiguities in the literature by assessing the pharmacodynamic properties of IDet and IGlar over 30 h under single-dose and steady-state conditions using the definitions and procedures previously standardized by Heise and Pieber in 2007.

METHODS

This was a single-centre, randomized, double-blind, glucose clamp trial involving 36 patients with type 1 diabetes.

RESULTS

The mean duration of action of IDet was 25.9 h, compared with 19.8 h for IGlar after a single-dose (NS), and 23.3 h (IDet) versus 27.1 h (IGlar) at steady-state (p < 0.0001). IDet had a significantly higher area under the curve glucose infusion rate (AUCGIR ) than IGlar over 0-12 h after a single-dose (p = 0.0018). The steady-state AUCGIR for IDet was numerically higher than IGlar over 0-12 h (728 vs. 592 mg/kg, respectively; p = NS), but significantly lower than IGlar at 12-30 h (p = 0.0003).

CONCLUSIONS

The duration of action of IDet is 23 h (range: 4.0-30.0), while that of IGlar is 27 h (range: 10.5-29.0) (95% CI: -8.1, 0.6). This suggests both insulins can be used for once-daily dosing, but individual needs must be considered.

Variability of glucose-lowering effect as a limiting factor in optimizing basal insulin therapy: a review

Lowering blood glucose with insulin therapy towards beneficial target levels while also avoiding hypoglycaemia is a challenging task. An important confounding factor, which might be under-appreciated in this scenario, is that of variable glucose readings causing difficulties with dose adjustment. Furthermore, this glucose variability is, to some extent, a reflection of variability in the glucose-lowering action of the insulin therapy itself. Not only is glucose variability a major confounding factor in disease management but it is possibly also of direct prognostic consequence and is increasingly recognized as an informative measurement in diabetes management. The scope for insulin-induced glucose variability is particularly great with basal insulins because of their prolonged absorption from high-dose depots. Pharmacodynamic (PD) variability manifests as both fluctuations in the level of glucose-lowering effect over time, and as inconsistencies in the response from one injection to another. Well-controlled pharmacokinetic (PK)/PD studies using repeated isoglycaemic clamp methodology clearly how that many injected basal insulin products have high variable absorption with correspondingly variable action. Incomplete resuspension and precipitation appear to be important issues with regard to unpredictability in this action, while an inadequate duration of action relative to the dosing interval results in a fluctuating action profile. There are some ultra-long-acting basal insulins with novel protraction mechanisms currently in clinical development for which clamp studies show markedly improved PK/PD profiles.

Effect of insulin analogues on insulin/IGF1 hybrid receptors: increased activation by glargine but not by its metabolites M1 and M2

Background

In diabetic patients, the pharmacokinetics of injected human insulin does not permit optimal control of glycemia. Fast and slow acting insulin analogues have been developed, but they may have adverse properties, such as increased mitogenic or anti-apoptotic signaling. Insulin/IGF1 hybrid receptors (IR/IGF1R), present in most tissues, have been proposed to transmit biological effects close to those of IGF1R. However, the study of hybrid receptors is difficult because of the presence of IR and IGF1R homodimers. Our objective was to perform the first study on the pharmacological properties of the five marketed insulin analogues towards IR/IGF1R hybrids.

Methodology

To study the effect of insulin analogues on IR/IGF1R hybrids, we used our previously developed Bioluminescence Resonance Energy Transfer (BRET) assay that permits specific analysis of the pharmacological properties of hybrid receptors. Moreover, we have developed a new, highly sensitive BRET-based assay to monitor phophatidylinositol-3 phosphate (PIP₃) production in living cells. Using this assay, we performed a detailed pharmacological analysis of PIP₃ production induced by IGF1, insulin and insulin analogues in living breast cancer-derived MCF-7 and MDA-MB231 cells.

Results

Among the five insulin analogues tested, only glargine stimulated IR/IGF1R hybrids with an EC50 that was significantly lower than insulin and close to that of IGF1. Glargine more efficiently stimulated PIP₃ production in MCF-7 cells but not in MDA-MB231 cells as compared to insulin. In contrast, glargine metabolites M1 and M2 showed lower potency for hybrid receptors stimulation, PIP₃ production, Akt and Erk1/2 phosphorylation and DNA synthesis in MCF-7 cells, compared to insulin.

Conclusion

Glargine, possibly acting through IR/IGF1R hybrids, displays higher potency, whereas its metabolites M1 and M2 display lower potency than insulin for the stimulation of proliferative/anti-apoptotic pathways in MCF-7 cells.

Efficacy and safety of insulin lispro protamine suspension as basal supplementation in patients with type 2 diabetes

The three currently marketed long-acting insulin analogs, glargine, detemir and insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS), represent the most significant advances in basal insulin supplementation since the 1940s and 1950s and the introduction of the intermediate-acting NPH (neutral protamine Hagedorn) insulin. As injection of NPH insulin lacks chronic maintenance of a steady-state low-level basal insulin during fasting periods, which can also expose patients to unpredictable nocturnal hypoglycemia, long-acting insulin analogs have been developed to overcome this important limitation of NPH insulin. ILPS is a protamine-based, intermediate-acting insulin formulation of the short-acting analog insulin lispro: its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics are quite similar to the other basal insulin analogs glargine and detemir. In recent head-to-head randomized controlled trials of insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes, ILPS achieved similar glycemic control compared with glargine or detemir. ILPS administered once daily is an effective and safe way to maintain a steady-state low-level basal insulin during night time, not dissimilar from that currently obtained with a one-day glargine or detemir administration.

Insulin lispro protamine suspension in the treatment of patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review of published data

INTRODUCTION

Insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) is a protamine-based insulin lispro formulation that allows 24-h coverage while limiting the number of daily injections. ILPS was developed to be the basal insulin component of premixed biphasic formulations with insulin lispro, i.e., the lispro/ILPS 25/75 and 50/50 mixed compounds, but has recently also been marketed as a basal insulin analog formulation, with an indication for the therapy of diabetic patients.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews the available literature on pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD), efficacy and safety of ILPS administered as basal insulin, or in premixed biphasic formulations, in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

EXPERT OPINION

The results of this review suggest that ILPS may be associated with a favorable time-action profile, basal and postprandial glycemic control, and efficacy in terms of rates of patients reaching glycosylated hemoglobin targets; an increased risk of hypoglycemic episodes, compared to other basal insulins, seems to be related to the percentage of patients upgrading from once- to twice-daily injections. This increased risk might be linked with the concomitant use of insulin secretagogues in patients on higher daily dosages and is generally not observed in patients using one injection of ILPS a day. Thus, ILPS can be considered a valid option both as basal insulin and as basal component of the actual premixed formulations of lispro for the therapy of diabetic patients.