Immunologic effects of insulin lispro [Lys (B28), Pro (B29) human insulin] in IDDM and NIDDM patients previously treated with insulin

Lipohypertrophy and Insulin. An Old Dog that Needs New Tricks

OBJECTIVE

To review the current status of practical knowledge related to insulin-associated lipohypertrophy (LH) - an accumulation of fatty subcutaneous nodules commonly caused by repeated injections and/or infusions of insulin into the same site.

METHODS

Review of published literature with additional contributions from leading multidisciplinary experts with the emphasis on clinical aspects including pathophysiology, clinical and economic consequences, diagnosis, prevention and treatment.

RESULTS

LH is the most common dermatologic complication of insulin therapy. Risk factors for the development of lipohypertrophy include repeated delivery of large amounts of insulin into the same location over time, repeated injection trauma to the skin and subcutaneous tissue, and multiple injections using the same needle. Subcutaneous insulin injection in skin areas with lipohypertrophy is associated with reduced pain; however, this problem can interfere with insulin absorption, thereby increasing the likelihood of glucose variability, hypo- and hyperglycemia when a site is changed. Modern visualization technology of the subcutaneous space with ultrasound can demonstrate lipohypertrophy early in the course of its development.

CONCLUSIONS

The physiological and psychological consequences of developing insulin lipohypertrophy can be prevented and treated with education focusing on insulin injection techniques.

The complexities of insulin allergy: a case and approach

Background

Insulin hypersensitivity is rare, but challenging for individuals with diabetes. The prevalence of insulin allergy has decreased since the introduction of human recombinant insulin preparations. Hypersensitivity reactions range from injection site erythema and swelling, to anaphylaxis. While some reactions are to excipients (zinc, protamine, metacresol), many are to recombinant insulin itself. We present a case of type 1 hypersensitivity to various preparations of insulin in a patient with insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Case presentation

A 61-year-old woman with a 30-year history of insulin-dependent T2DM was referred for evaluation of reactions to insulin. She had two episodes over 5-months; both required Emergency Department visits and epinephrine administration. The first episode entailed a burning sensation of the extremities and nausea, immediately after injecting NovoRapid^® insulin. The second event entailed a similar reaction but this time there was also angioedema of the upper airway with difficulty breathing and hypotension, immediately after injecting Levemir^® and NovoRapid^®, and taking metformin. There were no cofactors such as exercise, infectious illness, or NSAIDs use. Skin testing was performed with metformin, Lantus^®, Humalog^®, NovoRapid^®, glulisine, insulin regular, NPH, Levemir^® and the excipient protamine, as per published testing concentrations. Metacresol was not tested as its use was restricted by the hospital pharmacy. Insulin preparations with and without metacresol were included in testing however. A clinic staff served as a negative control. The patent had negative testing with protamine, but sensitization to all insulin preparations. Metformin skin testing and challenge along with latex IgE were negative. Subsequently, she underwent intentional weight loss of 70 lb, and was started on oral hypoglycemics with good effect.

Conclusions

Our case highlights the importance of diagnosing insulin allergy through a detailed history and focused testing. Therapeutic strategies include avoidance and insulin alternatives, alternate insulin preparations, or desensitization. In severe recurrent hypersensitivity reactions, Omalizumab or pancreatic transplantation have been effective.

Immunogenicity of Protein Pharmaceuticals

Protein therapeutics have drastically changed the landscape of treatment for many diseases by providing a regimen that is highly specific and lacks many off-target toxicities. The clinical utility of many therapeutic proteins has been undermined by the potential development of unwanted immune responses against the protein, limiting their efficacy and negatively impacting its safety profile. This review attempts to provide an overview of immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins, including immune mechanisms and factors influencing immunogenicity, impact of immunogenicity, preclinical screening methods, and strategies to mitigate immunogenicity.

