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

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

Effects of Tirzepatide vs Semaglutide on ß-cell Function, Insulin Sensitivity, and Glucose Control During a Meal Test.

CONTEXT: In a clinical study, tirzepatide, a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide/glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GIP/GLP-1RA), provided superior glycemic control vs the GLP-1RA semaglutide. The physiologic mechanisms are incompletely understood. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate treatment effects by model-based analyses of mixed-meal tolerance test (MMTT) data. DESIGN: A 28-week double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Two clinical research centers in Germany. PATIENTS: Patients with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin. INTERVENTIONS: Tirzepatide 15 mg, semaglutide 1 mg, placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Glycemic control, model-derived ß-cell function indices including insulin secretion rate (ISR) at 7.2-mmol/L glucose (ISR7.2), ß-cell glucose (ß-CG) sensitivity, insulin sensitivity, and estimated hepatic insulin-to-glucagon ratio. RESULTS: Tirzepatide significantly reduced fasting glucose and MMTT total glucose area under the curve (AUC) vs semaglutide (P < 0.01). Incremental glucose AUC did not differ significantly between treatments; therefore, greater total glucose AUC reduction with tirzepatide was mainly attributable to greater suppression of fasting glucose. A greater reduction in total ISR AUC was achieved with tirzepatide vs semaglutide (P < 0.01), in the context of greater improvement in insulin sensitivity with tirzepatide (P < 0.01). ISR7.2 was significantly increased with tirzepatide vs semaglutide (P < 0.05), showing improved ß-CG responsiveness. MMTT-derived ß-CG sensitivity was increased but not significantly different between treatments. Both treatments reduced fasting glucagon and total glucagon AUC, with glucagon AUC significantly reduced with tirzepatide vs semaglutide (P < 0.01). The estimated hepatic insulin-to-glucagon ratio did not change substantially with either treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the greater glycemic control observed for tirzepatide manifests as improved fasting glucose and glucose excursion control, due to improvements in ISR, insulin sensitivity, and glucagon suppression.

A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial in Healthy Older Adults to Determine Efficacy of Glycine and N-Acetylcysteine Supplementation on Glutathione Redox Status and Oxidative Damage.

Glycine and cysteine are non-essential amino acids that are required to generate glutathione, an intracellular tripeptide that neutralizes reactive oxygen species and prevents tissue damage. During aging glutathione demand is thought to increase, but whether additional dietary intake of glycine and cysteine contributes towards the generation of glutathione in healthy older adults is not well understood. We investigated supplementation with glycine and n-acetylcysteine (GlyNAC) at three different daily doses for 2 weeks (low dose: 2.4 g, medium dose: 4.8 g, or high dose: 7.2 g/day, 1:1 ratio) in a randomized, controlled clinical trial in 114 healthy volunteers. Despite representing a cohort of healthy older adults (age mean = 65 years), we found significantly higher baseline levels of markers of oxidative stress, including that of malondialdehyde (MDA, 0.158 vs. 0.136 µmol/L, p < 0.0001), total cysteine (Cysteine-T, 314.8 vs. 276 µM, p < 0.0001), oxidized glutathione (GSSG, 174.5 vs. 132.3 µmol/L, p < 0.0001), and a lower ratio of reduced to oxidized glutathione (GSH-F:GSSG) (11.78 vs. 15.26, p = 0.0018) compared to a young reference group (age mean = 31.7 years, n = 20). GlyNAC supplementation was safe and well tolerated by the subjects, but did not increase levels of GSH-F:GSSG (end of study, placebo = 12.49 vs. 7.2 g = 12.65, p-value = 0.739) or that of total glutathione (GSH-T) (end of study, placebo = 903.5 vs. 7.2 g = 959.6 mg/L, p-value = 0.278), the primary endpoint of the study. Post-hoc analyses revealed that a subset of subjects characterized by high oxidative stress (above the median for MDA) and low baseline GSH-T status (below the median), who received the medium and high doses of GlyNAC, presented increased glutathione generation (end of study, placebo = 819.7 vs. 4.8g/7.2 g = 905.4 mg/L, p-value = 0.016). In summary GlyNAC supplementation is safe, well tolerated, and may increase glutathione levels in older adults with high glutathione demand. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05041179, NCT05041179.

