Evolution of pharmacological obesity treatments: focus on adverse side-effect profiles.

Pharmacotherapy directed toward reducing body weight may provide benefits for both curbing obesity and lowering the risk of obesity-associated comorbidities; however, many weight loss medications have been withdrawn from the market because of serious adverse effects. Examples include pulmonary hypertension (aminorex), cardiovascular toxicity, e.g. flenfluramine-induced valvopathy, stroke [phenylpropanolamine (PPA)], excess non-fatal cardiovascular events (sibutramine), and neuro-psychiatric issues (rimonabant; approved in Europe, but not in the USA). This negative experience has helped mould the current drug development and approval process for new anti-obesity drugs. Differences between the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency, however, in perceptions of risk-benefit considerations for individual drugs have resulted in discrepancies in approval and/or withdrawal of weight-reducing medications. Thus, two drugs recently approved by the FDA, i.e. lorcaserin and phentermine + topiramate extended release, are not available in Europe. In contrast, naltrexone sustained release (SR)/bupropion SR received FDA approval, and liraglutide 3.0 mg was recently approved in both the USA and Europe. Regulatory strategies adopted by the FDA to manage the potential for uncommon but potentially serious post-marketing toxicity include: (i) risk evaluation and mitigation strategy programmes; (ii) stipulating post-marketing safety trials; (iii) considering responder rates and limiting cumulative exposure by discontinuation if weight loss is not attained within a reasonable timeframe; and (iv) requiring large cardiovascular outcome trials before or after approval. We chronicle the adverse effects of anti-obesity pharmacotherapy and consider how the history of high-profile toxicity issues has shaped the current regulatory landscape for new and future weight-reducing drugs.

Glucodynamics of long-acting basal insulin peglispro compared with insulin glargine at steady state in patients with type 1 diabetes: substudy of a randomized crossover trial.

AIMS: To compare, in an open-label, randomized, crossover phase II substudy, the glucodynamics of insulin glargine and those of basal insulin peglispro (BIL) in patients with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Patients (n = 23) underwent 24-h euglycaemic clamps after 8 weeks of treatment with glargine or with BIL. Clinically-titrated basal insulin doses (BIL group 16-64 U; glargine group 19-60 U) were administered on the morning of the clamp. RESULTS: At baseline, the patients' mean ± standard deviation (s.d.) body mass index was 26.78 ± 4.20 kg/m2 and glycated haemoglobin was 7.69 ± 0.99%. The mean ± s.d. endpoint dose for the BIL group was 0.42 ± 0.13 U/kg and for the glargine group was 0.42 ± 0.10. The daily mean ± s.d. blood glucose concentration was 7.7 ± 1.2 in the BIL group and 7.9 ± 1.2 mmol/l in the glargine group (p = 0.641). The mean ± s.d. total and nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates/30 days were 2.7 ± 2.3 and 0.5 ± 0.8, respectively, for the BIL group, and 3.0 ± 2.4 and 0.7 ± 1.1, respectively, for the glargine group (p = 0.112 and 0.428). The mean glucose infusion rate (GIR) normalized to insulin unit was lower for BIL than for glargine. One patient in the glargine group and eight patients in the BIL group had minimal (<0.8 g/kg) GIRs over 24 h. The mean ± s.d. total glucose infused over 24 h (GTOT(0-24) ) was 1.22 ± 0.82 g/kg in the BIL group and 1.90 ± 1.01 g/kg in the glargine group (p = 0.002). The mean ± s.d. total glucose infused during hours 0-6 (GTOT(0-6) ) was 0.21 ± 0.22 in the BIL group and 0.41 ± 0.22 g/kg in the glargine group (p < 0.001), while the mean total glucose infused during hours 18-24 (GTOT(18-24) ) in the BIL group was 0.28 ± 0.18 g/kg and in the glargine group was 0.35 ± 0.23 g/kg (p = 0.198). The peak-to-trough ratio was 1.41 for BIL versus 2.22 for glargine. CONCLUSIONS: BIL has a flatter profile than glargine, with potentially more stable metabolic control. The lower GTOT(0-24) observed in the BIL group is consistent with BIL's reduced peripheral action.

Biosimilar insulins: guidance for data interpretation by clinicians and users.

