Search

Aim: To use continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-based time-in-range (TIR) as a primary efficacy endpoint to compare the second-generation basal insulin (BI) analogues insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) and insulin degludec 100 U/ml (IDeg-100) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Materials and Methods: InRange was a 12-week, multicentre, randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group, open-label study comparing glucose TIR and variability between Gla-300 and IDeg-100 using blinded 20-day CGM profiles. The inclusion criteria consisted of adults with T1D treated with multiple daily injections, using BI once daily and rapid-acting insulin analogues for at least 1 year, with an HbA1c of 7% or higher and of 10% or less at screening. Results: Overall, 343 participants were randomized: 172 received Gla-300 and 171 IDeg-100. Non-inferiority (10% relative margin) of Gla-300 versus IDeg-100 was shown for the primary endpoint (percentage TIR ≥ 70 to ≤ 180 mg/dl): least squares (LS) mean (95% confidence interval) 52.74% (51.06%, 54.42%) for Gla-300 and 55.09% (53.34%, 56.84%) for IDeg-100 LS mean difference (non-inferiority): 3.16% (0.88%, 5.44%) (non-inferiority P = .0067). Non-inferiority was shown on glucose total coefficient of variation (main secondary endpoint): LS mean 39.91% (39.20%, 40.61%) and 41.22% (40.49%, 41.95%), respectively LS mean difference (non-inferiority) −5.44% (−6.50%, −4.38%) (non-inferiority P < .0001). Superiority of Gla-300 over IDeg-100 was not shown on TIR. Occurrences of self-measured and CGM-derived hypoglycaemia were comparable between treatment groups. Safety profiles were consistent with known profiles, with no unexpected findings. Conclusions: Using clinically relevant CGM metrics, InRange shows that Gla-300 is non-inferior to IDeg-100 in people with T1D, with comparable hypoglycaemia and safety profiles.

Aim To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ultra rapid lispro (URLi) versus lispro (Humalog®) in people with type 1 diabetes on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). Materials and Methods This was a phase 3, 16‐week, treat‐to‐target study in patients randomized to double‐blind URLi (N = 215) or lispro (N = 217). The primary endpoint was change from baseline HbA1c (non‐inferiority margin 4.4 mmol/mol [0.4%]), with multiplicity‐adjusted objectives for postprandial glucose (PPG) levels during a meal test, and time spent in the target range 70–180 mg/dL (TIR). Results URLi was non‐inferior to lispro for change in HbA1c, with a least‐squares mean (LSM) difference of 0.3 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval [CI] –0.6, 1.2) or 0.02% (95% CI –0.06, 0.11). URLi was superior to lispro in controlling 1‐ and 2‐h PPG levels after the meal test: LSM difference −1.34 mmol/L (95% CI –2.00, −0.68) or −24.1 mg/dL (95% CI –36.0, −12.2) at 1 h and −1.54 mmol/L (95% CI –2.37, −0.72) or −27.8 mg/dL (95% CI –42.6, −13.0) at 2 h; both p

