Search

Aim: To study safety, efficacy and weight loss with ADO09, a co-formulation of insulin A21G and pramlintide, in type 1 diabetes., Materials and Methods: A randomized, two-arm ambulatory 16-week study compared ADO09 with insulin lispro in 80 participants with type 1 diabetes. We compared changes of weight, glycated haemoglobin, glycaemic patterns during continuous glucose monitoring, and insulin doses at baseline and at the end of treatment., Results: A significant and continuing weight loss, the primary endpoint, was observed with ADO09 compared with lispro as prandial insulin. In the whole group, the weight loss with ADO09 relative to lispro was 2.1 kg. Glycaemic control was relatively good (7.7% mean glycated haemoglobin) in both groups and did not change during treatment. Prandial insulin doses were reduced by 21% in the ADO09 group, whereas basal insulin dosage was not modified. Gastrointestinal symptoms were more frequent with ADO09, but no clear difference in hypoglycaemia was observed., Conclusions: These results extend previous observations on the efficacy and safety of this insulin/pramlintide co-formulation. They show a beneficial effect on weight, using less mealtime insulin and without increased hypoglycaemia., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Insulin efsitora alfa (efsitora) is a once-weekly basal insulin. This phase 3 study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of efsitora compared with insulin degludec (degludec) in adults with type 1 diabetes., Methods: This randomised, 52-week, parallel-design, open-label, treat-to-target non-inferiority study conducted at 82 global health-care centres, randomly assigned (1:1) adults (ie, those aged ≥18 years) with type 1 diabetes glycated haemoglobin A 1c (HbA 1c ) 7·0-10·0% (53·0-85·8 mmol/mol) to efsitora (n=343) or, degludec (n=349), both in combination with insulin lispro. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA 1c from baseline to week-26 (non-inferiority margin=0·4%). The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05463744) and is completed., Findings: Between Aug 12, 2022, and May 7, 2024, of 893 participants enrolled, 692 (77%) participants were randomly assigned to once-weekly efsitora or once-daily degludec, and 623 (90%) participants completed the study. Mean HbA 1c decreased from 7·88% (62·66 mmol/mol) at baseline to 7·41% (57·5 mmol/mol) at week 26 with efsitora and from 7·94% (63·3 mmol/mol) at baseline to 7·36% (56·9 mmol/mol) at week 26 with degludec. Mean HbA 1c change from baseline to week 26 was -0·51% with efsitora and -0·56% with degludec (estimated treatment difference 0·052%, 95% CI -0·077 to 0·181; p=0·43), confirming a non-inferiority margin of 0·4% for efsitora compared with degludec. Rates of combined level 2 (<54 mg/dL [3·0 mmol/L]) or level 3 severe hypoglycaemia were higher with efsitora compared with degludec (14·03 vs 11·59 events per patient year of exposure; estimated rate ratio 1·21, 95% CI 1·04 to 1·41; p=0·016) during weeks 0-52, with the highest rates during weeks 0-12. Severe hypoglycaemia incidence was higher with efsitora (35 [10%] of 343) versus degludec (11 [3%] of 349) during weeks 0-52. Overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar across treatment groups. One death not related to the study treatment occurred in the degludec group., Interpretation: In adults with type 1 diabetes, once-weekly efsitora showed non-inferior HbA 1c reduction compared with daily insulin degludec. Higher rates of combined level 2 or level 3 hypoglycaemia and greater incidence of severe hypoglycaemia in participants treated with efsitora compared with participants treated with degludec might suggest the need for additional evaluation of efsitora dose initiation and optimisation in people with type 1 diabetes., Funding: Eli Lilly and Company., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests RMB has received research support from, consulted, or has been on a scientific advisory board for Abbott Diabetes Care, Ascensia, Bigfoot Biomedical, CeQur, Dexcom, Eversense, Hygieia, Insulet, Eli Lilly and Company, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Onduo, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi, Tandem Diabetes Care, United Healthcare, Vertex Pharmaceutical, and Zealand Pharma. His technology research is funded in part by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and Helmsley Charitable Trust. RMB's employer, non-profit HealthPartners Institute, contracts him for his services, and no personal income from any of these activities goes directly to him. RSW has participated in multicentre clinical trials, through her institution, sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company, Insulet, Tandem, Amgen, MannKind, NovoNordisk, Wolters Kluwer, and Diasome, and has used Dexcom devices obtained at reduced cost in clinical research studies. CM serves or has served on advisory panels for Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, Dexcom, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Roche, Medtronic, Imcyse, Insulet, Biomea Fusion, ActoBio Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, and Vertex. Financial compensation for these activities has been received by KU Leuven; KU Leuven has received research support for CM from Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and ActoBio Therapeutics. CM serves or has served on the speaker's bureau for Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, Medtronic, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Financial compensation for these activities has been received by KU Leuven. YO has received speaker's bureau fees from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sumitomo Pharma. AMC, MLK, MCC, and VV are employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Objective: To evaluate the safety and explore the efficacy of use of ultra-rapid lispro (URLi, Lyumjev) insulin in the Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ 1.5 technology in children, teenagers, and adults living with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: At 14 U.S. diabetes centers, youth and adults with T1D completed a 16-day lead-in period using lispro in a t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ 1.5 technology, followed by a 13-week period in which URLi insulin was used in the pump. Results: The trial included 179 individuals with T1D (age 6-75 years). With URLi, 1.7% (3 participants) had a severe hypoglycemia event over 13 weeks attributed to override boluses or a missed meal. No diabetic ketoacidosis events occurred. Two participants stopped URLi use because of infusion-site discomfort, and one stopped after developing a rash. Mean time 70-180 mg/dL increased from 65% ± 15% with lispro to 67% ± 13% with URLi ( P = 0.004). Mean insulin treatment satisfaction questionnaire score improved from 75 ± 13 at screening to 80 ± 11 after 13 weeks of URLi use (mean difference = 6; 95% confidence interval 4-8; P < 0.001), with the greatest improvement reported for confidence avoiding symptoms of high blood sugar. Mean treatment-related impact measure-diabetes score improved from 74 ± 12 to 80 ± 12 ( P < 0.001), and mean TRIM-Diabetes Device (score improved from 82 ± 11 to 86 ± 12 ( P < 0.001). Conclusions: URLi use in the Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ 1.5 technology was safe for adult and pediatric participants with T1D, with quality-of-life benefits of URLi use perceived by the study participants. Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT05403502.

Objective: To evaluate postprandial glucose control when applying (1) faster-acting insulin aspart (Fiasp) compared to insulin aspart and (2) ultra-rapid insulin lispro (Lyumjev) compared to insulin lispro using the CamAPS FX hybrid closed-loop algorithm. Research Design and Methods: We undertook a secondary analysis of postprandial glucose excursions from two double-blind, randomized, crossover hybrid closed-loop studies contrasting Fiasp to standard insulin aspart, and Lyumjev to standard insulin lispro. Endpoints included incremental area under curve (iAUC)-2h, iAUC-4h, 4 h postprandial time in target range, time above range, and time below range. It was approved by independent research ethics committees. Results: Two trials with 8 weeks of data from 51 adults with type 1 diabetes were analyzed and 7137 eligible meals were included. During Lyumjev compared with insulin lispro, iAUC-2h and iAUC-4h were significantly decreased following breakfast (mean difference 92 mmol/L per 2 h (95% confidence interval [CI]: 56 to 127); P  < 0.001 and 151 mmol/L per 4 h (95% CI: 74 to 229); P  < 0.001, respectively) and the evening meal ( P  < 0.001 and P  = 0.011, respectively). Mean time in target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) for 4 h postprandially significantly increased during Lyumjev with a mean difference of 6.7 percentage points (95% CI: 3.3 to 10) and 5.7 percentage points (95% CI: 1.4 to 9.9) for breakfast and evening meal, respectively. In contrast, there were no significant differences in iAUC-2h, iAUC-4h, and the other measures of postprandial glucose control between insulin aspart and Fiasp during breakfast, lunch, and evening meal ( P  > 0.05). Conclusion: The use of Lyumjev with CamAPS FX closed-loop system improved postprandial glucose excursions compared with insulin lispro, while the use of Fiasp did not provide any advantage compared with insulin aspart. Clinical Trial Registration numbers: NCT04055480, NCT05257460.

Introduction: We evaluated a potential move from one rapid-acting insulin analog to another, or their biosimilars, to aid better and faster decisions for diabetes management., Methods: A systematic literature review was performed according to PRISMA reporting guidelines. The MEDLINE/EMBASE/COCHRANE databases were searched for randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing aspart/lispro in type-1 (T1D) and type-2 (T2D) diabetes. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias assessment criteria., Results: Of the 753 records retrieved, the six selected efficacy/safety RCTs and the additional three hand-searched pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics RCTs showed some heterogeneity in the presentation of the continuous variables; however, collectively, the outcomes demonstrated that lispro and aspart had comparable efficacy and safety in adult patients with T1D and T2D. Both treatments yielded a similar decrease in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and had similar dosing and weight changes, with similar treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) and serious adverse event (SAE) reporting, similar hypoglycemic episodes in both T1D and T2D populations, and no clinically significant differences for hyperglycemia, occlusions or other infusion site/set complications., Conclusions: Aspart and lispro demonstrate comparative safety and efficacy in patients with T1D/T2D. Since both are deemed equally suitable for controlling prandial glycemic excursions and both have similar safety attributes, they may be used interchangeably in clinical practice., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42023376793.

