Ultra rapid lispro improves postprandial glucose control compared with lispro in patients with type 1 diabetes: Results from the 26-week PRONTO-T1D study

A comparison of ultra-rapid and rapid insulin in automated insulin delivery for type 1 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

This study aimed to summarize and compare the evidence on the efficacy and safety of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems using ultra-rapid-acting insulin analogues (URAIs), such as fast-acting insulin aspart (FIASP) and ultra-rapid lispro (URLi) (referred to as AID-URAIs), versus those using rapid-acting insulin analogues (RAIs) (referred to as AID-RAIs) in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of AID-URAI versus AID-RAI. We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrial.gov, and medRxiv for articles up to 30 October 2024. Percent time-in-range (TIR; 3.9-10 mmol/L), time-below-range (TBR; 3.9- and 3.0-mmol/L), and time-above-range (TAR; >10.0- and 13.9-mmol/L) were extracted. This study was registered in the PROSPERO (CRD42024602279).

RESULTS

Sixteen randomized controlled trials (664 participants) were included in this study. AID-URAI were associated with an increased percentage of TIR, but not clinically significant (pooled mean difference {MD} = 1.07% [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.11 to 2.02]; I2 = 0%; p = 0.029; high certainty). The favourable effect was consistent in AID systems incorporating automated bolus correction, adults, study duration >4 weeks, and FIASP subgroups. AID-URAI has a 0.35% lower percentage of TBR (<3.9 mmol/L) compared with AID-RAI. There were no significant differences in the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis and severe hypoglycemia between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

AID-URAI slightly improves the percentage of TIR and has a good safety profile without increasing the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis and severe hypoglycemia.

Reduction of Postprandial Glucose Excursions in Adults, Adolescents, and Children with Type 1 Diabetes Using Ultra-Rapid Lispro Insulin and Control-IQ+ Technology

This study evaluated the effects of ultra-rapid lispro (URLi) insulin versus insulin lispro on postprandial glucose excursions in 176 individuals with type 1 diabetes using Control-IQ+ technology. Postprandial glycemia differed the most between URLi and lispro at 60 min (mean glucose 166 ± 69 mg/dL vs. 178 ± 70 mg/dL; adjusted mean difference [AMD] = -11 mg/dL; P < 0.001). The URLi had slightly lower mean glucose excursion compared with lispro (AMD = -4 mg/dL; P = 0.001), but the differences between treatments were larger following breakfast (AMD = -9 mg/dL) compared with lunch (AMD = -2 mg/dL) and dinner (AMD = -2 mg/dL). Participants with insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio (ICR) <5 g/U had a larger treatment group difference favoring URLi on mean glucose excursion (AMD = -11 mg/dL) compared with those with ICR 5-15 g/U (AMD = -2 mg/dL) and ICR >15 g/U (AMD = 1 mg/dL). In conclusion, compared with insulin lispro, the use of URLi with Control-IQ+ technology modestly improved postprandial glucose excursions with the greatest amount of improvement for breakfast and in those with insulin resistance.

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.

Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Equivalence of Biosimilar and Reference Ultra-Rapid Lispro: A Comparative Clamp Study in Healthy Volunteers

Ultra-rapid insulin lispro is an innovative insulin analogue designed to achieve rapid onset and short duration of action, aimed at optimizing glycemic control in patients with diabetes. This was a double-blind, randomized, 2-period, crossover clamp study to evaluate the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD), along with safety profiles, of a potential biosimilar ultra-rapid insulin lispro compared to the reference product in healthy White men. A total of 35 healthy volunteers completed hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp procedures across both study periods. Blood samples were collected at predefined intervals up to 8 hours to assess PK parameters. Plasma glucose levels were monitored every 5 minutes during the 8-hour clamps, with adjustments to the glucose infusion rate to maintain the target range. Insulin quantification in plasma was conducted using a validated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay method. PD assessment was based on glucose infusion rate profiles during both clamps. Geometric mean ratios for maximum plasma concentration and area under the concentration-time curve from insulin administration to the last measurable concentration for the test and reference drugs fell within the bioequivalence range of 80%-125%. Furthermore, the investigational drugs demonstrated comparable PK/PD profiles of insulin lispro. Both formulations exhibited similar safety profiles primarily characterized by mild injection site reactions.

Investigation of Severe Hypoglycemia Risk Among Patients with Diabetes Treated with Ultra-Rapid Lispro in Japan

INTRODUCTION

There is no information on the incidence of severe hypoglycemia in real-world patients with diabetes receiving ultra-rapid lispro (URLi). This post-marketing, observational, safety study assessed the incidence proportion and incidence rate of the first severe hypoglycemia event requiring a hospital visit in URLi-treated patients. It also compared the risk of severe hypoglycemia between patients treated with URLi or other rapid-acting insulin analogs (RAIAs).

METHODS

Claims data were obtained from a nationwide hospital-based administrative database in Japan (Medical Data Vision). Adults with diabetes who initiated URLi or other RAIA on/after June 01, 2020, were followed up through May 31, 2023. Severe hypoglycemia was identified using a validated algorithm. Incidence proportion and incidence rate of the first severe hypoglycemia event requiring a hospital visit was described in URLi-treated patients (descriptive analysis). These outcomes were also compared against propensity score (PS)-matched other RAIA-treated patients (comparator; comparative analysis). Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated with a Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

The descriptive analysis' URLi-treated cohort included 17,838 patients [mean (standard deviation, SD) age 65.9 (15.7) years; 58.3% male]. The majority had type 2 diabetes (75.7%). The incidence proportion of the first severe hypoglycemia event requiring a hospital visit was 0.6% (95% CI 0.5, 0.8) and the incidence rate was 1.7 per 100 person-years (95% CI 0.7, 4.3). The comparative analysis included 10,592 URLi-treated and 52,917 comparator-treated patients. The incidence rate of severe hypoglycemia did not significantly differ between these cohorts (HR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5, 1.1; p = 0.132;.

CONCLUSION

This study did not show a statistically significant increase in the incidence and risk of the first severe hypoglycemia event requiring a hospital visit in real-world URLi-treated patients in Japan, compared with a PS-matched cohort of other RAIA-treated patients.

9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2025

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Evaluation of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic similarity of an IDegAsp biosimilar versus the originator in healthy Chinese volunteers

OBJECTIVES

22011 is an insulin degludec/insulin aspart co-formulation (IDegAsp) that shares an identical amino acid sequence with Ryzodeg, the originator IDegAsp. This study aimed to compare the pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and safety of 22011 with Ryzodeg.

METHODS

In a single-center, randomized, open-label, two-treatment, two-period, two-sequence, crossover, euglycemic clamp study, healthy Chinese adults were randomized to receive 0.5 U/kg of 22011 and Ryzodeg under fasting conditions. PK was evaluated for up to 120 h and PD (represented by glucose infusion rate [GIR]) was assessed for up to 24 h.

