Ultrarapid Lispro Demonstrates Similar Time in Target Range to Lispro with a Hybrid Closed-Loop System

Multicenter Evaluation of Ultra-Rapid Lispro Insulin with Control-IQ Technology in Adults, Adolescents, and Children with Type 1 Diabetes

Objective: To evaluate the safety and explore the efficacy of use of ultra-rapid lispro (URLi, Lyumjev) insulin in the Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ 1.5 technology in children, teenagers, and adults living with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: At 14 U.S. diabetes centers, youth and adults with T1D completed a 16-day lead-in period using lispro in a t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ 1.5 technology, followed by a 13-week period in which URLi insulin was used in the pump. Results: The trial included 179 individuals with T1D (age 6-75 years). With URLi, 1.7% (3 participants) had a severe hypoglycemia event over 13 weeks attributed to override boluses or a missed meal. No diabetic ketoacidosis events occurred. Two participants stopped URLi use because of infusion-site discomfort, and one stopped after developing a rash. Mean time 70-180 mg/dL increased from 65% ± 15% with lispro to 67% ± 13% with URLi (P = 0.004). Mean insulin treatment satisfaction questionnaire score improved from 75 ± 13 at screening to 80 ± 11 after 13 weeks of URLi use (mean difference = 6; 95% confidence interval 4-8; P < 0.001), with the greatest improvement reported for confidence avoiding symptoms of high blood sugar. Mean treatment-related impact measure-diabetes score improved from 74 ± 12 to 80 ± 12 (P < 0.001), and mean TRIM-Diabetes Device (score improved from 82 ± 11 to 86 ± 12 (P < 0.001). Conclusions: URLi use in the Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ 1.5 technology was safe for adult and pediatric participants with T1D, with quality-of-life benefits of URLi use perceived by the study participants. Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT05403502.

Postprandial glucose-management strategies in type 1 diabetes: Current approaches and prospects with precision medicine and artificial intelligence

Postprandial glucose control can be challenging for individuals with type 1 diabetes, and this can be attributed to many factors, including suboptimal therapy parameters (carbohydrate ratios, correction factors, basal doses) because of physiological changes, meal macronutrients and engagement in postprandial physical activity. This narrative review aims to examine the current postprandial glucose-management strategies tested in clinical trials, including adjusting therapy settings, bolusing for meal macronutrients, adjusting pre-exercise and postexercise meal boluses for postprandial physical activity, and other therapeutic options, for individuals on open-loop and closed-loop therapies. Then we discuss their challenges and future avenues. Despite advancements in insulin delivery devices such as closed-loop systems and decision-support systems, many individuals with type 1 diabetes still struggle to manage their glucose levels. The main challenge is the lack of personalized recommendations, causing suboptimal postprandial glucose control. We suggest that postprandial glucose control can be improved by (i) providing personalized recommendations for meal macronutrients and postprandial activity; (ii) including behavioural recommendations; (iii) using other personalized therapeutic approaches (e.g. glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, sodium-glucose co-transporter inhibitors, amylin analogues, inhaled insulin) in addition to insulin therapy; and (iv) integrating an interpretability report to explain to individuals about changes in treatment therapy and behavioural recommendations. In addition, we suggest a future avenue to implement precision recommendations for individuals with type 1 diabetes utilizing the potential of deep reinforcement learning and foundation models (such as GPT and BERT), employing different modalities of data including diabetes-related and external background factors (i.e. behavioural, environmental, biological and abnormal events).

JL, Garcia-Tirado J, DeBoer MD, Breton MD. Adjusting Therapy Profiles When Switching to Ultra-Rapid Lispro in an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System: An in Silico Study

BACKGROUND

It has been shown that insulin acceleration by itself might not be sufficient to see clear improvements in glycemic metrics, and insulin therapy may need to be adjusted to fully leverage the extra safety margin provided by faster pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles. The objective of this work is to explore how to perform such adjustments on a commercially available automated insulin delivery (AID) system.

METHODS

Ultra-rapid lispro (URLi) is modeled within the UVA/Padova simulation platform using data from previously published clamp studies. The Control-IQ AID algorithm is selected as it leverages carbohydrate-to-insulin ratio (CR in g/U), correction factor (CF in mg/dL/U), and basal rate (BR in U/h) daily profiles that are fully customizable. An experiment roadmap is proposed to understand how to safely modify these profiles when switching from lispro to URLi.

