Real-world study of the concomitant use of biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 with GLP-1 receptor agonist versus first-generation basal insulin with GLP-1 receptor agonist in type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: Combining insulin with a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) to treat type 2 diabetes (T2D) is common. While many studies have investigated concomitant therapy with basal insulin+GLP-1RA, few have reported on premixed insulin+GLP-1RA. We aimed to address this gap using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum database in England. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching assessed glycaemic levels and other clinical outcomes in people with T2D, comparing biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 (BIAsp 30) + GLP-1RA with basal insulin (insulin detemir/glargine U100) + GLP-1RA (from 2006 to 2021). RESULTS: In total, 4770 eligible people were identified; 1511 had a BIAsp 30 + GLP-1RA regimen and were propensity score-matched to an equal number receiving basal+GLP-1RA. There was no significant difference in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction between cohorts at 6 months (p = 0.15), with a decrease of -1.07 (95% CI: -1.16; -0.98) %-points (-11.7 mmol/mol [95% CI: -12.7; -10.7]) in the BIAsp 30 + GLP-1RA cohort, versus -0.97 (95% CI: -1.07; -0.88) %-points (-10.6 mmol/mol [95% CI: -11.7; -9.6]) in the basal+GLP-1RA cohort. Body mass index (BMI) decreased by -0.35 kg/m2 (95% CI: -0.52;-0.18) at 6 months with BIAsp 30 + GLP-1RA, versus -0.72 kg/m2 (95% CI: -0.90;-0.54) with basal+GLP-1RA (p = 0.003). BMI was influenced by the initiation sequence of GLP-1RA in relation to insulin (p < 0.0001). Hypoglycaemia rates were low and not significantly different between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Combining BIAsp 30 + GLP-1RA provides glycaemic control with no significant difference to that of propensity score-matched people receiving basal insulin+GLP-1RA, with no increase in hypoglycaemia risk or weight gain.

Pharmacokinetic similarity of switching SAR341402 insulin aspart biosimilar and NovoLog insulin aspart versus continuous use of NovoLog in adults with type 1 diabetes: The GEMELLI X trial.

AIM: To assess whether multiple switches between SAR341402 biosimilar insulin aspart (SAR-Asp) and the insulin aspart reference product (NovoLog; NN-Asp) leads to equivalent pharmacokinetic (PK) exposure compared with continuous use of NN-Asp in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study randomized (1:1) 210 subjects with T1D treated with once-daily insulin glargine U100 as basal insulin to four 4-week periods of alternating multiple daily injections of SAR-Asp and NN-Asp (NN-Asp for the first 4 weeks, SAR-Asp in the last 4 weeks; switching group) versus 16 weeks of continuous NN-Asp (non-switching group). At week 16, a single dose (0.15 U/kg) of SAR-Asp in the switching group (n = 95) or NN-Asp in the non-switching group (n = 105) was given in the morning before breakfast. Primary PK endpoints were area under the plasma concentration curve (AUC) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ) of SAR-Asp versus NN-Asp after the single dose at week 16. RESULTS: The extent of PK exposure was similar between the two treatments (SAR-Asp in the switching group and NN-Asp in the non-switching group) at week 16, with point estimates of treatment ratios close to 1. The 90% confidence intervals for AUC treatment ratios were contained within 0.8-1.25. For Cmax in the primary analysis set, the upper confidence limit was 1.32. This was because of the profiles of three participants with implausible high values. A prespecified sensitivity analysis excluding implausible values showed results contained within 0.8-1.25. CONCLUSIONS: PK exposure of SAR-Asp (switching group) and reference NN-Asp (non-switching group) were similar, supporting interchangeability between these two insulin aspart products.

Comparative Study of Sorption Phenomena Between Three Medications and Syringes Made of Cyclic Olefin Copolymer or Polypropylene.

