Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of once-weekly insulin icodec in individuals with type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: To investigate the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties of once-weekly insulin icodec in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, two-period crossover trial, 66 individuals with T1D (age 18-64 years; glycated haemoglobin ≤75 mmol/mol [≤ 9%]) were to receive once-weekly icodec (8 weeks) and once-daily insulin glargine U100 (2 weeks) at individualized fixed equimolar total weekly doses established during up to 10 weeks' run-in with glargine U100 titrated to pre-breakfast plasma glucose (PG) of 4.4-7.2 mmol/L (80-130 mg/dL). Insulin aspart was used as bolus insulin. Blood sampling for icodec pharmacokinetics was performed from the first icodec dose until 35 days after the last dose. The glucose infusion rate at steady state was assessed in glucose clamps (target 6.7 mmol/L [120 mg/dL]) at 16-52 h and 138-168 h after the last icodec dose and 0-24 h after the last glargine U100 dose. Icodec pharmacodynamics during 1 week were predicted by pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling. Hypoglycaemia was recorded during the treatment periods based on self-measured PG. RESULTS: Icodec reached pharmacokinetic steady state on average within 2-3 weeks. At steady state, model-predicted daily proportions of glucose infusion rate during the 1-week dosing interval were 14.3%, 19.6%, 18.3%, 15.7%, 13.1%, 10.6% and 8.4%, respectively. Rates and duration of Level 2 hypoglycaemic episodes (PG <3.0 mmol/L [54 mg/dL]) were 32.8 versus 23.9 episodes per participant-year of exposure and 33 ± 25 versus 30 ± 18 min (mean ± SD) for icodec versus glargine U100. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties of icodec suggest its potential to provide basal coverage in a basal-bolus insulin regimen in people with T1D.

The effect of AZD9567 vs. prednisolone on glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: Results from a phase 2a clinical trial.

AIMS: Corticosteroids are the treatment of choice for many inflammatory diseases but often lead to adverse effects, including hyperglycaemia. This study investigated the mechanisms driving differential effects on glucose control for AZD9567, an oral nonsteroidal selective glucocorticoid receptor modulator vs. prednisolone in 46 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, 2-way cross-over study (NCT04556760), participants received either AZD9567 72 mg and prednisolone 40 mg daily (cohort 1); AZD9567 40 mg and prednisolone 20 mg daily (cohort 2); or placebo and prednisolone 5 mg daily (cohort 3). Treatment duration was 3 days with a 3-week washout between treatment periods. Glycaemic control was assessed after a standardized meal and with continuous glucose monitoring. RESULTS: A significant difference between AZD9567 and prednisolone in favour of AZD9567 was observed for the change from baseline to Day 4 glucose excursions postmeal in cohort 1 (glucose area under the curve from 0 to 4 h -4.54%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.88, -0.01; P = .049), but not in cohort 2 (-5.77%; 95% CI: -20.92, 12.29; P = .435). In cohort 1, significant differences between AZD9567 and prednisolone were also seen for the change from baseline to day 4 in insulin and glucagon secretion postmeal (P < .001 and P = .005, respectively) and change from baseline to Day 4 in GLP-1 response (P = .022). Significant differences between AZD9567 and prednisolone for 24-h glucose control were observed for both cohort 1 (-1.507 mmol/L; 95% CI: -2.0820, -0.9314; P < .001) and cohort 2 (-1.110 mmol/L; 95% CI -1.7257, -0.4941; P < .001). CONCLUSION: AZD9567 significantly reduced treatment-induced hyperglycaemia compared with prednisolone.

Safety, tolerability, pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics following once-daily doses of BI 187004, an inhibitor of 11 beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-1, over 28 days in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and overweight or obesity.