Short-acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin for adult, non-pregnant persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The use of short-acting insulin analogues (insulin lispro, insulin aspart, insulin glulisine) for adult, non-pregnant people with type 2 diabetes is still controversial, as reflected in many scientific debates.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of short-acting insulin analogues compared to regular human insulin in adult, non-pregnant people with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the WHO ICTRP Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov to 31 October 2018. We placed no restrictions on the language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials with an intervention duration of at least 24 weeks that compared short-acting insulin analogues to regular human insulin in the treatment of people with type 2 diabetes, who were not pregnant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We assessed dichotomous outcomes by risk ratios (RR), and Peto odds ratios (POR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed continuous outcomes by mean differences (MD) with 95% CI. We assessed trials for certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, randomising 2751 participants; 1388 participants were randomised to receive insulin analogues and 1363 participants to receive regular human insulin. The duration of the intervention ranged from 24 to 104 weeks, with a mean of about 41 weeks. The trial populations showed diversity in disease duration, and inclusion and exclusion criteria. None of the trials were blinded, so the risk of performance bias and detection bias, especially for subjective outcomes, such as hypoglycaemia, was high in nine of 10 trials from which we extracted data. Several trials showed inconsistencies in the reporting of methods and results.None of the included trials defined all-cause mortality as a primary outcome. Six trials provided Information on the number of participants who died during the trial, with five deaths out of 1272 participants (0.4%) in the insulin analogue groups and three deaths out of 1247 participants (0.2%) in the regular human insulin groups (Peto OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.41 to 6.64; P = 0.48; moderate-certainty evidence). Six trials, with 2509 participants, assessed severe hypoglycaemia differently, therefore, we could not summarise the results with a meta-analysis. Overall, the incidence of severe hypoglycaemic events was low, and none of the trials showed a clear difference between the two intervention arms (low-certainty evidence).The MD in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) change was -0.03% (95% CI -0.16 to 0.09; P = 0.60; 9 trials, 2608 participants; low-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction ranged between -0.31% and 0.25%. The MD in the overall number of non-severe hypoglycaemic episodes per participant per month was 0.08 events (95% CI 0.00 to 0.16; P = 0.05; 7 trials, 2667 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between -0.03 and 0.19 events per participant per month. The results provided for nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes were of questionable validity. Overall, there was no clear difference between the two short-acting insulin analogues and regular human insulin. Two trials assessed health-related quality of life and treatment satisfaction, but we considered the results for both outcomes to be unreliable (very low-certainty evidence).No trial was designed to investigate possible long term effects (all-cause mortality, microvascular or macrovascular complications of diabetes), especially in participants with diabetes-related complications. No trial reported on socioeconomic effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis found no clear benefits of short-acting insulin analogues over regular human insulin in people with type 2 diabetes. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was poor and results on patient-relevant outcomes, like all-cause mortality, microvascular or macrovascular complications and severe hypoglycaemic episodes were sparse. Long-term efficacy and safety data are needed to draw conclusions about the effects of short-acting insulin analogues on patient-relevant outcomes.

Anti-Insulin Antibodies and Adverse Events with Biosimilar Insulin Lispro Compared with Humalog Insulin Lispro in People with Diabetes

BACKGROUND

SAR342434 (SAR-Lis) is a biosimilar (follow-on) of insulin lispro (Humalog^®; Ly-Lis). Two randomized, controlled, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 studies were conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of SAR-Lis and Ly-Lis, both in combination with insulin glargine (Lantus^®). SORELLA 1 was a 12-month study in 507 people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM); SORELLA 2 was a 6-month study in 505 people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In this study, the impact of anti-insulin antibodies (AIA) to SAR-Lis and Ly-Lis on safety and glycemic control is reported.

METHODS

AIA were measured regularly throughout both studies at a centralized laboratory blinded to treatment groups using a drug-specific AIA assay. The AIA status (positive or negative), AIA titers, and cross-reactivity to human insulin, insulin glargine, and insulin glargine metabolite M1 were analyzed. The potential effect of AIA on safety, particularly as related to hypersensitivity reactions, hypoglycemia, and treatment-emergent adverse events, as well as on glycemic control (HbA_1c, insulin dose), was evaluated.

RESULTS

AIA positive status at baseline was similar for the two insulins, but higher in T1DM than in T2DM. In both studies, the percentage of people newly developing AIA in the two treatment groups, or having a ≥4-fold increase in AIA titers, did not differ. No relationship was observed between maximum individual AIA titers and change in HbA_1c or insulin dose, hypoglycemia, or hypersensitivity reactions or between efficacy/safety measures and subgroups by presence or absence of treatment-emergent AIA. Hypersensitivity events and events adjudicated as allergic reactions were few and did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Insulin lispro SAR342434 and the originator insulin lispro had a similar immunogenicity profile in people with T1DM or T2DM.

Prospective surveillance study of haemophilia A patients switching from moroctocog alfa or other factor VIII products to moroctocog alfa albumin-free cell culture (AF-CC) in usual care settings

