Safety and efficacy of AIR inhaled insulin compared with subcutaneous insulin in patients having diabetes and asthma: A 12-month, randomized, noninferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Long-term safety and efficacy of AIR((R)) inhaled insulin (Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, IN) (AIR is a registered trademark of Alkermes, Inc., Cambridge, MA) in patients with diabetes and concomitant lung disease remain to be established. METHODS: This 1-year, randomized, open-label, active comparator, two-arm, parallel study compared the safety and efficacy of AIR insulin to subcutaneous (SC) insulin in patients having type 1 or type 2 diabetes and asthma. Patients with type 2 diabetes continued taking their prestudy oral antihyperglycemic medication. RESULTS: Change in hemoglobin A1C from baseline to end point was similar for the AIR insulin and SC insulin groups (-0.063 +/- 0.128% and -0.315 +/- 0.128% respectively, P = 0.105), but noninferiority failed to be achieved (the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval [-0.053, 0.555] was >0.4%). The total daily prandial dose increased more in the AIR insulin group than in the SC insulin group (0.150 U/kg and 0.044 U/kg, respectively, P = 0.002). Safety profiles were generally comparable between treatments. At end point, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1))/forced vital capacity (FVC) postbronchodilator (-0.016 +/- 0.005 vs. 0.002 +/- 0.005, P = 0.006) and diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (-1.214 +/- 0.325 mL/min/torr vs. -0.383 +/- 0.311 mL/min/torr, P = 0.028) both decreased more in the AIR insulin group than in the SC insulin group, but the differences were not present at follow-up. FEV(1) and FVC were similar between treatment groups at end point. Incidences of hypoglycemia were comparable between groups. Insulin antibody binding increased more in the AIR insulin group. Cough was the most common adverse event; however, there was no difference in incidence between the AIR insulin (15.3%) and SC insulin (12.4%) treatment groups (P = 0.572). CONCLUSIONS: In patients who have diabetes and asthma, AIR insulin demonstrated glycemic efficacy similar to SC insulin. Additionally, the safety profile of AIR insulin in patients with and without asthma is consistent.

Initiation of prandial insulin therapy with AIR inhaled insulin or insulin lispro in patients with type 2 diabetes: A randomized noninferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes is often delayed because of concerns about injections. Our objective was to compare the effects of AIR inhaled insulin (Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, IN) (AIR is a registered trademark of Alkermes, Inc., Cambridge, MA) with those of injectable insulin on glycemic control and safety. METHODS: This was planned as a 24-month, open-label, randomized study in adults with diabetes inadequately controlled by one or more oral antihyperglycemic medications (OAMs). Following a 2-week baseline period, patients continued OAMs and were randomized to AIR insulin (n = 208) or insulin lispro (n = 203) before meals. The primary end point was hemoglobin A1C (A1C) change from baseline to 6 months. Noninferiority was established if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference in A1C change was < or =0.4%. RESULTS: Early termination of the study diminished the number of patients for the 12- and 24-month analyses, but not for the primary 6-month end point analyses. AIR insulin and injectable insulin groups had comparable baseline A1C values (8.18% vs. 8.21%, respectively). Change in A1C from baseline to 6-month end point was similar (least squares mean, -0.81 +/- 0.09% and -0.87 +/- 0.09%; 95% confidence interval for the difference -0.117, 0.234; P = 0.51) and so were final A1C values of 7.36% and 7.31% for AIR insulin and injectable insulin, respectively. At 6 months, no differences were observed in eight-point profiles, overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia, and weight gain. Greater decreases in spirometry were observed in the AIR insulin group at 12 months. Cough was the most frequently reported adverse event (20% [AIR insulin] vs. 10% [insulin lispro]; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with AIR insulin resulted in similar improvement in glycemic control compared with insulin lispro. More frequent cough and greater decrease in spirometry were observed with AIR insulin.

Two-year efficacy and safety of AIR inhaled insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes: An open-label randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with type 1 diabetes require intensive insulin therapy for optimal glycemic control. AIR((R)) inhaled insulin (system from Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN) (AIR is a registered trademark of Alkermes, Inc., Cambridge, MA) may be an efficacious and safe alternative to subcutaneously injected (SC) mealtime insulin. METHODS: This was a Phase 3, 2-year, randomized, open-label, active-comparator, parallel-group study in 385 patients with type 1 diabetes who were randomly assigned to receive AIR insulin or SC insulin (regular human insulin or insulin lispro) at mealtimes. Both groups received insulin glargine once daily. Efficacy measures included mean change in hemoglobin A1C (A1C) from baseline to end point, eight-point self-monitored blood glucose profiles, and insulin dosage. Safety assessments included hypoglycemic events, pulmonary function tests, adverse events, and insulin antibody levels. RESULTS: In both treatment groups, only 20% of subjects reached the target of A1C <7.0%. A significant A1C difference of 0.44% was seen favoring SC insulin, with no difference between the groups in insulin doses or hypoglycemic events at end point. Patients in both treatment groups experienced progressive decreases in lung function, but larger (reversible) decrements in diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DL(CO)) were associated with AIR insulin treatment. Greater weight gain was seen with SC insulin treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The AIR inhaled insulin program was terminated by the sponsor prior to availability of any Phase 3 data for reasons unrelated to safety or efficacy. Despite early termination, this trial provides evidence that AIR insulin was less efficacious in lowering A1C and was associated with a greater decrease in DL(CO) and increased incidence of cough than SC insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes.

Hyponatremia and syndrome of inappropriate anti-diuretic hormone reported with the use of Vincristine: an over-representation of Asians?

PURPOSE: This retrospective study used a pharmaceutical company's global safety database to determine the reporting rate of hyponatremia and/or syndrome of inappropriate secretion of anti-diuretic hormone (SIADH) among vincristine-treated patients and to explore the possibility of at-risk population subgroups. METHOD: We searched the Eli Lilly and Company's computerized adverse event database for all reported cases of hyponatremia and/or SIADH as of 1 November 1999 that had been reported during the use of vincristine. RESULTS: A total of 76 cases of hyponatremia and/or SIADH associated with vincristine use were identified. The overall reporting rate was estimated to be 1.3/100,000 treated patients. The average age of patients was 35.6 +/- 28.3 years, and 62% were males. Approximately 75% of the patients were receiving treatment for leukemia or lymphoma. Among the 39 reports that included information on race, the racial distribution was: 1 Black, 3 Caucasian, and 35 Asian. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that Asian patients may be at increased risk of hyponatremia and/or SIADH associated with vincristine use. Although the overall reported rate of SIADH associated with vincristine is very low, physicians caring for Asian oncology patients should be aware of this potential serious but reversible adverse event.