Future therapeutic directions; new medications and insulin delivery in a changing world for effective diabetes management.

Insulin remains a key to the management of diabetes. The early addition of insulin to oral therapy in type-2 patients is recognized as an effective option that can help improve glycemic control and reduces the complications and contribute to more favorable outcomes. Controlling blood glucose levels within acceptable limits is crucial to the long-term health of patients with diabetes. The benefits of patient education and chronic disease management tools cannot be underestimated as many patients will require education and help in initiation of insulin therapy to achieve glycemic targets. The wide choice of insulin formulations and the ever-expanding range of delivery methods are now available. These methods made insulin administration easier, less painful, more discreet, and more accurate than ever before thus providing important tools to overcome barriers to insulin initiation and improve achievement of glycemic goals. In addition, exciting developments in newer therapeutics have increased the potential for optimal glycemic control. This review discusses how these approaches can help patients manage their diabetes effectively by considering new insulin formulations and delivery devices and newer therapeutics.

Cefoperazone-sulbactam for treatment of intra-abdominal infections: results from a randomized, parallel group study in India.

BACKGROUND: Combinations of a third-generation cephalosporin and metronidazole, with or without an aminoglycoside, often are used for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections in surgical settings. Simpler regimens that preserve an adequate spectrum of coverage, but allow easier administration and have fewer side effects, may be a more desirable option. METHODS: This randomized, open-label, active comparator study evaluated the effectiveness (non-inferiority hypothesis) of the beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combination cefoperazone-sulbactam (2-8 g/day), compared with ceftazidime (2-6 g/day)-amikacin (15 mg/kg/day)-metronidazole (500 mg three times daily) in 154 and 152 subjects, respectively, having intra-abdominal infections. The study was conducted at 17 centers in India. RESULTS: Non-inferiority of cefoperazone-sulbactam (91.9%) compared with ceftazidime-amikacin-metronidazole (81.8%) was demonstrated for continued resolution of clinical signs and symptoms at the 30-day follow-up (primary endpoint) with a treatment difference of 10.1% (95% confidence interval 2.1%, 18.1%; pre-defined non-inferiority limit > -12.5%). Superiority of cefoperazone-sulbactam also was demonstrated for this endpoint, with significantly more subjects achieving continued resolution at the 30-day follow-up than in the comparator group (p = 0.015). On microbiologic outcomes, cefoperazone-sulbactam had higher success rates than ceftazidime-amikacin-metronidazole (92.9% vs. 80.0%). The pathogens (202 isolated) isolated most commonly were Escherichia coli (38.6%) and Klebsiella spp. (12.9%). The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was 6.5% and 16.4% in the cefoperazone-sulbactam and ceftazidime-amikacin-metronidazole groups, respectively, with more discontinuations due to treatment-related adverse events in the comparator arm (3.2% vs. 9.9%). CONCLUSION: Empirical cefoperazone-sulbactam monotherapy could be a useful adjunct to surgical intervention for intra-abdominal infections.

Metabolic syndrome--risk factors for atherosclerosis and diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the lipoprotein profiles, triglycerides and glycemia along with the abdominal fat to explore the risk factors associated with non-diabetic state to IGF, IGT and Type-2 diabetes in Canadian population. METHODS: We examined 780 subjects using the ADA and WHO criteria to classify them into groups based on (1) normal glucose tolerance with FBS <6.0 and 2hBS <7.0 mmol/l), (2) IFG; FPG > or =6.1 mmol/l but 2hBS >7.8-11.1 mmol/l; (3) combined IFG/IGT (FPG > or =7.0 mmol/l and 2hBS >11.1 mmol/l). We compared the three groups for glycemia, insulin secretion and insulin sensitivity based on their WHR, abdominal and visceral fat measurements. RESULTS: The subjects with higher 2 hrs glucose levels 5.2 for NGT vs. 9.1 for IGT and 13.4 mmol/l for NIDDM, p<0.001, apo C-III level (12.8 (DM) vs. 8.9 mg/dl (normal), p<0.001), waist to hip ratio (0.91 (IGT) vs. 0.89 (Normal), p<0.01) and abdominal fat and were found to be highly insulin resistant. CONCLUSIONS: The higher apolipoproteins levels, BMI and abdominal and visceral fat accompanied by poor glycemia were shown to be associated strongly with the metabolic abnormalities. These factors led to the worsening of insulin secretory dysfunction and insulin resistance and were strong predictors of diabetes.