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of URLi (ultra rapid lispro insulin) compared to insulin lispro as bolus insulin with basal insulin using CGM in the individuals with type 2 diabetes(T2D) in China., Methods: This was a double-blind, randomized, parallel, prospective, phase 3 study. Subjects with uncontrolled T2D were recruited and randomized 1:2 into the insulin lispro and URLi groups. Subjects received a consistent basal insulin regimen during the study and self-administered insulin lispro or URLi before each meal throughout the treatment period. Subjects underwent a 3-day continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) at the baseline and endpoint respectively, and then CGM data were analyzed. The primary endpoint was to compare the difference in postprandial glucose (PPG) control using CGM between the two groups., Results: A total of 57 subjects with T2D completed the study. Our CGM data showed that postprandial glucose excursions after breakfast (BPPGE) in the URLi group was lower than that in the insulin lispro group (1.59 ± 1.57 mmol/L vs 2.51 ± 1.73 mmol/L, p = 0.046). 1-hour PPG was observed to decrease more in the URLi group than that in the insulin lispro group (-1.37 ± 3.28 mmol/L vs 0.24 ± 2.58 mmol/L, p = 0.047). 2-hour PPG was observed to decrease more in the URLi group than that in the insulin lispro group (-1.12 ± 4.00 mmol/L vs 1.22 ± 2.90 mmol/L, p = 0.021). The mean HbA1c level decreased by 1.1% in the URLi group and 0.99% in the insulin lispro group, with no treatment difference (p = 0.642). In the CGM profile, TBR was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.743). The weight gain also did not differ between the two groups (p = 0.303)., Conclusion: URLi can control breakfast PPG better than insulin lispro in adults with T2D in China, while it is non-inferior in improving HbA1c. The incidence of hypoglycemic and weight gain were similar between the two groups., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Yuan, Luo, Luo, Ding, Zhang, Ma and Wu.)

Aims: To investigate the efficacy and safety of ultra-rapid lispro (URLi) versus insulin lispro in predominantly Chinese patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, treat-to-target, phase 3 study., Materials and Methods: Following a lead-in period, during which insulin glargine U-100 or insulin degludec U-100 was optimized, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to URLi (n = 176) or insulin lispro (n = 178). The primary objective was to test the noninferiority of URLi to insulin lispro in glycaemic control (noninferiority margin = 0.4% for glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] change from baseline to week 26), with testing for the superiority of URLi to insulin lispro with regard to 1- and 2-hour postprandial glucose (PPG) excursions during a mixed-meal tolerance test and HbA1c change at week 26 as the multiplicity-adjusted objectives., Results: From baseline to week 26, HbA1c decreased by 0.21% and 0.28% with URLi and insulin lispro, respectively, with a least squares mean treatment difference of 0.07% (95% confidence interval -0.11 to 0.24; P = 0.467). URLi demonstrated smaller 1- and 2-hour PPG excursions at week 26 with least squares mean treatment differences of -1.0 mmol/L (-17.8 mg/dL) and -1.4 mmol/L (-25.5 mg/dL), respectively (p < 0.005 for both) versus insulin lispro. The safety profiles of URLi and insulin lispro were similar., Conclusions: In this study, URLi administered in a basal-bolus regimen demonstrated superiority to insulin lispro in controlling PPG excursions, with noninferiority of HbA1c control in predominantly Chinese patients with T1D., (© 2023 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aims: To compare the time to hyperglycaemia recovery after ultra rapid lispro (URLi; Lyumjev®) versus Humalog in a randomized, double-blind crossover study., Materials and Methods: Thirty-two adults with type 1 diabetes on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion participated in two periods: each period included hyperglycaemia induced by a missed mealtime bolus (day 1) and by suspension of basal insulin delivery (day 2). When hyperglycaemia [plasma glucose (PG) >240 mg/dl] occurred, a correction bolus of URLi or Humalog was given and time to hyperglycaemia recovery (PG = 140 mg/dl), pharmacokinetics and glucodynamics were compared., Results: Following a missed mealtime bolus, URLi significantly reduced maximum PG (-13 mg/dl; p = .02), and produced numerically more rapid decline in PG (23 mg/dl/h; p = .07), and faster recovery from hyperglycaemia (-23 min; p = .1) versus Humalog, although differences were not significant. Following basal suspension, URLi significantly reduced maximum PG (-6 mg/dl; p = .02), and produced faster PG decline (24 mg/dl/h; p < .001) and faster recovery from hyperglycaemia (-16 min; p < .01) vs. Humalog. Following a correction bolus of URLi, accelerated insulin lispro absorption was observed versus Humalog: early 50% t max was reduced by 6 or 12 min, and AUC0-15min was increased 2.5- or 4.3-fold after correction boluses by subcutaneous infusion (day 1) or injection (day 2), respectively (all p < .001)., Conclusions: During episodes of hyperglycaemia commonly experienced in people with type 1 diabetes, URLi provided a faster recovery versus Humalog from a missed mealtime bolus or during basal insulin suspension. URLi shows significant acceleration of insulin absorption versus Humalog when boluses are administered by subcutaneous infusion or injection., (© 2023 Eli Lilly and Company. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: To evaluate hybrid closed-loop with ultra-rapid insulin lispro (Lyumjev) compared with hybrid closed-loop with standard insulin lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes. Materials and Methods: In a single-center, double-blind, randomized, crossover study, 28 adults with type 1 diabetes (mean ± standard deviation [SD]: age 44.5 ± 10.7 years, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.1 ± 0.9% [54 ± 10 mmol/mol]) underwent two 8-week periods comparing hybrid closed-loop with ultra-rapid insulin lispro and hybrid closed-loop with standard insulin lispro in random order. The same CamAPS FX closed-loop algorithm was used in both periods. Results: In an intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of time sensor glucose was in target range (3.9-10 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]; primary endpoint) was greater with ultra-rapid lispro compared with standard insulin lispro (mean ± SD: 78.7 ± 9.8% vs. 76.2 ± 9.6%; mean difference 2.5 percentage points [95% confidence interval 0.8 to 4.2]; P  = 0.005). Mean sensor glucose was lower with ultra-rapid lispro compared with standard insulin lispro (7.9 ± 0.8 mmol/L [142 ± 14 mg/dL] vs. 8.1 ± 0.9 mmol/L [146 ± 16 mg/dL]; P  = 0.048). The proportion of time with sensor glucose <3.9 mmol/L [70 mg/dL] was similar between interventions (median [interquartile range] ultra-rapid lispro 2.3% [1.3%-2.7%] vs. standard insulin lispro 2.1% [1.4%-3.3%]; P  = 0.33). No severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis occurred. Conclusions: The use of ultra-rapid lispro with CamAPS FX hybrid closed-loop increases time in range and reduces mean glucose with no difference in hypoglycemia compared with standard insulin lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes. ClinicalTrials.gov: Trial registration number NCT05257460.

Aim: For the successful approval and clinical prescription of insulin biosimilars, it is essential to show pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) bioequivalence to the respective reference products sourced from the European Union and the United States., Methods: Three phase 1, randomized, double-blind, three-period crossover trials compared single doses of the proposed biosimilar insulin analogues aspart (GL-Asp, n = 36), lispro (GL-Lis, n = 38) and glargine (GL-Gla, n = 113), all manufactured by Gan & Lee pharmaceuticals, to the respective EU- and US-reference products in healthy male participants (GL-Asp and GL-Lis) or people with type 1 diabetes (GL-Gla). Study participants received 0.2 U/kg (aspart and lispro) or 0.5 U/kg (glargine) of each treatment under automated euglycaemic clamp conditions. The clamp duration was 12 h (aspart and lispro) or 30 h (glargine). Primary PK endpoints were the total area under the PK curves (AUC ins.total ) and maximum insulin concentrations (C ins.max ). Primary PD endpoints were the total area under the glucose infusion rate curve (AUC GIR.total ) and maximum glucose infusion rate (GIR max )., Results: Bioequivalence to both EU- and US-reference products were shown for all three GL insulins. Least squares mean ratios for the primary PK/PD endpoints were close to 100%, and both 90% and 95% confidence intervals were within 80%-125% in all three studies. There were no noticeable differences in the safety profiles between test and reference insulins, and no serious adverse events were reported for the GL insulins., Conclusion: GL-Asp, GL-Lis and GL-Gla are bioequivalent to their EU- and US-reference products., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Importance: Tirzepatide is a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Efficacy and safety of adding tirzepatide vs prandial insulin to treatment in patients with inadequate glycemic control with basal insulin have not been described., Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide vs insulin lispro as an adjunctive therapy to insulin glargine., Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label, phase 3b clinical trial was conducted at 135 sites in 15 countries (participants enrolled from October 19, 2020, to November 1, 2022) in 1428 adults with type 2 diabetes taking basal insulin., Interventions: Participants were randomized (in a 1:1:1:3 ratio) to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide (5 mg [n = 243], 10 mg [n = 238], or 15 mg [n = 236]) or prandial thrice-daily insulin lispro (n = 708)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included noninferiority of tirzepatide (pooled cohort) vs insulin lispro, both in addition to insulin glargine, in HbA1c change from baseline at week 52 (noninferiority margin, 0.3%). Key secondary end points included change in body weight and percentage of participants achieving hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) target of less than 7.0%., Results: Among 1428 randomized participants (824 [57.7%] women; mean [SD] age, 58.8 [9.7] years; mean [SD] HbA1c, 8.8% [1.0%]), 1304 (91.3%) completed the trial. At week 52, estimated mean change from baseline in HbA1c with tirzepatide (pooled cohort) was -2.1% vs -1.1% with insulin lispro, resulting in mean HbA1c levels of 6.7% vs 7.7% (estimated treatment difference, -0.98% [95% CI, -1.17% to -0.79%]; P < .001); results met noninferiority criteria and statistical superiority was achieved. Estimated mean change from baseline in body weight was -9.0 kg with tirzepatide and 3.2 kg with insulin lispro (estimated treatment difference, -12.2 kg [95% CI, -13.4 to -10.9]). The percentage of participants reaching HbA1c less than 7.0% was 68% (483 of 716) with tirzepatide and 36% (256 of 708) with insulin lispro (odds ratio, 4.2 [95% CI, 3.2-5.5]). The most common adverse events with tirzepatide were mild to moderate gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea: 14%-26%; diarrhea: 11%-15%; vomiting: 5%-13%). Hypoglycemia event rates (blood glucose level <54 mg/dL or severe hypoglycemia) were 0.4 events per patient-year with tirzepatide (pooled) and 4.4 events per patient-year with insulin lispro., Conclusions and Relevance: In people with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin, weekly tirzepatide compared with prandial insulin as an additional treatment with insulin glargine demonstrated reductions in HbA1c and body weight with less hypoglycemia., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04537923.