INTRODUCTION: Medical syringes are widely used in hospitals to store and administer drugs, and the contact time between the drugs and these syringes can vary from a few minutes to several weeks like for pharmaceutical preparations. The aim of this comparative study was to evaluate the potential sorption phenomena occurring between three drugs (paracetamol, diazepam and insulin aspart) and polypropylene syringes (PP) or syringes made of Cyclic Olefin Copolymer (COC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 50 mL 3-part syringes made of either COC with crosslinked silicone on the barrel inner surface (COC-CLS) and a bromobutyl plunger seal, or PP lubricated with silicone oil (PP-SOL) with a polyisoprene plunger seal were used. RESULTS: COC-CLS syringes induced less sorption of diazepam and insulin than PP-SOL syringes and the plunger seal material seemed to be the main cause of these interactions. An alkalinization of the medications in contact with the PP-SOL syringes was observed. It could be caused by leachable compounds and should be investigated further. CONCLUSION: This work shows once again that it is essential to consider content-container interactions to help improve the safe use of parenteral drugs.

Comparative assessment of immunogenicity of recombinant insulin Aspart from BioGenomics and its originator NovoRapid® in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the immunogenicity of recombinant Insulin Aspart [manufactured by BioGenomics Limited (BGL-ASP)] with its originator NovoRapid® (manufactured by Novo Nordisk) in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: BGL-IA-CTP301 study was a randomized, open label, parallel group, multicenter phase-III clinical study to compare the efficacy and safety of recombinant Insulin Aspart 100 U/mL [manufactured by BioGenomics Limited (BGL-ASP)] with its reference medicinal product (RMP); NovoRapid® [manufactured by Novo Nordisk], in adult patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The primary objective of the study was to compare the immunogenicity of BGL-ASP and RMP; NovoRapid® in patient serum samples collected from phase-III clinical study. Immunogenicity was studied as the incidence of patients positive for anti-insulin Aspart (AIA) antibodies, developed against BGL-ASP/RMP at baseline, end of 12 week and end of 24 week of the treatment period. The changes in incidence of patients positive for AIA antibodies post-baseline were also studied to assess and compare the treatment-emergent antibody response (TEAR) between the treatment groups (BGL-ASP and RMP). Statistical evaluation was done by Fisher's exact test to compare the overall incidence of patients positive for AIA antibodies and the TEAR positives observed post-baseline in both the treated groups. An in-vitro neutralizing antibody assay (Nab assay) was also performed to study the effect of AIA antibodies in neutralizing the biological activity/metabolic function of the insulin. The neutralizing potential of AIA was studied by its effect on %glucose uptake. We also evaluated the association between AIA antibody levels and its impact on biological activity by studying the correlation between them. RESULTS: Analysis of immunogenicity data suggested that the percentage of patients positive for AIA antibodies until week 24 was similar and comparable in both the treatment groups, BGL-ASP and RMP; NovoRapid®. The changes in incidence of patients positive for AIA post-baseline in terms of TEAR positives were also similar and comparable between the treatment groups. The results of the Nab assay with confirmed positive AIA samples from BGL-ASP- and RMP-treated groups did not have any negative impact on %glucose uptake by the cells in Nab assay, confirming the absence of neutralizing antibodies in both the treatment groups. The correlation studies also showed absence of association between AIA antibody levels and percentage glucose uptake in both BGL-ASP and RMP-NovoRapid® treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: The immunogenicity assessment based on the overall incidence of patients positive for AIA, changes in incidence of patients positive for AIA post-baseline, TEAR rates and absence of neutralizing antibodies, were found to be apparently similar and comparable in both the treatment groups (BGL-ASP and RMP). We conclude from our studies that the immunogenicity of BGL-ASP is similar and comparable to RMP and the observed immunogenicity in terms of anti-insulin Aspart antibody levels had no impact on the biological activity of insulin.

Once-weekly semaglutide versus insulin aspart for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK: A long-term cost-effectiveness analysis based on SUSTAIN 11.

AIM: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus insulin aspart in the UK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Long-term outcomes were projected over patients' lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (vers 9.0). SUSTAIN 11 was used to inform baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects. Patients were modelled to receive once-weekly semaglutide plus basal insulin for 3 years before intensifying to basal-bolus insulin, compared with basal-bolus insulin for lifetimes in the aspart arm. Costs were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective in the UK, expressed in 2021 pounds sterling (GBP). RESULTS: Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.18 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus insulin aspart, due to a reduced incidence and delayed time to onset of diabetes-related complications. Direct costs were estimated to be GBP 800 higher with semaglutide, with higher treatment costs partially offset by cost savings from avoidance of diabetes-related complications. Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was therefore associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 4457 per QALY gained versus insulin aspart. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of GBP 20 000 per QALY gained, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was projected to be highly cost-effective versus insulin aspart for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK.

