Insulin glulisine: a faster onset of action compared with insulin lispro

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.

Clinical Pharmacology of GP40321 (Insulin Glulisine Biosimilar): Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Comparability in a Hyperinsulinemic-Euglycemic Clamp Procedure

The aim of the study was to compare the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of T-glu (GP40321, test drug), and reference insulin glulisine in a hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp procedure. During this study, 34 healthy male volunteers underwent the hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp procedure following subcutaneous 0.3 U/kg injection of T-glu or reference insulin glulisine in a randomized, double-blind, crossover study. Plasma glucose levels were monitored every 5 minutes for 8 hours. Glucose infusion rate adjustment was based on the blood glucose measurements. Evaluation of PD was performed using the glucose infusion rate values, while PK was calculated using insulin concentrations measured via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The study results showed that the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratios of primary PK and PD of T-glu and reference insulin glulisine were within 80%-125% comparability limits, and that the safety profiles were comparable. PK, PD, and safety similarity of T-glu and reference insulin glulisine was demonstrated.

Leveraging Clinical Pharmacology Data to Assess Biosimilarity and Interchangeability of Insulin Products

There is over a hundred years of clinical experience with insulin for the treatment of diabetes. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first insulin biosimilar interchangeable product in 2021 for improving glycemic control in adults and pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Several recombinant insulin products are available in the United States, including the recently approved biosimilar insulins. The approval of the biosimilar insulin products was based on comparative analytical characterizations and comparative pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) data. The primary objective of this review is to discuss the scientific considerations in the demonstration of biosimilarity of a proposed insulin biosimilar to a reference product and the role of clinical pharmacology studies in the determination of biosimilarity and interchangeability. Euglycemic clamp studies are considered a "gold standard" for insulin PK and PD characterization and have been widely used to determine the time-action profiles of rapid-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting insulin products. Clinical pharmacology aspects of study design, including selection of appropriate dose, study population, PK, and PD end points, are presented. Finally, the role of clinical pharmacology studies in the interchangeability assessment of insulin and the regulatory pathways used for insulin and the experience with follow-on insulins and the two recently approved biosimilar insulin products is discussed.

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.

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.

Comparative effects of insulin glulisine and lispro on postprandial plasma glucose and lipid profile in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Objective

The control of postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) excursions is critical in the prevention of diabetic complications. Controversy remains on the differences in postprandial actions of insulin glulisine and lispro. The aim of this study was to define the differences in the efficacy of these two insulin analogues on PPG.

Methods

The study subjects were 20 in-hospital patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Plasma glucose (PG) was tightly controlled with basal insulin and insulin glulisine or lispro, and then glulisine or lispro were switched to the other insulin analog every other day for 6 study days. PG was measured before breakfast and 0.5-, 1-, and 2 h-postprandial during the study. Postprandial plasma C-peptide and lipids were analyzed in the first 2 days of the study. Postprandial increments in each parameter were compared between glulisine and lispro.

Results

Whereas the median value of 0.5 h-Δ-PPG was comparable in glulisine and lispro, the 1 h-Δ-PPG was significantly lower with lispro than with glulisine (41 vs 53 mg/dl, respectively, p = 0.03). Similarly, the 2 h-Δ-PPG with lispro was 10 mg/dl lower than that with glulisine (35 vs 45 mg/dl, respectively, p = 0.05). In parallel with PPG, Δ-C-peptide at 1- and 2 h-postprandial were significantly lower with lispro than glulisine (0.50 vs 0.75 ng/ml, respectively, and 0.55 vs 0.75 ng/ml, respectively). The increment in LDL-C and HDL-C was significantly lower with lispro than with glulisine at 0.5 h-postprandial.

Conclusion

Insulin lispro seems superior to glulisine in the control of PPG in Japanese patients with T2DM.

Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart: A Review of its Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Properties and the Clinical Consequences

Fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) is insulin aspart (IAsp) with two added excipients, l-arginine and niacinamide, to ensure formulation stability with accelerated initial absorption after subcutaneous administration compared with previously developed rapid-acting insulins. The pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties of faster aspart have been characterised in clinical pharmacology trials with comparable overall methodology. In subjects with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 (T2D) diabetes, the serum IAsp concentration–time and glucose-lowering effect profiles are left-shifted for faster aspart compared with IAsp. In addition, faster aspart provides earlier onset, doubling of initial exposure, and an up to 2.5-fold increase in initial glucose-lowering effect within 30 min of subcutaneous injection, as well as earlier offset of exposure and effect. Similar results have been shown using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). The improved pharmacological properties of faster aspart versus IAsp are consistent across populations, i.e. in the elderly, children, adolescents and the Japanese. Thus, the faster aspart pharmacological characteristics more closely resemble the mealtime insulin secretion in healthy individuals, giving faster aspart the potential to further improve postprandial glucose control in subjects with diabetes. Indeed, change from baseline in 1-h postprandial glucose increment is in favour of faster aspart versus IAsp when used as basal-bolus or CSII treatment in phase III trials in subjects with T1D or T2D. This review summarises the currently published results from clinical pharmacology trials with faster aspart and discusses the potential clinical benefits of faster aspart compared with previous rapid-acting insulin products.

Improving the treatment of patients with diabetes using insulin analogues: current findings and future directions

Introduction: The aim of insulin replacement in insulin-deficient people (type 1 diabetes, pancreatic causes of diabetes, long-standing type 2 diabetes) is to approximate the physiologic insulin action profile as closely as possible. However, short-acting human insulins start too slow and act too long, causing postprandial hyperglycemia and delayed hypoglycemia, while the insulin action profile of long-acting human insulins is too variable in duration and strength of action, leading to insufficient basal insulin covering and peak insulin levels after injection causing early nocturnal hypoglycemia. Insulin analogues were designed to overcome these shortcomings. In insulin-resistant people (type 2 diabetes), insulin analogues contribute to more efficient and safer insulin supplementation. Areas covered: In this review, we describe the unmet needs for insulin therapy, the currently available short- and long-acting insulin analogues and some considerations on cardiovascular outcomes, use in special populations, and cost-effectiveness. Finally, we discuss what is new in the field of insulin analogues. Expert opinion: The development of insulin analogues is an important step in diabetes treatment. Despite many patients meeting their glycemic targets with the newest analogues, hypoglycemic episodes remain a major problem. More physiologic insulin regimens, with glucose-sensitive or organ-targeting insulin analogues may be the answer to these issues.

The continuing quest for better subcutaneously administered prandial insulins: a review of recent developments and potential clinical implications

The class of rapid-acting insulin analogues were introduced more than 20 years ago to control postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) excursions better than unmodified regular human insulin. Insulins, lispro, aspart and glulisine all achieved an earlier onset of action, greater peak effect and shorter duration of action resulting in lower PPG levels and a reduced risk of late postprandial hypoglycaemia. However, the subcutaneous absorption rate of these analogues still fails to match the physiological profile of insulin in the systemic circulation following a meal. Recent reformulations of aspart and lispro have generated a second generation of more rapid-acting insulin analogue candidates, including fast-acting aspart (faster aspart), ultra-rapid lispro and BioChaperone Lispro. These modifications have the potential to mimic physiological prandial insulin secretion better with an even earlier onset of action with improved PPG control, shorter duration of effect and reduced risk of hypoglycaemia. Recent phase 3 trials in type 1 and type 2 diabetes show that faster aspart and ultra-rapid lispro compared with conventional aspart and lispro, achieved fewer PPG excursions with a small increase in post-meal hypoglycaemia but similar or marginally superior glycated haemoglobin levels, and suggest the need for parallel optimization of basal insulin replacement. Phase 1 trials for BioChaperone Lispro are equally encouraging with phase 3 trials yet to be initiated. Comparative analysis of the clinical and pharmacological evidence for these new prandial insulin candidates in the treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes is the main focus of this review.