AIMS: To study the oral 11 beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-1 (11ß-HSD1) inhibitor BI 187004 (NCT02150824), as monotherapy and in combination with metformin, versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) affected by overweight or obesity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Phase II, randomized controlled trial investigated multiple rising doses of BI 187004 as monotherapy (Arm 1: 20, 80 or 240 mg) and in combination with metformin (Arm 2: 240 mg), in adults with T2DM and a body mass index of 28-40 kg/m2 . RESULTS: In total, 103 patients (Arm 1: n = 62, Arm 2: n = 41) were included in this study. BI 187004 was rapidly absorbed and exposure increased approximately dose-dependently. Target engagement of 11ß-HSD1 was observed with near-full inhibition of 11ß-HSD1 in the liver [decreased (5α-tetrahydrocortisol + 5ß-tetrahydrocortisol)/tetrahydrocortisone ratio]; hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis activation was also seen (increased total urinary corticosteroids). No clinically relevant changes from baseline with BI 187004 treatment were observed for bodyweight or meal tolerance test parameters, or in most efficacy endpoints testing glucose and lipid metabolism; a significant increase was observed in weighted mean plasma glucose (p < .05 for 80 and 240 mg BI 187004) but not fasting plasma glucose. Drug-related adverse events were reported for 14 patients (22.6%) in Arm 1 and 10 patients (24.4%) in Arm 2, most frequently headache, diarrhoea, flushing and dizziness. A dose-dependent increase in heart rate was seen with BI 187004 treatment. CONCLUSIONS: BI 187004 was generally well tolerated in patients with T2DM. Despite complete 11ß-HSD1 inhibition, no clinically relevant effects were observed with BI 187004.

A co-formulation of pramlintide and insulin A21G (ADO09) improves postprandial glucose and short-term control of mean glucose, time in range, and body weight versus insulin aspart in adults with type 1 diabetes.

AIM: Pramlintide improves postprandial glucose but requires additional injections. We investigated the pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, efficacy and safety of ADO09, pramlintide/insulin A21G co-formulation, in type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This double-blinded, randomized, two-period cross-over study compared prandial administration of ADO09 or insulin aspart over 24 days in T1D using either ≤40 U bolus insulin per day [low-dose group (LD), n = 28] or 40-75 U [high-dose group (HD), n = 16]. Glycaemic responses through continuous glucose monitoring, and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics profiles following mixed-meal-tolerance tests were evaluated at baseline and at the end of treatment. RESULTS: Glucose increments from 0 to 4 h after mixed-meal-tolerance test (primary endpoint) were 39% (not statistically significantly) lower with ADO09 in the low-dose group and 69% lower in the high-dose group. Mean continuous glucose monitoring glucose during ambulatory treatment was lower with ADO09 than with aspart (LD: -8.2 ± 7.9 mg/dl, p = .0001; HD: -7.0 ± 10 mg/ml, p = .0127), and time-in-range (70-180 mg/dl) improved (LD: +4%, p = .0134; HD: +4%, p = .0432). Body weight declined significantly with ADO09 (LD: -0.8 kg; HD: -1.6 kg). Hypoglycaemic events were slightly more frequent with ADO09 versus aspart (LD: 142 vs. 115; HD: 96 vs. 79). Gastrointestinal events occurred more frequently with ADO09 but were generally transient, and no other safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with aspart, ADO09 was well tolerated and effective in T1D across a wide range of dosage, significantly improving the average blood glucose level and body weight during 24 days of ambulatory treatment. Meal test profiles confirmed improvement of glycaemic patterns and other responses with ADO09.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of the novel basal insulin Fc (insulin efsitora alfa), an insulin fusion protein in development for once-weekly dosing for the treatment of patients with diabetes.

