Comparison of insulin lispro mixture 25/75 with insulin glargine during a 24-h standardized test-meal period in patients with Type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To compare insulin lispro mixture (25% insulin lispro and 75% NPL; Mix 25/75) twice-daily plus oral glucose-lowering medications (metformin and/or sulphonylurea) with once-daily insulin glargine plus oral agents with respect to postprandial glycaemic control and other glucose and lipid parameters in patients with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with insulin and/or oral glucose-lowering agents. METHODS: This was a randomized, open-label, crossover study. Prestudy oral agents were continued and patients not already on oral agents were treated with metformin. Mix 25/75 and insulin glargine were adjusted over 3 months to attain premeal plasma glucose (PG) < 6.0 mmol/l and were then given during a 24-h in-patient test meal period with frequent PG, serum triglyceride (TG) and free fatty acid (FFA) measurements. RESULTS: Twenty patients (10 F/10 M; mean +/-sd age 54.0 +/- 10.7 years, body mass index 37.0 +/- 8.6 kg/m2, HbA1c 8.4 +/- 1.01%) participated. Mean doses were 23 U before the morning and 37 U before the evening meal for Mix 25/75 and 44 U for insulin glargine. The combined 2-h morning and evening meal postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) was not different between groups (9.2 +/- 2.04 vs. 9.9 +/- 1.66 mmol/l, P = 0.161). Mix 25/75 was associated with a lower mean 2-h PPG for all meals combined (9.0 +/- 1.88 vs. 9.9 +/- 1.80 mmol/l, P < 0.05) and lower mean 24-h PG (6.7 +/- 1.00 vs. 7.5 +/- 1.32 mmol/l, P < 0.01). Eight patients experienced mild hypoglycaemia (PG < 3.5 mmol/l) with Mix 25/75 and 3 with insulin glargine. The endpoint HbA1c was lower with Mix 25/75 (6.9 +/- 0.52% vs. 7.3 +/- 0.81%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In a 24-h test-meal setting in 20 patients, Mix 25/75 insulin plus oral glucose-lowering agents was associated with lower mean PPG and 24-h PG, more mild hypoglycaemia and similar TG, FFA and fasting PG concentrations. HbA1c was lower with Mix 75/25 plus oral agents, although it may not have reached steady state due to ongoing dose adjustment.     

Basal-bolus insulin therapy in Type 1 diabetes: comparative study of pre-meal administration of a fixed mixture of insulin lispro (50%) and neutral protamine lispro (50%) with human soluble insulin.

AIMS: To ascertain whether pre-meal administration of 50% insulin lispro and 50% neutral protamine lispro (NPL), given as a fixed mixture (Humalog Mix50, human soluble (regular) insulin as a basal-bolus regimen in people with Type 1 diabetes. Both regimens included bedtime human isophane (NPH) insulin. METHODS: This was a multinational, multicentre, randomized, open-label, two-period crossover comparison of two insulin treatments for two 12-week periods in 109 patients with Type 1 diabetes. The protocol provided preliminary evaluations of dose requirements and recommendations for insulin dose adjustment when switching regimens on the basis of blood glucose (BG) values. Eight-point BG profiles, frequency of hypoglycaemia, HbA1c, insulin dose, time of injection, and frequency of snacking were assessed during each treatment. RESULTS: Total daily insulin dose was similar for both treatments, but the total pre-meal doses were higher (P < 0.001) and the bedtime dose of isophane was lower (P < 0.001) with Mix50. The pre-meal dose before breakfast and lunch, although statistically different (P = 0.006 and P < 0.001, respectively), was of similar magnitude, but the pre-evening meal dose was higher with Mix50 (P < 0.001). Median (interquartile range) time of insulin injection before meals was: Mix50 4.2 (25th percentile = 1.0; 75th percentile = 6.3) min, human soluble insulin 24.6 (25th percentile = 16.6; 75th percentile = 30.0) min. Pre-meal and bedtime BG concentrations did not differ between treatments. The BG 2 h after the evening meal was lower with Mix50 (8.40 +/- 2.95 mmol/l vs. 9.60 +/- 3.47 mmol/l) (P = 0.049). BG after breakfast and lunch, mean HbA1c, frequency of hypoglycaemia, frequency of snacks, and body weight were not different. CONCLUSION: The use of Mix50 in a basal-bolus regimen achieved similar control of pre-meal BG to human soluble insulin, and overall glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia risk were equivalent. This suggests that Mix50 can provide an adequate supply of insulin to control BG between meals while providing the convenience of injecting immediately before meals.     

