Single-dose new insulin glargine 300 U/ml provides prolonged, stable glycaemic control in Japanese and European people with type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: Two single-dose studies were conducted in Japan and Europe to compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles of new insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) and insulin glargine 100 U/ml (Gla-100) in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: In two double-blind, randomized, crossover studies, 18 Japanese participants (aged 20-65 years) and 24 European participants (aged 18-65 years) with glycated haemoglobin levels ≤9.0% (≤75 mmol/mol) received single subcutaneous doses of Gla-300, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.9 U/kg (0.9 U/kg in the European study only), and Gla-100, 0.4 U/kg. A 36-h euglycaemic clamp procedure was performed after each dosing. RESULTS: The serum insulin glargine concentration (INS) and glucose infusion rate (GIR) developed more gradually into more constant and prolonged profiles with Gla-300 than with Gla-100. In support of this, the times to 50% of glargine exposure and insulin activity were longer for all Gla-300 doses than for Gla-100 during the 36-h clamp period, indicating a more evenly distributed exposure and metabolic effect beyond 24 h. Exposure to insulin glargine and glucose utilization were lower with the 0.4 and 0.6 U/ml Gla-300 doses in both studies compared with the 0.4 U/ml Gla-100 dose. Glucose-lowering activity was detected for up to 36 h with all doses of Gla-300. CONCLUSIONS: Single-dose injections of Gla-300 present more constant and prolonged PK and PD profiles compared with Gla-100, maintaining blood glucose control for up to 36 h in euglycaemic clamp settings in Japanese and European participants with type 1 diabetes.

Low within- and between-day variability in exposure to new insulin glargine 300 U/ml.

AIMS: To characterize the variability in exposure and metabolic effect of insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) at steady state in people with type 1 diabetes (T1DM). METHODS: A total of 50 participants with T1DM underwent two 24-h euglycaemic clamps in steady-state conditions after six once-daily administrations of 0.4 U/kg Gla-300 in a double-blind, randomized, two-treatment, two-period, crossover clamp study. Participants were randomized to receive Gla-300 as a standard cartridge formulation in the first treatment period, and as a formulation with enhanced stability through polysorbate-20 addition in the second treatment period, or vice versa. This design allowed the assessment of bioequivalence between formulations and, subsequently, within- and between-day variability. RESULTS: The cumulative exposure and effect of Gla-300 developed linearly over 24 h, and were evenly distributed across 6- and 12-h intervals. Diurnal fluctuation in exposure (within-day variability) was low; the peak-to-trough ratio of insulin concentration profiles was <2, and both the swing and peak-to-trough fluctuation were <1. Day-to-day reproducibility of exposure was high: the between-day within-subject coefficients of variation for total systemic exposure (area under the serum insulin glargine concentration time curve from time 0 to 24 h after dosing) and maximum insulin concentration were 17.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 15-21] and 33.4% (95% CI 28-41), respectively. Reproducibility of the metabolic effect was lower than that of exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Gla-300 provides predictable, evenly distributed 24-h coverage as a result of low fluctuation and high reproducibility in insulin exposure, and appears suitable for effective basal insulin use.

Investigational new insulin glargine 300 U/ml has the same metabolism as insulin glargine 100 U/ml.

Insulin glargine is processed in vivo into soluble 21(A) -Gly-human insulin (M1), the principal moiety responsible for metabolic effects, and subsequently into M2. This sub-study compared metabolism and metabolite pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of investigational new insulin glargine U300 (Gla-300) with insulin glargine 100 U/ml (Gla-100, Lantus®, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, Germany) in people with type 1 diabetes. Participants received 0.4 (n = 18) or 0.6 U/kg Gla-300 (n = 12), and 0.4 U/kg Gla-100 (n = 30) once daily in randomized order for 8 days prior to a 36-h euglycaemic clamp. Metabolites were quantified using immunoaffinity enrichment and liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Glargine metabolism was the same regardless of Gla-100 or Gla-300 administration; M1 was confirmed as the principal active moiety circulating in blood. Steady state concentrations of M1 were achieved after 2 days for Gla-100, and 4 days for Gla-300. Steady state M1 values defined prolonged and even flatter PK profiles after Gla-300 administration compared with M1 profiles after Gla-100.

Lixisenatide resensitizes the insulin-secretory response to intravenous glucose challenge in people with type 2 diabetes--a study in both people with type 2 diabetes and healthy subjects.