Biosimilar insulins are approved copies of insulins outside patent protection. Advantages may include greater market competition and potential cost reduction, but clinicians and users lack a clear perspective on 'biosimilarity' for insulins. The manufacturing processes for biosimilar insulins are manufacturer-specific and, although these are reviewed by regulators there are few public data available to allow independent assessment or review of issues such as intrinsic quality or batch-to-batch variation. Preclinical measures used to assess biosimilarity, such as tissue and cellular studies of metabolic activity, physico-chemical stability and animal studies of pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity may be insufficiently sensitive to differences, and are often not formally published. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies (glucose clamps) with humans, although core assessments, have problems of precision which are relevant for accurate insulin dosing. Studies that assess clinical efficacy and safety and device compatibility are limited by current outcome measures, such as glycated haemoblobin levels and hypoglycaemia, which are insensitive to differences between insulins. To address these issues, we suggest that all comparative data are put in the public domain, and that systematic clinical studies are performed to address batch-to-batch variability, delivery devices, interchangeability in practice and long-term efficacy and safety. Despite these challenges biosimilar insulins are a welcome addition to diabetes therapy and, with a transparent approach, should provide useful benefit to insulin users.

Albiglutide does not impair the counter-regulatory hormone response to hypoglycaemia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, stepped glucose clamp study in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIM: To determine if the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist albiglutide, once weekly, impairs counter-regulatory responses during hypoglycaemia. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled study in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A single dose of albiglutide 50 mg (n = 22) or placebo (n = 22) was administered on day 1. Glucose was clamped on day 4 (to coincide with the approximate albiglutide maximum plasma concentration) at 9.0, 5.0, 4.0, 3.3 and 2.8 mmol/l (162, 90, 72, 59.4 and 50.4 mg/dl), with a post-clamp recovery period to 3.9 mmol/l (70 mg/dl). Hormone measurements were made at each plateau and adverse events (AEs) were recorded. RESULTS: The counter-regulatory hormones glucagon, epinephrine, norepinephrine, growth hormone and cortisol were appropriately suppressed when plasma glucose levels were >4.0 mmol/l (>72 mg/dl), but increased in the albiglutide and placebo groups with glucose levels <3.3 mmol/l (<59.4 mg/dl) in response to hypoglycaemia. The area under the curve geometric mean ratios (albiglutide : placebo), calculated from the clamped plateau of 4.0 mmol/l (72 mg/dl) to the glucose recovery point, were not significantly different for any of the counter-regulatory hormones. When plasma glucose levels were >5.0 mmol/l (>90 mg/dl), albiglutide increased pancreatic ß-cell secretion of C-peptide in a glucose-dependent manner to a greater extent than did placebo, and it was suppressed in each group when levels were <4.0 mmol/l (<72 mg/dl). No significant difference between groups was observed in the recovery time to glucose level ≥3.9 mmol/l (≥70 mg/dl). There were no clinically relevant differences in AEs or other safety variables. CONCLUSIONS: A single 50-mg dose of albiglutide was well tolerated and did not impair the counter-regulatory response to hypoglycaemia. These data provide mechanistic evidence supporting the low intrinsic hypoglycaemic potential of albiglutide.

Effect of exogenously administered glucagon versus spontaneous endogenous counter-regulation on glycaemic recovery from insulin-induced hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with a novel glucokinase activator, AZD1656, and metformin.

