Search

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

Introduction The PRONTO-T1D study, which evaluated the efficacy and safety of ultra rapid lispro (URLi) versus lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), met the primary endpoint of noninferiority of HbA1c change from baseline compared to lispro at 26 weeks. We present results of an additional 26-week treatment phase evaluating long-term efficacy and safety of URLi. Methods In this phase 3, treat-to-target study, subjects were randomized to double-blind mealtime URLi, lispro, or open-label postmeal URLi with insulin degludec or glargine for 26 weeks. Subjects in the double-blind URLi (n = 451) and lispro (n = 442) groups continued for another 26 weeks to assess long-term efficacy and safety. Results HbA1c increased marginally during the long-term maintenance period (week 26–52) in both groups to 7.47% (URLi) and 7.54% (lispro). At week 52, there were no statistically significant treatment differences in change from baseline HbA1c with a least-squares mean treatment difference (95% confidence interval) of − 0.06% (− 0.16, 0.03). Proportions of patients with HbA1c

Aims To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ultra rapid lispro (URLi) versus lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes in a 26‐week, treat‐to‐target, phase 3 trial. Materials and methods After an 8‐week lead‐in to optimize basal insulin glargine or degludec, patients were randomized to double‐blind mealtime URLi (n = 451) or lispro (n = 442), or open‐label post‐meal URLi (n = 329). The primary endpoint was change from baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) to 26 weeks (non‐inferiority margin 0.4%), with multiplicity‐adjusted objectives for postprandial glucose (PPG) excursions after a meal test. Results Both mealtime and post‐meal URLi demonstrated non‐inferiority to lispro for HbA1c: estimated treatment difference (ETD) for mealtime URLi −0.08% [95% confidence interval (CI) −0.16, 0.00] and for post‐meal URLi +0.13% (95% CI 0.04, 0.22), with a significantly higher endpoint HbA1c for post‐meal URLi versus lispro (P = 0.003). Mealtime URLi was superior to lispro in reducing 1‐ and 2‐hour PPG excursions during the meal test: ETD −1.55 mmol/L (95% CI −1.96, −1.14) at 1 hour and − 1.73 mmol/L (95% CI −2.28, −1.18) at 2 hours (both P 4 hours after meals (P = 0.013). Injection site reactions were reported by 2.9% of patients on mealtime URLi, 2.4% on post‐meal URLi, and 0.2% on lispro. Overall, the incidence of treatment‐emergent adverse events was similar between treatments. Conclusions The results showed that URLi provided good glycaemic control, with non‐inferiority to lispro confirmed for both mealtime and post‐meal URLi, while superior PPG control was demonstrated with mealtime dosing.

PRONTO T1D was a phase 3 study evaluating ultra rapid lispro (URLi) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) for 52 weeks. Subjects were randomized to double-blind mealtime URLi, Humalog, or open-label postmeal URLi with insulin degludec or glargine for the first 26 weeks. Subjects on URLi (n=451) and Humalog (n=442) given 0-2 minutes before meals continued for another 26-weeks to assess long-term safety and efficacy. Mean HbA1c at 52 weeks (7.47% URLi; 7.54% Humalog) increased significantly (p Disclosure L.J. Klaff: Research Support; Self; Abbott, Ascensia Diabetes Care, Dexcom, Inc., Lilly Diabetes, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk A/S, REMD Biotherapeutics, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi-Aventis, Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Zealand Pharma A/S. J. Cho: None. M.A. Dellva: Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. N.C. Schloot: Employee; Self; Lilly Diabetes. J. Tobian: Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. J. Miura: None. D. Dahl: Advisory Panel; Self; Berlin-Chemie AG. Research Support; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lilly Diabetes, Novartis AG, Novo Nordisk A/S. J.M. Bue-Valleskey: Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Funding Eli Lilly and Company