Insulin lispro (Lys(B28), Pro(B29) in the treatment of diabetes during the fasting month of Ramadan. Ramadan Study Group.

AIMS: To compare insulin lispro with soluble human insulin in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus fasting during Ramadan, with respect to the rate of hypoglycaemic episodes and postprandial blood glucose values after the main meal after sunset. METHODS: The insulins were compared in an open-label, randomized, cross-over study of 70 outpatients. Hypoglycaemic episodes were recorded by the patients in a self-monitoring diary. Fasting, 1-h and 2-h postprandial blood glucose values were recorded by the patient on three consecutive days at the end of each treatment period. RESULTS: The fasting blood glucose values before sunrise (P>0.4) and after sunset (P>0.6) were similar and did not differ significantly between both treatment groups. The rise in blood glucose after the main meal after sunset was 3.0+/-0.4 mmol/l after 1 h in the insulin lispro treatment group compared to 4.3+/-0.4 mmol/l in the soluble insulin treatment group (P<0.01), and 2.6+/-0.4 mmol/l after 2h with insulin lispro compared to 4.0+/-0.5 mmol/l with soluble insulin (P<0.008). Mean hypoglycaemic episodes per patient over 14 days were 1.3+/-0.1 vs. 2.6+/-0.2, P<0.002, respectively, for insulin lispro and soluble insulin. Most hypoglycaemic episodes occurred during the time period from 6 h after the before sunrise meal until breaking the fast after sunset. CONCLUSIONS: The significantly lower rate of hypoglycaemic episodes combined with better control of postprandial blood glucose suggest insulin lispro may be more suitable prandial insulin for patients treated with Type 2 diabetes who fast during Ramadan.     

Therapy after single oral agent failure: adding a second oral agent or an insulin mixture?

AIM: to compare the glycemic response to an insulin lispro mixture (25% insulin lispro and 75% NPL) twice daily plus metformin (Mix25+M) with glibenclamide plus metformin (G+M), in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with a single oral agent. METHODS: 597 patients treated in a randomized, open-label, 16-week parallel study. Variables evaluated: hemoglobin A1C (A1C), patient symptoms, hypoglycemia rate (episodes/patient/30 days), and incidence (% patients experiencing > or =1 episode). For a subset of patients (N=120), fasting, 1-h, and 2-h postprandial plasma glucose (FPG, 1-h ppPG, 2-h ppPG) in response to a standardized test meal (STM) and self-monitored blood glucose (BG) profiles were measured. RESULTS: improved A1C at endpoint for both groups, and A1C changes from baseline to endpoint were not significantly different between treatments (Mix25+M, -1.87+/-1.35% vs. G+M, -1.98+/-1.28%; p=0.288). Among patients completing STM; endpoint 2-h ppPG was significantly lower with Mix25+M (9.05+/-3.32 mmol/l vs. 12.31+/-3.65 mmol/l; p<0.001), as was 2-h ppPG excursion (2-h ppPGex)(0.38+/-3.23 mmol/l vs. 2.88+/-1.98 mmol/l; p<0.001). Percentage of patients achieving postprandial BG targets (<10 mmol/l) at endpoint was significantly greater with Mix25+M (80% vs. 48%; p<0.001). Although, overall hypoglycemia rates were similar, percentage of patients experiencing and rate of nocturnal hypoglycemia was less with Mix25+M (1% vs. 5%; p<0.01, and 0.01 vs. 0.08 episodes/pt/30 d; p=0.007). Patients reported less polyuria with Mix25+M (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: in patients with type 2 diabetes failing on metformin or a sulfonylurea, Mix25+M provided similar overall glycemic control, lower ppPG, reduced nocturnal hypoglycemia, and fewer hyperglycemic symptoms compared to G+M.     

