Once-weekly insulin efsitora alfa versus once-daily insulin degludec in adults with type 1 diabetes (QWINT-5): a phase 3 randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Insulin efsitora alfa (efsitora) is a once-weekly basal insulin. This phase 3 study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of efsitora compared with insulin degludec (degludec) in adults with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: This randomised, 52-week, parallel-design, open-label, treat-to-target non-inferiority study conducted at 82 global health-care centres, randomly assigned (1:1) adults (ie, those aged ≥18 years) with type 1 diabetes glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 7·0-10·0% (53·0-85·8 mmol/mol) to efsitora (n=343) or, degludec (n=349), both in combination with insulin lispro. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline to week-26 (non-inferiority margin=0·4%). The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05463744) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Aug 12, 2022, and May 7, 2024, of 893 participants enrolled, 692 (77%) participants were randomly assigned to once-weekly efsitora or once-daily degludec, and 623 (90%) participants completed the study. Mean HbA1c decreased from 7·88% (62·66 mmol/mol) at baseline to 7·41% (57·5 mmol/mol) at week 26 with efsitora and from 7·94% (63·3 mmol/mol) at baseline to 7·36% (56·9 mmol/mol) at week 26 with degludec. Mean HbA1c change from baseline to week 26 was -0·51% with efsitora and -0·56% with degludec (estimated treatment difference 0·052%, 95% CI -0·077 to 0·181; p=0·43), confirming a non-inferiority margin of 0·4% for efsitora compared with degludec. Rates of combined level 2 (<54 mg/dL [3·0 mmol/L]) or level 3 severe hypoglycaemia were higher with efsitora compared with degludec (14·03 vs 11·59 events per patient year of exposure; estimated rate ratio 1·21, 95% CI 1·04 to 1·41; p=0·016) during weeks 0-52, with the highest rates during weeks 0-12. Severe hypoglycaemia incidence was higher with efsitora (35 [10%] of 343) versus degludec (11 [3%] of 349) during weeks 0-52. Overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar across treatment groups. One death not related to the study treatment occurred in the degludec group. INTERPRETATION: In adults with type 1 diabetes, once-weekly efsitora showed non-inferior HbA1c reduction compared with daily insulin degludec. Higher rates of combined level 2 or level 3 hypoglycaemia and greater incidence of severe hypoglycaemia in participants treated with efsitora compared with participants treated with degludec might suggest the need for additional evaluation of efsitora dose initiation and optimisation in people with type 1 diabetes. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

ADO09, a co-formulation of pramlintide and insulin A21G, lowers body weight versus insulin lispro in type 1 diabetes.

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

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of rapid-acting insulin analogs, lispro versus aspart, in the treatment of diabetes: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

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

Multicenter Evaluation of Ultra-Rapid Lispro Insulin with Control-IQ Technology in Adults, Adolescents, and Children with Type 1 Diabetes.

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

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.

4S-fluorination of ProB29 in insulin lispro slows fibril formation.

Recombinant insulin is a life-saving therapeutic for millions of patients affected by diabetes mellitus. Standard mutagenesis has led to insulin variants with improved control of blood glucose; for instance, the fast-acting insulin lispro contains two point mutations that suppress dimer formation and expedite absorption. However, insulins undergo irreversible denaturation, a process accelerated for the insulin monomer. Here we replace ProB29 of insulin lispro with 4R-fluoroproline, 4S-fluoroproline, and 4,4-difluoroproline. All three fluorinated lispro variants reduce blood glucose in diabetic mice, exhibit similar secondary structure as measured by CD, and rapidly dissociate from the zinc- and resorcinol-bound hexamer upon dilution. Notably, however, we find that 4S-fluorination of ProB29 delays the formation of undesired insulin fibrils that can accumulate at the injection site in vivo and can complicate insulin production and storage. These results demonstrate how subtle molecular changes achieved through non-canonical amino acid mutagenesis can improve the stability of protein therapeutics.

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.

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.

Postprandial Glucose Excursions with Ultra-Rapid Insulin Analogs in Hybrid Closed-Loop Therapy for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

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

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.