Aims To compare the safety and efficacy of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) versus first-generation standard-of-care basal insulin analogues (SOC-BI; insulin glargine 100 U/mL or insulin detemir) at 6 months. Methods In the 12-month, open-label, multicentre, randomized, pragmatic ACHIEVE Control trial, insulin-naive adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 64-97 mmol/mol (8.0%-11.0%) after ≥1 year of treatment with ≥2 diabetes medications were randomized to Gla-300 or SOC-BI. The composite primary endpoint, evaluated at 6 months, was the proportion of participants achieving individualized HbA1c targets per HEDIS criteria without documented symptomatic (blood glucose ≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemia at any time of the day at 6 months. Results Of 1651 and 1653 participants randomized to Gla-300 and SOC-BI, respectively, 31.3% and 27.9% achieved the composite primary endpoint at 6 months (odds ratio [OR] 1.19; 95% CI 1.01-1.39; P = 0.03 for superiority); 78.4% and 75.3% had no documented symptomatic or severe hypoglycaemia (OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.01-1.41). Changes from baseline to month 6 in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, weight, and BI analogue dose were similar between groups. Conclusions Among insulin-naive adults with poorly controlled T2D, Gla-300 was associated with a statistically significant higher proportion of participants achieving individualized HEDIS HbA1c targets without documented symptomatic or severe hypoglycaemia (versus SOC-BI) in a real-life population managed in a usual-care setting. The ACHIEVE Control study results add value to treatment decisions and options for patients, healthcare providers, payers, and decision makers. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02451137 This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a fixed‐ratio co‐formulation of insulin degludec, which provides long‐lasting basal insulin coverage, and insulin aspart, which targets postprandial glycaemia. This review provides expert opinion on the practical clinical use of IDegAsp, including: dose timings relative to meals, when and how to intensify treatment from once‐daily (OD) to twice‐daily (BID) dose adjustments, and use in special populations (including hospitalized patients). IDegAsp could be considered as one among the choices for initiating insulin treatment, preferential to starting on basal insulin alone, particularly for people with severe hyperglycaemia and/or when postprandial hyperglycaemia is a major concern. The recommended starting dose of IDegAsp is 10 units with the most carbohydrate‐rich meal(s), followed by individualized dose adjustments. Insulin doses should be titrated once weekly in two‐unit steps, guided by individualized fasting plasma glucose targets and based on patient goals, preferences and hypoglycaemia risk. Options for intensification from IDegAsp OD are discussed, which should be guided by HbA1c, prandial glucose levels, meal patterns and patient preferences. Recommendations for switching to IDegAsp from basal insulin, premixed insulins OD/BID, and basal‐plus/basal–bolus regimens are discussed. IDegAsp can be co‐administered with other antihyperglycaemic drugs; however, sulphonylureas frequently need to be discontinued or the dose reduced, and the IDegAsp dose may need to be decreased when sodium‐glucose co‐transporter‐2 inhibitors or glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists are added. Considerations around the initiation or continuation of IDegAsp in hospitalized individuals are discussed, as well as in those undergoing medical procedures.

Aims Chronic kidney disease (CKD) challenges diabetes management and is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. We examined whether clinical outcomes with insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla‐300) and insulin degludec 100 U/mL (IDeg‐100) are affected by renal function in a prespecified subgroup analysis from the BRIGHT trial. Materials and methods BRIGHT (NCT02738151) was a multicentre, open‐label, randomized, active‐controlled, two‐arm, parallel‐group, 24‐week study in insulin‐naïve uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (T2D). Participants were randomized 1:1 to evening Gla‐300 (n = 466) or IDeg‐100 (n = 463) and stratified based on baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) for this analysis. Results Heterogeneity of treatment effect across renal function subgroups was observed (P = .02), reflecting a greater mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction from baseline to week 24 with Gla‐300 versus IDeg‐100 in the eGFR

Aim To compare the efficacy and safety of Gla‐300 versus Gla‐100 in insulin‐naïve people with type 2 diabetes in Asia Pacific. Materials and Methods In this open‐label, randomized, active‐controlled, 26‐week study, insulin‐naïve participants with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with non‐insulin antihyperglycaemic drugs were randomized (2:1) to Gla‐300 or Gla‐100. The initial daily dose of basal insulin was 0.2 U/kg and was adjusted at least weekly for 8–12 weeks to a target fasting self‐monitored plasma glucose (SMPG) of 4.4–5.6 mmol/L. Results Of the 604 participants randomized, 570 (Gla‐300, n = 375; Gla‐100, n = 195) completed the study. Non‐inferiority of Gla‐300 versus Gla‐100 in HbA1c reduction from baseline to week 26 was confirmed. In the Gla‐300 and Gla‐100 groups, 51.1% and 52.2% of participants achieved the HbA1c target of

Contains fulltext : 215463.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) AIM: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) and insulin combination therapy is an effective treatment option for type 2 diabetes, but long-term data are lacking. The aim was to assess the long-term efficacy of the GLP-1RA liraglutide in subgroups by insulin use in the LEADER trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: LEADER assessed cardiovascular (CV) safety and efficacy of liraglutide (1.8 mg) versus placebo (plus standard of care therapy) in 9340 patients with type 2 diabetes and high risk of CV disease, for up to 5 years. We analyzed CV events, metabolic parameters and hypoglycaemia post hoc in three subgroups by baseline insulin use (basal-only insulin, other insulin or no insulin). Insulin was a non-random treatment allocation as part of standard of care therapy. RESULTS: At baseline, 5171 (55%) patients were not receiving insulin, 3159 (34%) were receiving basal-only insulin and 1010 (11%) other insulins. Insulin users had a longer diabetes duration and slightly worse glycaemic control (HbA1c) than the no-insulin subgroup. Liraglutide reduced HbA1c and weight versus placebo in all three subgroups (P < .001), and severe hypoglycaemia rate in the basal-only insulin subgroup. The need for insulin was less with liraglutide. CV risk reduction with liraglutide was similar to the main trial results in the basal-only and no-insulin subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients on insulin, liraglutide improved glycaemic control, weight and need for insulin versus placebo, for at least 36 months with no increased risk of severe hypoglycaemia, while maintaining CV safety/efficacy, supporting the combination of liraglutide and insulin for management of type 2 diabetes.

