1
|
|
Review |
20 |
530 |
2
|
Holman RR, Thorne KI, Farmer AJ, Davies MJ, Keenan JF, Paul S, Levy JC. Addition of biphasic, prandial, or basal insulin to oral therapy in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2007; 357:1716-30. [PMID: 17890232 DOI: 10.1056/nejmoa075392] [Citation(s) in RCA: 488] [Impact Index Per Article: 27.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Adding insulin to oral therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus is customary when glycemic control is suboptimal, though evidence supporting specific insulin regimens is limited. METHODS In an open-label, controlled, multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 708 patients with a suboptimal glycated hemoglobin level (7.0 to 10.0%) who were receiving maximally tolerated doses of metformin and sulfonylurea to receive biphasic insulin aspart twice daily, prandial insulin aspart three times daily, or basal insulin detemir once daily (twice if required). Outcome measures at 1 year were the mean glycated hemoglobin level, the proportion of patients with a glycated hemoglobin level of 6.5% or less, the rate of hypoglycemia, and weight gain. RESULTS At 1 year, mean glycated hemoglobin levels were similar in the biphasic group (7.3%) and the prandial group (7.2%) (P=0.08) but higher in the basal group (7.6%, P<0.001 for both comparisons). The respective proportions of patients with a glycated hemoglobin level of 6.5% or less were 17.0%, 23.9%, and 8.1%; respective mean numbers of hypoglycemic events per patient per year were 5.7, 12.0, and 2.3; and respective mean weight gains were 4.7 kg, 5.7 kg, and 1.9 kg. Rates of adverse events were similar among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS A single analogue-insulin formulation added to metformin and sulfonylurea resulted in a glycated hemoglobin level of 6.5% or less in a minority of patients at 1 year. The addition of biphasic or prandial insulin aspart reduced levels more than the addition of basal insulin detemir but was associated with greater risks of hypoglycemia and weight gain. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN51125379 [controlled-trials.com].).
Collapse
|
Multicenter Study |
18 |
488 |
3
|
Raskin P, Allen E, Hollander P, Lewin A, Gabbay RA, Hu P, Bode B, Garber A. Initiating insulin therapy in type 2 Diabetes: a comparison of biphasic and basal insulin analogs. Diabetes Care 2005; 28:260-5. [PMID: 15677776 DOI: 10.2337/diacare.28.2.260] [Citation(s) in RCA: 401] [Impact Index Per Article: 20.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Safety and efficacy of biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (BIAsp 70/30, prebreakfast and presupper) were compared with once-daily insulin glargine in type 2 diabetic subjects inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This 28-week parallel-group study randomized 233 insulin-naive patients with HbA(1c) values >/=8.0% on >1,000 mg/day metformin alone or in combination with other OADs. Metformin was adjusted up to 2,550 mg/day before insulin therapy was initiated with 5-6 units BIAsp 70/30 twice daily or 10-12 units glargine at bedtime and titrated to target blood glucose (80-110 mg/dl) by algorithm-directed titration. RESULTS A total of 209 subjects completed the study. At study end, the mean HbA(1c) value was lower in the BIAsp 70/30 group than in the glargine group (6.91 +/- 1.17 vs. 7.41 +/- 1.24%, P < 0.01). The HbA(1c) reduction was greater in the BIAsp 70/30 group than in the glargine group (-2.79 +/- 0.11 vs. -2.36 +/- 0.11%, respectively; P < 0.01), especially for subjects with baseline HbA(1c) >8.5% (-3.13 +/- 1.63 vs. -2.60 +/- 1.50%, respectively; P < 0.05). More BIAsp 70/30-treated subjects reached target HbA(1c) values than glargine-treated subjects (HbA(1c) </=6.5%: 42 vs. 28%, P < 0.05; HbA(1c) <7.0%: 66 vs. 40%, P < 0.001). Minor hypoglycemia (episodes/year) was greater in the BIAsp 70/30 group than in the glargine group (3.4 +/- 6.6 and 0.7 +/- 2.0, respectively; P < 0.05). Weight gain and daily insulin dose at study end were greater for BIAsp 70/30-treated subjects than for glargine-treated subjects (weight gain: 5.4 +/- 4.8 vs. 3.5 +/- 4.5 kg, P < 0.01; insulin dose: 78.5 +/- 39.5 and 51.3 +/- 26.7 units/day, respectively). CONCLUSIONS In subjects with type 2 diabetes poorly controlled on OADs, initiating insulin therapy with twice-daily BIAsp 70/30 was more effective in achieving HbA(1c) targets than once-daily glargine, especially in subjects with HbA(1c) >8.5%.
Collapse
|
Clinical Trial |
20 |
401 |
4
|
Hermansen K, Fontaine P, Kukolja KK, Peterkova V, Leth G, Gall MA. Insulin analogues (insulin detemir and insulin aspart) versus traditional human insulins (NPH insulin and regular human insulin) in basal-bolus therapy for patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetologia 2004; 47:622-9. [PMID: 15298338 DOI: 10.1007/s00125-004-1365-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 265] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS The aim of the trial was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of two types of basal-bolus therapy, using either the soluble long-acting basal insulin analogue, insulin detemir, in combination with the rapid-acting analogue, insulin aspart, or NPH insulin in combination with mealtime regular human insulin. METHODS In this 18-week, 1:1 randomised, open-labelled, parallel trial, 595 patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus received insulin detemir or NPH insulin in the morning and at bedtime in combination with mealtime insulin aspart or regular human insulin respectively. RESULTS Glycaemic control with insulin detemir/insulin aspart was improved in comparison with NPH insulin/regular human insulin (HbA1c: 7.88% vs 8.11%; mean difference: -0.22% point [95% CI: -0.34 to -0.10]; p<0.001). Self-measured 8-point plasma glucose profiles differed between the groups (p<0.001), with lower postprandial plasma glucose levels in the insulin detemir/insulin aspart group. Within-person day-to-day variation in plasma glucose was lower with insulin detemir/insulin aspart than with NPH insulin/regular human insulin (SD: 2.88 vs 3.12 mmol/l; p<0.001). Risk of overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia (23.00-06.00 hours) was, respectively, 21% (p=0.036) and 55% (p<0.001) lower in the insulin detemir/insulin aspart group than in the NPH insulin/regular human insulin group. Body weight (adjusted for baseline and change in HbA1c) was 1 kg lower with insulin detemir/insulin aspart than with NPH insulin/regular human insulin (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION Basal-bolus therapy using insulin detemir/insulin aspart offers a better balance of control and tolerability than with NPH insulin/regular human insulin. The low variability and more physiological action profiles generated with these insulin analogues resulted in improved glycaemic control with lower risk of hypoglycaemia and no concomitant body weight increase.
