Inhaled human insulin treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Enhanced oral and pulmonary delivery of biomacromolecules via amplified transporter targeting

Ligand-modified nanocarriers can promote oral or inhalative administration of macromolecular drugs across the intestinal or pulmonary mucosa. However, enhancing the unidirectional transport of the nanocarriers through "apical uptake→intracellular transport→basolateral exocytosis" route remains a hot topic and challenge in current research. Forskolin is a naturally occurring diterpenoid compound extracted from the roots of C. forskohlii. In our studies, we found that forskolin could increase the transcellular transport of butyrate-modified nanoparticles by 1.67-fold and 1.20-fold in Caco-2 intestinal epithelial cell models and Calu-3 lung epithelial cell models, respectively. Further mechanistic studies revealed that forskolin, on the one hand, promoted the cellular uptake of butyrate-modified nanoparticles by upregulating the expression of monocarboxylic acid transporter-1 (MCT-1) on the apical membrane. On the other hand, forskolin facilitated the binding of MCT-1 to caveolae, thereby mediating butyrate-modified nanoparticles hijacking caveolae to promote the basolateral exocytosis of butyrate-modified nanoparticles. Studies in normal mice model showed that forskolin could promote the transmucosal absorption of butyrate-modified nanoparticles by >2-fold, regardless of oral or inhalative administration. Using semaglutide as the model drug, both oral and inhalation delivery approaches demonstrated significant hypoglycemic effects in type 2 diabetes mice model, in which inhalative administration was more effective than oral administration. This study optimized the strategies aimed at enhancing the transmucosal absorption of ligand-modified nanocarriers in the intestinal or pulmonary mucosa.

Aerosol pulmonary immune engineering

Aerosolization of immunotherapies poses incredible potential for manipulating the local mucosal-specific microenvironment, engaging specialized pulmonary cellular defenders, and accessing mucosal associated lymphoid tissue to redirect systemic adaptive and memory responses. In this review, we breakdown key inhalable immunoengineering strategies for chronic, genetic, and infection-based inflammatory pulmonary disorders, encompassing the historic use of immunomodulatory agents, the transition to biological inspired or derived treatments, and novel approaches of complexing these materials into drug delivery vehicles for enhanced release outcomes. Alongside a brief description of key immune targets, fundamentals of aerosol drug delivery, and preclinical pulmonary models for immune response, we survey recent advances of inhaled immunotherapy platforms, ranging from small molecules and biologics to particulates and cell therapies, as well as prophylactic vaccines. In each section, we address the formulation design constraints for aerosol delivery as well as advantages for each platform in driving desirable immune modifications. Finally, prospects of clinical translation and outlook for inhaled immune engineering are discussed.

Efficacy Evaluation Study for Microburst Insulin Infusion: A Novel Model of Care

Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the impact of Microburst Insulin Infusion (MII) treatment on Type 1 and 2 diabetic patients' HbA1c, lipids, peripheral neuropathy, and patient-reported health status.

Methods: We reviewed clinical charts, including lab results, for more than 80 diabetic and pre-diabetic patients treated at one U.S. outpatient clinic in St. Louis, Missouri between February 2017 and December 2019. Data included patient demographics, treatment data, lab and neuropathy tests, and self-reported patient health status questions.

The explanatory variable was number of months of MII treatment. Treatments are 3–4 h in length, with two intensive infusions the first week and one treatment each week thereafter, usually for 12 weeks total. Lab tests were at 12-week intervals.

Generalized linear modeling and t-tests assessed the significance of differences between patients' baseline lab values, neuropathy measures, and health status before treatment vs. after final treatment.

Results: Number of MII treatments per patient ranged from 1 to 262, over 1–24 months. Time in MII treatment was significantly associated with reductions in HbA1c by nearly 0.04 points per month, and triglycerides declined 3 points per month. Neuropathy measures of large toe vibratory sensation (clanging tuning fork) improved significantly, as did patient-reported health and feelings of improvement since beginning treatment.

Discussion: The MII therapy appears to be efficacious in treating diabetic patients, particularly those with complications like neuropathy. Our findings affirmed several other studies. We uniquely incorporated patient health questionnaires, and empirically studied MII treatment efficacy for diabetes in a population large enough to permit statistically valid inferences. With multiple waves of data for over 80 patients, this is one of the most extensive quantitative studies of microburst insulin infusion therapy conducted to date, with protocols more uniformly implemented and survey instruments more consistently administered by the same clinical team. Given the advances in insulin infusion therapy brought by MII, and early indications of its efficacy, the time is right for more in-depth studies of the outcomes patients can achieve, the physiological mechanisms by which they occur, MII's comparative effectiveness vis-à-vis traditional treatments, and cost-effectiveness.

Effects of Periodic Intensive Insulin Therapy: An Updated Review

Background

Traditional insulin treatment for diabetes mellitus with insulin administered subcutaneously yields nonpulsatile plasma insulin concentrations that represent a fraction of normal portal vein levels. Oral hypoglycemic medications result in the same lack of pulsatile insulin response to blood glucose levels. Intensive treatments of significant complications of diabetes are not recommended due to complicated multidrug regimens, significant weight gain, and the high risk of hypoglycemic complications. Consequently, advanced complications of diabetes do not have an effective treatment option because conventional therapy is not sufficient. Intensive insulin therapy (IIT) simulates normal pancreatic function by closely matching the periodicity and amplitude of insulin secretion in healthy subjects; however, the mechanisms involved with the observed improvement are not clearly understood.

Objective

The current review aims to analyze the pathophysiology of insulin secretion, discuss current therapies for the management of diabetes, provides an updates on the recent advancements of IIT, and proposes its mechanism of action.

Methods

A literature search on PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and CrossRef databases was performed on multiple key words regarding the history and current variations of pulsatile and IIT for diabetes treatment. Articles reporting the physiology of insulin secretion, advantages of pulsatile insulin delivery in patients with diabetes patients, efficacy and adverse effects of current conventional insulin therapies for the management of diabetes, benefits and shortcomings of pancreas and islet transplantation, or clinical trials on patients with diabetes treated with pulsed insulin therapy or advanced IIT were included for a qualitative analysis and categorized into the following topics: mechanism of insulin secretion in normal subjects and patients with diabetes and current therapies for the management of diabetes, including oral hypoglycemic agents, insulin therapy, pancreas and islet transplantation, pulsed insulin therapy, and advances in IIT.

Results

Our review of the literature shows that IIT improves the resolution of diabetic ulcers, neuropathy, and nephropathy, and reduces emergency room visits. The likely mechanism responsible for this improvement is increased insulin sensitivity from adipocytes, as well as increased insulin receptor expression.

Conclusions

Recent advancements show that IIT is an effective option for both type 1 diabetes mellitus and type 2 diabetes mellitus patient populations. This treatment resembles normal pancreatic function so closely that it has significantly reduced the effects of relatively common complications of diabetes in comparison to standard treatments. Thus, this new treatment is a promising advancement in the management of diabetes. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2019; 80:XXX–XXX).