RESULTS

Of 46 subjects randomized, all completed both treatment periods and were included in the PK/PD and safety analysis set. Insulin exposure (AUCIDeg, 0-24 h, AUCIAsp, 0-12 h, and Cmax, IAsp) and activity (GIRmax and AUCGIR, 0-24 h) were comparable (estimates of treatment ratios 0.916 ~ 1.076 for primary PK parameters and 0.946 ~ 1.037 for primary PD parameters), with 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of least square means falling within the range of 0.80 ~ 1.25. Adverse events were similar for both products and no significant safety concerns were noted in the laboratory results, vital signs, or electrocardiogram.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the PK/PD similarity of 22011 to Ryzodeg with a comparable safety profile.Trial Registration: http://www.chinadrugtrials.org.cn/index.html with an identifier of CTR20230678, registered 15 March 2023.

Nocturnal Glucose Profile According to Timing of Dinner Rapid Insulin and Basal and Rapid Insulin Type: An Insulclock® Connected Insulin Cap-Based Real-World Study

BACKGROUND

A study to assess the glucose levels of people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) overnight, based on the insulin type and timing.

METHODS

A real-world, retrospective study of T1D, using multiple daily insulin injections. Continuous glucose monitoring and insulin injection data were collected for ten hours after dinner using the Insulclock® connected cap. Meal events were identified using the ROC detection methodology. The timing of the rapid insulin, second injections, and the type of insulin analogs used, were evaluated.

RESULTS

The nocturnal profiles (n = 775, 49 subjects) were analyzed. A higher glucose AUC of over 180 mg/dL was observed in subjects with delayed injections (number; %; mg/dL × h): -45-15 min (n = 136; 17.5%, 175.9 ± 271.0); -15-0 min (n = 231; 29.8%, 164.0 ± 2 37.1); 0 + 45 min (n = 408; 52.6%, 203.6 ± 260.9), (p = 0.049). The use of ultrarapid insulin (FiAsp®) (URI) vs. rapid insulin (RI) analogs was associated with less hypoglycemia events (7.1 vs. 13.6%; p = 0.005) and TBR70 (1.7 ± 6.9 vs. 4.6 ± 13.9%; p = 0.003). Users of glargine U300 vs. degludec had a higher TIR (70.7 vs. 58.5%) (adjusted R-squared: 0.22, p < 0.001). The use of a correction injection (n = 144, 18.6%) was associated with a higher number of hypoglycemia events (18.1 vs. 9.5%; p = 0.003), TBR70 (5.5 ± 14.2 vs. 3.0 ± 11.1%; p = 0.003), a glucose AUC of over 180 mg/dL (226.1 ± 257.8 vs. 178.0 ± 255.3 mg/dL × h; p = 0.001), and a lower TIR (56.0 ± 27.4 vs. 62.7 ± 29.6 mg/dL × h; p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

The dinner rapid insulin timing, insulin type, and the use of correction injections affect the nocturnal glucose profile in T1D.

Advances in Nanomedicine for Precision Insulin Delivery

Diabetes mellitus, which comprises a group of metabolic disorders affecting carbohydrate metabolism, is characterized by improper glucose utilization and excessive production, leading to hyperglycemia. The global prevalence of diabetes is rising, with projections indicating it will affect 783.2 million people by 2045. Insulin treatment is crucial, especially for type 1 diabetes, due to the lack of β-cell function. Intensive insulin therapy, involving multiple daily injections or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, has proven effective in reducing microvascular complications but poses a higher risk of severe hypoglycemia. Recent advancements in insulin formulations and delivery methods, such as ultra-rapid-acting analogs and inhaled insulin, offer potential benefits in terms of reducing hypoglycemia and improving glycemic control. However, the traditional subcutaneous injection method has drawbacks, including patient compliance issues and associated complications. Nanomedicine presents innovative solutions to these challenges, offering promising avenues for overcoming current drug limitations, enhancing cellular uptake, and improving pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Various nanocarriers, including liposomes, chitosan, and PLGA, provide protection against enzymatic degradation, improving drug stability and controlled release. These nanocarriers offer unique advantages, ranging from enhanced bioavailability and sustained release to specific targeting capabilities. While oral insulin delivery is being explored for better patient adherence and cost-effectiveness, other nanomedicine-based methods also show promise in improving delivery efficiency and patient outcomes. Safety concerns, including potential toxicity and immunogenicity issues, must be addressed, with the FDA providing guidance for the safe development of nanotechnology-based products. Future directions in nanomedicine will focus on creating next-generation nanocarriers with precise targeting, real-time monitoring, and stimuli-responsive features to optimize diabetes treatment outcomes and patient safety. This review delves into the current state of nanomedicine for insulin delivery, examining various types of nanocarriers and their mechanisms of action, and discussing the challenges and future directions in developing safe and effective nanomedicine-based therapies for diabetes management.

Therapy-Related Satisfaction and Quality of Life for Japanese People with Diabetes Using Rapid-Acting Insulin Analogs: A Web-Based Survey

INTRODUCTION

People with diabetes require insulin to regulate blood glucose (BG); rapid-acting insulin analogs (RAIA) represent one approach for BG management. New fast-acting RAIA administered at the start of a meal suppress postprandial BG better than conventional RAIA. New RAIA are expected to confer higher treatment satisfaction and improved quality of life (QOL) than conventional RAIA.

METHODS

This cross-sectional, web-based survey in Japan (November 2022) included people with diabetes (type 1/2), aged ≥ 18 years, registered in the Rakuten Insight Diabetes Panel, using new and/or conventional RAIA. RAIA-specific satisfaction was evaluated by questions on RAIA use (scores: 1 [not at all satisfied]; 7 [very satisfied]) and QOL by the Diabetes Therapy-Related (DTR)-QOL questionnaire (scores: 0-100, 100 = best) for the whole population (primary endpoint) and for new versus conventional RAIA users (secondary endpoint). Multiple regression models were used to compare new versus conventional RAIA users.

RESULTS

The analysis population comprised 217 people with diabetes (new RAIA, n = 109; conventional RAIA, n = 108). Mean (standard deviation) RAIA-specific satisfaction scores ranged from 5.1 (1.2) to 5.4 (1.2); DTR-QOL total score was 51.6 (20.4). RAIA satisfaction scores were numerically higher for new versus conventional RAIA users; no difference in DTR-QOL total score was observed. DTR-QOL satisfaction with treatment domain score was significantly higher in new versus conventional RAIA users (least squares mean difference [standard error]: 7.3 [3.1]; 95% confidence interval: 1.2, 13.4; P = 0.0197). RAIA-specific satisfaction was higher among patients who discussed BG sufficiently with their doctor versus those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

New RAIA users have greater treatment satisfaction than conventional RAIA users. QOL was similar among new and conventional RAIA users, except for satisfaction with treatment, which was significantly higher among new RAIA users. Detailed explanations from the doctor to the person with diabetes about the relationship between new RAIA and BG status are essential. A graphical plain language summary is available with this article.

