Pharmacokinetics and Glucodynamics of Ultra Rapid Lispro (URLi) versus Humalog® (Lispro) in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Phase I Randomised, Crossover Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Ultra rapid lispro (URLi) is a novel insulin lispro formulation developed to more closely match physiological insulin secretion and improve postprandial glucose control. This study compared the insulin lispro pharmacokinetics and glucodynamics, safety and tolerability of URLi and Humalog® after a single subcutaneous dose in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: This was a phase I, randomised, two-period, two-treatment, double-blind, crossover study in 38 patients with T2DM. At each dosing visit, patients received either 15 units of URLi or Humalog, followed by a 10 h automated euglycaemic clamp procedure. Serum insulin lispro and blood glucose were measured. RESULTS: Insulin lispro appeared in the serum 5 min faster (p < 0.0001) and exposure was 6.4-fold greater in the first 15 min (p < 0.0001) with URLi versus Humalog. Exposure beyond 3 h postdose was 26% lower and the duration of exposure was 51 min shorter with URLi versus Humalog. Onset of insulin action was 13 min faster (p < 0.0001) and insulin action was 4.2-fold greater within the first 30 min (p < 0.0001) with URLi versus Humalog. Insulin action beyond 4 h postdose was 20% lower (p = 0.0099) with URLi versus Humalog. Overall insulin lispro exposure and total glucose infused were similar for URLi and Humalog. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to investigate URLi in patients with T2DM using a euglycaemic clamp procedure. URLi demonstrated ultra-rapid pharmacokinetics and glucodynamics in patients with T2DM. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03305822.

Insulin Injection Into Lipohypertrophic Tissue: Blunted and More Variable Insulin Absorption and Action and Impaired Postprandial Glucose Control.

OBJECTIVE: Lipohypertrophy (LHT) is common in insulin-treated patients but its exact impact on insulin absorption and action is unclear. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this crossover study, 13 patients with type 1 diabetes received subcutaneous abdominal injections of 0.15 units/kg insulin lispro into LHT (confirmed by examination and ultrasound) and normal adipose tissue (NAT). On one day, a euglycemic clamp was performed with two injections each into LHT and NAT, and on another day one injection per region was given before a standardized mixed meal (75 g carbohydrates), all in randomized order. RESULTS: Compared with NAT, LHT reduced insulin absorption (mean area under the insulin concentration curve [AUCINS0-4h] 131 vs. 165 h * mU/L [LHT vs. NAT]; Cmax 61 vs. 79 mU/L, P < 0.02, respectively) and effect (areas under glucose infusion rate [GIR] curves [AUCGIR0-4h 625 vs. 775 mg/kg, P < 0.05]) but increased intrasubject variability ([coefficient of variation] AUCINS0-4h 52 vs. 11%, Cmax 55 vs. 15%, AUCGIR0-4h 57 vs. 23%, all P < 0.01). Postprandial blood glucose (BG) concentrations were ≥26% higher with LHT (AUCBG0-5h 731 vs. 513 mg * h/dL, BGmax 199 vs. 157 mg/dL, 2-h BG 150 vs. 104 mg/dL, 5-h BG 145 vs. 81 mg/dL, all P < 0.05) and maximum concentrations occurred later. Hypoglycemia (BG ≤50 mg/dL) occurred numerically less frequently with LHT injection (two vs. six patients), whereas profound hyperglycemia (BG ≥300 mg/dL) only occurred with LHT injection (two patients). Tmax-INS did not differ between LHT and NAT in either study. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin absorption and action are blunted and considerably more variable with LHT injection, leading to profound deterioration in postprandial glucose control.

Comparison of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of insulin degludec and insulin glargine.

OBJECTIVES: A medical need remains for a once-daily insulin with 24-h basal coverage in all patients. We characterize the steady-state (SS) pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties of insulin degludec (IDeg) versus insulin glargine (IGlar). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this controlled, single-center study, 66 type 1 diabetes patients were randomized to two 8-day periods of once-daily IDeg or IGlar at 0.4, 0.6 or 0.8 U/kg. At SS, subjects underwent a 42-h euglycemic glucose clamp (5.5 mmol/l; 100 mg/dl). Glucose infusion rate (GIR), distribution of GIR and half-life were assessed. RESULTS: Mean 24-h GIR profiles were flatter and more stable for all doses of IDeg versus IGlar. The evenly distributed glucose-lowering effect of IDeg was confirmed by the AUCGIR across one dosing interval, as each of the four 6-h intervals across one dosing interval contributed ∼ 25% of the AUCGIR,τ,SS. IGlar was most effective during the first 12 - 18 h after dosing. At SS, the half-life was 25.4 (IDeg) versus 12.1 h (IGlar). No safety concerns were identified for IDeg or IGlar. CONCLUSION: IDeg has a longer half-life (> 25 h) than IGlar. Exposure and glucose-lowering effects are more stable and evenly distributed across one dosing interval for IDeg versus IGlar (Clinical trials.gov identifier: NCT01114542).