A comparison of the safety and effectiveness of insulin aspart with other bolus insulins in women with pre-existing Type 1 diabetes during pregnancy: A post hoc analysis of a prospective cohort study.

AIMS: The safety and efficacy of insulin analogue insulin aspart (IAsp) have been demonstrated in a randomised clinical trial in pregnant women with Type 1 diabetes (T1D), and IAsp is widely used during pregnancy. The aim of this study was to assess glycaemic control and safety of IAsp versus other bolus insulins in Type 1 diabetic pregnancy in a real-world setting. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of a prospective cohort study of 1840 pregnant women with T1D, treated with IAsp (n = 1434) or other bolus insulins (n = 406) in the Diabetes Pregnancy Registry. The primary (composite) outcome was the proportion of pregnancies resulting in major congenital malformations or perinatal or neonatal death. Secondary outcomes included all HbA1c values measured immediately before and during pregnancy and major hypoglycaemia, as well as abortion, pre-eclampsia, pre-term delivery, large for gestational age at birth, stillbirth and fetal malformations. RESULTS: There were no significant differences found in any of the pregnancy outcomes between treatment with IAsp and other bolus insulins in either the crude or propensity score-adjusted analyses. However, maternal HbA1c was lower in the IAsp group at the end of the third trimester (adjusted difference, -0.16% point [95% CI -0.28;-0.05]; -1.8 mmol/mol [95% CI -3.1;-0.6]; p = 0.0046). CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in safety or pregnancy outcomes were demonstrated when comparing treatment with IAsp versus other bolus insulins in women with T1D during pregnancy. The observed improvement in HbA1c with IAsp in late pregnancy should be confirmed in other studies.

Assessing the influence of insulin type (ultra-rapid vs rapid insulin) and exercise timing on postprandial exercise-induced hypoglycaemia risk in individuals with type 1 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The relationship between pre-meal insulin type, exercise timing and the risk of postprandial exercise-induced hypoglycaemia in people living with type 1 diabetes is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the effects of exercise timing (60 vs 120 min post meal) and different insulin types (aspart vs ultra-rapid aspart) on hypoglycaemic risk. METHODS: This was a four-way crossover randomised trial including 40 individuals with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injections (mean HbA1c 56 mmol/mol [7.4%]). Participants, who were recruited from the Montreal Clinical Research Institute, undertook 60 min cycling sessions (60% of V ˙ O 2 peak ) after breakfast (60 min [EX60min] or 120 min [EX120min] post meal) with 50% of their usual insulin dose (aspart or ultra-rapid aspart). Eligibility criteria included age ≥18 years old, clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes for at least 1 year and HbA1c ≤80 mmol/mol (9.5%). Participants were allocated using sequentially numbered, opaque sealed envelopes. Participants were masked to their group assignment, and each participant was allocated a unique identification number to ensure anonymisation. The primary outcome was change in blood glucose levels between exercise onset and nadir. RESULTS: Prior to exercise onset, time spent in hyperglycaemia was lower for EX60min vs EX120min (time >10.0 mmol/l: 56.6% [1.2-100%] vs 78.0% [52.7-97.9%]; p<0.001). The glucose reduction between exercise onset and nadir was less pronounced with EX60min vs EX120min (-3.8±2.7 vs -4.7±2.5 mmol/l; p<0.001). A similar number of hypoglycaemic events occurred during both exercise timings. Blood glucose between exercise onset and nadir decreased less with ultra-rapid aspart compared with aspart (-4.1±2.3 vs -4.4±2.8 mmol/l; p=0.037). While a similar number of hypoglycaemic events during exercise were observed, less post-exercise hypoglycaemia occurred with ultra-rapid aspart (n=0, 0%, vs n=15, 38%; p=0.003). No interactions between insulin types and exercise timings were found. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: EX60min blunted the pre-exercise glucose increase following breakfast and was associated with a smaller glucose reduction during exercise. Ultra-rapid aspart led to a smaller blood glucose reduction during exercise and might be associated with diminished post-exercise hypoglycaemia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03659799 FUNDING: This study was funded by Novo Nordisk Canada.

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.

Predicting human half-life for insulin analogs: An inter-drug approach.

