Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Three Different Formulations of Insulin Aspart: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Crossover Study in Men With Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties and safety of a novel formulation of insulin aspart (AT247) versus two currently marketed insulin aspart formulations (NovoRapid [IAsp] and Fiasp [faster IAsp]). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This single-center, randomized, double-blind, three-period, crossover study was conducted in 19 men with type 1 diabetes, receiving single dosing of trial products (0.3 units/kg) in a random order on three visits. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics were assessed during a euglycemic clamp lasting up to 8 h. RESULTS: Onset of insulin appearance was earlier for AT247 compared with IAsp (-12 min [95% CI -14; -8], P = 0.0004) and faster IAsp (-2 min [-5; -2], P = 0.0003). Onset of action was accelerated compared with IAsp (-23 min [-37; -15], P = 0.0004) and faster IAsp (-9 min [-11; -3], P = 0.0006). Within the first 60 min, a higher exposure was observed for AT247 compared with IAsp by the area under the curve (AUC) glucose infusion rate (GIR) from 0 to 60 min (AUCAsp0-60min: treatment ratio vs. IAsp 2.3 [1.9; 2.9] vs. faster IAsp 1.5 [1.3; 1.8]), which was underpinned by a greater early glucose-lowering effect (AUCGIR,0-60min: treatment ratio vs. IAsp 2.8 [2.0; 5.5] vs. faster IAsp 1.7 [1.3; 2.3]). Furthermore, an earlier offset of exposure was observed for AT247 compared with IAsp (-32 min [-58; -15], P = 0.0015) and faster IAsp (-27 min [-85; -15], P = 0.0017), while duration of the glucose-lowering effect, measured by time to late half-maximum effect, did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: AT247 exhibited an earlier insulin appearance, exposure, and offset, with corresponding enhanced early glucose-lowering effect compared with IAsp and faster IAsp. It therefore represents a promising candidate in the pursuit for second-generation prandial insulin analogs to improve postprandial glycemic control.

Kinetics of Clobetasol-17-Propionate in Psoriatic Lesional and Non-Lesional Skin Assessed by Dermal Open Flow Microperfusion with Time and Space Resolution.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the kinetics of topically applied clobetasol-17-propionate (CP-17) in lesional and non-lesional psoriatic skin when released from a commercially available low-strength cream using in vivo dermal open-flow microperfusion (dOFM). METHODS: Twelve patients received Dermovate® cream (CP-17, 0.05%) on small lesional and non-lesional skin test sites for 14 days, once daily. On day 1 and 14, dOFM samples were continuously taken in the dermis for 24 h post-dose and analyzed by LC-MS/MS. Probe depths were assessed by 50 MHz ultrasound scanning. RESULTS: Mixed-effects modelling identified skin condition, treatment duration and probe-depth as kinetics determining variables. The time- and depth-resolved intradermal data revealed (i) slower penetration of CP-17 into lesional than into non-lesional skin, (ii) normalized (faster) skin penetration after repeated dosing, and (iii) no CP-17 accumulation within the dermis independently of the skin condition. CONCLUSIONS: Intradermal investigation of a highly lipophilic drug released from low-strength cream was successfully performed by using dOFM and timely and spatially, i.e., probe-depth dependent, resolved kinetic data were delivered. These data support the assumption that the thickened psoriatic stratum corneum might act as trap compartment which lowers the skin penetration rate for lipophilic topical drugs.

Failure to control hyperglycemia in noncritically ill diabetes patients despite standard glycemic management in a hospital setting.

BACKGROUND: Successful control of hyperglycemia has been shown to improve outcomes for diabetes patients in a clinical setting. We assessed the quality of physician-based glycemic management in two general wards, considering the most recent recommendations for glycemic control for noncritically ill patients (<140 mg/dl for premeal glucose). METHODS: Quality of glycemic management of 50 patients in two wards (endocrinology, cardiology) was assessed retrospectively by analyzing blood glucose (BG) levels, the glycemic management effort, and the online questionnaire. RESULTS: Glycemic control was clearly above the recommended target (mean BG levels: endocrinology: 175 ± 62 mg/dl; cardiology: 186 ± 68 mg/dl). When comparing the first half with the second half of the hospital stay, we found no difference in glycemic control (endocrinology: 168 ± 32 vs 164 ± 42 mg/dl, P = .67; cardiology: 174 ± 36 mg/dl vs 170 ± 42 mg/dl, P =.51) and in insulin dose (endocrinology: 15 ± 14 IU vs 15 ± 13 IU per day, P = .87; cardiology: 27 ± 17 IU vs 27 ± 18 IU per day, P = .92), despite frequent BG measurements (endocrinology: 2.7 per day; cardiology: 3.2 per day). A lack of clearly defined BG targets was indicated in the questionnaire. CONCLUSION: The recommended BG target range was not achieved in both wards. Analysis of routine glycemic management demonstrated considerable glycemic management effort, but also a lack of translation into adequate insulin therapy. Implementation of corrective measures, such as structured treatment protocols, is essential.