Objective: We evaluated the safety and efficacy of fully closed-loop with ultrarapid insulin lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control compared with insulin pump therapy with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)., Research Design and Methods: This single-center, randomized, crossover study enrolled 26 adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin pump therapy with suboptimal glycemic control (mean ± SD, age 41 ± 12 years, HbA1c 9.2 ± 1.1% [77 ± 12 mmol/mol]). Participants underwent two 8-week periods of unrestricted living to compare fully closed-loop with ultrarapid insulin lispro (CamAPS HX system) with insulin pump therapy with CGM in random order., Results: In an intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of time glucose was in range (primary end point 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was higher during closed-loop than during pump with CGM (mean ± SD 50.0 ± 9.6% vs. 36.2 ± 12.2%, mean difference 13.2 percentage points [95% CI 9.5, 16.9], P < 0.001). Time with glucose >10.0 mmol/L and mean glucose were lower during closed-loop than during pump with CGM (mean ± SD time >10.0 mmol/L: 49.0 ± 9.9 vs. 62.9 ± 12.6%, mean difference -13.3 percentage points [95% CI -17.2, -9.5], P < 0.001; mean ± SD glucose 10.7 ± 1.1 vs. 12.0 ± 1.6 mmol/L, mean difference -1.2 mmol/L [95% CI -1.8, -0.7], P < 0.001). The proportion of time with glucose <3.9 mmol/L was similar between periods (median [interquartile range (IQR)] closed-loop 0.88% [0.51-1.55] vs. pump with CGM 0.64% [0.28-1.10], P = 0.102). Total daily insulin requirements did not differ (median [IQR] closed-loop 51.9 units/day [35.7-91.2] vs. pump with CGM 50.7 units/day [34.0-70.0], P = 0.704). No severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis occurred., Conclusions: Fully closed-loop insulin delivery with CamAPS HX improved glucose control compared with insulin pump therapy with CGM in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control., (© 2023 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of ultra-rapid lispro insulin (URLi) and humalog lispro (HL) in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods: This was an international multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled study. From May 2019 to January 2021, a total of 481 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, who had been using insulin for at least 90 days and had poor glycemic control, were included. These patients were recruited from 34 research centers in China, including Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital. They were assigned to either the URLi group (319 patients) or the HL group (162 patients) using stratified blocked randomization. The primary endpoint was the change in hemoglobin A 1c (HbA 1c ) relative to baseline after 26 weeks of treatment. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients who achieved HbA 1c <7.0% and ≤6.5% after 26 weeks of treatment, 1-h postprandial glucose (1hPG) or 2-h postprandial glucose (2hPG) excursions during a mixed meal tolerance test at week 26, as well as safety parameters. Continuous variables were compared using mixed model repeated measures or analysis of covariance, and categorical variables were compared using logistic regression or Fisher's exact test. Results: Data based on the Chinese subgroup showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the URLi and HL groups in terms of male percentage [56.1% (179/319) vs. 56.2% (91/162); P =0.990], age [(59.5±8.4) vs. (59.6±9.3) years; P =0.839] and other baseline characteristics. Regarding the change in HbA 1c relative to baseline, the URLi group was non-inferior to the HL group (-0.59%±0.05% vs. -0.66%±0.06%; P =0.312). There were no statistically significant differences between the URLi and HL groups in proportion of patients who achieved HbA 1c <7.0% [47.3% (138/292) vs. 45.2% (70/155); P =0.907] and≤6.5% [27.7% (81/292) vs. 27.7% (43/155); P =0.816]. The excursions in 1hPG [(6.20±0.21) vs. (6.90±0.25) mmol/L; P =0.001] and 2hPG [(8.10±0.27) vs. (9.30±0.31) mmol/L; P <0.001] were lower in the URLi group than the HL group, with statistically significant differences. In terms of safety, there were no statistically significant differences in the percentage of subjects who reported treatment-emergent adverse events between the URLi and HL groups [49.8% (159/319) vs. 50.0% (81/162); P =1.000]. The event rate of nocturnal hypoglycemia was lower in the URLi group than the HL group, with statistically significant differences [(0.53±0.10) vs. (0.89±0.16) events per patient - year; P =0.040]. Conclusions: With good glycemic control, URLi showed non-inferiority for HbA 1c improvement versus HL and was superior to HL for postprandial glucose excursion control. Meanwhile the rate and incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia were lower in the URLi group than the HL group.

Aim: This study compared the pharmacokinetics, glucodynamics and tolerability following single subcutaneous doses of ultra rapid lispro (URLi) versus Humalog in children (6-11 years), adolescents (12-17 years) and adults (18-64 years) with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D)., Materials and Methods: The study was a randomized, two-period, subject- and investigator-blind, crossover design in participants with T1D. Participants received a 0.2 U/kg bolus dose immediately before a liquid mixed meal tolerance test. Insulin lispro and glucose concentrations were measured., Results: The study included 13 children, 14 adolescents and 15 adults. Consistently across the age groups, onset of appearance was 4-5 min faster, the early 50% t max was reduced by 7-13 min, and exposure in the first 15 min was increased by 3.5-6.5-fold following URLi compared with Humalog (all p < .01). Exposure after 3 h was decreased by 37-58% (p = .02) and the duration was reduced by 56 min (p = .006) in children and 36 min (p = .022) in adolescents with URLi compared with Humalog. The maximum and overall exposure were similar between treatments. Postprandial glucose at 1 h was reduced by 42 mg/dl in children (p = .008), 19 mg/dl (p = .195) in adolescents and 34 mg/dl (p = .018) in adults following URLi versus Humalog. The glucose excursion during a 5-h test meal period was reduced by 16% in children and 9% in adolescents compared with Humalog. URLi was well tolerated in all age groups., Conclusions: URLi showed an accelerated insulin lispro absorption and greater postprandial glucose reduction compared with Humalog in children, adolescents and adults with T1D., (© 2023 Eli Lilly and Company and The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Reasons for treatment discontinuation are important not only to understand the benefit and risk profile of experimental treatments, but also to help choose appropriate strategies to handle intercurrent events in defining estimands. The current case report form (CRF) commonly in use mixes the underlying reasons for treatment discontinuation and who makes the decision for treatment discontinuation, often resulting in an inaccurate collection of reasons for treatment discontinuation., Methods and Results: We systematically reviewed and analyzed treatment discontinuation data from nine phase 2 and phase 3 studies for insulin peglispro. A total of 857 participants with treatment discontinuation were included in the analysis. Our review suggested that, due to the vague multiple-choice options for treatment discontinuation present in the CRF, different reasons were sometimes recorded for the same underlying reason for treatment discontinuation. Based on our review and analysis, we suggest an intermediate solution and a more systematic way to improve the current CRF for treatment discontinuations., Conclusion: This research provides insight and directions on how to optimize the CRF for recording treatment discontinuation. Further work needs to be done to build the learning into Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium standards., Clinical Trials: Clinicaltrials.gov numbers: NCT01027871 (Phase 2 for type 2 diabetes), NCT01049412 (Phase 2 for type 1 diabetes), NCT01481779 (IMAGINE 1 Study), NCT01435616 (IMAGINE 2 Study), NCT01454284 (IMAGINE 3 Study), NCT01468987 (IMAGINE 4 Study), NCT01582451 (IMAGINE 5 Study), NCT01790438 (IMAGINE 6 Study), NCT01792284 (IMAGINE 7 Study)., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Drug Information Association, Inc.)