An inter-drug approach, applying pharmacokinetic information for insulin analogs in different animal species, rat, dog and pig, performed better compared to allometric scaling for human translation of intra-venous half-life and only required data from a single animal species for reliable predictions. Average fold error (AFE) between 1.2-1.7 were determined for all species and for multispecies allometric scaling AFE was 1.9. A slightly larger prediction error for human half-life was determined from in vitro human insulin receptor affinity data (AFE on 2.3-2.6). The requirements for the inter-drug approach were shown to be a span of at least 2 orders of magnitude in half-life for the included drugs and a shared clearance mechanism. The insulin analogs in this study were the five fatty acid protracted analogs: Insulin degludec, insulin icodec, insulin 320, insulin 338 and insulin 362, as well as the non-acylated analog insulin aspart.

Simple meal announcements and pramlintide delivery versus carbohydrate counting in type 1 diabetes with automated fast-acting insulin aspart delivery: a randomised crossover trial in Montreal, Canada.

BACKGROUND: In type 1 diabetes, carbohydrate counting is the standard of care to determine prandial insulin needs, but it can negatively affect quality of life. We developed a novel insulin-and-pramlintide closed-loop system that replaces carbohydrate counting with simple meal announcements. METHODS: We performed a randomised crossover trial assessing 14 days of (1) insulin-and-pramlintide closed-loop system with simple meal announcements, (2) insulin-and-placebo closed-loop system with carbohydrate counting, and (3) insulin-and-placebo closed-loop system with simple meal announcements. Participants were recruited at McGill University Health Centre (Montreal, QC, Canada). Eligible participants were adults (aged ≥18 years) and adolescents (aged 12-17 years) with type 1 diabetes for at least 1 year. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1:1:1 ratio to a sequence of the three interventions, with faster insulin aspart used in all interventions. Each intervention was separated by a 14-45-day wash-out period, during which participants reverted to their usual insulin. During simple meal announcement interventions, participants triggered a prandial bolus at mealtimes based on a programmed fixed meal size, whereas during carbohydrate counting interventions, participants manually entered the carbohydrate content of the meal and an algorithm calculated the prandial bolus based on insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio. Two primary comparisons were predefined: the percentage of time in range (glucose 3·9-10·0 mmol/L) with a non-inferiority margin of 6·25% (non-inferiority comparison); and the mean Emotional Burden subscale score of the Diabetes Distress Scale (superiority comparison), comparing the insulin-and-placebo system with carbohydrate counting minus the insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements. Analyses were performed on a modified intention-to-treat basis, excluding participants who did not complete all interventions. Serious adverse events were assessed in all participants. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04163874. FINDINGS: 32 participants were enrolled between Feb 14, 2020, and Oct 5, 2021; two participants withdrew before study completion. 30 participants were analysed, including 15 adults (nine female, mean age 39·4 years [SD 13·8]) and 15 adolescents (eight female, mean age 15·7 years [1·3]). Non-inferiority of the insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements relative to the insulin-and-placebo system with carbohydrate counting was reached (difference -5% [95% CI -9·0 to -0·7], non-inferiority p<0·0001). No statistically significant difference was found in the mean Emotional Burden score between the insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements and the insulin-and-placebo system with carbohydrate counting (difference 0·01 [SD 0·82], p=0·93). With the insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements, 14 (47%) participants reported mild gastrointestinal symptoms and two (7%) reported moderate symptoms, compared with two (7%) participants reporting mild gastrointestinal symptoms on the insulin-and-placebo system with carbohydrate counting. No serious adverse events occurred. INTERPRETATION: The insulin-and-pramlintide system with simple meal announcements alleviated carbohydrate counting without degrading glucose control, although quality of life as measured by the Emotional Burden score was not improved. Longer and larger studies with this novel approach are warranted. FUNDING: Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.