URLi is a novel prandial insulin lispro formulation developed to more closely match physiological insulin secretion. This phase 3, 26-week trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of URLi vs. lispro in 1222 adults with T1D. The primary endpoint was A1C change from baseline after 26 weeks of treatment, with multiplicity adjusted objectives for PPG excursions (PPGE) after test meal. After an 8-week lead-in to optimize basal insulin glargine or degludec, patients were randomized to double-blind URLi (n=451) or lispro (n=442) given at the start of the meal, or open-label URLi (n=329) given 20 minutes after the meal (URLi +20). A1C was reduced for URLi and lispro and non-inferiority (NI) was shown: estimated treatment difference (ETD) -0.08 [-0.16; 0.00] p=0.06 (Figure). NI for URLi +20 vs. lispro was also shown: ETD +0.13 [0.04; 0.22] p=0.003. URLi was superior to lispro in controlling 1- and 2-h PPGE during the test meal (Figure). No significant differences were seen between URLi vs. lispro in rate or incidence of severe hypoglycemia; overall daily or postprandial hypoglycemia (4 h, (p=0.013). Overall, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between groups. URLi was efficacious with a similar safety profile to lispro and, when given at start of the meal, provided superior PPG control vs. lispro. Disclosure L.J. Klaff: Research Support; Self; Abbott, Ascensia Diabetes Care, Cnoga Medical, Gan & Lee Pharmaceuticals, Lilly Diabetes, Medtronic MiniMed, Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., REMD Biotherapeutics, Sanofi, Senseonics, Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Zealand Pharma A/S. D. Cao: Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. M.A. Dellva: Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. J. Tobian: Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. J. Miura: None. D. Dahl: None. J.M. Bue-Valleskey: Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Funding Eli Lilly and Company

Weight-loss interventions generally improve lipid profiles and reduce cardiovascular disease risk, but effects are variable and may depend on genetic factors. We performed a genetic association analysis of data from 2,993 participants in the Diabetes Prevention Program to test the hypotheses that a genetic risk score (GRS) based on deleterious alleles at 32 lipid-associated single-nucleotide polymorphisms modifies the effects of lifestyle and/or metformin interventions on lipid levels and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) lipoprotein subfraction size and number. Twenty-three loci previously associated with fasting LDL-C, HDL-C, or triglycerides replicated (P = 0.04–1×10−17). Except for total HDL particles (r = −0.03, P = 0.26), all components of the lipid profile correlated with the GRS (partial |r| = 0.07–0.17, P = 5×10−5–1×10−19). The GRS was associated with higher baseline-adjusted 1-year LDL cholesterol levels (β = +0.87, SEE±0.22 mg/dl/allele, P = 8×10−5, P interaction = 0.02) in the lifestyle intervention group, but not in the placebo (β = +0.20, SEE±0.22 mg/dl/allele, P = 0.35) or metformin (β = −0.03, SEE±0.22 mg/dl/allele, P = 0.90; P interaction = 0.64) groups. Similarly, a higher GRS predicted a greater number of baseline-adjusted small LDL particles at 1 year in the lifestyle intervention arm (β = +0.30, SEE±0.012 ln nmol/L/allele, P = 0.01, P interaction = 0.01) but not in the placebo (β = −0.002, SEE±0.008 ln nmol/L/allele, P = 0.74) or metformin (β = +0.013, SEE±0.008 nmol/L/allele, P = 0.12; P interaction = 0.24) groups. Our findings suggest that a high genetic burden confers an adverse lipid profile and predicts attenuated response in LDL-C levels and small LDL particle number to dietary and physical activity interventions aimed at weight loss., Author Summary The study included 2,993 participants from the Diabetes Prevention Program, a randomized clinical trial of intensive lifestyle intervention, metformin treatment, and placebo control. We examined associations between 32 gene variants that have been reproducibly associated with dyslipidemia and concentrations of lipids and NMR lipoprotein particle sizes and numbers. We also examined whether genetic background influences a person's response to cardioprotective interventions on lipid levels. Our analysis, which focused on determining whether common genetic variants impact the effects of cardioprotective interventions on lipid and lipoprotein particle size, shows that in persons with a high genetic risk score the benefit of intensive lifestyle intervention on LDL and small LDL particle levels is substantially diminished; this information may be informative for the targeted prevention of dyslipidemia, as it suggests that genetics might help identify persons in whom lifestyle intervention is likely to be an effective treatment for elevated lipids and lipoproteins. The NMR subfraction analyses provide novel insight into the biology of dyslipidemia by illustrating how numerous genetic variants that have previously been associated with lipid levels also modulate NMR lipoprotein particle sizes and number. This information may be informative for the targeted prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes is often delayed because of concerns about injections. Our objective was to compare the effects of AIR inhaled insulin (Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, IN) (AIR is a registered trademark of Alkermes, Inc., Cambridge, MA) with those of injectable insulin on glycemic control and safety.This was planned as a 24-month, open-label, randomized study in adults with diabetes inadequately controlled by one or more oral antihyperglycemic medications (OAMs). Following a 2-week baseline period, patients continued OAMs and were randomized to AIR insulin (n = 208) or insulin lispro (n = 203) before meals. The primary end point was hemoglobin A1C (A1C) change from baseline to 6 months. Noninferiority was established if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference in A1C change wasor =0.4%.Early termination of the study diminished the number of patients for the 12- and 24-month analyses, but not for the primary 6-month end point analyses. AIR insulin and injectable insulin groups had comparable baseline A1C values (8.18% vs. 8.21%, respectively). Change in A1C from baseline to 6-month end point was similar (least squares mean, -0.81 +/- 0.09% and -0.87 +/- 0.09%; 95% confidence interval for the difference -0.117, 0.234; P = 0.51) and so were final A1C values of 7.36% and 7.31% for AIR insulin and injectable insulin, respectively. At 6 months, no differences were observed in eight-point profiles, overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia, and weight gain. Greater decreases in spirometry were observed in the AIR insulin group at 12 months. Cough was the most frequently reported adverse event (20% [AIR insulin] vs. 10% [insulin lispro]; P = 0.002).Treatment with AIR insulin resulted in similar improvement in glycemic control compared with insulin lispro. More frequent cough and greater decrease in spirometry were observed with AIR insulin.