Calculating the absolute binding free energy of the insulin dimer in an explicit solvent

Insulin is a significant hormone in the regulation of glucose level in the blood. Its monomers bind to each other to form dimers or hexamers through a complex process. To study the binding of the insulin dimer, we first calculate its absolute binding free energy by the steered molecular dynamics method and the confinement method based on a fictitious thermodynamic cycle. After considering some special correction terms, the final calculated binding free energy at 298 K is −8.97 ± 1.41 kcal mol⁻¹, which is close to the experimental value of −7.2 ± 0.8 kcal mol⁻¹. Furthermore, we discuss the important residue–residue interactions between the insulin monomers, including hydrophobic interactions, π–π interactions and hydrogen bond interactions. The analysis reveals five key residues, Vla^B12, Tyr^B16, Phe^B24, Phe^B25, and Tyr^B26, for the dimerization of the insulin. We also perform MM-PBSA calculations for the wild-type dimer and some mutants and study the roles of the key residues by the change of the binding energy of the insulin dimer.

In this paper, we calculate the absolute binding free energy of an insulin dimer by steered MD method. The result of −8.97 kcal mol⁻¹ is close to the experimental value −7.2 kcal mol⁻¹. We also analyze the residue–residue interactions.

Insulin Therapy and Diabetic Pregnancy

BACKGROUND

A good metabolic control before conception and throughout pregnancy with diabetes decreases the risk of short- and long-term adverse outcomes of the mothers and their offsprings. Insulin treatment remains the gold standard treatment recommended for any type of diabetes. New technologies including new insulins and insulin analogues, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion without and with sensors, the low-glucose predictive suspension function, and closed-loop systems that persistently and automatically self-adjust according to patients' continuous glucose monitoring readings have expanded the offer to clinicians for achieving tight glucose control.

AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY

Unsafe effects of insulin and insulin analogues in pregnancy with diabetes could be linked with changes in insulin immunogenicity, teratogenicity, and mitogenicity. Second-generation insulin analogues need to be tested and proven. Effectiveness and safety of new insulin delivery systems in real life of diabetic women in pregnancy need further confirmations.

SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, randomized controlled trials, systematic review and meta-analysis, observational prospective and retrospective studies, case series reports for the most recent insulin analogues, published in English impacted journals, and consensus statements from scientific societies I excluded 60 from 221 papers as not suitable for the purpose of the subject.

RESULTS

Subcutaneous insulin infusion can be safely used during pregnancy and delivery of well-trained women. Sensors are increasingly accurate tools that improve the efficacy and safety of integrated systems' functioning. Continuous glucose monitoring provides metrics ("time in range" time in "hypoglycemia" and in "hyperglycemia," glucose variability, average glucose levels in different time intervals) used as a guide to diabetes management; these new metrics are object of discussion in special populations. Randomized controlled trials have shown that sensor-augmented pump therapy improves pregnancy outcomes in women with type 1 diabetes. Closed-loop insulin delivery provides better glycemic control than sensor-augmented pump therapy during pregnancy, before, and after delivery.

CONCLUSION

Second-generation insulin analogues and newer insulin infusion systems that automatically self-adjust according to patients continuous glucose monitor readings are important tools improving the treatment and quality of life of these women. Multi-institutional and disciplinary teams are working to develop and evaluate a pregnancy-specific artificial pancreas.

The quaternary structure of insulin glargine and glulisine under formulation conditions

The quaternary structures of insulin glargine and glulisine under formulation conditions and upon dilution using placebo or water were investigated using synchrotron small-angle X-ray scattering. Our results revealed that insulin glulisine in Apidra® is predominantly hexameric in solution with significant fractions of dodecamers and monomers. Upon dilution with placebo, this equilibrium shifts towards monomers. Insulin glargine in Lantus® and Toujeo® is present in a stable hexamer/dimer equilibrium, which is hardly affected by dilution with water down to 1 mg/ml insulin concentration. The results provide exclusive insight into the quaternary structure and thus the association/dissociation properties of the two insulin analogues in marketed formulations.

Addition of a single short-acting insulin bolus to basal insulin-supported oral therapy: a systematic review of data on the basal-plus regimen

We summarize here clinical and trial data on a once-daily administration of a single bolus to the meal with the largest expected postprandial glucose excursion (basal-plus), and comment on its clinical utility in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. A PubMed search of data published until September 2018 was taken into consideration and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. Eighteen reports representing 15 studies were identified (age: 18-80 years; 50-890 patients; follow-up: 8 days to 60 weeks). Data suggest basal-plus is efficacious for improving glycemic control, with a low incidence of (severe) hypoglycemia and minor increases in bodyweight. The timing of short-acting insulin administration and use of different monitoring/titration approaches appear to have minimal impact. When compared with premixed insulin, basal-plus results in largely comparable outcomes. Compared with basal-bolus, it may result in non-inferior glycemic improvements with less weight gain, less hypoglycemia and fewer daily injections. A basal insulin/glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist fixed ratio combination may offer several advantages over the basal-plus regimen, at the cost of gastrointestinal side effects. We conclude that the stepwise introduction of short-acting insulin via the basal-plus strategy represents a viable alternative to a full basal-bolus regimen and may help to overcome barriers associated with multiple injections and anticipated complexity of the insulin regimen.

A Review of Basal-Bolus Therapy Using Insulin Glargine and Insulin Lispro in the Management of Diabetes Mellitus

Basal-bolus therapy (BBT) refers to the combination of a long-acting basal insulin with a rapid-acting insulin at mealtimes. Basal insulin glargine 100 U/mL and prandial insulin lispro have been available for many years and there is a substantial evidence base to support the efficacy and safety of these agents when they are used in BBT or basal-plus therapy for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM, T2DM). With the growing availability of alternative insulins for use in such regimens, it seems timely to review the data regarding BBT with insulin glargine 100 U/mL and insulin lispro. In patients with T1DM, BBT with insulin glargine plus insulin lispro provides similar or better glycemic control and leads to less nocturnal hypoglycemia compared to BBT using human insulin as the basal and/or prandial component, and generally provides similar glycemic control and rates of severe hypoglycemia to those achieved with insulin lispro administered by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). Studies evaluating BBT with insulin glargine plus insulin lispro in patients with T2DM also demonstrate the efficacy and safety of these insulins. Available data suggest that BBT with insulin glargine and insulin lispro provides similar levels of efficacy and safety in pediatric and adult populations with T1DM and in adult patients and those aged more than 65 years with T2DM. These insulin preparations also appear to be safe and effective for controlling T2DM in people of different ethnicities and in patients with T1DM or T2DM and comorbidities.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

Glucose-Responsive Trehalose Hydrogel for Insulin Stabilization and Delivery

Effective delivery of therapeutic proteins is important for many biomedical applications. Yet, the stabilization of proteins during delivery and long-term storage remains a significant challenge. Herein, a trehalose-based hydrogel is reported that stabilizes insulin to elevated temperatures prior to glucose-triggered release. The hydrogel is synthesized using a polymer with trehalose side chains and a phenylboronic acid end-functionalized 8-arm poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG). The hydroxyls of the trehalose side chains form boronate ester linkages with the PEG boronic acid cross-linker to yield hydrogels without any further modification of the original trehalose polymer. Dissolution of the hydrogel is triggered upon addition of glucose as a stronger binder to boronic acid (Kb = 2.57 vs 0.48 m-1 for trehalose), allowing the insulin that is entrapped during gelation to be released in a glucose-responsive manner. Moreover, the trehalose hydrogel stabilizes the insulin as determined by immunobinding after heating up to 90 °C. After 30 min heating, 74% of insulin is detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in the presence of the trehalose hydrogel, whereas only 2% is detected without any additives.