Collapse
|
Clinical Trial |
21 |
265 |
5
|
Bolli GB, Di Marchi RD, Park GD, Pramming S, Koivisto VA. Insulin analogues and their potential in the management of diabetes mellitus. Diabetologia 1999; 42:1151-67. [PMID: 10525654 DOI: 10.1007/s001250051286] [Citation(s) in RCA: 255] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/28/2022]
|
Review |
26 |
255 |
6
|
Benedict C, Hallschmid M, Schmitz K, Schultes B, Ratter F, Fehm HL, Born J, Kern W. Intranasal insulin improves memory in humans: superiority of insulin aspart. Neuropsychopharmacology 2007; 32:239-43. [PMID: 16936707 DOI: 10.1038/sj.npp.1301193] [Citation(s) in RCA: 229] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
There is compelling evidence that intranasal administration of regular human insulin (RH-I) improves memory in humans. Owing to the reduced tendency of its molecules to form hexamers, the rapid-acting insulin analog insulin aspart (ASP-I) is more rapidly absorbed than RH-I after subcutaneous administration. Since after intranasal insulin administration, ASP-I may also be expected to access the brain, we examined whether intranasal ASP-I has stronger beneficial effects on declarative memory than RH-I in humans. Acute (40 IU) and long-term (4 x 40 IU/day over 8 weeks) effects of intranasally administered ASP-I, RH-I, and placebo on declarative memory (word lists) were assessed in 36 healthy men in a between-subject design. Plasma insulin and glucose levels were not affected. After 8 weeks of treatment, however, word list recall was improved compared to placebo in both the ASP-I (p<0.01) and the RH-I groups (p<0.05). ASP-I-treated subjects performed even better than those of the RH-I-treated group (p<0.05). Our results indicate that insulin-induced memory improvement can be enhanced by using ASP-I. This finding may be especially relevant for a potential clinical administration of intranasal insulin in the treatment of memory disorders like Alzheimer's disease.
Collapse
|
Clinical Trial |
18 |
229 |
7
|
Korytkowski M, Bell D, Jacobsen C, Suwannasari R. A multicenter, randomized, open-label, comparative, two-period crossover trial of preference, efficacy, and safety profiles of a prefilled, disposable pen and conventional vial/syringe for insulin injection in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther 2004; 25:2836-48. [PMID: 14693308 DOI: 10.1016/s0149-2918(03)80337-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 222] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The accuracy and convenience of pen devices for insulin injection have improved quality of life for patients with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (DM). Prefilled, disposable pens have the advantage of simplicity, with minimal training and attention required and no installation of new cartridges necessary. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to assess patient preference, efficacy, and safety profiles of a prefilled, disposable pen (FlexPen) and conventional vial/syringe injection method for insulin injection therapy among patients with DM. METHODS In a multicenter, randomized, open-label, crossover study, patients with type 1 or 2 DM were transferred from previous QD or BID conventional insulin therapy to a mixture of 70% insulin aspart protamine suspension and 30% insulin aspart injection (NovoLog Mix 7030) for 4 weeks of dose optimization using their usual type of syringe. Patients were then randomly assigned to use either vial/syringe or a prefilled, disposable pen to inject the biphasic insulin aspart 7030 mixture for the next 4 weeks, followed by 4 weeks of use of the other injection device. Efficacy, safety profiles, and patient preference for the delivery systems were compared. RESULTS A total of 121 patients (mean [SD] age, 57.0 [12.4] years; age range, 28-81 years; mean [SD] body mass index, 31 [5.5] kg/m(2)) were enrolled. One hundred three patients completed the study. Seventy-four percent of patients (78105) indicated a preference for the pen over the vial/syringe method (95% CI, 71%-87%), compared with 20% (21105) who preferred the vial/syringe. Eighty-five percent (88104) considered the pen more discreet for use in public (compared with 9% [9104] for the vial/syringe), 74% (77104) considered it easier to use overall (compared with 21% [22104] for the vial/syringe), and 85% (89105) found the insulin dose scale on the pen easier to read (compared with 10% [10105] for the vial/syringe). Patients had statistically significant improvement in glycosylated hemoglobin values during the study (P < 0.05). No statistically significant differences in fasting plasma glucose, mean 4-point blood glucose profiles, or serum fructosamine values were found between groups. Overall, the safety profiles during treatment periods with the pen were comparable to those with the vial/syringe. CONCLUSIONS In this trial, differences in efficacy and safety profiles between the vial/syringe and prefilled, disposable pen appeared negligible. However, more patients expressed a preference to continue use of the pen.
Collapse
|
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't |
21 |
222 |
8
|
Vague P, Selam JL, Skeie S, De Leeuw I, Elte JWF, Haahr H, Kristensen A, Draeger E. Insulin detemir is associated with more predictable glycemic control and reduced risk of hypoglycemia than NPH insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes on a basal-bolus regimen with premeal insulin aspart. Diabetes Care 2003; 26:590-6. [PMID: 12610006 DOI: 10.2337/diacare.26.3.590] [Citation(s) in RCA: 203] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Insulin detemir is a soluble basal insulin analog with a unique mechanism of protracted action designed to reduce the variability associated with conventional basal insulins. This trial compared the glycemic control, risk of hypoglycemia, and effect on body weight of insulin detemir and NPH insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes treated with rapid-acting insulin aspart at meals. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This study was a 6-month multinational open parallel-group comparison conducted at 46 centers in five countries and included 448 patients with type 1 diabetes randomized 2:1 to insulin detemir or NPH insulin, respectively. RESULTS After 6 months, comparable HbA(1c) levels were found between the two treatment groups. Fasting plasma glucose tended to be lower in patients treated with insulin detemir, but this difference was not statistically significant (-0.76 mmol/l, P = 0.097). Within-subject variation in self-measured fasting blood glucose was lower with insulin detemir than with NPH insulin (SD 3.37 vs. 3.78 mmol/l, P < 0.001). Risk of hypoglycemia was 22% lower with insulin detemir than with NPH insulin (P < 0.05) and 34% lower for nocturnal (2300-0600) hypoglycemia (P < 0.005). Nightly plasma glucose profiles were smoother and more stable with insulin detemir (P = 0.05). Body weight was significantly lower with insulin detemir at the end of the trial (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Treatment with insulin detemir resulted in more predictable glycemic control, with smoother plasma glucose profiles than NPH insulin and a significant reduction in the risk of hypoglycemia. The reduction in body weight with insulin detemir is a potential additional advantage. Regimens optimized for insulin detemir may be able to improve glycemic control beyond that possible with NPH insulin.