Battle of GLP-1 delivery technologies

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) belong to an important therapeutic class for treatment of type 2 diabetes. Six GLP-1 RAs, each utilizing a unique drug delivery strategy, are now approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and additional, novel GLP-1 RAs are still under development, making for a crowded marketplace and fierce competition among the manufacturers of these products. As rapid elimination is a major challenge for clinical application of GLP-1 RAs, various half-life extension strategies have been successfully employed including sequential modification, attachment of fatty-acid to peptide, fusion with human serum albumin, fusion with the fragment crystallizable (Fc) region of a monoclonal antibody, sustained drug delivery systems, and PEGylation. In this review, we discuss the scientific rationale of the various half-life extension strategies used for GLP-1 RA development. By analyzing and comparing different approved GLP-1 RAs and those in development, we focus on assessing how half-life extending strategies impact the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, patient usability and ultimately, the commercial success of GLP-1 RA products. We also anticipate future GLP-1 RA development trends. Since similar drug delivery strategies are also applied for developing other therapeutic peptides, we expect this case study of GLP-1 RAs will provide generalizable concepts for the rational design of therapeutic peptides products with extended duration of action.

Review: Current status of the development of inhaled insulin

The most promising alternative route of insulin administration seems to be pulmonary delivery by inhalation. For a maximal rate of absorption insulin must be applied deep into the lung, i.e., into the alveoli. A number of inhalers designed to generate an aerosol with an appropriate particle size for pulmonary delivery are currently in clinical development. The pharmacodynamic effects of insulin formulations administered via the lung are comparable to, or are even faster than, those of subcutaneously injected regular insulin or rapid-acting insulin analogues. The relative biopotency of inhaled insulin is approximately 10%, i.e., the dose of inhaled insulin must be 10 times higher than the dose applied subcutaneously in order to induce a comparable metabolic effect. Clinical trials indicate that metabolic control with this pain free route of insulin administration is at least comparable to that of subcutaneous (sc) insulin therapy. Side effects. observed in human trials, gave rise to safety concerns that have delayed development for several years. Nevertheless, recent long-term safety studies indicate that the increased stimulation of insulin antibody formation stopped after some time and that the observed changes in lung function were minor or reversible. Consequently the first application for an approval of pulmonary insulin has been submitted to the authorities. In summary, it seems as if, after several decades of research, for the first time a feasible alternative route for insulin administration is within Reach.

Emerging Trends in Noninvasive Insulin Delivery

This paper deals with various aspects of oral insulin delivery system. Insulin is used for the treatment of diabetes mellitus, which is characterized by the elevated glucose level (above the normal range) in the blood stream, that is, hyperglycemia. Oral route of administration of any drug is the most convenient route. Development of oral insulin is still under research. Oral insulin will cause the avoidance of pain during the injection (in subcutaneous administration), anxiety due to needle, and infections which can be developed. Different types of enzyme inhibitors, like sodium cholate, camostat, mesilate, bacitracin, leupeptin, and so forth, have been used to prevent insulin from enzymatic degradation. Subcutaneous route has been used for administration of insulin, but pain and itching at the site of administration can occur. That is why various alternative routes of insulin administration like oral route are under investigation. In this paper authors summarized advancement in insulin delivery with their formulation aspects.

The expanding role of aerosols in systemic drug delivery, gene therapy and vaccination: an update

Until the late 1990s, aerosol therapy consisted of beta₂-adrenergic agonists, anti-cholinergics, steroidal and non-steroidal agents, mucolytics and antibiotics that were used to treat patients with asthma, COPD and cystic fibrosis. Since then, inhalation therapy has matured to include drugs that: (1) are designed to treat diseases outside the lung and whose target is the systemic circulation (systemic drug delivery); (2) deliver nucleic acids that lead to permanent expression of a gene construct, or protein coding sequence, in a population of cells (gene therapy); and (3) provide needle-free immunization against disease (aerosolized vaccination). During the evolution of these advanced applications, it was also necessary to develop new devices that provided increased dosing efficiency and less loss during delivery. This review will present an update on the success of each of these new applications and their devices. The early promise of aerosolized systemic drug delivery and its outlook for future success will be highlighted. In addition, the challenges to aerosolized gene therapy and the need for appropriate gene vectors will be discussed. Finally, progress in the development of aerosolized vaccination will be presented. The continued expansion of the role of aerosol therapy in the future will depend on: (1) improving the bioavailability of systemically delivered drugs; (2) developing gene therapy vectors that can efficiently penetrate the mucus barrier and cell membrane, navigate the cell cytoplasm and efficiently transfer DNA material to the cell nucleus; (3) improving delivery of gene vectors and vaccines to infants; and (4) developing formulations that are safe for acute and chronic administrations.

Young and Elderly Type 2 Diabetic Patients Inhaling Insulin with the AERx® Insulin Diabetes Management System: A Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Comparison

The objective of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and safety of inhaled insulin delivered by the AERx iDMS in young and elderly patients with type 2 diabetes. Twenty-seven young (18-45 years, inclusive) and 28 elderly (>/= 65 years) type 2 diabetic patients were enrolled in this study. A single inhalation of 1.57 mg (45 IU, effect comparable to 6 s.c. units) of regular human insulin was administered to each patient on each of 2 dosing days, and blood samples were drawn up to 360 minutes postdosing to generate the PK/PD curves. AUC(0-360 min) and Cmax values of inhaled insulin were comparable between young and elderly subjects (p = 0.476 for AUC(0-360 min) and p = 0.414 for Cmax). However, the elderly group had significantly less glucose reduction, as indicated by plasma glucose AOC(0-360) (area over the curve) values (p = 0.011). The intrasubject variability of inhaled insulin using the AERx iDMS was similar for young and elderly subjects and was similar to what has previously been reported for soluble insulin administered subcutaneously. Inhaled insulin was well tolerated in these patients, and no changes in pulmonary function tests were observed. A single inhalation of insulin using the AERx iDMS demonstrated comparable insulin PK profiles between the elderly and young type 2 patients but less glucose reduction in the elderly. Based on these results, elderly diabetic patients may need to inhale more insulin than young patients to achieve similar glycemic control. Long-term clinical trials using the AERx device will be useful to study age-related differences.

Inhaled Human [rDNA Origin] Insulin, a Novel Formulation for Diabetes Mellitus

Diabetic complications have been reduced significantly with the introduction of insulin more than 8 decades prior. Despite the proven benefits of normal glycemic levels, patients are deterred by the inconvenience and expect worse pain than there is on average with multiple daily insulin injections. Inhaled insulin was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in early 2006 and is a novel product that introduces inhaled insulin as an alternate to the traditional subcutaneous delivery system, and hence could potentially improve patient compliance. The objective of this article is to review the clinical pharmacology, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties, clinical efficacy, and tolerability of inhaled insulin.

The diabetic lung--a new target organ?