AIMS: Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists improve blood glucose control by enhancing glucose-sensitive insulin release, delaying gastric emptying and reducing postprandial glucagon secretion. The studies reported here investigated the insulin response to an intravenous (iv) glucose challenge after injection of lixisenatide (LIXI) 20 µg or placebo. METHODS: Two single-centre, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, single-dose, crossover studies were performed in healthy subjects (HS) and people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Participants received subcutaneous LIXI or placebo 2 h before an iv glucose challenge. Study endpoints included first- and second-phase insulin response, insulin concentration (INS), glucagon response and glucose disposal rate (K(glucose)). LIXI exposure was measured over 12 h. RESULTS: LIXI 20 µg reached maximum concentration after 2 h and resensitized first-phase insulin secretion by 2.8-fold in T2DM to rates comparable with those in HS on placebo, and raised second-phase insulin secretion by 1.6-fold in T2DM. INS rose correspondingly and glucose disposal was accelerated by 1.8-fold in T2DM. First-phase insulin secretion and glucose disposal were also augmented by LIXI in HS, whereas second-phase insulin secretion reduced blood glucose concentrations to below fasting levels and then ceased, accompanied by a rapid, short-lasting rise in glucagon. Otherwise, suppression of glucagon release subsequent to augmentation of insulin release was unaffected in T2DM and in HS. CONCLUSIONS: LIXI resensitized the insulin response to an iv glucose challenge in people with T2DM, thereby accelerating glucose disposal to nearly physiological intensity, and did not impair counter-regulation to low glucose levels by glucagon.

A pilot study to examine the feasibility of insulin glargine in subjects with impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance or new-onset type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: People with early type 2 diabetes and pre-diabetes (impaired glucose tolerance [IGT] and/or impaired fasting glucose [IFG]) are at risk of hyperglycaemia-related complications, including cardiovascular disease. Insulin, traditionally reserved as late treatment in type 2 diabetes, may also be a useful therapy in this population. We examined the short-term efficacy and tolerability of insulin glargine (glargine) in individuals with early or pre-type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, parallel group, 12-day study, subjects with IGT/IFG (n=9), newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (n=9) or normal glucose tolerance (n=3) (confined to a clinical research unit taking a prescribed diet) were randomized to once-daily glargine (n=16) or placebo (saline; n=5) at bedtime. Dose was titrated to achieve target fasting blood glucose (FBG) 80-95 mg/dL. RESULTS: Over the treatment period, mean FBG decreased in glargine-treated subjects (from 100.0+/-18.8 to 85.6+/-18.4 mg/dL), but was unchanged in placebo-treated subjects (from 112.5+/-10.6 to 111.3+/-17.5 mg/dL). Mean eight-point blood glucose value decreased by 9.7 mg/dL in the glargine group, but increased by 8.1 mg/dL in the placebo group. Mean post-exercise blood glucose was similar before and after glargine treatment, but increased after placebo treatment. Five subjects receiving glargine experienced 16 mild symptomatic hypoglycaemia episodes; however, no hypoglycaemia occurred during exercise. Mean body weight decreased in both the glargine (-0.44 kg) and placebo (-0.25 kg) groups, in line with dietary restrictions. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this pilot study suggest that glargine can be used by people with IFG, IGT or new-onset type 2 diabetes for management of hyperglycaemia with low risk of hypoglycaemia. However titration of insulin in people on dietary restrictions should be more cautious as they may be more prone to hypoglycaemia. Further studies are warranted to determine the clinical benefits of this approach.

Fluctuation and reproducibility of exposure and effect of insulin glargine in healthy subjects.

AIM: Low diurnal fluctuation and high day-to-day reproducibility in exposure and effect characterize beneficial basal insulin products. Two insulin glargine (LANTUS) formulations [without (R) or with polysorbate-20 (T)], added to minimize unfolding of proteins and subsequent formation of fibril structures, were assessed for equivalence in exposure and effect, and aspects of fluctuation and reproducibility in time-concentration and time-action profiles. METHODS: A dose of 0.4 U/kg was subcutaneously administered to 24 healthy subjects in a two-sequence (R-T-R-T or T-R-T-R), randomized, four-way crossover trial utilizing 30-h Biostator-based euglycaemic glucose clamps. RESULTS: Identical serum insulin glargine concentration and time-action profiles established average, individual and population equivalence in insulin exposure and effect. Point estimates for 24-h area under the curve for insulin (INS-AUC(0-24) (h)) and glucose infusion rates (GIR-AUC(0-24) (h)) were 97% [90% confidence interval (CI): 91-103%] and 100% (88-114%), respectively. Within-subject variability (coefficient of variation) for INS-AUC(0-24) (h) and GIR-AUC(0-24) (h) were 19% (95% CI: 14-25%) and 34% (24-43%), respectively. The diurnal relative fluctuation of the serum insulin glargine concentration was 20% (95% CI: 19-21%). CONCLUSION: Insulin glargine in either formulation presents with a high day-to-day reproducibility of a uniform release after injection enabling an effective basal insulin supplementation.