Effect of needle-free injection on psychological insulin resistance and insulin dosage in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Background and objective: Psychological insulin resistance (PIR), which refers to the reluctance of diabetic patients to use insulin, is a frequently encountered clinical issue. Needle-free injection (NFI) offers advantages in terms of expediting insulin absorption and mitigating adverse reactions related to injection. To evaluate the effects of subcutaneous injection of insulin aspart 30 with NFI on PIR and insulin dosage in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods: Sixty-four patients with T2DM participated in this randomized, prospective, open, crossover study. Insulin aspart 30 was administered subcutaneously to each subject via QS-P NFI and Novo Pen 5 (NP) successively. The effects of NFI on PIR were analyzed. Differences in insulin dosage, glycemic variability, and injection safety were compared at similar levels of glycemic control. Results: After the administration of NFI, the insulin treatment attitude scale score decreased (53.7 ± 7.3 vs. 58.9 ± 10.7, p<0.001), the insulin treatment adherence questionnaire score increased (46.3 ± 4.9 vs. 43.8 ± 7.1, p<0.001), and the insulin treatment satisfaction questionnaire score increased (66.6 ± 10.5 vs. 62.4 ± 16.5, p<0.001). At the same blood glucose level, NFI required a smaller dosage of insulin aspart 30 compared with that of NP (30.42 ± 8.70 vs. 33.66 ± 9.13 U/d, p<0.001). There were no differences in glycemic variability indices (standard deviation, mean amplitude of glycemic excursion or coefficient of variation) between the two injection methods. Compared with NP, NFI did not increase the incidence of hypoglycemia (17.2% vs. 14.1%, p=0.774), and it decreased the incidence of induration (4.7% vs. 23.4%, p=0.002) and leakage (6.3% vs. 20.3%, p=0.022) while decreasing the pain visual analog scale score (2.30 ± 1.58 vs. 3.11 ± 1.40, p<0.001). Conclusion: NFI can improve PIR in patients with T2DM and be used with a smaller dose of insulin aspart 30 while maintaining the same hypoglycemic effect. Clinical trial registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn/, identifier ChiCTR2400083658.

Glycaemic outcomes in hospital with IDegAsp versus BIAsp30 premixed insulins.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: IDegAsp (Ryzodeg 70/30), a unique premixed formulation of long-acting insulin degludec and rapid-acting insulin aspart, is increasing in use. Management of IDegAsp during hospitalisation is challenging because of degludec's ultra-long duration of action. We investigated inpatient glycaemia in patients treated with IDegAsp compared to biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp30; Novomix30). METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study at two hospitals assessing inpatients with type 2 diabetes treated with IDegAsp or BIAsp30 prior to and during hospital admission. Standard inpatient glycaemic outcomes were analysed based on capillary blood glucose (BG) measurements. RESULTS: We assessed 88 individuals treated with IDegAsp and 88 HbA1c-matched individuals treated with BIAsp30. Patient characteristics, including insulin dose at admission, were well matched, but the IDegAsp group had less frequent twice-daily insulin dosing than the BIAsp30 group (49% vs 87%, P < 0.001). Patient-days with BG <4 mmol/L were not different (10.6% vs 9.9%, P = 0.7); however, the IDegAsp group had a higher patient-day mean BG (10.4 (SD 3.4) vs 10.0 (3.4) mmol/L, P < 0.001), and more patient-days with mean BG >10 mmol/L (48% vs 38%, P < 0.001) compared to the BIAsp30 group. Glucose was higher in the IDegAsp group in the evening (4 PM to midnight) (11.6 (SD 4.0) vs 10.9 (4.6) mmol/L, P = 0.004), but not different at other times during the day. CONCLUSIONS: Inpatients treated with IDegAsp compared to BIAsp30 had similar hypoglycaemia incidence, but higher hyperglycaemia incidence, potentially related to less frequent twice-daily dosing. With the increasing use of IDegAsp in the community, development of hospital management guidelines for this insulin formulation is needed.

