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.

Ultra rapid lispro improves postprandial glucose control versus lispro in combination with basal insulin: a study based on CGM in type 2 diabetes in China.

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of URLi (ultra rapid lispro insulin) compared to insulin lispro as bolus insulin with basal insulin using CGM in the individuals with type 2 diabetes(T2D) in China. Methods: This was a double-blind, randomized, parallel, prospective, phase 3 study. Subjects with uncontrolled T2D were recruited and randomized 1:2 into the insulin lispro and URLi groups. Subjects received a consistent basal insulin regimen during the study and self-administered insulin lispro or URLi before each meal throughout the treatment period. Subjects underwent a 3-day continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) at the baseline and endpoint respectively, and then CGM data were analyzed. The primary endpoint was to compare the difference in postprandial glucose (PPG) control using CGM between the two groups. Results: A total of 57 subjects with T2D completed the study. Our CGM data showed that postprandial glucose excursions after breakfast (BPPGE) in the URLi group was lower than that in the insulin lispro group (1.59 ± 1.57 mmol/L vs 2.51 ± 1.73 mmol/L, p = 0.046). 1-hour PPG was observed to decrease more in the URLi group than that in the insulin lispro group (-1.37 ± 3.28 mmol/L vs 0.24 ± 2.58 mmol/L, p = 0.047). 2-hour PPG was observed to decrease more in the URLi group than that in the insulin lispro group (-1.12 ± 4.00 mmol/L vs 1.22 ± 2.90 mmol/L, p = 0.021). The mean HbA1c level decreased by 1.1% in the URLi group and 0.99% in the insulin lispro group, with no treatment difference (p = 0.642). In the CGM profile, TBR was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.743). The weight gain also did not differ between the two groups (p = 0.303). Conclusion: URLi can control breakfast PPG better than insulin lispro in adults with T2D in China, while it is non-inferior in improving HbA1c. The incidence of hypoglycemic and weight gain were similar between the two groups.

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.

Ultra rapid lispro (Lyumjev®) shortens time to recovery from hyperglycaemia compared to Humalog® in individuals with type 1 diabetes on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion.

AIMS: To compare the time to hyperglycaemia recovery after ultra rapid lispro (URLi; Lyumjev®) versus Humalog in a randomized, double-blind crossover study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two adults with type 1 diabetes on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion participated in two periods: each period included hyperglycaemia induced by a missed mealtime bolus (day 1) and by suspension of basal insulin delivery (day 2). When hyperglycaemia [plasma glucose (PG) >240 mg/dl] occurred, a correction bolus of URLi or Humalog was given and time to hyperglycaemia recovery (PG = 140 mg/dl), pharmacokinetics and glucodynamics were compared. RESULTS: Following a missed mealtime bolus, URLi significantly reduced maximum PG (-13 mg/dl; p = .02), and produced numerically more rapid decline in PG (23 mg/dl/h; p = .07), and faster recovery from hyperglycaemia (-23 min; p = .1) versus Humalog, although differences were not significant. Following basal suspension, URLi significantly reduced maximum PG (-6 mg/dl; p = .02), and produced faster PG decline (24 mg/dl/h; p < .001) and faster recovery from hyperglycaemia (-16 min; p < .01) vs. Humalog. Following a correction bolus of URLi, accelerated insulin lispro absorption was observed versus Humalog: early 50% tmax was reduced by 6 or 12 min, and AUC0-15min was increased 2.5- or 4.3-fold after correction boluses by subcutaneous infusion (day 1) or injection (day 2), respectively (all p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: During episodes of hyperglycaemia commonly experienced in people with type 1 diabetes, URLi provided a faster recovery versus Humalog from a missed mealtime bolus or during basal insulin suspension. URLi shows significant acceleration of insulin absorption versus Humalog when boluses are administered by subcutaneous infusion or injection.

Ultra-rapid lispro improved postprandial glucose control compared to insulin lispro in predominantly Chinese patients with type 1 diabetes: A prospective, randomized, double-blind phase 3 study.