Insulin glulisine: a faster onset of action compared with insulin lispro.

AIM: This randomized, single-centre, double-blind, crossover study compared the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of two different doses of insulin glulisine (glulisine) and insulin lispro (lispro) in lean to obese subjects. METHODS: Eighty subjects without diabetes, stratified into four body mass index (BMI) classes (<25, >or=25 to <30, >or=30 to <35 and >or=35 kg/m(2)), were randomized to receive single injections of glulisine and lispro (0.2 and 0.4 U/kg) on four study days under glucose clamp conditions. Glucose infusion rates (GIR) and insulin (INS) concentrations were assessed for 10 h postdose. RESULTS: Glulisine showed a greater early metabolic action than lispro [GIR-area under the curve (GIR-AUC) between 0 and 1 h (0.2 U/kg: 102.3 +/- 75.1 vs. 83.1 +/- 72.8 mg/kg, p < 0.05; 0.4 U/kg: 158.0 +/- 100.0 vs. 112.3 +/- 70.8 mg/kg, p < 0.001)], with an earlier time to 10% of total GIR-AUC (0.2 U/kg: 1.4 +/- 0.4 vs. 1.5 +/- 0.4 h; 0.4 U/kg: 1.4 +/- 0.3 vs. 1.5 +/- 0.3 h, p < 0.05). The total metabolic effect was not different between the two insulins. In accordance with these findings, the time to 10% of total INS-AUC was faster with glulisine compared with lispro at either dose (0.2 U/kg: 0.7 +/- 0.2 vs. 0.8 +/- 0.2 h; 0.4 U/kg: 0.8 +/- 0.2 vs. 0.9 +/- 0.2 h, p < 0.001). The faster rise in insulin concentrations and the earlier onset of activity of glulisine vs. lispro was consistently observed in each individual BMI class. CONCLUSIONS: Glulisine shows a faster onset of action than lispro, independent of BMI and dose.

Insulin glulisine, a new rapid-acting insulin analogue, displays a rapid time-action profile in obese non-diabetic subjects.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: This study compared the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of insulin glulisine, insulin lispro, and regular human insulin in obese subjects. METHODS: In this single-dose, randomized, double-blind, crossover euglycaemic clamp study, 18 non-diabetic subjects (mean body mass index [BMI] 34.7 kg . m (-2)) were randomized to receive subcutaneous injections of each insulin (0.3 U . kg (-1)) in pre-determined sequences. RESULTS: Insulin glulisine and insulin lispro had more rapid-acting profiles than regular human insulin. Fractional glucose infusion rate (GIR)-area under curves (AUC) of the GIR curve and maximum GIR were greater for insulin glulisine and insulin lispro versus regular human insulin. Total glucose disposal was slightly greater with insulin glulisine than with regular human insulin, and was comparable to insulin lispro, although it decreased with increasing insulin resistance (HOMA index) with all insulins. Time to 20 % (early glucose disposal) and 80 % (bulk of activity) of total GIR-AUC were shorter for insulin glulisine and insulin lispro versus regular human insulin. This was corroborated by more rapid and shorter residing pharmacokinetic profiles of insulin glulisine and insulin lispro versus regular human insulin, evidenced by shorter times to 20 % of total INS-AUC, INS-C (max) (INS-t (max)), and mean residence time. Moreover, time to 20 % of total GIR-AUC demonstrated a less rapid-acting profile for insulin lispro versus insulin glulisine, which was consistent with the slightly less rapid pharmacokinetic profile of insulin lispro. There was no significant correlation between BMI or subcutaneous fat thickness and pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic profiles for insulin glulisine, unlike insulin lispro and regular human insulin. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Insulin glulisine and insulin lispro demonstrated substantially more rapid time-action profiles than regular human insulin in obese non-diabetic subjects, which prevailed with insulin glulisine irrespective of BMI and subcutaneous fat thickness.