Comparative efficacy and safety of Gla-300 versus IDegAsp in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes mellitus uncontrolled on oral anti-diabetics.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine-300 once daily (Gla-300) with insulin degludec/aspart (IDegAsp) once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled on oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials was followed by an indirect treatment comparison of studies involving insulin naïve adults, inadequately controlled [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7.0%] on OADs, who received Gla-300 or IDegAsp once daily. Outcomes of interest were change in HbA1c, blood glucose, weight and insulin dose, as well as incidence and event rate of hypoglycaemia and other adverse events. RESULTS: Four trials with broadly similar baseline patient characteristics were included in the meta-analyses and indirect treatment comparison. At 24-28 weeks, the indirect comparison of Gla-300 to IDegAsp once daily estimated no statistically significant difference for change in HbA1c (%) from baseline [mean difference of 0.10% (95% CI: -0.20, 0.39; p = .52)]; a statistically significant mean difference of -1.31 kg (95% CI: -1.97, -0.65; p < .05) for change in body weight from baseline; statistically significant odds ratios of 0.62 (95% CI: 0.41, 0.93; p < .05) for incidence of any hypoglycaemia; and 0.47 (95% CI: 0.25, 0.87; p < .05) for incidence of anytime confirmed hypoglycaemia (plasma glucose <3.0-3.1 mmol/L). No significant differences were observed for insulin dose and adverse events. CONCLUSION: In insulin-naïve patients with T2D inadequately controlled on OADs, commencing Gla-300 shows a comparable HbA1c reduction, but with significantly less weight gain and a lower incidence of any and confirmed hypoglycaemia compared with commencing IDegAsp.

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.

THE EFFECT OF THERAPY WITH INSULIN ANALOGUES (ASPART AND GLARGINE) ON OXIDATIVE STRESS PARAMETERS IN PATIENTS WITH TYPE 1 DIABETES MELLITUS.

Context: There are evidences that excessive production of reactive oxygen species is one of important abnormalities that contribute to development of chronic diabetic complications. Objective: To test the effect of intensive insulin therapy with analogues through the examining the level of oxidative stress parameters. Subjects and Methods: Comparison of data obtained by prospective analysis in 49 patients with T1DM was used, before and after six months of intensive insulin analog therapy. Results: The values of all three investigated parameters of oxidative stress malondialdehyde (MDA); xanthine oxidase (XO) and nitrates and nitrites (NOx) in our population with T1DM compared to the control (group of 42 voluntary blood donors) are statistically higher. The levels of antioxidant protection parameters compared to the control group also differ; the activities of catalase and glutathione peroxidase (GPx) are statistically higher in our population of T1DM patients compared to the control and superoxide dismutase (SOD) activities are statistically lower.The values of all three examined parameters of oxidative stress decrease after six months of intensive insulin analog therapy and were statistically lower after the therapy: for MDA p<0.001, for XO p<0.01 and for NOx p<0.05. The activities of catalase (p<0.001) and GPx (p<0.01) both decrease with therapy, while the activity of SOD is highest after the sixth month of therapy (p<0.001). Conclusion: In our patients with T1DM compared to the control the level of oxidative stress is significantly higher. Intensive insulin analog therapy with aspart and glargine promotes predominantly the improvement of oxidative stress, and in a less degree antioxidant protection.