RESULTS

Simulations show that a 7% decrease in CR (approximately an 8% increase in prandial insulin) and a 7.5% increase in BR lead to cumulative improvements in glucose control with URLi. Comparing with baseline metrics using lispro, a clinically significant increase in time in the range of 70 to 180 mg/dL (overall: 70.2%-75.2%, P < .001; 6 am-12 am: 62.4%-68.5%, P < .001) and a reduction in time below 70 mg/dL (overall: 1.8%-1.2%, P < .001; 6 am-12 am: 1.8%-1.3%, P < .001) were observed.

CONCLUSION

Properly adjusting therapy parameters allows to fully leverage glucose control benefits provided by faster insulin analogues, opening opportunities to take another step forward into a next generation of more effective AID solutions.

Postprandial Glucose Excursions with Ultra-Rapid Insulin Analogs in Hybrid Closed-Loop Therapy for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

Objective: To evaluate postprandial glucose control when applying (1) faster-acting insulin aspart (Fiasp) compared to insulin aspart and (2) ultra-rapid insulin lispro (Lyumjev) compared to insulin lispro using the CamAPS FX hybrid closed-loop algorithm. Research Design and Methods: We undertook a secondary analysis of postprandial glucose excursions from two double-blind, randomized, crossover hybrid closed-loop studies contrasting Fiasp to standard insulin aspart, and Lyumjev to standard insulin lispro. Endpoints included incremental area under curve (iAUC)-2h, iAUC-4h, 4 h postprandial time in target range, time above range, and time below range. It was approved by independent research ethics committees. Results: Two trials with 8 weeks of data from 51 adults with type 1 diabetes were analyzed and 7137 eligible meals were included. During Lyumjev compared with insulin lispro, iAUC-2h and iAUC-4h were significantly decreased following breakfast (mean difference 92 mmol/L per 2 h (95% confidence interval [CI]: 56 to 127); P < 0.001 and 151 mmol/L per 4 h (95% CI: 74 to 229); P < 0.001, respectively) and the evening meal (P < 0.001 and P = 0.011, respectively). Mean time in target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) for 4 h postprandially significantly increased during Lyumjev with a mean difference of 6.7 percentage points (95% CI: 3.3 to 10) and 5.7 percentage points (95% CI: 1.4 to 9.9) for breakfast and evening meal, respectively. In contrast, there were no significant differences in iAUC-2h, iAUC-4h, and the other measures of postprandial glucose control between insulin aspart and Fiasp during breakfast, lunch, and evening meal (P > 0.05). Conclusion: The use of Lyumjev with CamAPS FX closed-loop system improved postprandial glucose excursions compared with insulin lispro, while the use of Fiasp did not provide any advantage compared with insulin aspart. Clinical Trial Registration numbers: NCT04055480, NCT05257460.

CamAPS FX Hybrid Closed-Loop with Ultra-Rapid Lispro Compared with Standard Lispro in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Crossover Study

Introduction: To evaluate hybrid closed-loop with ultra-rapid insulin lispro (Lyumjev) compared with hybrid closed-loop with standard insulin lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes. Materials and Methods: In a single-center, double-blind, randomized, crossover study, 28 adults with type 1 diabetes (mean ± standard deviation [SD]: age 44.5 ± 10.7 years, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.1 ± 0.9% [54 ± 10 mmol/mol]) underwent two 8-week periods comparing hybrid closed-loop with ultra-rapid insulin lispro and hybrid closed-loop with standard insulin lispro in random order. The same CamAPS FX closed-loop algorithm was used in both periods. Results: In an intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of time sensor glucose was in target range (3.9-10 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]; primary endpoint) was greater with ultra-rapid lispro compared with standard insulin lispro (mean ± SD: 78.7 ± 9.8% vs. 76.2 ± 9.6%; mean difference 2.5 percentage points [95% confidence interval 0.8 to 4.2]; P = 0.005). Mean sensor glucose was lower with ultra-rapid lispro compared with standard insulin lispro (7.9 ± 0.8 mmol/L [142 ± 14 mg/dL] vs. 8.1 ± 0.9 mmol/L [146 ± 16 mg/dL]; P = 0.048). The proportion of time with sensor glucose <3.9 mmol/L [70 mg/dL] was similar between interventions (median [interquartile range] ultra-rapid lispro 2.3% [1.3%-2.7%] vs. standard insulin lispro 2.1% [1.4%-3.3%]; P = 0.33). No severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis occurred. Conclusions: The use of ultra-rapid lispro with CamAPS FX hybrid closed-loop increases time in range and reduces mean glucose with no difference in hypoglycemia compared with standard insulin lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes. ClinicalTrials.gov: Trial registration number NCT05257460.

