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

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

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

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

Clinical effects, cardiovascular and renal outcomes associated with rapid-acting insulin analogs among individuals with type 2 diabetes: a nation-wide observational cohort study

Background

Rapid-acting insulin analogs (RAIs) have not been examined for long-term safety in randomized clinical trials. We performed a nationwide longitudinal cohort study among individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) to address cardiovascular safety and mortality among users of lispro, aspart and glulisine insulins.

Methods

We used four national registers, following patients previously not treated with RAI but with continuous use of RAIs in 2005-2014 up to 6.4 years, to examine HbA1c and weight, and the occurrence of severe hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia, renal failure, cardiovascular events or death. The treatment groups were compared using a weighted Cox proportional hazards model.

Results

We included 17,620 patients, mean age slightly higher than 60 years, diabetes duration 9.9–11.7 years, mean BMI 30.5 kg/m², HbA1c around 70 mmol/mol (8.6% NGSP), and 40.9–54.0% of the patients exhibiting eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m² in the three groups. Around 95% of the patients also used another insulin, and 24.2–24.7% had a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Mean HbA1c and weight levels were stable and similar. Incidence rates of death were 234.4, 284.9 and 156.7 per 1000 person-years among users of lispro, aspart, and glulisine; incidence rates of all cardiovascular events were 668.4, 622.4, and 699.5 per 1000 person-years, respectively.

There were no differences in mortality, CVD, renal failure or severe hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia, although a lower mortality risk in patients on glulisine compared with aspart, and lower risk of stroke in users of glulisine was suggested. The risk of severe hyperglycemia was higher with lispro than aspart, and lower of severe hypoglycemia than aspart or glulisine among the older age group.

Conclusions

Overall, there do not appear to be any major important differences in effects on hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, weight or long-term safety between the three available RAIs among insulin-naive individuals with T2DM in clinical practice.

Insulin glulisine for continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in pediatric type 1 diabetes

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of insulin glulisine (GLU) used for continuous s.c. insulin infusion (CSII) in 20 children with type 1 diabetes after 1 year of GLU treatment. There were no significant differences in mean plasma glucose before breakfast and before dinner between before and after using GLU, but the levels after breakfast and after dinner significantly improved, from 192.5 ± 31.7 to 162.0 ± 27.3 mg/dL for breakfast, and from 191.1 ± 33.3 to 161.1 ± 24.5 mg/dL for dinner (P < 0.01). Mean hemoglobin A1c significantly decreased (from 8.0 ± 0.8 to 7.7 ± 0.8%, P < 0.05), and the mean frequency of hypoglycemia significantly reduced after using GLU (from 8.3 ± 4.9 to 6.0 ± 3.4/month, P < 0.05). In conclusion, the use of GLU rather than other rapid-acting analogues for CSII might be an effective treatment option in children with type 1 diabetes.

Clinical Effects and Safety of Direct-Acting Insulin Analogs in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes: A Nation-Wide Observational Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Studies comparing direct-acting insulin analogs (DAIs) in terms of effectiveness and long-term safety are scarce. Our aim was to explore these variables in clinical practice among patients with type 1 diabetes, including the elderly and those with renal impairment.

METHODS

We linked four national registers in a population-based cohort study. Patients with type 1 diabetes and continuous use of all currently available DAIs (lispro, aspart, or glulisine) in 2005-2013 were monitored for up to 7.5 years. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between treatment groups. Unadjusted mean HbA1c and weights were plotted. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals of cardiovascular events (CVEs) and mortality were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression models.

RESULTS

We included 41,165 patients-14,047 lispro, 26,813 aspart, and 305 glulisine users. At baseline, the mean age was highest among glulisine users (49.4 years), followed by 41.0 years for lispro users and 40.1 years for aspart users. A total of 9.2% of the patients were 65 years or older. Diabetes duration was shortest among glulisine users (11.6 years), followed by 15.4 years for aspart users and 19.5 years for lispro users. The mean HbA1c and weights during the follow-up period were similar. The numerical differences at baseline were subsequently adjusted for. There were no significant differences between groups regarding hyperglycemia requiring hospitalization, CVE, or mortality, while Cox regression suggested lower rates of hypoglycemia among glulisine users. Severe hypoglycemia was more common, and severe hyperglycemia was less common among patients aged 65 years or older, while severe hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia were more common in patients with low renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate).

CONCLUSION

There were no pronounced differences in effectiveness and long-term cardiovascular safety and mortality between the DAIs, although there were some differences in clinical characteristics between patients using the three types of insulin. Severe hypoglycemia was more common among older patients, while severe hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia were more common among patients with impaired renal function.

FUNDING

Sanofi.

Efficacy and safety of switching to insulin glulisine from other rapid-acting insulin analogs in children with type 1 diabetes

We investigated the efficacy and safety of switching to insulin glulisine (GLU) from other rapid-acting insulin analogs (Ra) in children with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily injections of insulin or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. A total of 26 children with type 1 diabetes were included. Ra in all of these patients was changed to GLU, and they were observed for a 6-month period after having previously finished treatment with other Ra. The mean glycated hemoglobin value decreased from 7.6 ± 1.0 to 7.4 ± 0.9% (P = 0.0034), and mean plasma glucose values after breakfast and supper also improved from 183 ± 50 to 153 ± 32 mg/dL (P = 0.0035), and from 203 ± 29 to 164 ± 23 mg/dL (P < 0.0001), respectively. Furthermore, the mean frequency of hypoglycemia was reduced from 7 ± 6 to 4 ± 4/month (P = 0.0004), while insulin doses and obesity degree were stable with statistically non-significant differences. In conclusion, switching to GLU might be a good treatment option for improving glycemic control in children with type 1 diabetes.