Several abnormalities of the respiratory function have been reported in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. These abnormalities concern lung volume, pulmonary diffusing capacity, control of ventilation, bronchomotor tone, and neuroadrenergic bronchial innervation. Many hypotheses have emerged, and characteristic histological changes have been described in the "diabetic lung", which could explain this abnormal respiratory function. Given the specific abnormalities in diabetic patients, the lung could thus be considered as a target organ in diabetes. Although the practical implications of these functional changes are mild, the presence of an associated acute or chronic pulmonary and/or cardiac disease could determine severe respiratory derangements in diabetic patients. Another clinical consequence of the pulmonary involvement in diabetes is the accelerated decline in respiratory function. The rate of decline in respiratory function in diabetics has been found to be two-to-three times faster than in normal non-smoking subjects, as reported in longitudinal studies. This finding, together with the presence of anatomical and biological changes similar to those described in the aging lung, indicates that the "diabetic lung" could even be considered a model of accelerated aging. This review describes and analyses the current insight into the relationship of diabetes and lung disease, and suggests intensifying research into the lung as a possible target organ in diabetes.

A discrete choice experiment evaluation of patients' preferences for different risk, benefit, and delivery attributes of insulin therapy for diabetes management

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate patients' preferences for various attributes of insulin treatment, including route of insulin delivery.

METHODS

We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to quantify patients' preferences. The attributes (and levels) included in the DCE questionnaire were: glucose control, frequency of hypoglycemic events, weight gain, route of administration for the long-acting and the short-acting insulin, and out-of-pocket cost. Data were analyzed using conditional logit regression and segmented models were also developed to evaluate differences in preferences between subgroups.

RESULTS

Two hundred and seventy-four questionnaires were completed. The mean age (SD) of participants was 56.7 (12.9) years. Forty-nine percent of participants were insulin users, and 17% had type 1 diabetes. Overall, patients' ideal insulin treatment would provide better glucose control, result in fewer adverse reactions, have the lowest cost, and be administered orally. Overall, there was a strong positive preference for better glucose control relative to the other attributes. Segmented analyses by insulin use and type of diabetes suggest that there may be an important psychosocial barrier to initiating insulin therapy but that patients tend to adjust to subcutaneous administration once they initiate therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study illustrates the importance that patients with diabetes place on glucose control and how preferences for insulin therapy differ between subgroups. Specifically, efforts need to be made to overcome the psychosocial barriers to initiating insulin therapy which may lead to improved control through improved treatment acceptance and ultimately improve patients' quality of life and reduce the economic burden of the disease.

Systematic review of the association between lung function and Type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

To describe the association between lung function and Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

We identified English language studies evaluating the association between lung function and diabetes mellitus in the MEDLINE database from 1 January 1975 to 31 December 2009. We evaluated study quality based on established criteria (54 studies were reviewed, 34 met the inclusion criteria).

RESULTS

Cross-sectional studies showed that adults with diabetes mellitus have lower forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), with reductions in FVC more consistent than FEV1 and lower diffusion capacity (DLCO) compared with their non-diabetic counterparts. The reduced lung function in patients with diabetes is inversely related to blood glucose levels, duration of diabetes and its severity and is independent of smoking or obesity. Findings in cohort studies have been less consistent, with only a few studies identifying an increased rate of lung function decline in adults with diabetes. In addition, other cohort studies have reported an association between decreased lung function and incident insulin resistance and diabetes. Studies evaluating biological mechanisms to explain the association between lung impairment and diabetes identified microangiopathy of the alveolar capillaries and pulmonary arterioles, chronic inflammation, autonomic neuropathy involving the respiratory muscles, loss of elastic recoil secondary to collagen glycosylation of lung parenchyma, hypoxia-induced insulin resistance and low birthweight, as being associated with both insulin resistance and impaired lung function.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an association between diabetes mellitus and decreased lung function, but the definitive direction as well as the exact pathophysiological mechanism to explain this association requires further investigation.

Exploring patients' perceptions for insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: a Brazilian and Canadian qualitative study

Objective:

To explore which attributes of insulin therapy drive patients’ preferences for management in Canada and Brazil.

Methods:

A qualitative design was implemented in which a total of 32 patients with type 2 diabetes from Canada and Brazil, were interviewed in one of the 4 focus groups, or 16 individual interviews. Eighteen participants (56%) were women and fourteen participants (44%) were men (15 insulin nonusers and 17 insulin users). Two focus groups of 4 participants each and 9 individual interviews were conducted in Brazil. In Canada, 2 focus groups of 4 participants each and 7 individual interviews were conducted. A framework analysis was used to analyse all data.

Results:

Brazilian participants, when considering two insulin treatments, would prefer the one that had fewer side-effects (specially hypoglycemia events), was noninjectable, had the lowest cost and was most effective. Meanwhile, Canadian participants would prefer a treatment that had fewer side-effects (specially weight gain), was less invasive, was more convenient and was most effective.

Conclusions:

Finding the insulin-delivery system and the attributes of insulin therapy that best meet patients’ preferences may lead to improved control, through improved compliance, which may ultimately reduce the financial burden of the disease and improve quality of life.

Inhaled insulin: overview of a novel route of insulin administration

Diabetes is a chronic disease characterized by inadequate insulin secretion with resulting hyperglycemia. Diabetes complications include both microvascular and macrovascular disease, both of which are affected by optimal diabetes control. Many individuals with diabetes rely on subcutaneous insulin administration by injection or continuous infusion to control glucose levels. Novel routes of insulin administration are an area of interest in the diabetes field, given that insulin injection therapy is burdensome for many patients. This review will discuss pulmonary delivery of insulin via inhalation. The safety of inhaled insulin as well as the efficacy in comparison to subcutaneous insulin in the various populations with diabetes are covered. In addition, the experience and pitfalls that face the development and marketing of inhaled insulin are discussed.

A valuation of patients' willingness-to-pay for insulin delivery in diabetes

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine the insulin-delivery system and the attributes of insulin therapy that best meet patients' preferences, and to estimate patients' willingness-to-pay (WTP) for them.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional discrete choice experiment (DCE) study involving 378 Canadian patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Patients were asked to choose between two hypothetical insulin treatment options made up of different combinations of the attribute levels. Regression coefficients derived using conditional logit models were used to calculate patients' WTP. Stratification of the sample was performed to evaluate WTP by predefined subgroups.

RESULTS

A total of 274 patients successfully completed the survey. Overall, patients were willing to pay the most for better blood glucose control followed by weight gain. Surprisingly, route of insulin administration was the least important attribute overall. Segmented models indicated that insulin naïve diabetics were willing to pay significantly more for both oral and inhaled short-acting insulin compared with insulin users. Surprisingly, type 1 diabetics were willing to pay $C11.53 for subcutaneous short-acting insulin, while type 2 diabetics were willing to pay $C47.23 to avoid subcutaneous short-acting insulin (p < .05). These findings support the hypothesis of a psychological barrier to initiating insulin therapy, but once that this barrier has been overcome, they accommodate and accept injectable therapy as a treatment option.