Long-term safety and efficacy of AIR((R)) inhaled insulin (Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, IN) (AIR is a registered trademark of Alkermes, Inc., Cambridge, MA) in patients with diabetes and concomitant lung disease remain to be established.This 1-year, randomized, open-label, active comparator, two-arm, parallel study compared the safety and efficacy of AIR insulin to subcutaneous (SC) insulin in patients having type 1 or type 2 diabetes and asthma. Patients with type 2 diabetes continued taking their prestudy oral antihyperglycemic medication.Change in hemoglobin A1C from baseline to end point was similar for the AIR insulin and SC insulin groups (-0.063 +/- 0.128% and -0.315 +/- 0.128% respectively, P = 0.105), but noninferiority failed to be achieved (the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval [-0.053, 0.555] was0.4%). The total daily prandial dose increased more in the AIR insulin group than in the SC insulin group (0.150 U/kg and 0.044 U/kg, respectively, P = 0.002). Safety profiles were generally comparable between treatments. At end point, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1))/forced vital capacity (FVC) postbronchodilator (-0.016 +/- 0.005 vs. 0.002 +/- 0.005, P = 0.006) and diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (-1.214 +/- 0.325 mL/min/torr vs. -0.383 +/- 0.311 mL/min/torr, P = 0.028) both decreased more in the AIR insulin group than in the SC insulin group, but the differences were not present at follow-up. FEV(1) and FVC were similar between treatment groups at end point. Incidences of hypoglycemia were comparable between groups. Insulin antibody binding increased more in the AIR insulin group. Cough was the most common adverse event; however, there was no difference in incidence between the AIR insulin (15.3%) and SC insulin (12.4%) treatment groups (P = 0.572).In patients who have diabetes and asthma, AIR insulin demonstrated glycemic efficacy similar to SC insulin. Additionally, the safety profile of AIR insulin in patients with and without asthma is consistent.