Combination therapy of miglitol and insulin in type 1 diabetes mellitus patients

Aims/Introduction:  Patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus often show a precipitous postprandial rise in blood glucose that cannot be controlled, even by intensive insulin therapy. The combined use of an α‐glucosidase inhibitor with insulin seems to be highly beneficial in such cases.

Materials and Methods:  We investigated the efficacy and safety of miglitol, an α‐glucosidase inhibitor, for 12 weeks in 43 type 1 diabetes patients on intensive insulin therapy.

Results:  Co‐administration of miglitol resulted in only a modest and temporal decrease in HbA_1c level. However, it resulted in a significant reduction of plasma glucose level after breakfast (250.7 ± 102.0 mg/dL at 2 h after breakfast before treatment; 212.0 ± 95.8 mg/dL at 2 h after breakfast after treatment for 12 weeks, P = 0.01) and a significant reduction of insulin dosage (41.6 ± 17.1 U/day before treatment; 39.8 ± 17.4 U/day 12 weeks after treatment, P < 0.001). During the study period, 88.4% (38/43) of subjects experienced hypoglycemia, but all events were mild except for one case, which was considered to be moderate. No unexpected adverse events were observed during the study period.

Conclusions:  Co‐administration of miglitol in type 1 diabetes patients on intensive insulin therapy resulted in an improvement of postprandial hyperglycemia with the reduction of insulin dosage. Considering the importance of postprandial hyperglycemia in the onset of cardiovascular disease, the combination therapy of miglitol and insulin could be advantageous in type 1 diabetes mellitus patients.

Factors associated with basal insulin dose in Japanese children and young adult type 1 diabetics

Aims/Introduction:  The daily basal insulin doses/body weight and the daily basal insulin doses/total daily insulin doses of Japanese type 1 diabetes mellitus patients are less than those of Western type 1 diabetes mellitus patients. It is known that Western meals are richer in fat than Japanese meals. We speculated that fat intake might be associated with basal insulin dose in type 1 diabetes mellitus patients.

Materials and Methods:  Forty‐one outpatients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (20 males, 21 females, mean age 15.9) were enrolled. Variables investigated included: gender, SDS‐BMI, HbA1c, duration of diabetes, therapy (MDI or CSII), insulin doses and meal contents. Meal contents were recorded for 3 days using a digital camera. Correlation and multiple regression analyses were performed for all subjects and each age group.

Results:  The mean daily basal insulin doses/total daily insulin doses was 0.35. In the multiple regression analysis among all subjects, when daily basal insulin doses/body weight was used as a dependent variable, fat energy ratio of the meal was obtained as an entered variable (P = 0.001). This tendency was particularly strong among the patients aged 14 or above (P < 0.001, standardized coefficient β = 0.683).

Conclusions:  In the type 1 diabetes patients who are aged 14 or above, an association between daily basal insulin doses/body weight and fat energy ratio of meal was suggested. This may explain the aforementioned expectation of increased fat intakes making higher basal insulin doses. (J Diabetes Invest, doi: 10.1111/j.2040‐1124.2011.00171.x, 2011)

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

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

THE SUBJECTS WERE ALLOCATED TO ONE OF TWO TREATMENT ORDERS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Safety of rapid-acting insulin analogs versus regular human insulin

Insulin is the most effective treatment for both type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. There are several differences in the safety profiles of each type of insulin, including rapid-acting insulin analogs and regular human insulin. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of those insulin types also differ, as do their safety parameters. Treatment with rapid-acting analogs results in less hypoglycemia overall and decreased frequency of both severe and nocturnal hypoglycemia. In addition, the more rapid onset and shorter duration of action of rapid-acting insulin analogs are associated with greater control of postprandial glucose than regular human insulin. This review will describe the similarities and differences between the safety profiles of rapid-acting insulin analogs.

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

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

Insulin glulisine compared to insulin aspart and to insulin lispro administered by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in patients with type 1 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In a previous pilot study comparing insulin glulisine (GLU) with insulin aspart (ASP) administered by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), GLU-treated patients did show a trend toward fewer catheter occlusions compared with ASP-treated patients. Here we performed a randomized open-label, three-way crossover, controlled multicenter study comparing GLU with ASP and insulin lispro (LIS).

METHODS

Subjects with type 1 diabetes were allocated to one of three treatment orders-GLU-ASP-LIS, ASP-LIS-GLU, or LIS-GLU-ASP-with each insulin used for 13 weeks. The study was designed to demonstrate the superiority of GLU over ASP and LIS on unexplained hyperglycemia and/or perceived infusion set occlusion. A prespecified P value of 0.025 was considered significant to correct for multiple testing.

RESULTS

Percentages of subjects with at least one unexplained hyperglycemia and/or infusion set occlusion were not significantly different between GLU and ASP (68.4% [62.7-74.1%] vs. 62.1% [56.2-68.1%], P = 0.04) and GLU and LIS (68.4% [62.7-74.1%] vs. 61.3% [55.4-67.3%], P = 0.03). No differences were seen in hemoglobin A1c at end point, most points of the seven-point glucose curves, severe hypoglycemia, and symptomatic ketoacidosis. The overall rate of hypoglycemia with a plasma glucose level below 70 mg/dL per patient-year was significantly different between GLU and ASP (73.84 vs. 65.01, P = 0.008) and GLU and LIS (73.84 vs. 62.69, P < 0.001). Insulin doses remained unchanged during the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

GLU was not superior to ASP and LIS with no significant difference seen among GLU, ASP, and LIS in CSII use with respect to unexplained hyperglycemia and/or perceived catheter set occlusion. GLU was associated with a higher frequency of symptomatic hypoglycemia, possibly because of slight overdosing, as previous trials suggested lower insulin requirements when GLU is initiated in type 1 diabetes.