CONCLUSIONS

By understanding and addressing patients' preferences for insulin therapy, diabetes educators can use this information to find an optimal treatment approach for each individual patient, which may ultimately lead to improved control, through improved compliance, and better diabetes outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of AIR inhaled insulin compared to insulin lispro in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus in a 6-month, randomized, noninferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with type 1 diabetes may prefer features of AIR inhaled insulin (developed by Alkermes, Inc. [Cambridge, MA] and Eli Lilly and Company [Indianapolis, IN]; AIR is a registered trademark of Alkermes, Inc.) over insulin injection, but the two methods need to be compared for efficacy and safety.

METHODS

This multicenter, 6-month, parallel-group, noninferiority trial had 500 patients with type 1 diabetes randomized to morning doses of basal insulin glargine plus either preprandial injectable insulin lispro or preprandial AIR insulin. We hypothesized that AIR insulin is noninferior (upper bound of the 95% confidence interval < or = 0.4%) to insulin lispro for change-from-baseline hemoglobin A1C (A1C).

RESULTS

Baseline A1C was 7.95 +/- 0.08% for both groups. At end point, A1C was lower with insulin lispro than with AIR insulin by 0.27% (95% confidence interval 0.11, 0.43; P< 0.001). Noninferiority of AIR insulin to insulin lispro was not demonstrated, but similar percentages of patients in each group achieved A1C <7.0% (P = 0.448). Overall daily blood glucose was similar between groups at baseline (P = 0.879) and end point (P = 0.161). Two-hour postprandial blood glucose change from baseline was significantly (P < 0.001) higher with AIR insulin (20.77 +/- 4.33 mg/dL at 3 months and 15.85 +/- 3.08 mg/dL at end point) than with insulin lispro (3.29 +/- 4.14 mg/dL at 3 months and 1.67 +/- 2.91 mg/dL at end point). Overall hypoglycemia was similar between treatment groups (P = 0.355). The AIR insulin group had greater decrease in diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide at end point (P = 0.020) and greater incidence of cough (P = 0.024) and dyspnea (P = 0.030). Body weight decreased in the AIR insulin group and increased in the insulin lispro group.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin lispro provided lower A1C than AIR insulin, but the difference may not be clinically relevant.

A comparison between simplified and intensive dose-titration algorithms using AIR inhaled insulin for insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes in a randomized noninferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Insulin initiation and optimization is a challenge for patients with type 2 diabetes. Our objective was to determine whether safety and efficacy of AIR inhaled insulin (Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, IN) (AIR is a registered trademark of Alkermes, Inc., Cambridge, MA) using a simplified regimen was noninferior to an intensive regimen.

METHODS

This was an open-label, randomized study in insulin-naive adults not optimally controlled by oral antihyperglycemic medications. Simplified titration included a 6 U per meal AIR insulin starting dose. Individual doses were adjusted at mealtime in 2-U increments from the previous day's four-point self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) (total < or =6 U). Starting Air insulin doses for intensive titration were based on fasting blood glucose, gender, height, and weight. Patients conducted four-point SMBG daily for the study duration. Insulin doses were titrated based on the previous 3 days' mean SMBG (total < or =8 U).

RESULTS

End point hemoglobin A1C (A1C) was 7.07 +/- 0.09% and 6.87 +/- 0.09% for simplified (n = 178) and intensive (n = 180) algorithms, respectively. Noninferiority between algorithms was not established. The fasting blood glucose (least squares mean +/- standard error) values for the simplified (137.27 +/- 3.42 mg/dL) and intensive (133.13 +/- 3.42 mg/dL) algorithms were comparable. Safety profiles were comparable. The hypoglycemic rate at 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks was higher in patients receiving intensive titration (all P < .0001). The nocturnal hypoglycemic rate for patients receiving intensive titration was higher than for those receiving simplified titration at 8 (P < 0.015) and 12 weeks (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Noninferiority between the algorithms, as measured by A1C, was not demonstrated. This finding re-emphasizes the difficulty of identifying optimal, simplified insulin regimens for patients.

AIR insulin capsules of different dose strengths may be combined to yield equivalent pharmacokinetics and glucodynamics

BACKGROUND

In order to assess pharmacokinetic (PK) and glucodynamic (GD) attributes relevant to the end user of an inhaled insulin, this study examined the exposure and GD effect of doses of AIR inhaled insulin (Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, IN) (AIR is a registered trademark of Alkermes, Inc., Cambridge, MA) by combining capsules of different strengths in healthy subjects.

METHODS

Fifty-nine healthy, nonsmoking, male or female subjects with normal pulmonary function were enrolled in an open-label, randomized, crossover study. Subjects underwent up to five euglycemic glucose clamp procedures, separated by 5-18 days. The five AIR insulin treatments tested included one 6 unit-equivalent (U-eq) capsule containing 2.6 mg of insulin, three 2 U-eq (0.9 mg) capsules (2.7 mg total), one 10 U-eq (3.9 mg) capsule, one 6 U-eq capsule plus two 2 U-eq capsules (4.4 mg total), and two 10 U-eq capsules (7.8 mg total). Samples for PK and GD assessments were taken up to 10 h post-dose.

RESULTS

Based on both PK (area under the curve from time 0 to time of return to baseline and maximum concentration) and GD (total amount of glucose infused and maximum glucose infusion rate) responses, administration of a 6 U-eq capsule was equivalent to three 2 U-eq capsules; 90% confidence intervals for the ratios were contained within the interval (0.8, 1.25). Similarly, both overall exposure and glucodynamic response after administration of a 10 U-eq capsule were comparable to the 6 U-eq plus two 2 U-eq capsule combination. AIR insulin exhibited PK dose proportionality and dose-dependent increases in GD responses over the 2.6-7.8 mg dose range.

CONCLUSIONS

AIR insulin exhibited dose strength interchangeability and dose proportionality after single-dose administration in healthy subjects.

Comparison of prandial AIR inhaled insulin alone to intensified insulin glargine alone and to AIR insulin plus intensified insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes previously treated with once-daily insulin glargine

BACKGROUND

Patients with type 2 diabetes often initiate insulin with once-daily basal insulin. Over time, many patients intensify their insulin regimens in an attempt to attain and sustain glycemic targets. This study compares three intensification approaches: changing insulin glargine to preprandial AIR inhaled insulin (developed by Alkermes, Inc. [Cambridge, MA] and Eli Lilly and Company [Indianapolis, IN]; AIR is a registered trademark of Alkermes, Inc.), intensifying glargine via validated titration algorithms (IG), or adding AIR insulin while intensifying glargine (AIR + IG).

METHODS

Five hundred sixty patients with hemoglobin A(1c) (A1C) of 7.5-10.5%, on one or more antihyperglycemic medications, and on once-daily insulin glargine for > or =4 months were randomly allocated to one of the three treatments lasting 52 weeks. The primary objective assessed between-group differences in A1C mean change from baseline to 24 weeks using last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) in the intent-to-treat population.