AIM: To assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of basal insulin Fc (BIF; LY3209590), a fusion protein combining a novel single-chain insulin variant together with human IgG2 Fc domain, following single and multiple once-weekly BIF administration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The single ascending dose, 15-day study assessed four BIF doses (5-35 mg) in healthy participants and people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). In the 6-week multiple ascending dose study, people with T2D, previously treated with basal insulin, received insulin glargine daily or a one-time loading dose of BIF followed by 5 weeks of once-weekly dosing (1-10 mg). Safety, tolerability and PK and glucose PD were examined. RESULTS: Mean ages of people with T2D (N = 57) and healthy participants (N = 16) in the single-dose study were 58.4 and 35.8 years, respectively; mean body mass index values were 29.5 and 26.1 kg/m2 . BIF had a PK half-life of approximately 17 days, which led to a sustained, dose-dependent decrease in fasting blood glucose for 5 days or longer. No severe hypoglycaemia was observed. The 6-week ascending dose study included 33 people with T2D aged 40-69 years. BIF showed a low peak-to-trough ratio of 1.14 after the last dose at week 6 (steady state). Over 6 weeks, BIF seven-point glucose profiles remained constant and were similar to insulin glargine. Rates and duration of BIF hypoglycaemic events were similar to insulin glargine. CONCLUSIONS: BIF was well tolerated and the PK/PD profile enabled once-weekly dosing with minimal variation in exposure in a treatment interval of 1 week. The findings suggest BIF is suitable for further development as a weekly basal insulin in people with diabetes.

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.

What is the value of faster acting prandial insulin? Focus on ultra rapid lispro.

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

Novel Drugs for Diabetes Therapy.

Since the first use of insulin 100 years ago, there have been marked improvements in diabetes therapy including, but not limited to, the development of oral antidiabetic agents (OADs), incretin mimetics and insulin analogues. Still, there are substantial shortcomings in diabetes therapy: the blood-glucose lowering effect of OADs is often limited, incretin mimetics often induce gastrointestinal side effects and insulins still induce hypoglycaemia and weight gain in many patients.This review evaluates on-going developments of antidiabetic drugs for their potential for future therapy focussing on injectable therapies. Recent data from dual agonists, in particular tirzepatide, a combination of GIP- and GLP-1 receptor agonists, show unprecedented reductions in HbA1c, body weight and cardiovascular risk factors. Once-weekly administrations of incretin mimetics open up the potential of a combination with once-weekly insulins that have been shown to have low peak-to-trough fluctuations. Eventually, it might be feasible to administer incretins and insulins (combinations) orally. While this has already been achieved for incretins, there are still some challenges for the oral application of insulin. Nevertheless, many promising data of novel antidiabetic drugs clearly indicate that therapy of people with diabetes will become easier, safer and more efficacious in the next years.

ADO09, a co-formulation of the amylin analogue pramlintide and the insulin analogue A21G, lowers postprandial blood glucose versus insulin lispro in type 1 diabetes.

AIM: To compare the safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ADO09 with insulin lispro (Lispro) and separate subcutaneous injections of human insulin and pramlintide (Ins&Pram) in 24 subjects with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: At three dosing visits, participants received single doses of ADO09, Ins&Pram or Lispro immediately before eating a standardized mixed meal together with 1 g of acetaminophen, which was used as a surrogate marker to evaluate the kinetics of gastric emptying. Premeal blood glucose was adjusted to 126 mg/dL ± 10% by means of insulin and glucose infusions. The insulin dose was 7.5 U and the pramlintide dose was 45 µg. Blood glucose, glucagon and acetaminophen concentrations were assessed as pharmacodynamic endpoints; insulin and pramlintide concentrations were analysed as pharmacokinetic endpoints, and safety and tolerability were assessed. RESULTS: Compared with Lispro, ADO09 reduced postprandial blood glucose (ppBG) excursions by more than 95% in the first hour postmeal (mean ± SD ∆AUC BG 0-1 h: 1.4 ± 9.9 mg*h/dL vs. 43.5 ± 15.3 mg*h/dL; p < .0001). Maximum ppBG was significantly improved with ADO09 (∆BGmax 87.0 ± 35.5 mg/dL) versus both Lispro (109.2 ± 31.1 mg/dL; p = .0133) and Ins&Pram (109.4 ± 44.3 mg/dL; p = .0357). Gastric emptying with ADO09 was similar to Ins&Pram and significantly slower than with Lispro. All treatments were well tolerated and both adverse events and hypoglycaemic events were rare during the meal test procedure. CONCLUSION: ADO09 was well tolerated and markedly reduced ppBG compared with Lispro. ADO09 formulation was generally similar to the separate administration of insulin and pramlintide, except for a better BG level in the 4-8 h interval postmeal. These positive results warrant further investigations with ADO09.