AIMS: To investigate the efficacy and safety of ultra-rapid lispro (URLi) versus insulin lispro in predominantly Chinese patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, treat-to-target, phase 3 study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following a lead-in period, during which insulin glargine U-100 or insulin degludec U-100 was optimized, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to URLi (n = 176) or insulin lispro (n = 178). The primary objective was to test the noninferiority of URLi to insulin lispro in glycaemic control (noninferiority margin = 0.4% for glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] change from baseline to week 26), with testing for the superiority of URLi to insulin lispro with regard to 1- and 2-hour postprandial glucose (PPG) excursions during a mixed-meal tolerance test and HbA1c change at week 26 as the multiplicity-adjusted objectives. RESULTS: From baseline to week 26, HbA1c decreased by 0.21% and 0.28% with URLi and insulin lispro, respectively, with a least squares mean treatment difference of 0.07% (95% confidence interval -0.11 to 0.24; P = 0.467). URLi demonstrated smaller 1- and 2-hour PPG excursions at week 26 with least squares mean treatment differences of -1.0 mmol/L (-17.8 mg/dL) and -1.4 mmol/L (-25.5 mg/dL), respectively (p < 0.005 for both) versus insulin lispro. The safety profiles of URLi and insulin lispro were similar. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, URLi administered in a basal-bolus regimen demonstrated superiority to insulin lispro in controlling PPG excursions, with noninferiority of HbA1c control in predominantly Chinese patients with T1D.

Tirzepatide vs Insulin Lispro Added to Basal Insulin in Type 2 Diabetes: The SURPASS-6 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Tirzepatide is a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Efficacy and safety of adding tirzepatide vs prandial insulin to treatment in patients with inadequate glycemic control with basal insulin have not been described. Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide vs insulin lispro as an adjunctive therapy to insulin glargine. Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label, phase 3b clinical trial was conducted at 135 sites in 15 countries (participants enrolled from October 19, 2020, to November 1, 2022) in 1428 adults with type 2 diabetes taking basal insulin. Interventions: Participants were randomized (in a 1:1:1:3 ratio) to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide (5 mg [n = 243], 10 mg [n = 238], or 15 mg [n = 236]) or prandial thrice-daily insulin lispro (n = 708). Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included noninferiority of tirzepatide (pooled cohort) vs insulin lispro, both in addition to insulin glargine, in HbA1c change from baseline at week 52 (noninferiority margin, 0.3%). Key secondary end points included change in body weight and percentage of participants achieving hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) target of less than 7.0%. Results: Among 1428 randomized participants (824 [57.7%] women; mean [SD] age, 58.8 [9.7] years; mean [SD] HbA1c, 8.8% [1.0%]), 1304 (91.3%) completed the trial. At week 52, estimated mean change from baseline in HbA1c with tirzepatide (pooled cohort) was -2.1% vs -1.1% with insulin lispro, resulting in mean HbA1c levels of 6.7% vs 7.7% (estimated treatment difference, -0.98% [95% CI, -1.17% to -0.79%]; P < .001); results met noninferiority criteria and statistical superiority was achieved. Estimated mean change from baseline in body weight was -9.0 kg with tirzepatide and 3.2 kg with insulin lispro (estimated treatment difference, -12.2 kg [95% CI, -13.4 to -10.9]). The percentage of participants reaching HbA1c less than 7.0% was 68% (483 of 716) with tirzepatide and 36% (256 of 708) with insulin lispro (odds ratio, 4.2 [95% CI, 3.2-5.5]). The most common adverse events with tirzepatide were mild to moderate gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea: 14%-26%; diarrhea: 11%-15%; vomiting: 5%-13%). Hypoglycemia event rates (blood glucose level <54 mg/dL or severe hypoglycemia) were 0.4 events per patient-year with tirzepatide (pooled) and 4.4 events per patient-year with insulin lispro. Conclusions and Relevance: In people with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin, weekly tirzepatide compared with prandial insulin as an additional treatment with insulin glargine demonstrated reductions in HbA1c and body weight with less hypoglycemia. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04537923.

CamAPS FX Hybrid Closed-Loop with Ultra-Rapid Lispro Compared with Standard Lispro in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Crossover Study.