Effects of subcutaneous tirzepatide versus placebo or semaglutide on pancreatic islet function and insulin sensitivity in adults with type 2 diabetes: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-arm, phase 1 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Tirzepatide, a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 receptor agonist, shows a remarkable ability to lower blood glucose, enabling many patients with long-standing type 2 diabetes to achieve normoglycaemia. We aimed to understand the physiological mechanisms underlying the action of tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-arm, phase 1 study was done at two centres in Germany. Eligible patients were aged 20-74 years, had type 2 diabetes for at least 6 months, and were being treated with lifestyle advice and stable doses of metformin, with or without one additional stable dose of another oral antihyperglycaemic medicine, 3 months before study entry. Via a randomisation table, patients were randomly assigned (3:3:2) to subcutaneously receive either tirzepatide 15 mg, semaglutide 1 mg, or placebo once per week. Endpoint measurements were done at baseline and the last week of therapy (week 28). The primary endpoint was the effect of tirzepatide versus placebo on the change in clamp disposition index (combining measures of insulin secretion and sensitivity) from baseline to week 28 of treatment and was analysed in the pharmacodynamic analysis set, which comprised all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of a study drug and had evaluable pharmacodynamic data. Safety was analysed in the safety population, which comprised all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of a study drug. Secondary endpoints included the effect of tirzepatide versus semaglutide on the change in clamp disposition index from baseline to week 28 of treatment, glucose control, total insulin secretion rate, M value (insulin sensitivity), and fasting and postprandial glucagon concentrations. Exploratory endpoints included the change in fasting and postprandial insulin concentrations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03951753, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between June 28, 2019, and April 8, 2021, we screened 184 individuals and enrolled 117 participants, all of whom were included in the safety population (45 in the tirzepatide 15 mg group, 44 in the semaglutide 1 mg group, and 28 in the placebo group). Because of discontinuations and exclusions due to missing or unevaluable data, 39 patients in each treatment group and 24 patients in the placebo group comprised the pharmacodynamic analysis set. With tirzepatide, the clamp disposition index increased from a least squares mean of 0·3 pmol m-2 L min-2 kg-1 (SE 0·03) at baseline by 1·9 pmol m-2 L min-2 kg-1 (0·16) to total 2·3 pmol m-2 L min-2 kg-1 (SE 0·16) at week 28 and, with placebo, the clamp disposition index did not change much from baseline (least squares mean at baseline 0·4 pmol m-2 L min-2 kg-1 [SE 0·04]; change from baseline 0·0 pmol m-2 L min-2 kg-1 [0·03]; least squares mean at week 28 0·3 [SE 0·03]; estimated treatment difference [ETD] tirzepatide vs placebo 1·92 [95% CI 1·59-2·24]; p<0·0001). The improvement with tirzepatide in clamp disposition index was significantly greater than with semaglutide (ETD 0·84 pmol m-2 L min-2 kg-1 [95% CI 0·46-1·21]). This result reflected significant improvements in total insulin secretion rate (ETD 102·09 pmol min-1 m-2 [51·84-152·33]) and insulin sensitivity (ETD 1·52 mg min-1 kg-1 [0·53-2·52]) for tirzepatide versus semaglutide. On meal tolerance testing, tirzepatide significantly reduced glucose excursions (lower insulin and glucagon concentrations) compared with placebo, with effects on these variables being greater than with semaglutide. The safety profiles of tirzepatide and semaglutide were similar, with gastrointestinal adverse events being the most common (11 [24%], 13 [30%], and seven [25%] with nausea; nine [20%], 13 [30%], and six [21%] with diarrhoea; and three [7%], five [11%], and one [4%] with vomiting, for tirzepatide, semaglutide, and placebo, respectively). There were no deaths. INTERPRETATION: The glycaemic efficacy of GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes results from concurrent improvements in key components of diabetes pathophysiology, namely ß-cell function, insulin sensitivity, and glucagon secretion. These effects were large and help to explain the remarkable glucose-lowering ability of tirzepatide seen in phase 3 studies. FUNDING: Eli Lilly.

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.

Efficacy, Safety, and Mechanistic Insights of Cotadutide, a Dual Receptor Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 and Glucagon Agonist.