Comparative efficiency and safety of insulin degludec/aspart with insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Recent studies have found compared with insulin glargine (IGlar), insulin degludec/aspart (IDeg/Asp) may provide adequate glycemic control and prevent hypoglycemia events in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Consequently, we performed a meta-analysis to appraise and compare the efficiency and safety of IDeg/Asp and IGlar in the treatment of T2DM. We sought the databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane library to confirm related articles which inspected the effect of IDeg/Asp versus IGlar for the treatment of T2DM until May 2021. Finally, six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of 1,346 patients were included. The results showed that IDeg/Asp significantly decreased the mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level but was prone to serious adverse events, and IGlar increased the nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia events. Besides, there were no significant changes in other indicators, including mean fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level, nine-point self-measured plasma glucose (SMPG) level, and adverse events. What's more, we found that there was no significant difference in the occurrence of hypoglycemia overall, but our subgroup analysis of confirmed hypoglycemia revealed the population in this subgroup (duration of diabetes ≤11 years) might has its particularity effecting the hypoglycemia outcome. Concerning efficiency, IDeg/Asp may have advantages in controlling the mean HbA1c level. Regarding safety, IGlar might increase the risk of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia. Further evidence is needed to compare better the efficiency and safety of IDeg/Asp versus IGlar therapy.

Simultaneous quantitative determination of insulin aspart and insulin degludec in human plasma using simple shoot LC method.

Combining short-acting and long-acting insulin analogs was a real challenge that was overcome by NovoNordisk through the co-formulation of insulin aspart and insulin degludec in single-dosage form. The proposed study provides a simple, short, and reliable HPLC method with diode array detection that is developed and validated for the simultaneous determination of insulin aspart and insulin degludec in human plasma. The proposed method achieved good separation between the two analytes utilizing a C8 column at 35°C in a very short run time (6 min), with a simple, low-cost, and reliable extraction method through precipitation of plasma protein. Gradient elution was applied using a mobile phase consisting of 0.1 M sodium sulfate (pH 3.4) and acetonitrile. The method was validated according to EMA Guideline on Bioanalytical Validation. The proposed method had a linear range from 3.0 to 300 µg/mL for insulin aspart and from 3.5 to 300 µg/mL for insulin degludec. The intra- and inter-day precision of insulin aspart were 0.36-3.33% and 1.59-8.84%, respectively, and accuracy was between 10.06 and 3.09% The intra- and inter-day precision of insulin degludec were 0.29-1.93% and 0.89-5.14%, respectively, and accuracy was between -5.29 and 3.91%.

Metformin for gestational diabetes study: metformin vs insulin in gestational diabetes: glycemic control and obstetrical and perinatal outcomes: randomized prospective trial.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes that is not properly controlled with diet has been commonly treated with insulin. In recent years, several studies have published that metformin can lead to, at least, similar obstetrical and perinatal outcomes as insulin. Nevertheless, not all clinical guidelines endorse its use, and clinical practice is heterogeneous. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to test whether metformin could achieve the same glycemic control as insulin and similar obstetrical and perinatal results, with a good safety profile, in women with gestational diabetes that is not properly controlled with lifestyle changes. STUDY DESIGN: The metformin for gestational diabetes study was a multicenter, open-label, parallel arms, randomized clinical trial performed at 2 hospitals in Málaga (Spain), enrolling women with gestational diabetes who needed pharmacologic treatment. Women at the age of 18 to 45 years, in the second or third trimesters of pregnancy, were randomized to receive metformin or insulin (detemir or aspart). The main outcomes were (1) glycemic control (mean glycemia, preprandial and postprandial) and hypoglycemic episodes and (2) obstetrical and perinatal outcomes and complications (hypertensive disorders, type of labor, prematurity, macrosomia, large for gestational age, neonatal care unit admissions, respiratory distress syndrome, hypoglycemia, jaundice). Outcomes were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: Between October 2016 and June 2019, 200 women were randomized, 100 to the insulin-treated group and 100 to the metformin-treated group. Mean fasting and postprandial glycemia did not differ between groups, but postprandial glycemia was significantly better after lunch or dinner in the metformin-treated-group. Hypoglycemic episodes were significantly more common in the insulin-treated group (55.9% vs 17.7% on metformin; odds ratio, 6.118; 95% confidence interval, 3.134-11.944; P=.000). Women treated with metformin gained less weight from the enrollment to the prepartum visit (36-37 gestational weeks) (1.35±3.21 vs 3.87±3.50 kg; P=.000). Labor inductions (45.7% [metformin] vs 62.5% [insulin]; odds ratio, 0.506; 95% confidence interval, 0.283-0.903; P=.029) and cesarean deliveries (27.6% [metformin] vs 52.6% [insulin]; odds ratio, 0.345; 95% confidence interval, 0.187-0.625; P=.001) were significantly lower in the metformin-treated group. Mean birthweight, macrosomia, and large for gestational age and babies' complications were not different between treatment groups. The lower cesarean delivery rate for women treated with metformin was not associated with macrosomia, large or small for gestational age, or other complications of pregnancy. CONCLUSION: Metformin treatment was associated with a better postprandial glycemic control than insulin for some meals, a lower risk of hypoglycemic episodes, less maternal weight gain, and a low rate of failure as an isolated treatment. Most obstetrical and perinatal outcomes were similar between groups.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic bioequivalence of biosimilar MYL-1601D with US and European insulin aspart in healthy volunteers: A randomized, double-blind, crossover, euglycaemic glucose clamp study.