Background: The long-term clinical and biofhemical effects of basal-bolus insulin treatment with lispro and NPH in dogs with diabetes mellitus are undocumented., Objectives: To perform a prospective pilot field study of the long-term effects of lispro and NPH on clinical signs and serum fructosamine concentrations (SFC) in dogs with diabetes mellitus., Methods: Twelve dogs received combined lispro and NPH insulins treatment twice a day and were examined every 2 weeks for 2 months (visits 1-4), and every 4 weeks for up to 4 additional months (visits 5-8). Clinical signs and SFC were recorded at each visit. Polyuria and polydipsia (PU/PD) were scored as absent (0) or present (1)., Results: Median (range) PU/PD scores of combined visits 5-8 (0, 0-1) were significantly lower than median scores of combined visits 1-4 (1, 0-1, p = 0.03) and at enrolment (1, 0-1, p = 0.045). Median (range) SFC of combined visits 5-8 (512 mmol/L, 401-974 mmol/L) was significantly lower than SFC of combined visits 1-4 (578 mmol/L, 302-996 mmol/L, p = 0.002) and at enrolment (662 mmol/L, 450-990 mmol/L, p = 0.03). Lispro insulin dose was significantly and negatively, albeit weakly, correlated with SFC concentration during visits 1 through 8 (r = -0.3, p = 0.013). Median duration of follow up was 6 months (range 0.5-6) and most dogs (8, 66.7%) were followed for 6 months. Four dogs withdrew from the study within 0.5-5 months because of documented or suspected hypoglycaemia, short NPH duration or sudden unexplained death. Hypoglycaemia was noted in 6 dogs., Conclusions: Long-term lispro and NPH combination therapy may improve clinical and biochemical control of some diabetic dogs with comorbidities. Risk of hypoglycaemia should be addressed with close monitoring., (© 2023 The Authors. Veterinary Medicine and Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The discovery of insulin by Banting and Best marked 100 years in 2021, and it was a life-saving treatment modality for type II diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Insulin is a natural hormone that has been used extensively in T2DM patients since its discovery. Currently, insulin analogs are also available in different formulations for T2DM management, overcoming the limitations of human insulin with better safety and side effect profiles. The insulin analogs like the rapid-acting analogs (Aspart, lispro, glulisine), the long-acting basal analogs (Glargine, detemir), the ultra-long acting (Insulin degludec), and the premixed insulin analog formulations (75% Neutral protamine lispro, 25% lispro; 50% neutral protamine lispro, 50% lispro; 70% protamine aspart, 30% aspart) have been prepared through genetic engineering while preserving the basic insulin profile. A large number of studies have demonstrated their clinical effects on glycated hemoglobin test (HbA1c) in achieving glycemic control and thereby lowering the microvascular and macrovascular complications of T2DM with less traditional side effects of regular human insulin, mainly the risk of hypoglycemia, postprandial glycemic excursions, and weight gain. This review explores the currently available insulin analogs, their clinical implications, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), safety profile, and cost-effectiveness. We also discuss the future developments in the management of T2DM, especially the scientific advancements surrounding the novel insulin formulations, including the biosimilar insulin, and the innovative insulin delivery methods, such as oral and inhaled insulin., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Aims: (1) To describe the population of patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) using the rapid-acting insulin analogue glulisine versus lispro and aspart during continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII); (2) to describe insulin relative effectiveness based on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose (FBG) and dose; (3) to determine rates of hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA)., Methods: The analysis used March 2021 data from the Diabetes-Patienten-Verlaufsdokumentation registry, which contains data of 618,903 patients with diabetes. Patients were propensity-matched by age, sex, and diabetes duration., Results: Overall, 42,736 patients of any age were eligible for analysis based on insulin pump usage with either glulisine (N = 707) or lispro/aspart (N = 42,029) between 2004 and 2020. Patients receiving glulisine were older (median 20.0 vs. 16.2 years), equally often male (47.2% vs. 47.8%) and had a longer diabetes duration (median 9.4 vs. 7.4 years). After propensity score matching, 707 pairs remained (total N = 1414). Patient characteristics between groups were similar. Achieved HbA1c values were also comparable: 8.04%, 64 mmol/mol versus 7.96%, 63 mmol/mol for glulisine and lispro/aspart [LS mean difference 0.08 (95%CI - 0.08, 0.25)]. FBG was 9.37 mmol/L (168.9 mg/dL) and 9.58 mmol/L (172.6 mg/dL) in the glulisine and lispro/aspart groups [LS mean diff. - 0.21; (95%CI - 1.13, 0.72)]. Total daily insulin doses and prandial to total insulin ratios were also similar. Glulisine group patients had higher rates of lipodystrophy (0.85% vs. 0.71%) (LS mean diff. 0.18 [95% CI - 1.01, 1.38]) and non-severe DKA (3.11% vs. 0.57%; p = 0.002). Fewer patients in the glulisine group had severe hypoglycemic events (7.66 vs. 9.09; p = 0.333) and severe ketoacidosis events (0.57% vs. 1.56%; p = 0.082) but more had hypoglycemic coma events (p = 0.773), although the differences were not statistically significant., Conclusions: Insulin glulisine had comparable glucose control to lispro/aspart. The use of glulisine was less frequent in the present analysis compared to the previous trials., (© 2022. Springer-Verlag Italia S.r.l., part of Springer Nature.)

Combining a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP1-RA) with basal insulin is an emerging option when initiating injectable therapy in longstanding type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Recognizing that short-term insulin therapy can improve beta-cell function and induce glycemic remission in early T2DM, we hypothesized that adding the short-acting GLP1-RA exenatide to basal insulin in early T2DM may enhance the achievability of these outcomes. In this completed, 20-week, open-label, parallel-arm trial at an academic hospital, 103 individuals aged 30-80 years with <7 years duration of T2DM were randomized (by computer-generated sequence) to 8-weeks treatment with (i) insulin glargine (Glar; n = 33), (ii) glargine + thrice-daily lispro (Glar/Lispro; n = 35), or (iii) glargine + twice-daily exenatide (Glar/Exenatide; n = 35), followed by 12-weeks washout. The analyzed population of 102 participants (median 3.5 years of T2DM, A1c 6.6% ±0.7%) consisted of 33 on Glar, 35 on Glar/Lispro and 34 on Glar/Exenatide. Oral glucose tolerance tests at baseline, 4-weeks, 8-weeks and 20-weeks enabled assessment of beta-cell function (Insulin Secretion-Sensitivity Index-2 (ISSI-2)) and glycemic control. Mean ISSI-2 over the 8-week intervention (primary outcome) did not differ across the groups (Glar/Exenatide 237 ± 11; Glar/Lispro 208 ± 11; Glar 223 ± 11; p = 0.19). Baseline-adjusted A1c at 8-weeks (secondary outcome) was lowest in Glar/Exenatide followed by Glar/Lispro and Glar (mean 5.9% vs 6.0% vs 6.2%; p = 0.0007). After 12-weeks washout, however, neither baseline-adjusted A1c nor baseline-adjusted ISSI-2 (secondary outcomes) differed between the groups, nor did (additional outcome) rates of remission (Glar/Exenatide 26.7%, Glar/Lispro 43.8%, Glar 32.1%; p = 0.35). There were no severe hypoglycemia episodes. In conclusion, adding exenatide to basal insulin in early T2DM does not further enhance underlying beta-cell function or the capacity to achieve diabetes remission, despite yielding on-treatment glycemic benefit., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: To evaluate the insulin-only configuration of the iLet ® bionic pancreas (BP) in youth 6-17 years old with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Research Design and Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, 165 youth with T1D (6-17 years old; baseline HbA1c 5.8%-12.2%; 35% using multiple daily injections, 36% using an insulin pump without automation, 4% using an insulin pump with low glucose suspend, and 25% using a hybrid closed-loop system before the study) were randomly assigned 2:1 to use BP ( n  = 112) with insulin aspart or insulin lispro (BP group) or to a control group ( n  = 53) using their personal standard care insulin delivery (SC group) plus real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). The primary outcome was HbA1c at 13 weeks. Results: Mean HbA1c decreased from 8.1% ± 1.2% at baseline to 7.5% ± 0.7% at 13 weeks with BP versus 7.8% ± 1.1% at both baseline and 13 weeks with SC (adjusted difference = -0.5%, 95% CI -0.7% to -0.2%, P  < 0.001). Participants with baseline HbA1c ≥9.0% ( n  = 34) decreased mean HbA1c from 9.7% ± 0.8% to 7.9% ± 0.6% after 13 weeks with BP compared with 9.7% ± 0.5% to 9.8% ± 0.8% with SC. Over 13 weeks, mean time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL increased by 10% (2.4 h per day) and mean CGM glucose was reduced by 15 mg/dL with BP compared with SC ( P  < 0.001). Analyses of time >180 mg/dL, time >250 mg/dL, and standard deviation of CGM glucose favored BP ( P  < 0.001). Time <54 mg/dL was low at baseline (median 0.2%) and not significantly different between groups over 13 weeks ( P  = 0.24). A severe hypoglycemia event occurred in 3 (2.7%) participants in the BP group and in 1 (1.9%) in the SC group. Conclusions: In youth 6-17 years old with T1D, use of insulin-only configuration of BP improved HbA1c, TIR, and hyperglycemic metrics without increasing CGM-measured hypoglycemia compared with standard of care. Improvement in glycemic metrics was most pronounced in participants with high baseline HbA1c levels. Clinical Trial Registry: clinicaltrials.gov; NCT04200313.

