Ultra rapid lispro improves postprandial glucose control versus lispro in combination with basal insulin: a study based on CGM in type 2 diabetes in China.

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.

Is it really possible to kill with insulin without leaving traces? From lifesaver to killer, the issues surrounding the analytical characterization of postmortem insulin illustrated by an exemplary case.

Evidence of an insulin overdose is very complicated in the medico-legal field. The analysis and subsequent interpretation of results is complex, especially when treating postmortem blood samples. The instability of insulin, the special pre-analytical conditions and the absence of specific analytical methods has led most laboratories not to analyze insulin in their routine with a consequent underestimation of cases. This paper aims to assess the difficulties associated with the analytical characterization of insulin by describing a case that typically represents most of the inconveniences encountered following a suspected insulin overdose. The case concerns a man found dead at home by his brother. After an external examination, which did not reveal a specific cause of death, toxicological analysis was requested which did not reveal any substance of toxicological interest. Only 9 months later, it was reported to the toxicologist that the subject was diabetic, on insulin lispro treatment and that three empty syringes were found next to his body. Following analysis by LC-high-resolution mass spectrometry, the presence of insulin lispro at a concentration of 1.1 ng/mL, a therapeutic concentration, was evidenced. Despite the low concentration found, overdose cannot be excluded and this paper will describe the criteria evaluated to reach this conclusion. This case highlights that the interpretation of a postmortem insulin concentration is very complex and requires the evaluation of various elements including the circumstances of death, the subject's medical history, the interval between death and sampling and the sample storage.

Biorelevant subcutaneous in vitro test predicts the release of human and fast acting insulin formulations.

The administration of insulins by subcutaneous injection is nowadays widely prevalent. The injection site is located below the dermis and composed of cells and the extracellular matrix formed of a network of macromolecules such as hyaluronic acid and collagen. Following an injection, the insulins from the formulated products are timely released as drug molecules from the injection site into systemic circulation. In this publication, we show the development of an in vitro setup utilizing a hydrogel composed of a special collagen-hyaluronic acid mixture that mimics the extracellular matrix. Another setup was used for differentiation of the commercially available and research insulin formulations by determining the in vitro permeation characteristics with the results that were correlated with the human in vivo data. Significant differentiation was achieved at 90 % confidence level between the permeation curves of insulin glulisine containing formulations (U100 and a concentrated research formulation), while in case of the insulin lispro containing formulations (U100 and U200) the permeation curves showed similarity. These results demonstrated that the in vitro setup may be used as a tool for formulation development and drug candidate profiling as it is able to differentiate or show similarities between the agglomeration states and concentration of the active pharmaceutical ingredients.

Ultra rapid lispro (Lyumjev®) shortens time to recovery from hyperglycaemia compared to Humalog® in individuals with type 1 diabetes on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion.

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% tmax 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.

Ultra-rapid lispro improved postprandial glucose control compared to insulin lispro in predominantly Chinese patients with type 1 diabetes: A prospective, randomized, double-blind phase 3 study.

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.

Tirzepatide vs Insulin Lispro Added to Basal Insulin in Type 2 Diabetes: The SURPASS-6 Randomized Clinical Trial.

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.

CamAPS FX Hybrid Closed-Loop with Ultra-Rapid Lispro Compared with Standard Lispro in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Crossover Study.

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.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic bioequivalence of Gan & Lee insulin analogues aspart (rapilin®), lispro (prandilin®) and glargine (basalin®) with EU- und US-sourced reference insulins.

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 (AUCins.total ) and maximum insulin concentrations (Cins.max ). Primary PD endpoints were the total area under the glucose infusion rate curve (AUCGIR.total ) and maximum glucose infusion rate (GIRmax ). 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.

Fully Closed-Loop Glucose Control Compared With Insulin Pump Therapy With Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes and Suboptimal Glycemic Control: A Single-Center, Randomized, Crossover Study.

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.

Efficacy and safety of faster aspart in insulin pumps in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus: A single-center study with real-world data.

AIMS: To assess the efficacy and safety of faster aspart (FIAsp) in paediatric population with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and insulin pumps in real-world settings. METHODS: Of 44 patients, 20 used FIAsp, 16 of which switched from aspart to FIAsp and 24 used aspart/lispro. We performed within-groups and between-groups analyses in three time points for anthropometric data, % of 24-h time in range of 70-180 mg/dl (TIR), time < 70 mg/dl and <54 mg/dl and time > 180 mg/dl and >250 mg/dl, bolus and basal insulins doses (units/kg/day and %), total daily dose (TDD, units/kg/day), glycaemic variability, frequency of set changes, sensor wear per week and meals per day. RESULTS: Use of FIAsp over time increased TIR (P = 0.002) and TDD (P = 0.008 and P = 0.004, respectively for three months after the switch and recent use) and decreased time in hyperglycaemia (>180 P = 0.003 and > 250 mg/dl, P = 0.004). Frequency of set changes differ in the first 3 months (P = 0.042). Patients with FIAsp consumed more meals per day compared to those with aspart/lispro (P = 0.032). CONCLUSION: Real-world data confirm that use of FIAsp in insulin pumps in paediatric populations improves glycaemic control long-term.

[Efficacy and safety of ultra rapid lispro in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled clinical trial].

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 A1c (HbA1c) relative to baseline after 26 weeks of treatment. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients who achieved HbA1c<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 HbA1c 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 HbA1c<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 HbA1c 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.

Weekly Growth Hormone (Lonapegsomatropin) Causes Severe Transient Hyperglycemia in a Child with Obesity.

INTRODUCTION: A 12-year-and-9-month-old non-Hispanic black male with a history of growth hormone deficiency, pituitary hypoplasia, prediabetes, obesity, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia was initiated on weekly growth hormone (lonapegsomatropin-tcgd) and then transiently developed symptomatic hyperglycemia to 500 mg/dL. We aimed to describe this medication's effect. CASE PRESENTATION: He was born full term and appropriate for gestational age. He was referred to endocrinology at 3.5 years of age for short stature with a height SDS of -2.48. IGF-1 51.1 ng/mL and IGFBP-3 1.2 ng/mL were low. GH stimulation test noted baseline and peak GH of 0.1 ng/mL. MRI brain showed hypoplastic adenohypophysis, aplastic pituitary stalk, and ectopic neurohypophysis. There had been difficulty with adherence to daily GH over the following 9 years. BMI trajectory rose above 180% of the 95th percentile. By age 12, A1c was 6.6%. Metformin was started and increased to 1,000 mg twice daily. Subsequent A1c was 6.0%. Due to poor compliance with daily GH, at 12 years and 9 months, he was initiated on 22 mg (0.25 mg/kg/week) of weekly lonapegsomatropin-tcgd to improve compliance. The day after his first injection, he developed non-bloody, non-bilious emesis. He denied headaches and endorsed polyuria. Due to concern for increased intracranial pressure, he was sent to the emergency department; however, ophthalmologic exam was negative. Initial serum glucose was 500 mg/dL, then 336 mg/dL after 1-L normal saline. Hemoglobin A1c was 5.7%, urine glucose 3+ mg/dL, and urine ketones 2+ mg/dL. Venous pH of 7.379 and bicarbonate of 20.6 mmol/L ruled out diabetic ketoacidosis. Metformin was held during the hospitalization. Hyperglycemia rapidly improved with transient insulin administration. He received one dose of glargine 20 units. He was initiated on lispro carb ratio of 1:8 and correction factor 1:15 for target glucose 150 mg/dL. By day four, glucoses were below 100 mg/dL; lispro was discontinued, and he was discharged home. Weekly GH was discontinued with plans to resume daily GH therapy in several months. CONCLUSION: Lonapegsomatropin-tcgd offers the convenience of weekly rather than daily GH treatment; however, this patient developed a rapid increase in insulin resistance and hyperglycemia requiring insulin. The discrepancy between the glucose of 500 mg/dL and A1c of 5.7%, along with the rapid resolution of hyperglycemia, is further consistent with a medication side effect. Close glucose monitoring of patients initiated on weekly growth hormone is crucial, particularly in those with a history of prediabetes.

The vascular function effects of adding exenatide or meal insulin to basal insulin therapy in early type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Basal insulin glargine has a neutral effect on cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes (T2DM). In practice, basal insulin is often paired with a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP1-RA) or meal insulin; however, the cardiovascular implications of these combinations have not been fully elucidated. In this context, we sought to evaluate the vascular function effects of adding the GLP1-RA exenatide or meal insulin lispro to basal glargine therapy in early T2DM. METHODS: In this 20-week trial, adults with T2DM of < 7-years duration were randomized to 8-weeks treatment with (i) insulin glargine (Glar), (ii) glargine + thrice-daily lispro (Glar/Lispro), or (iii) glargine + twice-daily exenatide (Glar/Exenatide), followed by 12-weeks washout. At baseline, 8-weeks, and washout, fasting endothelial function was assessed with reactive hyperemia index (RHI) measurement by peripheral arterial tonometry. RESULTS: At baseline, there were no differences in blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR) or RHI between participants randomized to Glar (n = 24), Glar/Lispro (n = 24), and Glar/Exenatide (n = 25). At 8-weeks, Glar/Exenatide decreased systolic BP (mean - 8.1 mmHg [95%CI - 13.9 to - 2.4], p = 0.008) and diastolic BP (mean - 5.1 mmHg [- 9.0 to - 1.3], p = 0.012) compared to baseline, with no significant changes in HR or RHI. Notably, baseline-adjusted RHI (mean ± SE) did not differ between the groups at 8-weeks (Glar 2.07 ± 0.10; Glar/Lispro 2.00 ± 0.10; Glar/Exenatide 1.81 ± 0.10; p = 0.19), nor did baseline-adjusted BP or HR. There were no differences between the groups in baseline-adjusted RHI, BP or HR after 12-weeks washout. CONCLUSION: Adding either exenatide or lispro to basal insulin therapy does not appear to affect fasting endothelial function in early T2DM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT02194595.

Ultra rapid lispro showed greater reduction in postprandial glucose versus Humalog in children, adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

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% tmax 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.

Long-term field study of lispro and neutral protamine Hagedorn insulins treatment in dogs with diabetes mellitus.

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.

Identification, measurement, and evaluation of blood concentrations of insulin glargine and insulin lispro by UPLC-MS-MS in a dead body suspected of insulin overdose.

Insulin preparations, which are drug treatments for diabetes, cause fatal hypoglycemia when an overdose is administered. Cases of homicide and suicide using these preparations have been reported and are of great forensic interest. However, there are few reports assessing the postmortem concentration of insulin preparations, and it is often difficult to determine the cause of death. In the present study, we report a case of a suspected insulin glargine and insulin lispro overdose for suicide. A woman in her 30s had a history of mental illness and diabetes. The day before her death, she reported to her boyfriend that she had taken large doses of insulin preparations and prescription drugs. An autopsy revealed no fatal injuries or lesions. Drug screening tests revealed several prescription drugs, none of which showed toxic concentrations. Analysis using LC-MS/MS detected insulin glargine in the peripheral and cardiac blood at 429 µU/mL and 1362 µU/mL, respectively, whereas insulin lispro was detected in both the peripheral and cardiac blood at levels below the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ; <50 µU/mL). The cause of death was considered likely to be hypoglycemia caused by an overdose of insulin glargine. Insulin glargine is rapidly metabolized after subcutaneous administration and is rarely detected in the blood when used at therapeutic doses. There are no other reports on the quantification of insulin glargine parent compounds in postmortem samples, and this case provides important data on postmortem blood concentrations of insulin glargine intoxication.

Hybrid Closed-Loop Control with Ultrarapid Lispro Compared with Standard Insulin Aspart and Faster Insulin Aspart: An In Silico Study.

OBJECTIVE: There is room for improvement in the performance of closed-loop regulation algorithms during the prandial period. This in silico study evaluated the efficiency and safety of ultrarapid lispro insulin using the Diabeloop DBLG1® algorithm. METHODS: We modeled the insulin profile of URLi according to literature data and integrated it to the model used within a simulation platform built from a 60 patients' virtual cohort. We then ran the DBLG1® algorithm in silico with various meal intakes using modeled URLi, Aspart and Faster Aspart. The primary endpoints were glucose metrics (time in 70-180 mg/dL range and time below range). RESULTS: When insulin time constant values were tuned, time in 70-180 mg/dL range was 69.4 [61.1-75.6] (Aspart) vs 74.7 [65.5-81.5] (URLi). Glucose coefficient of variation was reduced from 34.1 [29.7-37.8] to 28.4 [25.7-34.6]. Time below 70 mg/dL and 54 mg/dL were significantly reduced with URLi, whether or not DBLG1 was specifically tuned to this insulin. Metrics with Faster Aspart were intermediate and did not significantly differ from URLi. CONCLUSIONS: This simulation study performed on a virtual T1D population suggests that the use of URLi within an unmodified closed-loop DBLG1 regulation algorithm is safe and, with DBLG1 being tuned to this specific insulin type, improved the regulation performances as compared with Aspart. This fact supports the use of such an insulin in clinical investigations.

Insulin analogs in the treatment of type II diabetes and future perspectives.

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.

Accurate Collection of Reasons for Treatment Discontinuation to Better Define Estimands in Clinical Trials.

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).

Evaluation of Insulin Lispro Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics Over 10 Days of Continuous Insulin Infusion in People With Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the effect of meloxicam on insulin lispro pharmacokinetics and glucose pharmacodynamics over 10 days of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) at one infusion site in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). METHOD: This phase 1, randomized, double-blind, single-center, two-way crossover study enrolled adults with T1D for ≥1 year on stable CSII for ≥3 months. Participants randomly received U100 insulin lispro and LY900027 (U100 insulin lispro + 0.25 mg/mL meloxicam). Primary end points were area under the insulin lispro curve from 0 to 5 hours (AUCIns.0-5h) after bolus administration prior to a mixed-meal tolerance test (MMTT) and maximum observed concentration of insulin lispro (CIns.max) on days 5, 7, and 10, versus day 3 (baseline). RESULTS: A total of 20 participants were randomized. Insulin absorption was accelerated for insulin lispro and LY900027 from days 1 to 7. The AUCIns.0-5h was significantly lower on day 10 versus day 3 for LY900027 (-19%) and insulin lispro (-14%); the AUCIns.0-5h did not differ significantly between treatments. The CIns.max increased with LY900027 and insulin lispro (by ~14%-23% and ~16%-51%) on days 5, 7, and 10 versus day 3. The CIns.max of LY900027 was ~14%-23% lower than insulin lispro CIns.max on days 7 and 10 (P ≤ .0805). Accelerated insulin absorption and a modest loss of total insulin exposure led to a loss of MMTT glycemic control at later time points. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacokinetics of insulin changed over catheter wear time even when an anti-inflammatory agent was present. Postprandial glycemic control was adversely affected by the accelerated insulin absorption and decreased insulin exposure.