A Randomized Trial Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart Compared With Insulin Aspart, Both in Combination With Insulin Degludec With or Without Metformin, in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes (ONSET 9)

The dual challenge of diabesity: pathophysiology, management, and future directions

Diabesity, the concurrent occurrence of obesity and type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), represents a pressing global health challenge characterized by intricate pathophysiological mechanisms and a wide range of associated comorbidities. Central to its development are insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and chronic low-grade inflammation mediated by dysregulated adipokine secretion and systemic metabolic dysfunction. These mechanisms underpin the progression of diabesity and its complications, including cardiovascular disease and hypertension. Management strategies encompass lifestyle interventions focusing on tailored dietary modifications and structured physical activity, pharmacological treatments targeting both glycemic control and weight loss, and surgical interventions such as bariatric surgery, which have demonstrated efficacy in achieving durable outcomes. Clinical trials and meta-analyses underscore the comparative advantages of different treatment modalities in terms of efficacy, safety, and sustainability. Moreover, long-term follow-up studies emphasize the critical need for sustained multidisciplinary interventions to prevent relapse and enhance patient outcomes. Future advancements in management include exploring precision medicine approaches that integrate individual metabolic profiles, lifestyle factors, and emerging therapeutic innovations. A multidisciplinary approach combining advanced therapeutic strategies and patient-centered care remains pivotal for optimizing management and improving prognoses for individuals with diabesity. This review highlights the complex interplay between obesity and T2DM, offering comprehensive insights into their pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and management paradigms.

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.

Are New Ultra-Rapid-Acting Insulins Associated with Improved Glycemic Control and Reduced Hypoglycemia in Comparison to Conventional Rapid-Acting Insulins for Individuals with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: This study aimed to compare efficacy and safety of ultra-rapid-acting insulin analogs (URAIs; faster aspart [FAsp], ultra-rapid lispro [URLi], and technosphere insulin [TI]) with rapid-acting insulin analogs (RAI) in individuals with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods: Searching for randomized control trial comparing the effects of URAI versus RAI that lasted at least 12 weeks, we initially selected 15 studies for analysis. Three studies involving TI were excluded due to a high degree of heterogeneity. The final meta-analysis included only 12 studies with either FAsp or URLi. Results: Mealtime URAI significantly reduced overall early 1 h postprandial glycemia in individuals with T1D (-20.230 mg/dL [95% confidence interval, 95% CI -24.040 to -16.421]; P < 0.001; I2 = 33.42%) and those with T2D (-9.138 mg/dL [95% CI -12.612 to -5.663]; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%). However, the significant reduction in 2 h postprandial glucose remained only in individuals with T1D (-17.620 mg/dL [95% CI -26.047 to -9.193]; P < 0.001; I2 = 65.88%). These benefits were lost when URAI was administered postmeal. At 24-26 weeks, there was no significant difference in HbA1c between groups, but at 52 weeks, a slight reduction in HbA1c with mealtime URAI was observed (-0.080% [95% CI -0.147 to -0.013]; P = 0.019; I2 = 0%). No difference in weight or the rate of severe or confirmed hypoglycemia was observed. Only individuals with T1D showed a small, but significant increase in early 1-h hypoglycemia with URAI (1.468 [95% CI 1.235 to 1.747]; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%). Conclusion: Mealtime URAI improves 1 and 2 h postprandial glycemic control compared to RAI without increasing hypoglycemia or weight gain.

Faster-acting insulin aspart versus insulin aspart in the treatment of type 1 or type 2 diabetes during pregnancy and post-delivery (CopenFast): an open-label, single-centre, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Faster-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) is considered safe for use during pregnancy and breastfeeding but has not been evaluated in this population. We aimed to evaluate the effect of faster aspart versus insulin aspart on fetal growth, in women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes during pregnancy and post-delivery.