Background: Currently available semiautomated insulin-delivery systems require individualized insulin regimens for the initialization of therapy and meal doses based on carbohydrate counting for routine operation. In contrast, the bionic pancreas is initialized only on the basis of body weight, makes all dose decisions and delivers insulin autonomously, and uses meal announcements without carbohydrate counting., Methods: In this 13-week, multicenter, randomized trial, we randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio persons at least 6 years of age with type 1 diabetes either to receive bionic pancreas treatment with insulin aspart or insulin lispro or to receive standard care (defined as any insulin-delivery method with unblinded, real-time continuous glucose monitoring). The primary outcome was the glycated hemoglobin level at 13 weeks. The key secondary outcome was the percentage of time that the glucose level as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring was below 54 mg per deciliter; the prespecified noninferiority limit for this outcome was 1 percentage point. Safety was also assessed., Results: A total of 219 participants 6 to 79 years of age were assigned to the bionic-pancreas group, and 107 to the standard-care group. The glycated hemoglobin level decreased from 7.9% to 7.3% in the bionic-pancreas group and did not change (was at 7.7% at both time points) in the standard-care group (mean adjusted difference at 13 weeks, -0.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.6 to -0.3; P<0.001). The percentage of time that the glucose level as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring was below 54 mg per deciliter did not differ significantly between the two groups (13-week adjusted difference, 0.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.04; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The rate of severe hypoglycemia was 17.7 events per 100 participant-years in the bionic-pancreas group and 10.8 events per 100 participant-years in the standard-care group (P = 0.39). No episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in either group., Conclusions: In this 13-week, randomized trial involving adults and children with type 1 diabetes, use of a bionic pancreas was associated with a greater reduction than standard care in the glycated hemoglobin level. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04200313.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Ultra rapid lispro (URLi) is a novel formulation of insulin lispro designed to more closely match the physiological insulin response to a meal, with the aim of improving postprandial glucose (PPG) control. We conducted a multinational, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, treat-to-target, 26-week, phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of URLi in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D). After an 8-week lead-in period during which basal insulin glargine or degludec was optimized, adults with T2D were randomized (2:1) to prandial URLi (n = 395) or lispro (n = 200). The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of URLi versus lispro in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA 1c ) change from baseline to week 26. Multiplicity-adjusted analyses were performed to assess the superiority of URLi in 1- and 2-h PPG excursions during a mixed-meal tolerance test (MMTT) and HbA 1c change at week 26. URLi showed non-inferiority for HbA 1c change at week 26 versus lispro (least-squares mean [LSM] difference, 0.07%; 95% confidence interval: -0.07, 0.21). HbA 1c was reduced by 0.56% and 0.63% with URLi and lispro, respectively, with no significant treatment difference (P = 0.321). URLi provided superior PPG excursion control versus lispro at 1 h (LSM difference: -14.6 mg/dL, P < 0.001) and 2 h (LSM difference: -21.8 mg/dL, P < 0.001) as well as other time points (30-240 min) during the MMTT. Incremental area under the glucose curve during the MMTT was also significantly lower with URLi versus lispro. The safety profiles were generally similar between treatment groups. In conclusion, URLi was superior to lispro for PPG control, with non-inferiority in HbA 1c improvement, in adults with T2D., (Copyright © 2022 Science China Press. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Rapid-acting insulins (RAIs) have been instrumental in the management of diabetes because of their improved postprandial glucose (PPG) control compared with regular human insulin. However, their absorption rate and time action following subcutaneous administration still falls short of the normal physiological response to meal consumption, increasing the risk of early postmeal hyperglycaemia and late postmeal hypoglycaemia. Increased demand for faster acting insulins, which can quickly control PPG excursions without increasing the risk of late hypoglycaemia, led to the development of ultra-rapid-acting insulins, including ultra-rapid lispro (URLi). URLi is a novel formulation of insulin lispro with accelerated absorption driven by two excipients: treprostinil, which increases local vasodilation, and citrate, which increases local vascular permeability. Clinical pharmacology studies consistently showed an earlier onset and shorter duration of action with URLi compared with Lispro. In a head-to-head study with Faster aspart, Aspart and Lispro, URLi was absorbed faster, provided earlier insulin action, and more closely matched physiological glucose response than the other insulins tested. URLi's unique pharmacokinetic properties increase its potential for improved PPG control beyond that achieved with RAIs. Indeed, in pivotal phase 3 trials, URLi was superior to Lispro for PPG control both at 1 and 2 hours after a meal in type 1 and type 2 diabetes with multiple daily injections, and in type 1 diabetes with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. This was achieved without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. In this review, we focus on the clinical and pharmacological evidence for URLi in the treatment of diabetes and discuss the potential benefits and considerations with URLi compared with RAIs., (© 2022 Eli Lilly and Company. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aim: To investigate whether an increased bolus: basal insulin ratio (BBR) with liver-targeted bolus insulin (BoI) would increase BoI use and decrease hypoglycaemic events (HEv)., Patient Population and Methods: We enrolled 52 persons (HbA1c 6.9% ± 0.12%, mean ± SEM) with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injections. Hepatic-directed vesicle (HDV) was used to deliver 1% of peripheral injected BoI to the liver. A 90-day run-in period was used to introduce subjects to unblinded continuous glucose monitoring and optimize standard basal insulin (BaI) (degludec) and BoI (lispro) dosing. At 90 days, BoI was changed to HDV-insulin lispro and subjects were randomized to an immediate 10% or 40% decrease in BaI dose., Results: At 90 days postrandomization, total insulin dosing was increased by ~7% in both cohorts. The -10% and -40% BaI cohorts were on 7.7% and 13% greater BoI with 6.9% and 30% (P = .02) increases in BBR, respectively. Compared with baseline at randomization, nocturnal level 2 HEv were reduced by 21% and 43%, with 54% and 59% reductions in patient-reported HEv in the -10% and -40% BaI cohorts, respectively., Conclusions: Our study shows that liver-targeted BoI safely decreases HEv and symptoms without compromising glucose control. We further show that with initiation of liver-targeted BoI, the BBR can be safely increased by significantly lowering BaI dosing, leading to greater BoI usage., (© 2022 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Standard insulin infusion sets (IISs) are to be replaced every 2 to 3 days to avoid complications and diabetic ketosis due to set failure. This pivotal trial evaluated the safety and performance of a new extended-wear infusion set (EIS) when used for 7 days by adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: This single-arm, nonrandomized trial enrolled adults (18-80 years of age) with T1D, who used their own MiniMed™ 670G system with insulin lispro or insulin aspart and the EIS for up to 7 days, across 12 consecutive wears. Safety endpoints included incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse device effects (SADEs), unanticipated adverse device effects (UADEs), severe hypoglycemia (SevHypo), severe hyperglycemia (SevHyper), diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and skin infection. The EIS failure rate due to unexplained hyperglycemia (i.e., suspected occlusion), the overall EIS survival rate, glycemic control outcomes (i.e., A1C, mean sensor glucose and time spent in established glucose ranges), total daily insulin delivered, and satisfaction with the EIS were determined. Results: The intention to treat population ( n  = 259, 48% men, 45.0 ± 14.1 years) wore a total of 3041 EIS devices. No SADE, UADE, or DKA events was reported. Overall rates of SAEs, SevHypo, SevHyper, and skin infection were 3.8, 2.5, 104.1, and 20.1 events per 100 participant-years. The rate of EIS failure due to unexplained hyperglycemia at the end of day 7 was 0.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03-0.51) and 0.4% (95% CI: 0.16-1.00) for insulin lispro and aspart use, respectively. Overall EIS survival rate at the end of day 7 was 77.8% (95% CI: 76.2-79.3), glycemic control did not change, and participants reported greater satisfaction with the EIS compared with standard IISs worn before the study ( P  < 0.001). Conclusions: This investigation demonstrates that the EIS, when worn for up to 7 days, was safe and rated with high satisfaction, without adversely affecting glycemic control in adults with T1D. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT04113694 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04113694).

Background: This study was performed to satisfy a US Food and Drug Administration post-marketing requirement to compare the dose responses for Technosphere ® Insulin (TI; MannKind Corporation, Westlake Village, CA, USA) and subcutaneous insulin lispro (LIS) across a wide range of doses., Objectives: This single-center, open-label, randomized, cross-over study defined the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic curves for inhaled TI vs subcutaneous LIS in persons with type 1 diabetes mellitus., Methods: Each volunteer received six treatments while undergoing euglycemic clamps: three doses of TI (10, 30 and 120 U) and LIS (8, 30, and 90 U). Primary endpoint was area under the glucose infusion rate vs time curve from start of treatment administration to end of clamp. Key secondary endpoints included readouts of insulin exposure and timing of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles., Results: Insulin exposure was more than dose proportional, increasing with dose 1.08 for LIS and dose 1.35 for TI. Time to reach 10% of the maximum glucose infusion rate was 7 to 15 min for TI vs 21 to 38 min for LIS. End of effect was dose dependent for both treatments, ranging from 2 to 6 h (TI) and 5 to 10 h (LIS). Glucose infusion rate exhibited saturation for both treatments. Technosphere Insulin produced a lesser total effect per unit insulin than LIS due to its faster absorption and correspondingly shorter duration of exposure. The difference was large enough to require significantly different doses to achieve the same total effect., Conclusions: Technosphere Insulin has a considerably faster onset and shorter duration of action than LIS. Consequently, the overall effect of TI is smaller than that of LIS and unit-for-unit dose conversion is not appropriate., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02470637; 12 June, 2015., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Dual-hormone replacement therapy with insulin and amylin in patients with type 1 diabetes has the potential to improve glucose management. Unfortunately, currently available formulations require burdensome separate injections at mealtimes and have disparate pharmacokinetics that do not mimic endogenous co-secretion. Here, amphiphilic acrylamide copolymers are used to create a stable co-formulation of monomeric insulin and amylin analogues (lispro and pramlintide) with synchronous pharmacokinetics and ultra-rapid action. The co-formulation is stable for over 16 h under stressed aging conditions, whereas commercial insulin lispro (Humalog) aggregates in 8 h. The faster pharmacokinetics of monomeric insulin in this co-formulation result in increased insulin-pramlintide overlap of 75 ± 6% compared to only 47 ± 7% for separate injections. The co-formulation results in similar delay in gastric emptying compared to pramlintide delivered separately. In a glucose challenge, in rats, the co-formulation reduces deviation from baseline glucose compared to insulin only, or separate insulin and pramlintide administrations. Further, comparison of interspecies pharmacokinetics of monomeric pramlintide suggests that pharmacokinetics observed for the co-formulation will be well preserved in future translation to humans. Together these results suggest that the co-formulation has the potential to improve mealtime glucose management and reduce patient burden in the treatment of diabetes., (© 2021 The Authors. Advanced Science published by Wiley-VCH GmbH.)

Background: Post-transplantation diabetes mellitus (PTDM) might be preventable., Methods: This open-label, multicenter randomized trial compared 133 kidney transplant recipients given intermediate-acting insulin isophane for postoperative afternoon glucose ≥140 mg/dl with 130 patients given short-acting insulin for fasting glucose ≥200 mg/dl (control). The primary end point was PTDM (antidiabetic treatment or oral glucose tolerance test-derived 2 hour glucose ≥200 mg/dl) at month 12 post-transplant., Results: In the intention-to-treat population, PTDM rates at 12 months were 12.2% and 14.7% in treatment versus control groups, respectively (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.39 to 1.76) and 13.4% versus 17.4%, respectively, at 24 months (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.34 to 1.49). In the per-protocol population, treatment resulted in reduced odds for PTDM at 12 months (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.16 to 1.01) and 24 months (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.24 to 1.20). After adjustment for polycystic kidney disease, per-protocol ORs for PTDM (treatment versus controls) were 0.21 (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.62) at 12 months and 0.35 (95% CI, 0.14 to 0.87) at 24 months. Significantly more hypoglycemic events (mostly asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic) occurred in the treatment group versus the control group. Within the treatment group, nonadherence to the insulin initiation protocol was associated with significantly higher odds for PTDM at months 12 and 24., Conclusions: At low overt PTDM incidence, the primary end point in the intention-to-treat population did not differ significantly between treatment and control groups. In the per-protocol analysis, early basal insulin therapy resulted in significantly higher hypoglycemia rates but reduced odds for overt PTDM-a significant reduction after adjustment for baseline differences-suggesting the intervention merits further study. Clinical Trial registration number: NCT03507829., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

