Modeling of Pharmacokinetic Profiles of Insulin Aspart and Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30/70.

This study includes modeling and simulation of insulin aspart pharmacokinetics (PK). The authors used PK data of biosimilar insulins-insulin aspart and biphasic insulin aspart 30/70-to develop a predictive population PK model for the insulins. The model was built via Monolix software, taking into account the weight-based dosing and the dose and body-weight effects on the parameters. The model-based simulations were performed using the R package mlxR for various administered doses and various ratios of insulin aspart forms for a better understanding of the insulin behavior. The optimal model was a 1-compartment model with a combination of zero- and first-order absorptions, with absorption lag for the soluble form of insulin aspart and first-order absorption for the insulin aspart protamine suspension. The assumption of identical behavior of 2 insulins at the distribution and elimination phases was made. The developed PK model was fitted successfully to the experimental data, and all fitted parameters displayed a moderate coefficient of variation. The PK model allows us to predict PK profiles for various doses and formulations of insulin aspart and can be used to improve the accuracy, safety, and ethics of novel clinical trials of insulin.

15 Years of Experience with Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30 in Type 2 Diabetes.

Since clinical experience with biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) was reviewed in 2012 after 10 years of use worldwide, additional studies have been published that highlight new aspects, including use in real-world populations. Evidence from 35 new studies confirms and builds upon previous work indicating that BIAsp 30 continues to have pharmacodynamic and clinical advantages over biphasic human insulin (BHI 30), including in real-world practice with unselected populations of patients. BIAsp 30 has also been shown to be safe and efficacious as an add-on to dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. Intensification with BIAsp 30 is a safe and effective way to improve glycemic control, and titration performed by patients can achieve results that are at least comparable to those when being guided by healthcare providers. Stepwise intensification using BIAsp 30 is comparable to intensification using a basal-bolus regimen, and twice-daily BIAsp 30 provides similar glycemic control to a basal-plus regimen. Data from large observational studies, in particular, have identified patient-related characteristics that are associated with improved clinical responses, suggesting that earlier initiation and intensification of therapy is warranted. Finally, new health-economic analyses continue to confirm that BIAsp 30 is cost effective versus other therapies such as BHI 30, neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH), or insulin glargine in both insulin-naïve and insulin-experienced patients. After 15 years of clinical use worldwide, analysis of more recent 5-year data indicates that BIAsp 30 remains a safe, effective, and simple-to-use insulin for initiation and intensification by diabetes specialists and primary care physicians in a variety of patients with T2DM.

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus: Distinct prandial and basal glucose-lowering effects.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a soluble co-formulation of long-acting insulin degludec (IDeg) and rapid-acting insulin aspart (IAsp). The present study investigated the pharmacodynamic properties of IDegAsp in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, two-period, cross-over trial, 21 Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus received single doses of 0.5 U/kg IDegAsp and biphasic insulin aspart 30 in a randomized sequence (13-21 days washout between treatments). The pharmacodynamic response was evaluated in a 26-h euglycemic glucose clamp (target 5.5 mmol/L). Single-dose IDegAsp glucose infusion rate (GIR) profiles were extrapolated to steady state using modeling. RESULTS: The IDegAsp single-dose GIR profile showed a clear distinction between the effects of the bolus (IAsp) and basal (IDeg) components in IDegAsp. When simulated to steady state, the GIR profile of IDegAsp was shifted upwards compared with the single-dose profile, and showed a rapid onset of action and a distinct peak from the IAsp component followed by a separate and sustained basal action from the long-acting IDeg component. For biphasic insulin aspart 30, the initial shape of the GIR profile was similar to IDegAsp, but GIR continuously decreased from maximum and reached zero 18-20 h post-dosing. The characteristics of the GIR profile for IDegAsp were retained when simulated to steady state in a twice-daily dosing regimen. DISCUSSION: In Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus, the pharmacodynamic profile of IDegAsp is characterized by distinct prandial and basal effects from the IAsp and IDeg components, consistent with what has been reported previously in Caucasian patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

Modeling of 24-hour glucose and insulin profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with biphasic insulin aspart.