The Role of Ultra-Rapid-Acting Insulin Analogs in Diabetes: An Expert Consensus

Ultra-rapid-acting insulin analogs (URAA) are a further development and refinement of rapid-acting insulin analogs. Because of their adapted formulation, URAA provide an even faster pharmacokinetics and thus an accelerated onset of insulin action than conventional rapid-acting insulin analogs, allowing for a more physiologic delivery of exogenously applied insulin. Clinical trials have confirmed the superiority of URAA in controlling postprandial glucose excursions, with a safety profile that is comparable to the rapid-acting insulins. Consequently, many individuals with diabetes mellitus may benefit from URAA in terms of prandial glycemic control. Unfortunately, there are only few available recommendations from authoritative sources for use of URAA in clinical practice. Therefore, this expert consensus report aims to define populations of people with diabetes mellitus for whom URAA may be beneficial and to provide health care professionals with concrete, practical recommendations on how best to use URAA in this context.

Fully Closed-Loop Glucose Control Compared With Insulin Pump Therapy With Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes and Suboptimal Glycemic Control: A Single-Center, Randomized, Crossover Study

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the safety and efficacy of fully closed-loop with ultrarapid insulin lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control compared with insulin pump therapy with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This single-center, randomized, crossover study enrolled 26 adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin pump therapy with suboptimal glycemic control (mean ± SD, age 41 ± 12 years, HbA1c 9.2 ± 1.1% [77 ± 12 mmol/mol]). Participants underwent two 8-week periods of unrestricted living to compare fully closed-loop with ultrarapid insulin lispro (CamAPS HX system) with insulin pump therapy with CGM in random order.

RESULTS

In an intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of time glucose was in range (primary end point 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was higher during closed-loop than during pump with CGM (mean ± SD 50.0 ± 9.6% vs. 36.2 ± 12.2%, mean difference 13.2 percentage points [95% CI 9.5, 16.9], P < 0.001). Time with glucose >10.0 mmol/L and mean glucose were lower during closed-loop than during pump with CGM (mean ± SD time >10.0 mmol/L: 49.0 ± 9.9 vs. 62.9 ± 12.6%, mean difference -13.3 percentage points [95% CI -17.2, -9.5], P < 0.001; mean ± SD glucose 10.7 ± 1.1 vs. 12.0 ± 1.6 mmol/L, mean difference -1.2 mmol/L [95% CI -1.8, -0.7], P < 0.001). The proportion of time with glucose <3.9 mmol/L was similar between periods (median [interquartile range (IQR)] closed-loop 0.88% [0.51-1.55] vs. pump with CGM 0.64% [0.28-1.10], P = 0.102). Total daily insulin requirements did not differ (median [IQR] closed-loop 51.9 units/day [35.7-91.2] vs. pump with CGM 50.7 units/day [34.0-70.0], P = 0.704). No severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Fully closed-loop insulin delivery with CamAPS HX improved glucose control compared with insulin pump therapy with CGM in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control.

Maximizing Glycemic Benefits of Using Faster Insulin Formulations in Type 1 Diabetes: In Silico Analysis Under Open- and Closed-Loop Conditions

Background: Ultrarapid-acting insulin analogs that could improve or even prevent postprandial hyperglycemia are now available for both research and clinical care. However, clear glycemic benefits remain elusive, especially when combined with automated insulin delivery (AID) systems. In this work, we study two insulin formulations in silico and highlight adjustments of both open-loop and closed-loop insulin delivery therapies as a critical step to achieve clinically meaningful improvements. Methods: Subcutaneous insulin transport models for two faster analogs, Fiasp (Novo Nordisk, Bagsværd, Denmark) and AT247 (Arecor, Saffron Walden, United Kingdom), were identified using data collected from prior clamp experiments, and integrated into the UVA/Padova type 1 diabetes simulator (adult cohort, N = 100). Pump therapy parameters and the aggressiveness of our full closed-loop algorithm were adapted to the new insulin pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles through a sequence of in silico studies. Finally, we assessed these analogs' glycemic impact with and without modified therapy parameters in simulated conditions designed to match clinical trial data. Results: Simply switching to faster insulin analogs shows limited improvements in glycemic outcomes. However, when insulin acceleration is accompanied by therapy adaptation, clinical significance is found comparing time-in-range (70-180 mg/dL) with Aspart versus AT247 in open-loop (+5.1%); and Aspart versus Fiasp (+5.4%) or AT247 (+10.6%) in full closed-loop with no clinically significant differences in the exposure to hypoglycemia. Conclusion: In silico results suggest that properly adjusting intensive insulin therapy profiles, or AID tuning, to faster insulin analogs is necessary to obtain clinically significant improvements in glucose control.