METHODS

This open-label, single-centre, superiority trial was conducted at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. Participants aged 18 years or older with type 1 or type 2 diabetes were stratified by diabetes type and insulin treatment modality (multiple daily injections or insulin pump), randomly assigned 1:1 to faster aspart or insulin aspart, from 8 weeks and 0 days (8+0) of gestation to 13+6 weeks of gestation, and followed up until 3 months post-delivery. Primary outcome was infant birthweight SD score. Secondary outcomes included HbA1c as well as maternal and fetal outcomes in all participants during the trial. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03770767.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 11, 2019 and May 10, 2022, 109 participants were included in the faster aspart group and 107 in the insulin aspart group. Primary outcome data were available in 203 (94%) of 216 participants, and no participants discontinued treatment during the trial. Mean birthweight SD score was 1·0 (SD 1·4) in the faster aspart group versus 1·2 (1·3) in the insulin aspart group; estimated treatment difference -0·22 [-0·58 to 0·14]; p=0·23. At 33 weeks of gestation, mean HbA1c was 42 mmol/mol (SD 6 mmol/mol; 6·0% [SD 0·9%]) versus 43 mmol/mol (SD 7 mmol/mol; 6·1% [SD 1·2%]); estimated treatment difference -1·01 (-2·86 to 0·83), p=0·28. No additional safety issues were observed with faster aspart compared with insulin aspart.

INTERPRETATION

Treatment with faster aspart resulted in similar fetal growth and HbA1c, relative to insulin aspart, in women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Faster aspart can be used in women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes during pregnancy and post-delivery with no additional safety issues.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

TRANSLATION

For the Danish translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

The Effect of Two Different Insulin Formulations on Postprandial Hyperglycemia after High and Low Glycemic-Index Meal in Type 1 Diabetes

Despite multiple pharmacological options, including rapid-acting insulin analogs, postprandial hyperglycemia is still highly prevalent in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. We hypothesize that the new rapid-acting insulin formulation, the so-called faster-acting Aspart, may have a different effect in controlling postprandial hyperglycemic burden according to the quality of the meal compared to the traditional Aspart. Twenty-five patients with type 1 diabetes were consecutively recruited at the diabetes care center of the University Hospital affiliate of the Magna Græcia University of Catanzaro. Each patient performed four meal tests one week apart, two with a predefined high glycemic index (HGI) food and two with a low glycemic index (LGI) food using insulin Aspart once and Faster Aspart the other time. The 0–30 min, 0–60 min, and 0–120 min glucose Area Under the Curve (AUC) of postprandial glycemic excursion, calculated from continuous glucose monitoring data, were significantly lower with Faster Aspart administered before the HGI test meal as compared to Aspart. A significant difference in favor of Faster Aspart was also found when comparing the 0–60 min and 0–120 min AUC after the LGI meal. Faster Aspart may provide better postprandial glucose control than Aspart regardless of the glycemic index of the meal.

Comparative Analysis of Clinical Effects of Insulin Aspart Combined with Acarbose and Metformin in the Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus

Objective

To investigate the clinical effect of Insulin aspart 30 combined with acarbose and metformin enteric-coated tablets in the treatment of diabetes mellitus.

Methods

90 diabetic patients admitted to our hospital from January 2019 to December 2021 were selected as the research subjects, and the patients were randomly divided into group A (n = 30, using insulin aspart 30 alone), group B (n = 30, using insulin aspart 30 combined with metformin enteric-coated tablets), and group C (n = 30, using insulin aspart 30 combined with acarbose). The blood glucose balance before meals and before going to bed was maintained in the three groups of patients, and the blood glucose fluctuations, time to target, hypoglycemia, insulin dosage, and daily consumption of the three groups were compared.