Prandial Insulins: A Person-Centered Choice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Postprandial hyperglycemia, or elevated blood glucose after meals, is associated with the development and progression of various diabetes-related complications. Prandial insulins are designed to replicate the natural insulin release after meals and are highly effective in managing post-meal glucose spikes. Currently, different types of prandial insulins are available such as human regular insulin, rapid-acting analogs, ultra-rapid-acting analogs, and inhaled insulins. Knowledge about diverse landscape of prandial insulin will optimize glycemic management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Human regular insulin, identical to insulin produced by the human pancreas, has a slower onset and extended duration, potentially leading to post-meal hyperglycemia and later hypoglycemia. In contrast, rapid-acting analogs, such as lispro, aspart, and glulisine, are new insulin types with amino acid modifications that enhance their subcutaneous absorption, resulting in a faster onset and shorter action duration. Ultra-rapid analogs, like faster aspart and ultra-rapid lispro, offer even shorter onset of action, providing better meal-time flexibility. The Technosphere insulin offers an inhaled route for prandial insulin delivery. The prandial insulins can be incorporated into basal-bolus, basal plus, or prandial-only regimens or delivered through insulin pumps. Human regular insulin, aspart, lispro, and faster aspart are recommended for management of hyperglycemia during pregnancy. Ongoing research is focused on refining prandial insulin replacement and exploring newer delivery methods. The article provides a comprehensive overview of various prandial insulin options and their clinical applications in the management of diabetes.

New advances in type 1 diabetes

Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune condition resulting in insulin deficiency and eventual loss of pancreatic β cell function requiring lifelong insulin therapy. Since the discovery of insulin more than 100 years ago, vast advances in treatments have improved care for many people with type 1 diabetes. Ongoing research on the genetics and immunology of type 1 diabetes and on interventions to modify disease course and preserve β cell function have expanded our broad understanding of this condition. Biomarkers of type 1 diabetes are detectable months to years before development of overt disease, and three stages of diabetes are now recognized. The advent of continuous glucose monitoring and the newer automated insulin delivery systems have changed the landscape of type 1 diabetes management and are associated with improved glycated hemoglobin and decreased hypoglycemia. Adjunctive therapies such as sodium glucose cotransporter-1 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists may find use in management in the future. Despite these rapid advances in the field, people living in under-resourced parts of the world struggle to obtain necessities such as insulin, syringes, and blood glucose monitoring essential for managing this condition. This review covers recent developments in diagnosis and treatment and future directions in the broad field of type 1 diabetes.

Fasting and postprandial plasma glucose contributions to hemoglobin A1c and time in range in people with diabetes on multiple daily injection insulin therapy: Results from the PRONTO-T1D and PRONTO-T2D clinical trials

AIMS

To investigate contributions of changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and postprandial glucose (PPG) to changes in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and time-in-range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL) in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin lispro (rapid/ultra-rapid formulations).

METHODS

Multivariate regression models were used to quantify the contributions of FPG and PPG reductions to change in HbA1c and TIR using data from the PRONTO-T1D (N = 1222) and PRONTO-T2D (N = 673) clinical trials. TIR was derived from 10-point self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) profiles overall, as well as from continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the PRONTO-T1D CGM substudy (n = 269/1222).

RESULTS

A 1 mmol/L FPG reduction corresponded with a 0.09-0.12 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.06-0.15 %) HbA1c reduction in PRONTO-T1D and 0.17-0.26 % (95 % CI 0.13-0.30 %) in PRONTO-T2D (both p < 0.0001). A 1 mmol/L PPG reduction corresponded with a 0.05-0.09 % (95 % CI 0.01-0.12 %) HbA1c reduction in PRONTO-T1D (p < 0.001) and 0.10-0.15 % (95 % CI 0.05-0.19 %) in PRONTO-T2D (p < 0.0001). Reductions in FPG and PPG were significantly associated with increased TIR whether derived from SMBG (7.87-12.95 % [95 % CI 6.81-14.23 %]; all p < 0.0001) or CGM (3.35-4.18 % [95 % CI 2.11-5.39 %]; all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

FPG and PPG significantly impact HbA1c and TIR. Balanced management of both FPG and PPG is important to achieve glycemic goals for people with diabetes on MDI insulin therapy.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

PRONTO-T1D ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03214367; PRONTO-T2D ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03214380.

9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Ultra-rapid lispro improved postprandial glucose control compared to insulin lispro in predominantly Chinese patients with type 1 diabetes: A prospective, randomized, double-blind phase 3 study

AIMS

To investigate the efficacy and safety of ultra-rapid lispro (URLi) versus insulin lispro in predominantly Chinese patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, treat-to-target, phase 3 study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Following a lead-in period, during which insulin glargine U-100 or insulin degludec U-100 was optimized, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to URLi (n = 176) or insulin lispro (n = 178). The primary objective was to test the noninferiority of URLi to insulin lispro in glycaemic control (noninferiority margin = 0.4% for glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] change from baseline to week 26), with testing for the superiority of URLi to insulin lispro with regard to 1- and 2-hour postprandial glucose (PPG) excursions during a mixed-meal tolerance test and HbA1c change at week 26 as the multiplicity-adjusted objectives.

RESULTS

From baseline to week 26, HbA1c decreased by 0.21% and 0.28% with URLi and insulin lispro, respectively, with a least squares mean treatment difference of 0.07% (95% confidence interval -0.11 to 0.24; P = 0.467). URLi demonstrated smaller 1- and 2-hour PPG excursions at week 26 with least squares mean treatment differences of -1.0 mmol/L (-17.8 mg/dL) and -1.4 mmol/L (-25.5 mg/dL), respectively (p < 0.005 for both) versus insulin lispro. The safety profiles of URLi and insulin lispro were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, URLi administered in a basal-bolus regimen demonstrated superiority to insulin lispro in controlling PPG excursions, with noninferiority of HbA1c control in predominantly Chinese patients with T1D.

Ultra rapid lispro (Lyumjev®) shortens time to recovery from hyperglycaemia compared to Humalog® in individuals with type 1 diabetes on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion

AIMS

To compare the time to hyperglycaemia recovery after ultra rapid lispro (URLi; Lyumjev®) versus Humalog in a randomized, double-blind crossover study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-two adults with type 1 diabetes on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion participated in two periods: each period included hyperglycaemia induced by a missed mealtime bolus (day 1) and by suspension of basal insulin delivery (day 2). When hyperglycaemia [plasma glucose (PG) >240 mg/dl] occurred, a correction bolus of URLi or Humalog was given and time to hyperglycaemia recovery (PG = 140 mg/dl), pharmacokinetics and glucodynamics were compared.

RESULTS

Following a missed mealtime bolus, URLi significantly reduced maximum PG (-13 mg/dl; p = .02), and produced numerically more rapid decline in PG (23 mg/dl/h; p = .07), and faster recovery from hyperglycaemia (-23 min; p = .1) versus Humalog, although differences were not significant. Following basal suspension, URLi significantly reduced maximum PG (-6 mg/dl; p = .02), and produced faster PG decline (24 mg/dl/h; p < .001) and faster recovery from hyperglycaemia (-16 min; p < .01) vs. Humalog. Following a correction bolus of URLi, accelerated insulin lispro absorption was observed versus Humalog: early 50% tmax was reduced by 6 or 12 min, and AUC0-15min was increased 2.5- or 4.3-fold after correction boluses by subcutaneous infusion (day 1) or injection (day 2), respectively (all p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

During episodes of hyperglycaemia commonly experienced in people with type 1 diabetes, URLi provided a faster recovery versus Humalog from a missed mealtime bolus or during basal insulin suspension. URLi shows significant acceleration of insulin absorption versus Humalog when boluses are administered by subcutaneous infusion or injection.