Optimal prandial timing of bolus insulin in diabetes management: a review

The inability to achieve optimal diabetes glucose control in people with diabetes is multifactorial, but one contributor may be inadequate control of postprandial glucose. In patients treated with multiple daily injections of insulin, both the dose and timing of meal-related rapid-acting insulin are key factors in this. There are conflicting opinions and evidence on the optimal time to administer mealtime insulin. We performed a comprehensive literature search to review the published data, focusing on the use of rapid-acting insulin analogues in patients with Type 1 diabetes. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies of rapid-acting insulin analogues, together with postprandial glucose excursion data, suggest that administering these 15-20 min before food would provide optimal postprandial glucose control. Data from clinical studies involving people with Type 1 diabetes receiving structured meals and rapid-acting insulin analogues support this, showing a reduction in post-meal glucose levels of ~30% and less hypoglycaemia when meal insulin was taken 15-20 min before a meal compared with immediately before the meal. Importantly, there was also a greater risk of postprandial hypoglycaemia when patients took rapid-acting analogues after eating compared with before eating.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Lispro and Aspart Evaluated by Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of the rapid-acting insulin analogues (RAIAs) aspart (NovoRapid) and lispro (Prandilin) on glycemic variations by continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) in patients within newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) receiving continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and metformin intensive therapy.

METHODS

This is a single-blind randomized controlled trial. A total of 110 patients with newly diagnosed T2DM and with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c%) above 9% was hospitalized and randomly divided into two groups: group Asp (NovoRapid group) and group Lis (Prandilin group). They all received CSII and metformin therapy. Treatments were maintained for 2-3 weeks after the glycaemic target was reached. C-peptide and insulin and fructosamine were determined. CGMS was continuously applied for 4 days after reaching the glycemic target.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in daily dosages of insulin, fasting plasma C-P and 2 h postprandial C-P and insulin, and fructosamine at the baseline and endpoint between the groups Asp and Lis. No significant differences were seen in the 24 h mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE), 24 h mean blood glucose (MBG), the standard deviation of the MBG (SDBG), fasting blood glucose, number of glycemic excursion (NGE), and the incidence of hypoglycemia between the two groups. Similarly, no significant differences were found in areas under the curve (AUC) of glucose above 10.0 mmol/L or the decremental area over the curve (AOC) of glucose below 3.9 mmol/L between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Lispro and aspart had the similar ability to control the glycemic variations in patients with newly diagnosed T2DM. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number ChiCTR-IPR-17010338.

A Pooled Analysis of Clinical Pharmacology Trials Investigating the Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Characteristics of Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

Background

Fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) is insulin aspart (IAsp) in a new formulation aiming to mimic the fast endogenous prandial insulin release more closely than currently available insulin products. In a post hoc analysis of pooled data from six clinical pharmacology trials, the pharmacological characteristics of faster aspart and IAsp were compared.

Methods

The analysis included 218 adult subjects with type 1 diabetes from six randomised, double-blind, crossover trials in the faster aspart clinical development programme. Subjects received subcutaneous dosing (0.2 U/kg) of faster aspart and IAsp. In three trials, a 12-h euglycaemic clamp was performed (target 5.5 mmol/L; 100 mg/dL) to assess pharmacodynamics.

Results

The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles were left-shifted for faster aspart versus IAsp. Onset of appearance occurred 4.9 min earlier (95% confidence interval [CI] faster aspart-IAsp: [−5.3 to −4.4], p < 0.001), early exposure (AUC_{IAsp,0–30min}) was two times greater (estimated ratio faster aspart/IAsp 2.01 [1.87–2.17], p < 0.001) and offset of exposure (t_{Late 50% Cmax}) occurred 12.2 min earlier [−17.9 to −6.5] (p < 0.001) for faster aspart versus IAsp. Accordingly, onset of action occurred 4.9 min earlier [−6.9 to −3.0] (p < 0.001), early glucose-lowering effect (AUC_{GIR,0–30min}) was 74% greater (1.74 [1.47–2.10], p < 0.001) and offset of glucose-lowering effect (t_{Late 50% GIRmax}) occurred 14.3 min earlier [−22.1 to −6.5] (p < 0.001) for faster aspart versus IAsp. Total exposure and total glucose-lowering effect did not differ significantly between treatments.

Conclusions

Faster aspart has the potential to better mimic the physiologic prandial insulin secretion and thereby to improve postprandial glucose control compared with IAsp.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02035371, NCT01924637, NCT02131246, NCT02033239, NCT02003677, NCT01618188.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40262-017-0514-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Rapid-Acting and Human Insulins: Hexamer Dissociation Kinetics upon Dilution of the Pharmaceutical Formulation

Purpose

Comparison of the dissociation kinetics of rapid-acting insulins lispro, aspart, glulisine and human insulin under physiologically relevant conditions.

Methods

Dissociation kinetics after dilution were monitored directly in terms of the average molecular mass using combined static and dynamic light scattering. Changes in tertiary structure were detected by near-UV circular dichroism.

Results

Glulisine forms compact hexamers in formulation even in the absence of Zn²⁺. Upon severe dilution, these rapidly dissociate into monomers in less than 10 s. In contrast, in formulations of lispro and aspart, the presence of Zn²⁺ and phenolic compounds is essential for formation of compact R6 hexamers. These slowly dissociate in times ranging from seconds to one hour depending on the concentration of phenolic additives. The disadvantage of the long dissociation times of lispro and aspart can be diminished by a rapid depletion of the concentration of phenolic additives independent of the insulin dilution. This is especially important in conditions similar to those after subcutaneous injection, where only minor dilution of the insulins occurs.

Conclusion

Knowledge of the diverging dissociation mechanisms of lispro and aspart compared to glulisine will be helpful for optimizing formulation conditions of rapid-acting insulins.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11095-017-2233-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Insulin analogues in type 1 diabetes mellitus: getting better all the time

The treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus consists of external replacement of the functions of β cells in an attempt to achieve blood levels of glucose as close to the normal range as possible. This approach means that glucose sensing needs to be replaced and levels of insulin need to mimic physiological insulin-action profiles, including basal coverage and changes around meals. Training and educating patients are crucial for the achievement of good glycaemic control, but having insulin preparations with action profiles that provide stable basal insulin coverage and appropriate mealtime insulin peaks helps people with type 1 diabetes mellitus to live active lives without sacrificing tight glycaemic control. Insulin analogues enable patients to achieve this goal, as some have fast action profiles, and some have very slow action profiles, which gives people with type 1 diabetes mellitus the tools to achieve dynamic insulin-action profiles that enable tight glycaemic control with a risk of hypoglycaemia that is lower than that with human short-acting and long-acting insulins. This Review discusses the established and novel insulin analogues that are used to treat patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and provides insights into the future development of insulin analogues.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of insulin glargine-insulin glulisine basal-bolus and twice-daily premixed analog insulin in type 1 diabetes mellitus patients during three standardized meals

•

Insulin glargine/glulisine PK in T1DM is similar to healthy insulin responses.

•

Insulin glargine/glulisine has less hypoglycemia versus premixed analog insulin.

•

Insulin increases in T1DM after 5 min sc glulisine is similar to health controls.

Aims

To evaluate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of basal insulin glargine with mealtime insulin glulisine or twice daily 75/25 premixed neutral protamine insulin lispro and insulin lispro in individuals with type 1 diabetes during three standardized meals over a 24 hour duration and compare to physiologic insulin and glucose responses in healthy non-diabetic individuals.