Aims To evaluate the short‐term cost‐effectiveness of insulin degludec (degludec) vs insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) from a Canadian public healthcare payer perspective in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who are at high risk of cardiovascular events and hypoglycaemia. Materials and methods A decision analytic model was developed to estimate costs (2017 Canadian dollars [CAD]) and clinical outcomes (quality‐adjusted life years [QALYs]) with degludec vs glargine U100 over a 2‐year time horizon. The model captured first major adverse cardiovascular event, death, severe hypoglycaemia and insulin dosing. Clinical outcomes were informed by a post hoc subgroup analysis of the DEVOTE trial (NCT01959529), which compared the cardiovascular safety of degludec and glargine U100 in patients with T2D who are at high cardiovascular risk. High hypoglycaemia risk was defined as the top quartile of patients (n = 1887) based on an index of baseline hypoglycaemia risk factors. Results In patients at high hypoglycaemia risk, degludec was associated with mean cost savings (CAD 129 per patient) relative to glargine U100, driven by a lower incidence of non‐fatal myocardial infarction, non‐fatal stroke and severe hypoglycaemia, which offset the slightly higher cost of treatment with degludec. A reduced risk of cardiovascular death and severe hypoglycaemia resulted in improved effectiveness (+0.0132 QALYs) with degludec relative to glargine U100. In sensitivity analyses, changes to the vast majority of model parameters did not materially affect model outcomes. Conclusion Over a 2‐year period, degludec improved clinical outcomes at a lower cost as compared to glargine U100 in patients with T2D at high risk of cardiovascular events and hypoglycaemia.

We retrospectively assessed gluco-regulatory hormones over 10 h (including two meals) of fully automated closed-loop insulin delivery using faster (FA) versus standard insulin aspart (IAsp) in adults with type 2 diabetes [n = 15, age 59 ± 10 years, body mass index 34.5 ± 9.1 kg/m2 , glycated haemoglobin 7.7 ± 1.2% (60 ± 13 mmol/mol)]. Plasma concentration of human insulin, IAsp, C-peptide, glucagon, glucagon-like peptide 1, glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide and peptide tyrosine tyrosine were measured every 15-30 min. Endogenous insulin secretion was calculated using C-peptide deconvolution and exposures to hormones were compared using their mean plasma concentrations. Ten-hour exposure of IAsp was higher with FA versus IAsp (P = .037) in line with the 10% higher insulin requirements to achieve similar glucose control. No significant difference was found for total insulin exposure and endogenous insulin secretion. Similarly, other gluco-regulatory hormones did not significantly differ. In conclusion, the faster pharmacokinetic profile and slightly higher aspart exposure of FA versus IAsp remained without significant effects on endogenous insulin secretion or other gluco-regulatory hormones. Further studies are warranted to explore the metabolic and endocrine effects of novel insulins with accelerated pharmacokinetic properties.

AIMS This study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of switching the basal insulin (BI) in a BI-supported oral therapy (BOT) to insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS This was a non-interventional, multicentre, prospective 12-month study, conducted in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. The study documented people with T2D with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) between 7.5% and 10.0%, currently treated by a non-Gla-300 BOT regimen, after the physician had decided to switch the BI to Gla-300. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving the fasting plasma glucose (FPG; ≤110 mg/dl) target. RESULTS In total, 1194 participants comprised the full analysis set, of which 793 completed documentation of 12 months Gla-300 treatment (FAS-M12). The main previous BI was insulin glargine 100 U/ml (Gla-100; 47.2%). Twelve months after switching to Gla-300, 27.0% of FAS-M12 participants achieved the FPG target and 44.8% their individualized HbA1c target. The greatest FPG target achievements were seen in previous Gla-100 (29.3%), and greatest HbA1c target achievements in previous insulin detemir users (57.7%). The mean FPG decreased by -36.3 ± 51.2 mg/dl to 135.5 ± 36.9 mg/dl and mean HbA1c by -0.79 ± 1.01% to 7.45 ± 0.94%. Symptomatic and nocturnal hypoglycaemia incidence significantly decreased over 12 months of Gla-300 treatment. Body weight remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS Switching the BI to Gla-300 in a BOT regimen improved metabolic control and treatment satisfaction in a substantial proportion of patients with T2D and inadequate target achievement within 12 months in clinical practice with a decreased risk of symptomatic and nocturnal hypoglycaemia and without weight gain.