CONTEXT: Cotadutide is a dual receptor agonist with balanced glucagon-like peptide-1 and glucagon activity. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate different doses of cotadutide and investigate underlying mechanisms for its glucose-lowering effects. DESIGN/SETTING: Randomized, double-blind, phase 2a study conducted in 2 cohorts at 5 clinical trial sites. PATIENTS: Participants were 65 adult overweight/obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus; 63 completed the study; 2 were withdrawn due to AEs. INTERVENTION: Once-daily subcutaneous cotadutide or placebo for 49 days. Doses (50-300 µg) were uptitrated weekly (cohort 1) or biweekly (cohort 2). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Co-primary end points (cohort 1) were percentage changes from baseline to end of treatment in glucose (area under the curve from 0 to 4 hours [AUC0-4h]) post-mixed-meal tolerance test (MMTT) and weight. Exploratory measures included postprandial insulin and gastric emptying time (GET; cohort 2). RESULTS: Patients received cotadutide (cohort 1, n = 26; cohort 2, n = 20) or placebo (cohort 1, n = 13; cohort 2, n = 6). Significant reductions were observed with cotadutide vs placebo in glucose AUC0-4h post MMTT (least squares mean [90% CI], -21.52% [-25.68, -17.37] vs 6.32% [0.45, 12.20]; P < 0.001) and body weight (-3.41% [-4.37, -2.44] vs -0.08% [-1.45, 1.28]; P = 0.002). A significant increase in insulin AUC0-4h post MMTT was observed with cotadutide (19.3 mU.h/L [5.9, 32.6]; P = 0.008) and GET was prolonged on day 43 with cotadutide vs placebo (t½: 117.2 minutes vs -42.9 minutes; P = 0.0392). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the glucose-lowering effects of cotadutide are mediated by enhanced insulin secretion and delayed gastric emptying. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03244800.

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.

Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Exercise-Induced Lipid Metabolism in Patients With Obesity and Hypertension.

Sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696), a novel angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, was recently approved for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Neprilysin degrades several peptides that modulate lipid metabolism, including natriuretic peptides. In this study, we investigated the effects of 8 weeks' treatment with sacubitril/valsartan on whole-body and adipose tissue lipolysis and lipid oxidation during defined physical exercise compared with the metabolically neutral comparator amlodipine. This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group study enrolling subjects with abdominal obesity and moderate hypertension (mean sitting systolic blood pressure ≥130-180 mm Hg). Lipolysis during rest and exercise was assessed by microdialysis and [1,1,2,3,3-2H]-glycerol tracer kinetics. Energy expenditure and substrate oxidation were measured simultaneously using indirect calorimetry. Plasma nonesterified fatty acids, glycerol, insulin, glucose, adrenaline and noradrenaline concentrations, blood pressure, and heart rate were also determined. Exercise elevated plasma glycerol, free fatty acids, and interstitial glycerol concentrations and increased the rate of glycerol appearance. However, exercise-induced stimulation of lipolysis was not augmented on sacubitril/valsartan treatment compared with amlodipine treatment. Furthermore, sacubitril/valsartan did not alter energy expenditure and substrate oxidation during exercise compared with amlodipine treatment. In conclusion, sacubitril/valsartan treatment for 8 weeks did not elicit clinically relevant changes in exercise-induced lipolysis or substrate oxidation in obese patients with hypertension, implying that its beneficial cardiovascular effects cannot be explained by changes in lipid metabolism during exercise. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01631864.

Characterization of pancreatic NMDA receptors as possible drug targets for diabetes treatment.

In the nervous system, NMDA receptors (NMDARs) participate in neurotransmission and modulate the viability of neurons. In contrast, little is known about the role of NMDARs in pancreatic islets and the insulin-secreting beta cells whose functional impairment contributes to diabetes mellitus. Here we found that inhibition of NMDARs in mouse and human islets enhanced their glucose-stimulated insulin secretion (GSIS) and survival of islet cells. Further, NMDAR inhibition prolonged the amount of time that glucose-stimulated beta cells spent in a depolarized state with high cytosolic Ca(2+) concentrations. We also noticed that, in vivo, the NMDAR antagonist dextromethorphan (DXM) enhanced glucose tolerance in mice, and that in vitro dextrorphan, the main metabolite of DXM, amplified the stimulatory effect of exendin-4 on GSIS. In a mouse model of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), long-term treatment with DXM improved islet insulin content, islet cell mass and blood glucose control. Further, in a small clinical trial we found that individuals with T2DM treated with DXM showed enhanced serum insulin concentrations and glucose tolerance. Our data highlight the possibility that antagonists of NMDARs may provide a useful adjunct treatment for diabetes.