Are New Ultra-Rapid-Acting Insulins Associated with Improved Glycemic Control and Reduced Hypoglycemia in Comparison to Conventional Rapid-Acting Insulins for Individuals with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Introduction: This study aimed to compare efficacy and safety of ultra-rapid-acting insulin analogs (URAIs; faster aspart [FAsp], ultra-rapid lispro [URLi], and technosphere insulin [TI]) with rapid-acting insulin analogs (RAI) in individuals with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods: Searching for randomized control trial comparing the effects of URAI versus RAI that lasted at least 12 weeks, we initially selected 15 studies for analysis. Three studies involving TI were excluded due to a high degree of heterogeneity. The final meta-analysis included only 12 studies with either FAsp or URLi. Results: Mealtime URAI significantly reduced overall early 1 h postprandial glycemia in individuals with T1D (-20.230 mg/dL [95% confidence interval, 95% CI -24.040 to -16.421]; P < 0.001; I2 = 33.42%) and those with T2D (-9.138 mg/dL [95% CI -12.612 to -5.663]; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%). However, the significant reduction in 2 h postprandial glucose remained only in individuals with T1D (-17.620 mg/dL [95% CI -26.047 to -9.193]; P < 0.001; I2 = 65.88%). These benefits were lost when URAI was administered postmeal. At 24-26 weeks, there was no significant difference in HbA1c between groups, but at 52 weeks, a slight reduction in HbA1c with mealtime URAI was observed (-0.080% [95% CI -0.147 to -0.013]; P = 0.019; I2 = 0%). No difference in weight or the rate of severe or confirmed hypoglycemia was observed. Only individuals with T1D showed a small, but significant increase in early 1-h hypoglycemia with URAI (1.468 [95% CI 1.235 to 1.747]; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%). Conclusion: Mealtime URAI improves 1 and 2 h postprandial glycemic control compared to RAI without increasing hypoglycemia or weight gain.

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.

Comparative physicochemical and structural characterisation studies establish high biosimilarity between BGL-ASP and reference insulin aspart.

Biosimilar insulin analogues are increasing market access for diabetic patients globally. Scientific establishment of biosimilarity is cornerstone of this key change in the medical landscape. BGL-ASP is a biosimilar insulin aspart developed by BioGenomics Limited, India. BioGenomics has considered a stepwise approach in generating the totality of evidence required to establish similarity with reference product. Insulin aspart is a recombinant rapid-acting human insulin analogue utilised in the treatment of type-1 and type-2 diabetes mellitus. The single amino acid substitution at position B28 where proline is replaced with aspartic acid results in a decreased propensity to form hexamers, thus increasing the absorption rate on subcutaneous administration compared to native insulin. In order to establish the safety and efficacy of BGL-ASP, the critical quality attributes (CQAs) of BGL-ASP are identified based on the impact created on biological activity, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD), immunogenicity and safety. The CQAs of insulin aspart are related to product structure, purity and functionality and are characterised using a series of state-of-the-art orthogonal analytical tools. The primary protein sequence, the secondary, tertiary and quaternary structure are found to be highly similar for BGL-ASP and reference product. The product related impurities of insulin aspart and the assay content are determined using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) based analysis and is similar for BGL-ASP and reference insulin aspart sourced from United States of America (US), Europe Union (EU) and India. The safety, efficacy and immunogenicity of BGL-ASP is also found to be comparable with reference product and is confirmed through the clinical trials conducted as recommended by International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) guidelines. The data encompassed in this study demonstrates that reference insulin aspart and BGL-ASP are highly similar in terms of structural, physicochemical, and biological properties, thus confirming its safety and efficacy for usage as potential alternative economical medicinal treatment for diabetes mellitus.

Real-world study of the concomitant use of biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 with GLP-1 receptor agonist versus first-generation basal insulin with GLP-1 receptor agonist in type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: Combining insulin with a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) to treat type 2 diabetes (T2D) is common. While many studies have investigated concomitant therapy with basal insulin+GLP-1RA, few have reported on premixed insulin+GLP-1RA. We aimed to address this gap using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum database in England. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching assessed glycaemic levels and other clinical outcomes in people with T2D, comparing biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30) + GLP-1RA with basal insulin (insulin detemir/glargine U100) + GLP-1RA (from 2006 to 2021). RESULTS: In total, 4770 eligible people were identified; 1511 had a BIAsp 30 + GLP-1RA regimen and were propensity score-matched to an equal number receiving basal+GLP-1RA. There was no significant difference in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction between cohorts at 6 months (p = 0.15), with a decrease of -1.07 (95% CI: -1.16; -0.98) %-points (-11.7 mmol/mol [95% CI: -12.7; -10.7]) in the BIAsp 30 + GLP-1RA cohort, versus -0.97 (95% CI: -1.07; -0.88) %-points (-10.6 mmol/mol [95% CI: -11.7; -9.6]) in the basal+GLP-1RA cohort. Body mass index (BMI) decreased by -0.35 kg/m2 (95% CI: -0.52;-0.18) at 6 months with BIAsp 30 + GLP-1RA, versus -0.72 kg/m2 (95% CI: -0.90;-0.54) with basal+GLP-1RA (p = 0.003). BMI was influenced by the initiation sequence of GLP-1RA in relation to insulin (p < 0.0001). Hypoglycaemia rates were low and not significantly different between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Combining BIAsp 30 + GLP-1RA provides glycaemic control with no significant difference to that of propensity score-matched people receiving basal insulin+GLP-1RA, with no increase in hypoglycaemia risk or weight gain.