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a fixed-ratio co-formulation of insulin degludec, which provides long-lasting basal insulin coverage, and insulin aspart, which targets postprandial glycaemia. This review provides expert opinion on the practical clinical use of IDegAsp, including: dose timings relative to meals, when and how to intensify treatment from once-daily (OD) to twice-daily (BID) dose adjustments, and use in special populations (including hospitalized patients). IDegAsp could be considered as one among the choices for initiating insulin treatment, preferential to starting on basal insulin alone, particularly for people with severe hyperglycaemia and/or when postprandial hyperglycaemia is a major concern. The recommended starting dose of IDegAsp is 10 units with the most carbohydrate-rich meal(s), followed by individualized dose adjustments. Insulin doses should be titrated once weekly in two-unit steps, guided by individualized fasting plasma glucose targets and based on patient goals, preferences and hypoglycaemia risk. Options for intensification from IDegAsp OD are discussed, which should be guided by HbA1c, prandial glucose levels, meal patterns and patient preferences. Recommendations for switching to IDegAsp from basal insulin, premixed insulins OD/BID, and basal-plus/basal-bolus regimens are discussed. IDegAsp can be co-administered with other antihyperglycaemic drugs however, sulphonylureas frequently need to be discontinued or the dose reduced, and the IDegAsp dose may need to be decreased when sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are added. Considerations around the initiation or continuation of IDegAsp in hospitalized individuals are discussed, as well as in those undergoing medical procedures.

Background No data exist about the changes induced by the transition from first‐generation long‐acting insulins to second‐generation long‐acting analogues in the paediatric population. Objective To assess changes in insulin/carbohydrate ratio (I:CHO) after the first 6 months of degludec therapy in a paediatric population with type 1 diabetes previously treated with glargine U100. Subjects All patients treated with degludec under routine clinical practice conditions were retrospectively analysed. Methods Nonprofit observational retrospective study. Changes during the follow‐up in mean CHO/I ratio were assessed using longitudinal linear models for repeated measures. Rate of hypoglycaemia, ketoacidosis and adverse events was evaluated. Results Overall, 51 children (mean age 13.8 ± 4.6 years; mean diabetes duration 5.8 ± 3.9 years) started therapy with degludec in the period between April 2017 and April 2018. I:CHO ratio before starting degludec therapy significantly differed among the three meals, being the lowest at breakfast and the highest at dinner. After introducing degludec, I:CHO ratio at lunch (−1.29 95% CI −2.02;−0.57) and at dinner (−3.08 95% CI −4.35;−1.8) significantly decreased, while it slightly increased at breakfast (+1.37 95% CI 0.47;2.28). No episodes of severe hypoglycaemia, ketoacidosis and adverse event were recorded during 6 months. Conclusions Our data show that the use of degludec is associated with a significant change in the I:CHO ratio at the different meals compared to the previous glargine therapy. This could derive from the flat and prolonged pharmacokinetic profile of degludec. This has important clinical implications for daily insulin dose adjustments., No data exist about the changes induced by the transition from first‐generation long‐acting insulins to second‐generation long‐acting analogues in the paediatric population. The study assessed changes in insulin/carbohydrate ratio (I:CHO) after the first 6 months of degludec therapy in a paediatric population with type 1 diabetes previously treated with glargine U100. Our data showed that the use of degludec is associated with a flattening in the I:CHO ratio at the different meals compared to the previous glargine therapy.

