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.

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.

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.

Costo efectividad de insulina lispro protamina (NPL) vs. combinación de insulina NPH + insulina rápida / Cost effectiveness of lispro protamine insulin (NPL) vs combination of NPH insulin + rapid insulin

OBJETIVO: La estrategia farmacológica en el manejo de la diabetes tipo 2 incluye la insulina lispro protamina (NPL) vs. combinación de insulina NPH + insulina rápida. El análisis costo efectividad aborda el aspecto económico y el epidemiológico en el proceso de elección entre dos o más alternativas. El objetivo fue determinar el costo efectividad de la insulina lispro protamina (NPL) vs. combinación de insulina NPH + insulina rápida. MÉTODOS: Estudio de costo efectividad en pacientes con diabetes tipo 2. Alternativa 1, usuarios de insulina lispro protamina (NPL), y 2, usuarios de insulina NPH + insulina rápida. Tamaño de muestra de 62 por grupo, técnica muestral aleatoria simple. El costo incluyó, costo unitario, intensidad de uso del servicio, costo promedio por insumo, costo promedio por servicio, y costo por tipo de alternativa (incluyó medicina familiar, laboratorio y medicamentos). La efectividad se determinó con el promedio de los resultados de glucosa realizados durante todo el año. El plan de análisis incluyó análisis costo efectividad y análisis costo efectividad incremental. RESULTADOS: Costo promedio (estimado en pesos mexicanos) de la alternativa lispro protamina (NPL) $6,146.30 y NPH + insulina rápida $2,671.02. La NPH + insulina rápida tiene menor costo y mayor efectividad. El costo efectividad incremental identifica que con la alternativa NPH + insulina rápida existe ahorro de $158.98 por cada miligramo de glucosa por decilitro en relación a la alternativa  lispro protamina (NPL). CONCLUSION: El resultado, bajo nuestras limitantes, sugiere mejor relación costo efectividad en insulina NPH + insulina rápida

OBJECTIVE: Pharmacological strategies for the management of patients with type 2 diabetes include lispro protamine insulin (NPL) and NPH insulin + rapid insulin. The cost-effectiveness study addresses the economic and epidemiological aspects in the process of choosing between two or more alternatives. The objective is to determine the cost effectiveness of lispro protamine insulin (NPL) vs combination of NPH insulin + rapid insulin. METHODS: Cost effectiveness study in patients with type 2 diabetes. Alternative 1: lispro protamine insulin (NPL) and alternative 2: NPH insulin + rapid insulin. Sample size 62 per group, simple random sampling technique. Cost (estimated in Mexican pesos) included, unit cost, intensity of use of the service, average cost per input, average cost per service, and cost per type of alternative (including family medicine, laboratory and medication.) Effectiveness was determined with the average glucose results carried out throughout the year. Analysis plan included cost effectiveness analysis and incremental cost effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: The total average cost of lispro protamine insulin (NPL) and NPH insulin + rapid insulin mixture was $6,146.30 and $2,671.02, respectively. The NPH insulin + rapid insulin mixture alternative has lower cost and greater effectiveness. According to the cost effectiveness analysis, with the NPH insulin + rapid insulin mixture alternative, there was a saving of $159.98 for each milligram of glucose per deciliter comparing to the lispro protamine insulin (NPL) alternative. CONCLUSION: According with our results, a better cost-effectiveness ratio was obtained in NPH insulin + rapid insulin

Effectiveness of insulin analogs compared with human insulins in pregnant women with diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis / Efetividade dos análogos da insulina comparados às insulinas humanas em gestantes com diabetes mellitus: Revisão sistemática com metanálise

Abstract Diabetes during pregnancy has been linked to unfavorable maternal-fetal outcomes. Human insulins are the first drug of choice because of the proven safety in their use. However, there are still questions about the use of insulin analogs during pregnancy. The objective of the present study was to determine the effectiveness of insulin analogs compared withhuman insulin in the treatment of pregnant women with diabetes througha systematic review withmeta-analysis. The search comprised the period since the inception of each database until July 2017, and the following databases were used:MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, ISIWeb of Science, LILACS, Scopus, SIGLE andGoogle Scholar.We have selected 29 original articles: 11 were randomized clinical trials and 18 were observational studies.We have explored data from 6,382 participants. All of the articles were classified as having an intermediate to high risk of bias. The variable that showed favorable results for the use of insulin analogs was gestational age, with a mean difference of - 0.26 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.03-0.49; p = 0.02), but with significant heterogeneity (Higgins test [I2] = 38%; chi-squared test [χ2] = 16.24; degree of freedom [DF] = 10; p = 0.09). This result, in the clinical practice, does not compromise the fetal well-being, since all babies were born at term. There was publication bias in the gestational age and neonatal weight variables. To date, the evidence analyzed has a moderate-to-high risk of bias and does not allow the conclusion that insulin analogs are more effective when compared with human insulin to treat diabetic pregnant women.