Methods

Twelve healthy (4 male/8 female) and thirteen individuals with type 1 diabetes (8 male/5 female) were studied during three sequential standardized meals. Individuals with type 1 diabetes received either glargine and glulisine injected 5 minutes subcutaneously before each meal or premixed insulin lispro injected 5 minutes before breakfast and dinner in a randomized fashion separated by eight weeks.

Results

The incremental systemic insulin AUC, maximal insulin concentration, and rate of rise of systemic insulin (0–30 minutes) during all three meal intervals were similar between glargine/glulisine and healthy controls. Incremental glucose AUC with glargine/glulisine was similar to controls at lunch and dinner. With premix 75/25 insulin, insulin AUC was lower and incremental glucose AUC was greater at lunch compared to the healthy and glargine/glulisine. Hypoglycemic events before lunch were greater with premix insulin group than with glargine/glulisine (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Glargine/glulisine pharmacokinetics in type 1 diabetes can closely approximate physiologic insulin responses in healthy individuals during a day in which three standardized meals are consumed. Additionally, when glulisine is dosed only five minutes pre-meal, systemic insulin concentration rises as rapidly as prandial endogenous insulin levels. This present study compared glargine and glulisine administered in an approximate 50/50 proportion. Future studies of alternate meal times, meal content and differing premixed insulin preparations are indicated.

The Impact of Technology on Current Diabetes Management

Technological innovations have revolutionized the treatment of type 1 diabetes. Although technological advances can potentially improve diabetes outcomes, maintenance of target glycemic control, at the present time, remains largely dependent on patient and family motivation, competence, and adherence to daily diabetes care requirements. Trials of closed loop or "artificial pancreas" technology show great promise to automate insulin delivery and achieve near normal glucose control and reduced hypoglycemia with minimal patient intervention.

Effects of rapid-acting insulin analogues insulin glulisine and insulin aspart on postprandial glycemic excursion with single bout of exercise in patients with type 2 diabetes

The analogue insulin glulisine (Glu) shows both more rapid onset and shorter duration of action compared with the other rapid-acting insulin analogues. The current study investigates these properties in regard to the occurrence of hypoglycemia related to exercise. A randomized, single-center, open-label, crossover study was conducted in 12 hospitalized type 2 diabetes patients (all male, mean ± SD age of 51.9 ± 11.3 years; BMI: 25.5 ± 3.9 kg/m2; HbA1c: 11.2 ± 2.4 %). Glu or insulin aspart (Asp) was subcutaneously administered just before breakfast. Insulin dosage was determined as the usual dose of pre-prandial rapid-acting insulin for patients treated with insulin therapy or as 0.1 unit/kg for patients treated with oral anti-hyperglycemic agents. Sixty min after the start of eating, the patients began aerobic exercise on a bicycle ergometer for 30 min at 50% of maximum heart rate. Hypoglycemic episodes (plasma glucose level < 70 mg/dL with or without symptoms) were observed more frequently in Asp group (p < 0.05). Post-exercise plasma glucose levels at 90, 120, and 150 min were significantly lower in Asp group (p < 0.05). In patients with BMI < 25 kg/m2 (n = 6), post-exercise blood glucose levels were significantly lower in Asp group (p < 0.05), while in patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 (n = 6) the difference was not significant. Glu may therefore be a suitable choice of rapid-acting insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes who are at high risk of post-exercise hypoglycemia.

Switching to multiple daily injection therapy with glulisine improves glycaemic control, vascular damage and treatment satisfaction in basal insulin glargine-injected diabetic patients

BACKGROUND

Basal and bolus insulin therapy is required for strict blood control in diabetic patients, which could lead to prevention of vascular complications in diabetes. However, the optimal combination regimen is not well established.

METHODS

Fifty-nine diabetic patients (49 type 1 and 10 type 2; 52.9 ± 13.3 years old) whose blood glucose levels were uncontrolled (HbA1c  > 6.2%) by combination treatment of basal insulin glargine with multiple daily pre-meal injections of bolus short-acting insulin [aspart (n = 19), lispro (n = 37) and regular human insulin (n = 3)] for at least 8 weeks were enrolled in this study. We examined whether glycaemic control and vascular injury were improved by replacement of short-acting insulin with glulisine. Patient satisfaction was assessed with Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire.

RESULTS

Although bolus and basal insulin doses were almost unchanged before and after replacement therapy, switching to glulisine insulin for 24 weeks significantly decreased level of HbA1c , advanced glycation end products (AGEs), soluble receptor for AGEs (sRAGE), monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1) and urinary albumin excretion. In multiple stepwise regression analysis, change in MCP-1 values from baseline (ΔMCP-1) was a sole determinant of log urinary albumin excretion. ΔAGEs and ΔsRAGE were independently correlated with each other. The relationship between ΔMCP-1 and ΔsRAGE was marginally significant (p = 0.05). Replacement of short-acting insulin by glulisine significantly increased Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Our present study suggests that combination therapy of glargine with multiple daily pre-meal injections of glulisine might show superior efficacy in controlling blood glucose, preventing vascular damage and improving treatment satisfaction in diabetic patients.

Evolution of insulin: from human to analog

The development of insulin analogs has made improved treatment of type 2 diabetes possible. In this article, structural alterations, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, clinical end points, and safety issues are reviewed for the currently available basal insulins, rapid-acting insulins, and premixes. The flatter activity profiles of insulin glargine and insulin detemir translate into good clinical efficacy with a lower risk of hypoglycemia relative to neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin. Weight gain is consistently lower with insulin detemir than with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin. Insulin degludec, licensed in Europe and Japan but not yet in the United States, has a mean half-life of 25.4 hours, a duration of action of >42 hours, and low variability. In trials in type 2 diabetes, rates of nocturnal hypoglycemia were lower with insulin degludec than with insulin glargine, and more flexible; once-daily dose timing was shown to be possible. Insulin lispro, insulin aspart, and insulin glulisine are rapidly absorbed after injection and thus provide better coverage of the post-prandial glucose surge compared with human insulin. Trials and meta-analyses show that reductions in glycated hemoglobin are similar and control of postprandial glucose is better with the rapid-acting analogs versus human insulin. Convenience is greater for patients because the analogs can be injected just before a meal. In premix or biphasic insulins, a proportion of the rapid-acting analog is protaminated, providing both rapid-acting and intermediate-acting components in one formulation, thus reducing the number of injections required. Alterations to human insulin have resulted in improvements in safety, efficacy, tolerability, and convenience for patients.

Advantage of insulin glulisine over regular insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes and severe renal insufficiency

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of insulin glulisine over regular insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes and severe renal insufficiency.

SUBJECTS

Our study included 18 patients with type 2 diabetes and a mean (range) estimated glomerular filtration rate of 13.2 mL/minute/1.73 m(2) (5.8-27.6), which corresponds to stage 4-5 chronic kidney disease.

DESIGN

After titration of doses, regular insulin was administered thrice daily on Day 1, along with continuous glucose monitoring for 24 h starting at 7 am. Exactly equal doses of insulin glulisine were administered on Day 2. Area under the curve (AUC) for blood glucose level variation after breakfast (AUC-B 0-4), lunch (AUC-L 0-6), and dinner (AUC-D 0-6) were evaluated.

RESULTS

AUC-B 0-4 and AUC-D 0-6 were significantly lower with insulin glulisine than with regular insulin (AUC-B 0-4: 3.3 ± 4.7 vs. 6.2 ± 5.4 × 10(2) mmol/L·minute, respectively, P = .028; AUC-D 0-6: 1.8 ± 7.3 vs. 6.5 ± 6.2 × 10(2) mmol/L·minute, respectively, P = .023). In contrast, AUC-L 0-6 was higher with insulin glulisine than with regular insulin (AUC-L 0-6: 7.6 ± 6.4 vs. 4.2 ± 8.7 × 10(2) mmol/L·minute, respectively, P = .099), suggesting a prolonged hypoglycemic action of regular insulin after lunch.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin glulisine effectively suppressed postprandial hyperglycemia, whereas regular insulin caused a prolonged hypoglycemic action. These findings support the effectiveness and safety of insulin glulisine in patients with type 2 diabetes and severe renal insufficiency.