Results

There was no significant difference in blood glucose and average blood glucose at each time point before treatment in the 3 groups of patients (P > 0.05); compared with the blood glucose and average blood glucose at each time point after reaching the target in the three groups, the blood glucose after dinner in group A was significantly higher than that in groups B and C; at 2 : 00, the blood glucose of group A was significantly higher than that of group B (P < 0.05); there was no significant difference in blood glucose and average blood glucose at other time points (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in blood glucose standard deviation, LAGE, and PPGE at each point in the three groups before treatment (P > 0.05); the standard deviation of blood glucose, LAGE, and PPGE at each point of the three groups of patients after reaching the standard were compared with those in the same group before treatment, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05); there were statistically significant differences in blood glucose standard deviation, LAGE, and PPGE among the 3 groups after reaching the standard (P < 0.05). Compared among the three groups, the standard deviation of blood glucose and LAGE level at each point after reaching the standard, the difference between group B, group C, and group A was statistically significant (P < 0.05); however, there was no significant difference between the patients in group B and group C (P > 0.05); the level of PPGE in group A was higher than that in group B, which was higher than group C, and between group C and group A, the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The time of reaching the standard in 3 groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05); there was no significant difference in the time of reaching the standard between group B and group C (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of hypoglycemia among the 3 groups (P > 0.05); there were significant differences in the proportion of insulin twice a day among the three groups (P < 0.05); there were statistically significant differences in daily insulin dosage among the 3 groups after reaching the standard (P < 0.05). The daily consumption of the three groups of patients after reaching the standard was compared, the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05), and there was no significant difference between group A and group B (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

The effect of insulin aspart 30 alone in the treatment of diabetic patients is not good, it will lead to a large fluctuation of blood sugar in the patient's body, and the time required to reach the standard is relatively long; the use of insulin aspart 30 combined with metformin enteric-coated tablets or acarbose can effectively reduce the blood sugar fluctuation range of diabetic patients and reduce the number of insulin injections, and insulin aspart 30 combined with metformin en teric-coated tablets can also greatly reduce the daily insulin dosage and daily consumption cost of diabetic patients.

Effective Overall Glycaemic Control with Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart Across Patients with Different Baseline Characteristics: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Onset 9 Trial

AIMS

To investigate the efficacy and safety of fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) compared with insulin aspart (IAsp) in participants with type 2 diabetes (T2D) across different subgroups.

METHODS

We report on a post hoc analysis of onset 9, a 16-week trial of participants with T2D randomised to faster aspart (n = 546) or IAsp (n = 545). Participants were grouped by baseline HbA1c (< 7.0%, ≥ 7.0%), meal test bolus insulin dose (≤ 10 units [U], > 10 U to ≤ 20 U, > 20 U), body mass index (< 30 kg/m², ≥ 30 to < 35 kg/m², ≥ 35 kg/m²), and age (< 65 years, ≥ 65 years). Outcomes assessed were change from baseline in HbA1c and in 1-h postprandial glucose (PPG) increment, and severe or blood glucose (BG)-confirmed hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

Faster aspart provided reductions in HbA1c comparable to IAsp across all subgroups, with improved 1-h PPG control compared with IAsp in several subgroups. Faster aspart had comparable or improved rates of severe or BG-confirmed hypoglycaemia versus IAsp, particularly in participants with good glycaemic control (HbA1c < 7.0%), the elderly (≥ 65 years old), and those with insulin resistance (> 20 U meal test bolus insulin dose).

CONCLUSIONS

Faster aspart provides effective overall glycaemic control, with improved early PPG control compared with IAsp across a range of patient characteristics.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03268005.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensor Glucose Levels and Insulin Pump Infusion Set Wear-Time During Treatment with Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart: A Post Hoc Analysis of Onset 5

Background: In the onset 5 trial, fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) was noninferior to insulin aspart (IAsp) for change from baseline glycated hemoglobin at 16 weeks, when used in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion by participants with type 1 diabetes. The aim of this post hoc analysis was to investigate whether infusion set wear-time was associated with changes in sensor glucose, measured using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Materials and Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of onset 5 data. Mean infusion set wear-time and duration of CGM-wearing period were assessed. Mean CGM sensor glucose 24 h before and 24 h after were used to calculate the before-after difference (CGM sensor glucose drift). Results: Mean infusion set wear-time was 2.9 and 3.0 days in the faster aspart and IAsp arms, respectively. At 16 weeks, the average duration of the CGM wearing period was 13.7 and 13.8 days, respectively. Mean CGM sensor glucose before versus after an infusion set change, at week 16, was 10.14 versus 9.39 mmol/L with faster aspart and 9.48 versus 9.47 mmol/L with IAsp. The estimated treatment difference in CGM sensor glucose drift at 16 weeks for faster aspart versus IAsp was +0.72 mmol/L (95% confidence interval: 0.48-0.96, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Mean infusion set wear-time and duration of CGM-wearing period were similar for faster aspart and IAsp. A significantly greater upward drift in CGM sensor glucose values measured during an infusion set wearing period was observed with faster aspart versus IAsp. Clinical trial registration: NCT02825251.