Assessing Time in Range with Postprandial Glucose-Focused Titration of Ultra Rapid Lispro (URLi) in People with Type 1 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

To assess time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) with postprandial glucose (PPG)-focused titration of ultra rapid lispro (URLi; Lyumjev®) in combination with insulin degludec in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

This phase 2, single-group, open-label, exploratory study was conducted in 31 participants with T1D on multiple daily injection therapy. Participants were treated with insulin degludec and Lispro for an 11-day lead-in and then URLi for a 46-day treatment period consisting of 35-day titration and 11-day endpoint maintenance period. Glucose targets for the titration period were PPG < 140 mg/dL or < 20% increase from premeal, fasting glucose 80-110 mg/dL, and overnight excursion ± 30 mg/dL or less. Participants used the InPen™ bolus calculator and Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).

RESULTS

Primary endpoint mean TIR (70-180 mg/dL) with URLi during the maintenance period was 70.2%. TIR (70-180 mg/dL) and times below/above range were not significantly different with URLi (maintenance) versus lispro (lead-in). HbA1c decreased from 7.1% at screening to 6.8% at endpoint (least squares mean [LSM] change from baseline, - 0.36%; P < 0.001). Fructosamine and 1,5-anhydroglucitol improved (P < 0.001). Mean hourly glucose using CGM was reduced from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM with URLi. Overall highest PPG excursion across meals was significantly reduced at URLi endpoint compared with lispro lead-in (mean 56.5 vs 72.4 mg/dL; P < 0.001). Insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio (U/X g) was reduced (more insulin given) at breakfast at URLi endpoint vs lead-in (LSM 9.0 vs 9.7 g; P = 0.002) and numerically decreased at other meals. Total daily insulin dose (TDD) was higher at URLi endpoint compared with lispro lead-in (mean 50.2 vs 47.0 U; P = 0.046) with similar prandial/TDD ratio (mean 52.1% vs 51.2%). There were no severe hypoglycemia events during the study.

CONCLUSIONS

URLi in a basal-bolus regimen focusing on PPG targets demonstrated improved overall glycemic control and reduced PPG excursions without increased hypoglycemia in participants with T1D.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT04585776.

Efficacy and Safety of Ultra-rapid Lispro Insulin in Managing Type-1 and Type-2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Mechanistically, subcutaneous ultra-rapid lispro (URLi) is faster than lispro. Whether this translates into a better post-prandial glucose (PPG) and glycemic control in type-1 diabetes (T1DM) and type-2 diabetes (T2DM) is unclear. Hence, we undertook this meta-analysis.

Methods

Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with T1DM/T2DM receiving URLi in intervention-arm, and placebo/prandial insulin as control. The primary outcome was a change in PPG. Secondary outcomes were alterations in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), time in range (TIR), and adverse events.

Results

Data from six RCTs (3687 patients) were analyzed. Lispro was the control arm in all RCTs. T1DM patients receiving mealtime URLi had lower HbA1c [mean difference (MD) -0.07%; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.12 to - 0.01; P = 0.02; I2 = 42%] and 1-h PPG [MD - 1.18 mmol/L; 95% CI: -1.91 to - 0.44; P = 0.002; I2 = 100%]. T1DM patients receiving post-meal URLi had comparable HbA1c [MD 0.07%; 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.15; P = 0.07; I2 = 55%] and 1-h PPG [MD 0.22 mmol/L; 95% CI: -0.80 to 1.24; P = 0.67; I2 = 100%). T1DM patients on pumps receiving URLi had comparable TIR [MD 1.70; 95% CI: -0.29 to 3.69; P = 0.09; I2 = 98%], lower time in blood glucose <3 mmol/L with increased infusion-set reactions. T2DM patients receiving mealtime URLi had lower 1-h PPG [MD - 0.66 mmol/L; 95% CI: -0.69 to - 0.63; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%(LH), 2-h-PPG [MD - 0.96 mmol/L; 95% CI: -1.00 to - 0.92; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%], higher FPG [MD 0.18 mmol/L; 95% CI: 0.11-0.24; P < 0.00001; I2 = 20%], and higher HbA1c [MD 0.07%; 95% CI: -0.06 to 0.08; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%].

Conclusion

Pre-meal URLi is better than lispro with regard to PPG control. Post-meal URLi is as good as lispro for PPG control. Post-meal URLi is inferior to pre-meal URLi for PPG control.

New therapies towards a better glycemic control in youths with type 1 diabetes

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is the most frequent form of diabetes in pediatric age, affecting more than 1.5 million people younger than age 20 years worldwide. Early and intensive control of diabetes provides continued protection against both microvascular and macrovascular complications, enhances growth, and ensures normal pubertal development. In the absence of definitive reversal therapy for this disease, achieving and maintaining the recommended glycemic targets is crucial. In the last 30 years, enormous progress has been made using technology to better treat T1D. In spite of this progress, the majority of children, adolescents and young adults do not reach the recommended targets for glycemic control and assume a considerable burden each day. The development of promising new therapeutic advances, such as more physiologic insulin analogues, pioneering diabetes technology including continuous glucose monitoring and closed loop systems as well as new adjuvant drugs, anticipate a new paradigm in T1D management over the next few years. This review presents insights into current management of T1D in youths.

Gaps Remain for Achieving HbA1c Targets for People with Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes Using Insulin: Results from NHANES 2009-2020

INTRODUCTION

Glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is an important measure to assess glycemic control and predict diabetes complications. However, there is limited information on trends in HbA1c among people with diabetes (PwDs) who use insulin. The aim of this study was to describe trends in HbA1c among PwDs who use insulin by diabetes type and insulin regimen.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, 2009-2020). PwDs were classified into three cohorts: type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), type 2 diabetes mellitus using mealtime insulin (T2DM-MTI), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using basal-only insulin (T2DM basal-only). Trends in HbA1c over time were assessed using regression analysis after adjusting for age, gender, and race/ethnicity.

RESULTS

Mean HbA1c values aggregated over 2009-2020 were 8.0% (T1DM), 8.6% (T2DM-MTI), and 8.6% (T2DM basal-only). The American Diabetes Association-recommended target of HbA1c of < 7% was achieved by 25.2% of people in the T1DM and T2DM-MTI groups each and by 12.3% of people in the T2DM basal-only group. Over time, an upward trend was observed in the percentage of people achieving HbA1c < 7% in the T2DM basal-only group. The percentage of PwDs achieving individualized HbA1c targets was 27.0%, 12.4%, and 16.1% for the T1DM, T2DM-MTI, and T2DM basal-only groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study using NHANES data suggests that approximately 25% of PwDs achieve glycemic targets. This study highlights the need for improved therapies to better manage glycemic targets in PwDs.

Increased Time in Range with Ultra Rapid Lispro Treatment in Participants with Type 2 Diabetes: PRONTO-Time in Range

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate time in range metrics and HbA1c in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with ultra rapid lispro (URLi) using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the first time in this population.

METHODS

This was a Phase 3b, 12-week, single-treatment study in adults with T2D on basal-bolus multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy using basal insulin glargine U-100 along with a rapid-acting insulin analog. Following a 4-week baseline period, 176 participants were newly treated with prandial URLi. Participants used unblinded CGM (Freestyle Libre). Primary endpoint was time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dl) during the daytime period at Week 12 compared to baseline with gated secondary endpoints of HbA1c change from baseline and 24-h TIR (70-180 mg/dl).