Collapse
|
Clinical Trial |
22 |
203 |
9
|
Garber AJ, Wahlen J, Wahl T, Bressler P, Braceras R, Allen E, Jain R. Attainment of glycaemic goals in type 2 diabetes with once-, twice-, or thrice-daily dosing with biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (The 1-2-3 study). Diabetes Obes Metab 2006; 8:58-66. [PMID: 16367883 DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1326.2005.00563.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 199] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
AIM This observational study in patients with type 2 diabetes failing oral agent therapy with or without basal insulin was conducted to assess whether addition and self-titration of biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (BIAsp 30) could achieve American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE)/International Diabetes Federation (IDF) and American Diabetes Association (ADA) glycemic targets (HbA(1c)< or =6.5 and <7%). METHODS Enrolled patients (n = 100, HbA(1c)> or =7.5 and < or =10%) were > or =18 years of age, had diabetes > or =12 months and had received a stable antidiabetic regimen for at least 3 months [minimum of two oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) or at least one OAD plus once-daily basal insulin < or =60 U]. Patients discontinued prior basal insulin and added one injection of BIAsp 30 (12 U or 70-100% of prior basal insulin dose within 15 min of dinner initiation). Patients self-titrated their BIAsp 30 dose with investigator guidance every 3 or 4 days to achieve pre-breakfast fasting blood glucose (FBG) of 80-110 mg/dl. At 16 weeks, a pre-breakfast injection of 6 U of BIAsp 30 was added if week 15 HbA(1c) exceeded 6.5%; the added dose was titrated to achieve pre-dinner BG of 80-110 mg/dl. After an additional 16 weeks, 3 U of pre-lunch BIAsp 30 was added if HbA(1c) exceeded 6.5%. This added dose was adjusted based on 2-h post-lunch BG to achieve postprandial glucose of 100-140 mg/dl. Subjects achieving an HbA(1c)< or =6.5% at 15 and 31 weeks completed the study at weeks 16 and 32 respectively. RESULTS Addition of once-daily BIAsp 30 before dinner enabled 21% of the patients to achieve AACE and IDF targets (HbA(1c)< or =6.5%) and 41% to achieve ADA targets (HbA(1c) <7%). With two daily injections of BIAsp 30, these glycaemic goals were achieved by 52 and 70% of subjects. With three daily BIAsp 30 injections, 60% of patients achieved HbA(1c)< or =6.5%, and 77% achieved HbA(1c) <7.0%. CONCLUSIONS This clinical trial demonstrates that initiation of once-daily BIAsp 30 to type 2 diabetes patients poorly controlled on various OAD regimens was an effective treatment approach for achieving glycaemic goals. Additional patients safely achieved these goals by increasing the number of BIAsp 30 injections from one to two, and then, if uncontrolled, from two to three doses per day. Eventually, most patients previously uncontrolled on OADs with or without basal insulin were controlled by the addition and vigorous titration of BIAsp 30 to oral agent therapy.
Collapse
|
|
19 |
199 |
10
|
Haak T, Tiengo A, Draeger E, Suntum M, Waldhäusl W. Lower within-subject variability of fasting blood glucose and reduced weight gain with insulin detemir compared to NPH insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 2005; 7:56-64. [PMID: 15642076 DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1326.2004.00373.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 192] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
AIM The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a basal-bolus insulin regimen comprising either insulin detemir or neural protamine hagedorn (NPH) insulin in combination with mealtime insulin aspart in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS This was a 26-week, multinational, open-label, parallel group trial with 505 patients with type 2 diabetes (mean age, 60.4 +/- 8.6 years; mean BMI, 30.4 +/- 5.3 kg/m(2); mean HbA(1c), 7.9 +/- 1.3%). Patients, randomized 2:1 to insulin detemir or NPH insulin, received basal insulin either once or twice daily according to their pretrial insulin treatment and insulin aspart at mealtimes. RESULTS After 26 weeks of treatment, significant reductions in HbA(1c) were observed for insulin detemir (0.2%-points, p = 0.004) and NPH insulin (0.4%-points; p = 0.0001); HbA(1c) levels were comparable at study end (insulin detemir, 7.6%; NPH insulin, 7.5%). The number of basal insulin injections administered per day had no effect on HbA(1c) levels (p = 0.50). Nine-point self-measured blood glucose (SMBG) profiles were similar for the two treatment groups (p = 0.58), as were reductions in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (insulin detemir, 0.5 mmol/l; NPH insulin, 0.6 mmol/l). At study end, FPG concentrations were similar for the two treatment groups (p = 0.66). By contrast, within-subject day-to-day variation in fasting SMBG was significantly lower with insulin detemir (p = 0.021). Moreover, patients receiving insulin detemir gained significantly less body weight than those who were administered NPH insulin (1.0 and 1.8 kg, respectively, p = 0.017). The frequency of adverse events and the risk of hypoglycaemia were comparable for the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS Patients with type 2 diabetes, treated for 26 weeks with insulin detemir plus insulin aspart at mealtimes, experienced comparable glycaemic control but significantly lower within-subject variability and less weight gain compared to patients treated with NPH insulin and insulin aspart. Insulin detemir was well tolerated and had a similar safety profile to NPH insulin.
