Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of a Novel U500 Insulin Aspart Formulation: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Crossover Study in People With Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of a novel U500 insulin aspart formulation (AT278 U500) compared with insulin aspart (IAsp U100). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This single-center, randomized, double-blind study was conducted in 38 men with type 1 diabetes (body weight ≤100 kg and total insulin dose <1.2 units/kg/day). Participants received a single dose of either AT278 U500 or IAsp U100 (0.3 units/kg s.c.) in a crossover design, followed by an 8-h euglycemic clamp in the absence of basal insulin. RESULTS: With AT278 U500, onset of appearance in serum was 6 min earlier (P < 0.0001) and reached 50% of maximum concentration 23 min faster (P < 0.0001). Insulin exposure with AT278 U500 was 4.0-fold higher within the first 30 min (95% CI 3.29, 4.90), 1.5-fold higher within the first 60 min (95% CI 1.35, 1.76), and statistically superior up to 90 min postdose (P < 0.05). With AT278 U500, onset of action was 10 min earlier (P < 0.0001) and reached 50% of maximum glucose infusion rate 20 min faster (P < 0.0001). The glucose-lowering effect with AT278 U500 was 8.9-fold higher within the first 30 min (95% CI 5.96, 17.46), 2.4-fold higher within the first 60 min (95% CI 1.92, 3.22), and statistically superior up to 2 h postdose (P < 0.0001). Overall insulin exposure and glucose-lowering effect were comparable. No significant safety findings were observed. CONCLUSIONS: AT278 U500 offers rapid-acting characteristics in a reduced dose volume, with accelerated absorption and onset of action compared with IAsp U100 in the studied population.

Hybrid closed-loop glucose control with faster insulin aspart compared with standard insulin aspart in adults with type 1 diabetes: A double-blind, multicentre, multinational, randomized, crossover study.

AIM: To evaluate the use of hybrid closed-loop glucose control with faster-acting insulin aspart (Fiasp) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a double-blind, multinational, randomized, crossover study, 25 adults with T1D using insulin pump therapy (mean ± SD, age 38 ± 9 years, HbA1c 7.4% ± 0.8% [57 ± 8 mmol/mol]) underwent two 8-week periods of unrestricted living comparing hybrid closed-loop with Fiasp and hybrid closed-loop with standard insulin aspart in random order. During both interventions the CamAPS FX closed-loop system incorporating the Cambridge model predictive control algorithm was used. RESULTS: In an intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of time sensor glucose was in the target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L; primary endpoint) was not different between interventions (75% ± 8% vs. 75% ± 8% for hybrid closed-loop with Fiasp vs. hybrid closed-loop with standard insulin aspart; mean-adjusted difference -0.6% [95% CI -1.8% to 0.7%]; p < .001 for non-inferiority [non-inferiority margin 5%]). The proportion of time with sensor glucose less than 3.9 mmol/L (median [IQR] 2.4% [1.2%-3.2%] vs. 2.9% [1.7%-4.0%]; p = .01) and less than 3.0 mmol/L (median [IQR] 0.4% [0.2%-0.7%] vs. 0.7% [0.2%-0.9%]; p = .03) was reduced with Fiasp versus standard insulin aspart. There was no difference in mean glucose (8.1 ± 0.8 vs. 8.0 ± 0.8 mmol/L; p = .13) or glucose variability (SD of sensor glucose 2.9 ± 0.5 vs. 2.9 ± 0.5 mmol/L; p = .90). Total daily insulin requirements did not differ (49 ± 15 vs. 49 ± 15 units/day; p = .45). No severe hypoglycaemia or ketoacidosis occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The use of Fiasp in the CamAPS FX closed-loop system may reduce hypoglycaemia without compromising glucose control compared with standard insulin aspart in adults with T1D.

What Training, Support, and Resourcing Do Health Professionals Need to Support People Using a Closed-Loop System? A Qualitative Interview Study with Health Professionals Involved in the Closed Loop from Onset in Type 1 Diabetes (CLOuD) Trial.

Background: We explored health professionals' views about the training, support, and resourcing needed to support people using closed-loop technology in routine clinical care to help inform the development of formal guidance. Methods: Interviews were conducted with health professionals (n = 22) delivering the Closed Loop from Onset in Type 1 Diabetes (CLOuD) trial after they had ≥6 months' experience of supporting participants using a closed-loop system. Data were analyzed descriptively. Results: Interviewees described how, compared with other insulin regimens, teaching and supporting individuals to use a closed-loop system could be initially more time-consuming. However, they also noted that after an initial adjustment period, users had less need for initiating contact with the clinical team compared with people using pumps or multiple daily injections. Interviewees highlighted how a lessened need for ad hoc clinical input could result in new challenges; specifically, they had fewer opportunities to reinforce users' diabetes knowledge and skills and detect potential psychosocial problems. They also observed heightened anxiety among some parents due to the constant availability of data and unrealistic expectations about the system's capabilities. Interviewees noted that all local diabetes teams should be empowered to deliver closed-loop system care, but stressed that health professionals supporting closed-loop users in routine care will need comprehensive technology training and standardized clinical guidance. Conclusion: These findings constitute an important starting point for the development of formal guidance to support the rollout of closed-loop technology. Our recommendations, if actioned, will help limit the potential additional burden of introducing closed-loop systems in routine clinical care and help inform appropriate user education and support.