The majority of people with type 1 diabetes and multiple daily insulin injections benefit from using continuous glucose monitoring: An analysis based on the GOLD randomized trial (GOLD-5).

AIM: To identify responders to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in relation to reductions in HbA1c and percentage of time spent in hypoglycaemia after initiation of CGM for individuals with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed data from 142 participants in the GOLD randomized clinical trial. We evaluated how many lowered their HbA1c by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) or decreased the time spent in hypoglycaemia over 24 hours by more than 20 or 30 minutes, and which baseline variables were associated with those improvements. RESULTS: Lower reduction of HbA1c was associated with greater reduction of hypoglycaemia (r = -0.52; P < .0001). During CGM, 47% of participants lowered their HbA1c values by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) than with self-measurement of blood glucose, and 47% decreased the time spent in hypoglycaemia by more than 20 minutes over 24 hours. Overall, 78% either reduced their HbA1c by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) or the time spent in hypoglycaemia by more than 20 minutes over 24 hours, but only 14% improved both. Higher HbA1c, a lower percentage of time at less than 3.0 or 3.9 mmol/L, a lower coefficient of variation (CV) and a higher percentage of time above 13.9 mmol/L (P = .016) were associated with greater HbA1c reduction during CGM. The variables associated with a greater reduction of time in hypoglycaemia were female sex, greater time with glucose levels at less than 3.0 mmol/L, higher CV, and higher hypoglycaemia confidence as evaluated by a hypoglycaemic confidence questionnaire. CONCLUSION: The majority of people with type 1 diabetes managed by multiple daily insulin injections benefit from CGM; some experienced reduced HbA1c while others reduced the time spent in hypoglycaemia. These factors need to be considered by healthcare professionals and decision-makers for reimbursement and diabetes guidelines.

Glucose management for exercise using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) systems in type 1 diabetes: position statement of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and of the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) endorsed by JDRF and supported by the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

Physical exercise is an important component in the management of type 1 diabetes across the lifespan. Yet, acute exercise increases the risk of dysglycaemia, and the direction of glycaemic excursions depends, to some extent, on the intensity and duration of the type of exercise. Understandably, fear of hypoglycaemia is one of the strongest barriers to incorporating exercise into daily life. Risk of hypoglycaemia during and after exercise can be lowered when insulin-dose adjustments are made and/or additional carbohydrates are consumed. Glycaemic management during exercise has been made easier with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) systems; however, because of the complexity of CGM and isCGM systems, both individuals with type 1 diabetes and their healthcare professionals may struggle with the interpretation of given information to maximise the technological potential for effective use around exercise (i.e. before, during and after). This position statement highlights the recent advancements in CGM and isCGM technology, with a focus on the evidence base for their efficacy to sense glucose around exercise and adaptations in the use of these emerging tools, and updates the guidance for exercise in adults, children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Graphical abstract.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic bioequivalence of proposed biosimilar MYL-1501D with US and European insulin glargine formulations in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