Collapse
|
Clinical Trial |
20 |
192 |
11
|
Mudaliar SR, Lindberg FA, Joyce M, Beerdsen P, Strange P, Lin A, Henry RR. Insulin aspart (B28 asp-insulin): a fast-acting analog of human insulin: absorption kinetics and action profile compared with regular human insulin in healthy nondiabetic subjects. Diabetes Care 1999; 22:1501-6. [PMID: 10480516 DOI: 10.2337/diacare.22.9.1501] [Citation(s) in RCA: 181] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To study the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile of insulin aspart (a new fast-acting human insulin analog) after subcutaneous administration in the deltoid, abdominal, and thigh sites and to compare this profile with regular human insulin (Novolin; Novo Nordisk A/S, Copenhagen). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A total of 20 healthy subjects were studied in a single-center six-period double-blind randomized crossover trial with 6 study days and a washout period of 1 week between each single daily dose of the trial drug. Subjects were randomized to receive a single dose of 0.2 U/kg of insulin aspart or regular insulin on each of the 6 study days in three different sites (the deltoid, the abdomen, and the thigh) during a 10-h euglycemic clamp (two drugs and three injection sites). Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic measurements were derived from blood sample measurements of glucose, insulin, and C-peptide during these clamps. RESULTS The pharmacodynamic data from the euglycemic clamp study showed that, regardless of injection site, the maximal glucose infusion rate (GIR Cmax) was greater and occurred at an earlier time (GIR Tmax) after administration of insulin aspart than regular insulin (GIR Cmax: abdomen 813 vs. 708, deltoid 861 vs. 736, and thigh 857 vs. 720 g/min, P < 0.05 for all; GIR Tmax: abdomen 94 vs. 173, deltoid 111 vs. 192, and thigh 145 vs. 193 g/min, P < 0.05 for all). Pharmacokinetic parameters were also consistent with faster absorption and higher peak insulin concentrations after insulin aspart administration. From all sites, the peak insulin concentration (Cmax) was higher and occurred earlier (Tmax) after administration of insulin aspart than of regular insulin (Cmax: abdomen 501 vs. 260, deltoid 506 vs. 252, thigh 422 vs. 220 pmol/l, P < 0.001 for all sites; Tmax: abdomen 52 vs. 109, deltoid 54 vs. 98, and thigh 60 vs. 107 min, P < 0.01 for all sites). The absorption and glucose-lowering action of insulin aspart did not differ between sites (similar GIR Cmax, Tmax, and area under the curve parameters). However, the duration of the glucose-lowering effect was up to 34 min shorter (P < 0.01) for the abdomen injections than for the deltoid or thigh injections (lower time of 50% glucose disposal). In addition, the amount of glucose infused was significantly lower by 10-14% in the abdomen than in other sites. CONCLUSIONS Subcutaneous administration of insulin aspart causes a more rapid and intense maximal effect compared with regular insulin during euglycemic clamp studies in nondiabetic subjects. Abdominal administration of insulin aspart has a shorter duration of glucose-lowering effect compared with administration in the deltoid or thigh.
Collapse
|
Clinical Trial |
26 |
181 |
12
|
Home PD, Lindholm A, Hylleberg B, Round P. Improved glycemic control with insulin aspart: a multicenter randomized double-blind crossover trial in type 1 diabetic patients. UK Insulin Aspart Study Group. Diabetes Care 1998; 21:1904-9. [PMID: 9802741 DOI: 10.2337/diacare.21.11.1904] [Citation(s) in RCA: 178] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To compare glycemic control obtained with the new rapid-acting insulin analog insulin aspart with that obtained with unmodified human insulin using algorithm-driven dosage adjustment. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This was a multicenter randomized double-blind crossover study of 90 male subjects with type 1 diabetes. Insulin aspart or soluble human insulin was administered before meals, and NPH insulin was administered at bedtime as basal therapy. Each 4-week study period ended with a 24-h inpatient serum insulin and plasma glucose profile. RESULTS The 24-h plasma glucose control obtained with insulin aspart, as assessed by excursions of blood glucose outside a predefined normal range (4.0-7.0 mmo/l), was superior (22% reduction in excursion, P < 0.01). Fructosamine levels remained unchanged with insulin aspart, with daytime glycemic control superior but nighttime glycemic control inferior. Eight-point home blood glucose profiles confirmed that insulin aspart significantly improved postprandial blood glucose control after lunch and dinner (P < 0.05) without deterioration of preprandial blood glucose control. Hypoglycemic episodes requiring third-party intervention were significantly fewer with insulin aspart than with human insulin (20 vs. 44 events, P < 0.002). Insulin aspart was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS In comparison with human insulin, insulin aspart can improve postprandial glycemic control as assessed by a reduction in hyper- and hypoglycemic excursions in people with type 1 diabetes. For its full potential to be realized, it will need to provide better control of nighttime hyperglycemia.
Collapse
|
Clinical Trial |
27 |
178 |
13
|
Raskin P, Guthrie RA, Leiter L, Riis A, Jovanovic L. Use of insulin aspart, a fast-acting insulin analog, as the mealtime insulin in the management of patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000; 23:583-8. [PMID: 10834413 DOI: 10.2337/diacare.23.5.583] [Citation(s) in RCA: 176] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To compare long-term glycemic control and safety of using insulin aspart (IAsp) with that of regular human insulin (HI). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This was a multicenter randomized open-label 6-month study (882 subjects) with a 6-month extension period (714 subjects) that enrolled subjects with type 1 diabetes. Subjects administered IAsp immediately before meals or regular HI 30 min before meals; basal NPH insulin was taken as a single bedtime dose in the majority of subjects. Glycemic control was assessed with HbA1c values and 8-point blood glucose profiles at 3-month intervals. RESULTS Mean postprandial blood glucose levels (mg/dl +/- SEM) were significantly lower for subjects in the IAsp group compared with subjects in the HI group after breakfast (156 +/- 3.4 vs. 185 +/- 4.7), lunch (137 +/- 3.1 vs. 162 +/- 4.1), and dinner (153 +/- 3.1 vs. 168 +/- 4.1), when assessed after 6 months of treatment. Mean HbA1c values (% +/- SEM) were slightly, but significantly, lower for the IAsp group (7.78% +/- 0.03) than for the regular HI group (7.93% +/- 0.05, P = 0.005) at 6 months. Similar postprandial blood glucose and HbA1c values were observed at 12 months. Adverse events and overall hypoglycemic episodes were similar for both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS Postprandial glycemic control was significantly better with IAsp compared with HI after 6 and 12 months of treatment. The improvement was not obtained at an increased risk of hypoglycemia. HbA1c was slightly, but significantly, lower for IAsp compared with HI at 6 and 12 months.