This prospective, open-label, postauthorisation safety surveillance study assessed clinically significant inhibitor development in patients with severe haemophilia A transitioning from moroctocog alfa or other factor VIII (FVIII) replacement products to reformulated moroctocog alfa (AF-CC). Males aged12 years with severe haemophilia A (FVIII:C) < 1 IU/dl), > 150 exposure days (EDs) to recombinant or plasma-derived FVIII products, and no detectable inhibitor at screening were enrolled. Primary end point was the incidence of clinically significant FVIII inhibitor development. Secondary end points included annualised bleeding rate (ABR), less-than-expected therapeutic effect (LETE), and FVIII recovery. Patients were assigned to one of two cohorts based on whether they were transitioning to moroctocog alfa (AF-CC) from moroctocog alfa (cohort 1; n=146) or from another recombinant or plasma-derived FVIII product (cohort 2; n=62). Mean number of EDs on study was 94 (range, 1–139). Six positive FVIII inhibitor results, as determined by local laboratories, were reported in four patients; none were confirmed by a central laboratory, no inhibitor-related clinical manifestations were reported, and all anti-FVIII antibody assays were negative. Median ABRs were 23.4 and 3.4 in patients categorised at baseline as following on-demand and prophylactic regimens, respectively; 86.5 % of bleeding episodes resolved after one infusion. LETE incidence was 0.06 % and 0.19 % in the on-demand and prophylaxis settings, respectively. FVIII recovery remained constant throughout the study. No new safety concerns were identified. This study found no increased risk of clinically significant FVIII inhibitor development in patients transitioning from moroctocog alfa or other FVIII replacement products to moroctocog alfa (AF-CC).

Short-acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin for adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Short-acting insulin analogue use for people with diabetes is still controversial, as reflected in many scientific debates.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of short-acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

We carried out the electronic searches through Ovid simultaneously searching the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R) (1946 to 14 April 2015), EMBASE (1988 to 2015, week 15), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; March 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the European (EU) Clinical Trials register (both March 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials with an intervention duration of at least 24 weeks that compared short-acting insulin analogues with regular human insulins in the treatment of adults with type 1 diabetes who were not pregnant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trials for risk of bias, and resolved differences by consensus. We graded overall study quality using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) instrument. We used random-effects models for the main analyses and presented the results as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria including 2693 participants. The duration of interventions ranged from 24 to 52 weeks with a mean of about 37 weeks. The participants showed some diversity, mainly with regard to diabetes duration and inclusion/exclusion criteria. The majority of the trials were carried out in the 1990s and participants were recruited from Europe, North America, Africa and Asia. None of the trials was carried out in a blinded manner so that the risk of performance bias, especially for subjective outcomes such as hypoglycaemia, was present in all of the trials. Furthermore, several trials showed inconsistencies in the reporting of methods and results.The mean difference (MD) in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was -0.15% (95% CI -0.2% to -0.1%; P value < 0.00001; 2608 participants; 9 trials; low quality evidence) in favour of insulin analogues. The comparison of the risk of severe hypoglycaemia between the two treatment groups showed an OR of 0.89 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.12; P value = 0.31; 2459 participants; 7 trials; very low quality evidence). For overall hypoglycaemia, also taking into account mild forms of hypoglycaemia, the data were generally of low quality, but also did not indicate substantial group differences. Regarding nocturnal severe hypoglycaemic episodes, two trials reported statistically significant effects in favour of the insulin analogue, insulin aspart. However, due to inconsistent reporting in publications and trial reports, the validity of the result remains questionable.We also found no clear evidence for a substantial effect of insulin analogues on health-related quality of life. However, there were few results only based on subgroups of the trial populations. None of the trials reported substantial effects regarding weight gain or any other adverse events. No trial was designed to investigate possible long-term effects (such as all-cause mortality, diabetic complications), in particular in people with diabetes related complications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short-acting insulin analogues on blood glucose control in people with type 1 diabetes. To make conclusions about the effect of short acting insulin analogues on long-term patient-relevant outcomes, long-term efficacy and safety data are needed.

Development of insulin antibodies and changes in titers over a long-term period in patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Recently, insulin analogs have become widely used for the treatment of diabetes. The aim of this study was to determine differences in the antigenicity of insulin analogs and long-term changes in titers in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Insulin antibodies were examined using polyethylene glycol and protein G methods in 381 patients with type 2 diabetes.

RESULTS

Insulin antibodies were detected in 48 of 118 patients (40.7%) who used insulin, and insulin glargine and aspart were more antigenic. Insulin antibodies were unexpectedly found in seven of 263 patients (2.7%) who had never used insulin. Serum insulin concentrations in patients with insulin antibodies were significantly higher than those without them. Two years after the initial evaluation, insulin antibodies were still positive in 92.7% of patients who used insulin; while, they disappeared in all patients who had never used insulin. A patient who stopped insulin injections 6years ago was found to be positive for insulin antibodies at the first evaluation as well as 2years later.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin glargine and aspart induced insulin antibodies more frequently, and insulin antibodies remained in patients for a long time. Insulin antibodies should be suspected even in patients not currently on insulin therapy.

Immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins: the use of animal models

Immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins lowers patient well-being and drastically increases therapeutic costs. Preventing immunogenicity is an important issue to consider when developing novel therapeutic proteins and applying them in the clinic. Animal models are increasingly used to study immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins. They are employed as predictive tools to assess different aspects of immunogenicity during drug development and have become vital in studying the mechanisms underlying immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins. However, the use of animal models needs critical evaluation. Because of species differences, predictive value of such models is limited, and mechanistic studies can be restricted. This review addresses the suitability of animal models for immunogenicity prediction and summarizes the insights in immunogenicity that they have given so far.