Insulin therapy for diabetes patients is designed to mimic the endogenous insulin response of healthy subjects and thereby generate normal blood glucose levels. In order to control the blood glucose in insulin-treated diabetes patients, it is important to be able to predict the effect of exogenous insulin on blood glucose. A pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model for glucose homoeostasis describing the effect of exogenous insulin would facilitate such prediction. Thus the aim of this work was to extend the previously developed integrated glucose-insulin (IGI) model to predict 24-hour glucose profiles for patients with Type 2 diabetes following exogenous insulin administration. Clinical data from two trials were included in the analysis. In both trials, 24-hour meal tolerance tests were used as the experimental setup, where exogenous insulin (biphasic insulin aspart) was administered in relation to meals. The IGI model was successfully extended to include the effect of exogenous insulin. Circadian variations in glucose homeostasis were assessed on relevant parameters, and a significant improvement was achieved by including a circadian rhythm on the endogenous glucose production in the model. The extended model is a useful tool for clinical trial simulation and for elucidating the effect profile of new insulin products.

A pilot study to examine the tolerability and device preference in type 1 diabetes of insulin aspart administered by InsuJet compared with subcutaneous injection.

BACKGROUND: Jet injectors allow needle-free insulin delivery. The study objective was to compare the tolerability and device preference of subcutaneous insulin aspart delivery by jet injector (InsuJet™; European Pharma Group, Schiphol-Rijk, The Netherlands) with pen injection in an open-label, randomized, crossover pilot study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Ten participants with type 1 diabetes underwent two meal tolerance tests 1 week apart. Plasma glucose and serum insulin levels were sampled from 10 min preceding to 240 min after insulin aspart administration by InsuJet or FlexPen(®) (Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals Pty. Ltd., Baulkham Hills, NSW, Australia). Insulin dose was calculated using participants' insulin-to-carbohydrate ratios. Immediately after insulin administration, participants drank 500 mL of Ensure(®) (Abbott Australasia Pty. Ltd., Botany, NSW, Australia) (providing 2,240 kJ of energy, 18.6 g of protein, 96 g of carbohydrate, and 3 g of fat). RESULTS: In this small pilot study, the devices were similar in glucose excursion (median [quartile 1, quartile 3], InsuJet vs. FlexPen, 9.4 [4.8, 12.8] vs. 8.1 [5.4, 10.6] mmol/L; P=0.43), in the area under the glucose concentration-time curve for 0-240 min corrected for baseline glucose level (InsuJet vs. FlexPen, 1,230 [623, 2,012] vs. 1,175 [91, 1,774] mmol · min/L; P=0.4), and in insulin absorption over the 240-min period. Devices were similar for participant preference and relative injection pain. CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous jet injection of aspart insulin was well tolerated.

The optimal morning:evening ratio in total dose of twice-daily biphasic insulin analogue in poorly controlled Type 2 diabetes: a 24-week multi-centre prospective, randomized controlled, open-labelled clinical study.

AIMS: Biphasic insulin analogues are widely used in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus suboptimally controlled on oral anti-diabetic drugs. Several topics in this area remain controversial, including how to divide the daily dose of biphasic insulin analogue. We aimed to determine the optimal dosing ratio of twice-daily biphasic insulin analogue and to compare the glycaemic efficacy among groups of patients using different initial dosing ratios of biphasic insulin analogue. METHODS: A total of 100 poorly controlled insulin-naive subjects with Type 2 diabetes [HbA1c ≥ 58 mmol/mol, (7.5%)] on oral anti-diabetic drugs were randomized into three groups according to initial morning:evening dosing ratio (group I, 50:50; group II, 55:45; group III, 60:40) of twice-daily biphasic insulin analogue (biphasic insulin aspart 70/30, biphasic insulin aspart 30). The primary outcome measure was the difference in pre-breakfast to pre-dinner dose ratio at the end of the study. RESULTS: Twice-daily biphasic insulin analogue showed a significant improvement in glycaemic control [HbA1c from 70 mmol/mol (8.6%) to 60 mmol/mol (7.6%)] after 24 weeks regardless of the initial dose ratio given. Despite the similar efficacy and safety profiles among three groups, morning dose was significantly increased (from 50:50 to 55:45-60:40) in group I after 24 weeks. However, there was no significant change in splitting ratio in groups II and III (with higher morning dose) over the 24-week treatment period. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that initiating twice-daily biphasic insulin analogue on regimens with a higher dose before breakfast than before dinner (i.e. ratio approximately 55:45 to 60:40) might be more appropriate in Korean subjects with Type 2 diabetes.

Safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (Biasp 30) in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the pakistani population: results from the A1chieve study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the safety and effectiveness of treatment with the insulin analogue, biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30), in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in a subgroup of a Pakistani population from the A1chieve study. METHODS: A1chieve was a 24-week, international, prospective, multicentre, open label, observational, non-interventional study designed to evaluate the safety and clinical effectiveness of 66,726 people with T2DM who were initiated with basal insulin detemir, fast actinginsulin aspart, and BIAsp 30 (30% soluble insulin aspart, 70% protamine-crystallized insulin aspart). The study was conducted in 28 countries across Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe. Here, we report data from a subgroup of 762 people with T2DM from the Pakistani cohort (insulin naïve and insulin users) who were treated withpremix insulin (BIAsp 30) +/- oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). RESULTS: The decrease in HbAlc at week 24 was statistically significant in the entire cohort, the insulin naïve, and insulin users (1.7 +/- 1.1%, 1.8 +/- 1.3% and 1.7 +/- 0.9%, respectively, p<0.001 for all).There was a statistically significant decrease in the mean fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) from baseline toweek 24 in the entire cohort, in the insulin naïve and in the insulin users with BIAsp 30 treatment (p<0.001 for all).No major hypoglycaemic events were reported during the entire study period. There was a statistically significant decrease in the systolic blood pressure (SBP) in all groups (p<0.001). The improvement in the quality of life score (QoL)was statistically significant in all groups (p<0.001 for all). CONCLUSION: BIAsp 30 treatment appeared to be well tolerated and effective as indicated byimproved glycaemiccontrol and QoL in people with T2DM in the Pakistani population after 24 weeks.

Ten years of experience with biphasic insulin aspart 30: from drug development to the latest clinical findings.

Biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) includes 30% soluble rapid-acting insulin aspart (IAsp) along with an intermediate-acting 70% protaminated IAsp that provides coverage of prandial and basal insulin in a single injection. As BIAsp 30 has been available internationally for 10 years, this review provides a comprehensive overview of the discovery of BIAsp 30, its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile, safety and efficacy outcomes from the clinical trial programme, 'real-life' clinical insights provided by observational study data, and cost effectiveness and quality-of-life information. These studies have demonstrated that BIAsp 30 once or twice daily is an appropriate option for insulin initiation. BIAsp 30 also provides a switch option in patients on biphasic human insulin (BHI). Switching from BHI to BIAsp 30 is associated with improved postprandial glucose (PPG) and reduced nocturnal and major hypoglycaemia, although daytime hypoglycaemia is higher with BIAsp 30. Intensification of BIAsp 30 can be achieved by increasing the number of daily doses up to three times daily with meals. Therefore, BIAsp 30 provides an intensification option for individuals who are not achieving control with basal insulin and would prefer the simplicity of a single biphasic insulin instead of progressing to a basal-bolus approach. BIAsp 30 has a simple dose-titration algorithm, which enables patients to effectively self-titrate their insulin dose. Cost-effectiveness analyses have demonstrated that BIAsp 30 is cost effective or dominant compared with BHI 30 or insulin glargine in a number of healthcare settings. In conclusion, BIAsp 30 offers a simple and flexible option for insulin initiation and intensification that provides coverage of both fasting and prandial glucose.

A comparison of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of insulin aspart, biphasic insulin aspart 70, biphasic insulin aspart 50, and human insulin: a randomized, quadruple crossover study.

