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.

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

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

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.

Size and charge characterization of polymeric drug delivery systems by Taylor dispersion analysis and capillary electrophoresis.

In this work, Taylor dispersion analysis and capillary electrophoresis were used to characterize the size and charge of polymeric drug delivery nanogels based on polyglutamate chains grafted with hydrophobic groups of vitamin E. The hydrophobic vitamin E groups self-associate in water to form small hydrophobic nanodomains that can incorporate small drugs or therapeutic proteins. Taylor dispersion analysis is well suited to determine the weight average hydrodynamic radius of nanomaterials and to get information on the size polydispersity of polymeric samples. The effective charge was determined either from electrophoretic mobility and hydrodynamic radius using electrophoretic modeling (three different approaches were compared), or by indirect UV detection in capillary electrophoresis. The influence of vitamin E hydrophobicity on the polymer effective charge has been studied. The presence of vitamin E leads to a drastic decrease in polymer effective charge in comparison to non-modified polyglutamate. Finally, the electrophoretic behavior of polyglutamate backbone grafted with hydrophobic vitamin E (pGVE) nanogels according to the ionic strength was investigated using the recently proposed slope plot approach. It was deduced that the pGVE nanogels behave electrophoretically as polyelectrolytes which is in good agreement with the high water content of the nanogels.