The discovery of insulin in 1921 and the progress achieved in the ensuing century highlight the promise and challenge of biochemically modifying the molecule to achieve optimization of its delivery and therapeutic efficacy. Normal endogenous insulin secretion consists of a highly orchestrated physiologic loop wherein multiple metabolic signals trigger the pancreatic β cells to secrete the precise amount of insulin into the portal system required to maintain euglycemia. Accordingly, in the treatment of diabetes, attempting to replicate this complex physiology with exogenous insulin therapy given subcutaneously presents a clinical challenge. In this context, recombinant DNA-based technology has enabled the development of insulin analogs that have been specifically designed to confer advantageous pharmacodynamic features that can better mimic endogenous insulin secretion. In this review, we discuss the development of the most widely available insulin preparations and provide evidence-based insight into their use in clinical practice., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To compare safety (immunogenicity) and efficacy of a biosimilar insulin GP-Lis25 and a reference insulin Ly-Lis25 (Humalog Mix 25) in Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) patients. Materials & methods: This randomized open-label, 26-week clinical trial enrolled 210 T2D patients, randomized 1:1 to twice-daily GP-Lis25 or Ly-Lis25. The primary end point was immune response at 26th week. Noninferiority margin for HbA1c was 0.4%. Results: Immune response frequency was similar in GP-Lis25 and Ly-Lis25 groups both at week 12 (p = 0.651) and 26 (p = 0.164). The difference of HbA1c change at week 26 was (95% CI) 0.01 (-0.27-0.28)%. Fasting plasma glucose, seven-point glucose profile and insulin dose were similar between groups. Safety did not differ between groups. Conclusion: GP-Lis25 and Ly-Lis25 demonstrated similar safety and efficacy. ClincalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04023344.

Objective: To understand physicians' reasons for prescribing Insulin Lispro 200 units/ml (IL200) and their experience with IL200 treatment in Germany., Methods: The survey consisted of 28 questions on physician's profile, average IL200 patients' characteristics and rationales for prescribing IL200. Questions were rated on a scale of 0 ('not at all important'/'strongly disagree') to 4 ('absolutely important'/'strongly agree')., Results: The surveyed physicians had a mean (SD) experience of 18.1 (7.0) years managing diabetes, consulted an average of 226.8 patients with diabetes/month and prescribed IL200 to 56.1% of their patients on mealtime insulin (MTI). About 80.0% of IL200 patients had type 2 diabetes mellitus, were overweight/obese, and received >20 units/day of MTI. More than 70.0% of physicians rated patient's insulin dose, pattern of self-measured glucose levels, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (clinical); adherence, hypoglycemia knowledge, motivation to improve lifestyle, desire to reduce injection volume and emotional struggle with controlling HbA1c (behavioral) as 'very important'/'absolutely important' factors when prescribing IL200., Conclusion: Physicians considered IL200 a promising treatment option that reduces the injection burden for patients on MTI. Physicians adopted a patient-centered perspective by aligning IL200 prescribing decisions with each patient's medical needs and non-clinical preferences, with an aim to encourage treatment adherence through resorting to IL200's advantageous attributes.

Background: This study evaluated glucose control by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) during treatment with ultra-rapid lispro (URLi) or lispro used in combination with insulin glargine or degludec in adults with type 1 diabetes in a substudy of the PRONTO-T1D study. Methods: Ambulatory glucose profiles were evaluated in 269 patients from PRONTO-T1D assigned to double-blind URLi ( n  = 97) or lispro ( n  = 99) given 0-2 min before the start of the meal (mealtime), or open-label URLi ( n  = 73) given 20 min after the meal (postmeal URLi). Blinded CGM was used for up to 14 days before baseline and the 26-week primary endpoint. The primary objective was to compare mealtime URLi and lispro with respect to incremental area under the serum glucose concentration versus time curve from 0 to 2 h (iAUC 0-2h ) after breakfast. Results: Mealtime URLi was superior in reducing the iAUC 0-2h when compared to lispro for breakfast (least squares mean [LSM] difference -28.1 mg·h/L, P  = 0.048) and for all meals combined. iAUC 0-3h and iAUC 0-4h were also reduced. Postmeal URLi resulted in similar postprandial glucose (PPG) control to mealtime lispro, but less optimal PPG control compared to mealtime URLi. Mealtime URLi increased daytime time in range (71-180 mg/dL [3.9-10.0 mmo/L]) (LSM difference = +43.6 min, P  = 0.020) and decreased nighttime time in hypoglycemia (LSM difference ≤70 mg/dL [3.9 mmol/L] = -11.5 min, P  = 0.009) compared to mealtime lispro. Conclusions: Results of this CGM substudy support the improved PPG control seen with mealtime URLi in the PRONTO-T1D study and show that mealtime URLi resulted in improved daytime time in target range.

Objective: Insulin lispro 200 U/mL (IL200) is a treatment choice for people with diabetes who have daily mealtime insulin (MTI) requirements of >20 U/day. We report clinical characteristics of real world IL200 users in Germany to understand clinical settings and the type of patients who would benefit from IL200 treatment., Methods: This retrospective database analysis used the patient-level data from "IMS Disease Analyzer" in Germany from February 2015 to June 2016. Clinical and demographic information were collected and analyzed for IL200 users alongside that of those who were using more than 20 U a day of 100 U/mL analog MTI., Results: Of the 17,261 patients using insulin, 811 were identified in IL200 group. The IL200 group had 60% men, mean ± SD age of 63.6 ± 11.9 years, and BMI of 36.2 ± 6.7 kg/m 2 . Of these, 63.5% ( n  = 515) were seen by diabetologists, while 36.5% ( n  = 296) were seen by general practitioners (GPs). In the IL200 group, 77.7% used basal insulin concomitantly, >90% had ≥1 comorbidity, and 52% had ≥4 comorbidities; the most common being hypertension (75.2%), neuropathy (66.0%), and nephropathy (59.6%). Diabetologist-treated IL200 users were more likely to have multiple comorbidities as compared with those treated by GPs (15.0% vs. 12.9% for >5 comorbidities)., Conclusions: IL200 is prescribed to people with diabetes who need more than 20 U/day of mealtime insulin and tend to be more obese, older, and with multiple comorbidities. Future research should explore how concentrated MTI can impact adherence and long-term glycemia.

Aims/introduction: Ultra-rapid lispro (URLi) is a novel ultra-rapid mealtime insulin. This study compared the pharmacokinetic and glucodynamic profiles, safety, and tolerability of URLi and lispro (Humalog ® ) in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus., Materials and Methods: This was a phase I, single center, randomized, patient- and investigator-blind, two-period, cross-over study. A total of 31 patients received a single subcutaneous 15-U dose of URLi or lispro before undergoing a euglycemic clamp procedure. Primary pharmacokinetic endpoints were the time to early half-maximal drug concentration and the area under the concentration versus time curve from 0 to 30 min postdose. The glucodynamic endpoints were the time to early half-maximal glucose infusion rate before time to maximum glucose infusion rate, and the time to onset of insulin action., Results: URLi showed accelerated insulin lispro absorption compared with lispro, as shown by a decrease of 56% (URLi: 10.2 min, lispro: 23.3 min; P < 0.0001) in the early half-maximal drug concentration, and a 2.4-fold increase in the area under the concentration versus time curve from 0 to 30 min (P < 0.0001). The duration of insulin lispro exposure was 88 min shorter after URLi administration compared with lispro. URLi reduced the early half-maximal glucose infusion rate before time to maximum glucose infusion rate and the time to onset of insulin action significantly compared with lispro. The glucose infused within the first 30 min of the clamp was 2.16-fold greater with URLi compared with lispro. There was no difference in total exposure or glucose infused between treatments. All treatment-emergent adverse events were mild/moderate in severity., Conclusions: In Japanese type 1 diabetes mellitus patients, URLi showed accelerated insulin lispro absorption, reduced late exposure, overall shorter duration and faster early insulin action compared with lispro., (© 2019 The Authors. Journal of Diabetes Investigation published by Asian Association for the Study of Diabetes (AASD) and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Objective: To observe whether there are sexual-related differences in response to mid- or low-premixed insulin in type 2 diabetic patients., Methods: This was an analysis of CGM data of a previous study. After screening, patients with longstanding T2D receive a 7-day continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy, and then subjects were randomly assigned 1 : 1 into two groups receiving Novo Mix 30 or Humalog Mix 50 regimen for a 2-day phage, followed by a 4-day cross-over period. A 4-day continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was performed during the cross-over period. The primary endpoint was the differences in glycemic control between male and female patients receiving mid- or low-premixed insulin therapy., Results: A total of 102 patients (52 men and 50 women) completed the study. Our data showed that male patients had significant decrease in mean glucose levels monitored by CGM after three meals during Humalog Mix 50 treatment period compared to those received Novo Mix 30 regimen (0900: 11.0 ± 2.5 vs. 12.2 ± 2.8, 1000: 9.9 ± 2.9 vs. 11.3 ± 3.1, 1200: 8.0 ± 1.9 vs. 9.1 ± 2.5, 1400: 9.2 ± 2.3 vs. 10.3 ± 2.5, and 2000: 7.3 ± 2.1 vs. 8.2 ± 2.4 mmol/L, p < 0.05, respectively). In addition, male patients receiving Novo Mix 30 experienced a significantly increased hypoglycemic duration compared to those of receiving Humalog Mix 50 (0 (0, 4.8) vs. 0 (0, 0), p < 0.05, respectively). In addition, male patients receiving Novo Mix 30 experienced a significantly increased hypoglycemic duration compared to those of receiving Humalog Mix 50 (0 (0, 4.8) vs. 0 (0, 0)., Conclusion: Our data indicate that male patients with T2D receiving mid-premixed insulin analogue regimen may have a potential benefit of improvement in glycemic control compared to female patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ChiCTR-IPR-15007340., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Bing-li Liu et al.)