RESULTS

At 24 weeks, A1C was reduced from a mean baseline of 8.5% to 7.7%, 7.9%, and 7.5% for the AIR, IG, and AIR + IG groups, respectively. AIR produced 0.20% greater A1C decrease than IG (least-squares mean difference = -0.20%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.39, -0.02). AIR + IG had a 0.35% greater A1C decrease versus IG (95% CI, -0.57, -0.13). The -0.15% difference between AIR + IG versus AIR was not significant (P < 0.198). More hypoglycemia categorized as severe occurred with AIR alone versus IG alone at LOCF end points. More nocturnal hypoglycemia occurred with IG alone versus AIR alone and AIR + IG.

CONCLUSIONS

Preprandial inhaled insulin provides an alternative for patients not optimized on insulin glargine alone. Glycemic control, hypoglycemic risk, delivery preference, and regimen complexity must be considered when selecting insulin initiation and optimization regimens.

WITHDRAWN: Inhaled insulin in diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Insulin therapy often relies on multiple daily injections of insulin. However this is a considerable burden to many people with diabetes and adherence to such an insulin regimen can be difficult to maintain, hence compromising optimal glycaemic control. Also, short acting injected insulin is absorbed more slowly than insulin released by the normal pancreas in response to a meal. Inhaled insulin has the potential to reduce the number of injections to perhaps one long-acting insulin per day, and provide a closer match to the natural state, by more rapid absorption from the lung.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy, adverse effects and patient acceptability of inhaled versus injected insulin.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A sensitive search strategy for randomised controlled or cross-over trials was combined with key terms for inhaled insulins. Databases searched were: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, BIOSIS, Web of Science Proceedings, National Research Register UK, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, Conference Papers Index, LexisNexis, and web sites of the ADA and EASD were searched for recent meeting abstracts. Reference lists and journals were handsearched. There were no language restrictions on searching. Manufacturers of inhaled insulin were also contacted. Date of last search October 2002.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials with parallel groups or controlled cross-over trials, including type 1 or type 2 diabetic patients of any age treated with insulin, were considered eligible. The minimum trial duration considered was 10 weeks, as this is the time taken for glycated haemoglobin to reliably reflect changes in glycaemic control.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial selection and evaluation of study quality was performed independently by two reviewers. The quality of reporting of each trial was assessed according to a modification of the criteria outlined in Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) Report 4, Spitzer; and Jadad.

MAIN RESULTS

Six randomised controlled trials were found and the overall number of participants was 1191. Three trials included patients with type 1 diabetes and three with type 2 diabetes. Three trials had a duration of 24 weeks, and three of 12 weeks. All were open label. There was insufficient information to determine the study quality. Results for HbA1c were similar for all trials, in that all showed comparable glycaemic control for inhaled insulin compared to an entirely subcutaneous regimen. All trials that reported patient satisfaction and quality of life showed that these were significantly greater in the inhaled insulin group. Overall there was no difference in total hypoglycaemic episodes between the groups, but one trial showed a statistically significant increase in severe hypoglycaemic episodes for the inhaled insulin group. No adverse pulmonary effects were observed in any of the studies, but longer follow-up will be required to be sure that there are no adverse side-effects. Cavets include: few studies published in full (so quality could not be assessed), and only two studies used the same basal regimen in both the inhaled and injected groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Inhaled insulin taken before meals, in conjunction with an injected basal insulin, has been shown to maintain glycaemic control comparable to that of patients taking multiple daily injections. The key benefit appears to be that patient satisfaction and quality of life are significantly improved, presumably due to the reduced number of daily injections required. However, the patient satisfaction data is based on five trials, of which only two have been published in full; also the three trials containing quality of life data are all only published in abstract form at present. In addition, longer term pulmonary safety data are still needed. Also, the lower bioavailability, and hence higher doses of inhaled insulin required, may make it less cost-effective than injected insulin.

The role of inhaled insulin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes

With the increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes, it is imperative that health care providers adopt a more aggressive treatment approach to optimize glycemic control and to reduce the incidence of and costs associated with diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. Despite the well-recognized benefits of improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes, the majority of patients still have poor glycemic control. Diabetes is a progressive disease, and many patients who initially achieve glycemic control with oral therapy will eventually require the addition of insulin to maintain glycemic control. Subcutaneous injections, however, represent a barrier to patients' initiation of insulin therapy, and alternative methods of insulin delivery are likely to be viewed positively by patients and physicians. The recent approval of Exubera (Pfizer, New York, NY), a novel inhaled insulin delivery system for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, may alleviate some of the barriers to the initiation of insulin. In studies in patients with type 2 diabetes, Exubera provided effective glycemic control that was comparable to that seen with subcutaneous insulin and superior to that seen with oral therapy, with a favorable safety and tolerability profile. Exubera can reduce the need for daily insulin injections and may become a useful alternative to existing treatments for the management of type 2 diabetes. Greater acceptance of new insulin delivery systems may lead to earlier introduction of insulin therapy, which should help more patients with diabetes achieve glycemic control sooner after diagnosis.

Intersession variability in single-breath diffusing capacity in diabetics without overt lung disease

RATIONALE

American Thoracic Society guidelines state that a 10% or greater intersession change in diffusing capacity of the lung (DL(CO)) should be considered clinically significant. However, little is known about the short-term intersession variability in DL(CO) in untrained subjects or how variability is affected by rigorous external quality control.

OBJECTIVES

To characterize the intersession variability of DL(CO) and the effect of different quality control methods in untrained individuals without significant lung disease.

METHODS

Data were pooled from the comparator arms of 14 preregistration trials of inhaled insulin that included nonsmoking diabetic patients without significant lung disease. A total of 699 participants performed repeated DL(CO) measurements using a highly standardized technique. A total of 948 participants performed repeated measurements using routine clinical testing.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The mean intersession absolute change in DL(CO) using the highly standardized method was 1.45 ml/minute/mm Hg (5.64%) compared with 2.49 ml/minute/mm Hg (9.52%) in the routine testing group (P < 0.0001 for both absolute and percent difference). The variability in absolute intersession change in DL(CO) increased with increasing baseline DL(CO) values, whereas the absolute percentage of intersession change was stable across baseline values. Depending on the method, 15.5 to 35.5% of participants had an intersession change of 10% or greater. A 20% or greater threshold would reduce this percentage of patients to 1 to 10%.

CONCLUSIONS

Intersession variability in DL(CO) measurement is dependent on the method of testing used and baseline DL(CO). Using a more liberal threshold to define meaningful intersession change may reduce the misclassification of normal variation as abnormal change.

Pulmonary complications in diabetes mellitus

Clear decrements in lung function have been reported in patients with diabetes over the past two decades, and many reports have suggested plausible pathophysiological mechanisms. However, there are no reports of functional limitations of activities of daily living ascribable to pulmonary disease in patients with diabetes. This review attempts to summarize the available information from the present literature, to describe the nature of the lung dysfunction in diabetes and the emerging clinical implications of such dysfunction.