Twice-daily pre-mixed insulin rather than basal insulin therapy alone results in better overall glycaemic control in patients with Type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To compare the glycaemic control of an insulin lispro mixture (25% insulin lispro and 75% NPL) twice daily in combination with metformin to that of once-daily insulin glargine plus metformin in patients with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with intermediate insulin, or insulin plus oral agent(s) combination therapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Ninety-seven patients were randomized in a multicentre, open-label, 32-week crossover study. Primary variables evaluated: haemoglobin A1c (A1c), 2-h post-prandial blood glucose (BG), hypoglycaemia rate (episodes/patient/30 days), incidence (% patients experiencing > or = 1 episode) of overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: At endpoint, A1c was lower with the insulin lispro mixture plus metformin compared with glargine plus metformin (7.54% +/- 0.87% vs. 8.14% +/- 1.03%, P < 0.001). Change in A1c from baseline to endpoint was greater with the insulin lispro mixture plus metformin (-1.00% vs. -0.42%; P < 0.001). Two-hour post-prandial BG was lower after morning, midday, and evening meals (P < 0.001) during treatment with the insulin lispro mixture plus metformin. The fasting BG values were lower with glargine plus metformin (P = 0.007). Despite lower BG at 03.00 hours (P < 0.01), patients treated with the insulin lispro mixture plus metformin had a lower rate of nocturnal hypoglycaemia (0.14 +/- 0.49 vs. 0.34 +/- 0.85 episodes/patient/30 days; P = 0.002), although the overall hypoglycaemia rate was not different between treatments (0.61 +/- 1.41 vs. 0.44 +/- 1.07 episodes/patient/30 days; P = 0.477). CONCLUSION: In patients with Type 2 diabetes and inadequate glucose control while on insulin or insulin and oral agent(s) combination therapy, treatment with a twice-daily insulin lispro mixture plus metformin, which targets both post-prandial and pre-meal BG, provided clinically significant improvements in A1c, significantly reduced post-prandial BG after each meal, and reduced nocturnal hypoglycaemia as compared with once-daily glargine plus metformin, a treatment that targets fasting BG.     

Importance of premeal injection time in insulin therapy: Humalog Mix25 is convenient for improved post-prandial glycemic control in type 2 diabetic patients with Italian dietary habits

Abstract. We investigated the use, in a short period, of Humalog Mix25 (Mix25) in a twice-daily administration regimen compared to a twice-daily injection therapy with Humulin 30/70 (30/70) in diabetic patients with Italian dietary habits. We studied 33 type 2 diabetic patients aged 59.1±8.1 years, BMI 29.8±2.7 kg/m², duration of diabetes and insulin therapy of 14.4±9.8 and 4.2±4.6 years, respectively. After a 4-day leadin period of twice-daily human insulin 30/70 treatment, patients were randomized to one of two treatment sequences: (1) a twice-daily regimen with Mix25 just 5 minutes before the morning and evening meals for 12 days, followed by a twicedaily therapy with human insulin 30/70 given 30 minutes before the morning and evening meals for an additional 12 days; or (2) the alternate sequence. Each patient underwent a mixed meal test: Humulin 30/70 was administered 30 minutes before the meal, while Mix25 was given 5 minutes before. The 2-hour post-prandial glucose concentration after breakfast was significantly lower during treatment with Mix25 than with Humulin 30/70 (157±43.2 vs. 180±43.2 mg/dl, p<0.05). The glycemic excursion after dinner on Mix25 treatment was significantly lower than with Humulin 30/70 (12.2±48.01 vs. 35.5±36.92 mg/dl, p<0.05). AUC_glucose after Mix25 was lower than after Humulin 30/70. Glycemia after test meal was significantly lower with Mix25 than with Humulin 30/70. Insulin and free insulin concentrations after the test meal were significantly higher with Mix25 in comparison to Humulin 30/70. AUC serum insulin and free insulin curves after Mix25 were significantly higher than after Humulin 30/70 (p=0.028 and p=0.005, respectively). Twice-daily injections of Humalog Mix25, compared to human insulin 30/70 in type 2 diabetic patients with Italian dietary habits, provide improved and lasting post-prandial glycemic control, with the great convenience of the injection just before the meal.     