Allergic reactions to human insulin: a review of current knowledge and treatment options

Although the incidence of insulin allergy decreased after the introduction of recombinant human insulin preparations, it is still a major problem which may be life-threatening in some cases. In this article, we attempted to review current knowledge concerning allergic reactions to human insulin and discuss the available treatment options of insulin allergy.

Efficacy and safety of AIR inhaled insulin compared to insulin lispro in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus in a 6-month, randomized, noninferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with type 1 diabetes may prefer features of AIR inhaled insulin (developed by Alkermes, Inc. [Cambridge, MA] and Eli Lilly and Company [Indianapolis, IN]; AIR is a registered trademark of Alkermes, Inc.) over insulin injection, but the two methods need to be compared for efficacy and safety.

METHODS

This multicenter, 6-month, parallel-group, noninferiority trial had 500 patients with type 1 diabetes randomized to morning doses of basal insulin glargine plus either preprandial injectable insulin lispro or preprandial AIR insulin. We hypothesized that AIR insulin is noninferior (upper bound of the 95% confidence interval < or = 0.4%) to insulin lispro for change-from-baseline hemoglobin A1C (A1C).

RESULTS

Baseline A1C was 7.95 +/- 0.08% for both groups. At end point, A1C was lower with insulin lispro than with AIR insulin by 0.27% (95% confidence interval 0.11, 0.43; P< 0.001). Noninferiority of AIR insulin to insulin lispro was not demonstrated, but similar percentages of patients in each group achieved A1C <7.0% (P = 0.448). Overall daily blood glucose was similar between groups at baseline (P = 0.879) and end point (P = 0.161). Two-hour postprandial blood glucose change from baseline was significantly (P < 0.001) higher with AIR insulin (20.77 +/- 4.33 mg/dL at 3 months and 15.85 +/- 3.08 mg/dL at end point) than with insulin lispro (3.29 +/- 4.14 mg/dL at 3 months and 1.67 +/- 2.91 mg/dL at end point). Overall hypoglycemia was similar between treatment groups (P = 0.355). The AIR insulin group had greater decrease in diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide at end point (P = 0.020) and greater incidence of cough (P = 0.024) and dyspnea (P = 0.030). Body weight decreased in the AIR insulin group and increased in the insulin lispro group.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin lispro provided lower A1C than AIR insulin, but the difference may not be clinically relevant.

Circulating insulin antibodies: influence of continuous subcutaneous or intraperitoneal insulin infusion, and impact on glucose control

The purification of animal insulin preparations and the use of human recombinant insulin have markedly reduced the incidence, but not completely suppressed, the development of anti-insulin antibodies (IAs). Advances in technologies concerning the mode of delivery of insulin, i.e. continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), continuous peritoneal insulin infusion (CPII) and more recently inhaled insulin administration, appear to significantly increase circulating levels of immunoglobulin G (IgG) anti-IAs in diabetic patients. However, the increase is usually moderate and mostly transient as compared to previous observations with poorly purified animal insulin preparations. The clinical impact of these circulating anti-IAs remains unclear. Nevertheless, several studies have suggested that antibodies could retard insulin action, leading to a worsening of postprandial hyperglycaemia and/or serve as a carrier, thus leading to unexpected hypoglycaemia. CPII may be associated with more marked and sustained increase in IAs levels, possibly related to the use of an unstable insulin and the formation of immunogenic aggregates of insulin. The possible clinical consequences of these high levels of IAs remain to be evaluated because a low-glucose morning syndrome or severe insulin resistance with ketone bodies production have been reported in some cases. In conclusion, even if CSII and CPII may promote the development of circulating IAs, this increase does not lead to immunological insulin resistance, compared to that previously described with animal non-purified insulin preparations, and seems to have only marginal influence on blood glucose control or complications in most diabetic patients.

Insulin glulisine in the management of diabetes

Insulin glulisine is appealing in principle, but the advantages of this drug over the other rapid-acting insulin analogs are still relatively unknown. The frequency of hypoglycemia, convenience in the timing of administration, and improvements in terms of HbA(1c) seem similar among the rapid-acting insulin analogs, including insulin glulisine. Only properly randomized long-term clinical studies with insulin glulisine will reveal the true value of this novel insulin analog.