Pharmacokinetic similarity of switching SAR341402 insulin aspart biosimilar and NovoLog insulin aspart versus continuous use of NovoLog in adults with type 1 diabetes: The GEMELLI X trial.

AIM: To assess whether multiple switches between SAR341402 biosimilar insulin aspart (SAR-Asp) and the insulin aspart reference product (NovoLog; NN-Asp) leads to equivalent pharmacokinetic (PK) exposure compared with continuous use of NN-Asp in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study randomized (1:1) 210 subjects with T1D treated with once-daily insulin glargine U100 as basal insulin to four 4-week periods of alternating multiple daily injections of SAR-Asp and NN-Asp (NN-Asp for the first 4 weeks, SAR-Asp in the last 4 weeks; switching group) versus 16 weeks of continuous NN-Asp (non-switching group). At week 16, a single dose (0.15 U/kg) of SAR-Asp in the switching group (n = 95) or NN-Asp in the non-switching group (n = 105) was given in the morning before breakfast. Primary PK endpoints were area under the plasma concentration curve (AUC) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ) of SAR-Asp versus NN-Asp after the single dose at week 16. RESULTS: The extent of PK exposure was similar between the two treatments (SAR-Asp in the switching group and NN-Asp in the non-switching group) at week 16, with point estimates of treatment ratios close to 1. The 90% confidence intervals for AUC treatment ratios were contained within 0.8-1.25. For Cmax in the primary analysis set, the upper confidence limit was 1.32. This was because of the profiles of three participants with implausible high values. A prespecified sensitivity analysis excluding implausible values showed results contained within 0.8-1.25. CONCLUSIONS: PK exposure of SAR-Asp (switching group) and reference NN-Asp (non-switching group) were similar, supporting interchangeability between these two insulin aspart products.

Comparative assessment of immunogenicity of recombinant insulin Aspart from BioGenomics and its originator NovoRapid® in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the immunogenicity of recombinant Insulin Aspart [manufactured by BioGenomics Limited (BGL-ASP)] with its originator NovoRapid® (manufactured by Novo Nordisk) in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: BGL-IA-CTP301 study was a randomized, open label, parallel group, multicenter phase-III clinical study to compare the efficacy and safety of recombinant Insulin Aspart 100 U/mL [manufactured by BioGenomics Limited (BGL-ASP)] with its reference medicinal product (RMP); NovoRapid® [manufactured by Novo Nordisk], in adult patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The primary objective of the study was to compare the immunogenicity of BGL-ASP and RMP; NovoRapid® in patient serum samples collected from phase-III clinical study. Immunogenicity was studied as the incidence of patients positive for anti-insulin Aspart (AIA) antibodies, developed against BGL-ASP/RMP at baseline, end of 12 week and end of 24 week of the treatment period. The changes in incidence of patients positive for AIA antibodies post-baseline were also studied to assess and compare the treatment-emergent antibody response (TEAR) between the treatment groups (BGL-ASP and RMP). Statistical evaluation was done by Fisher's exact test to compare the overall incidence of patients positive for AIA antibodies and the TEAR positives observed post-baseline in both the treated groups. An in-vitro neutralizing antibody assay (Nab assay) was also performed to study the effect of AIA antibodies in neutralizing the biological activity/metabolic function of the insulin. The neutralizing potential of AIA was studied by its effect on %glucose uptake. We also evaluated the association between AIA antibody levels and its impact on biological activity by studying the correlation between them. RESULTS: Analysis of immunogenicity data suggested that the percentage of patients positive for AIA antibodies until week 24 was similar and comparable in both the treatment groups, BGL-ASP and RMP; NovoRapid®. The changes in incidence of patients positive for AIA post-baseline in terms of TEAR positives were also similar and comparable between the treatment groups. The results of the Nab assay with confirmed positive AIA samples from BGL-ASP- and RMP-treated groups did not have any negative impact on %glucose uptake by the cells in Nab assay, confirming the absence of neutralizing antibodies in both the treatment groups. The correlation studies also showed absence of association between AIA antibody levels and percentage glucose uptake in both BGL-ASP and RMP-NovoRapid® treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: The immunogenicity assessment based on the overall incidence of patients positive for AIA, changes in incidence of patients positive for AIA post-baseline, TEAR rates and absence of neutralizing antibodies, were found to be apparently similar and comparable in both the treatment groups (BGL-ASP and RMP). We conclude from our studies that the immunogenicity of BGL-ASP is similar and comparable to RMP and the observed immunogenicity in terms of anti-insulin Aspart antibody levels had no impact on the biological activity of insulin.