Diabetes beyond insulin: review of new drugs for treatment of diabetes mellitus.

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a progressive disease characterized by insulin deficiency and insulin resistance or both. The fasting and post-prandial blood glucose is elevated, exposing the patient to acute and chronic complications (micro- and macro-vascular) leading to blindness, kidney failure, heart disease, stroke and amputations. Improving glycemic control has been demonstrated to lower the risk of these complications. Owing to the progressive nature of the disease, an evolving treatment strategy is necessary to maintain glycemic control. Varieties of new pharmacologic interventions are developed in past 5 years to treat people with diabetes. Several studies have been carried out covering different aspects of pharmacological interventions (newer and old drugs) along with the effects of weight loss, diet and exercise. Two categories of drugs have been used for the treatment of Diabetes Mellitus: the insulin and oral agents. Insulin analogues are molecules that differ from human insulin in amino acid sequence but bind to the insulin receptors and act similarly in function. This article provides an update of pharmacologic interventions for diabetes with practical overview of the new drug options, new insulin analogues, pharmacology, clinical efficacy, safety, dosing, cost, with specific examples of each and their background and side effects used to achieve tight glucose control. These agents have distinct characteristics that help in their selection for the treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Biokinetics of buccal spray insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the metabolic effect of buccal spray insulin compared with subcutaneous regular insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study compared plasma glucose, insulin, and C-peptide levels in 18 patients with type 1 diabetes treated with subcutaneous regular or buccal spray insulin on 2 consecutive mornings. On day 1, patients were treated with their usual subcutaneous regular insulin regimens. On day 2, patients received buccal spray insulin. In the morning of both days 1 and 2, patients received a standard meal of 630 kJ. No intermediate or long-acting insulin was administered to patients on the morning of the test. Blood samples were collected for up to 4 hours for biokinetic analysis. In a subset of 3 patients, premeal buccal spray insulin was administered for 2 entire consecutive days. In these patients, glucose levels were monitored using the glucose sensor monitoring system. RESULTS: Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in glucose, insulin, or C-peptide levels measured after administration of subcutaneous vs buccal spray insulin. However, at 90 and 120 minutes after subcutaneous regular insulin administration, significantly higher insulin levels and more prolonged hypoglycemic effect were detected compared with buccal spray insulin administration. In the 3 patients who received 1 day of regular and 2 entire days of buccal spray insulin, no significant differences were observed in glucose levels during the 3 days of glucose sensor monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin administered via the buccal spray formulation is as effective as the subcutaneous route in lowering blood glucose levels.

Dose-response relationship of oral insulin spray in healthy subjects.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and the dose-ranging effects of an oral insulin spray in comparison with subcutaneous regular insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this randomized, five-way, cross-over study, seven healthy volunteers were assessed under euglycemic clamp and received four different doses of oral spray and one dose of subcutaneous regular insulin. RESULTS: The time to maximum insulin concentration was shorter for oral insulin than for subcutaneous insulin (25.9 +/- 9 vs. 145.7 +/- 49.5 min, P < 0.05). Maximum serum insulin levels (C(max)) were comparable between the subcutaneous and 20 puffs of oral insulin (39.1 +/- 19.6 vs. 34.0 +/- 7.4 microU/ml, NS). The Ins-AUC(0-120) (area under the curve from 0 to 120 min for serum insulin) (339.8 +/- 218, 681.3 +/- 407, and 1,586.7 +/- 8 microU/ml, P < 0.05) and C(max) (7.6 +/- 2.8, 16.4 +/- 9.3, and 39.1 +/- 19.6 microU/ml, P < 0.005) proved a dose-response relationship for the three doses of oral insulin (5, 10, and 20 puffs, respectively). Oral insulin had an earlier onset of action (31.7 +/- 12 vs. 77.8 +/- 3 min, P < 0.05), earlier peak (44.2 +/- 10 vs. 159.2 +/- 68 min, P < 0.05), and a shorter duration of action (85.1 +/- 25 vs. 319.2 +/- 45 min, P < 0.05) compared with subcutaneous insulin. The maximum metabolic effect (1.7 +/- 1.0, 3.09 +/- 1.7, and 4.6 +/- 1.5 mg . kg(-1) . min(-1), P < 0.05) and the GIR-AUC(0-120) (amount of glucose infused from 0 to 120 min) (106.7 +/- 74.3, 162.9 +/- 116.1, and 254 +/- 123 mg/kg) increased in a dose-dependent relationship for the three doses. CONCLUSIONS: Oral insulin was absorbed in direct relation to the amount given and had a faster onset and a shorter duration of action compared with subcutaneous regular insulin. A dose-response relationship in the absorption and metabolic effect of the oral insulin was noted.