Immunogenicity of biologically-derived therapeutics: assessment and interpretation of nonclinical safety studies

An evaluation of potential antibody formation to biologic therapeutics during the course of nonclinical safety studies and its impact on the toxicity profile is expected under current regulatory guidance and is accepted standard practice. However, approaches for incorporating this information in the interpretation of nonclinical safety studies are not clearly established. Described here are the immunological basis of anti-drug antibody formation to biopharmaceuticals (immunogenicity) in laboratory animals, and approaches for generating and interpreting immunogenicity data from nonclinical safety studies of biotechnology-derived therapeutics to support their progression to clinical evaluation. We subscribe that immunogenicity testing strategies should be adapted to the specific needs of each therapeutic development program, and data generated from such analyses should be integrated with available clinical and anatomic pathology, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic data to properly interpret nonclinical studies.

Immunological responses to exogenous insulin

Regardless of purity and origin, therapeutic insulins continue to be immunogenic in humans. However, severe immunological complications occur rarely, and less severe events affect a small minority of patients. Insulin autoantibodies (IAAs) may be detectable in insulin-naive individuals who have a high likelihood of developing type 1 diabetes or in patients who have had viral disorders, have been treated with various drugs, or have autoimmune disorders or paraneoplastic syndromes. This suggests that under certain circumstances, immune tolerance to insulin can be overcome. Factors that can lead to more or less susceptibility to humoral responses to exogenous insulin include the recipient's immune response genes, age, the presence of sufficient circulating autologous insulin, and the site of insulin delivery. Little proof exists, however, that the development of insulin antibodies (IAs) to exogenous insulin therapy affects integrated glucose control, insulin dose requirements, and incidence of hypoglycemia, or contributes to beta-cell failure or to long-term complications of diabetes. Studies in which pregnant women with diabetes were monitored for glycemic control argue against a connection between IAs and fetal risk. Although studies have shown increased levels of immune complexes in patients with diabetic microangiopathic complications, these immune complexes often do not contain insulin or IAs, and insulin administration does not contribute to their formation. The majority of studies have shown no relationship between IAs and diabetic angiopathic complications, including nephropathy, retinopathy, and neuropathy. With the advent of novel insulin formulations and delivery systems, such as insulin pumps and inhaled insulin, examination of these issues is increasingly relevant.

Efficacy, safety and lack of immunogenicity of insulin aspart compared with regular human insulin for women with gestational diabetes mellitus

AIM

The efficacy and safety of insulin aspart (IAsp), a rapid-acting human insulin analogue, were compared with regular human insulin (HI) as the bolus component of basal-bolus therapy for subjects with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).

METHODS

In a randomized, parallel-group, open-labelled trial, 27 women with GDM (age 30.7 +/- 6.3 years, HbA(1c) < 7%) were randomized to receive IAsp (5 min before meal) or HI (30 min before meal). The trial period extended from diagnosis of GDM (18-28 weeks) to 6 weeks postpartum.

RESULTS

Both treatment groups maintained good overall glycaemic control during the study (beginning and end of study HbA(1c)< or = 6%). During the meal test, mean glucose at week 6 (IAsp 4.2 +/- 0.57 mmol/l, HI 4.8 +/- 0.86 mmol/l) was slightly lower than at week 0 (IAsp 4.9 +/- 0.59 mmol/l, HI 5.1 +/- 0.36 mmol/l). However, change from baseline values for average glucose (IAsp -1.09 +/- 0.54 mmol/l, HI -0.54 +/- 0.74 mmol/l; P = 0.003) and C-peptide (IAsp -0.50 +/- 0.67 nmol/l, HI -0.30 +/- 0.70 nmol/l; P = 0.027) were significantly lower after IAsp treatment than HI treatment. No major hypoglycaemic events were reported during the study. Cross-reacting insulin antibody binding increased slightly from baseline in both treatments groups (end of study: IAsp 2.1 +/- 5.4%, HI 6.4 +/- 13.9%), whereas antibodies specific to IAsp or HI remained relatively low (< 1% binding).

CONCLUSION

IAsp was more effective than HI in decreasing postprandial glucose concentrations. Duration of IAsp injection 5 min before a meal rather than 30 min prior to meals offers a more convenient therapy for subjects with GDM. Overall safety and effectiveness of IAsp were comparable to HI in pregnant women with GDM.

Allergy reactions to insulin: effects of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and insulin analogues

The purification of animal insulin preparations and the use of human recombinant insulin have markedly reduced the incidence but not completely suppressed the occurrence of insulin allergy manifestations. Advances in technologies concerning the mode of delivery of insulin, i.e. continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), and the use of insulin analogues, resulting from the alteration in the amino acid sequence of the native insulin molecule, may influence the immunogenicity and antigenicity of native insulin. Instead of increasing allergy reactions, CSII has been reported to represent a successful alternative treatment in diabetic patients presenting local or generalized allergy to insulin or other components (zinc, protamine) of conventional treatment. Most recent reports concern CSII-treated patients using short-acting insulin analogues (essentially insulin lispro), although the precise role of these insulin analogues remains unclear as allergy to them has also been described. Finally, data on antigenicity and immunogenicity of long-acting insulin analogues (glargine, detemir), which may mimic the basal insulin delivery with CSII, remain scarce at present.