Associations of bolus insulin injection frequency and smart pen engagement with glycaemic control in people living with type 1 diabetes.

AIM: To evaluate whether both bolus insulin injection frequency and smart pen engagement were associated with changes in glycaemic control, using real-world data from adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults using a smart pen (NovoPen 6) to administer bolus insulin (fast-acting insulin aspart or insulin aspart) alongside continuous glucose monitoring were eligible for inclusion. Smart pen engagement was characterized by number of days with pen data uploads over the previous 14 days. Glycaemic control was evaluated by analysing glucose metrics. RESULTS: Overall, data from 1194 individuals were analysed. The number of daily bolus injections was significantly associated with time in range (TIR; 3.9-10.0 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]; P < 0.0001). Individuals administering, on average, three daily bolus insulin injections had an estimated 11% chance of achieving >70% TIR. The probability of achieving >70% TIR increased with the mean number of daily bolus injections. However, the percentage of TIR was lower on days when individuals administered higher-than-average numbers of injections. The observed mean number of daily bolus injections administered across the study population was lower than the optimal number required to reach glycaemic targets (4.8 injections vs. 6-8 injections). Smart pen engagement was significantly associated with improved TIR. CONCLUSIONS: Glycaemic control was associated with daily bolus insulin injection frequency and smart pen engagement. A treatment regimen combining an optimal bolus injection strategy, and effective smart pen engagement, may improve glycaemic control among adults with T1D.

Unexpected evolution of a monster case of insulin-induced skin lipohypertrophy.

In this journal, in 2020, we published the case of a 74-year-old female outpatient with type-2 diabetes mellitus who self-injected insulin four times a day according to the basal-bolus regimen, with an high glycemic variability and an high rate of severe hypoglycemic episodes. Three years before, we had found two extraordinarily large skin lipohypertrophies, with large underlying fluid collections with high insulin concentration. A long educational and intensive training completely repaired the skin lesions with the disappearance of the subcutaneous insulin reservoirs. Glycemic variability has been reduced dramatically, severe hypoglycemia has almost completely disappeared and the daily dose of insulin has been reduced by 38%. However, this extraordinary, albeit unexpected, result was achieved in five years.