AIM To investigate the impact of renal function on the safety and efficacy of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100). MATERIALS AND METHODS A meta-analysis was performed using pooled 6-month data from the EDITION 1, 2 and 3 trials (N = 2496). Eligible participants, aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), were randomized to receive once-daily evening injections of Gla-300 or Gla-100. Pooled results were assessed by two renal function subgroups: estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)

Aims Basal insulin (BI) treatment initiation and dose titration in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) are often delayed. Such “clinical inertia” results in poor glycaemic control and high risk of long‐term complications. This survey aimed to determine healthcare professional (HCP) and patient attitudes to BI initiation and titration. Methods An online survey (July–August 2015) including HCPs and patients with T2DM in the USA, France and Germany. Patients were ≥18 years old and had been on BI for 6 to 36 months, or discontinued BI within the previous 12 months. Results Participants comprised 386 HCPs and 318 people with T2DM. While >75% of HCPs reported discussing titration at the initiation visit, only 16% to 28% of patients remembered such discussions, many (32%–42%) were unaware of the need to titrate BI, and only 28% to 39% recalled mention of the time needed to reach glycaemic goals. Most HCPs and patients agreed that more effective support tools to assist BI initiation/titration are needed; patients indicated that provision of such tools would increase confidence in self‐titration. HCPs identified fear of hypoglycaemia, failure to titrate in the absence of symptoms, and low patient motivation as important titration barriers. In contrast, patients identified weight gain, the perception that titration meant worsening disease, frustration over the time to reach HbA1c goals and fear of hypoglycaemia as major factors. Conclusion A disconnect exists between HCP‐ and patient‐perceived barriers to effective BI titration. To optimize titration, strategies should be targeted to improve HCP–patient communication, and provide support and educational tools.

Aim To compare day-to-day and within-day variability in glucose-lowering effect between insulin degludec (IDeg) and insulin glargine 300 U/mL (IGlar-U300) in type 1 diabetes. Materials and methods In this double-blind, crossover study, patients were randomly assigned to 0.4 U/kg of IDeg or IGlar-U300 once daily for two treatment periods lasting 12 days each. Pharmacodynamic variables were assessed at steady-state from the glucose infusion rate profiles of three 24-hour euglycaemic glucose clamps (days 6, 9 and 12) during each treatment period. Results Overall, 57 patients completed both treatment periods (342 clamps). The potency of IGlar-U300 was 30% lower than IDeg (estimated ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61; 0.80; P

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of short‐term fully closed‐loop insulin delivery using faster versus standard insulin aspart in type 2 diabetes. Fifteen adults with insulin‐treated type 2 diabetes underwent 22 hours of closed‐loop insulin delivery with either faster or standard insulin aspart in a double‐blind randomised crossover design. Basal‐bolus regimen was replaced by model predictive control algorithm‐directed insulin delivery based on sensor glucose levels. The primary outcome was time with plasma glucose in target range (5.6‐10.0mmol/l) and did not differ between treatments (mean difference [95%CI] ‐3.3% [8.2;1.7], p=0.17). Mean glucose and glucose variability were comparable, as was time spent below and above target range. Hypoglycaemia (

Aim To compare efficacy and safety of new insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) with that of insulin glargine 100 U/ml (Gla-100) in Japanese adults with type 1 diabetes. Methods The EDITION JP 1 study (NCT01689129) was a 6-month, multicentre, open-label, phase III study. Participants (n = 243) were randomized to Gla-300 or Gla-100 while continuing mealtime insulin. Basal insulin was titrated with the aim of achieving a fasting self-monitored plasma glucose target of 4.4-7.2 mmol/l. The primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) over 6 months. Safety measures included hypoglycaemia and change in body weight. Results Gla-300 was non-inferior to Gla-100 for the primary endpoint of HbA1c change over the 6-month period {least squares [LS] mean difference 0.13 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.29]}. The annualized rate of confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/l) or severe hypoglycaemic events was 34 % lower with Gla-300 than with Gla-100 at night [rate ratio 0.66 (95 % CI 0.48-0.92)] and 20 % lower at any time of day [24 h; rate ratio 0.80 (95 % CI 0.65-0.98)]; this difference was most pronounced during the first 8 weeks of treatment. Severe hypoglycaemia was infrequent. The basal insulin dose increased in both groups (month 6 dose: Gla-300 0.35 U/kg/day, Gla-100 0.29 U/kg/day). A between-treatment difference in body weight change over 6 months favouring Gla-300 was observed [LS mean difference -0.6 kg (95 % CI -1.1 to -0.0); p = 0.035]. Adverse event rates were comparable between the groups. Conclusions In Japanese adults with type 1 diabetes using basal plus mealtime insulin, less hypoglycaemia was observed with Gla-300 than with Gla-100, particularly during the night, while glycaemic control did not differ.