Use of insulin immunoassays in clinical studies involving rapid-acting insulin analogues: Bi-insulin IRMA preliminary assessment

BACKGROUND

In clinical studies involving rapid-acting analogues (RAAs), insulin immunoreactivity is frequently measured, including endogenous, regular insulin (RI) and RAA immunoreactivities. Such a procedure implies equivalent cross-reactivities of all insulins present in serum. Commercially available human insulin immunoassays have been widely used, but their limitations (including hemolysis and anti-insulin antibodies) were not fully investigated. The aims of our study were to compare cross-reactivities of RI and RAAs in buffer and in serum and to investigate insulin immunoassay pitfalls.

METHODS

Cross-reactivities were assessed using Bi-insulin IRMA (Schering Cis-Bio International) in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS)-1% bovine serum albumin (BSA) and in pools of sera spiked with RI and RAAs (lispro and aspart). To investigate the influence of hemolysis, a pool of sera spiked with RAA was mixed with a concentrated hemolysate (final hemoglobin concentration 10 g/L) and incubated for 3 h at room temperature. To determine interference by anti-insulin antibodies, insulin was removed using charcoal from 18 sera with anti-insulin antibodies and from 17 sera without detectable anti-insulin antibodies. These insulin-free samples were then spiked with RI and RAAs and the immunoreactivity was determined.

RESULTS

Compared with buffer, cross-reactivity in serum for RI, lispro and aspart was lower (35%, 29% and 26% lower, respectively). Hemolysis degraded almost all RI and RAAs contained in the serum (>or=95%). Anti-insulin antibody interference was significant for RI and RAAs (p<or=0.004) and correlated with anti-insulin antibody level in the serum (p<or=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In serum, RI and RAA cross-reactivities are slightly lower than in buffer. For RAA assessment, hemolysed samples should be discarded and anti-insulin antibodies should be removed from samples before immunoreactivity measurements.

Insulin Lispro

Insulin lispro, alone (Humalog) or as premixture (Humalog Mix25 or Humalog Mix50) is indicated for the treatment of hyperglycaemia in diabetes mellitus in many countries worldwide. It is a recombinant human insulin analogue and, except for the transposition of two amino acids, is identical to endogenous human insulin. Insulin lispro has a faster onset of action and shorter duration of activity than regular human insulin, and the time-action profile of insulin lispro mimics that of the physiological response of endogenous human insulin to food intake. In diabetic patients, from young children to the elderly, it has demonstrated postprandial blood glucose control similar to or better than that achieved with regular human insulin, without an increased risk of hypoglycaemia. In some trials, the risk of hypoglycaemia, including nocturnal episodes, was less in insulin lispro recipients than in regular human insulin recipients. Insulin lispro alone, or as a premixture with the longer-acting insulin neutral protamine lispro, can be administered immediately before or after meals. This convenient and flexible injection schedule may enable patients, including those with a non-routine lifestyle or unpredictable eating or exercising habits, to achieve the tight glycaemic control required to minimise long-term complications of diabetes and contributes to patient satisfaction with treatment.

Molecular variants and derivatives of insulin for improved glycemic control in diabetes

Insulin is a historic molecule. It presents many first instances, such as the first protein to be fully sequenced, one of the first proteins to be crystallized in pure form, one among the early proteins whose structure was investigated using X-ray crystallography, the first protein to be chemically synthesized and the first Biotech drug. Therefore, the development of insulin in the early years is intricately intertwined with the progress in molecular and structural biology. In recent years, development of a range of insulin analogs has led to better control of glucose levels, thus preventing secondary complications and improving the quality of life in diabetic patients. Such analogs were obtained by modification of the native insulin sequence. They vary with regard to their pharmacokinetic profile, stability, tissue specificity and mode of administration. In addition, alterations involving incorporation of various chemical moieties in insulin and its co-crystallization with insoluble derivatives are used to modulate the time-action profile of the drug. This article traces the development of molecular variants and derivatives of insulin. It discusses future directions for further improvement in their properties to produce still better insulin therapeutics for tight glycemic control.

Short acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin in patients with diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Short acting insulin analogue use for diabetic patients is still controversial, as reflected in many scientific debates.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of short acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE, EMBASE until September 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials with an intervention duration of at least 4 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial selection and evaluation of study quality was done independently by two reviewers.