Collapse
|
Clinical Trial |
25 |
176 |
14
|
Mathiesen ER, Kinsley B, Amiel SA, Heller S, McCance D, Duran S, Bellaire S, Raben A. Maternal glycemic control and hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetic pregnancy: a randomized trial of insulin aspart versus human insulin in 322 pregnant women. Diabetes Care 2007; 30:771-6. [PMID: 17392539 DOI: 10.2337/dc06-1887] [Citation(s) in RCA: 164] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess the safety and efficacy of insulin aspart (IAsp) versus regular human insulin (HI) in basal-bolus therapy with NPH insulin in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Subjects (n = 322) who were pregnant or planning pregnancy were randomized to IAsp or HI as meal-time insulin in an open-label, parallel-group, multicenter study. Subjects had A1C < or =8% at confirmation of pregnancy. Insulin doses were titrated toward predefined glucose targets and A1C <6.5%. Outcomes assessed included risk of major maternal hypoglycemia, A1C, plasma glucose profiles, and maternal safety outcomes. RESULTS Major hypoglycemia occurred at a rate of 1.4 vs. 2.1 episodes/year exposure with IAsp and HI, respectively (relative risk 0.720 [95% CI 0.36-1.46]). Risk of major/major nocturnal hypoglycemia was 52% (RR 0.48 [0.20-1.143]; P = NS) lower with IAsp compared with HI. A1C was comparable with human insulin in second (IAsp-HI -0.04 [-0.18 to 0.11]) and third (-0.08 [-0.23 to 0.06]) trimesters. A total of 80% of subjects achieved an A1C < or =6.5%. At the end of first and third trimesters, average postprandial plasma glucose increments were significantly lower with IAsp than HI (P = 0.003 and P = 0.044, respectively), as were mean plasma glucose levels 90 min after breakfast (P = 0.044 and P = 0.001, respectively). Maternal safety profiles and pregnancy outcomes were similar between treatments. CONCLUSIONS IAsp is at least as safe and effective as HI when used in basal-bolus therapy with NPH insulin in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes and may potentially offer some benefits in terms of postprandial glucose control and preventing severe hypoglycemia.
Collapse
|
Multicenter Study |
18 |
164 |
15
|
Hirsch IB, Bode BW, Garg S, Lane WS, Sussman A, Hu P, Santiago OM, Kolaczynski JW. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) of insulin aspart versus multiple daily injection of insulin aspart/insulin glargine in type 1 diabetic patients previously treated with CSII. Diabetes Care 2005; 28:533-8. [PMID: 15735183 DOI: 10.2337/diacare.28.3.533] [Citation(s) in RCA: 161] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy of bolus insulin aspart and basal insulin glargine was compared with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with aspart in type 1 diabetic patients previously treated with CSII. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS One hundred patients were enrolled in a randomized, multicenter, open-label, crossover study. After a 1-week run-in period with aspart by CSII, 50 subjects were randomly assigned to MDI therapy (aspart immediately before each meal and glargine at bedtime) and 50 subjects continued CSII. After 5 weeks of the first treatment, subjects crossed over to the alternate treatment for 5 weeks. During the last week of each treatment period, subjects wore a continuous glucose monitoring system for 48-72 h. RESULTS Mean serum fructosamine levels were significantly lower after CSII therapy than after MDI therapy (343 +/- 47 vs. 355 +/- 50 micromol/l, respectively; P = 0.0001). Continuous glucose monitoring profiles over a 24-h time period showed that glucose exposure was 24 and 40% lower for CSII than MDI as measured by area under the curve (AUC) glucose >/=80 mg/dl (1,270 +/- 742 vs. 1,664 +/- 1,039 mg . h . dl(-1); P < 0.001) and AUC glucose >/=140 mg/dl (464 +/- 452 vs. 777 +/- 746 mg . h . dl(-1), CSII vs. MDI, respectively; P < 0.001). Similar percentages of subjects reported hypoglycemic episodes (CSII: 92%, MDI: 94%) and nocturnal (12:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.) hypoglycemic episodes (CSII: 73%, MDI: 72%). Major hypoglycemia was infrequent (CSII: two episodes, MDI: five episodes). CONCLUSIONS In a trial of short duration, CSII therapy with insulin aspart resulted in lower glycemic exposure without increased risk of hypoglycemia, as compared with MDI with insulin aspart and glargine.
Collapse
|
Clinical Trial |
20 |
161 |
16
|
Home PD, Lindholm A, Riis A. Insulin aspart vs. human insulin in the management of long-term blood glucose control in Type 1 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial. Diabet Med 2000; 17:762-70. [PMID: 11131100 DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-5491.2000.00380.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 161] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
AIMS To compare the efficacy of insulin aspart, a rapid-acting insulin analogue, with that of unmodified human insulin on long-term blood glucose control in Type 1 diabetes mellitus. METHODS Prospective, multi-centre, randomized, open-labelled, parallel-group trial lasting 6 months in 88 centres in eight European countries and including 1,070 adult subjects with Type 1 diabetes. Study patients were randomized 2:1 to insulin aspart or unmodified human insulin before main meals, with NPH-insulin as basal insulin. Main outcome measures were blood glucose control as assessed by HbA1c, eight-point self-monitored blood glucose profiles, insulin dose, quality of life, hypoglycaemia, and adverse events. RESULTS After 6 months, insulin aspart was superior to human insulin with respect to HbA1c with a baseline-adjusted difference in HbA1c of 0.12 (95% confidence interval 0.03-0.22) %Hb, P < 0.02. Eight-point blood glucose profiles showed lower post-prandial glucose levels (mean baseline-adjusted -0.6 to -1.2 mmol/l, P < 0.01) after all main meals, but higher pre-prandial glucose levels before breakfast and dinner (0.7-0.8 mmol/l, P < 0.01) with insulin aspart. Satisfaction with treatment was significantly better in patients treated with insulin aspart (WHO Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) baseline-adjusted difference 2.3 (1.2-3.3) points, P < 0.001). The relative risk of experiencing a major hypoglycaemic episode with insulin aspart compared to human insulin was 0.83 (0.59-1.18, NS). Major night hypoglycaemic events requiring parenteral treatment were less with insulin aspart (1.3 vs. 3.4% of patients, P < 0.05), as were late post-prandial (4-6 h) events (1.8 vs. 5.0% of patients, P < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS These results show small but useful advantage for the rapid-acting insulin analogue insulin aspart as a tool to improve long-term blood glucose control, hypoglycaemia, and quality of life, in people with Type 1 diabetes mellitus.