Aim: To investigate the impact of renal function on the safety and efficacy of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100). Materials and Methods: A meta-analysis was performed using pooled 6-month data from the EDITION 1, 2 and 3 trials (N = 2496). Eligible participants, aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), were randomized to receive once-daily evening injections of Gla-300 or Gla-100. Pooled results were assessed by two renal function subgroups: estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)

Aims Two single-dose studies were conducted in Japan and Europe to compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles of new insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) and insulin glargine 100 U/ml (Gla-100) in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Methods In two double-blind, randomized, crossover studies, 18 Japanese participants (aged 20–65 years) and 24 European participants (aged 18–65 years) with glycated haemoglobin levels ≤9.0% (≤75 mmol/mol) received single subcutaneous doses of Gla-300, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.9 U/kg (0.9 U/kg in the European study only), and Gla-100, 0.4 U/kg. A 36-h euglycaemic clamp procedure was performed after each dosing. Results The serum insulin glargine concentration (INS) and glucose infusion rate (GIR) developed more gradually into more constant and prolonged profiles with Gla-300 than with Gla-100. In support of this, the times to 50% of glargine exposure and insulin activity were longer for all Gla-300 doses than for Gla-100 during the 36-h clamp period, indicating a more evenly distributed exposure and metabolic effect beyond 24 h. Exposure to insulin glargine and glucose utilization were lower with the 0.4 and 0.6 U/ml Gla-300 doses in both studies compared with the 0.4 U/ml Gla-100 dose. Glucose-lowering activity was detected for up to 36 h with all doses of Gla-300. Conclusions Single-dose injections of Gla-300 present more constant and prolonged PK and PD profiles compared with Gla-100, maintaining blood glucose control for up to 36 h in euglycaemic clamp settings in Japanese and European participants with type 1 diabetes.

Insulin analogues have been engineered to enhance desired molecular properties without altering immunogenicity. The majority of insulin pharmacology studies are conducted in healthy volunteers and patients with type 1 diabetes. At present, there are more patients with type 2 than type 1 diabetes receiving insulin treatment. As the responsibility for initiating insulin therapy in these patients continues to shift to primary care, it will be important for general practitioners to understand the different pharmacological properties of insulin preparations in patients with type 2 diabetes, so that treatment can be adapted to meet patients’ physiological and lifestyle requirements. The purpose of this review is to summarize pharmacological studies of insulin analogues in patients with type 2 diabetes. Faster onset of action of rapid acting insulin analogues has improved postprandial glycaemic control. Biphasic insulin analogues are associated with a lower incidence of nocturnal hypoglycaemia compared with human biphasic preparations and allow for intensification from once to twice or thrice daily dosing. More predictable glycaemic-lowering profiles of the insulin analogues have also led to reductions in nocturnal hypoglycaemia, particularly comparing long-acting insulin analogues with protaminated human insulin. Enhancing insulin self-association and reversible binding with albumin has led to further reductions in variability. However, improvements can still be made. Effective once daily clinical dosing of long-acting insulin analogues is not possible in all patients. In addition, the protaminated component of biphasic insulin analogues do not provide the duration of action or profile for physiological basal insulin replacement and neither insulin glargine nor insulin detemir are suitable for mixing with other insulin analogues as this would substantially alter their pharmacokinetic properties. Enhancing the pharmacological predictability and extending the duration of action could simplify insulin titration and further reduce the incidence of hypoglycaemia.

Aims: A multinational, randomized, double-blind, two-way crossover trial to compare the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of bolus, subcutaneously administered insulin glulisine (glulisine) and insulin aspart (aspart) in insulin-naIve, obese subjects with type 2 diabetes. Methods: Thirty subjects [9/21 females/males; mean ± SD age: 60.7 ± 7.7 years; body mass index (BMI): 33.5 ± 3.3 kg/m2; duration of diabetes: 6.8 ± 4.6 years; HbA1c: 7.1 ± 0.8%] were included in the analysis. They fasted overnight and then received a 0.2 U/kg subcutaneous dose of glulisine or aspart 2 min before starting a standardized test meal, 7 days apart, according to a randomization schedule. Blood samples were taken every 15 min, starting 20 min before the meal and ending 6 h postprandially. Results: The area under the absolute glucose concentration–time curve between 0 and 1 h after insulin injection and maximal glucose concentration was significantly lower with glulisine than with aspart (p = 0.0455 and 0.0337, respectively). However, for the total study period, plasma glucose concentration was similar for glulisine and aspart. Peak insulin concentration was significantly higher for glulisine than for insulin aspart (p < 0.0001). Hypoglycaemic events (≤ 70 mg/dl with or without symptoms) occurred in 13 and 16 subjects treated with glulisine and aspart, respectively, but there were no cases of severe hypoglycaemia requiring intervention. Conclusions: Glulisine was associated with lower glucose levels during the first hour after a standard meal; the remaining glucose profiles were otherwise equivalent, with higher insulin levels observed throughout the study period.