RESULTS

Improved glycemic control was observed at Week 12 versus baseline including mean daytime TIR (change from baseline [Δ] 3.8%; P = 0.007), HbA1c (Δ - 0.44%; P < 0.001), and 24-h TIR (Δ 3.3%; P = 0.016) with no significant difference in time below range (TBR). After 12 weeks, there was a statistically significant decrease in postprandial glucose incremental area under curve, overall, across all meals, within 1 h (P = 0.005) or 2 h (P < 0.001) after the start of a meal. Basal, bolus, and total insulin dose were intensified with increased bolus/total dose ratio at Week 12 (50.7%) versus baseline (44.5%; P < 0.001). There were no severe hypoglycemia events during the treatment period.

CONCLUSIONS

In people with T2D, URLi in an MDI regimen was efficacious with improved glycemic control including TIR, HbA1c, and postprandial glucose without increased hypoglycemia/TBR. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04605991.

Significant publications in diabetes pharmacotherapy and technology in 2020

INTRODUCTION

The most significant articles on diabetes pharmacotherapy and technology in the peer-reviewed literature from 2020, as determined by a panel of pharmacists with expertise in diabetes care and education, are summarized.

AREAS COVERED

Members of the Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists Pharmacy Community of Interest were selected to review articles published in prominent peer-reviewed journals in 2020 that most impacted diabetes pharmacotherapy and technology. A list of 37 nominated articles were compiled (22 in diabetes pharmacotherapy and 15 in diabetes technology). Based on discussion among the authors, the articles were ranked based on significant contribution, impact, and diversity to diabetes pharmacotherapy and technology. The top 10 highest ranked publications (n = 6 for diabetes pharmacotherapy and n = 4 in diabetes technology) are summarized in this article.

EXPERT OPINION

With the significant number of publications in diabetes care and education, it can be challenging and overwhelming to remain current with published literature. This review article may be helpful in identifying key articles in diabetes pharmacotherapy and technology from the year 2020.

9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Efficacy and safety of ultra-rapid lispro versus lispro in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: The PRONTO-Peds trial

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ultra-rapid lispro (URLi) versus lispro in a paediatric population with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in a Phase 3, treat-to-target study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After a 4-week lead-in to optimize basal insulin, participants were randomized to double-blind URLi (n = 280) or lispro (n = 298) injected 0 to 2 minutes prior to meals (mealtime), or open-label URLi (n = 138) injected up to 20 minutes after start of meals (postmeal). Participants remained on pre-study basal insulin (degludec, detemir or glargine). The primary endpoint was glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change from baseline after 26 weeks (noninferiority margin 4.4 mmol/mol [0.4%]).

RESULTS

Both mealtime and postmeal URLi demonstrated noninferiority to lispro for HbA1c: estimated treatment difference (ETD) for mealtime URLi -0.23 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval [CI] -1.84, 1.39) and postmeal URLi -0.17 mmol/mol (95% CI -2.15, 1.81). Mealtime URLi reduced 1-hour postprandial glucose (PPG) daily mean (P = 0.001) and premeal to 1 hour postmeal PPG excursion daily mean (P < 0.001) versus lispro. The rate and incidence of severe, nocturnal or documented hypoglycaemia (<3.0 mmol/L [54 mg/dL]) were similar for all treatments. With mealtime URLi versus lispro, the rate of postdose hypoglycaemia (<3.0 mmol/L) was higher at ≤2 hours (P = 0.034). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar for all treatments. More participants reported an injection site reaction with mealtime URLi (7.9%) versus postmeal URLi (2.9%) and lispro (2.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

In children and adolescents with T1D, URLi demonstrated good glycaemic control, and noninferiority to lispro in HbA1c change for mealtime and postmeal URLi. When dosed at the beginning of meals, URLi reduced 1-hour PPG and PPG excursions versus lispro.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this clinical practice guideline is to provide updated and new evidence-based recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, other health care professionals and stakeholders, and individuals with diabetes and their caregivers.

METHODS

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology selected a task force of medical experts and staff who updated and assessed clinical questions and recommendations from the prior 2015 version of this guideline and conducted literature searches for relevant scientific papers published from January 1, 2015, through May 15, 2022. Selected studies from results of literature searches composed the evidence base to update 2015 recommendations as well as to develop new recommendations based on review of clinical evidence, current practice, expertise, and consensus, according to established American Association of Clinical Endocrinology protocol for guideline development.

RESULTS

This guideline includes 170 updated and new evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes. Recommendations are divided into four sections: (1) screening, diagnosis, glycemic targets, and glycemic monitoring; (2) comorbidities and complications, including obesity and management with lifestyle, nutrition, and bariatric surgery, hypertension, dyslipidemia, retinopathy, neuropathy, diabetic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease; (3) management of prediabetes, type 2 diabetes with antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy and glycemic targets, type 1 diabetes with insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, hospitalized persons, and women with diabetes in pregnancy; (4) education and new topics regarding diabetes and infertility, nutritional supplements, secondary diabetes, social determinants of health, and virtual care, as well as updated recommendations on cancer risk, nonpharmacologic components of pediatric care plans, depression, education and team approach, occupational risk, role of sleep medicine, and vaccinations in persons with diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to assist with person-centered, team-based clinical decision-making to improve the care of persons with diabetes mellitus.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Ultra-Rapid Lispro in Younger and Older Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Randomized Double-Blind PRONTO-T2D Study

INTRODUCTION

Ultra-rapid lispro (URLi) is a new prandial insulin lispro formulation. In the PRONTO-T2D study, URLi, in a basal-bolus regimen with glargine or degludec, was non-inferior to lispro (Humalog^®) for HbA1c reduction and superior for postprandial glucose (PPG) control. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of URLi compared to lispro in younger versus older patients in PRONTO-T2D.

METHODS

PRONTO-T2D was a phase 3, 26-week, double-blind, treat-to-target study in people with type 2 diabetes. In this sub-group analysis, we compared URLi to lispro on the change from baseline  in HbA1c and rate of level 2 hypoglycemia (< 54 mg/dl) in patients aged < 65 (N = 406) and ≥ 65 years (N = 267).

RESULTS

At baseline, patients < 65 versus ≥ 65 years had mean age of 54.9 versus 69.2 years and duration of diabetes 14.6 versus 19.4 years. Mean HbA1c at screening and randomization was 8.35 and 7.34%, respectively, in patients < 65 years, and 8.21 and 7.23%, respectively, in patients ≥ 65 years. At endpoint, mean HbA1c with URLi versus lispro was 6.92 versus 6.90%, respectively, in patients < 65 years and 6.89 versus 6.79%, respectively, in patients ≥ 65 years. URLi significantly reduced 1- and 2-h PPG excursions with a standardized meal test in both age groups: between-treatment differences at 1-h postmeal for younger and older patients was - 9.8 and - 15.1 mg/dl, respectively; and at 2-h postmeal, - 18.7 and - 15.1 mg/dl, respectively, all p < 0.05. Severe and nocturnal hypoglycemia were similar between groups. The relative rate (URLi/Humalog) of level 2 hypoglycemia was lower in older versus younger patients, with a significant treatment-by-age interaction observed. No differential treatment effects were noted for insulin dose, weight, and fasting and maximum glucose after the meal test.