Oral spray insulin in treatment of type 2 diabetes: a comparison of efficacy of the oral spray insulin (Oralin) with subcutaneous (SC) insulin injection, a proof of concept study.

OBJECTIVE: Proof-of-concept study of evaluation of metabolic effect of novel oral spray insulin (Oralin) formulation at breakfast time in subjects with type 2 diabetes on multiple daily injections. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was an open-label, crossover, randomized study in (n = 23) subjects with type 2 diabetes on multiple daily injections. Subjects received each treatment, in random order, 3 to 7 days apart-a daily dose of SC injection (0.1 u/kg) on one occasion and Oralin spray (100 u) at time 0 min on another occasion. Subjects were given a standard breakfast containing 360 cal (Sustacal liquid meal) 10 min after the dose. Blood samples were taken at regular intervals to measure glucose, insulin, and C-peptide. RESULTS: The 30- and 60-min postprandial glucose levels were significantly lowered with Oralin versus that with the injection treatment (146 +/- 5 mg/dL Oralin vs 184 +/- 7 mg/dL injection at 30 min and 192 +/- 6 mg/dL Oralin vs 236 +/- 9 mg/dL injection, p < 0.003 at 60 min). The rise in serum insulin levels was significantly higher (Cmax = 98 +/- 6 uU/mL for Oralin at 30 min vs 65 +/- 3 uU/ml injection, p < 0.001). The reduction in C-peptide was greater in Oralin during the first 60 min (1.38 +/- 0.21 ng/mL Oralin vs 1.75 +/- 0.38 ng/mL injection, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This proof-of-concept study results demonstrated that Oralin could be used as meal insulin in place of mealtime-insulin injections in subjects with type 2 diabetes to regulate the postprandial glucose levels.

Beneficial effects of addition of oral spray insulin (Oralin) on insulin secretion and metabolic control in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus suboptimally controlled on oral hypoglycemic agents.

The aim of this study was to determine the metabolic effect and the safety of a novel oral insulin spray (Oralin) formulation at breakfast-time in subjects with type 2 diabetes with suboptimal glucose control and maintained on a combination therapy of oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs). This was an open-label, crossover, randomized study design in subjects (n = 21) with type 2 diabetes (glycated hemoglobin A1c >8.0%). Subjects received each of the following treatments, in random order: metformin + glyburide and placebo puffs at time 0 min; or metformin + glyburide and Oralin spray (100 U) at time 0 min. Fifteen minutes later, subjects were given a standard breakfast containing 360 calories [Sustacal (Mead Johnson, Evansville, IN) liquid meal]. Blood samples were taken at regular intervals to measure serum glucose, insulin, and C-peptide. Time-averaged postprandial glucose increments (PPGIs) between 0 and 240 min were calculated for each treatment. Group mean PPGIs to OHAs versus Oralin in combination with OHAs were compared to determine the mean efficacy of the active treatment. The Oralin spray lowered the 2-h postprandial glucose rise significantly in comparison with the OHAs alone. The serum insulin levels were significantly higher with faster onset of action in the Oralin spray treatment when compared with the OHAs treatment. The reductions in C-peptides were also significantly greater in the Oralin arm than in the OHAs treatment. This study results demonstrated that Oralin could be used as meal insulin as an add-on therapy in combination with failing OHAs treatment in subjects with type 2 diabetes to regulate postprandial glucose levels.