BACKGROUND: We compared the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of insulin aspart, biphasic insulin aspart 70 (BIAsp70) and 50 (BIAsp50) (containing 70% and 50% rapid-acting insulin aspart, respectively), and soluble human insulin under experimental conditions. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In this randomized, four-period crossover study, 19 type 1 diabetes patients received subcutaneous injections of identical doses (0.2 U/kg) of insulin aspart, BIAsp70, or BIAsp50 immediately before a standardized meal or human insulin 30 min before meal. Plasma glucose and serum insulin were measured for 12 h postprandially. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of human insulin differed from those of insulin aspart, BIAsp70, and BIAsp50. The three different aspart preparations had easily distinguishable features with regard to onset and duration of action. Insulin aspart preparations were, on average, absorbed twice as fast as human insulin. In the initial phases (0-4 h and 0-6 h), the insulin area under the concentration-time curve (AUC(ins)) was significantly higher during insulin aspart treatment compared with the others, whereas insulin aspart had a significantly lower AUC(ins) over the last 6 h (P<0.05). BIAsp70 and BIAsp50 provided insulin coverage comparable to that of human insulin over the last 6 h. Insulin aspart had the most pronounced onset of action and the shortest duration. Comparing with insulin aspart and BIAsp70, BIAsp50 revealed a closer treatment ratio to human insulin on pharmacodynamic end points. CONCLUSIONS: BIAsp70 and BIAsp50 injected immediately before a meal are at least as effective as human insulin injected 30 min earlier in controlling postprandial glycemic excursions. BIAsp50 showed the greatest similarity to human insulin with regard to pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles.

Higher morning to evening ratio in total dose of twice-daily biphasic insulin analog might be effective in achieving glucose control in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study are to investigate not only the glucose-lowering effectiveness of twice-daily premixed insulin lispro 25 (Humalog(®) Mix25(™), Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, IN), but also the optimal divided ratio of total Mix25 dose in Korean patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, we retrieved data for subjects who were on intensive insulin therapy with twice-daily Mix25 regimen for at least 24 weeks. Changes of hemoglobin A1c (HbA(1c)) and other clinical and laboratory parameters were evaluated. Two groups were defined according to dose ratio of pre-breakfast to pre-dinner insulin at 24 weeks: Group I, pre-breakfast:pre-dinner insulin dose ratio=50:50; Group II, ratio=53:47-75:25. RESULTS: In total, 143 subjects were ultimately analyzed in this study. Twice-daily Mix25 significantly improved HbA(1c) levels from 10.1% to 7.7%, and 34% of patients had reached the target glycemic goal (HbA(1c)<7%) after 24 weeks. Compared with Group I, a significant reduction in HbA(1c) (Group I vs. Group II, -1.9±0.3% vs. -2.8±0.3%, P=0.02) and a larger proportion of subjects with HbA(1c)<7% (23.2% vs. 46.7%, P=0.01) were observed in subjects in Group II. Among clinical and laboratory factors, duration of diabetes (odd ratios [OR]=0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-0.99, P=0.04) and history of sulfonylurea use (OR=0.27, 95% CI 0.10-0.72, P=0.01) were independently associated with achieving target HbA(1c) levels less than 7%. CONCLUSIONS: Twice-daily Mix25 is an effective option for Korean subjects with type 2 diabetes having uncontrolled hyperglycemia. A higher pre-breakfast/pre-dinner dose ratio (53:47-75:25) might be taken into consideration as an initial protocol to accomplish better glycemic control in twice-daily Mix25.

Decreased active GLP-1 response following large test meal in patients with type 1 diabetes using bolus insulin analogues.

Postprandial plasma immunoreactive active glucagon-like peptide-1 (p-active GLP-1) levels in type 1 diabetic patients who did not use bolus insulin responded normally following ingestion of test meal, while a small response of p-active GLP-1 levels was seen in type 2 diabetic patients. To determine whether p-active GLP-1 levels are affected by ingestion of test meal in type 1 diabetic Japanese patients who used bolus rapid-acting insulin analogues, plasma glucose (PG), serum immunoreactive insulin (s-IRI), serum immunoreactive C-peptide (s-CPR), and p-active GLP-1 levels were measured 0, 30, and 60 min after ingestion of test meal in Japanese patients without diabetic complications (n=10, group 1) and control subjects with normal glucose tolerance (n=15, group 2). HbA1c levels were also measured in these groups. The patients in group 1 were treated with multiple daily injections or CSII using injections of bolus rapid-acting insulin analogues before ingestion of test meal. There was no significant difference in mean of sex, age, or BMI between groups. Means of HbA1c, basal and postprandial PG, and postprandial s-IRI levels with integrated areas under curves (0-60 min) (AUC) in group 1 were significantly higher than those in group 2. Means of basal and postprandial s-CPR, and postprandial p-active GLP-1 levels with AUCs were significantly lower in group 1 than in group 2. These results indicated that postprandial p-active GLP-1 levels following ingestion of test meal in type 1 diabetic Japanese patients using bolus rapid-acting insulin analogues were decreased relative to those in controls.