AIMS: To report phase 1 bioequivalence results comparing MYL-1501D, US reference insulin glargine (US IG), and European reference insulin glargine (EU IG). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The double-blind, randomized, three-way crossover study compared the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) characteristics of MYL-1501D, US IG and EU IG. In total, 114 patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) received 0.4 U/kg of each study treatment under automated euglycaemic clamp conditions. Insulin metabolite M1 concentrations, insulin glargine (IG) and glucose infusion rates (GIRs) were assessed over 30 hours. Primary PK endpoints were area under the serum IG concentration-time curve from 0 to 30 hours (AUCins.0-30h ) and maximum serum IG concentration (Cins.max ). Primary PD endpoints were area under the GIR-time curve from 0 to 30 hours (AUCGIR0-30h ) and maximum GIR (GIRmax ). RESULTS: Bioequivalence among MYL-1501D, US IG and EU IG was demonstrated for the primary PK and PD endpoints. Least squares mean ratios were close to 1, and 90% confidence intervals were within 0.80 to 1.25. The PD GIR-time profiles were nearly superimposable. There were no noticeable differences in the safety profiles of the three treatments, and no serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Equivalence with regard to PK and PD characteristics was shown among MYL-1501D, US IG and EU IG in patients with T1DM, and each treatment was well tolerated and safe.

Ultra rapid lispro lowers postprandial glucose and more closely matches normal physiological glucose response compared to other rapid insulin analogues: A phase 1 randomized, crossover study.

AIMS: To compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) and glucodynamic (GD) characteristics of ultra rapid lispro (URLi; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana), Fiasp® (Novo Nordisk, Bagsvaerd, Denmark), Humalog® (Eli Lilly and Company) and NovoRapid® (Novo Nordisk), in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, four-period, crossover study, conducted in 68 patients with T1D. Patients received the same individualized subcutaneous dose of each study drug immediately prior to a liquid test meal. For comparison, 12 healthy subjects received the same test meal. RESULTS: URLi had a significantly faster insulin absorption compared to the other insulins tested. Early half-maximal drug concentration was reached 13 minutes after administration of URLi, which was 6 minutes faster than Fiasp, 13 minutes faster than Humalog, and 14 minutes faster than NovoRapid (all P <0.0001). Early insulin exposure was significantly greater and late insulin exposure was reduced after URLi compared to the other insulins. URLi achieved the greatest numerical reduction in postprandial glucose (PPG) at 2 hours post-meal (7 mg/dL vs Fiasp) and was significantly different from Humalog (21 mg/dL) and Novo Rapid (29 mg/dL). Additionally, glucose excursions over the first 3 hours post-meal with URLi were comparable to those in healthy subjects. CONCLUSIONS: URLi demonstrated the fastest insulin absorption and the greatest numeric PPG-lowering effect compared to the other insulins tested. URLi more closely matched the early physiological glucose control observed in healthy subjects.

Glucose management for exercise using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) systems in type 1 diabetes: position statement of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and of the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) endorsed by JDRF and supported by the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

Physical exercise is an important component in the management of type 1 diabetes across the lifespan. Yet, acute exercise increases the risk of dysglycaemia, and the direction of glycaemic excursions depends, to some extent, on the intensity and duration of the type of exercise. Understandably, fear of hypoglycaemia is one of the strongest barriers to incorporating exercise into daily life. Risk of hypoglycaemia during and after exercise can be lowered when insulin-dose adjustments are made and/or additional carbohydrates are consumed. Glycaemic management during exercise has been made easier with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) systems; however, because of the complexity of CGM and isCGM systems, both individuals with type 1 diabetes and their healthcare professionals may struggle with the interpretation of given information to maximise the technological potential for effective use around exercise (ie, before, during and after). This position statement highlights the recent advancements in CGM and isCGM technology, with a focus on the evidence base for their efficacy to sense glucose around exercise and adaptations in the use of these emerging tools, and updates the guidance for exercise in adults, children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