Linagliptin increases incretin levels, lowers glucagon, and improves glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

INTRODUCTION: Linagliptin is a xanthine-based dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitor that is now available in numerous countries worldwide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The aim of this study was to evaluate further the mechanisms underlying the improvements in glycemic control observed with linagliptin. The effects of linagliptin on DPP-4, pharmacodynamic parameters, and glycemic control versus placebo were assessed in patients with inadequately controlled T2DM. METHODS: Patients in this phase 2a, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study received placebo (n = 40) or linagliptin 5 mg (n = 40). Sitagliptin 100 mg (n = 41) once daily for 4 weeks was included for exploratory purposes. Primary endpoints for linagliptin versus placebo: change from baseline to day 28 in 24-h weighted mean glucose (WMG) and intact glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 area under the time-effect curve between 0 and 2 h (AUEC(0-2h)) following meal tolerance test on day 28. RESULTS: Linagliptin increased intact GLP-1 AUEC(0-2h) (+18.1 pmol/h/L) and lowered 24-h WMG (-1.1 mmol/L) versus placebo (both P < 0.0001) after 28 days. Intact glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide increased in line with GLP-1 (+91.4 pmol/h/L increase vs. placebo; P < 0.0001). Glycated hemoglobin (-0.22%; P = 0.0021), fasting plasma glucose (-0.6 mmol/L; P = 0.0283), and glucose (AUEC(0-3h)) (-5.9 mmol/h/L; P < 0.0001) improved significantly with linagliptin versus placebo. Most adverse events were mild; hypoglycemia or serious adverse events were not reported. Sustained DPP-4 inhibition (≥80%) throughout the treatment period was accompanied by significant reductions in glucagon starting at day 1 of linagliptin administration. CONCLUSION: Linagliptin was well tolerated and effectively inhibited plasma DPP-4 activity in patients with T2DM, producing immediate improvements in incretin levels, glucagon suppression, and glycemic control that were maintained throughout the study period.

Intrasubject variability of inhaled insulin in type 1 diabetes: a comparison with subcutaneous insulin.

We compared intrasubject variability of insulin and glucose profiles after a standardized meal between insulin inhaled via the AERx insulin Diabetes Management System (AERx iDMS, Aradigm Corp., Hayward, CA) and given as a subcutaneous injection. In this single-center, parallel, randomized, open-labeled trial, 17 male, non-smoking patients with type 1 diabetes (mean age, 27.7 years; body mass index, 23.4 kg/m(2)) received a fixed, individualized dose of human insulin, on four treatment days followed by an individualized breakfast, administered either by inhalation via AERx iDMS (n = 9) or by subcutaneous injection. Serum insulin and serum glucose levels were determined at regular intervals for 6 h postdose. Intrasubject variability was expressed as coefficient of variation. No statistically significant differences in intrasubject variability were observed between the treatments for the areas under the insulin curves for 0-6 h [27% vs. 19% (inhaled insulin vs. subcutaneous)] and areas under the glucose curves 0-6 h (30% vs. 23%). Intrasubject variability values for insulin half-life, terminal elimination rate constant, and mean residence time were significantly less in the inhaled insulin group compared with the subcutaneous insulin group (P = 0.01-0.02). Only one potentially trial product-related adverse event (an audible wheeze) was reported, and no clinically relevant changes in pulmonary function were detected. The intrasubject variability was comparable between patients receiving inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin, thereby confirming the reproducibility of administering insulin via AERx iDMS. Inhaled insulin was well tolerated and is a feasible alternative to subcutaneous insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes.

Effect of pramlintide on symptom, catecholamine, and glucagon responses to hypoglycemia in healthy subjects.