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.

Glycaemic Control in People with Diabetes Starting Treatment with Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart: a US Database Study

INTRODUCTION

This study investigated glycaemic control in individuals with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) 6 months after initiating fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This was a single-arm, observational study using extracted patient data from the IBM^® Explorys^® database (USA) for individuals with T1D or T2D initiating faster aspart (at least one prescription of faster aspart) in the study period 1 January 2018 to 27 October 2020. Clinical characteristics, including age, body mass index, and baseline HbA1c, were extracted, as well as recorded events of hypoglycaemia. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline to 6 months.

RESULTS

A total of 787 individuals were included; 36.6% of these individuals had T1D and 63.4% had T2D (of whom 46.9% were new users of rapid-acting insulin when initiating faster aspart [T2D new users] and 53.1% were switching from another rapid-acting insulin to faster aspart [T2D switchers]). For individuals with T1D, T2D new users, or T2D switchers, estimated mean change in HbA1c from baseline to 6 months was - 0.20% (95% CI - 0.53, 0.14; p  =  0.252), - 1.00% (95% CI -  1.34, -  0.67; p < 0.0001), and - 0.70% (95% CI - 1.06,  - 0.35; p = 0.0001), respectively. In the baseline HbA1c > 8.5% subgroup, there was a significant estimated decrease in HbA1c from baseline to 6 months in individuals with T1D (-  1.2% [95% CI - 1.80,  -  0.60]; p = 0.0001) or T2D (- 0.6% [95% CI - 0.92, -  0.35]; p <  0.0001). Event rates of hypoglycaemia after 12 months were 0.68, 0.38, and 0.59 events/year for individuals with T1D, T2D new users, and T2D switchers, respectively.

CONCLUSION

US IBM^® Explorys^® data demonstrated a clinically relevant reduction in HbA1c 6 months after initiating faster aspart treatment for individuals with T2D, but not T1D overall, although patients with baseline HbA1c > 8.5% had significant HbA1c reductions regardless of diabetes type.

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.

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.

Impact of Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart on Glycemic Control in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Using Intermittent-Scanning Continuous Glucose Monitoring Within a Real-World Setting: The GoBolus Study

Background: The GoBolus study investigated the real-world effectiveness of faster aspart in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using intermittent-scanning continuous glucose monitoring (iscCGM) systems. Methods: This 24-week, multicenter, single-arm, noninterventional study investigated adults with T1D (HbA_1c, 7.5%-9.5%) receiving multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin and using iscCGM within local healthcare settings for ≥6 months before switching to faster aspart at study start (week 0; baseline). Primary endpoint was HbA_1c change from baseline to week 24. Exploratory endpoint was change in iscCGM metrics from baseline to week 24. Results: Overall, 243 patients were included (55.6% male), with mean age/diabetes duration, 49.9/18.8 years; mean HbA_1c, 8.1%. By week 24, HbA_1c had decreased by 0.19% (-2.1 mmol/mol, P < 0.0001) with no mean change in insulin doses or basal/bolus insulin ratios. For patients with sufficient available iscCGM data (n = 92): "time in range" (TIR; 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) increased from 46.9% to 50.1% (P = 0.01), corresponding to an increase of 46.1 min/day; time in hyperglycemia decreased from 49.1% to 46.1% (>10.0 mmol/L, P = 0.026) and 20.4% to 17.9% (>13.9 mmol/L, P = 0.013), corresponding to 43.5 (P = 0.024) and 35.6 (P = 0.015) fewer minutes per day on average spent in these ranges, respectively; no change for time in hypoglycemia (<3.9 and <3.0 mmol/L). Mean interstitial and postprandial glucose improved from 10.4 to 10.1 mmol/L (P = 0.035) and 11.9 to 11.0 mmol/L (P = 0.002), respectively. Conclusion: Real-world switching to faster aspart in adults with T1D on MDI improved HbA_1c, increased TIR, and decreased time in hyperglycemia without affecting time in hypoglycemia. The GoBolus study: NCT03450863.