Introduction: To evaluate hybrid closed-loop with ultra-rapid insulin lispro (Lyumjev) compared with hybrid closed-loop with standard insulin lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes. Materials and Methods: In a single-center, double-blind, randomized, crossover study, 28 adults with type 1 diabetes (mean ± standard deviation [SD]: age 44.5 ± 10.7 years, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.1 ± 0.9% [54 ± 10 mmol/mol]) underwent two 8-week periods comparing hybrid closed-loop with ultra-rapid insulin lispro and hybrid closed-loop with standard insulin lispro in random order. The same CamAPS FX closed-loop algorithm was used in both periods. Results: In an intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of time sensor glucose was in target range (3.9-10 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]; primary endpoint) was greater with ultra-rapid lispro compared with standard insulin lispro (mean ± SD: 78.7 ± 9.8% vs. 76.2 ± 9.6%; mean difference 2.5 percentage points [95% confidence interval 0.8 to 4.2]; P = 0.005). Mean sensor glucose was lower with ultra-rapid lispro compared with standard insulin lispro (7.9 ± 0.8 mmol/L [142 ± 14 mg/dL] vs. 8.1 ± 0.9 mmol/L [146 ± 16 mg/dL]; P = 0.048). The proportion of time with sensor glucose <3.9 mmol/L [70 mg/dL] was similar between interventions (median [interquartile range] ultra-rapid lispro 2.3% [1.3%-2.7%] vs. standard insulin lispro 2.1% [1.4%-3.3%]; P = 0.33). No severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis occurred. Conclusions: The use of ultra-rapid lispro with CamAPS FX hybrid closed-loop increases time in range and reduces mean glucose with no difference in hypoglycemia compared with standard insulin lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes. ClinicalTrials.gov: Trial registration number NCT05257460.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic bioequivalence of Gan & Lee insulin analogues aspart (rapilin®), lispro (prandilin®) and glargine (basalin®) with EU- und US-sourced reference insulins.

AIM: For the successful approval and clinical prescription of insulin biosimilars, it is essential to show pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) bioequivalence to the respective reference products sourced from the European Union and the United States. METHODS: Three phase 1, randomized, double-blind, three-period crossover trials compared single doses of the proposed biosimilar insulin analogues aspart (GL-Asp, n = 36), lispro (GL-Lis, n = 38) and glargine (GL-Gla, n = 113), all manufactured by Gan & Lee pharmaceuticals, to the respective EU- and US-reference products in healthy male participants (GL-Asp and GL-Lis) or people with type 1 diabetes (GL-Gla). Study participants received 0.2 U/kg (aspart and lispro) or 0.5 U/kg (glargine) of each treatment under automated euglycaemic clamp conditions. The clamp duration was 12 h (aspart and lispro) or 30 h (glargine). Primary PK endpoints were the total area under the PK curves (AUCins.total ) and maximum insulin concentrations (Cins.max ). Primary PD endpoints were the total area under the glucose infusion rate curve (AUCGIR.total ) and maximum glucose infusion rate (GIRmax ). RESULTS: Bioequivalence to both EU- and US-reference products were shown for all three GL insulins. Least squares mean ratios for the primary PK/PD endpoints were close to 100%, and both 90% and 95% confidence intervals were within 80%-125% in all three studies. There were no noticeable differences in the safety profiles between test and reference insulins, and no serious adverse events were reported for the GL insulins. CONCLUSION: GL-Asp, GL-Lis and GL-Gla are bioequivalent to their EU- and US-reference products.

Fully Closed-Loop Glucose Control Compared With Insulin Pump Therapy With Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes and Suboptimal Glycemic Control: A Single-Center, Randomized, Crossover Study.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the safety and efficacy of fully closed-loop with ultrarapid insulin lispro in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control compared with insulin pump therapy with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This single-center, randomized, crossover study enrolled 26 adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin pump therapy with suboptimal glycemic control (mean ± SD, age 41 ± 12 years, HbA1c 9.2 ± 1.1% [77 ± 12 mmol/mol]). Participants underwent two 8-week periods of unrestricted living to compare fully closed-loop with ultrarapid insulin lispro (CamAPS HX system) with insulin pump therapy with CGM in random order. RESULTS: In an intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of time glucose was in range (primary end point 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was higher during closed-loop than during pump with CGM (mean ± SD 50.0 ± 9.6% vs. 36.2 ± 12.2%, mean difference 13.2 percentage points [95% CI 9.5, 16.9], P < 0.001). Time with glucose >10.0 mmol/L and mean glucose were lower during closed-loop than during pump with CGM (mean ± SD time >10.0 mmol/L: 49.0 ± 9.9 vs. 62.9 ± 12.6%, mean difference -13.3 percentage points [95% CI -17.2, -9.5], P < 0.001; mean ± SD glucose 10.7 ± 1.1 vs. 12.0 ± 1.6 mmol/L, mean difference -1.2 mmol/L [95% CI -1.8, -0.7], P < 0.001). The proportion of time with glucose <3.9 mmol/L was similar between periods (median [interquartile range (IQR)] closed-loop 0.88% [0.51-1.55] vs. pump with CGM 0.64% [0.28-1.10], P = 0.102). Total daily insulin requirements did not differ (median [IQR] closed-loop 51.9 units/day [35.7-91.2] vs. pump with CGM 50.7 units/day [34.0-70.0], P = 0.704). No severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Fully closed-loop insulin delivery with CamAPS HX improved glucose control compared with insulin pump therapy with CGM in adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal glycemic control.