AIM: To evaluate the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) bioequivalence (BE) of MYL-1601D biosimilar with originator, NovoLog (Ref-InsAsp-US), and NovoRapid (Ref-InsAsp-EU). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, crossover study that enrolled 71 healthy subjects to receive a single subcutaneous dose (0.2 U/kg) of each formulation under automated euglycaemic clamp conditions (ClampArt, level 81 mg/dL, duration 12 hours postdose). Primary PK endpoints were area under the plasma insulin aspart concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 hours (AUC0-12h ) and maximum plasma insulin aspart concentration (Cmax ). Primary PD endpoints were area under the glucose infusion rate (GIR) time curve from 0 to 12 hours (AUCGIR0-12h ) and maximum GIR (GIRmax ). Insulin aspart in plasma was quantified using immunoaffinity purification followed by ultraperformance liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometric detection. The pairwise comparisons of geometric least square mean (LS-mean) ratio for a 90% confidence interval (CI) of primary PK, and 90% CIs (MYL-1601D vs. Ref-InsAsp-US) and 95% CIs (MYL-1601D vs. Ref-InsAsp-EU) of primary PD variables, were to be within 80% to 125% to show BE. RESULTS: MYL-1601D showed PK BE to both Ref-InsAsp-US (AUC0-12h geometric LS-mean ratio 102.17, 90% CI [100.26; 104.11]; Cmax 106.13 [100.71; 111.85]) and Ref-InsAsp-EU (AUC0-12h 101.84 [100.04; 103.67]; Cmax 105.74 [101.09; 110.60]). Likewise, MYL-1601D showed PD BE to Ref-InsAsp-US (AUCGIR_0-last 99.93; 90% CI [95.74; 104.30]; GIR_max 100.12 [94.46; 106.12]) and Ref-InsAsp-EU (AUCGIR_0-last 96.42; 95% CI [91.17; 101.98]; GIR_max 95.10 [89.37; 101.19]). All three insulin aspart products were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: MYL-1601D showed BE to Ref-InsAsp-US and Ref-InsAsp-EU with a comparable safety profile.

Hybrid closed-loop glucose control with faster insulin aspart compared with standard insulin aspart in adults with type 1 diabetes: A double-blind, multicentre, multinational, randomized, crossover study.

AIM: To evaluate the use of hybrid closed-loop glucose control with faster-acting insulin aspart (Fiasp) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a double-blind, multinational, randomized, crossover study, 25 adults with T1D using insulin pump therapy (mean ± SD, age 38 ± 9 years, HbA1c 7.4% ± 0.8% [57 ± 8 mmol/mol]) underwent two 8-week periods of unrestricted living comparing hybrid closed-loop with Fiasp and hybrid closed-loop with standard insulin aspart in random order. During both interventions the CamAPS FX closed-loop system incorporating the Cambridge model predictive control algorithm was used. RESULTS: In an intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of time sensor glucose was in the target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L; primary endpoint) was not different between interventions (75% ± 8% vs. 75% ± 8% for hybrid closed-loop with Fiasp vs. hybrid closed-loop with standard insulin aspart; mean-adjusted difference -0.6% [95% CI -1.8% to 0.7%]; p < .001 for non-inferiority [non-inferiority margin 5%]). The proportion of time with sensor glucose less than 3.9 mmol/L (median [IQR] 2.4% [1.2%-3.2%] vs. 2.9% [1.7%-4.0%]; p = .01) and less than 3.0 mmol/L (median [IQR] 0.4% [0.2%-0.7%] vs. 0.7% [0.2%-0.9%]; p = .03) was reduced with Fiasp versus standard insulin aspart. There was no difference in mean glucose (8.1 ± 0.8 vs. 8.0 ± 0.8 mmol/L; p = .13) or glucose variability (SD of sensor glucose 2.9 ± 0.5 vs. 2.9 ± 0.5 mmol/L; p = .90). Total daily insulin requirements did not differ (49 ± 15 vs. 49 ± 15 units/day; p = .45). No severe hypoglycaemia or ketoacidosis occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The use of Fiasp in the CamAPS FX closed-loop system may reduce hypoglycaemia without compromising glucose control compared with standard insulin aspart in adults with T1D.