Pharmacokinetic and glucodynamic variability: assessment of insulin glargine, NPH insulin and insulin ultralente in healthy volunteers using a euglycaemic clamp technique.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: This single-dose, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group study evaluated the reproducibility in systemic exposure and glucodynamic effect of insulin glargine, NPH insulin (NPH) and insulin ultralente (ultralente) using the manually adjusted euglycaemic clamp technique. METHODS: In total, 36 healthy volunteers received two consecutive s.c. injections (0.4 IU/kg) of glargine, NPH or ultralente with a wash-out period of 7 days between treatments. RESULTS: In healthy volunteers, glargine presented well-reproduced flat concentration profiles and no pronounced peaks in activity. NPH, by contrast, showed well-defined peaks in concentration and glucose disposal, while ultralente had highly variable profiles. Within-subject variability (ANOVA) for insulin exposure over 24 h was 15% for glargine and 19% for NPH, compared with 67% for ultralente (p<0.05, glargine and NPH vs ultralente). The 49% within-subject variability in total glucose disposal (glucose infusion rate [GIR]-AUC0-24 h) with ultralente was about twice as large as the 22% with NPH (p<0.05), but was intermediate with glargine at 31% (p=NS). By contrast, variability in the diurnal time-action profile (SD of diurnal day-to-day differences in GIR) for glargine was 30% (p<0.05) and 50% (p<0.05) less than with NPH and ultralente, respectively. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Although representing insulins of different profiles, glargine and NPH showed a high and similar reproducibility of total absorption and glucodynamic effect, whereas ultralente proved to have poor reproducibility. However, while NPH yields peaks in concentration and activity, glargine shows flat and non-fluctuating profiles resulting in less variation in day-to-day 24-h activity.

A comparison of the steady-state pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a novel rapid-acting insulin analog, insulin glulisine, and regular human insulin in healthy volunteers using the euglycemic clamp technique.

Insulin glulisine is a new rapid-acting insulin analog. The aim of this study was to assess the glucodynamic efficacy of insulin glulisine compared with regular human insulin (RHI) using a manual euglycemic clamp technique. Steady-state pharmacokinetics of insulin glulisine, and its cardiac safety (ECG) and tolerability after intravenous administration, were also determined. This was a single center, randomized, open-label, two-way crossover study in healthy male subjects (n = 16). At the treatment visits subjects received an intravenous infusion of the study drug at a rate of 0.8 mU kg (-1) . min (-1) for 2 hours. Individual baseline glucose concentrations were targeted for euglycaemia and maintained with a manual adjusted 20 % glucose solution over the clamp period of a maximum 6 hours. A glulisine-specific antibody was used to quantify glulisine concentrations by radioimmunoassay, while a non-specific insulin antibody and C-peptide based correction for endogenous insulin was used to estimate exogenous human insulin (RHI). At steady state (90 - 120 min), insulin glulisine and RHI had equivalent glucose utilization (GIR-AUC (SS), 209 [corrected] mg . kg (-1) for glulisine, 214 [corrected] mg . kg (-1) for RHI) and infusion rates (GIR (SS), 7.0 and 7.2 [corrected] mg . kg (-1) . [corrected] min (-1) . kg (-1)). Both insulins also presented equal total glucose disposal (GIR-AUC (0 - clamp end), 995 and 1050 [corrected] mg . kg (-1)) and onset of activity within 20 min. Insulin glulisine and RHI showed parallel time concentration profiles with similar distribution and elimination, but the different antibodies employed for radioimmunoassay impeded a quantitative comparison. There were no noteworthy individual or within-group changes in cardiac repolarisation parameters measured by 12-lead ECG during insulin glulisine infusion. In conclusion, insulin glulisine and RHI show similar distribution and elimination profiles and equivalent glucodynamic efficacy on a molar, unit-per-unit basis.

Equipotency of insulin glargine and regular human insulin on glucose disposal in healthy subjects following intravenous infusion.

The absolute glucose disposal of insulin glargine (Lantus) was compared to that of regular human insulin in healthy subjects (n=20) using the euglycaemic clamp technique in a single-dose, double-blind, randomized, two-way crossover design. Subjects received 30-minute intravenous infusions of insulin glargine (0.1 IU/kg) or human insulin (0.1 IU/kg) and a 20% glucose solution infused at a variable rate to maintain euglycaemia at the subject's baseline glucose level. At equal baseline blood glucose levels (4.42 mmol/l [range, 4.00-5.16 mmol/l] and 4.42 mmol/l [range, 4.01-4.94 mmol/l], respectively), the area under the glucose infusion rate (GIR) time curves from 0-6 hours (AUC(0-6h)) was within the bioequivalence range (insulin glargine, 663.92 mg/kg; human insulin, 734.85 mg/kg). Both the time to maximum GIR and the suppression of serum C-peptide were similar with insulin glargine and human insulin. The resulting maximum serum insulin concentrations (Cmax) were 151.16 microIU/ml and 202.23 microIU/ml, and the time to Cmax (Tmax) was 30 minutes (the duration of the infusion). The observed differences in the Cmax (the mean value for insulin glargine was about 25% lower than that of human insulin) could be explained by lower cross-reactivity of insulin glargine in the human insulin radioimmunoassay. The employed intravenous route, though definitely not the intended clinical use of insulin glargine, provided the clinical evidence in healthy subjects that on a molar basis insulin glargine is equipotent to regular human insulin regarding glucose disposal.