Background One of the therapies used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) disease is combination insulin which consists of rapid-acting insulin and intermediate-acting insulin (premixed). This study aimed to examine the profile of premixed insulin related to blood glucose concentration and to identify the drug interactions due to the combination of premixed insulin with other drugs taken by T2DM patients. Methods This study was a prospective observational study with cross-sectional data that were analyzed descriptively. The respondents invited were T2DM patients with or without complication or comorbid disease who received premixed insulin with or without a combination of oral antidiabetic therapy in the Outpatient Unit of Universitas Airlangga Hospital, Surabaya. The research instruments used are data sheet, patient medical record, and fasting and postprandial blood glucose concentration. Results A total of 118 patients received premixed insulin therapy, but only 80 patients were included in the inclusion criteria. Based on types of insulin, the combination of 30% aspart and 70% protamine aspart was used by 91.25% T2DM patients, and a combination of 25% insulin lispro and 75% protamine lispro was used by 8.75% T2DM patients. There were 30.3% of patients who could achieve the target of 80-130 mg/dL in fasting blood glucose concentrations, and 35.1% of patients achieved the target of ≤180 mg/dL in postprandial blood glucose concentration. Drug interactions may occur in patients who use premixed insulin with glimepiride, lisinopril, fenofibrate, candesartan, irbesartan, and gemfibrozil. Conclusions In this study, premixed insulin have not reached the target of fasting and postprandial blood glucose concentrations in most patients.

Background: Insulin therapy is the mainstay of treatment for type 1 diabetes and may be necessary in type 2 diabetes. Current insulin analogues present a more physiological profile, are effective, and with less risk of hypoglycemia, but they are expensive. Biosimilar insulins should offer the advantages of insulin analogues at reduced costs. In addition, current rapid-acting insulin analogues are not fast enough to control excessive postprandial glucose excursions in many patients., Areas of Uncertainty: Biosimilar insulins demonstrated that are safe and effective, but interchangeability and automatic substitution remain an issue. Ultrafast-acting insulins should reduce postprandial hyperglycemia and improve flexibility in insulin dosing., Data Sources: This systematic review was conducted following widely recommended methods. We searched for each topic in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and SCISEARCH for relevant citations for the appropriate period., Therapeutic Advances: LY2963016 and MK-1293 are biosimilar insulins of insulin glargine, and SAR342434 is a biosimilar of insulin lispro. The abbreviated developed program demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety and supports their use for treatment of people with diabetes but no interchangeability. Faster-acting insulin aspart is a new formulation of insulin aspart with accelerated subcutaneous absorption. Faster aspart demonstrated noninferiority in reducing HbA1c as compared to insulin aspart with superiority in controlling postprandial hyperglycemia without increasing hypoglycemia, and flexible insulin dosing., Conclusions: Biosimilar insulins have comparable PK-PD profiles and equivalent efficacy and safety to original insulins at a lower price, making them available for more people with diabetes. Faster aspart is the first ultrafast-acting insulin. New upcoming clinical trials and more clinical experience with faster aspart will show the real potential of this new insulin.

To control both fasting and prandial plasma glucose levels in people with diabetes, insulin therapy must mimic "normal" physiological insulin secretion as much as possible. This is achieved with a long-acting insulin injected once or twice daily and a bolus of insulin injected before every meal. Prandial (bolus) insulin can either be regular human insulin (RHI) or a rapid-acting insulin analogue (RAIA). Although the efficacy of RHI has been established over approximately 35 years of clinical use, RAIAs offer several clinical advantages over RHI, namely that they have been engineered with a reduced tendency to aggregate as hexamers, which allows for rapid dissociation and absorption after a subcutaneous injection. Conventional RAIAs include insulin lispro, insulin aspart, and insulin glulisine. The more recently developed fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) is an ultrafast-acting mealtime insulin that contains the conventional insulin aspart in a new formulation with the excipients niacinamide and L-arginine to achieve faster insulin absorption than RHI and the conventional insulin aspart formulation. This article reviews the clinical evidence supporting the use of RAIAs as part of a basal-bolus regimen in patients with diabetes, with a focus on new formulations whose pharmacological profiles more closely mimic the endogenous prandial insulin secretion pattern that is seen in individuals without diabetes. This review also provides a clinical perspective to help guide health care professionals in the use of RAIAs.

Background: Intravenous continuous rate infusion (IVCRI) of lispro at a starting dose of 0.09 U/kg/h and the use of 0.9% sodium chloride (NaCl) for fluid resuscitation in cats with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) have not been reported. Protocols for correction of electrolyte deficiencies in cats with DKA are lacking., Objectives: To characterize the use of IVCRI lispro at an initial dose of 0.09 U/kg/h and the use of NaCl for resuscitation. Explore protocols for electrolyte supplementation in cats with DKA., Animals: Twelve cats with DKA enrolled from the cat population of a university hospital., Methods: Randomized, controlled, blinded study. Six cats were randomized into each group, the lispro insulin treatment group (LITG) and regular insulin treatment group (RITG). All cats received IVCRI fluid resuscitation with NaCl. Solutions with higher than previously published electrolyte concentrations were used to treat electrolyte deficiencies., Results: The median time to blood glucose (BG) concentration <250 mg/dL was significantly shorter in the LITG (median 7 hours, 2-10 hours) than the RITG (median 12.5 hours, 8-20 hours; P = .02). Two cats had nonclinical hypoglycemia (BG = 40 mg/dL). The most rapid change in 157 measurements of corrected sodium concentrations was 0.7 mmol/L/h. Low concentrations of serum sodium, potassium, phosphate, and magnesium were over 3 times more common than above normal electrolyte concentrations, despite supplementation with fluids of high electrolyte concentrations., Conclusions and Clinical Importance: Lispro at a starting dose of 0.09 U/kg/h and NaCl administered for fluid resuscitation are safe and effective for treatment of DKA in cats., (© 2019 The Authors. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine.)