Faster-acting insulin aspart versus insulin aspart in the treatment of type 1 or type 2 diabetes during pregnancy and post-delivery (CopenFast): an open-label, single-centre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Faster-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) is considered safe for use during pregnancy and breastfeeding but has not been evaluated in this population. We aimed to evaluate the effect of faster aspart versus insulin aspart on fetal growth, in women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes during pregnancy and post-delivery. METHODS: This open-label, single-centre, superiority trial was conducted at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. Participants aged 18 years or older with type 1 or type 2 diabetes were stratified by diabetes type and insulin treatment modality (multiple daily injections or insulin pump), randomly assigned 1:1 to faster aspart or insulin aspart, from 8 weeks and 0 days (8+0) of gestation to 13+6 weeks of gestation, and followed up until 3 months post-delivery. Primary outcome was infant birthweight SD score. Secondary outcomes included HbA1c as well as maternal and fetal outcomes in all participants during the trial. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03770767. FINDINGS: Between Nov 11, 2019 and May 10, 2022, 109 participants were included in the faster aspart group and 107 in the insulin aspart group. Primary outcome data were available in 203 (94%) of 216 participants, and no participants discontinued treatment during the trial. Mean birthweight SD score was 1·0 (SD 1·4) in the faster aspart group versus 1·2 (1·3) in the insulin aspart group; estimated treatment difference -0·22 [-0·58 to 0·14]; p=0·23. At 33 weeks of gestation, mean HbA1c was 42 mmol/mol (SD 6 mmol/mol; 6·0% [SD 0·9%]) versus 43 mmol/mol (SD 7 mmol/mol; 6·1% [SD 1·2%]); estimated treatment difference -1·01 (-2·86 to 0·83), p=0·28. No additional safety issues were observed with faster aspart compared with insulin aspart. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with faster aspart resulted in similar fetal growth and HbA1c, relative to insulin aspart, in women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Faster aspart can be used in women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes during pregnancy and post-delivery with no additional safety issues. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk. TRANSLATION: For the Danish translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Effects of dietary intervention combined with insulin aspart on serum nesfatin-1 and CTRP12 levels and pregnancy outcomes in pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus.

To analyze the effects of dietary intervention combined with insulin aspart on the serum levels of nesfatin-1, C1q/TNF related protein-12 (CTRP12), and pregnancy outcomes in pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). In this retrospective cohort study, 513 women with GDM admitted to Tangshan Central Hospital (Tangshan, China) between January 2019 and December 2022 were selected and divided into an observation group (dietary intervention combined with insulin aspart therapy; n = 284) and a control group (insulin aspart therapy, n = 229). The general characteristics, clinical outcomes, serum nesfatin-1 and CTRP12 levels, 2-hour postprandial blood glucose levels, pregnancy outcomes, and perinatal outcomes of the 2 groups were compared. After treatment, the total effective rate in the observation group was significantly higher than that of the control group (97.54% vs 86.03%, respectively; P < .001). Compared with the pretreatment levels, nesfatin-1 and CTRP12 levels were decreased in both groups; nesfatin-1 and CTRP12 levels in the observation group were significantly higher than those in the control group. After treatment, the preprandial and 2-hour postprandial blood glucose levels in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group. Compared with the control group, the observation group had significantly fewer cesarean sections, and a significantly lower incidence of postpartum hemorrhage, premature rupture of membranes, and other adverse pregnancy outcomes. After treatment, the risks of preterm birth, macrosomia, fetal distress, neonatal asphyxia, neonatal hypoglycemia, and other adverse perinatal outcomes were significantly lower in the observation group than in the control group. In pregnant women with GDM, dietary intervention combined with insulin aspart can improve clinical outcomes; reduce nesfatin-1, CTRP12, and blood glucose levels; and reduce the incidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Bioequivalence of Reference and Biosimilar Preparations of Premixed Biphasic Insulin Aspart: A Comparative Clamp Study.

Biphasic insulin aspart 30 is a premixed formulation containing a soluble fraction of insulin aspart (30%) and a protamine-crystallized fraction (70%) that was developed to combine the rapid-acting and prolonged advantages of commercially available insulins. The aim of this bioequivalence study was to compare the pharmacokinetics (PKs) of GP-bi-asp and Novo-bi-asp, and evaluate the pharmacodynamic (PD) properties as well as the safety of these drugs in the hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp (HEC) procedure. This was a phase 1, randomized, double-blind, 2-sequence, 2-period crossover study. Thirty-four male volunteers who met the inclusion criteria underwent the HEC procedure following a single subcutaneous injection of 0.4 IU/kg of either GP-bi-asp or Novo-bi-asp in the abdomen. After the treatment, the subjects' plasma glucose levels were monitored for 24 hours and the glucose infusion rate (GIR) was adjusted to maintain the target blood glucose level. The PD parameters were calculated using GIR values. Insulin aspart concentrations were measured in blood plasma using validated ELISA assays to evaluate the PK parameters of the investigated drugs. The 90% confidence intervals for the geometric mean ratios of PK (Cins and AUCins-T ) parameters of Gp-bi-asp and Novo-bi-asp were close to 100% and within the 80%-125% limits for establishing bioequivalence. The safety profiles of both drugs were also comparable.