Costs and its drivers for diabetes mellitus type 2 patients in France and Germany: a systematic review of economic studies.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes represents an increasingly critical challenge for health policy worldwide. It absorbs massive resources from both patients and national economies to sustain direct costs of the treatment of type 2 diabetes and its complications and indirect costs related to work loss and wages. More recently, there are innovations based on remote control and personalised programs that promise a more cost-effective diabetes management while reducing diabetes-related complications. In such a context, this work attempts to update cost analysis reviews on type 2 diabetes, focusing on France and Germany, in order to explore most significant cost drivers and cost-saving opportunities through innovations in diabetes care. Although both countries approach care delivery differently, France and Germany represent the primary European markets for diabetes technologies. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature listed in MEDLINE, Embase and EconLit has been carried out. It covered interventional, observational and modelling studies on expenditures for type 2 diabetes management in France or Germany published since 2012. Included articles were analysed for annual direct, associated and indirect costs of type 2 diabetes patients. An appraisal of study quality was performed. Results were summarised narratively. RESULTS: From 1260 records, the final sample was composed of 24 papers selected according to predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Both France and Germany revealed a predominant focus on direct costs. Comparability was limited due to different study populations and cost categories used. Indirect costs were only available in Germany. According to prior literature, reported cost drivers are hospitalisation, prescriptions, higher HbA1c and BMI, treatment with insulin and complications, all indicators of disease severity. The diversity of available data and included costs limits the results and may explain the differences found. CONCLUSIONS: Complication prevention and glycaemic control are widely recognized as the most effective ways to control diabetes treatment costs. The value propositions of self-based supports, such as hybrid closed-loop metabolic systems, already implemented in type 1 diabetes management, are the key points for further debates and policymaking, which should involve the perspectives of caregivers, patients and payers.

MEDI0382, a GLP-1 and glucagon receptor dual agonist, in obese or overweight patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised, controlled, double-blind, ascending dose and phase 2a study.

BACKGROUND: Weight loss is often key in the management of obese or overweight patients with type 2 diabetes, yet few treatments for diabetes achieve clinically meaningful weight loss. We aimed to assess the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of treatment with MEDI0382, a balanced glucagon-like peptide-1 and glucagon receptor dual agonist developed to provide glycaemic control and weight loss, in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, combined multiple-ascending dose (MAD) and phase 2a study was done at 11 study sites (hospitals and contract research organisations) in Germany. We enrolled patients aged 18-65 years with controlled type 2 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] levels of 6·5-8·5% at screening) and a body-mass index between 27 kg/m2 and 40 kg/m2. An interactive web-response system was used to randomly assign patients to receive MEDI0382 or placebo. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 in cohorts A-C and 3:1 in cohorts D and E in the MAD portion of the study, and 1:1 in the phase 2a portion. Randomisation was done by a contracted third-party operator who was not involved in the clinical operations of the study. The pharmacists, participants, and study site personnel involved in treating and assessing participants were masked to treatment allocation. Patients received once-daily subcutaneous injections of the study drug at doses of no more than 300 µg for 22 days or less in the MAD portion of the study, and a dose of no more than 200 µg for 41 days or less in the phase 2a portion. The two primary endpoints of the phase 2a portion were the change from baseline to day 41 in glucose area under the curve at 0-4 h (AUC0-4 h) after a mixed-meal tolerance test (MMTT), assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug and whose measurements were taken at baseline and day 41, and change from baseline in bodyweight, assessed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety analyses were done in all participants who received any study drug analysed according to the treatment they received. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02548585. FINDINGS: Patients were recruited between Dec 9, 2015, and Feb 24, 2017. 61 patients were randomly assigned to the MAD part of the study (42 to MEDI0382 and 19 to placebo). 51 patients were randomly assigned to the phase 2a part, of whom 25 were randomly assigned to MEDI0382 and 26 to placebo. In the phase 2a study, three patients in the MEDI0382 group and one in the placebo group discontinued, all as a result of adverse events. 22 (88%) patients in the MEDI0382 group and 25 (96%) in the placebo group received at least one dose and had measurements taken at baseline and day 41. Glucose AUC0-4 h post MMTT decreased significantly with MEDI0382 versus placebo (least squares [LS] mean -32·78% [90% CI -36·98 to -28·57] vs -10·16% [-14·10 to -6·21], and the mean difference was -22·62% [-28·40 to -16·85]; p<0·0001). In the ITT population, reduction in bodyweight was significantly greater with MEDI0382 than with placebo (LS mean -3·84 kg [90% CI -4·55 to -3·12] vs -1·70 kg [-2·40 to -1·01] and mean difference of 2·14 kg [-3·13 to -1·31]; p=0·0008). The proportion of patients who had a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was similar between treatment groups (22 [88%] of 25 in the MEDI0382 group vs 23 [88%] of 26 in the placebo group); gastrointestinal disorders (18 [72%] vs 13 [40%]) and decreased appetite (five [20%] vs none) occurred more frequently with MEDI0382 than placebo. No participants in the MEDI0382 group had a grade 3 or worse TEAE (vs two [8%] in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: MEDI0382 has the potential to deliver clinically meaningful reductions in blood glucose and bodyweight in obese or overweight individuals with type 2 diabetes. FUNDING: MedImmune.

