Review of the mechanism of action and clinical efficacy of recombinant human hyaluronidase coadministration with current prandial insulin formulations.

For patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, achieving good glycemic control is critical for successful treatment outcomes. As many patients remain unable to reach glycemic goals with currently available rapid-acting analog insulins, ultrafast insulin products are being developed that provide an even faster pharmacokinetic profile compared with current rapid prandial insulin products. The overall strategy of these ultrafast insulin products is to better mimic the normal physiologic response to insulin that occurs in healthy individuals to further improve glycemic control. Recombinant human hyaluronidase (rHuPH20) is a genetically engineered soluble hyaluronidase approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as an adjuvant to increase the absorption and dispersion of other injected drugs; mammalian hyaluronidases as a class have over 6 decades of clinical use supporting the safety and/or efficacy of hyaluronidase coadministration. Clinical findings have demonstrated that coadministration of rHuPH20 with insulin or an insulin analog achieved faster systemic absorption, reduced inter- and intrapatient variability of insulin absorption, and achieved faster metabolic effects compared with injection of either insulin formulation alone. The magnitude of this acceleration is similar to the incrementally faster absorption of prandial insulin analogs as compared with regular insulin. In addition, coadministration of rHuPH20 with regular insulin or insulin analog also improved the achievement of prandial glycemic targets. Thus, rHuPH20 coadministration shows promise as a method of establishing a more rapid insulin profile to prandial insulin in patients with diabetes and has the potential to yield substantial improvements in postprandial glycemic excursion.

Influence of BMI, Age and duration of diabetes mellitus on glycaemic control with twice-daily injections of biphasic insulin aspart 30 versus multiple daily injections of insulin aspart (JDDM 18): retrospective reanalysis of a 6-month, randomized, open-label, multicentre trial in Japan.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Good glycaemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus often requires insulin supplementation therapy. Recent developments of analogue insulin and premixed formulations have increased the therapeutic options for patients who need such therapy. This study aimed to retrospectively clarify appropriate treatment regimens according to age, body mass index (BMI) and duration of diabetes in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes previously entered in an open-label, randomized trial that compared convenience-oriented biphasic insulin aspart 30 versus multiple injections of insulin aspart with or without NPH insulin. METHODS: Japanese insulin-naïve patients were randomized to receive either biphasic insulin aspart 30 twice daily or insulin aspart three times daily with or without multiple injections of NPH insulin for a treatment period lasting 6 months. RESULTS: Reduction of glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) at the end of 6 months was not different in the two treatment groups irrespective of BMI, age and duration of diabetes. However, the achievement rate of HbA(1c) <7.0% was significantly higher in patients with a BMI <25 kg/m2 in the multiple-injection group and tended to be higher in patients with a diabetes duration <10 years in the twice-daily injection group. CONCLUSION: Twice-daily injections of biphasic insulin aspart 30 may be more suitable for obese patients whereas multiple injections of insulin aspart with or without NPH insulin may be preferable for those with a longer duration of diabetes.

Improved glycaemic control of thrice-daily biphasic insulin aspart compared with twice-daily biphasic human insulin; a randomized, open-label trial in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

AIM: This trial evaluated the potential for improving glycaemic control by intensifying a conventional twice-daily therapy with premixed human insulin (HI) to a thrice-daily regimen using premixed formulations of biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp) in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This was a multicentre, open-label, parallel group trial. After a 4-week run-in period, patients were randomized 1 : 1 to 16 weeks of treatment. A total of 748 patients were screened, 664 were exposed to trial drug and 604 completed the trial. RESULTS: Haemoglobin A(1c), the primary efficacy endpoint, was shown to be significantly lower for the BIAsp treatment group compared with the biphasic HI (BHI) 30 group [estimated mean difference: -0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-0.48; -0.16), p = 0.0001]. The average blood glucose level was significantly lower in the BIAsp group [estimated mean difference: -0.79, 95% CI (-1.17; -0.40), p = 0.0001]. There were few major hypoglycaemic episodes, 11 in the BIAsp group and 7 in the BHI 30 group. Although intensification of insulin therapy with BIAsp three times a day was associated with a higher risk of minor hypoglycaemia (relative risk = 1.58, p = 0.0038), the overall rate of minor hypoglycaemia remained low with both the BIAsp and the BHI treatments (13.1 vs. 8.3 episodes/patient year respectively). Overall safety and patient satisfaction were similar with the two insulin therapies. CONCLUSIONS: This trial confirmed that a thrice-daily BIAsp regimen can safely be used to intensify treatment for patients inadequately controlled on twice-daily BHI. A treat-to-target trial is required to explore the full potential of the BIAsp regimens and evaluate their use as a viable alternative to intensification with a basal-bolus regimen.