Better glycaemic control with BioChaperone glargine lispro co-formulation than with insulin lispro Mix25 or separate glargine and lispro administrations after a test meal in people with type 2 diabetes

Because of its physico-chemical properties, insulin glargine is usually not mixable with rapid insulins. BioChaperone BC147 is a polyanionic amphiphilic polymer, solubilizing insulin glargine at neutral pH, and thus enabling stable glargine formulation with fast-acting insulin lispro (BioChaperone glargine lispro co-formulation [BC Combo]). We investigated pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints and postprandial glucose (PPG) control after administration of BC Combo (75% insulin glargine, 25% insulin lispro), insulin lispro Mix25 (LMix) and separate injections of insulins glargine (75% total dose) and lispro (25% total dose [G + L]) immediately before ingestion of a mixed meal in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), using a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy crossover study design. Participants received individualized bolus doses (mean 0.62 U/kg) of BC Combo, LMix or G + L, together with a solid mixed meal (610 kcal, 50% carbohydrate, 30% fat, 20% protein). Insulin dosages were kept constant for each study day. Thirty-nine participants with T2DM (mean ± SD age and glycated haemoglobin 60.8 ± 7.5 years and 64 ± 6 mmol/mol, respectively) were randomized. BC Combo improved the predefined primary endpoint, early PPG control, compared to LMix (incremental area under the blood glucose concentration–time curve from 0 to 2 hours after the meal [ΔAUC_BG,0–2h] reduction of 18%; P = 0.0009) and G + L (ΔAUC_BG,0–2h reduction of 10%; P = 0.0450). The number of mealtime hypoglycaemic episodes per participant was lower with BC Combo (22 episodes in 14 participants) compared to LMix (43 episodes in 20 participants; P = 0.0028), but not significantly different from G + L (28 episodes in 19 participants; P = 0.2523). BC Combo demonstrated superior early PPG control with fewer hypoglycaemic episodes compared to LMix and superior early PPG control compared to separate G + L administrations.     

A 75% insulin lispro/25% NPL mixture provides a longer duration of insulin activity compared with insulin lispro alone in patients with Type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: To compare a new insulin formulation, high mix (HM) [75% lispro (LP) and 25% neutral protamine lispro (NPL)], to regular human insulin (HR) and LP with respect to glucose response and pharmacokinetics following a test meal in patients with Type 1 diabetes. METHODS: After fasting overnight, patients received an intravenous insulin infusion to standardize blood glucose (BG) to 7.5 mmol/l (135 mg/dl). In a randomised, three-way crossover study, HR was injected 30 min before, and LP or HM was injected immediately before the test meal on three separate occasions. For each patient, LP and HR were administered at identical doses; the HM dose was one and one third times that of HR and LP to maintain the same dose of short or rapid-acting insulin. The insulin infusion was stopped 15 min after the insulin injection. Free insulin and BG concentrations were measured frequently for 7 h following the test meal. RESULTS: HM and LP resulted in better glycaemic control than HR during the observation period. BG concentrations during the first 4-5 h did not differ between HM and LP. However, HM exhibited prolonged insulin activity relative to LP beyond 5 h, extending the duration of action by approximately 1 h, and resulting in lower overall BG concentrations when the 0-6- and 0-7-h intervals were considered. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with LP, HM provided similar glycaemic control for up to 5 h and superior glycaemic control from 5 to 7 h following a standard test meal.     