Advances in Insulin Infusion Set in the New Era of Automated Insulin Delivery: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Automated insulin delivery (AID) has become a well-known research topic devoted to achieving better glycemic outcomes. AID systems consist primarily of three components: the continuous glucose monitoring system, the insulin delivery system, either tethered or patch pump, and the control system (algorithm). A key component in the tethered pump AID system is the insulin infusion set (IIS). This Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) study was conducted to evaluate the IIS evolution in the era of AID and to provide future perspectives of IIS clinical use.

METHODS

Literature searches for articles published from January 2016 to July 2022 were performed in Embase/Medline and PubMed. Data were extracted following PRISMA guidelines. Primary meta-analysis outcomes were IIS wear duration, total daily dose of insulin, and IIS failure reasons/modes.

RESULTS

We identified 387 publications, of which 15 eligible studies compared various IISs comprising over 1400 participants and >53 000 wears. Half of the studies published in 2022 were focused on extended IISs designed for wear durations of seven days or more. Three clinical trials have demonstrated the safe use of extended IISs to seven days of wear in individuals with type 1 diabetes, and two also demonstrated good glycemic control throughout the seven-day use.

CONCLUSIONS

Research in insulin infusion technology has increased in the last six years, and extended IISs have demonstrated improved overall performance, particularly in duration of wear. Paths for future products are discussed with an emphasis on understanding the existing barriers related to both technical and nontechnical issues.

Automated insulin delivery systems: from early research to routine care of type 1 diabetes

Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, so-called closed-loop systems or artificial pancreas, are based upon the concept of insulin supply driven by blood glucose levels and their variations according to body glucose needs, glucose intakes and insulin action. They include a continuous glucose monitoring device which provides a signal to a control algorithm tuning insulin delivery from an infusion pump. The control algorithm is the key of the system since it commands insulin administration in order to maintain blood glucose in a predefined target range and close to a near-normal glucose level. The last two decades have shown dramatic advances toward the use in free life of AID systems for routine care of type 1 diabetes through step-by-step demonstrations of feasibility, safety and efficacy in successive hospital, transitional and outpatient trials. Because of the constraints of pharmacokinetics and dynamics of subcutaneous insulin delivery, the currently available AID systems are all 'hybrid' or 'semi-automated' insulin delivery systems with a need of meal and exercise announcements in order to anticipate rapid glucose variations through pre-meal bolus or pre-exercise reduction of infusion rate. Nevertheless, these AID systems significantly improve time spent in a near-normal range with a reduction of the risk of hypoglycemia and the mental load of managing diabetes in everyday life, representing a milestone in insulin therapy. Expected progression toward fully automated, further miniaturized and integrated, possibly implantable on long-term and more physiological closed-loop systems paves the way for a functional cure of type 1 diabetes.

Efficacy and safety of ultra-rapid insulin analogues in insulin pumps in patients with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To assess the efficacy and safety of ultra-rapid insulin analogues used with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion systems (CSII) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1DM).

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and Cochrane Library up to May 2022 for randomized controlled trials comparing ultra-rapid with rapid-acting insulin analogues (RAIAs) used with CSII. We performed random effects meta-analyses for % of 24-h time in range of 70-180 mg/dl (TIR), time in hypoglycaemia (<70 mg/dl) and hyperglycaemia (>180 mg/dl), 1- and 2-hour post-prandial glucose [PPG] increment after a meal test, HbA1c and average insulin dose at endpoint, unplanned infusion set changes and severe hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

Nine studies (1,156 participants) were included. Ultra-rapid insulins were superior to RAIAs on TIR (mean difference [MD] 1.1 %, 95 % CI 0.11-2.11), time spent in hypoglycaemia (MD -0.47 %, 95 % CI -0.63 to -30), and 1- and 2-hour PPG (MD -12.20 mg/dl, 95 % CI -19.85 to -4.54 and MD -17.61 mg/dl, 95 % CI -28.55 to -6.66, respectively). Ultra-rapid insulins increased odds of unplanned infusion set changes (odds ratio 1.60, 95 % CI 1.26-2.03).

CONCLUSION

Ultra-rapid acting insulins provided better PPG control compared to RAIAs but their use might result in more infusion set changes.