Pramlintide is an analog of the human glucoregulatory hormone amylin. Previous studies have shown no clear evidence that pramlintide modifies the response to insulin-induced hypoglycemia; however, a detailed assessment of responses at hypoglycemic thresholds has not been conducted. To further test the effect of pramlintide on symptom, catecholamine, and glucagon responses, a 3-step hypoglycemic clamp was investigated in healthy volunteers. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study, 18 healthy subjects without diabetes received subcutaneous premeal injections of either placebo or 60 microg pramlintide 3 times daily for 5 consecutive days. On day 6, subjects received study drug with breakfast and, after a 7-hour fast, were connected to a Biostator for a 3-step, 3-hour clamp experiment (insulin infusion rate: 1.0 mU/kg/min; blood glucose targets: 70, 55, and 45 mg/dL). An intravenous (IV) infusion of pramlintide (16 microg/h) or placebo was initiated at t = 60 minutes. At the end of each 60-minute clamp step, autonomic (sweating, palpitations, hunger, etc) and neuroglycopenic (confusion, headache, odd behavior, etc) symptoms were assessed using a validated visual analog scale questionnaire. Blood samples were collected at 30-minute intervals for measurement of plasma glucose, insulin, pramlintide, catecholamine, and glucagon concentrations. Intraindividual and group mean responses showed that autonomic symptoms and plasma catecholamine and glucagon concentrations increased progressively during the clamp, with no discernible differences between pramlintide and placebo treatments. Group means for catecholamines at 60 minutes were: epinephrine 233 +/- 42, 892 +/- 85, 2,340 +/- 302 and 202 +/- 25, 774 +/- 114, 2,751 +/- 404 pg/mL and norepinephrine 1,138 +/- 86, 1,236 +/- 77, 1,721 +/- 158 and 1,278 +/- 108, 1,259 +/- 109, 1,580 +/-136 pg/mL (+/- SEM) for placebo- and pramlintide-treated groups at 70, 55, and 45 mg/dL glucose, respectively. Group means for glucagon were 72 +/- 6.3, 98 +/- 11.1, 130 +/- 14.7 and 63 +/- 3.6, 92 +/- 9.4, 120 +/- 16.0 pmol/L (+/- SEM) for placebo- and pramlintide-treated groups at 70, 55, and 45 mg/dL glucose, respectively. These results showed that pramlintide did not impair the symptom, catecholamine, and glucagon responses to insulin-induced hypoglycemia in healthy subjects.

Impact of particle size and aerosolization time on the metabolic effect of an inhaled insulin aerosol.

The effects were compared of varying aerosol particle size and aerosolization time within each breath on the metabolic effect elicited by inhalation of a liquid insulin aerosol in comparison with that after subcutaneous injection (s.c.) of regular insulin. In this single-center, open-label euglycemic glucose clamp study, 13 healthy non-smoking subjects received five administrations of insulin in randomized order on separate study days, once by s.c. (0.15 U/kg of regular insulin) and four times by inhalation. Subjects inhaled 1.5 U/kg of liquid insulin aerosol administered by the Aerodose Insulin Inhaler (Aerogen Inc., Mountain View, CA) configured to deliver two aerosol particle sizes--fine [F, 4.4 +/- 0.3 microm (mean +/- SD)] or very fine (VF, 3.5 +/- 0.2 microm)--and two aerosolization times (aerosol released for the first 2 or 4 s after the start of each 5-s inhalation). Glucose infusion rate (GIR) values necessary to keep blood glucose concentrations constant at 5.0 mmol/L were determined over a 6-h period following insulin administration. After inhalation of insulin, the onset of action was substantially more rapid on all four inhalation study days than after s.c. insulin, and the time to maximal action [t(GIRmax) (min)] was reached earlier: F/2 s, 127 +/- 54; F/4 s, 128 +/- 55; VF/2 s, 158 +/- 91; VF/4 s, 132 +/- 72; s.c., 175 +/- 69 (P < 0.0001). The longer aerosolization time (4 vs. 2 s) resulted in higher maximal metabolic action [GIR(max) (mg/kg/min), F/4 s 8.1 +/- 3.6, VF/4 s 8.4 +/- 2.7 vs. F/2 s 6.6 +/- 2.4, VF/2 s 7.2 +/- 2.4 (P = 0.01 for 4 s vs. 2 s, grouped data)], total metabolic activity [area under the curve of GIR 0-6 h (g/kg), F/4 s 1.97 +/- 0.92, VF/4 s 2.14 +/- 0.86 vs. F/2 s 1.56 +/- 0.68, VF/2 s 1.78 +/- 0.60 (P = 0.01)], and relative biopotency [F/4 s 10.6 +/- 4.0%, VF/4 s 11.7% +/- 4.1% vs. F/2 s 8.5 +/- 3.2%, VF/2 s 9.7 +/- 2.4% (P = 0.01)]. None of these summary measures was significantly affected by particle size. No drug- or device-related adverse events were observed. This study shows that aerosolization time, but not particle size, in the ranges studied, had an impact on the metabolic effect elicited by inhaled insulin, allowing rational selection of delivery parameters for further clinical testing. Based on the observed biopotency and the rapid onset of action, inhalation of a liquid insulin aerosol generated by the Aerodose Insulin Inhaler shows promise for covering prandial insulin requirements.