A comparison of insulin lispro and buffered regular human insulin administered via continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump

This study compared glycemic control achieved with insulin lispro or buffered regular human insulin in patients with Type 1 diabetes treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) using an external insulin pump. In this 24-week multicenter, randomized, two-way crossover, open-label trial, 58 patients on CSII with adequate glycemic control received either insulin lispro or buffered regular human insulin for 12 weeks, followed by the alternate treatment for another 12 weeks. Efficacy and safety measures included hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) at baseline and endpoint, home blood glucose monitoring, hypoglycemia, and frequency of pump catheter occlusion. Patients consumed a standard test meal on three occasions, with determinations of fasting, 1- and 2-h postprandial glucose values. Insulin lispro use was associated with a significantly lower HbA_1c than was buffered regular human insulin (7.41±0.97 vs. 7.65±0.85 mmol/l; P=.004). Fasting serum glucose values before the test meal were similar between the two therapies. The 1-h (11.16±4.29 vs. 13.20±4.68 mmol/l; P=.012) and 2-h (9.64±4.10 vs. 12.53±4.64 mmol/l; P=.001) postprandial glucose concentrations were significantly lower during treatment with insulin lispro. No differences between treatments were observed in basal or bolus insulin doses, weight gain, or the incidence and rate of hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, or pump occlusions. When used in external pumps, insulin lispro provides better glycemic control than buffered regular human insulin with a similar adverse event profile.     

Prandial insulin substitution with insulin lispro or insulin lispro mid mixture vs. basal therapy with insulin glargine: a randomized controlled trial in patients with type 2 diabetes beginning insulin therapy

PURPOSE: To compare the effects of prandial insulin therapy focusing on postprandial glucose control vs. basal insulin therapy focusing on fasting glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This was an open-label, randomized, parallel, three-arm multicenter trial in patients with type 2 diabetes starting insulin treatment. Patients (n=159) were randomly assigned to 24-week treatment with 3x daily insulin lispro, 3x daily lispro mid mixture (MidMix; 50% lispro, 50% protaminated lispro), or 1x daily insulin glargine; oral antihyperglycemic agents were discontinued. Primary end point was the postprandial glucose excursion 2 h after breakfast at the end of study. Secondary outcomes included HbA1c, self-monitored blood glucose profiles, hypoglycemic episodes, body weight, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: At the end of study, glucose excursions 2 h after breakfast were significantly lower with lispro and MidMix than with glargine (P<.001 for each vs. glargine): lispro, -0.6+/-2.0 mmol/l; MidMix, +0.8+/-2.4 mmol/l; glargine, +2.5+/-2.4 mmol/l. Fasting glucose decreases were significantly greater with glargine (-2.6+/-2.4 mmol/l) than with lispro or MidMix (-0.9+/-2.2 mmol/l; +0.9+/-1.8 mmol/l). Nevertheless, HbA1c decreased by 1.1% (lispro) and 1.2% (MidMix), vs. 0.3% with glargine. Hypoglycemic episodes were rare with 1-1.5 self-reported episodes per 100 patient-days. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes starting insulin, 3x daily prandial treatment with a rapid-acting analog focusing on postprandial glucose values enabled better control of postprandial and circadian blood glucose profiles than once-daily glargine, in spite suboptimal fasting glucose levels, which targets fasting glucose values. These results support studies suggesting that control of postprandial hyperglycemia plays a key role in achieving HbA1c targets.     

Humalog Mix25 offers better mealtime glycemic control in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes

To compare the postprandial glucodynamics of Humalog Mix25, (Humalog Mix75/25 in the US; Mix25), to human insulin 30/70 (Humulin 70/30 in the US; 30/70) in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Ninety-three patients with type 1 diabetes and 84 patients with type 2 diabetes were evaluated in two separate but identical protocols using a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, crossover design. Patients consumed test meals 5 minutes after equal doses of Mix25 or 30/70. Plasma glucose was measured at baseline and 15 minute intervals for 4 hours after the meal. Two-hour postprandial glucose (2pp), 2-hour glucose excursion (2pp(ex) ), glucose versus time area under the curve 0 to 4 hours (AUC(0-4) ) and glucose excursion area under the curve 0 to 2 and 0 to 4 hours (AUCex(0-2), AUCex(0-4) ) were calculated. For the combined patient population, Mix25 resulted in significantly lower 2pp (12.45 +/- 3.59 vs. 13.47 +/- 3.62 mmol/L; p <0.001), AUC(0-4) (44.45 +/- 12.20 vs. 47.25 +/- 11.97 mmol x h/L; p <0.001), and glucose excursion parameters: 2pp(ex) (3.20 +/- 2.72 vs. 4.40 +/- 2.81 mmol/L; p <0.001), AUCex(0-2) (5.45 +/- 3.15 vs 6.60 +/- 3.13 mmol x h/L; p <0.001), and AUCex(0-4) (7.57 +/- 8.37 vs. 11.02 +/- 8.47 mmol x h/L; p <0.001) compared to 30/70. Further analysis of the treatment by type of diabetes indicated that Mix25 provided nearly identical glucose excursion responses in type 1 and type 2 diabetes up to 2 hours after the test meal, in contrast to 30/70. Pre-meal injection of Mix25 resulted in lower postprandial blood glucose levels compared to 30/70. The postprandial blood glucose response following Mix25 was similar in patients with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes.     

Insulin lispro: a potential role in preventing nocturnal hypoglycaemia in young children with diabetes mellitus.

AIMS: The long duration of action of soluble insulin given in the evening could contribute to the high prevalence of nocturnal hypoglycaemia seen in young children with Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). We examined whether replacing soluble insulin with insulin lispro reduced this risk in children on a three times daily insulin regimen. METHODS: Open crossover study comparing insulin lispro vs. soluble insulin in 23 (16 boys) prepubertal children (age 7-11 years) with T1DM on three injections/day; long-acting isophane insulin remained identical. At the end of each 4-month treatment arm, an overnight 15-min venous sampled blood glucose profile was performed. RESULTS: Despite similar blood glucose levels pre-evening meal (lispro vs. soluble: mean +/- se 6.5 +/- 1.0 vs. 7.1 +/- 1.1 mmol/l, P = 0.5), post-meal (18.00-22.00 h) blood glucose levels were lower on insulin lispro (area under curve 138 +/- 12 vs. 170 +/- 13 mmol min-1 l-1, P = 0.03). In contrast, in the early night (22.00-04.00 h) the prevalence of low blood glucose levels (< 3.5 mmol/l) was lower on lispro (8% of blood glucose levels) than on soluble insulin (13%, P = 0.01). In the early morning (04.00-07.00 h) mean blood glucose and prevalence of low levels were no different between the two treatment groups, and fasting (07.00 h) blood glucose levels were similar (6.1 +/- 0.8 vs. 6.3 +/- 0.9 mmol/l, P = 0.8). At the end of each treatment arm there were no differences in HbA1c (lispro vs. soluble 8.6% vs. 8.4%, P = 0.3), or in insulin doses (mean, range 0.97, 0.68-1.26 vs. 0.96, 0.53-1.22 U/kg per day, P = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: The shorter duration of action of insulin lispro given before the evening meal may reduce the prevalence of early nocturnal hypoglycaemia without compromising HbA1c in young children with T1DM.     

Better long-term glycaemic control with the basal insulin glargine as compared with NPH in patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus given meal-time lispro insulin.