Benefits of complementary therapy with insulin aspart versus human regular insulin in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Absorption rates of the phosphate-buffered insulin analogs aspart, lispro, and glulisine prevail over that of regular human insulin. The aim of this prospective observational open-label controlled study was to compare the effects of aspart and human regular insulin resulting from their sequential long-lasting routine administration in small preprandial boluses to individuals with type 2 diabetes according to identical algorithms. METHODS: Fifty-seven individuals with type 2 diabetes 64.0 +/- 1.29 (mean +/- SE) years old with diabetes' duration of 12.4 +/- 1.06 years, treated with human regular insulin for 5.2 +/- 0.44 years, and a serum C-peptide level of 1.1 +/- 0.10 nmol/L were enrolled into the study. Following two checkups performed in the course of the 364 +/- 17.9-day baseline period, human regular insulin was replaced with aspart in equivalent boluses, and two checkups in the course of 330 +/- 11.1-day sequential period were performed. The control group consisted of 17 individuals with type 2 diabetes 68.4 +/- 2.36 years old with diabetes' duration of 9.9 +/- 1.57 years, treated with insulin for 4.2 +/- 0.57 years, and a C-peptide level of 1.1 +/- 0.11 nmol/L. Data were analyzed using the statistical program SPSS version 10.1. (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL). RESULTS: Following the switch from human regular insulin to aspart, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) decreased from 8.4 +/- 0.23% at baseline to 7.9 +/- 0.17% (P = 0.031), and thereafter to 7.5 +/- 0.20% (P < 0.001), while plasma glucose concentrations in 10-point profiles, daily insulin dose (37.1 +/- 1.39 IU/day), body mass index (BMI) (30.5 +/- 0.82 kg/m(2)), and frequency of hypo- and hyperglycemic episodes did not change (P > 0.05). Patients quote satisfaction was good. No adverse events were recorded. In the control group, no significant change of baseline HbA1c (8.4 +/- 0.54%), insulin dose (33.1 +/- 3.17 IU/day), and BMI (32.1 +/- 1.12 kg/m(2)) was found. CONCLUSION: Aspart appears to be more effective than human regular insulin for complementary insulin treatment in individuals with type 2 diabetes.

Insulin analogues (insulin detemir and insulin aspart) versus traditional human insulins (NPH insulin and regular human insulin) in basal-bolus therapy for patients with type 1 diabetes.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of the trial was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of two types of basal-bolus therapy, using either the soluble long-acting basal insulin analogue, insulin detemir, in combination with the rapid-acting analogue, insulin aspart, or NPH insulin in combination with mealtime regular human insulin. METHODS: In this 18-week, 1:1 randomised, open-labelled, parallel trial, 595 patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus received insulin detemir or NPH insulin in the morning and at bedtime in combination with mealtime insulin aspart or regular human insulin respectively. RESULTS: Glycaemic control with insulin detemir/insulin aspart was improved in comparison with NPH insulin/regular human insulin (HbA1c: 7.88% vs 8.11%; mean difference: -0.22% point [95% CI: -0.34 to -0.10]; p<0.001). Self-measured 8-point plasma glucose profiles differed between the groups (p<0.001), with lower postprandial plasma glucose levels in the insulin detemir/insulin aspart group. Within-person day-to-day variation in plasma glucose was lower with insulin detemir/insulin aspart than with NPH insulin/regular human insulin (SD: 2.88 vs 3.12 mmol/l; p<0.001). Risk of overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia (23.00-06.00 hours) was, respectively, 21% (p=0.036) and 55% (p<0.001) lower in the insulin detemir/insulin aspart group than in the NPH insulin/regular human insulin group. Body weight (adjusted for baseline and change in HbA1c) was 1 kg lower with insulin detemir/insulin aspart than with NPH insulin/regular human insulin (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Basal-bolus therapy using insulin detemir/insulin aspart offers a better balance of control and tolerability than with NPH insulin/regular human insulin. The low variability and more physiological action profiles generated with these insulin analogues resulted in improved glycaemic control with lower risk of hypoglycaemia and no concomitant body weight increase.

Therapeutic options for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The incidence of diabetes mellitus is steadily increasing in the United States. Currently the United States spends approximately $100 billion in healthcare costs annually for the management of diabetes. Most of the costs are attributed to hospitalizations and treatment of diabetes complications. Preventing these complications with tight glycemic control is the key to reducing morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs secondary to diabetes mellitus. Recently, the American College of Endocrinology also stressed earlier screening for diabetes and endorsed lowering the goal percent of hemoglobin glycosylation to 6.5%. These strategies help identify patients with diabetes at an earlier stage and in turn prevent more complications. Better control of diabetes is now feasible with the recent approval of 8 new antidiabetic products. Pioglitazone and rosiglitazone are agents with a novel mechanism of action. Metformin XR, insulin aspart, and miglitol are agents that are similar to previously marketed products, but have different pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic properties. Metformin/glyburide is the first combination product for the treatment of diabetes. Nateglinide represents the first agent in a new class of antidiabetic agents and insulin glargine is a novel insulin preparation. All of the agents have unique characteristics that may render them useful in specific patient populations.