Insulin's 85th anniversary--An enduring medical miracle

In 1922, the discovery of insulin led to a revolution in diabetes management. Since then, many improvements have been made to insulin preparations: early preparations of bovine and porcine insulins were purified and their duration of action prolonged, giving rise to the introduction of Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin and monocomponent insulins. Then, with the advances in genetic engineering in the 1980s, it became possible to produce recombinant human insulin. Nowadays, modern molecular biology techniques enable the production of insulin analogues, which have several advantages over human insulin preparations including a reduced risk of hypoglycaemia. Insulin delivery is still predominantly via subcutaneous injections, but alternative routes of insulin administration are being investigated. Pulmonary delivery has emerged as the most feasible option thus far but oral delivery is an ultimate goal, although basic problems of insulin stability in the gut and absorption from the gastrointestinal tract still need to be resolved. The availability of a true artificial pancreas by means of a closed-loop system, linking continuous glucose monitoring with insulin-pump technology, would also constitute a significant advance, but major technological problems still need to be overcome.

Inhaled dry powder insulin for the treatment of diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Inhaled dry powder insulin (IDPI) is the first inhaled insulin approved for the treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM).

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews available information on IDPI, focusing on its clinical pharmacokinetics, comparative efficacy, tolerability, adverse events, dosage and administration, and cost.

METHODS

MEDLINE (1966-July 2006) and Web of Science (1995-July 2006) were searched for original research and review articles published in English. The search terms used were inhaled insulin, inhaled human insulin, rDNA origin inhalation powder, inbaled dry powder insulin, and IDPI. All published comparative efficacy studies were included in the review, as well as selected information from the package insert for IDPI.

RESULTS

IDPI is an inhaled dry powder form of regular human insulin (RHI) that is used as a premeal insulin to improve glycemic control by reducing postprandial glucose excursions. The literature search identified 5 efficacy trials comparing reductions in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) in a total of 582 patients with type 1 DM who received either premeal IDPI plus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) or Ultralente insulin or injectable RHI plus NPH or Ultralente insulin. The search identified 5 comparative efficacy studies of IDPI monotherapy or the addition of IDPI to the current regimen in a total of 1413 patients with type 2 DM that was uncontrolled with diet and exercise, metformin, a sulfonylurea, metformin and a sulfonylurea, or a secretagogue plus an insulin sensitizer. The use of IDPI as a mealtime insulin in these studies was associated with absolute changes in HbA(1c) ranging from -0.6% to +0.1% in patients with type 1 DM and from -1.4% to -2.9% in patients with type 2 DM. HbA(1c) values <7% were achieved in 16.9% to 28.2% of patients with type 1 DM and 16.7% to 44.0% of patients with type 2 DM. The most common nonrespiratory adverse event noted during clinical trials of IDPI was hypoglycemia (type 1 DM: 8.6-9.3 episodes/subject-month; type 2 DM: 0.3-1.4 episodes/subject-month), and the most common adverse event involving the pulmonary system was cough (21.9%-29.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

IDPI is the first available inhaled insulin. It provides an additional option for the achievement of HbA(1c) goals with a premeal insulin.

Comparison of oral insulin spray and subcutaneous regular insulin at mealtime in type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the glucose pharmacodynamics after oral spray insulin (Oral-lyn , Generex Biotechnology, Toronto, ON, Canada) and subcutaneous (sc) injection of regular insulin in 10 subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

METHODS

Basal therapy was twice-daily insulin glargine. Preprandial (30 min) regular insulin was given for 3 days, followed by 9 days of Oral-lyn, eight to 12 puffs immediately pre- and postprandially. Adjustments for glycemia were made using standard snacks and additional regular insulin or Oral-lyn. Peripheral glucose measurements were self-monitored in duplicate. Serum concentrations of fructosamine and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) were determined at the start and the end of the study period.

RESULTS

Average glucose concentrations (in mmol/L) for the 3-day regular insulin and 9-day Oral-lyn periods, respectively, were: pre-breakfast (B), 5.06 and 3.89; 1-h post-B, 8.39 and 7.67; post-B, 6.00 and 6.33; pre-lunch (L), 5.50 and 4.72; 1-h post-L, 7.83 and 7.89; 2-h post-L, 5.89 and 6.33; pre-dinner (D), 5.61 and 5.17; 1-h post-D, 7.22 and 7.83; and 2-h post-D, 6.11 and 6.67. Areas under the curve for both treatments were not significantly different (P = 0.6875). Fructosamine (mean +/- SD, 338.7 +/- 77.4 micromol/L and 321.7 +/- 63.4 micromol/L), and HbA1c (mean +/- SD, 7.5 +/- 1.5% and 7.2 +/- 1.2%) did not change significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Regular insulin and Oral-lyn had similar glucodynamic effects in subjects with T1DM receiving twice-daily insulin analogue as baseline therapy. Intensive monitoring and timely corrections with additional snacks, additional sc regular insulin, or Oral-lyn puffs resulted in appropriate glycemic control as assessed by individual daily glycemic responses and, especially, normal preprandial glycemia. Protein glycation decreased, but not significantly.

Eficacia y seguridad de la insulina inhalada en el tratamiento de la diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of inhaled insulin.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Reference data bases, MEDLINE (1999 to November 2005) and EMBASE (2000 to November 2005), the CENTRAL base (Cochrane Library), the European Drug Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the International Network of Technology Evaluation Agencies, the European Network for Early Detection (EuroScan), and various research registers.

STUDIES

Eight clinical trials were recovered. Studies not comparing inhaled with subcutaneous insulin and those that did not measure metabolic control or satisfaction and quality of life were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION

Critical reading using the methods proposed by the CASPe programme.

RESULTS

The difference between the 2 groups in mean values of descent of glycosylated haemoglobin was -0.07% (95% CI, -0.32 to 0.17) for type-2 diabetics; and between 0.16% (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.32) and -0.16% (95% CI, -0.34 to 0.01) in type-1 diabetics. Hypoglucaemias per subject-month were similar (between 0.83 and 1.57 in type-2 diabetics and between 8.6 and 9.9 in type-1 diabetics). Quality of life and satisfaction were favourable to the intervention group (P< .05). Secondary effects were comparable except in the appearance of cough (21%-27% in inhaled and 2%-7% in subcutaneous insulin).

CONCLUSIONS

Inhaled insulin is comparable to subcutaneous insulin in metabolic control, the number of hypoglucaemias and side-effects. However, the trials reviewed showed certain problems of internal and external validity. Studies with longer follow-up are needed, in order to evaluate possible lung disorders.