Glycaemic efficacy and safety of mealtime faster-acting insulin aspart administered by injection as compared to insulin aspart in people with diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

To summarize all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and provide precise effect estimates of glycaemic efficacy/safety of faster-acting insulin aspart administered by injection as compared to insulin aspart in people with diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

PubMed/Cochrane Library were systematically searched till October 10, 2020, to identify RCTs with duration ≥16 weeks, evaluating efficacy/safety of mealtime injections of faster aspart compared to insulin aspart in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Studies using faster aspart as continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion were excluded. Continuous and dichotomous outcome variables (expressed as estimated treatment difference and rate ratio in RCTs, respectively) were pooled using generic inverse variance method with fixed/random-effects model. For each outcome variable, subgroup analysis between type 1 diabetes mellitus and type 2 diabetes mellitus was performed.

RESULTS

We included five RCTs; three of type 1 diabetes mellitus (n = 1963) and two of type 2 diabetes mellitus (n = 1780). All had low risk of bias. Faster aspart was associated with small but significant improvement in HbA_1c than insulin aspart (MD: -0.06%, 95% CI: -0.10, -0.02, p = 0.005, I²  = 19%). HbA_1c reduction was statistically significant only in type 1 diabetes mellitus on subgroup analysis (MD: -0.08%, 95% CI: -0.14, -0.02, p = 0.005, I²  = 47%). Besides, faster aspart was associated with reduced postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) increment at 1 h/2 h after meal test and increased 1,5-anhydroglucitol compared to insulin aspart. Early postprandial hypoglycaemic episodes were higher with faster aspart; however, overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes were not different from insulin aspart.

CONCLUSIONS

Faster aspart is associated with reduced HbA_1c , PPG increment and comparable overall hypoglycaemic episodes with regard to insulin aspart.

Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial Comparing Ultra Rapid Lispro With Lispro in a Basal-Bolus Regimen in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: PRONTO-T2D

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ultra rapid lispro (URLi) versus lispro in patients with type 2 diabetes on a basal-bolus insulin regimen.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a phase 3, treat-to-target, double-blind 26-week study. After an 8-week lead-in to optimize basal insulin glargine or degludec in combination with prandial lispro treatment, patients were randomized to blinded URLi (n = 336) or lispro (n = 337) injected 0-2 min prior to meals. Patients could continue metformin and/or a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor. The primary end point was change in HbA1c from baseline to 26 weeks (noninferiority margin 0.4%), with multiplicity-adjusted objectives for postprandial glucose (PPG) excursions during a standardized meal test.

RESULTS

HbA1c improved for both URLi and lispro, and noninferiority was confirmed: estimated treatment difference (ETD) 0.06% (95% CI -0.05; 0.16). Mean change in HbA1c was -0.38% for URLi and -0.43% for lispro, with an end-of-treatment HbA1c of 6.92% and 6.86%, respectively. URLi was superior to lispro in controlling 1- and 2-h PPG excursions: 1-h ETD, -0.66 mmol/L (95% CI -1.01, -0.30); 2-h ETD, -0.96 mmol/L (-1.41, -0.52). Significantly lower PPG excursions were evident from 0.5 to 4.0 h postmeal with URLi treatment. There were no significant treatment differences in rates of severe or documented hypoglycemia (<3.0 mmol/L). Incidence of overall treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

URLi compared with lispro in a basal-bolus regimen was confirmed to be noninferior for HbA1c and superior to lispro for PPG control in patients with type 2 diabetes.