[Efficacy and safety of ultra rapid lispro in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled clinical trial].

Objective: To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of ultra-rapid lispro insulin (URLi) and humalog lispro (HL) in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods: This was an international multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled study. From May 2019 to January 2021, a total of 481 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, who had been using insulin for at least 90 days and had poor glycemic control, were included. These patients were recruited from 34 research centers in China, including Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital. They were assigned to either the URLi group (319 patients) or the HL group (162 patients) using stratified blocked randomization. The primary endpoint was the change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) relative to baseline after 26 weeks of treatment. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients who achieved HbA1c<7.0% and ≤6.5% after 26 weeks of treatment, 1-h postprandial glucose (1hPG) or 2-h postprandial glucose (2hPG) excursions during a mixed meal tolerance test at week 26, as well as safety parameters. Continuous variables were compared using mixed model repeated measures or analysis of covariance, and categorical variables were compared using logistic regression or Fisher's exact test. Results: Data based on the Chinese subgroup showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the URLi and HL groups in terms of male percentage [56.1% (179/319) vs. 56.2% (91/162); P=0.990], age [(59.5±8.4) vs. (59.6±9.3) years; P=0.839] and other baseline characteristics. Regarding the change in HbA1c relative to baseline, the URLi group was non-inferior to the HL group (-0.59%±0.05% vs. -0.66%±0.06%; P=0.312). There were no statistically significant differences between the URLi and HL groups in proportion of patients who achieved HbA1c<7.0% [47.3% (138/292) vs. 45.2% (70/155); P=0.907] and≤6.5% [27.7% (81/292) vs. 27.7% (43/155); P=0.816]. The excursions in 1hPG [(6.20±0.21) vs. (6.90±0.25) mmol/L; P=0.001] and 2hPG [(8.10±0.27) vs. (9.30±0.31) mmol/L; P<0.001] were lower in the URLi group than the HL group, with statistically significant differences. In terms of safety, there were no statistically significant differences in the percentage of subjects who reported treatment-emergent adverse events between the URLi and HL groups [49.8% (159/319) vs. 50.0% (81/162); P=1.000]. The event rate of nocturnal hypoglycemia was lower in the URLi group than the HL group, with statistically significant differences [(0.53±0.10) vs. (0.89±0.16) events per patient-year; P=0.040]. Conclusions: With good glycemic control, URLi showed non-inferiority for HbA1c improvement versus HL and was superior to HL for postprandial glucose excursion control. Meanwhile the rate and incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia were lower in the URLi group than the HL group.

Ultra rapid lispro showed greater reduction in postprandial glucose versus Humalog in children, adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

AIM: This study compared the pharmacokinetics, glucodynamics and tolerability following single subcutaneous doses of ultra rapid lispro (URLi) versus Humalog in children (6-11 years), adolescents (12-17 years) and adults (18-64 years) with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was a randomized, two-period, subject- and investigator-blind, crossover design in participants with T1D. Participants received a 0.2 U/kg bolus dose immediately before a liquid mixed meal tolerance test. Insulin lispro and glucose concentrations were measured. RESULTS: The study included 13 children, 14 adolescents and 15 adults. Consistently across the age groups, onset of appearance was 4-5 min faster, the early 50% tmax was reduced by 7-13 min, and exposure in the first 15 min was increased by 3.5-6.5-fold following URLi compared with Humalog (all p < .01). Exposure after 3 h was decreased by 37-58% (p = .02) and the duration was reduced by 56 min (p = .006) in children and 36 min (p = .022) in adolescents with URLi compared with Humalog. The maximum and overall exposure were similar between treatments. Postprandial glucose at 1 h was reduced by 42 mg/dl in children (p = .008), 19 mg/dl (p = .195) in adolescents and 34 mg/dl (p = .018) in adults following URLi versus Humalog. The glucose excursion during a 5-h test meal period was reduced by 16% in children and 9% in adolescents compared with Humalog. URLi was well tolerated in all age groups. CONCLUSIONS: URLi showed an accelerated insulin lispro absorption and greater postprandial glucose reduction compared with Humalog in children, adolescents and adults with T1D.

Long-term field study of lispro and neutral protamine Hagedorn insulins treatment in dogs with diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: The long-term clinical and biofhemical effects of basal-bolus insulin treatment with lispro and NPH in dogs with diabetes mellitus are undocumented. OBJECTIVES: To perform a prospective pilot field study of the long-term effects of lispro and NPH on clinical signs and serum fructosamine concentrations (SFC) in dogs with diabetes mellitus. METHODS: Twelve dogs received combined lispro and NPH insulins treatment twice a day and were examined every 2 weeks for 2 months (visits 1-4), and every 4 weeks for up to 4 additional months (visits 5-8). Clinical signs and SFC were recorded at each visit. Polyuria and polydipsia (PU/PD) were scored as absent (0) or present (1). RESULTS: Median (range) PU/PD scores of combined visits 5-8 (0, 0-1) were significantly lower than median scores of combined visits 1-4 (1, 0-1, p = 0.03) and at enrolment (1, 0-1, p = 0.045). Median (range) SFC of combined visits 5-8 (512 mmol/L, 401-974 mmol/L) was significantly lower than SFC of combined visits 1-4 (578 mmol/L, 302-996 mmol/L, p = 0.002) and at enrolment (662 mmol/L, 450-990 mmol/L, p = 0.03). Lispro insulin dose was significantly and negatively, albeit weakly, correlated with SFC concentration during visits 1 through 8 (r = -0.3, p = 0.013). Median duration of follow up was 6 months (range 0.5-6) and most dogs (8, 66.7%) were followed for 6 months. Four dogs withdrew from the study within 0.5-5 months because of documented or suspected hypoglycaemia, short NPH duration or sudden unexplained death. Hypoglycaemia was noted in 6 dogs. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term lispro and NPH combination therapy may improve clinical and biochemical control of some diabetic dogs with comorbidities. Risk of hypoglycaemia should be addressed with close monitoring.

Insulin analogs in the treatment of type II diabetes and future perspectives.

The discovery of insulin by Banting and Best marked 100 years in 2021, and it was a life-saving treatment modality for type II diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Insulin is a natural hormone that has been used extensively in T2DM patients since its discovery. Currently, insulin analogs are also available in different formulations for T2DM management, overcoming the limitations of human insulin with better safety and side effect profiles. The insulin analogs like the rapid-acting analogs (Aspart, lispro, glulisine), the long-acting basal analogs (Glargine, detemir), the ultra-long acting (Insulin degludec), and the premixed insulin analog formulations (75% Neutral protamine lispro, 25% lispro; 50% neutral protamine lispro, 50% lispro; 70% protamine aspart, 30% aspart) have been prepared through genetic engineering while preserving the basic insulin profile. A large number of studies have demonstrated their clinical effects on glycated hemoglobin test (HbA1c) in achieving glycemic control and thereby lowering the microvascular and macrovascular complications of T2DM with less traditional side effects of regular human insulin, mainly the risk of hypoglycemia, postprandial glycemic excursions, and weight gain. This review explores the currently available insulin analogs, their clinical implications, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), safety profile, and cost-effectiveness. We also discuss the future developments in the management of T2DM, especially the scientific advancements surrounding the novel insulin formulations, including the biosimilar insulin, and the innovative insulin delivery methods, such as oral and inhaled insulin.

Accurate Collection of Reasons for Treatment Discontinuation to Better Define Estimands in Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Reasons for treatment discontinuation are important not only to understand the benefit and risk profile of experimental treatments, but also to help choose appropriate strategies to handle intercurrent events in defining estimands. The current case report form (CRF) commonly in use mixes the underlying reasons for treatment discontinuation and who makes the decision for treatment discontinuation, often resulting in an inaccurate collection of reasons for treatment discontinuation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically reviewed and analyzed treatment discontinuation data from nine phase 2 and phase 3 studies for insulin peglispro. A total of 857 participants with treatment discontinuation were included in the analysis. Our review suggested that, due to the vague multiple-choice options for treatment discontinuation present in the CRF, different reasons were sometimes recorded for the same underlying reason for treatment discontinuation. Based on our review and analysis, we suggest an intermediate solution and a more systematic way to improve the current CRF for treatment discontinuations. CONCLUSION: This research provides insight and directions on how to optimize the CRF for recording treatment discontinuation. Further work needs to be done to build the learning into Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium standards. CLINICAL TRIALS: Clinicaltrials.gov numbers: NCT01027871 (Phase 2 for type 2 diabetes), NCT01049412 (Phase 2 for type 1 diabetes), NCT01481779 (IMAGINE 1 Study), NCT01435616 (IMAGINE 2 Study), NCT01454284 (IMAGINE 3 Study), NCT01468987 (IMAGINE 4 Study), NCT01582451 (IMAGINE 5 Study), NCT01790438 (IMAGINE 6 Study), NCT01792284 (IMAGINE 7 Study).

Ultra rapid lispro improves postprandial glucose control versus lispro in combination with insulin glargine/degludec in adults with type 2 diabetes: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

Ultra rapid lispro (URLi) is a novel formulation of insulin lispro designed to more closely match the physiological insulin response to a meal, with the aim of improving postprandial glucose (PPG) control. We conducted a multinational, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, treat-to-target, 26-week, phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of URLi in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D). After an 8-week lead-in period during which basal insulin glargine or degludec was optimized, adults with T2D were randomized (2:1) to prandial URLi (n = 395) or lispro (n = 200). The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of URLi versus lispro in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) change from baseline to week 26. Multiplicity-adjusted analyses were performed to assess the superiority of URLi in 1- and 2-h PPG excursions during a mixed-meal tolerance test (MMTT) and HbA1c change at week 26. URLi showed non-inferiority for HbA1c change at week 26 versus lispro (least-squares mean [LSM] difference, 0.07%; 95% confidence interval: -0.07, 0.21). HbA1c was reduced by 0.56% and 0.63% with URLi and lispro, respectively, with no significant treatment difference (P = 0.321). URLi provided superior PPG excursion control versus lispro at 1 h (LSM difference: -14.6 mg/dL, P < 0.001) and 2 h (LSM difference: -21.8 mg/dL, P < 0.001) as well as other time points (30-240 min) during the MMTT. Incremental area under the glucose curve during the MMTT was also significantly lower with URLi versus lispro. The safety profiles were generally similar between treatment groups. In conclusion, URLi was superior to lispro for PPG control, with non-inferiority in HbA1c improvement, in adults with T2D.

The metabolic effects of adding exenatide to basal insulin therapy when targeting remission in early type 2 diabetes in a randomized clinical trial.

Combining a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP1-RA) with basal insulin is an emerging option when initiating injectable therapy in longstanding type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Recognizing that short-term insulin therapy can improve beta-cell function and induce glycemic remission in early T2DM, we hypothesized that adding the short-acting GLP1-RA exenatide to basal insulin in early T2DM may enhance the achievability of these outcomes. In this completed, 20-week, open-label, parallel-arm trial at an academic hospital, 103 individuals aged 30-80 years with <7 years duration of T2DM were randomized (by computer-generated sequence) to 8-weeks treatment with (i) insulin glargine (Glar; n = 33), (ii) glargine + thrice-daily lispro (Glar/Lispro; n = 35), or (iii) glargine + twice-daily exenatide (Glar/Exenatide; n = 35), followed by 12-weeks washout. The analyzed population of 102 participants (median 3.5 years of T2DM, A1c 6.6% ±0.7%) consisted of 33 on Glar, 35 on Glar/Lispro and 34 on Glar/Exenatide. Oral glucose tolerance tests at baseline, 4-weeks, 8-weeks and 20-weeks enabled assessment of beta-cell function (Insulin Secretion-Sensitivity Index-2 (ISSI-2)) and glycemic control. Mean ISSI-2 over the 8-week intervention (primary outcome) did not differ across the groups (Glar/Exenatide 237 ± 11; Glar/Lispro 208 ± 11; Glar 223 ± 11; p = 0.19). Baseline-adjusted A1c at 8-weeks (secondary outcome) was lowest in Glar/Exenatide followed by Glar/Lispro and Glar (mean 5.9% vs 6.0% vs 6.2%; p = 0.0007). After 12-weeks washout, however, neither baseline-adjusted A1c nor baseline-adjusted ISSI-2 (secondary outcomes) differed between the groups, nor did (additional outcome) rates of remission (Glar/Exenatide 26.7%, Glar/Lispro 43.8%, Glar 32.1%; p = 0.35). There were no severe hypoglycemia episodes. In conclusion, adding exenatide to basal insulin in early T2DM does not further enhance underlying beta-cell function or the capacity to achieve diabetes remission, despite yielding on-treatment glycemic benefit.

