Insulin detemir under steady-state conditions: no accumulation and constant metabolic effect over time with twice daily administration in subjects with Type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: This study investigated the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic characteristics of the novel long-acting insulin analogue insulin detemir (IDet) under single-dose and steady-state conditions in comparison with those of NPH insulin at steady state. METHODS: Twenty-five subjects with Type 1 diabetes [seven females, 18 males, mean age (+/- sd) 39 +/- 12 years, body mass index 24 +/- 3 kg/m(2)] participated in three 24-h glucose clamps. IDet or NPH were given at 12-h intervals in fixed, individualized doses. The first clamp assessed the metabolic effect of NPH at steady state, the second investigated the effect of two single injections of IDet. Subjects continued IDet treatment for 7-14 days, after which the third clamp was performed to investigate IDet at steady state. RESULTS: At steady state, the metabolic effect of IDet was constant over 24 h while a clear peak in the metabolic effect [expressed as glucose infusion rates (GIR)] was observed with NPH after each injection. The fluctuation in the metabolic effect (maximum GIR divided by the average of the GIR values at the interval ends) was significantly lower in the second 12 h of the experiments with IDet under steady-state conditions compared with NPH (fluctuation(12-24 h) 1.27 +/- 0.17 vs. 1.56 +/- 0.72, P < 0.05). The overall metabolic effect of IDet at steady state was comparable with that of NPH [GIR-area under curve (AUC)(0-24 h): 5697 +/- 1861 vs. 5929 +/- 1965 mg/kg] whereas a significantly lower effect (5187 +/- 1784 mg/kg, P = 0.01 vs. steady state) was observed following the first two IDet injections. GIR values at the end of clamp day 2 (first doses) and clamp day 3 (steady state) were comparable [GIR(trough 24 h) 3.7 +/- 1.7 vs. 3.8 +/- 1.6 mg/(kg x min) NS], indicating that IDet had reached steady state after the first two injections. CONCLUSIONS: IDet administered twice daily reached steady state after the second injection and showed a constant metabolic effect over time under steady-state conditions. This should facilitate basal insulin substitution and decrease the risk of hypoglycaemia in insulin-treated subjects.

The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of biphasic insulin Aspart 70 (BIAsp 70) are significantly different from those of biphasic insulin Aspart 30 (BIAsp 30).

AIMS: To evaluate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of two different formulations of premixed analogue (mixed biphasic insulin aspart [BIAsp]), BIAsp 30 (30 % soluble insulin aspart [IAsp] and 70 % protaminated IAsp) and BIAsp 70 (70 % soluble IAsp and 30 % protaminated IAsp), in patients with type 1 diabetes using a 12-hour euglycaemic clamp technique. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, two-period crossover trial, 27 patients with type 1 diabetes received 7 days of treatment with BIAsp 30 three times daily (TID) and 7 days of treatment with BIAsp 70 TID, with a 2 - 6 week washout period between treatment periods. At the start (day 1) and end (day 8) of each treatment period, 12-hour serum IAsp profiles and glucose infusion rate (GIR) profiles were determined during an overnight euglycaemic clamp following subcutaneous (sc) administration of a single 0.3 U/kg dose of trial insulin. All pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic endpoints were derived from individual serum IAsp and GIR profiles. RESULTS: The larger fraction of soluble IAsp in BIAsp 70 compared with BIAsp 30 resulted in greater metabolic effect during the initial post-dosing phase (0 - 6 hours) and decreased activity during the late phase (6 - 12 hours). On day 8, AUC (GIR 0 - 6 hours) was 16 % greater for BIAsp 70 than for BIAsp 30 (p = 0.016) and AUC (GIR 6 - 12 hours) was 90 % (p < 0.001) greater for BIAsp 30 relative to BIAsp 70, reflecting the increased proportion of intermediate-acting (protamine co-crystallised) IAsp in BIAsp 30. Overall metabolic effect (AUC (GIR 0 - 12 hours)) was similar for both insulin formulations on day 8 (Ratio, BIAsp 30:BIAsp 70 = 1.04, p = 0.538). Likewise, the larger fraction of soluble IAsp in BIAsp 70 compared with BIAsp 30 resulted in greater exposure to IAsp during the initial post-dosing phase (0 - 6 hours) and a smaller exposure to IAsp during the late phase (6 - 12 hours). On day 8, AUC (IAsp 0 - 6 hours) was 59 % (p < 0.001) greater for BIAsp 70 than for BIAsp 30, and AUC (IAsp 6 - 12 hours) was 61 % (p < 0.001) greater for BIAsp 30 than for BIAsp 70, reflecting the increased proportion of intermediate-acting (protamine co-crystallised) IAsp in BIAsp 30. However, the overall IAsp exposure (AUC 0 - 12 hours) on day 8 was significantly greater for BIAsp 70 than for BIAsp 30 (Ratio, BIAsp 30:BIAsp 70 = 0.73, p < 0.001). The GIR profiles on day 8 were similar to those on day 1. Serum IAsp profiles on day 8 showed a slight increase compared with day 1. CONCLUSIONS: The different proportions of soluble and protaminated IAsp result in differences in the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of BIAsp 30 and BIAsp 70. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences observed may allow for flexibility and individualised treatment regimens in patients with diabetes, while maintaining a limited number of daily injections.