Low doses of dasiglucagon consistently increase plasma glucose levels from hypoglycaemia and euglycaemia in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

AIM: To characterize the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of dasiglucagon, a novel, stable and liquid formulated glucagon analogue, during hypoglycaemic and euglycaemic conditions in adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this randomized double-blind trial, 17 patients received four single subcutaneous doses (0.03, 0.08, 0.2 and 0.6 mg) of dasiglucagon (4 mg/mL formulation) under euglycaemic (plasma glucose [PG] 5.6 mmol/L [100 mg/dL]) or hypoglycaemic (PG 3.1-3.7 mmol/L [56-66 mg/dL]) conditions. For comparison, three doses (0.03, 0.08 and 0.2 mg) of a commercial glucagon formulation (Eli Lilly) were investigated at euglycaemia. RESULTS: Dasiglucagon led to a dose-dependent and rapid increase in PG levels across all doses tested (mean increases 30 minutes post-dosing of 2.2 to 4.4 mmol/L [39-80 mg/dL] from euglycaemia and 1.3 to 5.2 mmol/L [24-94 mg/dL] from hypoglycaemia), which was higher than the rises elicited by similar doses of commercial glucagon (1.7-3.9 mmol/L [30-71 mg/dL]). The median time (range) to an increase in PG of >1.1 mmol/L (20 mg/dL) was <20 (18-19.5) minutes with 0.03 mg dasiglucagon and, with higher doses, the median times ranged from 9 to 15 minutes (commercial glucagon 13-14 minutes). In hypoglycaemia, 0.03 and 0.08 mg dasiglucagon re-established normoglycaemia (PG ≥3.9 mmol/L [70 mg/dL]) within median times of 14 and 10 minutes, respectively. Nausea and vomiting occurred more frequently with dasiglucagon than with commercial glucagon at identical doses which might be attributable to dasiglucagon's higher potency. CONCLUSION: Dasiglucagon rapidly increased PG at doses of 0.03 to 0.6 mg in a dose-dependent manner and, therefore, is a good candidate for use in dual-hormone artificial pancreas systems.

Better glycaemic control with BioChaperone glargine lispro co-formulation than with insulin lispro Mix25 or separate glargine and lispro administrations after a test meal in people with type 2 diabetes.

Because of its physico-chemical properties, insulin glargine is usually not mixable with rapid insulins. BioChaperone BC147 is a polyanionic amphiphilic polymer, solubilizing insulin glargine at neutral pH, and thus enabling stable glargine formulation with fast-acting insulin lispro (BioChaperone glargine lispro co-formulation [BC Combo]). We investigated pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints and postprandial glucose (PPG) control after administration of BC Combo (75% insulin glargine, 25% insulin lispro), insulin lispro Mix25 (LMix) and separate injections of insulins glargine (75% total dose) and lispro (25% total dose [G + L]) immediately before ingestion of a mixed meal in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), using a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy crossover study design. Participants received individualized bolus doses (mean 0.62 U/kg) of BC Combo, LMix or G + L, together with a solid mixed meal (610 kcal, 50% carbohydrate, 30% fat, 20% protein). Insulin dosages were kept constant for each study day. Thirty-nine participants with T2DM (mean ± SD age and glycated haemoglobin 60.8 ± 7.5 years and 64 ± 6 mmol/mol, respectively) were randomized. BC Combo improved the predefined primary endpoint, early PPG control, compared to LMix (incremental area under the blood glucose concentration-time curve from 0 to 2 hours after the meal [ΔAUCBG,0-2h ] reduction of 18%; P = 0.0009) and G + L (ΔAUCBG,0-2h reduction of 10%; P = 0.0450). The number of mealtime hypoglycaemic episodes per participant was lower with BC Combo (22 episodes in 14 participants) compared to LMix (43 episodes in 20 participants; P = 0.0028), but not significantly different from G + L (28 episodes in 19 participants; P = 0.2523). BC Combo demonstrated superior early PPG control with fewer hypoglycaemic episodes compared to LMix and superior early PPG control compared to separate G + L administrations.