CONCLUSIONS

URLi, in a basal-bolus regimen, resulted in endpoint HbA1c < 7% and significantly lower PPG excursions compared to lispro in both age groups, with reduced level 2 hypoglycemia in older versus younger patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03214380.

Ultra-rapid lispro shows faster pharmacokinetics and reduces postprandial glucose excursions versus Humalog® in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in a randomized, controlled crossover meal test early phase study

AIMS

To compare the pharmacokinetics (PK), glucodynamics (GD) and tolerability following single and multiple daily subcutaneous doses of ultra rapid lispro (URLi) and Humalog® in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a two-part, randomized, double-blind Phase 1b study. Part A used a six-period crossover design to assess PK and GD response to a solid mixed meal tolerance test (MMTT) following a single dose of URLi or Humalog administered 15 minutes before, immediately before, or 15 minutes after the start of the meal. Part B evaluated URLi or Humalog during 2 weeks of multiple daily dosing with a parallel design. The PK and GD were assessed following MMTTs at the beginning and end of the 2 weeks when insulins were administered immediately before the start of the meal.

RESULTS

URLi increased the insulin exposure within the first 30 minutes postdose by 2.2-fold and reduced the time to the early half-maximal drug concentration by 22.6% compared with Humalog. Overall, URLi resulted in better postprandial glucose lowering when dosed before, immediately before, or after a meal. In comparing the same meal-to-dose timing between the insulins, the postprandial glucose excursion over 5 hours was significantly reduced by 29%-105% for all three dose timings (-15, 0 and +15 minutes) with URLi. The PK and GD were sustained after daily subcutaneous dosing for 2 weeks in patients with T2D. URLi had more hypoglycaemic events during the MMTTs; few events occurred for both treatments during the 2 weeks of outpatient dosing.

CONCLUSIONS

URLi demonstrated accelerated insulin lispro absorption and greater postprandial glucose reduction at different meal-to-dose timings compared with Humalog and was well tolerated in patients with T2D.

Ultra rapid lispro (URLi) shows accelerated pharmacokinetics and greater reduction in postprandial glucose versus Humalog® in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus in a randomized, double-blind meal test early-phase study

AIM

To compare the pharmacokinetics (PK), glucodynamics (GD), and tolerability following single and multiple daily subcutaneous (SC) doses of ultra rapid lispro (URLi) and Humalog® in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a two-part, randomized, double-blind, Phase 1b study. Part A used a six-period crossover design to assess PK and GD response to a solid mixed meal tolerance test (MMTT) following a single dose of URLi or Humalog administered 15 min before, immediately before, and 15 min after the start of the meal. Part B evaluated URLi or Humalog during 2 weeks of multiple daily dosing with a parallel design. The PK and GD were assessed following MMTTs at the beginning and end of the 2-week period when insulins were administered immediately before the start of the meal.

RESULTS

URLi increased the insulin exposure within the first 30 min postdose by 2.2-fold and reduced the time to early half-maximal drug concentration by 37% compared with Humalog. Overall, URLi resulted in better postprandial glucose lowering when dosed before, immediately before, or after a meal compared with Humalog. Comparing the same meal-to-dose timing between the insulins, postprandial glucose excursion over 5 hours was reduced by 40%-44% for all three dose timings (-15, 0, and +15 min) with URLi, achieving statistical significance for the 0- and +15-min timings. The PK and GD profiles were sustained after daily SC dosing for 2 weeks in patients with T1D. The number of documented hypoglycaemic events was similar between URLi and Humalog during the postprandial period of the MMTTs and the outpatient period.

CONCLUSIONS

URLi showed accelerated insulin lispro absorption and greater postprandial glucose reduction at different meal-to-dose timings compared with Humalog and was well tolerated in patients with T1D.

9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Insulin Centennial: Milestones influencing the development of insulin preparations since 1922

During 1921 to 1922, a team effort by Banting, Macleod, Collip and Best isolated and purified insulin and demonstrated its life-giving properties, giving rise to the birth of insulin therapy. In the early years (1922-1950), priorities revolved around the manufacture of insulin to meet demand, improving purity to avoid allergic reactions, establishing insulin standards and increasing its duration of action to avoid multiple daily injections. Shortly after the emergence of insulin, Joslin and Allen advocated the need to achieve and maintain good glycaemic control to realize its full potential. Although this view was opposed by some during a dark period in the history of insulin, it was subsequently endorsed some 60 years later endorsed by the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial and United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study. Major scientific advances by the Nobel Laureates Sanger, Hodgkin, Yalow and Gilbert and also by Steiner have revolutionized the understanding of diabetes and facilitated major advances in insulin therapy. The more recent advent of recombinant technology over the last 40 years has provided the potential for unlimited source of insulin, and the ability to generate various insulin 'analogues', in an attempt to better replicate normal insulin secretory patterns. The emerging biosimilars now provide the opportunity to improve availability at a lower cost.

One-hundred year evolution of prandial insulin preparations: From animal pancreas extracts to rapid-acting analogs

The first insulin preparation injected in humans in 1922 was short-acting, extracted from animal pancreas, contaminated by impurities. Ever since the insulin extracted from animal pancreas has been continuously purified, until an unlimited synthesis of regular human insulin (RHI) became possible in the '80s using the recombinant-DNA (rDNA) technique. The rDNA technique then led to the designer insulins (analogs) in the early '90s. Rapid-acting insulin analogs were developed to accelerate the slow subcutaneous (sc) absorption of RHI, thus lowering the 2-h post-prandial plasma glucose (PP-PG) and risk for late hypoglycemia as comparing with RHI. The first rapid-acting analog was lispro (in 1996), soon followed by aspart and glulisine. Rapid-acting analogs are more convenient than RHI: they improve early PP-PG, and 24-h PG and A1C as long as basal insulin is also optimized; they lower the risk of late PP hypoglycemia and they allow a shorter time-interval between injection and meal. Today rapid-acting analogs are the gold standard prandial insulins. Recently, even faster analogs have become available (faster aspart, ultra-rapid lispro) or are being studied (Biochaperone lispro), making additional gains in lowering PP-PG. Rapid-acting analogs are recommended in all those with type 1 and type 2 diabetes who need prandial insulin replacement.

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.

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

Background: Automated insulin delivery systems are associated with improved glycemic outcomes for patients with diabetes. Ultrarapid lispro (URLi), which has an accelerated pharmacokinetic profile and shows superior postprandial glucose control compared to lispro (Humalog^®), is a potential candidate for use in these systems. Methods: In this double-blind, crossover trial over two 4-week treatment periods, we evaluated URLi in a hybrid closed-loop system using the Medtronic MiniMed™ 670G system (670G). After a 2-week lead-in on lispro, 42 adults with type 1 diabetes were randomized to 1 of 2 treatment sequences of URLi and lispro delivered via the 670G. Primary endpoint was the percentage of time with glucose values within target range 3.9-10.0 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL; %TIR). Results: Both treatments achieved %TIR over the 24-h period that was above the 70% minimum recommended by the International Consensus Guidance: URLi, 77.0%; lispro, 77.8%; P = 0.339. %Time <3.0 mmol/L (54 mg/dL) was similar between treatments (URLi, 0.3%; lispro, 0.4%; P = 0.548) and %time <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) was lower with URLi (1.5%) versus lispro (2.2%); P = 0.009, while %time >10.0 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) was higher with URLi (21.5% [309.4 min] vs. 19.9% [287.2 min]; P = 0.088). Mean sensor glucose was significantly higher with URLi versus lispro with least squares mean difference of 0.17 mmol/L or 3.0 mg/dL (P = 0.011) between treatments. Insulin dose, %time in Auto Mode per week, and pump settings were similar between treatments. No serious adverse events (AEs) (including severe hypoglycemia) or discontinuations occurred, and the incidence of treatment-emergent AEs was similar between treatments. Although the overall incidence and rate of unplanned infusion set changes were similar between treatments, a significantly higher rate of unplanned infusion set changes due to infusion site reactions was seen during URLi treatment compared with lispro: 0.12 versus 0.00 events/30 days (P = 0.063). Conclusions: URLi demonstrated good glycemic control that was comparable to lispro and showed a similar safety profile to lispro with the 670G hybrid closed-loop system. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03760640.