Aims: Insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity are challenged in achieving body weight stability or reduction, in addition to glycaemic control. Post-hoc analyses of body weight and insulin dose data from the AWARD-4 trial involved comparison of treatment with once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg (N = 295) or 0.75 mg (N = 293) and treatment with daily insulin glargine (N = 296), each with prandial insulin lispro (± metformin)., Materials and Methods: Changes in weight and in the proportion of patients without weight gain or with weight loss of at least 3%, 5% or 10% or composites of HbA1c less than 7% without weight gain and weight loss of at least 3% after 52 weeks were compared between the dulaglutide (either dose) groups and the insulin glargine group, overall and by baseline BMI (<30, 30-<35, ≥35 kg/m 2 ), using analysis of covariance and logistic regression, including interaction terms., Results: The following parameters were statistically significant (P < 0.01) in favour of the dulaglutide-treated groups, at lower mean total daily insulin doses, vs the insulin glargine group. The achieved targets were more pronounced with dulaglutide 1.5 mg than with insulin glargine: LSM weight change difference, -3.23 kg; proportion of patients without weight gain, 49.0% vs 19.0%; proportion of patients with weight loss ≥3%, 21.7% vs 5.7% or with weight loss ≥5%, 10.5% vs 2.4%; proportion of patients with HbA1c <7% without weight gain, 26.2% vs 7.9%; proportion of patients with HbA1c <7% and weight loss ≥3%, 11.9% vs 1.4%, respectively. Treatment effect for these parameters was not significantly different across BMI categories., Conclusions: Larger proportions of patients in late-stage T2D needing treatment intensification achieved glycemic control without weight gain or with weight loss at lower insulin doses with once-weekly dulaglutide plus daily prandial insulin than with a basal-bolus insulin regimen, overall and across all three BMI subgroups., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aim of the Study: To test if changing the Iftar insulin to a 50:50 mixed analog insulin from a 30:70 human insulin at the same total dose leads to improvement in the postprandial blood glucose (taken as after the main meal). Since the intermediate acting insulin dose is effectively lowered, the pre-Suhur blood glucose is also tested to see if this rises., Methods: The Iftar human 30:70 mixed insulin is substituted for a 50:50 one using insulin lispro protamine suspension and 50% insulin lispro (Humalog ® Mix50/50™), whilst maintaining the same total dose. The participants were also changed to 75% insulin lispro protamine suspension and 25% insulin lispro (Humalog ® Mix75/25™) at the same pre-Ramadan dose for their Suhur injection (Experimental group). A similar number of controls continued their 30:70 mixed human insulin at the same dose during Ramadan (Control group). Pre-Ramadan and during Ramadan fasting and postprandial (3 hours) and pre-Suhur blood glucose (BG) are tested in 20 subjects and 20 controls by the patients using home glucose meters. Hypoglycaemia, defined as a BG of ≤ 70 mg%, was tested for by the patients and noted if they experience symptoms of it. Severe hypoglycaemia occurred if the patient needed assistance for recovery. No insulin dose adjustments are made in either group and any other anti-diabetic treatment was continued. Pre- and post-Ramadan HbA 1 c and body weight are measured. The number of days fasted and baseline characteristics are age, gender, and duration of diabetes are also noted. Differences between groups in parameters were assessed using ANCOVA to adjust for pre-Ramadan values of age, gender, and duration of diabetes., Results: All the participants fasted for at least 29 days. The 2 groups were not significantly different at baseline. During Ramadan, mean postprandial BG in the Experimental group was lower by 21.1 mg% (1.2 mmol/l) (95% CI 12.6, 29.7; P < 0.001). Similarly, after Ramadan mean HbA 1 c in the Experimental group was lower by 0.4% (95% CI 0.1%, 0.8%; P = 0.01). No significant differences between the groups were detected in mean bodyweight after Ramadan (P = 0.86) or mean fasting BG during Ramadan (P = 0.07). There was no difference in incidence of hypoglycaemia., Conclusions: Switching from human insulin mix 30:70 to analog insulin mix 50:50 results in better post main meal control in Ramadan, without affecting HbA1c, or increasing the incidence of hypoglycaemia., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Insulin remains a predominant life-saving medication for type 1 and type 2 Diabetes Mellites. Natural insulin secretion limits the fluctuation of the narrow and high surge of blood glucose levels. However, imitating the same by external insulin remains a challenge as a variety of insulin analogs (rapid acting, short acting, intermediate acting and long-acting) have different pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) properties. Inconsistent reduction in overall hyperglycemia level and nocturnal hypoglycemia due to variable absorption time and time action profile predominantly highlights the need of revisiting the PK/PD of insulin analogs as single analog is not yet sufficed to replace internal insulin exogenously. Combination therapy with basal and prandial insulins or intensification of hypoglycemic therapy with premixed insulins are of prime importance in managing diabetes effectively, imitating the natural insulin secretion. Therefore, the knowledge of PK/PD properties might help a practitioner to design, implement and manage insulin replacement therapy effectively and averting adverse events. Present study reports the comparative analysis of PK/PD profile of various insulin analogs based on the concurrent information about clinical aspects. Moreover, study interlinks the major concerns of therapeutic efficacy of insulin analogs with their respective onset of action and duration of effectiveness and reported adverse drug reaction which explore the scope of improvement., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Diabetes during pregnancy has been linked to unfavorable maternal-fetal outcomes. Human insulins are the first drug of choice because of the proven safety in their use. However, there are still questions about the use of insulin analogs during pregnancy. The objective of the present study was to determine the effectiveness of insulin analogs compared with human insulin in the treatment of pregnant women with diabetes through a systematic review with meta-analysis. The search comprised the period since the inception of each database until July 2017, and the following databases were used: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, LILACS, Scopus, SIGLE and Google Scholar. We have selected 29 original articles: 11 were randomized clinical trials and 18 were observational studies. We have explored data from 6,382 participants. All of the articles were classified as having an intermediate to high risk of bias. The variable that showed favorable results for the use of insulin analogs was gestational age, with a mean difference of - 0.26 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.03-0.49; p  = 0.02), but with significant heterogeneity (Higgins test [I 2 ] = 38%; chi-squared test [χ 2 ] = 16.24; degree of freedom [DF] = 10; p  = 0.09). This result, in the clinical practice, does not compromise the fetal well-being, since all babies were born at term. There was publication bias in the gestational age and neonatal weight variables. To date, the evidence analyzed has a moderate-to-high risk of bias and does not allow the conclusion that insulin analogs are more effective when compared with human insulin to treat diabetic pregnant women., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lispro insulin for the treatment of feline diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Times to resolution of hyperglycaemia, ketosis and acidosis were compared between cats treated with continuous rate infusion (CRI) of lispro insulin and cats treated with CRI of regular insulin., Methods: Client-owned cats with naturally occurring DKA, newly diagnosed with diabetes mellitus (DM) or already receiving treatment for DM, were included. Diagnosis of DKA involved the presence of at least two clinical signs consistent with DKA (eg, polyuria/polydipsia, anorexia, severe lethargy, vomiting and dehydration), blood glucose (BG) concentration >13.9 mmol/l (>250 mg/dl), blood beta hydroxybutyrate (BHB) concentration >2.5 mmol/l and venous pH <7.3 or bicarbonate <15 mEq/l. Cats were treated with a standard protocol of an intravenous (IV) CRI of regular insulin (group R) or lispro insulin (group L). The time to resolution of DKA was defined as the time interval from when the IV CRI of insulin began until marked hyperglycaemia (BG >13.9 mmol/l [>250 mg/dl]), ketosis (BHB concentration >1 mmol/l) and acidosis (venous pH <7.3 and/or bicarbonate <15 mEq/l) resolved., Results: Eighteen DKA cases (nine per group) were enrolled into the study. There were no significant differences in the median time to resolution of three variables (hyperglycaemia, ketosis and acidosis) between the two groups. Two cats in group R developed hypoglycaemia during the CRI of insulin. One cat in group L and three cats in group R developed hypophosphataemia, which required phosphate supplementation., Conclusions and Relevance: IV CRI of lispro insulin has few side effects and appears to be as effective as IV CRI of regular insulin in the treatment of cats with DKA.

Background: The use of short-acting insulin analogues (insulin lispro, insulin aspart, insulin glulisine) for adult, non-pregnant people with type 2 diabetes is still controversial, as reflected in many scientific debates., Objectives: To assess the effects of short-acting insulin analogues compared to regular human insulin in adult, non-pregnant people with type 2 diabetes mellitus., Search Methods: For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the WHO ICTRP Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov to 31 October 2018. We placed no restrictions on the language of publication., Selection Criteria: We included all randomised controlled trials with an intervention duration of at least 24 weeks that compared short-acting insulin analogues to regular human insulin in the treatment of people with type 2 diabetes, who were not pregnant., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We assessed dichotomous outcomes by risk ratios (RR), and Peto odds ratios (POR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed continuous outcomes by mean differences (MD) with 95% CI. We assessed trials for certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach., Main Results: We identified 10 trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, randomising 2751 participants; 1388 participants were randomised to receive insulin analogues and 1363 participants to receive regular human insulin. The duration of the intervention ranged from 24 to 104 weeks, with a mean of about 41 weeks. The trial populations showed diversity in disease duration, and inclusion and exclusion criteria. None of the trials were blinded, so the risk of performance bias and detection bias, especially for subjective outcomes, such as hypoglycaemia, was high in nine of 10 trials from which we extracted data. Several trials showed inconsistencies in the reporting of methods and results.None of the included trials defined all-cause mortality as a primary outcome. Six trials provided Information on the number of participants who died during the trial, with five deaths out of 1272 participants (0.4%) in the insulin analogue groups and three deaths out of 1247 participants (0.2%) in the regular human insulin groups (Peto OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.41 to 6.64; P = 0.48; moderate-certainty evidence). Six trials, with 2509 participants, assessed severe hypoglycaemia differently, therefore, we could not summarise the results with a meta-analysis. Overall, the incidence of severe hypoglycaemic events was low, and none of the trials showed a clear difference between the two intervention arms (low-certainty evidence).The MD in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) change was -0.03% (95% CI -0.16 to 0.09; P = 0.60; 9 trials, 2608 participants; low-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction ranged between -0.31% and 0.25%. The MD in the overall number of non-severe hypoglycaemic episodes per participant per month was 0.08 events (95% CI 0.00 to 0.16; P = 0.05; 7 trials, 2667 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between -0.03 and 0.19 events per participant per month. The results provided for nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes were of questionable validity. Overall, there was no clear difference between the two short-acting insulin analogues and regular human insulin. Two trials assessed health-related quality of life and treatment satisfaction, but we considered the results for both outcomes to be unreliable (very low-certainty evidence).No trial was designed to investigate possible long term effects (all-cause mortality, microvascular or macrovascular complications of diabetes), especially in participants with diabetes-related complications. No trial reported on socioeconomic effects., Authors' Conclusions: Our analysis found no clear benefits of short-acting insulin analogues over regular human insulin in people with type 2 diabetes. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was poor and results on patient-relevant outcomes, like all-cause mortality, microvascular or macrovascular complications and severe hypoglycaemic episodes were sparse. Long-term efficacy and safety data are needed to draw conclusions about the effects of short-acting insulin analogues on patient-relevant outcomes.

Aim: To investigate the safety and efficacy of BioChaperone Lispo (BCLIS), an ultra-rapid formulation of insulin lispro (LIS) in people with type 1 diabetes., Materials and Methods: In this randomized, double-blind study, participants self-administered individualized bolus doses of BCLIS or LIS during two 14-day periods in a crossover fashion. Postprandial blood glucose (BG) was assessed after individualized solid mixed meal tests (MMTs) (50% carbohydrate, 29% fat, 21% protein), with additional randomization for the sequence of timing of insulin administration, immediately (t0), 15 minutes before (t - 15) and 15 minutes after (t + 15) meal start on days 1, 2 and 3, and with t0 administration on day 14. Pharmacokinetic (PK) variables were assessed for t0 MMTs. Participants also used individualized BCLIS or LIS doses immediately before meals during two 10-day outpatient periods with an unchanged basal insulin regimen., Results: Overall, 35 participants completed both treatment periods. In MMTs with t0 administration, the higher early postprandial PK exposure of BCLIS led to significant reductions in 1- to 2-hour postprandial BG excursions by 30% to 40% vs LIS and the accelerated absorption and action of BCLIS persisted over 14 days. There was no difference in glucose excursion over the full 360-minute postprandial period. Postprandial BG control was similar between BCLIS injected at t + 15 and LIS injected at t0. BCLIS was shown to have safety and tolerability similar to LIS. No injection site reactions occurred with BCLIS., Conclusions: BCLIS was well tolerated and safe over 14 days of treatment and significantly improved postprandial BG vs LIS when administered at mealtime., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: The global incidence of diabetes mellitus is increasing, with a concomitant rise in individual and overall treatment costs. The development of biosimilars contributes to the facilitation of greater access to treatment. SAR342434 is a biosimilar follow-on of insulin lispro, a key therapeutic for the treatment of diabetes mellitus, and it is currently under phase III clinical trials. Areas covered: In this review we discuss the recent updates on clinical data obtained from phase III trials to compare the equivalence and similarity of SAR342434 to insulin lispro, including pharmacokinetics (PKs), pharmacodynamics, clinical efficacy, safety and immunogenicity. Expert opinion: The rising treatment costs of diabetes mellitus poses a challenge to public health enterprises worldwide. The development of biosimilars is probably a good choice to solve this conundrum. Based on the available clinical trials, it is confirmed that SAR342434 is equivalent to the reference insulin lispro, with similar pharmacodynamics, PKs, anti-hyperglycemic efficacy and safety. These attributes show the good potential of SAR342434 for serving as an alternative to achieve the glycemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus.