4S-fluorination of ProB29 in insulin lispro slows fibril formation.

Recombinant insulin is a life-saving therapeutic for millions of patients affected by diabetes mellitus. Standard mutagenesis has led to insulin variants with improved control of blood glucose; for instance, the fast-acting insulin lispro contains two point mutations that suppress dimer formation and expedite absorption. However, insulins undergo irreversible denaturation, a process accelerated for the insulin monomer. Here we replace ProB29 of insulin lispro with 4R-fluoroproline, 4S-fluoroproline, and 4,4-difluoroproline. All three fluorinated lispro variants reduce blood glucose in diabetic mice, exhibit similar secondary structure as measured by CD, and rapidly dissociate from the zinc- and resorcinol-bound hexamer upon dilution. Notably, however, we find that 4S-fluorination of ProB29 delays the formation of undesired insulin fibrils that can accumulate at the injection site in vivo and can complicate insulin production and storage. These results demonstrate how subtle molecular changes achieved through non-canonical amino acid mutagenesis can improve the stability of protein therapeutics.

Once-weekly insulin efsitora alfa versus once-daily insulin degludec in adults with type 1 diabetes (QWINT-5): a phase 3 randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Insulin efsitora alfa (efsitora) is a once-weekly basal insulin. This phase 3 study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of efsitora compared with insulin degludec (degludec) in adults with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: This randomised, 52-week, parallel-design, open-label, treat-to-target non-inferiority study conducted at 82 global health-care centres, randomly assigned (1:1) adults (ie, those aged ≥18 years) with type 1 diabetes glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 7·0-10·0% (53·0-85·8 mmol/mol) to efsitora (n=343) or, degludec (n=349), both in combination with insulin lispro. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline to week-26 (non-inferiority margin=0·4%). The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05463744) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Aug 12, 2022, and May 7, 2024, of 893 participants enrolled, 692 (77%) participants were randomly assigned to once-weekly efsitora or once-daily degludec, and 623 (90%) participants completed the study. Mean HbA1c decreased from 7·88% (62·66 mmol/mol) at baseline to 7·41% (57·5 mmol/mol) at week 26 with efsitora and from 7·94% (63·3 mmol/mol) at baseline to 7·36% (56·9 mmol/mol) at week 26 with degludec. Mean HbA1c change from baseline to week 26 was -0·51% with efsitora and -0·56% with degludec (estimated treatment difference 0·052%, 95% CI -0·077 to 0·181; p=0·43), confirming a non-inferiority margin of 0·4% for efsitora compared with degludec. Rates of combined level 2 (<54 mg/dL [3·0 mmol/L]) or level 3 severe hypoglycaemia were higher with efsitora compared with degludec (14·03 vs 11·59 events per patient year of exposure; estimated rate ratio 1·21, 95% CI 1·04 to 1·41; p=0·016) during weeks 0-52, with the highest rates during weeks 0-12. Severe hypoglycaemia incidence was higher with efsitora (35 [10%] of 343) versus degludec (11 [3%] of 349) during weeks 0-52. Overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar across treatment groups. One death not related to the study treatment occurred in the degludec group. INTERPRETATION: In adults with type 1 diabetes, once-weekly efsitora showed non-inferior HbA1c reduction compared with daily insulin degludec. Higher rates of combined level 2 or level 3 hypoglycaemia and greater incidence of severe hypoglycaemia in participants treated with efsitora compared with participants treated with degludec might suggest the need for additional evaluation of efsitora dose initiation and optimisation in people with type 1 diabetes. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

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.).

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.

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.

The vascular function effects of adding exenatide or meal insulin to basal insulin therapy in early type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Basal insulin glargine has a neutral effect on cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes (T2DM). In practice, basal insulin is often paired with a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP1-RA) or meal insulin; however, the cardiovascular implications of these combinations have not been fully elucidated. In this context, we sought to evaluate the vascular function effects of adding the GLP1-RA exenatide or meal insulin lispro to basal glargine therapy in early T2DM. METHODS: In this 20-week trial, adults with T2DM of < 7-years duration were randomized to 8-weeks treatment with (i) insulin glargine (Glar), (ii) glargine + thrice-daily lispro (Glar/Lispro), or (iii) glargine + twice-daily exenatide (Glar/Exenatide), followed by 12-weeks washout. At baseline, 8-weeks, and washout, fasting endothelial function was assessed with reactive hyperemia index (RHI) measurement by peripheral arterial tonometry. RESULTS: At baseline, there were no differences in blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR) or RHI between participants randomized to Glar (n = 24), Glar/Lispro (n = 24), and Glar/Exenatide (n = 25). At 8-weeks, Glar/Exenatide decreased systolic BP (mean - 8.1 mmHg [95%CI - 13.9 to - 2.4], p = 0.008) and diastolic BP (mean - 5.1 mmHg [- 9.0 to - 1.3], p = 0.012) compared to baseline, with no significant changes in HR or RHI. Notably, baseline-adjusted RHI (mean ± SE) did not differ between the groups at 8-weeks (Glar 2.07 ± 0.10; Glar/Lispro 2.00 ± 0.10; Glar/Exenatide 1.81 ± 0.10; p = 0.19), nor did baseline-adjusted BP or HR. There were no differences between the groups in baseline-adjusted RHI, BP or HR after 12-weeks washout. CONCLUSION: Adding either exenatide or lispro to basal insulin therapy does not appear to affect fasting endothelial function in early T2DM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT02194595.

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.

Efficacy and safety of ultra-rapid lispro versus lispro in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: The PRONTO-Peds trial.

AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ultra-rapid lispro (URLi) versus lispro in a paediatric population with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in a Phase 3, treat-to-target study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After a 4-week lead-in to optimize basal insulin, participants were randomized to double-blind URLi (n = 280) or lispro (n = 298) injected 0 to 2 minutes prior to meals (mealtime), or open-label URLi (n = 138) injected up to 20 minutes after start of meals (postmeal). Participants remained on pre-study basal insulin (degludec, detemir or glargine). The primary endpoint was glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change from baseline after 26 weeks (noninferiority margin 4.4 mmol/mol [0.4%]). RESULTS: Both mealtime and postmeal URLi demonstrated noninferiority to lispro for HbA1c: estimated treatment difference (ETD) for mealtime URLi -0.23 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval [CI] -1.84, 1.39) and postmeal URLi -0.17 mmol/mol (95% CI -2.15, 1.81). Mealtime URLi reduced 1-hour postprandial glucose (PPG) daily mean (P = 0.001) and premeal to 1 hour postmeal PPG excursion daily mean (P < 0.001) versus lispro. The rate and incidence of severe, nocturnal or documented hypoglycaemia (<3.0 mmol/L [54 mg/dL]) were similar for all treatments. With mealtime URLi versus lispro, the rate of postdose hypoglycaemia (<3.0 mmol/L) was higher at ≤2 hours (P = 0.034). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar for all treatments. More participants reported an injection site reaction with mealtime URLi (7.9%) versus postmeal URLi (2.9%) and lispro (2.7%). CONCLUSIONS: In children and adolescents with T1D, URLi demonstrated good glycaemic control, and noninferiority to lispro in HbA1c change for mealtime and postmeal URLi. When dosed at the beginning of meals, URLi reduced 1-hour PPG and PPG excursions versus lispro.

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.

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.

[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.

Media optimization for SHuffle T7 Escherichia coli expressing SUMO-Lispro proinsulin by response surface methodology.

BACKGROUND: SHuffle is a suitable Escherichia coli (E. coli) strain for high yield cytoplasmic soluble expression of disulfide-bonded proteins such as Insulin due to its oxidative cytoplasmic condition and the ability to correct the arrangement of disulfide bonds. Lispro is an Insulin analog that is conventionally produced in E. coli as inclusion bodies (IBs) with prolonged production time and low recovery. Here in this study, we aimed to optimize cultivation media composition for high cell density fermentation of SHuffle T7 E. coli expressing soluble Lispro proinsulin fused to SUMO tag (SU-INS construct) to obtain high cell density fermentation. RESULTS: Factors including carbon and nitrogen sources, salts, metal ions, and pH were screened via Plackett-Burman design for their effectiveness on cell dry weight (CDW) as a measure of cell growth. The most significant variables of the screening experiment were Yeast extract and MgCl2 concentration, as well as pH. Succeedingly, The Central Composite Design was utilized to further evaluate and optimize the level of significant variables. The Optimized media (OM-I) enhanced biomass by 2.3 fold in the shake flask (2.5 g/L CDW) that reached 6.45 g/L (2.6 fold increase) when applied in batch culture fermentation. The efficacy of OM-I media for soluble expression was confirmed in both shake flask and fermentor. CONCLUSION: The proposed media was suitable for high cell density fermentation of E. coli SHuffle T7 and was applicable for high yield soluble expression of Lispro proinsulin.

Ultra rapid lispro (URLi) shows accelerated pharmacokinetics and greater reduction in postprandial glucose versus Humalog® in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus in a randomized, double-blind meal test early-phase study.