Environmental effects of ambient temperature and relative humidity on insulin pharmacodynamics in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the effects of ambient temperature and relative humidity on insulin pharmacodynamics in adults with type 1 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A three-way, cross-over, randomised study was performed in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (n = 10). The pharmacodynamics profile of a single dose of short-acting insulin (insulin lispro) was investigated, using a controlled environmental chamber, under three environmental conditions: (a) temperature: 15°C and humidity: 10%; (b) temperature: 30°C and humidity: 10%; and (c) temperature: 30°C and humidity: 60%. A euglycaemic glucose clamp technique ensured constant blood glucose of 100 mg/dL (5.5 mmol/L). The following pharmacodynamic endpoints were calculated: maximum glucose infusion rate (GIRmax ), time to GIRmax (tGIRmax ), total area under the curve (AUC) for GIR from 0-6 hours (AUCGIR.0-6h ), and partial AUCs (AUCGIR.0-1h , AUCGIR.0-2h and AUCGIR.2-6h ). RESULTS: Higher temperature (30°C) under 10% fixed humidity conditions resulted in greater GIRmax (P = 0.04) and a later tGIR.max (P = 0.049) compared to lower temperature (15°C). Humidity did not affect any pharmacodynamic parameter. When the combined effects of temperature and humidity were explored, tGIR.max (P = 0.008) occurred earlier, with a lower late insulin pharmacodynamic effect (AUCGIR.2-6h ; P = 0.017) at a temperature of 15°C and humidity of 10% compared to a temperature of 30°C and humidity of 60%. CONCLUSIONS: High ambient temperature resulted in a greater insulin peak effect compared to low ambient temperature, with the contribution of high relative humidity apparent only at high ambient temperature. This suggests that patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus who are entering higher environmental temperatures, with or without high humidity, could experience more hypoglycaemic events.

BioChaperone Lispro versus faster aspart and insulin aspart in patients with type 1 diabetes using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion: A randomized euglycemic clamp study.

We investigated the pharmacodynamics (PD) and pharmacokinetics (PK) of BioChaperone insulin Lispro (BCLIS), faster insulin aspart (FIA) and insulin aspart (ASP) in patients with type 1 diabetes using an insulin pump. In this randomized, double-blind, three-way crossover glucose clamp study, 43 patients received a bolus dose of each insulin (0.15 U/kg) in addition to a basal rate (0.01 U/kg/h), delivered via an insulin pump. With BCLIS, the AUC-GIR,0-60 minutes (primary endpoint) was improved compared to ASP (least square means ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.44-1.88; P < 0.0001) and was similar compared to FIA (least square means ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.94-1.18; P = 0.4609). BCLIS showed faster-on PD (tearly0.5GIRmax ) than ASP and faster-off PD (tlate0.5GIRmax ) than both FIA and ASP. BCLIS also demonstrated significantly higher early exposure (AUCins, 0-60 minutes) and lower late exposure (AUCins,120-600 minutes) than both other insulins. In patients with type 1 diabetes using an insulin pump, BCLIS better mimics prandial insulin secretion and action than ASP and shows a faster off-PD than FIA.