One hundred years of insulin therapy

At the time of its first clinical application 100 years ago, insulin was presented as the cure for people with diabetes mellitus. That transpired to be an overstatement, yet insulin has proven to be the lifesaver for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus and an essential therapy for many with type 2 diabetes mellitus or other forms of diabetes mellitus. Since its discovery, insulin (a molecule of only 51 amino acids) has been the subject of pharmaceutical research and development that has paved the way for other protein-based therapies. From purified animal-extracted insulin and human insulin produced by genetically modified organisms to a spectrum of insulin analogues, pharmaceutical laboratories have strived to tailor the preparations to the needs of patients. Nonetheless, overall glycaemic control often remains poor as exogenous insulin is still not able to mimic the physiological insulin profile. Circumventing subcutaneous administration and the design of analogues with profiles that mimic that of physiological insulin are ongoing areas of research. Novel concepts, such as once-weekly insulins or glucose-dependent and oral insulins, are on the horizon but their real-world effectiveness still needs to be proven. Until a true cure for type 1 diabetes mellitus is found and the therapeutic arsenal for other forms of diabetes mellitus is expanded, insulin will remain central in the treatment of many people living with diabetes mellitus.

Ultra Rapid Lispro (URLi) Accelerates Insulin Lispro Absorption and Insulin Action vs Humalog® Consistently Across Study Populations: A Pooled Analysis of Pharmacokinetic and Glucodynamic Data

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Ultra rapid lispro (URLi) is a novel insulin lispro formulation developed to more closely match physiological insulin secretion and improve postprandial glucose control. This pooled analysis compared the pharmacokinetics and glucodynamics between URLi and Humalog® in healthy subjects and patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

The analysis included four randomized, double-blind, crossover, single-dose studies (healthy subjects [n = 74], patients with type 1 diabetes [n = 78], and type 2 diabetes [n = 38]) evaluating subcutaneous doses of 7, 15, or 30 U of URLi and Humalog during an 8- to 10-h euglycemic clamp procedure.

RESULTS

The pooled analysis showed an ~ 5-min faster onset of appearance, an ~8-fold greater exposure in the first 15 min, a 43% reduction in exposure beyond 3 h, and a 68-min shorter exposure duration with URLi vs Humalog across all study populations and dose range. Compared with Humalog, URLi had a 10-min faster onset of action, a 3-fold greater insulin action in the first 30 min, a 35% reduction in insulin action beyond 4 h, and a 44-min shorter duration of action across all populations and dose range. Overall exposure and insulin action were similar between URLi and Humalog for each dose level and study population.

CONCLUSIONS

Across the studied populations and dose range, URLi consistently demonstrated a faster absorption, reduced late exposure, and overall shorter exposure duration compared with Humalog. Similarly, URLi demonstrated earlier insulin action while reducing late insulin action and shorter insulin action compared with Humalog across the study populations and dose range.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02942654 (registered: 21 October, 2016), NCT03286751 (registered: 15 September, 2017), NCT03166124 (registered: 23 May, 2017), and NCT03305822 (registered: 5 October, 2017).

Exploring the Burden of Mealtime Insulin Dosing in Adults and Children With Type 1 Diabetes

Timely and accurate mealtime insulin dosing can be an ongoing challenge for people with type 1 diabetes. This multinational, online study aimed to explore attitudes and behaviors around mealtime insulin dosing and the impact of mealtime dose timing, particularly with regard to premeal dosing (15-20 minutes before a meal). Although the majority of surveyed participants (96%) recognized the importance of accurate mealtime bolus insulin dosing, only a small proportion (35%) reported being "very confident" in accurate bolus insulin estimation. Given the choice, the majority of participants would prefer to administer insulin immediately before or after a meal, as this timing would improve their quality of life.

Ultra-Rapid-Acting Insulins: How Fast Is Really Needed?

OBJECTIVE

To review the new ultra-rapid-acting insulin analogs and describe the benefits and limitations compared with other bolus insulins.

SUMMARY

The options for bolus insulins, which are usually taken at mealtime or for correction of hyperglycemia, are expanding, with recent approvals of faster-acting insulin aspart and insulin lispro-aabc. These new-generation insulins contain additives that enhance absorption and accelerate onset of action. Clinical studies demonstrate that, although these insulins are faster acting, their efficacy for A1C lowering and safety in terms of hypoglycemia risk are similar to those of other available bolus insulin options such as rapid-acting insulin analogs. However, their use resulted in significant reductions in 1- and 2-hour postprandial glucose levels.

CONCLUSION

Novel ultra-rapid-acting insulins provide additional bolus insulin options, and their quick onset of action provides additional dosing flexibility for people with diabetes. Given their comparable efficacy and safety compared to other quick-acting insulins, health care providers should engage in shared decision-making with patients and their caregivers regarding possible use of ultra-rapid-acting insulin, taking into account their preferences, individualized considerations, and insurance formulary coverage. These new insulin formulations may be a suitable option for people with diabetes who are not able to achieve postprandial glycemic targets with other bolus insulins.

Insulin therapy development beyond 100 years

The first insulin preparation capable of consistently lowering blood glucose was developed in 1921. But 100 years later, blood glucose control with insulin in people with diabetes is nearly universally suboptimal, with essentially the same molecule still delivered by the same inappropriate subcutaneous injection route. Bypassing this route with oral administration appears to have become technologically feasible, accelerating over the past 50 years, either with packaged insulin peptides or by chemical insulin mimetics. Some of the problems of prospective unregulated absorption of insulin into the circulation from subcutaneous depots might be overcome with glucose-responsive insulins. Approaches to these problems could be modification of the peptide by adducts, or the use of nanoparticles or insulin patches, which deliver insulin according to glucose concentration. Some attention has been paid to targeting insulin preferentially to different organs, either by molecular engineering of insulin, or with adducts. But all these approaches still have problems in even beginning to match the responsiveness of physiological insulin delivery to metabolic requirements, both prandially and basally. As would be expected, for all these technically complex approaches, many examples of abandoned development can be found. Meanwhile, it is becoming possible to change the duration of action of subcutaneous injected insulin analogues to act even more rapidly for meals, and towards weekly insulin for basal administration. The state of the art of all these approaches, and the barriers to success, are reviewed here.