Inhaled insulin: a clinical perspective with emphasis on EXUBERA®

There is a Type 2 diabetes epidemic; however, unfortunately, even though insulin is an effective therapy, it is mostly used late and as a last resort. Type 1 diabetics find it difficult to administer extra insulin injections when needed owing to the inconvenience and, although most cope well, many dislike injecting themselves so frequently. The newly approved EXUBERA^® inhaled insulin should help counteract the resistance of patients and physicians in instituting insulin in the Type 2 diabetic, and the Type 1 diabetic can take more than 1000 fewer injections per year, making their diabetes easier to live with. Pulmonary function tests have demonstrated clinically insignificant changes after years of monitoring. The increases of insulin antibodies found in those who use inhaled insulin have not affected diabetes control. Side effects of inhaled insulin are insignificantly different from injectable insulin except for a couple of mild coughs after an inhalation, which decrease quickly with time. The two dosage forms of EXUBERA insulin are 1 and 3 mg (equivalent to approximately 3 and 8 U of U-100 insulin, respectively), are adaptable to most regimens for both types of diabetes, and inhaled insulin is preferred by a significant majority of patients. Inhaled insulin should be cost effective if it allows earlier institution in the Type 2 diabetic thus improving diabetic control and lowering the expensive complications of diabetes.

Inhaled insulins

As a result of knowledge gained from the management of asthma with inhalers and nebulisers, pulmonary delivery devices for insulin have been developed. Particle size of the aerosol particularly influences drug delivery. Although several pharmaceutical companies are developing different systems, Pfizer have launched the first inhaled insulin (Exubera). Clinical trials have taken place in patients with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, but have shown similar glucose control as subcutaneous insulin delivery. However, patient satisfaction does seem to be increased in patients taking inhaled insulins. Further studies are needed to investigate compliance, side-effect profiles, quality of life, long-term glycaemia control and cost effectiveness.

First approved inhaled insulin therapy for diabetes mellitus

The long-term benefits of tight glycemic control in preventing microvascular and macrovascular complications are well established in both Type 1 diabetes mellitus (Type 1 DM) and Type 2 diabetes mellitus (Type 2 DM). Nonetheless, achievement of recommended haemoglobin A1c (HbA(1c)) goals (< or = 6.5 - 7.0%) has remained elusive, especially in patients with diabetes who require insulin therapy. Delayed/suboptimal titration of insulin is partly related to poor acceptance of multiple injection regimen by both physicians and patients. EXUBERA (human insulin [rDNA origin]; Pfizer), the first approved inhaled insulin for the treatment of diabetic patients, has been shown to be safe and as effective as regular/rapidly acting insulin in improving glycemic control. In addition to controlling postprandial glucose excursions, EXUBERA exerts a major action to reduce fasting plasma glucose (FPG) concentration. Thus, it has the potential to be used as a monotherapy in Type 2 DM, as well as in combination with an insulin sensitizer in Type 2 DM or in combination with long-acting insulin in both Type 2 DM and Type 1 DM.

A 6-month inhalation study to characterize the toxicity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of human insulin inhalation powder (HIIP) in beagle dogs

The purpose of this study was to characterize the toxicity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of human insulin inhalation powder (HIIP) in beagle dogs when administered daily as an aerosolized dry powder formulation for 26 weeks via head-only inhalation. Conscious beagle dogs were exposed for 15 mins/day to an air control, placebo, maximal placebo (approximately three-fold the placebo dose), or one of three doses of HIIP (mean inhaled doses of 80, 240, or 701 microg/kg/day for the HIIP-low, HIIP-mid, and HIIP-high dose, respectively), The mass median aerodynamic diameters (MMAD) were between 2 and 3 microm and geometric standard deviation (GSD) values were approximately 2 across the groups, which is the ideal size range for favorable lung deposition. All groups were comprised of four dogs/sex, with the air control, HIIP-high, and maximal placebo groups having an additional two dogs/sex as recovery subgroups. Concentrations of serum insulin and glucose were determined from blood samples obtained following the first and last exposure for evaluation of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of HIIP. Dose-related exposure (C(max), AUC) to inhaled insulin was observed with rapid absorption and no apparent gender differences or accumulation after repeated inhalation exposures for 26 weeks. The expected pharmacological effect of insulin was observed with dose-related decreases in serum glucose levels following HIIP administration. There were no toxic effects observed including no HIIP or placebo treatment-related effects on mean body weights, absolute body weight changes, clinical observations, food consumption, respiratory function parameters, ophthalmic examinations, electrocardiograms, heart rates, clinical pathology, or urinalysis. Similarly, there were no HIIP or placebo treatment-related effects on pulmonary assessments that included respiratory function parameters, bronchial alveolar lavage assessments, organ weights, or macroscopic and microscopic evaluations, including lung cell proliferation indices. HIIP was considered to have either low or no immunogenic potential in dogs. The no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) and maximum tolerated dose were the average inhaled dose of 701 microg insulin/kg/day.

Alternatives routes of insulin delivery

Optimal glycaemic control is necessary to prevent diabetes-related complications. An intensive treatment, which could mimic physiological insulin secretion, would be the best one. However subcutaneous insulin treatment is not physiologic and represents a heavy burden for patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Consequently, more acceptable, at least as effective, alternative routes of insulin delivery have been developed over the past years. Up to now, only pulmonary administration of insulin (inhaled insulin) has become a feasible alternative to cover mealtime insulin requirements and one of the various administration systems was recently approved for clinical use in Europe and the United States. But, due to advances in technology, other routes, such as transdermal or oral (buccal and intestinal) insulin administration, could become feasible in a near future, and they could be combined together to offer non-invasive, efficacious and more physiological way of insulin administration to patients with diabetes.

Inhaled insulin delivery--where are we now?

Since 1925, when the concept of treating diabetes with inhaled insulin (INH) was originally published, a number of clinical challenges have been resolved through technological advancements. Efforts by pharmaceutical partnerships or individual companies have resulted in the development of both injection-free devices and novel insulin formulations. Four different INH systems are now in phase 3 of clinical development, and several other INH systems are in earlier stages of clinical study. Clinical data consistently demonstrate that INH therapy is comparable to subcutaneous (SC) therapy in improving glycaemic control in patients with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes, generally without greater risk of overall hypoglycaemia. INH is generally well tolerated and appears to be safe. Adverse-event profiles for INH therapies are similar to SC insulin therapy, with the majority of events being reported as being mild to moderate. Long-term safety studies are ongoing, with emphasis on evaluating the impact of INH therapy on pulmonary function and immune responses. Although small, reversible decreases in pulmonary diffusion capacity (DL(co)) and FEV1 have been reported in response to INH, pulmonary function and structure do not appear to be affected in any clinically significant way. While insulin antibodies are increased in INH therapy, these antibodies have not been correlated with haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), insulin dosage, hypoglycaemia, pulmonary function or adverse events. Nevertheless, properly controlled, long-term studies will best answer any remaining concerns. From the patient's perspective, INH therapy is preferred by the majority of patients over conventional SC insulin therapy. Studies have shown that patients prefer INH therapy, because it provides greater lifestyle flexibility and social acceptability while at the same time avoiding the pain associated with injection. Thus, after more than 80 years during which the injection route has been the only means of administering insulin, patients and physicians may soon avail themselves of another valuable tool in management of diabetes.