MAIN RESULTS

Altogether 8274 participants took part in 49 randomised controlled studies. Most studies were of poor methodological quality. In patients with type 1 diabetes, the weighted mean difference (WMD) of HbA1c was -0.1% (95% CI: -0.2 to -0.1) in favour of insulin analogue, whereas in patients with type 2 diabetes the WMD was 0.0% (95% CI: -0.1 to 0.0). In subgroup analyses of different types of interventions in type 1 diabetic patients, the WMD in HbA1c was -0.2% (95% CI: -0.3 to -0.1) in favour of insulin analogue in studies using continuous subcutaneous insulin injections (CSII), whereas for conventional intensified insulin therapy (IIT) studies the WMD in HbA1c was -0.1% (95% CI: -0.1 to 0.0). The WMD of the overall mean hypoglycaemic episodes per patient per month was -0.2 (95% CI: -1.1 to 0.7) and -0.2 (95% CI: -0.5 to 0.1) for analogues in comparison to regular insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes, respectively. For studies in type 1 diabetes patients the incidence of severe hypoglycaemia ranged from 0 to 247.3 (median 21.8) episodes per 100 person-years for insulin analogues and from 0 to 544 (median 46.1) for regular insulin, in type 2 the incidence ranged from 0 to 30.3 (median 0.3) episodes per 100 person-years for insulin analogues and from 0 to 50.4 (median 1.4) for regular insulin. No study was designed to investigate possible long term effects (e.g. mortality, diabetic complications), in particular in patients with diabetes related complications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short acting insulin analogues in the majority of diabetic patients treated with insulin. Until long term efficacy and safety data are available we suggest a cautious response to the vigorous promotion of insulin analogues. For safety purposes, we need a long-term follow-up of large numbers of patients and well designed studies in pregnant women to determine the safety profile for both the mother and the unborn child.

The safety and efficacy of insulin analogs in pregnancy

Diabetes during pregnancy is accompanied by increasing needs for maternal insulin and ongoing biological changes that cause maternal insulin requirements to reach higher and lower extremes throughout the day than in non-pregnant patients. As maternal hyperglycemia increases the risk of fetal and maternal morbidity, it is essential for the mother to maintain normoglycemia during pregnancy. With the advent of insulin analogs that feature improved absorption and physiological profiles over human insulin, the achievement of normoglycemia throughout pregnancy has become more attainable. This review provides a discussion of the application of the insulin analogs to diabetes during pregnancy and compares the benefits of rapid-acting insulin analogs with long-acting insulin analogs during pregnancy. This review further proposes a treatment protocol for achieving and maintaining normoglycemia throughout pregnancy.

Postprandial Hyperglycemia in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

The role of postprandial hyperglycemia (PPHG) in diabetes mellitus is being increasingly recognized. It is known that PPHG contributes to the increased risk of both micro- and macrovascular complications in patients with diabetes mellitus. This review looks at the clinical significance of PPHG and the currently available therapeutic modalities. The causes of PPHG are influenced by many factors which include a rapid flux of glucose from the gut, impaired insulin release, endogenous glucose production by the liver and peripheral insulin resistance. Knowledge of the pathophysiology of PPHG is essential when adopting treatment options to tackle the problem. Although most oral antihyperglycemic agents and insulins lower both fasting and postprandial blood glucose levels, drugs are now available which specifically act to control PPHG. These drugs may be classified based on the site of their action. alpha-Glucosidase inhibitors like acarbose and miglitol attenuate the rate of absorption of sucrose by acting on the luminal enzymes. Adverse effects of these agents are predominantly gastrointestinal. Newer insulin secretagogues have been developed which attempt to mimic the physiological release of insulin and thus ameliorate PPHG. These include third generation sulfonylureas like glimepiride and nonsulfonylurea secretagogues like repaglinide and nateglinide. Rapid-acting insulin analogs, the amino acid sequences of which have been altered such that they have a faster onset of action, help to specifically target PPHG. Pre-mixed formulations of the analogs have also been developed. Finally, drugs under development which hold promise in the management of patients with PPHG include pramlintide, an amylin analog, and glucagon-like peptide-1 and its analogs.

Insulin lispro lowers postprandial glucose in prepubertal children with diabetes

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the glucose-lowering effect of insulin lispro, given before or after meals, with regular human insulin given before meals in prepubertal children with diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A 3-way crossover, open-label study involving 61 prepubertal children (ages 2.9-11.4 years) with type 1 diabetes. The children were randomly assigned to receive regular human insulin 30 to 45 minutes before meals, insulin lispro within 15 minutes before or immediately after meals, combined with basal insulin. Each treatment lasted 3 months. Hemoglobin A(1c) levels and home glucose monitoring profiles were measured at the end of each treatment period.

RESULTS

Treatment with insulin lispro before breakfast resulted in lower 2-hour postprandial glucose values than regular human insulin (11.7 +/- 4.4 mmol/L vs 15.0 +/- 5.4 mmol/L). Similarly, insulin lispro given before dinner resulted in lower blood glucose values 2 hours postprandially (8.8 +/- 5.0 mmol/L vs 10.8 +/- 5.4 mmol/L) than regular human insulin. When insulin lispro was administered after meals, the 2-hour glucose levels were between those seen with either insulin lispro or regular human insulin given before meals. The number and types of adverse events, the rates of hypoglycemia, and the HbA(1c) levels did not differ among the 3 therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

In prepubertal children, insulin lispro given before meals is safe and significantly lowers postprandial glucose levels after breakfast and dinner compared with regular human insulin, and insulin lispro given after the meal provides similar benefits as regular human insulin before the meal.