Multicenter, Randomized Trial of a Bionic Pancreas in Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Currently available semiautomated insulin-delivery systems require individualized insulin regimens for the initialization of therapy and meal doses based on carbohydrate counting for routine operation. In contrast, the bionic pancreas is initialized only on the basis of body weight, makes all dose decisions and delivers insulin autonomously, and uses meal announcements without carbohydrate counting. METHODS: In this 13-week, multicenter, randomized trial, we randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio persons at least 6 years of age with type 1 diabetes either to receive bionic pancreas treatment with insulin aspart or insulin lispro or to receive standard care (defined as any insulin-delivery method with unblinded, real-time continuous glucose monitoring). The primary outcome was the glycated hemoglobin level at 13 weeks. The key secondary outcome was the percentage of time that the glucose level as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring was below 54 mg per deciliter; the prespecified noninferiority limit for this outcome was 1 percentage point. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 219 participants 6 to 79 years of age were assigned to the bionic-pancreas group, and 107 to the standard-care group. The glycated hemoglobin level decreased from 7.9% to 7.3% in the bionic-pancreas group and did not change (was at 7.7% at both time points) in the standard-care group (mean adjusted difference at 13 weeks, -0.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.6 to -0.3; P<0.001). The percentage of time that the glucose level as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring was below 54 mg per deciliter did not differ significantly between the two groups (13-week adjusted difference, 0.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.04; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The rate of severe hypoglycemia was 17.7 events per 100 participant-years in the bionic-pancreas group and 10.8 events per 100 participant-years in the standard-care group (P = 0.39). No episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in either group. CONCLUSIONS: In this 13-week, randomized trial involving adults and children with type 1 diabetes, use of a bionic pancreas was associated with a greater reduction than standard care in the glycated hemoglobin level. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04200313.).

Positive Impact of the Bionic Pancreas on Diabetes Control in Youth 6-17 Years Old with Type 1 Diabetes: A Multicenter Randomized Trial.

Objective: To evaluate the insulin-only configuration of the iLet® bionic pancreas (BP) in youth 6-17 years old with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Research Design and Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, 165 youth with T1D (6-17 years old; baseline HbA1c 5.8%-12.2%; 35% using multiple daily injections, 36% using an insulin pump without automation, 4% using an insulin pump with low glucose suspend, and 25% using a hybrid closed-loop system before the study) were randomly assigned 2:1 to use BP (n = 112) with insulin aspart or insulin lispro (BP group) or to a control group (n = 53) using their personal standard care insulin delivery (SC group) plus real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). The primary outcome was HbA1c at 13 weeks. Results: Mean HbA1c decreased from 8.1% ± 1.2% at baseline to 7.5% ± 0.7% at 13 weeks with BP versus 7.8% ± 1.1% at both baseline and 13 weeks with SC (adjusted difference = -0.5%, 95% CI -0.7% to -0.2%, P < 0.001). Participants with baseline HbA1c ≥9.0% (n = 34) decreased mean HbA1c from 9.7% ± 0.8% to 7.9% ± 0.6% after 13 weeks with BP compared with 9.7% ± 0.5% to 9.8% ± 0.8% with SC. Over 13 weeks, mean time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL increased by 10% (2.4 h per day) and mean CGM glucose was reduced by 15 mg/dL with BP compared with SC (P < 0.001). Analyses of time >180 mg/dL, time >250 mg/dL, and standard deviation of CGM glucose favored BP (P < 0.001). Time <54 mg/dL was low at baseline (median 0.2%) and not significantly different between groups over 13 weeks (P = 0.24). A severe hypoglycemia event occurred in 3 (2.7%) participants in the BP group and in 1 (1.9%) in the SC group. Conclusions: In youth 6-17 years old with T1D, use of insulin-only configuration of BP improved HbA1c, TIR, and hyperglycemic metrics without increasing CGM-measured hypoglycemia compared with standard of care. Improvement in glycemic metrics was most pronounced in participants with high baseline HbA1c levels. Clinical Trial Registry: clinicaltrials.gov; NCT04200313.