AIM: To compare the pharmacokinetics (PK), glucodynamics (GD), and tolerability following single and multiple daily subcutaneous (SC) doses of ultra rapid lispro (URLi) and Humalog® in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a two-part, randomized, double-blind, Phase 1b study. Part A used a six-period crossover design to assess PK and GD response to a solid mixed meal tolerance test (MMTT) following a single dose of URLi or Humalog administered 15 min before, immediately before, and 15 min after the start of the meal. Part B evaluated URLi or Humalog during 2 weeks of multiple daily dosing with a parallel design. The PK and GD were assessed following MMTTs at the beginning and end of the 2-week period when insulins were administered immediately before the start of the meal. RESULTS: URLi increased the insulin exposure within the first 30 min postdose by 2.2-fold and reduced the time to early half-maximal drug concentration by 37% compared with Humalog. Overall, URLi resulted in better postprandial glucose lowering when dosed before, immediately before, or after a meal compared with Humalog. Comparing the same meal-to-dose timing between the insulins, postprandial glucose excursion over 5 hours was reduced by 40%-44% for all three dose timings (-15, 0, and +15 min) with URLi, achieving statistical significance for the 0- and +15-min timings. The PK and GD profiles were sustained after daily SC dosing for 2 weeks in patients with T1D. The number of documented hypoglycaemic events was similar between URLi and Humalog during the postprandial period of the MMTTs and the outpatient period. CONCLUSIONS: URLi showed accelerated insulin lispro absorption and greater postprandial glucose reduction at different meal-to-dose timings compared with Humalog and was well tolerated in patients with T1D.

What is the value of faster acting prandial insulin? Focus on ultra rapid lispro.

Rapid-acting insulins (RAIs) have been instrumental in the management of diabetes because of their improved postprandial glucose (PPG) control compared with regular human insulin. However, their absorption rate and time action following subcutaneous administration still falls short of the normal physiological response to meal consumption, increasing the risk of early postmeal hyperglycaemia and late postmeal hypoglycaemia. Increased demand for faster acting insulins, which can quickly control PPG excursions without increasing the risk of late hypoglycaemia, led to the development of ultra-rapid-acting insulins, including ultra-rapid lispro (URLi). URLi is a novel formulation of insulin lispro with accelerated absorption driven by two excipients: treprostinil, which increases local vasodilation, and citrate, which increases local vascular permeability. Clinical pharmacology studies consistently showed an earlier onset and shorter duration of action with URLi compared with Lispro. In a head-to-head study with Faster aspart, Aspart and Lispro, URLi was absorbed faster, provided earlier insulin action, and more closely matched physiological glucose response than the other insulins tested. URLi's unique pharmacokinetic properties increase its potential for improved PPG control beyond that achieved with RAIs. Indeed, in pivotal phase 3 trials, URLi was superior to Lispro for PPG control both at 1 and 2 hours after a meal in type 1 and type 2 diabetes with multiple daily injections, and in type 1 diabetes with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. This was achieved without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. In this review, we focus on the clinical and pharmacological evidence for URLi in the treatment of diabetes and discuss the potential benefits and considerations with URLi compared with RAIs.

Ultra-rapid lispro shows faster pharmacokinetics and reduces postprandial glucose excursions versus Humalog® in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in a randomized, controlled crossover meal test early phase study.

AIMS: To compare the pharmacokinetics (PK), glucodynamics (GD) and tolerability following single and multiple daily subcutaneous doses of ultra rapid lispro (URLi) and Humalog® in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a two-part, randomized, double-blind Phase 1b study. Part A used a six-period crossover design to assess PK and GD response to a solid mixed meal tolerance test (MMTT) following a single dose of URLi or Humalog administered 15 minutes before, immediately before, or 15 minutes after the start of the meal. Part B evaluated URLi or Humalog during 2 weeks of multiple daily dosing with a parallel design. The PK and GD were assessed following MMTTs at the beginning and end of the 2 weeks when insulins were administered immediately before the start of the meal. RESULTS: URLi increased the insulin exposure within the first 30 minutes postdose by 2.2-fold and reduced the time to the early half-maximal drug concentration by 22.6% compared with Humalog. Overall, URLi resulted in better postprandial glucose lowering when dosed before, immediately before, or after a meal. In comparing the same meal-to-dose timing between the insulins, the postprandial glucose excursion over 5 hours was significantly reduced by 29%-105% for all three dose timings (-15, 0 and +15 minutes) with URLi. The PK and GD were sustained after daily subcutaneous dosing for 2 weeks in patients with T2D. URLi had more hypoglycaemic events during the MMTTs; few events occurred for both treatments during the 2 weeks of outpatient dosing. CONCLUSIONS: URLi demonstrated accelerated insulin lispro absorption and greater postprandial glucose reduction at different meal-to-dose timings compared with Humalog and was well tolerated in patients with T2D.

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.

Formulation Excipients and Their Role in Insulin Stability and Association State in Formulation.