Impact of insulins glulisine and aspart on postprandial glycemia after a high-glycemic index meal in children with type 1 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

According to current knowledge, glulisine insulin (GLU) has a slightly faster onset of action than aspart (ASP) insulin. Therefore, GLU might lead to a better postprandial profile than ASP following the consumption of high-glycemic index (H-GI) meals. The aim of this study was to assess differences in the action of GLU and ASP after the consumption of a H-GI meal in type 1 diabetic children treated with insulin pumps.

DESIGN

FIFTY-SIX TYPE 1 DIABETIC CHILDREN OF MEAN AGE 14.72.0 YEARS WERE INCLUDED IN A RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND, TWO-WAY CROSSOVER STUDY.

THE SUBJECTS WERE ALLOCATED TO ONE OF TWO TREATMENT ORDERS

GLU-ASP and ASP-GLU. They were given a H-GI breakfast for two subsequent days.

METHODS

The primary outcome was postprandial glycemia (PPG) based on continuous glucose monitoring system and self monitoring of blood glucose levels during 3 h of follow-up. The secondary outcomes were the frequency of hypoglycemia, glucose area under the curve, mean amplitude of glycemic excursion, and glycemic rise.

RESULTS

THERE WERE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GROUPS WITH REGARD TO PPG IN THE DETERMINED TIME INTERVALS AS WELL AS WITH RESPECT TO THE SECONDARY OUTCOMES. BETWEEN 60 AND 120MIN AFTER FOOD CONSUMPTION IN BOTH STUDY GROUPS, BLOOD GLUCOSE LEVELS WERE CLOSE TO OR ABOVE 10.0MMOL/L. GLUCOSE PEAKS WERE HIGHER IN THE GLUASP GROUP THAN IN THE ASPGLU GROUP (90MIN: P=0.065; 120 min: P=0.052). Most of the episodes of hypoglycemia were observed after the second hour of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

No statistically significant difference was found between GLU and ASP with regard to PPG after the consumption of a H-GI breakfast. Neither GLU nor ASP stabilized the glycemic profile after the consumption of a H-GI meal.

Further experimentation of inhaled; LANTUS, ACTRAPID and HUMULIN with todays' production systems

BACKGROUND

Several aerosol production systems have been used for aerosol insulin production. However; since the first studies several new models of jet-nebulizers and ultrasound nebulizers have been introduced in the market.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three different models of jet-nebulizers (different brands, same properties) and three different ultrasound nebulizers (different brands, same properties). Six residual cups (2 small ≤ 6 ml and 3 large ≤ 8 ml) were used for the jet-nebulizers. The ultrasound nebulizers were used with their facemasks or with their inlets which were included in the purchase package.

RESULTS

Ultrasound nebulizers; LANTUS produces by far the lowest mean droplets (2.44) half the size of the other two drugs (4.43=4.97). GIMA nebulizer is the most efficient producing one third of the droplet size of SHIMED and one second of EASYNEB (2.06<3.15<6.62). Finally, the 4 ml loading concentration is more suitable for supporting the production of smaller droplets (3.65<4.24). Drugs and nebulizers act interactively yielding very large droplets when ACTRAPID and HUMULIN are administered in joint with SHIMED nebulizer (9.59=7.72). Jet-nebulizers; HUMULIN again is the least preferred insulin since it hardly reaches the low but equal performance of others at the loading level of 6 ml. Residual cups E and B produce uniquely lower mean droplets at loading level 6.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound nebulizers; the best suggested combination should be LANTUS insulin, GIMA nebulizer administered at loading dose of 4 ml jet-nebulizers. A global review can give the best combination: the lowest mean droplets are produced when the drugs LANTUS (mostly) and ACTRAPID are administered, applying the SUNMIST nebulizer in concert with residual cup B at loading levels of 6 ml.

Comparison of daily glucose excursion by continuous glucose monitoring between type 2 diabetic patients receiving preprandial insulin aspart or postprandial insulin glulisine

Insulin glulisine (Glu) is a rapidly-acting insulin analog with a faster onset of action than the other insulin analogs of its class, which are insulin aspart (Asp) and insulin lispro (Lisp). While insulin Glu is usually injected just before meals, postprandial injection may help to avoid unexpected postprandial hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia by adjusting the insulin dosage according to food intake. However, the effect of postprandial insulin Glu on the glucose profile has not been evaluated. The aim of this study was to compare daily glucose excursion by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) between multiple daily doses of preprandial insulin Asp or postprandial insulin Glu. In a randomized cross-over trial, we performed CGM to evaluate the 48-hour glucose profile during treatment with the same dosage of insulin Asp just before each meal in 12 hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients also received the same dosage of long-acting insulin glargine at bedtime. The average glucose level, standard deviation of the glucose level, mean amplitude of glucose excursion, and daily glucose profile did not differ between preprandial Asp and postprandial Glu. The incidence of hypoglycemic episodes (glucose level<70 mg/dL with or without symptoms) and the area under the curve of glucose<70 mg/dL also did not differ between the two insulin regimens. Multiple daily injections of preprandial Asp and postprandial Glu achieved the same daily glucose excursion profile. Postprandial injection of Glu may provide greater flexibility for patients who require insulin therapy.

The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of rapid-acting insulin analogues and their clinical consequences

Postprandial glucose excursions can inhibit achievement of good glycaemic control, and possibly have a specific effect on the risk of vascular comorbidities. Rapid-acting analogues control these excursions better than human insulin because their pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) profile is closer to that of meal-time endogenous insulin secretion. Review of the findings of PK/PD studies and clinical trials suggests that the three marketed rapid-acting analogues--insulin lispro, insulin aspart and insulin glulisine--are equally efficacious and safe. In comparison with human insulin when using the same basal insulin, they provide comparable glycaemic control with a reduced risk of hypoglycaemia, although the combination of rapid-acting and basal analogues reduces glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) more than human meal-time insulin combined with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin. Some studies have suggested that insulin glulisine has a slightly faster onset of action compared with insulin lispro or insulin aspart, but this has not been translated into demonstrable clinical benefit. Treatment satisfaction in patients with diabetes has been higher when therapy with a rapid-acting analogue is used instead of human insulin, perhaps due to differences in advised timing of injection. The largest benefits in efficacy, hypoglycaemia incidence, treatment satisfaction and quality of life have occurred when patients receive an all-analogue meal-time plus basal regimen as compared with an all-human insulin regimen. No new safety issues have been identified with the marketed rapid-acting analogues, and their insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor affinity and mitogenic activity are comparable to human insulin.

Ultrafast-acting insulins: state of the art

Optimal coverage of prandial insulin requirements remains an elusive goal. The invention of rapid-acting insulin analogs (RAIAs) was a big step forward in reducing postprandial glycemic excursions in patients with diabetes in comparison with using regular human insulin; however, even with these, the physiological situation cannot be adequately mimicked. Developing ultrafast-acting insulins (UFIs)-showing an even more rapid onset of action and a shorter duration of action after subcutaneous (SC) administration-is another step forward in achieving this goal. The need for UFIs has been gradually recognized over the years, and subsequently, a number of different approaches to cover this need are in clinical development. A rapid increase in circulating insulin levels can be achieved by different measures: modification of the primary structure of insulin molecule (as we know from RAIAs), addition of excipients that enhance the appearance in the monomeric state post-injection, or addition of enzymes that enable more free spreading of the insulin molecules in the SC tissue. Other measures to increase the insulin absorption rate increase the local blood flow nearby the insulin depot in the SC tissue, injecting the insulin intradermally or applying via another route, e.g., the lung. The development of these approaches is in different stages, from quite early stages to nearing market authorization. In time, daily practice will show if the introduction of UFIs will fulfill their clinical promise. In this review, the basic idea for UFIs will be presented and the different approaches will be briefly characterized.