A single-dose euglycaemic clamp study in two cohorts to compare the exposure of SAR341402 (insulin aspart) Mix 70/30 with US- and European-approved versions of insulin aspart Mix 70/30 and SAR341402 rapid-acting solution in subjects with type 1 diabetes.

AIM: To compare the pharmacokinetic exposure of SAR341402 Mix 70/30 (SARAsp -Mix) with US- and European (EU)-approved versions of insulin aspart Mix 70/30 (NovoLog Mix 70/30 [NN-Mix-US]/NovoMix 30 [NN-Mix-EU]) and SAR341402 insulin aspart solution (SAR-Asp) in subjects with type 1 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, crossover trial in two cohorts. Fifty-two subjects received a single subcutaneous 0.3 U/kg dose of each treatment and underwent a euglycaemic clamp procedure lasting for a maximum of 24 hours after dosing. In cohort 1, subjects (N = 36) were exposed once each to SARAsp -Mix, NN-Mix-US and NN-Mix-EU. In cohort 2, subjects (N = 16) were exposed once each to SARAsp -Mix and SAR-Asp. RESULTS: Of the 52 subjects randomized, 48 completed all treatment periods. In cohort 1, the extent of exposure (total and maximum concentration) was similar among the three treatments, with the 90% confidence intervals for pairwise treatment ratios meeting the predefined acceptance range (0.80 to 1.25). In cohort 2, statistically significant differences (P < .001) in early (0-4 hours) and intermediate (4-12 hours) exposure to SARAsp -Mix compared with SAR-Asp were observed, all exceeding a 20% difference. Pharmacodynamic results were in support of the pharmacokinetic findings for both cohorts. All treatments were well tolerated and there were no relevant differences in safety variables among treatments. CONCLUSIONS: SARAsp -Mix showed similar pharmacokinetic exposure to commercially available insulin aspart Mix 70/30 formulations, and a distinct exposure profile compared with SAR-Asp.

Extent and prevalence of post-exercise and nocturnal hypoglycemia following peri-exercise bolus insulin adjustments in individuals with type 1 diabetes.

AIM: To detail the extent and prevalence of post-exercise and nocturnal hypoglycemia following peri-exercise bolus insulin dose adjustments in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using multiple daily injections of insulins aspart (IAsp) and degludec (IDeg). METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixteen individuals with T1D, completed a single-centred, randomised, four-period crossover trial consisting of 23-h inpatient phases. Participants administered either a regular (100%) or reduced (50%) dose (100%; 5.1 ± 2.4, 50%; 2.6 ± 1.2 IU, p < 0.001) of individualised IAsp 1 h before and after 45-min of evening exercise at 60 ± 6% V̇O2max. An unaltered dose of IDeg was administered in the morning. Metabolic, physiological and hormonal responses during exercise, recovery and nocturnal periods were characterised. The primary outcome was the number of trial day occurrences of hypoglycemia (venous blood glucose ≤ 3.9 mmol L -1). Inclusion of a 50% IAsp dose reduction strategy prior to evening exercise reduced the occurrence of in-exercise hypoglycemia (p = 0.023). Mimicking this reductive strategy in the post-exercise period decreased risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia (p = 0.045). Combining this strategy to reflect reductions either side of exercise resulted in higher glucose concentrations in the acute post-exercise (p = 0.034), nocturnal (p = 0.001), and overall (p < 0.001) periods. Depth of hypoglycemia (p = 0.302), as well as ketonic and counter-regulatory hormonal profiles were similar. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate the glycemic safety of peri-exercise bolus dose reduction strategies in minimising the prevalence of acute and nocturnal hypoglycemia following evening exercise in people with T1D on MDI. Use of newer background insulins with current bolus insulins demonstrates efficacy and advances current recommendations for safe performance of exercise. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTER: DRKS00013509.