Patients with type 1 diabetes require intensive insulin therapy for optimal glycemic control. AIR((R)) inhaled insulin (system from Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN) (AIR is a registered trademark of Alkermes, Inc., Cambridge, MA) may be an efficacious and safe alternative to subcutaneously injected (SC) mealtime insulin.This was a Phase 3, 2-year, randomized, open-label, active-comparator, parallel-group study in 385 patients with type 1 diabetes who were randomly assigned to receive AIR insulin or SC insulin (regular human insulin or insulin lispro) at mealtimes. Both groups received insulin glargine once daily. Efficacy measures included mean change in hemoglobin A1C (A1C) from baseline to end point, eight-point self-monitored blood glucose profiles, and insulin dosage. Safety assessments included hypoglycemic events, pulmonary function tests, adverse events, and insulin antibody levels.In both treatment groups, only 20% of subjects reached the target of A1C7.0%. A significant A1C difference of 0.44% was seen favoring SC insulin, with no difference between the groups in insulin doses or hypoglycemic events at end point. Patients in both treatment groups experienced progressive decreases in lung function, but larger (reversible) decrements in diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DL(CO)) were associated with AIR insulin treatment. Greater weight gain was seen with SC insulin treatment.The AIR inhaled insulin program was terminated by the sponsor prior to availability of any Phase 3 data for reasons unrelated to safety or efficacy. Despite early termination, this trial provides evidence that AIR insulin was less efficacious in lowering A1C and was associated with a greater decrease in DL(CO) and increased incidence of cough than SC insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes.

Using data from NHANES III, we evaluated the effect of diabetes on the age-related decline in lung function. The Diabetes group ( n = 471) had significantly lower mean FEV 1 and FVC values than the No Diabetes group ( n = 4317), but pulmonary function declined with increasing age at a similar rate for both groups.

The diabetes epidemic and lack of adequate glycemic control in patients with diabetes emphasize the need for alternative diabetes treatment strategies. Although many new compounds have been developed, insulin remains the most potent agent for controlling glycemia. Inhaled insulin systems have been developed to alleviate the fear of insulin injections and to improve the convenience of insulin administration. The AIR Inhaled Insulin System being developed by Eli Lilly (Indianapolis, IN) and Alkermes (Cambridge, MA) uses AIR particle technology to deliver dry powder insulin to the deep lung. Pharmacokinetic and glucodynamic data in Phase 1 clinical trials have demonstrated that AIR Insulin is rapidly absorbed with prolonged insulin exposure and action compared to insulin lispro. AIR Insulin has also been shown to have dose equivalence and dose reproducibility across a range of doses, and it has been shown that three inhalations of the 2 U-equivalent dose can be interchanged with one 6 U-equivalent dose. A Phase 2 study demonstrated preference for AIR Insulin over subcutaneous injectable insulins, and a recent study reported that the system is easy to teach and use. Several Phase 3 studies are currently underway to further investigate the safety and efficacy and to evaluate the system's intention to meet provider and patient expectations.

OBJECTIVE To show improved glycemic control in patients with insulin-treated diabetes after adjustments to the diabetes management plan based on either continuous glucose monitoring using the Continuous Glucose Monitoring System (CGMS) or frequent self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) using a home blood glucose meter. PATIENTS AND METHODS From January to September 2000, patients aged 19 to 76 years with insulin-treated diabetes were assigned to insulin therapy adjustments based on either CGMS or SMBG values. At the end of the study, patients in both groups used the CGMS for 3 days; these values were used to calculate measures of hypoglycemia. Repeated-measures analysis of variance with post hoc comparisons were used to test differences in hemoglobin A 1c levels and hypoglycemia between the 2 study groups. RESULTS A total of 128 patients were enrolled in the study. Nineteen discontinued study participation, leaving 51 in the CGMS group and 58 in the SMBG group. No significant differences were noted in demographics or baseline characteristics between the 2 groups. There were no significant differences in hemoglobin A 1c levels between the CGMS group and the SMBG group at baseline (9.1%±1.1% vs 9.0%±1.0%, P =.70), and both groups showed statistically significant ( P >.001) and similar ( P =.95) improvement in hemoglobin A 1c levels after 12 weeks of study. However, the CGMS group had a significantly shorter duration of hypoglycemia (sensor glucose, ≤60 mg/dL) at week 12 of the study (49.4±40.8 vs 81.0±61.1 minutes per event, P =.009). CONCLUSION Use of the CGMS to guide therapy adjustments in patients with insulin-treated diabetes reduces the duration of hypoglycemia compared with therapy adjustments guided by SMBG values alone.