Clinical application of the different cross-reactivities of anti-insulin antibodies to insulin lispro to evaluate endogenous insulin secretion.

BACKGROUND: Insulin analogs are often used to treat patients with diabetes. We evaluated the cross-reactivities of anti-insulin antibodies in two insulin immunoassay kits (Architect and ECLusys) against recombinant human insulin and insulin analogs, and measured insulin concentrations in the serum of the diabetic patients treated with only insulin lispro. METHODS: Ten-fold dilutions of recombinant human insulins and insulin analogs were measured using Architect and ECLusys kits. The serum samples of 4 type 2 diabetic patients at fasting, and several time points after breakfast (25 kcal/kg) following subcutaneous injection of insulin lispro were measured by Architect, ECLusys and LISPro RIA kit. RESULTS: The ECLusys kit could detect human insulin but not insulin analogs. The Architect kit detected human insulin and insulin analogs with similar recovery ratios. The difference in serum insulin concentrations measured by Architect and ECLusys assays reflected the concentration measured by LISPro insulin kit in the patients. The differences in the AUC between Architect and ECLusys assays were significantly correlated with the AUC for LISPro assay (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: By exploiting the different cross-reactivities of anti-insulin antibodies to insulin analogs, it may be possible to measure the endogenous and exogenous insulin concentrations in diabetic patients treated with insulin analogs.

Comparison of 70/30 biphasic insulin with glargine/lispro regimen in non-critically ill diabetic patients on continuous enteral nutrition therapy.

Despite significant advances in inpatient diabetes management, it is still a challenge to choose the safest and most efficacious subcutaneous insulin regimen for diabetic patients on continuous enteral nutrition (EN) therapy. The authors conducted a retrospective analysis of glycemic control in 22 non-critically ill diabetic patients, receiving at least 3 days of continuous EN. Patients received different insulin regimens while on continuous EN, including a basal/bolus glargine/lispro regimen (group 1, n = 8), 70/30 biphasic insulin twice daily (group 2, n = 8), and 70/30 biphasic insulin 3 times a day (group 3, n = 6). The glucose data from 72 hours from the initiation of EN were analyzed (12 point-of-contact glucose measurements per patient). Overall, the degree of control was comparable in all groups, with target range maintained more consistently in group 3 (70/30 insulin administered 3 times daily). In this group, 69% of values were in the target range (140-180 mg/dL) as compared with 24% in glargine/lispro group and 22% in the 70/30 insulin bid group. Eight hypoglycemic episodes occurred among the 3 groups: 5 episodes in group 1 (5.4%), 2 episodes in group 2 (2.1%), and 1 episode in group 3 (1.4%) (P = .05, groups 2 and 3 vs group 1). Administration of 70/30 biphasic insulin 3 times daily is a safe therapeutic regimen in diabetic patients on continuous EN as it maintains glycemia in the target range and might produce fewer episodes of hypoglycemia.