Evolution of insulin development: focus on key parameters

INTRODUCTION

Although insulin products and treatment strategies have improved significantly, clinical challenges still exist. Meeting glycemic goals while minimizing glucose variability and hypoglycemia is of utmost importance when considering existing insulin therapies and designing investigational insulin treatments.

METHODS

A PubMed search identified relevant, peer-reviewed articles related to the evolution of insulin development for this nonsystematic review. Search terms included "animal insulin," "synthetic insulin," "regular human insulin," "insulin lispro," "insulin aspart," "insulin glulisine," "insulin glargine," "insulin detemir," "insulin degludec," "biphasic human insulin," "insulin premixes," "ultra-long acting," "oral insulin," and "inhaled insulin."

RESULTS

While the discovery of animal insulin significantly decreased mortality rates from diabetes, issues with availability and large variability between batches led to difficulty in determining proper doses and, subsequently, challenges in achieving glycemic control and avoiding hypoglycemia. The development of synthetic insulin created a more readily available supply, but hypoglycemia still persisted. Recombinant DNA technology solved insulin production problems and allowed for the development of better retarding agents, but pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles still did not mimic natural insulin. Insulin premixes offered improved glycemic control, decreased intrapatient variability versus self-mixing, and required fewer injections per day; however, patient adherence remained a problem due to the need to inject 30-60 minutes before a meal for optimal control. This prompted the development of rapid-acting insulin analogs that could be injected right before a meal and long-acting insulin analogs with flatter time-action profiles.

CONCLUSION

Despite advances in insulin development, a need to provide more physiologic basal insulin coverage and reduce hypoglycemic risk in patients with diabetes remains. Newer insulin analogs and more convenient routes of insulin delivery have shown promising safety and efficacy results. Many patients with diabetes have not reached glycemic goals on currently available insulins. Additional studies are necessary to tailor optimal insulin delivery strategies to specific subsets of diabetes patients.

Impact of an interchange program to support use of insulin pens

PURPOSE

The impact of a hospital initiative to reduce staff needle-stick injuries and overall insulin costs by switching from use of insulin vials to use of insulin pens for treatment of inpatients was evaluated.

METHODS

An interchange program entailing a switch from vial-and-syringe insulin administration to insulin delivery via prefilled injector pens was implemented at a specialty clinic and hospital. Patient and employee incident reports were reviewed to identify insulin-related staff needle-stick injuries and to assess patient safety indicators during six-month periods before and after implementation of the interchange. Pharmaceutical purchasing data were used to compare total insulin costs for the two periods.

RESULTS

In the six months after implementation of the interchange program, nurses treated 2,084 patients with subcutaneous insulin products; there was one staff needle-stick injury, compared with five injuries during the designated preimplementation period (2,118 patients treated). During the six months after the switch to insulin injector pens, there were four reports of wrong-drug errors (three errors during dispensing and one error during administration to the patient), all involving insulin detemir and insulin aspart pens; in addition, there was one reported wrong-time error associated with a sliding-scale order for insulin aspart. Total insulin product costs for the preimplementation and postimplementation periods were $124,181 and $60,655, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Using an interchange program to support the use of insulin pens at a specialty clinic and hospital provided increased staff safety and cost savings.

U-100, pH-Neutral formulation of VIAject(®) : faster onset of action than insulin lispro in patients with type 1 diabetes

AIMS

VIAject® is a formulation of human insulin with a very fast onset of action. Previous studies used VIAject in a concentration of 25 U/ml and a pH of 4 [VIAject 25 (VJ25)]. Objective of this double blind, three-way crossover study was to compare the pharmacodynamic/pharmacokinetic properties of a novel formulation of VIAject with a concentration of 100 U/ml and a neutral pH [VIAject 7 (VJ7)] with VJ25 and insulin lispro (LIS).

METHODS

Forty-three patients with type 1 diabetes [aged 43 (21-65) years, BMI 24.1 (20-28) kg/m(2) and HbA1c 7.5 (5.7-9.5) %] participated in this study. They received subcutaneous injections of 12 U of each insulin formulation under euglycaemic glucose clamp conditions.

RESULTS

VJ7 was bioequivalent to VJ25 [90% confidence interval (CI) of the ratios for total insulin AUCs and maximum insulin concentration (C(INS max) ) was within 0.80-1.25]. VJ7 showed a faster absorption compared to LIS [time to C(INS max) 23 vs. 60 min; difference (CI) -30 (-35 to -23)] and faster onset of action [time to early half-maximal glucose infusion rate (GIR) 25 vs. 44 min; -18 (-26 to -10)], and a higher AUC of glucose infusion rate (AUC(GIR) ) in the first 60 min after injection [176 vs. 107 mg/kg; ratio 1.65 (1.27 to 2.14)], contributing to a slightly higher value for AUC(GIR 0-480) [1263 vs. 1095 mg/kg; 1.15 (1.06 to 1.26)]. Maximum GIR was similar between VJ7 and LIS [6.1 vs.6.6 mg/kg/min; ratio 0.93 (0.86 to 1.01)], whereas the duration of action (t(GIR50%-late) ) was longer with VJ7 [274 vs. 228 min; 50 (25 to 73)].

CONCLUSIONS

This formulation of VIAject is bioequivalent to the previously used formulation and has a faster absorption/onset of action than LIS.

Clinical performance of a device that applies local heat to the insulin infusion site: a crossover study

BACKGROUND

Fast-acting insulin analogs have been available since 1996. The absorption rate of these insulins is still too slow to mimic the physiological insulin action in healthy subjects. This study investigates the clinical performance of InsuPatch™, a local skin-heating device, on postprandial glucose excursion.

METHODS

Twenty-four type 1 diabetes mellitus subjects on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion were included in this crossover study [10 male, 14 female, age: 43.5 ± 11.3 years, diabetes duration: 18.3 ± 10.5 years, glycosylated hemoglobin: 7.4 ± 0.8%, body mass index: 25.0 ± 3.0 kg/m(2) (mean ± standard deviation)]. The impact of local skin heating was measured by dividing the two-hour area under the curve by integration time (AUC/t(120)) for blood glucose (BG) above baseline after two standardized breakfast and dinner meal pairs (with and without heating) per subject. For the first breakfast pair, venous insulin concentration was also measured.

RESULTS

A significant reduction was found for the AUC/t(120) after breakfast and after dinner meals (42 breakfast meal pairs, AUC/t(120) not heated 66.4 ± 32.8 mg/dl vs heated 56.8 ± 34.0 mg/dl, p = .017; 38 dinner meal pairs, AUC/t(120) not heated 30.8 ± 31.0 mg/dl vs heated 18.4 ± 23.9 mg/dl, p = .0028). The maximum venous insulin concentration with heating was 27% higher than without heating (n = 23). The number of hypoglycemic events on days with heating (n = 9) was similar to the number of days without heating (n = 13).

CONCLUSIONS

Local heating of the skin around the infusion site significantly reduced postprandial BG by enhancing insulin absorption. The heating device was well tolerated, and it could facilitate development of closed-loop systems.