While excipients are often overlooked as the "inactive" ingredients in pharmaceutical formulations, they often play a critical role in protein stability and absorption kinetics. Recent work has identified an ultrafast absorbing insulin formulation that is the result of excipient modifications. Specifically, the insulin monomer can be isolated by replacing zinc and the phenolic preservative metacresol with phenoxyethanol as an antimicrobial agent and an amphiphilic acrylamide copolymer excipient for stability. A greater understanding is needed of the interplay between excipients, insulin association state, and stability in order to optimize this formulation. Here, we formulated insulin with different preservatives and stabilizing excipient concentrations using both insulin lispro and regular human insulin and assessed the insulin association states using analytical ultracentrifugation as well as formulation stability. We determined that phenoxyethanol is required to eliminate hexamers and promote a high monomer content even in a zinc-free lispro formulation. There is also a concentration dependent relationship between the concentration of polyacrylamide-based copolymer excipient and insulin stability, where a concentration greater than 0.1 g/mL copolymer is required for a mostly monomeric zinc-free lispro formulation to achieve stability exceeding that of Humalog in a stressed aging assay. Further, we determined that under the formulation conditions tested zinc-free regular human insulin remains primarily hexameric and is not at this time a promising candidate for rapid-acting formulations.

Early Postoperative Basal Insulin Therapy versus Standard of Care for the Prevention of Diabetes Mellitus after Kidney Transplantation: A Multicenter Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Post-transplantation diabetes mellitus (PTDM) might be preventable. METHODS: This open-label, multicenter randomized trial compared 133 kidney transplant recipients given intermediate-acting insulin isophane for postoperative afternoon glucose ≥140 mg/dl with 130 patients given short-acting insulin for fasting glucose ≥200 mg/dl (control). The primary end point was PTDM (antidiabetic treatment or oral glucose tolerance test-derived 2 hour glucose ≥200 mg/dl) at month 12 post-transplant. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat population, PTDM rates at 12 months were 12.2% and 14.7% in treatment versus control groups, respectively (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.39 to 1.76) and 13.4% versus 17.4%, respectively, at 24 months (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.34 to 1.49). In the per-protocol population, treatment resulted in reduced odds for PTDM at 12 months (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.16 to 1.01) and 24 months (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.24 to 1.20). After adjustment for polycystic kidney disease, per-protocol ORs for PTDM (treatment versus controls) were 0.21 (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.62) at 12 months and 0.35 (95% CI, 0.14 to 0.87) at 24 months. Significantly more hypoglycemic events (mostly asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic) occurred in the treatment group versus the control group. Within the treatment group, nonadherence to the insulin initiation protocol was associated with significantly higher odds for PTDM at months 12 and 24. CONCLUSIONS: At low overt PTDM incidence, the primary end point in the intention-to-treat population did not differ significantly between treatment and control groups. In the per-protocol analysis, early basal insulin therapy resulted in significantly higher hypoglycemia rates but reduced odds for overt PTDM-a significant reduction after adjustment for baseline differences-suggesting the intervention merits further study.Clinical Trial registration number: NCT03507829.

Improved postprandial glucose control with ultra rapid lispro versus lispro with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in type 1 diabetes: PRONTO-Pump-2.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ultra rapid lispro (URLi) versus lispro (Humalog® ) in people with type 1 diabetes on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a phase 3, 16-week, treat-to-target study in patients randomized to double-blind URLi (N = 215) or lispro (N = 217). The primary endpoint was change from baseline HbA1c (non-inferiority margin 4.4 mmol/mol [0.4%]), with multiplicity-adjusted objectives for postprandial glucose (PPG) levels during a meal test, and time spent in the target range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR). RESULTS: URLi was non-inferior to lispro for change in HbA1c, with a least-squares mean (LSM) difference of 0.3 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.6, 1.2) or 0.02% (95% CI -0.06, 0.11). URLi was superior to lispro in controlling 1- and 2-h PPG levels after the meal test: LSM difference -1.34 mmol/L (95% CI -2.00, -0.68) or -24.1 mg/dL (95% CI -36.0, -12.2) at 1 h and -1.54 mmol/L (95% CI -2.37, -0.72) or -27.8 mg/dL (95% CI -42.6, -13.0) at 2 h; both p < .001. TIR and time in hyperglycaemia were similar between groups but URLi resulted in significantly less time in hypoglycaemia (<3.0 mmol/L [54 mg/dL]) over the daytime, night-time and 24-h period: LSM difference -0.41%, -0.97% and -0.52%, respectively, all p < .05. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was higher with URLi (60.5% vs. 44.7%), driven by infusion-site reaction and infusion-site pain, which was mostly mild or moderate. Rates of severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: URLi was efficacious, providing superior PPG control and less time in hypoglycaemia but with more frequent infusion-site reactions compared with lispro when administered by CSII.