Recombinant DNA technology in the treatment of diabetes: insulin analogs

After more than half a century of treating diabetics with animal insulins, recombinant DNA technologies and advanced protein chemistry made human insulin preparations available in the early 1980s. As the next step, over the last decade, insulin analogs were constructed by changing the structure of the native protein with the goal of improving the therapeutic properties of it, because the pharmacokinetic characteristics of rapid-, intermediate-, and long-acting preparations of human insulin make it almost impossible to achieve sustained normoglycemia. The first clinically available insulin analog, lispro, confirmed the hopes by showing that improved glycemic control can be achieved without an increase in hypoglycemic events. Two new insulin analogs, insulin glargine and insulin aspart, have recently been approved for clinical use in the United States, and several other analogs are being intensively tested. Thus, it appears that a rapid acceleration of basic and clinical research in this arena will be seen, which will have direct significance to both patients and their physicians. The introduction of new short-acting analogs and the development of the first truly long-acting analogs and the development of analogs with increased stability, less variability, and perhaps selective action, will help to develop more individualized treatment strategies targeted to specific patient characteristics and to achieve further improvements in glycemic control. Data on the currently available and tested analogs, as well as data on those currently being developed, are reviewed.

Long-term efficacy of humalog in subjects with Type 1 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

To evaluate the long-term effectiveness of Humalog insulin in lowering post meal glucose excursions.

METHODS

Twenty young subjects with Type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM) who had received insulin-lispro (Humalog) for a least 1 year (mean +/- SD 1.8+/-1.6 years) were studied on two occasions, 3-14 days apart. They consumed a similar breakfast consisting of 450-600 kCal having fasted overnight. The same amount of human soluble Humulin Regular or Humalog insulin was given 10 min before the meal in a randomized, double-blind fashion.

RESULTS

Postprandial glucose excursions at 30, 60, and 120 min were significantly lower (P<0.001, ANCOVA) when subjects received Humalog as compared to human soluble insulin. Serum-free insulin levels were significantly higher (P<0.001, ANOVA) at 30 and 60 min when subjects received Humalog as compared with human soluble insulin. Humalog antibody levels after up to 5.4 years of receiving Humalog insulin were not elevated beyond the values at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that Humalog insulin is effective in lowering postprandial glucose excursions even after up to 5.4 years of treatment.

Individualized insulin therapy in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes

The most important point about individualized therapy is to make it flexible to fit the needs of the patient. These needs are determined by age, pubertal status, treatment schedule, exercise, intelligence, education and socioeconomic status. In addition, major emphasis should be placed on the dietary needs, attitude and ability of the patient. Aspects of insulin regimens that can be adjusted include number of injections per day, timing of injections and the type of insulin used. Several factors that affect insulin action should also be considered, including the presence of insulin antibodies, the amount of subcutaneous fat, injection technique and muscular activity. Insulin pump therapy in childhood and adolescence may also be considered in certain cases. Controversial areas in childhood diabetes therapy include the number of daily injections, whether porcine insulin has any advantages, use of multiple doses of intermediate- and long-acting insulin, mixing regular insulin and short-acting insulin analogues, strategies to prevent hypoglycaemia and the importance of choice of injection sites in childhood.

The human insulin analogue insulin lispro

Insulin lispro is a newly developed analogue of human insulin where the positions of the amino acids lysine and proline have been switched at the end of the B chain of the insulin molecule. Insulin lispro with lysine at position B28 and proline at position B29 has a weaker tendency for self-association than human insulin. This leads to three major differences in the pharmacokinetics: the action begins faster, has a higher peak and the duration is shorter than with human insulin. Thus, insulin lispro has a more precise action profile for the mealtime than human regular insulin. Insulin lispro is recommended to be injected within 15 min before the meal in contrast to 30-40 min for human insulin. In clinical trials with insulin lispro, the postprandial rise of blood glucose is smaller, the rate of hypoglycaemia is lower particularly at night-time, the need for snacks is smaller and the patient preference is better than with human insulin. The long-term control as reflected by an improvement in the HbA1c level is better with insulin lispro than with human regular insulin, provided that an appropriate basal insulin regimen is used to take into account the shorter duration of action. A few patients have been described who have a severe resistance to human insulin but who have been successfully treated with insulin lispro. Insulin lispro was designed to be used as a mealtime insulin, and it is a step forward in the treatment of diabetic patients using a basal-bolus insulin regimen.