Cumulative clinical experience with use of insulin lispro: critical appraisal, role in therapy, and patient considerations

We have now at our disposal the new rapid-acting insulin analogs, of which insulin lispro was the first to become commercially available. While the differences in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics are indisputable, the clinical benefits attained by these changes have not been as clear. In the present review, we discuss the structure, pharmacology, and landmark studies related to insulin lispro. The clinical characteristics of insulin lispro are compared with those of insulin regular and other insulin analogs in different clinical situations. Also included are the aspects of quality of life and cost-effectiveness that may modify the modern practitioner's decision to adopt one type of insulin over another.

Influence of preprandial vs. postprandial insulin glulisine on weight and glycaemic control in patients initiating basal-bolus regimen for type 2 diabetes: a multicenter, randomized, parallel, open-label study (NCT00135096)

AIM

Insulin therapy is commonly associated with weight gain. The timing of prandial insulin administration may enhance its efficacy/safety and maintain effective weight control. This study examined the effect of postprandial vs. preprandial insulin glulisine on weight gain and glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes patients taking basal insulin.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial conducted in 45 centres in the USA. A total of 716 patients with type 2 diabetes and glycated haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c) ) ≥ 7.5% and ≤10.0% were screened; 345 were randomized and 322 comprised the intent-to-treat group (premeal, 163; postmeal, 159). Insulin glargine once daily, ±metformin and subcutaneous injections of premeal or postmeal insulin glulisine were given for 52 weeks. Main outcome measures included changes in HbA(1c) , fasting plasma glucose and weight from study baseline to endpoint (week 52).

RESULTS

At study end, insulin glulisine achieved similar glycaemic control whether it was administered before or after meals (HbA(1c) : 7.04% premeal vs. 7.16% postmeal, p = NS). Overall hypoglycaemia incidence and severe hypoglycaemia rates were not significantly different between premeal and postmeal groups; however, symptomatic and nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates were higher in the postprandial group. Mean body weight was lower in the postmeal group, with the difference between postmeal and premeal weight change from baseline to week 52 of -0.87 kg (p = 0.243).

CONCLUSION

Postprandial glulisine administration provided similar glycaemic control and was non-inferior to preprandial administration on weight gain, without additional risk of severe hypoglycaemia, showing dosing flexibility and the feasibility of such approach when clinically indicated.

Comparison of pharmacokinetic properties, physicochemical stability, and pump compatibility of 3 rapid-acting insulin analogues-aspart, lispro, and glulisine

OBJECTIVE

To compare how the rapid-acting insulin analogues (RAIAs) aspart, lispro, and glulisine perform in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy regarding (1) pharmacokinetic properties, (2) chemical and physical stability, and (3) pump compatibility.

METHODS

PubMed was searched for articles pertaining to the use of RAIAs in CSII, without a restriction on the time period.

RESULTS

These RAIAs have pharmacokinetic profiles that more closely mimic endogenous insulin in comparison with regular human insulin and tend to produce less hypoglycemia. Among these RAIAs, the rates of absorption and clinical efficacy in terms of glycemic control were similar. Although glulisine showed a faster onset of action in some studies with aspart and lispro, this advantage lasted only for a maximum of 1 hour, after which results were similar for glulisine and aspart or lispro. Each RAIA is created by making minor amino acid substitutions to the regular human insulin molecule and adding a stabilizer to help prevent fibrillation. A series of chemical and covalent changes affecting the primary structure of an insulin preparation, however, may cause decomposition during storage, handling, and use, diminishing the potency of the insulin molecule while contained in an insulin pump. Precipitation, fibrillation, and occlusion may ensue, undermining compatibility for CSII pump use. Aspart has demonstrated the greatest chemical and physical stability in the insulin pump, with the lowest rates of overall occlusion in comparison with lispro and glulisine (aspart 9.2%, lispro 15.7%, and glulisine 40.9%; P<.01).

CONCLUSION

Aspart is the most compatible of the 3 RAIAs for pump use.

Inhaled insulin: too soon to be forgotten?

Inhalation is a potentially viable route of administration for numerous agents. In diabetes mellitus, the need for frequent injections to achieve ideal glycemic control remains a significant limitation for initiating and complying with insulin therapy in a large number of patients. To overcome this barrier, inhaled insulin was developed. The inhalation form of regular human insulin has been tested and administered in a large number of trials. Respiratory capacity was evaluated in patients with normal lung parenchyma in whom inhaled insulin was administered without complications. However, issues like cost, bulky device, fear for lung safety, and the small number of studies in subjects with underlying respiratory disease prevented widespread use of this new mode of delivery. In the present review, we will suggest a number of methods that could be applied in this form of administration to maximize drug absorption and fully exploit the advantages of this route of administration.

Comparative pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic characteristics of subcutaneous insulin glulisine and insulin aspart prior to a standard meal in obese subjects with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

A multinational, randomized, double-blind, two-way crossover trial to compare the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of bolus, subcutaneously administered insulin glulisine (glulisine) and insulin aspart (aspart) in insulin-naÏve, obese subjects with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Thirty subjects [9/21 females/males; mean ± SD age: 60.7 ± 7.7 years; body mass index (BMI): 33.5 ± 3.3 kg/m(2) ; duration of diabetes: 6.8 ± 4.6 years; HbA1c: 7.1 ± 0.8%] were included in the analysis. They fasted overnight and then received a 0.2 U/kg subcutaneous dose of glulisine or aspart 2 min before starting a standardized test meal, 7 days apart, according to a randomization schedule. Blood samples were taken every 15 min, starting 20 min before the meal and ending 6 h postprandially.

RESULTS

The area under the absolute glucose concentration-time curve between 0 and 1 h after insulin injection and maximal glucose concentration was significantly lower with glulisine than with aspart (p = 0.0455 and 0.0337, respectively). However, for the total study period, plasma glucose concentration was similar for glulisine and aspart. Peak insulin concentration was significantly higher for glulisine than for insulin aspart (p < 0.0001). Hypoglycaemic events (≤ 70 mg/dl with or without symptoms) occurred in 13 and 16 subjects treated with glulisine and aspart, respectively, but there were no cases of severe hypoglycaemia requiring intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Glulisine was associated with lower glucose levels during the first hour after a standard meal; the remaining glucose profiles were otherwise equivalent, with higher insulin levels observed throughout the study period.

Comparable efficacy and safety of insulin glulisine and insulin lispro when given as part of a Basal-bolus insulin regimen in a 26-week trial in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND

We compared the efficacy and safety of insulin glulisine with insulin lispro as part of a basal-bolus regimen in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

Overall, 572 children and adolescents (4-17 years old) using insulin glargine or neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin as basal insulin were enrolled in a 26-week, multicenter, open, centrally randomized, parallel-group, noninferiority study. Subjects were randomized to receive glulisine (n = 277) or lispro (n= 295) 0-15 min premeal.

RESULTS

Baseline-to-endpoint hemoglobin A1c changes were similar between the two insulins: adjusted mean change (glulisine vs. lispro), 0.10% versus 0.16%; between-treatment difference (glulisine-lispro), &minsu;0.06, 95% confidence interval (-0.24; 0.12); and prespecified noninferiority margin, 0.4%. Overall, for all age groups together, the percentage of patients achieving American Diabetes Association age-specific A1c targets at endpoint was significantly higher (P = 0.039) with glulisine (38.4%) versus lispro (32.0%). From Month 4 to endpoint, both "all" and "severe" symptomatic hypoglycemia rates were similar (3.10 vs. 2.91 and 0.06 vs. 0.07 events/patient-month, respectively). Frequency and type of adverse events, serious adverse events, or hypoglycemia reported as serious adverse events were similar between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Glulisine was as effective as lispro in baseline-to-endpoint A1c change, and both treatments were similarly well tolerated.