Clinical evaluation of inhaled insulin

Diabetes affects over 18.2 million individuals in the United States alone. Current therapy to treat type 1 diabetes relies on subcutaneous insulin administration either by injection or continuous infusion. In addition, patients with type 2 diabetes who fail lifestyle intervention and oral therapy require subcutaneous insulin. Optimal injection protocols to achieve tight metabolic control often prove burdensome to patients. Thus, development of pulmonary insulin delivery to supplement and/or replace subcutaneous insulin injections may be an effective alternative, allowing patients to achieve intensive diabetes management. This review will discuss the devices in development for the delivery of inhaled insulin. In addition, the efficacy of inhaled insulin in both type 1 and type 2 diabetic populations will be discussed. Finally, the available safety data with respect to the unique pulmonary effects of inhaled insulin will be covered.

Inhaled human insulin ((insulin human [rDNA origin]) Inhalation Powder) in diabetes mellitus

Inhaled human insulin ((insulin human [rDNA origin]) Inhalation Powder) is a prandial insulin approved in the EU and the US for the treatment of adults with diabetes. Its glycaemic control is comparable to subcutaneous insulin in Type 1 and 2 diabetes, and has superior efficacy versus oral antidiabetic agents in Type 2 diabetes. Hypoglycaemia and mild-to-moderate cough are the main side effects. The treatment group differences in pulmonary function occur early, and are small, nonprogressive for up to 2 years and reversible following discontinuation. Patient-reported outcomes data displays higher diabetes treatment satisfaction, improvements in some quality-of-life scores, and treatment preference with inhaled human insulin versus traditional means. Availability of inhaled insulin may increase insulin acceptance and thus improve glycaemic control in patients with diabetes.

Inhaled insulin as adjunctive therapy in subjects with type 2 diabetes failing oral agents: a controlled proof-of-concept study

AIM

This controlled proof-of-concept study investigated inhaled insulin (INH) as adjunctive therapy to existing oral antidiabetic agents in subjects with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Twenty-four subjects with type 2 diabetes [19 men and 5 women, 56.1 +/- 6.6 years, body mass index 32.7 +/- 4.2 kg/m(2), glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 8.4 +/- 0.8% (mean +/- s.d.)] inadequately controlled by metformin and/or sulfonylureas were randomized to receive additional therapy with either INH administered preprandially using a metered-dose inhaler (MDI), or insulin glargine (GLA) injected subcutaneously at bedtime for 4 weeks. Both inhaled and injected insulin doses were titrated to predefined blood glucose (BG) targets.

RESULTS

INH and GLA improved metabolic control to a similar extent. Mean daily BG decreased by 2.8 mmol/l in the INH group (p < 0.001) and by 2.4 mmol/l in the GLA group (p < 0.001). Accordingly, fasting BG (-2.7 vs. -3.6 mmol/l for INH vs. GLA), preprandial- and 2-h postprandial BG, HbA1c (-1.23 vs. -1.05%), body weight (-1.9 vs. -2.3 kg) and serum fructosamine were similarly and significantly reduced in both groups (p < 0.05). Triglycerides decreased significantly with INH (-1.15 micromol/l; p < 0.001) but not with GLA [-0.52 micromol/l; not significant (NS)]. Incidence rates of adverse events did not differ significantly, and there were no indications of respiratory tract irritation.

CONCLUSIONS

In subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by oral agents, preprandial administration of INH delivered by a MDI provided a comparable metabolic control to bedtime GLA and did not show any safety concerns during a 4-week treatment. These results warrant a more extensive investigation of preprandial treatment with INH in longer term studies.

Will availability of inhaled human insulin (Exubera) improve management of type 2 diabetes? The design of the Real World trial

Background

Common deterrents to insulin therapy for both physicians and patients are the complexity and burden of daily injections. In January 2006, the first inhaled human insulin (INH, Exubera^® (insulinhuman [rDNA origin])InhalationPowder) was approved for use in adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the United States and European Union. Results from the INH clinical trial program have shown comparable efficacy of INH to subcutaneous (SC) insulin and superior efficacy versus oral antidiabetic agents; thus providing effective glycemic control in adult patients with T2DM without the requirement for preprandial injections. However, because subjects in those trials were randomized to either INH or an alternative, the studies could not estimate the effect of INH on patient acceptance of insulin therapy. Therefore, traditional study designs cannot provide answers to important and practical questions regarding real world effectiveness, which is influenced by psychological and other access barriers.

Methods

To overcome these limitations, the Real World Trial was designed to estimate the effect of the availability of INH as a treatment option for glycemic control. A total of approximately 700 patients from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom, and the United States with T2DM poorly controlled by oral agent therapy will be randomized to two different treatment settings. Patients and clinicians in both groups (A & B) may choose from all licensed therapies for diabetes including SC insulin delivered by pens; INH will be an additional treatment option only available in Group A. The Real World Trial (Protocol A2171018) has been registered with ClincalTrials.gov, registration id NCT00134147.

Results

The primary outcome for the trial will be the difference in mean glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) at 6 months between groups. The design was based on a preceding feasibility study examining the theoretical effects of inhaled insulin availability on treatment choice in 779 patients. In that study, patients were three times more likely to choose insulin therapy when inhaled insulin was available.

Conclusion

Innovations in study designs may provide an opportunity to reveal unbiased answers to important treatment questions that are more relevant to prescribers, funding agencies, and healthcare policymakers.

An open, randomized, parallel-group study to compare the efficacy and safety profile of inhaled human insulin (Exubera) with glibenclamide as adjunctive therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes poorly controlled on metformin

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety profile of adding inhaled human insulin (INH) (Exubera) or glibenclamide to metformin monotherapy in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted an open-label, parallel, 24-week multicenter trial. Patients uncontrolled on metformin were randomized to adjunctive INH (n = 243) or glibenclamide (n = 233). Before randomization, patients were divided into two HbA(1c) (A1C) arms: > or =8 to < or =9.5% (moderately high) and >9.5 to < or =12% (very high). The primary efficacy end point was A1C change from baseline.

RESULTS

Mean adjusted A1C changes from baseline were -2.03 and -1.88% in the INH and glibenclamide groups, respectively; between-treatment difference -0.17% (95% CI -0.34 to 0.01; P = 0.058), consistent with the noninferiority criterion. In the A1C >9.5% arm, inhaled insulin demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in A1C than glibenclamide, between-treatment difference -0.37% (-0.62 to -0.12; P = 0.004). In the A1C < or =9.5% arm, between-treatment difference was 0.04% (-0.19 to 0.27; P = 0.733). Hypoglycemia (events per subject-month) was greater with INH (0.18) than glibenclamide (0.08), risk ratio 2.24 (1.58-3.16), but there were no associated discontinuations. Other adverse events, except increased cough in the INH group, were similar. At week 24, changes from baseline in pulmonary function parameters were small. Insulin antibody binding increased more with INH but did not have any associated clinical manifestations.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with type 2 diabetes poorly controlled on metformin, adding INH or glibenclamide was similarly effective in improving glycemic control, and both were well tolerated. A predefined subgroup with very high A1C (>9.5%) was more effectively treated with the addition of INH.