AIMS: To study the effect of exogenous i.m. glucagon on recovery from controlled insulin-induced hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with the novel glucokinase activator AZD1656, in combination with metformin. METHODS: This was a single-centre randomized, open, two-way crossover phase I, automated glucose clamp (Biostator(®); Life Science Instruments, Elkhart, MD, USA) study (NCT00817271) in eight patients (seven men and one woman, mean age 58.6 years, body mass index 28.1 kg/m(2)). All patients received a stable dose of metformin twice daily, ranging from 1000 to 2250 mg. A 2-day titration phase commenced with 40 mg AZD1656 twice daily, escalating to 80 mg twice daily if tolerated. This was followed by a single dose of 80 or 160 mg AZD1656, administered on days 5 and 8 when metabolic studies were performed. After an overnight fast on days 5 and 8, controlled hypoglycaemia was induced using an exogenous i.v. infusion of insulin. Plasma glucose was lowered in a stepwise fashion over 3 h to attain a target nadir of 2.7 mmol/l. This was sustained for 30 min, at the end of which the hypoglycaemic clamp was released. In random sequence, patients either received an i.m. injection of 1 mg glucagon or were allowed to recover from hypoglycaemia by endogenous counter-regulation. To avoid prolonged hypoglycaemia, a reverse glucose clamp was applied from 4 to 6 h post-dose. RESULTS: Three patients received 40 mg AZD1656 twice daily and five patients 80 mg twice daily. Mean plasma glucose at 20 min after release of the hypoglycaemic clamp was significantly lower (3.1 ± 0.3 mmol/l) for AZD1656 alone than for AZD1656 + glucagon (4.9 ± 0.8 mmol/l; p < 0.001 between the groups). Catecholamine and cortisol responses were similar on the AZD1656 + glucagon and AZD alone study days. Growth hormone response was 18% lower for AZD1656 alone (p = 0.01), consistent with the effect of a pharmacological dose of glucagon on growth hormone secretion. No safety or tolerability concerns were observed during treatment with AZ1656. CONCLUSIONS: Exogenous glucagon was effective as a rescue treatment for hypoglycaemia induced during treatment with AZD1656, given in combination with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Safety, efficacy and weight effect of two 11ß-HSD1 inhibitors in metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: We assessed safety and efficacy of two selective 11ß-HSD1 inhibitors (RO5093151/RO-151 and RO5027383/RO-838) in this randomized, controlled study in metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Patients either received placebo (N = 21), RO-151 BID 5 mg (N = 24) or 200 mg (N = 20) or RO-838 QD 50 mg (N = 21) or 200 mg (N = 24) for 28 days. Metabolic assessments comprising of nine-point plasma glucose profiles, oral glucose tolerance tests and determination of metabolic biomarkers including insulin, C-peptide, glucagon, HbA1c and lipids were done at baseline and end of treatment. RESULTS: Despite the short treatment duration, both RO-151 and RO-838 showed trends for improved HbA1c and consistent reductions in body weight (-0.86 to -1.67 kg) exceeding those observed with placebo (-0.28 kg, p = 0.019 for 200 mg RO-151 vs. placebo). Insulin sensitivity parameters (e.g. HOMA-IR and Matsuda-Index) improved non-significantly with 200 mg RO-151. Lipid parameters did not consistently improve with either compound, but RO-838 led to non-significant increases in triglycerides and VLDL-cholesterol versus placebo. Both compounds were well tolerated and showed inhibitory effects on 11ß-HSD1 activity based on urinary corticosteroid excretion. As reported for other 11ß-HSD1-inhibitors increased concentrations of ACTH and adrenal androgen precursors were found with RO-151, but not with RO-838. CONCLUSIONS: Slight metabolic improvements were seen, in particular with RO-151 high dose, however, the observed changes often did not reach statistical significance and were not clearly dose dependent. Studies of longer duration are needed to further investigate potential benefits and risks of these compounds.

Canagliflozin improves glycaemic control over 28 days in subjects with type 2 diabetes not optimally controlled on insulin.

AIM: Canagliflozin is a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor that is being investigated for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 28-day study conducted at two sites, in 29 subjects with T2DM not optimally controlled on insulin and up to one oral antihyperglycaemic agent. Subjects were treated with canagliflozin 100 mg QD or 300 mg twice daily (BID) or placebo. Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetic characteristics and pharmacodynamic effects of canagliflozin were examined. Glucose malabsorption following a 75-g oral glucose challenge was also examined. RESULTS: Canagliflozin pharmacokinetics were dose-dependent, and the elimination half-life ranged from 12 to 15 h. After 28 days, the renal threshold for glucose excretion was reduced; urinary glucose excretion was increased; and A1C, fasting plasma glucose and body weight decreased in subjects administered canagliflozin (A1C reductions: 0.19% with placebo, 0.73% with 100 mg QD, 0.92% with 300 mg BID; body weight changes: 0.03 kg increase with placebo, 0.73 kg reduction with 100 mg QD, 1.19 kg reduction with 300 mg BID). Glucose malabsorption was not observed with canagliflozin treatment. There were no deaths, serious adverse events or severe hypoglycaemic episodes. The incidence of adverse events was similar across groups. There were no clinically meaningful changes in routine laboratory safety tests, vital signs or electrocardiograms. CONCLUSION: In subjects receiving insulin and oral antihyperglycaemic therapy, canagliflozin was well tolerated without evidence for glucose malabsorption, had pharmacokinetic characteristics consistent with once-daily dosing, and improved glycaemic control.

Safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of multiple-ascending doses of the novel glucokinase activator AZD1656 in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIMS: To assess the safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of multiple-ascending doses of the novel glucokinase activator AZD1656 in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: This randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled, monotherapy study was carried out in two parts. In part A, 32 patients received AZD1656 (7, 20, 40 or 80 mg) twice daily or placebo for 8 days in hospital. In part B, another 20 patients received, as outpatients, individually titrated AZD1656 15-45 mg twice daily or placebo for 28 days. Safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic variables were evaluated. RESULTS: AZD1656 was generally well tolerated. Pharmacokinetics of AZD1656 were virtually dose- and time-independent. AZD1656 was rapidly absorbed and eliminated. An active metabolite was formed which had a longer half-life than AZD1656, but showed ∼15% of the area under the plasma concentration versus time curve from 0 to 24 h compared with that of AZD1656. Renal excretion of AZD1656 and the metabolite was low. In part A, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) was reduced by up to 21% and mean 24-h plasma glucose was reduced by up to 24% with AZD1656 versus placebo, depending on dose. No dose-related changes in serum insulin or C-peptide were observed with AZD1656 at the end of treatment. Results in part B confirmed the glucose-lowering effect of AZD1656 versus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: AZD1656 was well tolerated with predictable pharmacokinetics in patients with T2DM. Dose-dependent reductions in plasma glucose were observed.

Co-administration of liraglutide with insulin detemir demonstrates additive pharmacodynamic effects with no pharmacokinetic interaction.

AIM: To compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) [area under the curve (AUC0(-)24 (h), C(max))] and pharmacodynamic (PD) (AUC(GIR) 0(-)24 (h), GIR(max)) properties of single-dose insulin detemir in the presence or absence of steady-state liraglutide (1.8 mg dose) in subjects with type 2 diabetes to determine whether co-administration affected the PK and PD profiles of either therapeutic agent. METHODS: Following a 3-week washout of oral antidiabetic agents (OADs) other than metformin, PK and PD assessments during three euglycaemia clamps were conducted: day 1 following a single dose of insulin detemir alone (0.5 U/kg), day 22 after 3 weeks of once-daily liraglutide with weekly dose escalation to 1.8 mg daily, and day 36 after 2 weeks of steady-state liraglutide maintenance at the 1.8 mg dose following co-administration with a single dose of insulin detemir (0.5 U/kg). RESULTS: The study population (N = 33; age 49.6 (±8.5) years) had diabetes for an average of 6.5 (±4.1) years, BMI 33 (±6.4) kg/m², FPG 9.7 (±1.6) mmol/l and HbA1c 8.3% (±0.9). PK: The PK profiles of insulin detemir were similar with and without steady-state liraglutide. Liraglutide did not affect AUC or C(max) of insulin detemir and vice versa. The 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for ratios of insulin detemir AUC [1.03; CI (0.97, 1.09)] and C(max) [1.05; CI (0.98, 1.13)] and liraglutide AUC [0.97; CI (0.87, 1.08)] and C(max) [1.03, CI (0.93, 1.13)] were all within the no-effect boundary (0.80, 1.25) (bioequivalence criterion). A stable mean insulin detemir concentration with and without liraglutide was maintained at the end of the 24-h PK sampling period. PD: The sum of AUC(GIR) for liraglutide (1982 mg/kg) and insulin detemir (1058 mg/kg) when given alone was similar to that obtained when the two were co-administered (2947 mg/kg). No serious adverse events were reported and no adverse events led to study withdrawal. CONCLUSION: Co-administration of liraglutide 1.8 mg at steady state and insulin detemir produces an additive glucose-lowering effect without affecting the PK profile of either therapeutic agent suggesting that the addition of insulin detemir to patients treated with liraglutide will not require titration algorithms different from when insulin is added to OADs. The co-administration of insulin detemir and liraglutide was well tolerated.

