Evaluation of Insulin Lispro Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics Over 10 Days of Continuous Insulin Infusion in People With Type 1 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the effect of meloxicam on insulin lispro pharmacokinetics and glucose pharmacodynamics over 10 days of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) at one infusion site in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHOD

This phase 1, randomized, double-blind, single-center, two-way crossover study enrolled adults with T1D for ≥1 year on stable CSII for ≥3 months. Participants randomly received U100 insulin lispro and LY900027 (U100 insulin lispro + 0.25 mg/mL meloxicam). Primary end points were area under the insulin lispro curve from 0 to 5 hours (AUCIns.0-5h) after bolus administration prior to a mixed-meal tolerance test (MMTT) and maximum observed concentration of insulin lispro (CIns.max) on days 5, 7, and 10, versus day 3 (baseline).

RESULTS

A total of 20 participants were randomized. Insulin absorption was accelerated for insulin lispro and LY900027 from days 1 to 7. The AUCIns.0-5h was significantly lower on day 10 versus day 3 for LY900027 (-19%) and insulin lispro (-14%); the AUCIns.0-5h did not differ significantly between treatments. The CIns.max increased with LY900027 and insulin lispro (by ~14%-23% and ~16%-51%) on days 5, 7, and 10 versus day 3. The CIns.max of LY900027 was ~14%-23% lower than insulin lispro CIns.max on days 7 and 10 (P ≤ .0805). Accelerated insulin absorption and a modest loss of total insulin exposure led to a loss of MMTT glycemic control at later time points.

CONCLUSIONS

The pharmacokinetics of insulin changed over catheter wear time even when an anti-inflammatory agent was present. Postprandial glycemic control was adversely affected by the accelerated insulin absorption and decreased insulin exposure.

Reduced Silent Occlusions with a Novel Catheter Infusion Set (BD FlowSmart): Results from Two Open-Label Comparative Studies

BACKGROUND

Insulin pump users experience periods of unexplained hyperglycemia. In some cases these may be due to insulin flow interruptions termed "silent occlusions," which occur without activating the pump alarm and may require set replacement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In-line pressure profiles of a novel infusion set with a 6-mm, 28-gauge polymer, dual-ported catheter (BD FlowSmart™; Becton Dickinson and Co., Franklin Lakes, NJ) were compared with those of an existing infusion set (Quick-set®; Medtronic MiniMed, Northridge, CA) in two separate studies involving insulin diluent infusions over 2.5-4.5-h periods in healthy adults without diabetes. Study 1, a pilot study (n = 25), compared the occurrence of flow interruption events (silent occlusions and/or occlusion alarms) between the two infusion sets and between manual or device-assisted insertion methods. Study 2 (n = 60) was designed to show ≥50% reduction in flow interruption events with the BD set after manual insertions. (Silent occlusions were defined by a continuous pressure rise for ≥30 min.)

RESULTS

In Study 1, significantly fewer silent occlusions were seen with BD FlowSmart versus Quick-set infusion sets for both manual (three of 22 [13.6%] vs. 12 of 24 [50%]; P = 0.012) and mechanical (two of 24 [8.3%] vs. nine of 25 [36%]; P = 0.037) insertions, yielding risk reductions of 73% (95% confidence interval [CI], 25-91%) and 77% (95% CI, 17-94%), respectively. In Study 2, flow interruption events occurred in three of 117 (2.6%) and 12 of 118 (10.2%) BD FlowSmart and Quick-set infusion sets, respectively, yielding a 75% risk reduction (95% CI, 20-92%; P = 0.030). Percentage of time with flow interruption was significantly lower with BD sets in both studies (P < 0.02). Leakage (>0.5 IU or 5 μL) occurred infrequently and did not differ between sets.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel side-ported insulin infusion set demonstrated significant reductions in flow interruptions, including silent occlusions, versus a leading marketed set, which may improve insulin delivery.

Matched-pair analysis of hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization using G-CSF vs. cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and G-CSF: enhanced CD34+ cell collections are not necessarily cost-effective

Using matched-pair analysis, we compared two popular methods of stem cell mobilization in 24 advanced-stage breast cancer patients who underwent two consecutive mobilizing procedures as part of a tandem transplant protocol. For the first cycle, 10 microg/kg/day granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was given and apheresis commenced on day 4 and continued for < or =5 days (median 3 days). One week after the first cycle of apheresis, 4000 mg/m2 cyclophosphamide, 400 mg/m2 etoposide, and 10 microg/kg G-CSF were administered for < or =16 days (cycle 2). Apheresis was initiated when the white blood cell (WBC) count exceeded 5000 cells/microL and continued for < or =5 days (median 3 days). Mean values of peripheral blood WBC (31,700+/-3200 vs. 30,700+/-3300/microL) were not significantly different between cycles 1 and 2. Mean number of mononuclear cells (MNC) collected per day was slightly greater with G-CSF mobilization than with the combination of chemotherapy and G-CSF (2.5+/-0.21x10(8) vs. 1.8+/-0.19x10(8) cells/kg). Mean daily CD34+ cell yield, however, was nearly six times higher (12.9+/-4.4 vs. 2.2+/-0.5x10(6)/kg; p = 0.01) with chemotherapy plus G-CSF. With G-CSF alone, 13% of aphereses reached the target dose of 5x10(6) CD34+ cells/kg in one collection vs. 57% with chemotherapy plus G-CSF. Transfusions of red blood cells or platelets were necessary in 18 of 24 patients in cycle 2. Three patients were hospitalized with fever for a median of 3 days after cycle 2. No patients received transfusions or required hospitalization during mobilization with G-CSF alone. Resource utilization (cost of drugs, aphereses, cryopreservation, transfusions, hospitalization) was calculated comparing the median number of collections to obtain a target CD34+ cell dose of 5x10(6) cells/kg: four using G-CSF vs. one using the combination in this data set. Resources for G-CSF mobilization cost $7326 vs. $8693 for the combination, even though more apheresis procedures were performed using G-CSF mobilization. The cost of chemotherapy administration, more doses of G-CSF, transfusions, and hospitalizations caused cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and G-CSF to be more expensive than G-CSF alone. A less toxic and less expensive treatment than cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and G-CSF is needed to be more cost-effective than G-CSF alone for peripheral blood progenitor cell mobilization.

Impaired stem cell collection by consecutive courses of high-dose mobilizing chemotherapy using cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and G-CSF

Tandem cycles of myeloablative chemotherapy can increase dose intensity and total dose of chemotherapy, but sufficient numbers of progenitor cells must be collected to ensure hematologic recovery after each treatment. This study was undertaken to determine if two courses of mobilizing chemotherapy given 4 weeks apart using cyclophosphamide 4000 mg/m2 and etoposide 400 mg/m2, combined with G-CSF 5-10 mg/kg on days 3-16 could each provide sufficient numbers of peripheral blood progenitor cells to support tandem cycles of myeloablative chemotherapy in 20 patients with stage IV breast cancer. Leukapheresis of blood with WBC > 1000/mm3 was performed daily for up to five collections (days 12-16), and mononuclear cells, CFU-GM, and CD34+ cells were compared between the first and second collections. The second course of mobilizing treatment resulted in similar numbers of mononuclear cells collected but far fewer CFU-GM and CD34+ progenitor cells. This prevented using the second collection of progenitor cells as the sole source for the second transplant. The data suggest that a second course of cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and G-CSF given 4 weeks after the first leads to progenitor cell depletion, and efforts to increase the yield of blood-derived progenitors should focus on the initial mobilizing procedure.