Collapse
|
Clinical Trial |
25 |
161 |
17
|
Raslová K, Bogoev M, Raz I, Leth G, Gall MA, Hâncu N. Insulin detemir and insulin aspart: a promising basal-bolus regimen for type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2004; 66:193-201. [PMID: 15533587 DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2004.03.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 152] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/20/2003] [Revised: 03/02/2004] [Accepted: 03/09/2004] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
This trial compared the efficacy and safety of basal-bolus therapy using either the soluble basal insulin analogue insulin detemir (IDet) in combination with meal-time rapid-acting analogue insulin aspart (IAsp), or NPH insulin (NPH) in combination with meal-time regular human insulin (HSI). This was a 22-week, multinational, open-labelled, symmetrically randomised, parallel group trial including 395 people with type 2 diabetes (IDet + IAsp: 195, NPH + HSI: 200). At 22 weeks, HbA1c was comparable between treatments (IDet + IAsp: 7.46%, NPH + HSI: 7.52%, P = 0.515) with decreases from baseline of 0.65% and 0.58%, respectively. Treatment with IDet + IAsp was associated with a significantly lower within-person variation in self-measured fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (SD:1.20 versus 1.54 mmol/L, p < 0.001), as well as a lower body weight gain (0.51 versus 1.13 kg, p = 0.038) than with NPH + HSI. The risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia was 38% lower with IDet + IAsp than with NPH + HSI, but statistical significance was not attained (P = 0.14). The overall safety profile was similar between the two treatments. Basal-bolus treatment with IDet + IAsp is an effective and well tolerated insulin regimen in people with type 2 diabetes, resulting in glycaemic control comparable to that of NPH + HSI, but with the advantages of less weight gain and a lower day-to-day within-person variation in FPG.
Collapse
|
Clinical Trial |
21 |
152 |
18
|
Boehm BO, Home PD, Behrend C, Kamp NM, Lindholm A. Premixed insulin aspart 30 vs. premixed human insulin 30/70 twice daily: a randomized trial in Type 1 and Type 2 diabetic patients. Diabet Med 2002; 19:393-9. [PMID: 12027927 DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-5491.2002.00733.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 144] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
AIM To compare the efficacy and safety of premixed insulin aspart (30% free and 70% protamine-bound, BIAsp 30) with human insulin premix (BHI 30) used in a twice-daily injection regimen in people with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes. METHODS People with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes (n = 294) using twice-daily insulin were randomized to a 12-week open-label comparison of BIAsp 30 and BHI 30. Efficacy was assessed by analysis of variance of 12-week data, adjusted for baseline level. RESULTS BIAsp 30 was as effective as BHI 30 based on the primary efficacy measure, HbA1c, mean difference -0.01 (90% confidence interval (CI) -0.14; 0.12) %Hb. Meal-time self-measured blood glucose increment averaged over the three main meals was significantly lower in the BIAsp 30 group than in the BHI 30 group (-0.68 (-1.20; -0.16) mmol/l; P < 0.02). Significant improvements were observed after breakfast, before lunch, after dinner and at bedtime (P < 0.02-0.05), with blood glucose around 1.0 mmol/l lower in the BIAsp 30 group. The number of major hypoglycaemic episodes with BIAsp 30 was half that with BHI 30. However, the overall risk of both minor and major hypoglycaemia did not differ significantly between treatments. CONCLUSION Post-prandial glycaemic control was significantly improved, without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia, and overall control was similar when people with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes were treated on a twice-daily regimen with immediate premeal injections of BIAsp 30 compared with BHI 30.
Collapse
|
Clinical Trial |
23 |
144 |
19
|
Lindholm A, McEwen J, Riis AP. Improved postprandial glycemic control with insulin aspart. A randomized double-blind cross-over trial in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 1999; 22:801-5. [PMID: 10332685 DOI: 10.2337/diacare.22.5.801] [Citation(s) in RCA: 129] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Insulin aspart is a novel rapid-acting insulin analog. This study was performed to compare the postprandial serum glucose control after administration of insulin aspart with that of unmodified human insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS The trial was a double-blind double-dummy injection three-way cross-over study in 22 subjects with type 1 diabetes. Insulin aspart was injected subcutaneously immediately before the meal, and human insulin was injected subcutaneously 30 min before the meal or immediately before the meal. RESULTS The postprandial glucose control as assessed by the excursion of serum glucose was superior with insulin aspart as compared with that with human insulin injected immediately before or 30 min before a meal (891 +/- 521 vs. 1,311 +/- 512 vs. 1,106 +/- 571 mmol.l-1.min-1, P < 0.0001 and P < 0.02). This was accompanied by a significantly lower glucose maximum concentration [Cmax(SG)] for insulin aspart than for human insulin injected immediately before the meal (13.5 +/- 3.5 vs. 16.4 +/- 3.4 mmol/l, P < 0.001). Insulin aspart was, on average, absorbed twice as fast as human insulin, with median time to insulin aspart Cmax(ins) on the order of 40 min, and the maximum concentration was approximately twice as high for insulin aspart. The relative bioavailability of the insulins indicated a similar extent of absorption. Insulin aspart was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates the ability of insulin aspart to improve postprandial glucose control when compared with human insulin.