Resumo Diabetes durante a gestação tem sido relacionado a desfechos materno-fetais desfavoráveis. As insulinas humanas são a primeira escolha medicamentosa, devido à comprovada segurança no seu uso. Entretanto, ainda há questionamentos sobre o uso dos análogos da insulina na gestação. O objetivo do presente estudo foi determinar a efetividade dos análogos da insulina comparados às insulinas humanas no tratamento de gestantes com diabetes por meio de uma revisão sistemática com metanálise. A busca compreendeu desde o início de cada base de dados até julho de 2017, e foi realizada nos seguintes bancos de dados: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, LILACS, Scopus, SIGLE e Google Scholar. Selecionamos 29 artigos originais, sendo 11 ensaios clínicos randomizados e 18 estudos observacionais. Exploramos dados de 6.382 participantes. Todos os artigos foram classificados como sendo de intermediário a alto risco de viés. A variável que demonstrou resultado favorável ao uso dos análogos da insulina foi idade gestacional, com uma diferençamédia de - 0.26 (95% índice de confiança [IC]: 0.03-0.49; p = 0.02), porém com heterogeneidade significativa (teste de Higgins [I2] = 38%; teste do qui quadrado [χ2] =16.24; graus de liberdade [GL] =10; p = 0.09). Esse resultado, na prática clínica, não compromete o bem-estar fetal, uma vez que todos os bebês nasceram a termo. Houve viés de publicação nas variáveis idade gestacional e peso neonatal. Até o momento, as evidências analisadas possuem um risco de viés moderado a elevado e não permitem concluir que os análogos da insulina sejam mais efetivos em comparação às insulinas humanas para tratar gestantes diabéticas.

Nuevas insulinas en la diabetes tipo 1 / New insulin types in type 1 diabetes mellitus

Transcurrido casi un siglo desde el descubrimiento de la insulina, sigue siendo en la actualidad la base del tratamiento de los pacientes con diabetes mellitus de tipo 1. Aunque los progresos en la síntesis de nuevas formulaciones han sido notables, el perfil fisiológico de la insulina es aún distinto del que se obtiene con las preparaciones disponibles en la actualidad. En la última década, la incorporación a la práctica clínica de los análogos de insulina ha permitido mejorar de forma importante el control glucémico de los diabéticos y ha facilitado la generalización de las pautas bolo/basal, las más fisiológicas hasta estos momentos. A pesar de las ventajas de los análogos basales, en muchas ocasiones las glucemias oscilan considerablemente cuando se utilizan en forma de inyección única diaria, y es por ello que se han seguido investigando nuevas moléculas que mejoren las existentes, especialmente en cuanto a duración y para evitar la presencia de hipoglucemias, el factor limitante fundamental de las pautas intensificadas. En el presente artículo se revisan los datos disponibles referentes a los nuevos análogos de insulina basal, la insulina degludec, la insulina lispro pegilada y la insulina glargina U300, y de las nuevas formulaciones actualmente en fase de desarrollo (AU)

Since its discovery almost a century ago, insulin remains the mainstay of treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Although progress in the synthesis of new formulations has been remarkable, the physiological profile of insulin is still different from that observed with preparations available nowadays. In the last decade, the introduction into clinical practice of insulin analogues has allowed significantly improvement in glycemic control and has facilitated the spread of basal/bolus patterns, the most physiological ones until now. Despite the benefits of basal analogues, glycemia often varies considerably when used as a single daily injection and this is why new molecules have been further investigated. Improvement has been achieved especially in terms of duration and rate of hypoglycemia, the main limiting factor of intensive therapy. This article reviews the available data concerning the new basal insulin analogues, degludec, pegylated lispro and glargine U300, and new formulations currently under development (AU)