Optimising insulin aspart practices in a neonatal intensive care unit: a clinical and pharmaco-technical study.

Neonatal hyperglycaemia is frequent and requires insulin therapy. To resolve the difficulties encountered by paediatricians in stabilising glycaemia, the preparation and administration of insulin aspart were assessed and optimised. After high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC-UV) assessment of insulin aspart preparations made according to the old protocol, a new protocol was drawn up. Dosage reliability of solutions prepared by paediatric nurses was evaluated by HPLC-UV. This new protocol was also tested in a Y-infusion situation and the need to saturate infusion tubes assessed. Wide deviations in insulin aspart concentrations were found between theoretical concentrations and preparations made according to the old protocol. Glycated insulin aspart was found in the majority of these preparations. The new protocol significantly reduced the variability of data and relative deviations around the target value. It also eliminated the formation of glycated insulin even in the case of co-infusion of parenteral nutrition and confirmed the need to saturate infusion tubes.Conclusion: The revision of the insulin therapy protocol reduced the variability of insulin concentration in preparations and avoided the administration of glycated derivatives potentially toxic for neonates. What is Known: • Insulin preparation in NICUs is a risky task because it is a two-step preparation • Diluted in dextrose, insulin aspart is unstable, with formation of potentially toxic glycated derivatives What is New: • This work proposes a new insulin therapy protocol validated by HPLC-UV for NICU allowing suppression of the formation of glycated insulin, to significantly reduce deviations from theoretical concentrations and to limit adsorption phenomena • This protocol is validated in case of co-infusion of parenteral nutrition.

Exenatide Twice Daily Plus Glargine Versus Aspart 70/30 Twice Daily in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes With Inadequate Glycemic Control on Premixed Human Insulin and Metformin.

OBJECTIVE: Many patients with type 2 diabetes treated with premixed insulin gradually have inadequate glycemic control and switch to a basal-bolus regimen, which raises some concerns for weight gain and increased hypoglycemic risk. Switching to combination use of glp-1 agonist and basal insulin may be an alternative option. METHODS: After a 12-week premixed human insulin 70/30 dosage optimization period, 200 patients with HbA1c of 7.0% to 10.0% were randomized into 24-week treatment groups with exenatide twice a day plus glargine or with aspart 70/30 twice a day. RESULTS: After 24 weeks, the patients receiving exenatide plus glargine (n = 90) had improved HbA1c control compared with those receiving aspart 70/30 (n = 90) (least squares mean change: ‒0.59 vs ‒0.13%; difference [95% CI]: ‒0.45 [‒0.74 to ‒0.17]) in the full analysis set population. Weight decreased 3.5 kg with exenatide and decreased 0.4 kg with aspart 70/30 (P < .001). The insulin dose was reduced 10.7 units/day (95% CI, ‒12.2 to ‒9.2 units; P < .001) with exenatide, and increased 9.7 units/day (95% CI, 8.2 to 11.2 units; P < .001) with aspart 70/30. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal adverse effects in the exenatide group (nausea [21%], vomiting [16%], diarrhea [13%]). The incidence of hypoglycemia was similar in 2 groups (27% for exenatide and 38% for aspart 70/30; P = .1). CONCLUSION: In premixed human insulin‒treated patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control, switching to exenatide twice a day plus glargine was superior to aspart 70/30 twice a day for glycemic and weight control.

Efficacy and safety of fast-acting insulin aspart versus insulin aspart in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes from Japan.