A comparison of the rapid-acting insulin analogue glulisine with lispro and aspart for the pump treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: (1) To describe the population of patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) using the rapid-acting insulin analogue glulisine versus lispro and aspart during continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII); (2) to describe insulin relative effectiveness based on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose (FBG) and dose; (3) to determine rates of hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). METHODS: The analysis used March 2021 data from the Diabetes-Patienten-Verlaufsdokumentation registry, which contains data of 618,903 patients with diabetes. Patients were propensity-matched by age, sex, and diabetes duration. RESULTS: Overall, 42,736 patients of any age were eligible for analysis based on insulin pump usage with either glulisine (N = 707) or lispro/aspart (N = 42,029) between 2004 and 2020. Patients receiving glulisine were older (median 20.0 vs. 16.2 years), equally often male (47.2% vs. 47.8%) and had a longer diabetes duration (median 9.4 vs. 7.4 years). After propensity score matching, 707 pairs remained (total N = 1414). Patient characteristics between groups were similar. Achieved HbA1c values were also comparable: 8.04%, 64 mmol/mol versus 7.96%, 63 mmol/mol for glulisine and lispro/aspart [LS mean difference 0.08 (95%CI - 0.08, 0.25)]. FBG was 9.37 mmol/L (168.9 mg/dL) and 9.58 mmol/L (172.6 mg/dL) in the glulisine and lispro/aspart groups [LS mean diff. - 0.21; (95%CI - 1.13, 0.72)]. Total daily insulin doses and prandial to total insulin ratios were also similar. Glulisine group patients had higher rates of lipodystrophy (0.85% vs. 0.71%) (LS mean diff. 0.18 [95% CI - 1.01, 1.38]) and non-severe DKA (3.11% vs. 0.57%; p = 0.002). Fewer patients in the glulisine group had severe hypoglycemic events (7.66 vs. 9.09; p = 0.333) and severe ketoacidosis events (0.57% vs. 1.56%; p = 0.082) but more had hypoglycemic coma events (p = 0.773), although the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin glulisine had comparable glucose control to lispro/aspart. The use of glulisine was less frequent in the present analysis compared to the previous trials.

Reduced hypoglycaemia using liver-targeted insulin in individuals with type 1 diabetes.

AIM: To investigate whether an increased bolus: basal insulin ratio (BBR) with liver-targeted bolus insulin (BoI) would increase BoI use and decrease hypoglycaemic events (HEv). PATIENT POPULATION AND METHODS: We enrolled 52 persons (HbA1c 6.9% ± 0.12%, mean ± SEM) with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injections. Hepatic-directed vesicle (HDV) was used to deliver 1% of peripheral injected BoI to the liver. A 90-day run-in period was used to introduce subjects to unblinded continuous glucose monitoring and optimize standard basal insulin (BaI) (degludec) and BoI (lispro) dosing. At 90 days, BoI was changed to HDV-insulin lispro and subjects were randomized to an immediate 10% or 40% decrease in BaI dose. RESULTS: At 90 days postrandomization, total insulin dosing was increased by ~7% in both cohorts. The -10% and -40% BaI cohorts were on 7.7% and 13% greater BoI with 6.9% and 30% (P = .02) increases in BBR, respectively. Compared with baseline at randomization, nocturnal level 2 HEv were reduced by 21% and 43%, with 54% and 59% reductions in patient-reported HEv in the -10% and -40% BaI cohorts, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that liver-targeted BoI safely decreases HEv and symptoms without compromising glucose control. We further show that with initiation of liver-targeted BoI, the BBR can be safely increased by significantly lowering BaI dosing, leading to greater BoI usage.