Collapse
|
Clinical Trial |
26 |
129 |
20
|
Umpierrez GE, Cuervo R, Karabell A, Latif K, Freire AX, Kitabchi AE. Treatment of diabetic ketoacidosis with subcutaneous insulin aspart. Diabetes Care 2004; 27:1873-8. [PMID: 15277410 DOI: 10.2337/diacare.27.8.1873] [Citation(s) in RCA: 129] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE In this prospective, randomized, open trial, we compared the efficacy and safety of aspart insulin given subcutaneously at different time intervals to a standard low-dose intravenous (IV) infusion protocol of regular insulin in patients with uncomplicated diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A total of 45 consecutive patients admitted with DKA were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous (SC) aspart insulin every hour (SC-1h, n = 15) or every 2 h (SC-2h, n = 15) or to receive IV infusion of regular insulin (n = 15). Response to medical therapy was evaluated by assessing the duration of treatment until resolution of hyperglycemia and ketoacidosis. Additional end points included total length of hospitalization, amount of insulin administration until resolution of hyperglycemia and ketoacidosis, and number of hypoglycemic events. RESULTS Admission biochemical parameters in patients treated with SC-1h (glucose: 44 +/- 21 mmol/l [means +/- SD], bicarbonate: 7.1 +/- 3 mmol/l, pH: 7.14 +/- 0.09) were similar to those treated with SC-2h (glucose: 42 +/- 21 mmol/l, bicarbonate: 7.6 +/- 4 mmol/l, pH: 7.15 +/- 0.12) and IV regular insulin (glucose: 40 +/- 13 mmol/l, bicarbonate 7.1 +/- 4 mmol/l, pH: 7.11 +/- 0.17). There were no statistical differences in the mean duration of treatment until correction of hyperglycemia (6.9 +/- 4, 6.1 +/- 4, and 7.1 +/- 5 h) or until resolution of ketoacidosis (10 +/- 3, 10.7 +/- 3, and 11 +/- 3 h) among patients treated with SC-1h and SC-2h or with IV insulin, respectively (NS). There was no mortality and no differences in the length of hospital stay, total amount of insulin administration until resolution of hyperglycemia or ketoacidosis, or the number of hypoglycemic events among treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS Our results indicate that the use of subcutaneous insulin aspart every 1 or 2 h represents a safe and effective alternative to the use of intravenous regular insulin in the management of patients with uncomplicated DKA.
Collapse
|
Clinical Trial |
21 |
129 |
21
|
Umpierrez GE, Hor T, Smiley D, Temponi A, Umpierrez D, Ceron M, Munoz C, Newton C, Peng L, Baldwin D. Comparison of inpatient insulin regimens with detemir plus aspart versus neutral protamine hagedorn plus regular in medical patients with type 2 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2009; 94:564-9. [PMID: 19017758 PMCID: PMC2646523 DOI: 10.1210/jc.2008-1441] [Citation(s) in RCA: 125] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Studies comparing the use of basal bolus with insulin analogs vs. split-mixed regimens with human insulins in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes are lacking. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In a controlled multicenter trial, we randomized 130 nonsurgical patients with blood glucose (BG) between 140 and 400 mg/dl to receive detemir once daily and aspart before meals (n = 67) or neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) and regular insulin twice daily (n = 63). Insulin dose was started at 0.4 U/kg.d for BG between 140 and 200 mg/dl or 0.5 U/kg.d for BG 201-400 mg/dl. Major study outcomes included differences in mean daily BG levels and frequency of hypoglycemic events between treatment groups. RESULTS Glycemic control improved similarly in both groups from a mean daily BG of 228 +/- 54 and 223 +/- 58 mg/dl (P = 0.61) to a mean daily BG level after the first day of 160 +/- 38 and 158 +/- 51 mg/dl in the detemir/aspart and NPH/regular insulin groups, respectively (P = 0.80). A BG target below 140 mg/dl before meals was achieved in 45% of patients in the detemir/aspart group and 48% in the NPH/regular group (P = 0.86). During treatment, 22 patients (32.8%) in the detemir/aspart group and 16 patients (25.4%) in the NPH/regular group had at least one episode of hypoglycemia (BG < 60 mg/dl) during the hospital stay (P = 0.34). CONCLUSIONS Treatment with basal/bolus regimen with detemir once daily and aspart before meals results in equivalent glycemic control and no differences in the frequency of hypoglycemia compared to a split-mixed regimen of NPH and regular insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Collapse
|
Multicenter Study |
16 |
125 |
22
|
Heinemann L, Weyer C, Rauhaus M, Heinrichs S, Heise T. Variability of the metabolic effect of soluble insulin and the rapid-acting insulin analog insulin aspart. Diabetes Care 1998; 21:1910-4. [PMID: 9802742 DOI: 10.2337/diacare.21.11.1910] [Citation(s) in RCA: 125] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To study the intra- and interindividual variability of the metabolic activity of soluble insulin and of the rapid-acting insulin analog insulin aspart after subcutaneous injection. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A total of nine healthy male volunteers received subcutaneous injections of soluble insulin (0.2 U/kg) in the abdominal region on each of the four study days. Another 10 volunteers received an injection of insulin aspart four times. Glucose infusion rates necessary to neutralize the blood glucose-lowering effect of the administered insulin were registered during euglycemic glucose clamps (blood glucose 5.0 mmol/l; basal intravenous insulin infusion 0.15 mU x kg(-1) x min(-1) over the subsequent 600 min. We investigated the variation in metabolic activity by calculating coefficients of variation (CVs). RESULTS In comparison to soluble insulin, subcutaneous injections of insulin aspart led to a more rapid onset of action and a shorter duration of action. Subcutaneous injection of the insulin preparations resulted in intraindividual CVs of the summary measures between 10 and 30% (soluble insulin vs. insulin aspart: maximal metabolic activity 15+/-7 vs. 16+/-10%, time to maximal metabolic activity 14+/-10 vs. 11+/-6%; NS between the preparations [means +/- SD]). The decline to half-maximal activity after maximal activity showed a lower intraindividual CV with insulin aspart (19+/-9 vs. 11+/-5%; P = 0.018). The interindividual CVs were higher than the intraindividual CVs (26 vs. 28, 23 vs. 19, and 26 vs. 17%). Generally, the pharmacodynamic variability was higher than the pharmacokinetic variability. For the pharmacokinetic measures, the intra- and interindividual variability in t(max) was lower for insulin aspart than for soluble insulin. CONCLUSIONS The metabolic effect of soluble insulin shows an intraindividual variability of 10-20% in healthy volunteers, even under strictly controlled experimental conditions. The overall variability of action of insulin aspart was comparable to that of soluble insulin.