Ultra-rapid-acting insulins for adults with diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy and safety of the novel, ultra-rapid-acting insulins aspart and lispro in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Our primary outcome was change in HbA1c from baseline. We additionally assessed eight efficacy and six safety endpoints. We calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes, alongside 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We additionally assessed statistical heterogeneity among studies with the I² statistic, considering values greater than 60% as indicative of substantial heterogeneity. Nine studies comprising 5931 patients were included in the systematic review; eight active-controlled studies could be synthesized in terms of a meta-analysis. Treatment with ultra-rapid-acting insulins had a similar effect on change in HbA1c compared with rapid-acting insulins (WMD -0.02%, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.05, I²  = 61% for patients with type 1 diabetes and -0.02%, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.04, I²  = 19% for patients with type 2 diabetes). Similarly, no difference was evident in terms of change in fasting plasma glucose, self-measured plasma glucose, body weight, basal or bolus insulin dose, incidence of serious adverse events and hypoglycaemia. Compared with rapid-acting insulins, ultra-rapid-acting insulins reduced 1- and 2-hour postprandial glucose (PPG) increment based on a liquid meal test, both in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes (WMD -0.94 mmol/L, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.72, I²  = 0% and -0.56 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.32, I²  = 0%, respectively, for change in 1-hour PPG increment). In conclusion, ultra-rapid-acting insulins were as efficacious and safe as rapid-acting insulins, showing a favourable effect solely on PPG control.

A Century of Progress in Diabetes Care with Insulin: A History of Innovations and Foundation for the Future

The year 2021 marks the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin, which has greatly changed the lives of people with diabetes and become a cornerstone of advances in medical science. A rapid bench-to-bedside application of the lifesaving pancreatic extract and its immediate commercialization was the result of a promising idea, positive drive, perseverance, and collaboration of Banting and colleagues. As one of the very few proteins isolated in a pure form at that time, insulin also played a key role in the development of important methodologies and in the beginning of various fields of modern science. Since its discovery, insulin has evolved continuously to optimize the care of people with diabetes. Since the 1980s, recombinant DNA technology has been employed to engineer insulin analogs by modifying their amino acid sequence, which has resulted in the production of insulins with various profiles that are currently used. However, unmet needs in insulin treatment still exist, and several forms of future insulins are under development. In this review, we discuss the past, present, and future of insulin, including a history of ceaseless innovations and collective intelligence. We believe that this story will be a solid foundation and an unerring guide for the future.

Long-term Efficacy and Safety of Ultra Rapid Lispro in Japanese Patients With Type 1 Diabetes: Subpopulation Analysis of the 52-Week PRONTO-T1D Study

INTRODUCTION

The PRONTO-T1D study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ultra rapid lispro (URLi) versus lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus. After 26 weeks of treatment, mealtime and postmeal URLi provided effective and comparable glycemic control in a prespecified subpopulation analysis of Japanese patients from PRONTO-T1D. We present the results of a 52-week study which evaluated the long-term efficacy and safety of URLi in Japanese patients.

METHODS

After an 8-week lead-in period to optimize basal insulin treatment, Japanese patients were randomized to one of three treatment groups: the 52-week double-blind mealtime URLi (n = 62) or mealtime lispro (n = 59) group, respectively, or the 52-week open-label postmeal URLi (n = 46) group.

RESULTS

At week 52, there were no statistically significant differences in change from baseline in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) between Japanese patients on URLi and those on lispro; the least-squares mean (LSM) treatment difference was 0.04% (95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.18, 0.25) between mealtime URLi and lispro, and 0.04% (95% CI - 0.19, 0.28) between postmeal URLi and mealtime lispro. No significant between-group differences were observed in the number of patients achieving the HbA1c target of < 7.0% (20.0, 30.5 and 16.3% of those on mealtime URLi, mealtime lispro and postmeal URLi, respectively). Daily average blood glucose levels in the 10-point self-monitored blood glucose profiles at week 52 were similar between treatments. However, compared with lispro, lower blood glucose levels were observed for the mealtime URLi group at the morning 1- and 2-h postmeal time points with LSM differences of - 32.7 mg/dL (- 1.82 mmol/L) (p = 0.005) and - 23.2 mg/dL (- 1.29 mmol/L) (p = 0.029), respectively. There were no significant treatment differences in the incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events, documented hypoglycemia and severe hypoglycemia; however, the rate of documented hypoglycemia was lower in the mealtime URLi arm compared with the lispro arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall glycemic control and improved postprandial glucose via self-monitoring was maintained in Japanese patients following 52 weeks of treatment with URLi versus lispro, including postmeal URLi administration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03214367.

Dual-hormone artificial pancreas for management of type 1 diabetes: Recent progress and future directions

Over the last few years, technological advances have led to tremendous improvement in the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D). Artificial pancreas systems have been shown to improve glucose control compared with conventional insulin pump therapy. However, clinically significant hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic episodes still occur with the artificial pancreas. Postprandial glucose excursions and exercise-induced hypoglycemia represent major hurdles in improving glucose control and glucose variability in many patients with T1D. In this regard, dual-hormone artificial pancreas systems delivering other hormones in addition to insulin (glucagon or amylin) may better reproduce the physiology of the endocrine pancreas and have been suggested as an alternative tool to overcome these limitations in clinical practice. In addition, novel ultra-rapid-acting insulin analogs with a more physiological time-action profile are currently under investigation for use in artificial pancreas devices, aiming to address the unmet need for further improvements in postprandial glucose control. This review article aims to discuss the current progress and future outlook in the development of novel ultra-rapid insulin analogs and dual-hormone closed-loop systems, which offer the next steps to fully closing the loop in the artificial pancreas.

Improved postprandial glucose control with ultra rapid lispro versus lispro with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in type 1 diabetes: PRONTO-Pump-2

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ultra rapid lispro (URLi) versus lispro (Humalog^® ) in people with type 1 diabetes on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a phase 3, 16-week, treat-to-target study in patients randomized to double-blind URLi (N = 215) or lispro (N = 217). The primary endpoint was change from baseline HbA1c (non-inferiority margin 4.4 mmol/mol [0.4%]), with multiplicity-adjusted objectives for postprandial glucose (PPG) levels during a meal test, and time spent in the target range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR).

RESULTS

URLi was non-inferior to lispro for change in HbA1c, with a least-squares mean (LSM) difference of 0.3 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.6, 1.2) or 0.02% (95% CI -0.06, 0.11). URLi was superior to lispro in controlling 1- and 2-h PPG levels after the meal test: LSM difference -1.34 mmol/L (95% CI -2.00, -0.68) or -24.1 mg/dL (95% CI -36.0, -12.2) at 1 h and -1.54 mmol/L (95% CI -2.37, -0.72) or -27.8 mg/dL (95% CI -42.6, -13.0) at 2 h; both p < .001. TIR and time in hyperglycaemia were similar between groups but URLi resulted in significantly less time in hypoglycaemia (<3.0 mmol/L [54 mg/dL]) over the daytime, night-time and 24-h period: LSM difference -0.41%, -0.97% and -0.52%, respectively, all p < .05. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was higher with URLi (60.5% vs. 44.7%), driven by infusion-site reaction and infusion-site pain, which was mostly mild or moderate. Rates of severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

URLi was efficacious, providing superior PPG control and less time in hypoglycaemia but with more frequent infusion-site reactions compared with lispro when administered by CSII.