What is the value of faster acting prandial insulin? Focus on ultra rapid lispro

Rapid-acting insulins (RAIs) have been instrumental in the management of diabetes because of their improved postprandial glucose (PPG) control compared with regular human insulin. However, their absorption rate and time action following subcutaneous administration still falls short of the normal physiological response to meal consumption, increasing the risk of early postmeal hyperglycaemia and late postmeal hypoglycaemia. Increased demand for faster acting insulins, which can quickly control PPG excursions without increasing the risk of late hypoglycaemia, led to the development of ultra-rapid-acting insulins, including ultra-rapid lispro (URLi). URLi is a novel formulation of insulin lispro with accelerated absorption driven by two excipients: treprostinil, which increases local vasodilation, and citrate, which increases local vascular permeability. Clinical pharmacology studies consistently showed an earlier onset and shorter duration of action with URLi compared with Lispro. In a head-to-head study with Faster aspart, Aspart and Lispro, URLi was absorbed faster, provided earlier insulin action, and more closely matched physiological glucose response than the other insulins tested. URLi's unique pharmacokinetic properties increase its potential for improved PPG control beyond that achieved with RAIs. Indeed, in pivotal phase 3 trials, URLi was superior to Lispro for PPG control both at 1 and 2 hours after a meal in type 1 and type 2 diabetes with multiple daily injections, and in type 1 diabetes with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. This was achieved without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. In this review, we focus on the clinical and pharmacological evidence for URLi in the treatment of diabetes and discuss the potential benefits and considerations with URLi compared with RAIs.

Closed-Loop Artificial Pancreas Therapy for Type 1 Diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Closed-loop insulin pump systems (artificial pancreas) represent the cutting edge of insulin delivery technology. There are only a few systems currently approved for use in the USA: the MiniMed 670G/770G (which share an algorithm), t:slim X2 Control IQ, and the Omnipod 5. We review these systems and look into the future of the technology.

RECENT FINDINGS

All of the approved closed-loop insulin pump systems have demonstrated in multicenter prospective trials improvements in time in range, hemoglobin A1c, and time spent in hypoglycemia. The newer systems have also improved time spent in automation. Comparisons between the systems with regard to glycemic control are difficult to make due to differences in clinical trial design, but there are notable differences in the user experience between systems. The past few years have been a time of exponential development in the field of closed-loop insulin pump systems. However, more research is needed to provide full automation of these systems without any need for information from the user.

Current Status and Emerging Options for Automated Insulin Delivery Systems

Combining technologies including rapid insulin analogs, insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors, and control algorithms has allowed for the creation of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems. These systems have proven to be the most effective technology for optimizing metabolic control and could hold the key to broadly achieving goal-level glycemic control for people with type 1 diabetes. The use of AID has exploded in the past several years with several options available in the United States and even more in Europe. In this article, we review the largest studies involving these AID systems, and then examine future directions for AID with an emphasis on usability.

Can Faster Aspart Be Used to Optimize Glycemic Control With Insulin Pump Therapy? From Expectations to Lessons Learned After a Year of Use in the United States

Fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) is an ultra-rapid-acting formulation of insulin aspart developed to more closely match the prandial endogenous insulin profile, and its accelerated absorption kinetics are expected to provide clinical benefits for patients using insulin pump therapy. A head-to-head trial versus the original insulin aspart formulation in pump therapy did not demonstrate superiority of faster aspart in terms of A1C reduction, but pump settings were not optimized for the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile of faster aspart. Nevertheless, meal test and continuous glucose monitoring data suggest that faster aspart is beneficial for postprandial glucose control, and a case study is presented illustrating excellent results using this insulin in pump therapy. Frequent blood glucose monitoring and appropriate patient education are vital for success.

Rapid-acting insulin analogues: Theory and best clinical practice in type 1 and type 2 diabetes

Since the discovery of insulin 100 years ago, insulin preparations have improved significantly. Starting from purified animal insulins, evolving to human insulins produced by genetically modified organisms, and ultimately to insulin analogues, all in an attempt to mimic physiological insulin action profiles seen in individuals without diabetes. Achieving strict glucose control without hypoglycaemia and preventing chronic complications of diabetes while preserving quality of life remains a challenging goal, but the advent of newer ultra-rapid-acting insulin analogues may enable intensive insulin therapy without being too disruptive to daily life. Ultra-rapid-acting insulin analogues can be administered shortly before meals and give better coverage of mealtime-induced glucose excursions than conventional insulin preparations. They also increase convenience with timing of bolus dosing. In this review, we focus on the progress that has been made in rapid-acting insulins. We summarize pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data, clinical trial data supporting the use of these new formulations as part of a basal-bolus regimen and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, and provide a clinical perspective to help guide healthcare professionals when and for whom to use ultra-fast-acting insulins.