Short-term metabolic effects of prednisone administration in healthy subjects.

AIMS: Supraphysiologic glucocorticoid activity is well established to cause impaired glucose tolerance and insulin resistance, yet no study has evaluated dose-dependent effects of low-dose prednisone during short-term oral administration. METHODS: The objective of this study was to quantify the effects of daily 10 or 25 mg prednisone administration for one week on insulin sensitivity by employing a two-step hyperinsulinemic euglycemic glucose clamp (Step 1: insulin infusion = 20 mU/m²/min; Step 2: insulin infusion = 80 mU/m²/min) in healthy, lean males. The amount of glucose infused at steady-state to maintain stable blood glucose [90 mg/dl (4.95 mmol/l)] was used to calculate several indices of insulin sensitivity. RESULTS: During Step 1 of the clamp, whole body glucose disposal (M) was reduced by 35% (p = 0.003) and M/I was reduced by 29% (p = 0.025) for 25 mg prednisone compared to placebo. No appreciable effect of 10 mg prednisone was observed. During Step 2, M was reduced by 33% (p = 0.001) and 15% (p = 0.006) for 25 and 10 mg prednisone compared to placebo; and M/I ratio was reduced by 31% (p < 0.001) and 13% (p = 0.026), respectively. The insulin sensitivity index, Si, calculated as the quotient of augmentation of M/I between Step 1 and 2, was reduced by 35.3% (p < 0.01) and 23.5% (p < 0.05) for 25 and 10 mg prednisone, respectively. CONCLUSION: Administration of relatively low pharmacological doses of prednisone for one week impaired insulin sensitivity in a dose-dependent manner in healthy males. These observed changes in insulin sensitivity are likely to be clinically relevant, especially in individuals predisposed to develop glucose intolerance.

Five weeks of treatment with the GLP-1 analogue liraglutide improves glycaemic control and lowers body weight in subjects with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: Effects of the long acting GLP-1 analogue--liraglutide in subjects with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: 144 type 2 diabetic subjects on metformin treatment (1000 mg BID) were randomised to 5 weeks of treatment (double-blind) with metformin plus liraglutide, liraglutide or metformin, or metformin plus glimepiride (open label). The dose of liraglutide was increased weekly from 0.5 to 2 mg OD. RESULTS: Liraglutide added to metformin monotherapy was associated with a significant reduction in fasting serum glucose (FSG) (-3.9 mM -4.9; -2.9) (primary objective), and HbA1c levels (-0.8% -1.2; -0.4). Furthermore, liraglutide in combination with metformin vs. metformin plus glimepiride significantly reduced FSG (-1.2 mM -2.2; -0.2). In addition, body weight was significantly lower in the metformin plus liraglutide vs. the metformin plus glimepiride group (-2.9 kg -3.6; -2.1). There were no biochemically confirmed episodes of hypoglycaemia with liraglutide treatment. Nausea was the most frequently reported adverse event following liraglutide therapy, it was transient in nature, and led to withdrawal of only 4% of the subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Using a weekly dose-titration liraglutide is well tolerated up to 2 mg daily. While liraglutide caused transient gastrointestinal side effects, this rarely interfered with continuing treatment. An improvement in FSG over that in control groups was seen for liraglutide as an add-on to metformin. In the latter case, body weight was reduced in comparison to metformin plus glimepiride. Liraglutide is a promising drug for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Comparison of pharmacodynamic intrasubject variability of insulin lispro protamine suspension and insulin glargine in subjects with type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate pharmacodynamic (PD) intrasubject variability of a single, s.c. dose of insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) compared with insulin glargine in subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus and additionally, to compare the intrasubject variability of pharmacokinetic parameters of both insulins. DESIGN: This was a single-center, investigator-blinded and subject-blinded, two-arm, parallel, randomized, four-period study. During the replicate visits, subjects received a single s.c. 0.6 U/kg dose of either ILPS or glargine, and underwent 24-h euglycemic glucose clamps. RESULTS: The intrasubject variabilities of the primary PD parameters, total amount of glucose infused (G(tot)) and maximum glucose infusion rate (GIR; R(max)), were statistically significantly lower for ILPS when compared with glargine (P<0.0001). Least-square (LS) mean estimates for G(tot) and R(max) were 2512.7 mg/kg and 3.740 mg/min per kg respectively for ILPS, and 1291.9 mg/kg and 1.793 mg/min per kg respectively for glargine. The LS mean estimates for G(tot) and R(max) were statistically greater (P=0.0010 and P<0.0001 respectively) for ILPS compared with glargine, suggesting that ILPS had greater 24-h glucose-lowering activity. Glargine demonstrated a flatter GIR-time curve, and ILPS demonstrated a significantly shorter time of maximum GIR (tR(max)) and earlier time to half-maximal GIR before tR(max) and time to half-maximal GIR after tR(max). ILPS administration resulted in significantly greater exposure compared with glargine (area under the baseline-corrected serum concentration versus time curve from time 0 to 24 h (AUC(0-24)): 77 150 vs 53 111 pmol min/l; maximum serum insulin concentration (C(max)): 119 vs 68 pmol/l; ILPS versus glargine respectively), but the intrasubject variabilities for AUC and C(max) were comparable. CONCLUSION: Although glargine demonstrated a flatter GIR-time profile, the lower PD intrasubject variability of ILPS may provide a more predictable response.