Comparison of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of single-dose oral insulin spray and subcutaneous insulin injection in healthy subjects using the euglycemic clamp technique.

BACKGROUND: Oral insulin spray is a new, noninjectable method of insulin delivery. This system delivers an aerosol of uniform-sized droplets containing regular human insulin at a high velocity into the oropharyngeal cavity for local transmucosal absorption. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of single-dose oral insulin spray and SC insulin injection in healthy subjects. METHODS: Healthy male volunteers aged 21 to 25 years participated in this open-label study conducted at the Diabetes Unit, Hadassah-Hebrew University Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel. Subjects presented at 2 visits separated by 7 to 14 days. At both visits, the euglycemic clamp technique was used to maintain a constant blood glucose level. At one visit, subjects received regular human insulin 0.1 U/kg by SC injection. At the other visit, subjects received 15 puffs (150 U) of oral insulin spray. The pharmacokinetic (insulin absorption) and pharmacodynamic (glucose uptake) properties of the drugs were evaluated using blood analyses over the subsequent 360 minutes. RESULTS: Six volunteers were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 22.8 [1.2] years; mean [SD] body mass index, 23.2 [2.2] kg/m(2)). The mean (SD) baseline-corrected C(max) was significantly higher with oral insulin spray compared with SC insulin (54.0 [20.3] vs 30.8 [6.1] microU/mL; P = 0.028). Mean (SD) T(max) was significantly shorter with oral insulin spray compared with SC insulin (23.3 [5.2] vs 83.3 [42.2] minutes; P = 0.027). The mean (SD) time to maximal metabolic effect (maximum glucose infusion rate [GIR(max)]) (44.2 [8.6] vs 100.0 [35.6] minutes) and late time to half-maximal effect (101.0 [41.0] vs 257.2 [27.8] minutes) were shorter with oral insulin spray compared with SC insulin (both, P = 0.028). The baseline-corrected GIR(max) (6.8 [3.3] vs 6.2 [2.3] mg/kg . min) and glucose consumption (396.7 [178.0] vs 432.1 [226.0] mg/kg) during the 120 minutes after study drug administration were comparable between oral and SC insulin, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this study in a small, selected population of healthy male subjects under euglycemic conditions, oral insulin spray was associated with a higher C(max), shorter T(max), and faster time to peak glucose uptake compared with SC insulin. The short T(max) and the 120-minute duration of effect of oral insulin spray suggest it may be a promising alternative for fulfilling meal-related insulin requirements in persons with diabetes.

The evolving role of oral insulin in the treatment of diabetes using a novel RapidMist System.

The inability of subcutaneous (sc) insulin to effectively, safely and painlessly control postprandial glucose levels has encouraged the exploration of alternate methods of insulin delivery. Recently, a novel drug delivery system, based on a unique liquid aerosol formulation, has been developed. This system allows precise insulin dose delivery via a simple, cosmetically acceptable metered dose inhaler in the form of fine aerosolized droplets directed into the mouth. The system introduces a fine-particle aerosol at high velocity into the patient's breath; the mouth deposition is dramatically increased compared with conventional technology. This oral aerosol formulation is rapidly absorbed through the buccal mucosal lining and in the oropharynx regions, and it provides the plasma insulin levels necessary to control postprandial glucose rise in diabetic patients. This novel, pain-free, oral insulin formulation has a critical series of attributes: rapid absorption, a simple (user-friendly) administration technique, precise dosing control (comparable to injection within one unit), and bolus delivery of drug. This review describes the recent results of clinical studies (in type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients) by comparing the efficacy of Oralin (oral insulin spray) versus sc injected insulin and placebo arms. A simplified means for prandial insulin delivery, such as that offered by this technique, will significantly reduce the incidence of key complications by allowing increased patient compliance for consistent drug administration in order to regulate patients' blood glucose levels.