Aims This 24-month, multi-national, open-label, parallel group trial investigated the long-term efficacy and safety of insulin detemir and Neutral Protamine Hagedorn insulin in combination with mealtime insulin aspart in patients with Type 1 diabetes using a treat-to-target concept. Methods Patients were randomized 2 : 1 to detemir (n = 331) or NPH (n = 166) groups. Basal insulin was initiated once daily (evening) and titrated individually based on self-measured plasma glucose (PG) levels, aiming for pre-breakfast and pre-dinner targets ≤ 6.0 mmol/l. A second basal morning dose could be added according to pre-defined criteria. Results After 24 months, superiority of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was achieved with detemir compared to NPH (detemir 7.36%, NPH 7.58%, mean difference −0.22% points) [95% confidence interval (CI) −0.41 to −0.03%], with reductions of 0.94% and 0.72% points, respectively. Fasting PG (FPGlab) was also lower with detemir (detemir 8.35 mmol/l, NPH 9.43 mmol/l; P = 0.019). Twenty-two per cent of patients treated with detemir reached an HbA1c ≤ 7.0% in the absence of confirmed hypoglycaemia during the last month of treatment vs. 13% on NPH (P = 0.019). Risk of major and nocturnal hypoglycaemia was 69% and 46% lower with detemir than with NPH (P < 0.001), respectively; patients treated with detemir gained less weight (detemir 1.7 kg, NPH 2.7 kg; P = 0.024). The overall safety profile was similar in the two groups and treatment with detemir did not result in any unexpected findings. Conclusions Long-term treatment with the insulin analogues detemir + aspart was superior to NPH + aspart in reducing HbA1c, with added benefits of less major and nocturnal hypoglycaemia and less weight gain. Diabet. Med. 25, 442–449 (2008)

Aim The efficacy and safety of insulin aspart (IAsp), a rapid-acting human insulin analogue, were compared with regular human insulin (HI) as the bolus component of basal-bolus therapy for subjects with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Methods In a randomized, parallel-group, open-labelled trial, 27 women with GDM (age 30.7 ± 6.3 years, HbA1c < 7%) were randomized to receive IAsp (5 min before meal) or HI (30 min before meal). The trial period extended from diagnosis of GDM (18–28 weeks) to 6 weeks postpartum. Results Both treatment groups maintained good overall glycaemic control during the study (beginning and end of study HbA1c≤ 6%). During the meal test, mean glucose at week 6 (IAsp 4.2 ± 0.57 mmol/l, HI 4.8 ± 0.86 mmol/l) was slightly lower than at week 0 (IAsp 4.9 ± 0.59 mmol/l, HI 5.1 ± 0.36 mmol/l). However, change from baseline values for average glucose (IAsp –1.09 ± 0.54 mmol/l, HI –0.54 ± 0.74 mmol/l; P = 0.003) and C-peptide (IAsp –0.50 ± 0.67 nmol/l, HI –0.30 ± 0.70 nmol/l; P = 0.027) were significantly lower after IAsp treatment than HI treatment. No major hypoglycaemic events were reported during the study. Cross-reacting insulin antibody binding increased slightly from baseline in both treatments groups (end of study: IAsp 2.1 ± 5.4%, HI 6.4 ± 13.9%), whereas antibodies specific to IAsp or HI remained relatively low (< 1% binding). Conclusion IAsp was more effective than HI in decreasing postprandial glucose concentrations. Duration of IAsp injection 5 min before a meal rather than 30 min prior to meals offers a more convenient therapy for subjects with GDM. Overall safety and effectiveness of IAsp were comparable to HI in pregnant women with GDM. Diabet. Med. 24, 1129–1135 (2007)