A novel insulin formulation with a more rapid onset of action.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: This study evaluates the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of the novel ultra-fast insulin product VIAject, a formulation of human soluble insulin and generally recognised as safe ingredients designed to increase the rate of absorption. METHODS: We performed five euglycaemic glucose clamps (Biostator; target blood glucose 5 mmol/l) in ten healthy volunteers. Using a crossover design with a fixed treatment order, 12 IU human soluble insulin, 12 U insulin lispro and 12 IU ultra-fast insulin were injected s.c. in the abdominal region on three study days. On the other two study days, 6 and 3 IU ultra-fast insulin were injected. RESULTS: Subcutaneous injection of 12 IU ultra-fast insulin resulted in a time-action profile characterised by an even more rapid onset of action and maximal metabolic activity than insulin lispro: time to early half-maximal activity was 33 +/- 17 min (mean +/- SD) vs insulin lispro 51 +/- 13 min vs human soluble insulin 66 +/- 15 min (p < 0.05 ultra-fast insulin

Time-action profile of insulin detemir and NPH insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes from different ethnic groups.

AIM: To evaluate the time-action profiles and the dose-response relationship of the long-acting insulin analogues insulin detemir (IDet) and NPH insulin (NPH) in type 2 diabetic patients belonging to different ethnic groups. METHODS: Forty-eight type 2 diabetic patients belonging to different ethnic groups (three groups of 16 African Americans (AA), 16 Hispanics/Latinos (HL) and 16 Caucasians) participated in this double-blind crossover trial. Each patient took part in six 16-h isoglycaemic glucose clamps (clamp target 7.2 mmol/l) and was randomly allocated to three doses (0.3, 0.6 and 1.2 (I)U/kg) of IDet and NPH, respectively. RESULTS: IDet and NPH showed comparable pharmacodynamic effects [the area under the glucose infusion rate curve (AUC(GIR 0-16 h)) (mg/kg)] in the investigated dose range: IDet, 0.3 U/kg, 207 AA, 535 HL, 285 Caucasians; 0.6 U/kg, 1203 AA, 824 HL and 1126 Caucasians; 1.2 U/kg, 1502 AA, 1977 HL and 2269 Caucasians; NPH, 0.3 IU/kg, 733 AA, 1148 HL and 1148 Caucasians; 0.6 IU/kg, 1395 AA, 1976 HL and 1077 Caucasians; 1.2 IU/kg, 2452 AA, 3296 HL and 2455 Caucasians. Both IDet and NPH showed a linear dose-response relationship in all three groups (p = 0.31), without any significant differences in slope (p = 0.71) or intercept (p = 0.51). Comparable results were obtained for pharmacokinetics. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm a linear dose-response relationship of IDet, without any relevant differences between ethnic groups. This suggests that similar dosing recommendation can be used for IDet in type 2 diabetic patients belonging to different ethnic group.