Collapse
|
Clinical Trial |
27 |
125 |
23
|
Plank J, Wutte A, Brunner G, Siebenhofer A, Semlitsch B, Sommer R, Hirschberger S, Pieber TR. A direct comparison of insulin aspart and insulin lispro in patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2002; 25:2053-7. [PMID: 12401756 DOI: 10.2337/diacare.25.11.2053] [Citation(s) in RCA: 117] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Both rapid-acting insulin analogs, insulin aspart and lispro, attenuate prandial glucose excursion compared with human soluble insulin. This trial was performed to study the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of insulin aspart and insulin lispro in type 1 diabetic patients in a direct comparison and to investigate whether the administration of one analog results in favorable effects on prandial blood glucose control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A total of 24 type 1 diabetic patients (age 36 +/- 8 years, 16 men and 8 women, BMI 24.3 +/- 2.6 kg/m(2), diabetes duration 17 +/- 11 years, HbA(1c) 7.9 +/- 0.8%) on intensified insulin therapy were recruited into a single-center, randomized, double-blind, two-period, cross-over, glucose clamp trial. The subjects were given an individual need-derived dose of prandial insulin lispro or aspart immediately before a standard mixed meal. RESULTS With respect to blood glucose excursions from time 0 to 6 h (Exc(glu(0-6 h))) and from time 0 to 4 h (Exc(glu(0-4 h))), the pharmacodynamic effect of insulin aspart and insulin lispro can be declared equivalent. This was supported by comparison with maximum postprandial blood glucose excursions (C(max(glu))) (estimated ratio aspart/lispro ANOVA [90% CI]: 0.95 [0.80-1.13], 0.97 [0.82-1.17], and 1.01 [0.95-1.07] for Exc(glu(0-6 h)), Exc(glu(0-4 h)), and C(max(glu)), respectively). For pharmacokinetic end points (maximum postprandial insulin excursions and area under the curve for insulin from time 0 to 6 h and from time 0 to 4 h), equivalence was indicated. No difference concerning absorption or elimination for time to maximal insulin concentration, time to half-maximum insulin concentration, and time to decrease to 50% of maximum insulin concentration was observed. CONCLUSIONS These data suggest that in type 1 diabetic patients, both insulin analogs are equally effective for control of postprandial blood glucose excursions.
Collapse
|
Clinical Trial |
23 |
117 |
24
|
Liebl A, Prager R, Binz K, Kaiser M, Bergenstal R, Gallwitz B. Comparison of insulin analogue regimens in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the PREFER Study: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Obes Metab 2009; 11:45-52. [PMID: 18643839 DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1326.2008.00915.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 112] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
AIMS Insulin analogues are widely used but few data exist comparing different analogue regimens. We compared two such regimens in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) uncontrolled by oral antidiabetic agents (OADs) with or without basal insulin. METHODS In a 26-week multinational, multicentre, randomized treat-to-target trial, OADs were discontinued and subjects randomized to analogue basal-bolus therapy (insulin detemir once daily and insulin aspart mealtimes) or biphasic insulin aspart 30 (30% rapid-acting insulin aspart), twice daily. Insulin was titrated to targets for fasting, predinner and postprandial plasma glucose (PG), as appropriate. RESULTS Of 719 subjects, 92% completed the study; 58% achieved haemoglobin fraction A(1c) (HbA(1c)) < or =7.0%, with reductions of 1.56% (to 6.96%) with basal-bolus therapy and 1.23% (to 7.17%) with biphasic insulin aspart. Reduction with basal-bolus therapy was superior in the overall population by 0.23% (p = 0.0052), with no difference between regimens in insulin-naive patients. Major hypoglycaemia occurred in five basal-bolus patients (0.9%) and in no patients with biphasic insulin aspart. Incidence of minor hypoglycaemia was similar in both groups. All insulin doses increased during titration, with increase in lunchtime insulin aspart dose and equal distribution of breakfast and dinner biphasic insulin aspart doses. Insulin detemir remained once daily in 87% of patients. CONCLUSIONS Modern insulin analogue regimens, adjusted to PG targets, enable a majority of people with T2DM to reach HbA(1c)< or =7.0% after failure of OADs and OAD-basal insulin therapy. Insulin-treated patients may benefit more from transfer to analogue basal-bolus therapy, while insulin-naive individuals benefit equally well from the more convenient biphasic analogue regimen.
Collapse
|
Comparative Study |
16 |
112 |
25
|
Bode B, Weinstein R, Bell D, McGill J, Nadeau D, Raskin P, Davidson J, Henry R, Huang WC, Reinhardt RR. Comparison of insulin aspart with buffered regular insulin and insulin lispro in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion: a randomized study in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2002; 25:439-44. [PMID: 11874927 DOI: 10.2337/diacare.25.3.439] [Citation(s) in RCA: 110] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To compare the safety and efficacy of insulin aspart (IAsp), buffered regular insulin (BR), and insulin lispro administered by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in patients with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS After completing a 4-week run-in period with BR, 146 adult patients with type 1 diabetes (with pretrial CSII experience) were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to CSII treatment with IAsp, BR, or lispro for 16 weeks in a multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel-group study. Bolus insulin doses were administered 30 min before meals (BR) or immediately before meals (IAsp or lispro). RESULTS Treatment groups had similar baseline HbA(1c) (7.3% +/- 0.7 for IAsp, 7.5% +/- 0.8 for BR, and 7.3% +/- 0.7 for lispro). After 16 weeks of treatment, HbA1c values were relatively unchanged from baseline, and the mean changes in baseline HbA1c values were not significantly different between the three groups (0.00 +/- 0.51, 0.15 +/- 0.63, and 0.18 +/- 0.84 for the IAsp, BR, and lispro groups, respectively). The rates of hypoglycemic episodes (blood glucose <50 mg/dl) per patient per month were similar (3.7, 4.8, and 4.4 for the IAsp, BR, and lispro groups, respectively). Clogs/blockages in pumps or infusion sets were infrequent; most subjects (76, 83, and 75% in the IAsp, BR, and lispro groups, respectively) had < or = 1 clog or blockage per 4 weeks during the trial. CONCLUSIONS Insulin aspart in CSII was as efficacious and well tolerated as BR and lispro and is a suitable insulin for continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion using external pumps.
Collapse
|
Clinical Trial |
23 |
110 |