The aim of this post-hoc subgroup analysis, which was based on data from the treat-to-target, 26-week, onset 7 trial, was to confirm the efficacy and safety of fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) versus insulin aspart (IAsp), both in combination with basal insulin degludec, in children and adolescents from Japan with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Of the onset 7 trial population (1 to <18 years; N = 777), 66 participants from Japan (65 Asian and one non-Asian) were randomized to mealtime faster aspart (n = 24), post-meal faster aspart (n = 19), or IAsp (n = 23). Data for the subgroup from Japan were analysed descriptively. Change from baseline in hemoglobin A1c 26 weeks after randomization was 0.23%, 0.74%, and 0.39%, for mealtime faster aspart, post-meal faster aspart, and IAsp respectively. Change from baseline in 1-h post-prandial glucose increment (based on 8-point self-measured blood glucose profiles) showed numerical differences in favor of mealtime faster aspart versus IAsp at breakfast (-30.70 vs. -2.88 mg/dL) and over all meals (-18.21 vs. -5.55 mg/dL). There were no clinically relevant numerical differences between treatment arms in the overall rate of severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycemia. At week 26, mean total insulin dose was 1.119 U/kg/day for mealtime faster aspart, 1.049 U/kg/day for post-meal faster aspart, and 1.037 U/kg/day for IAsp. In conclusion, in children and adolescents with T1D from Japan, mealtime and post-meal faster aspart with insulin degludec was efficacious in controlling glycemia without additional safety concerns versus IAsp.

Factors that affect the Glycemic Control Achieved by Switching to Insulin Degludec/ Aspart in Insulin-Treated Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes in a Real-World Setting: a Non-interventional, Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Insulin degludec/aspart (IDegAsp) is a co-formulation with IDeg and IAsp. Different insulin regimens may be switched to IDegAsp. In this study, we aimed to find out the effect of switch to IDegAsp on glycemic control and whether the basal characteristics and treatment modalities of the patients affect the change in glycemic control brought by switch to IDegAsp. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the records of 78 patients whose insulin therapies (basal+bolus, premixed analogues or basal only) were switched on a 1:1 unit basis to IDegAsp±bolus insulin. Oral antidiabetic agents (OADs) given were recorded. At the end of 12th and 24th week, total insulin doses of patients and HbA1c were compared to the baseline. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant decrease at HbA1c at 12 weeks (1.4%; p<0.001). There was not a significant difference in HbA1c between the OAD added group and the group with no new OADs(p=0.1). Basal insulin dose was not statistically different from baseline, whereas bolus insulin dose was significantly lower (p=0.007). At the end of 24 weeks the decrease in HbA1c level from baseline was preserved. CONCLUSION: Regardless of the baseline insulin regimen, diabetes type and oral antidiabetic drugs given, HbA1c is significantly lowered after switching to IDegAsp.

Efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 in Chinese adults with type 2 diabetes: A phase III, open-label, 2:1 randomized, treat-to-target trial.

AIMS: To assess the efficacy and safety of twice-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) twice daily, both ± metformin, in Chinese adults (N = 543) with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled on premixed/self-mixed or basal insulin ± metformin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a 26-week, phase III, open-label, treat-to-target, 2:1 randomized trial. Hierarchical testing was used with non-inferiority of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change from baseline to week 26 as the primary endpoint and superiority for the confirmatory secondary endpoints which were as follows: change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose (FPG); nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes (12:01-5:59 am, inclusive); total confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes (severe or plasma glucose <3.1 mmol/L with/without symptoms); body weight; and percentage of responders (HbA1c <53 mmol/mol [<7.0%]) without confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes. RESULTS: Non-inferiority for change from baseline to week 26 in HbA1c and superiority of IDegAsp twice daily versus BIAsp 30 twice daily for change in FPG, nocturnal confirmed and total confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes, was demonstrated. Estimated rates of nocturnal confirmed and total confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes were 47% and 43% lower, respectively, with IDegAsp twice daily versus BIAsp 30 twice daily. Superiority for change in body weight was not confirmed. Participants were more likely to reach the HbA1c goal of <53 mmol/mol (<7.0%) without confirmed hypoglycaemia with IDegAsp twice daily versus BIAsp 30 twice daily by trial end. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety of IDegAsp in Chinese patients with T2D was demonstrated, confirming results from international trials.