Bioequivalence between two human insulin analogs in Chinese population: Glulisine and Lispro

Intensive insulin therapy for diabetic patients has been demonstrated as an appropriate treatment. Regular fast-acting insulin can hardly mimic the efficiency of endogenous meal-activated insulin secretion. Glulisine is a new rapid-acting insulin analog for mealtime insulin supplementation. We compared the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics end points between the two rapid-acting insulin analogs Glulisine and Lispro. Twenty healthy adult males age ranging from 22 to 32 years were included in a randomized, open-label, cross contrast research. Two long duration hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp tests, one with Glulisine and the other with Lispro, were conducted on two separate days for all the participants. The two rapid-acting insulin analogs were administrated randomly to each participant. Glucose infusion rate (GIR) began to increase 20 min after injection in both Glulisine and Lispro groups. GIR increased sharply during the first 150 min and reached a peak at 6.23 ± 1.35 mg/(kg min) in the Glulisine group and 6.02 ± 1.27 mg/(kg min) in the Lispro group. It returned to the initial level at hour 5. The Area Under Curve (AUC(0-clamp end)) in Glulisine and Lispro groups were 1455.04 ± 381.88 mg/kg and 1356.25 ± 287.30 mg/kg (P > 0.05), respectively. However, AUC(0-1h) between the two groups showed significant difference, with Glulisine showed greater AUC(0-1h) in the first hour after injection. Other parameters showed no significant difference between the two groups. Insulin analogs Glulisine and Lispro were proved to have equivalent pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters when administered to healthy Chinese adults, but with Glulisine showing greater AUC(0-1h) after injection.

Review of the mechanism of action and clinical efficacy of recombinant human hyaluronidase coadministration with current prandial insulin formulations

For patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, achieving good glycemic control is critical for successful treatment outcomes. As many patients remain unable to reach glycemic goals with currently available rapid-acting analog insulins, ultrafast insulin products are being developed that provide an even faster pharmacokinetic profile compared with current rapid prandial insulin products. The overall strategy of these ultrafast insulin products is to better mimic the normal physiologic response to insulin that occurs in healthy individuals to further improve glycemic control. Recombinant human hyaluronidase (rHuPH20) is a genetically engineered soluble hyaluronidase approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as an adjuvant to increase the absorption and dispersion of other injected drugs; mammalian hyaluronidases as a class have over 6 decades of clinical use supporting the safety and/or efficacy of hyaluronidase coadministration. Clinical findings have demonstrated that coadministration of rHuPH20 with insulin or an insulin analog achieved faster systemic absorption, reduced inter- and intrapatient variability of insulin absorption, and achieved faster metabolic effects compared with injection of either insulin formulation alone. The magnitude of this acceleration is similar to the incrementally faster absorption of prandial insulin analogs as compared with regular insulin. In addition, coadministration of rHuPH20 with regular insulin or insulin analog also improved the achievement of prandial glycemic targets. Thus, rHuPH20 coadministration shows promise as a method of establishing a more rapid insulin profile to prandial insulin in patients with diabetes and has the potential to yield substantial improvements in postprandial glycemic excursion.

Insulin glulisine: a review of its use in the management of diabetes mellitus

Insulin glulisine (Apidra) is a human insulin analogue approved for the improvement of glycaemic control in adults, adolescents and children with diabetes mellitus. It has similar binding properties, and is associated with a faster onset but similar level of glucose disposal, to regular human insulin (RHI). Insulin glulisine and insulin lispro have similar effects on glucose levels. Insulin glulisine is effective when compared to other short- and rapid-acting insulins, demonstrating either noninferiority, no significant difference, or superiority in primary endpoints in studies involving patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. It is more effective and has a faster onset and shorter duration of activity than RHI. Insulin glulisine is as effective as insulin lispro in patients with type 1 diabetes; however, there is a need for further, well designed head-to-head comparisons with insulin lispro in patients with type 2 diabetes and with insulin aspart in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes to fully establish the place of insulin glulisine in the management of diabetes. Insulin glulisine has a flexible administration period, as it can be administered immediately before or after meals. Hypoglycaemia, a common risk with insulins, occurs at a similar rate among recipients of insulin glulisine to that seen with other insulins. Thus, insulin glulisine is an effective and well tolerated option for the treatment of patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Glucose clamp algorithms and insulin time-action profiles

MOTIVATION

Most current insulin pumps include an insulin-on-board (IOB) feature to help subjects avoid problems associated with "insulin stacking." In addition, many control algorithms proposed for a closed-loop artificial pancreas make use of IOB to reduce the probability of hypoglycemic events that often occur due to the integral action of the controller. The IOB curves are generated from the pharmacodynamic (time-activity profiles) actions of subcutaneous insulin, which are obtained from glycemic clamp studies.

METHODS

Glycemic clamp algorithms are reviewed and in silico studies are performed to analyze the effect of glucose meter bias and noise on glycemic control and the manipulated glucose infusion rates. The glucose infusion rates are used to obtain insulin time-activity profiles, which are then used to generate IOB curves.

RESULTS

A model-based, three-step-ahead controller is shown to be equivalent to a proportional-integral control algorithm with time-delay compensation. A systematic glucose meter bias of +6 mg/dl results in a decrease in the glucose area under the curve of 3% but no change in the IOB profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these preliminary simulation studies, a substantial amount of glucose meter bias and noise during a glycemic clamp can be tolerated with little net effect on the IOB curves. It is suggested that handheld glucose meters can therefore be used in clamp studies if the measurements are filtered (averaged) before processing by the control algorithm. Clinical studies are needed to confirm these preliminary results.

Efficacy and safety of insulin glulisine in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus

AIM

The rapid-acting insulin analogue insulin glulisine (glulisine) was compared with insulin lispro (lispro) for efficacy and safety in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), using insulin glargine (glargine) as basal insulin.

METHODS

This was an open, randomized, parallel-group, comparative non-inferiority study. The primary efficacy measure was change in adjusted mean haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to endpoint. Safety and treatment satisfaction using the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) were also assessed. Patients were treated for 28 weeks with either glulisine or lispro administered 0-15 min before a meal. Doses were titrated to obtain 2-h postprandial plasma glucose (2h-PPG) of 7.11-9.55 mmol/l (128-172 mg/dl). All patients were concomitantly treated with glargine at bedtime, titrated to obtain a fasting (prebreakfast) plasma glucose level of 5.27-7.11 mmol/l (95-128 mg/dl).

RESULTS

Baseline mean HbA1c values were similar for the glulisine (n = 132) and lispro (n = 135) groups (7.44 and 7.50% respectively). From baseline to endpoint, adjusted mean HbA1c increased by 0.10% in the glulisine group and by 0.04% in the lispro group. Non-inferiority of glulisine compared with lispro was shown. There were no significant differences between glulisine and lispro in adjusted mean 2h-PPG [glulisine, 9.06 mmol/l (163 mg/dl) vs. lispro, 8.13 mmol/l (146 mg/dl); p = 0.065] and change in adjusted mean daily rapid-acting insulin dose (glulisine, 0.26 U vs. lispro, 0.26 U; p = 0.994) at study endpoint. There was a significant difference for change in adjusted mean daily basal insulin dose from baseline to study endpoint (glulisine, -0.54 U vs. lispro, 0.26 U; p = 0.013). The most common serious adverse events were hypoglycaemia-related events (hypoglycaemia, hypoglycaemic seizure and hypoglycaemic coma) with no difference observed between the two groups [glulisine, 6.8% (9/132) vs. lispro, 4.4% (6/135); p = 0.437]. No noteworthy differences were observed for change in insulin antibodies from baseline to endpoint. Assessment of treatment satisfaction score and perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia by DTSQ showed no changes from baseline in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Glulisine was as effective as lispro with respect to change in HbA1c and was well tolerated when used in combination with glargine in Japanese patients with T1DM.

Insulin glulisine in the management of diabetes

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