BACKGROUND: Glargine is a long-acting insulin analogue potentially more suitable than NPH insulin in intensive treatment of Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1 DM), but no study has proven superiority. The aim of this study was to test superiority of glargine on long-term blood glucose (BG) as well as on responses to hypoglycaemia vs. NPH. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-one patients with T1 DM on intensive therapy on four times/day NPH and lispro insulin at each meal, were randomized to either continuation of NPH four times/day (n = 60), or once daily glargine at dinner-time (n = 61) for 1 year. Lispro insulin at meal-time was continued in both groups. In 11 patients from each group, responses to stepped hyperinsulinaemic-hypoglycaemia were measured before and after 1 year's treatment. RESULTS: Mean daily BG was lower with glargine [7.6 +/- 0.11 mmol/l (137 +/- 2 mg/dl)] vs. NPH [8.1 +/- 0.22 mmol/l (146 +/- 4 mg/dl)] (P < 0.05). HbA(1c) at 4 months did not change with NPH, but decreased with glargine (from 7.1 +/- 0.1 to 6.7 +/- 0.1%), and remained lower than NPH at 12 months (6.6 +/- 0.1%, P < 0.05 vs. NPH). Frequency of mild hypoglycaemia [self-assisted episodes, blood glucose < or = 4.0 mmol/l (72 mg/dl)] was lower with glargine vs. NPH (7.2 +/- 0.5 and 13.2 +/- 0.6 episodes/patient-month, P < 0.05). After 1 year, NPH treatment resulted in no change of responses to hypoglycaemia, whereas with glargine plasma glucose, thresholds and maximal responses of plasma adrenaline and symptoms to hypoglycaemia improved (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The simpler glargine regimen decreases the percentage of HbA(1c) and frequency of hypoglycaemia and improves responses to hypoglycaemia more than NPH. Thus, glargine appears more suitable than NPH as basal insulin for intensive treatment of T1 DM.     

Improved blood glucose variability, HbA1c insuman Infusat and less insulin requirement in IDDM patients using insulin lispro in CSII. The Swedish Multicenter Lispro Insulin Study

The aim of the study was to compare lispro (LP) and Insuman(R) (I) insulin in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy with respect to blood glucose control as expressed by the standard deviation of blood glucose (SD(BG) ) and HbA(1c) and to monitor the well-being (WBQ) and treatment satisfaction (DTSQ) parameters during such treatment. Forty-one IDDM patients who had used CSII for at least 6 months participated in an open-label, randomized, cross-over, multicenter study for 4 months (2 months LP and 2 months I or vice versa). Boluses with LP were given 5 min before each meal and with I 30 min before each meal. During LP administration compared with I, the SD(BG) of all blood glucose values (3.6 mmol/l vs. 3.9 mmol/l, p=0.012), as well as the SD(BG) of the postprandial, blood glucose values (3.6 mmol/l vs. 4.0 mmol/l, p=0.006), were significantly reduced. The HbA(1c) was significantly lower during LP administration (7.4% vs. 7.6%, p=0.047). The incidence of hypoglycemic events per 30 days (capillary blood glucose<3.0 mmol/l and/or symptoms) did not significantly differ between LP and I (9.7 vs. 8.0 per month, p=0.23). The total amount of daily insulin was slightly but significantly lower with LP, compared to I (38.0 IU vs. 40.3 IU, p=0.004). There was no treatment effects of LP compared to I concerning WBQ and DTSQ. It is concluded that in CSII therapy LP is superior to I with respect to the stability of blood glucose control, a lower HbA(1c), a less insulin requirement without increasing the frequency of hypoglycemia.     

Treatment with insulin lispro changes the insulin profile but does not affect the plasma concentrations of IGF-I and IGFBP-1 in type 1 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: IGF-I levels in patients with type 1 diabetes without endogenous insulin production are low. Our aim was to examine whether the plasma insulin profile obtained by treatment with the insulin analogue lispro has a different effect on plasma concentrations of IGF-I and IGFBP-1 than that seen during treatment with conventional human insulin (regular insulin). DESIGN AND PATIENTS: Twelve patients with type 1 diabetes, age 47.8 +/- 2.4 years (mean +/- SEM), body mass index 26.5 +/- 1.0 kg/m2, diabetes duration 30.5 +/- 3.2 years participated in this open label randomized cross-over study. IGF-I and IGFBP-1 levels were measured at the end of 6 weeks treatment with each insulin being administered by a continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. IGF-I was measured fasting while IGFBP-1, free insulin and blood glucose were measured fasting and repeatedly after a morning meal preceded by an insulin bolus dose. RESULTS: Lispro gave a marked insulin peak of 135 +/- 20 pmol/l 50 minutes after injection. After an initial rapid rise, human regular insulin reached a plateau of approximately 50 pmol/l. The plasma free insulin area under the curve (AUC) from 0710 h to 0910 h was more than twice as large on lispro as on regular insulin (P = 0.01). Plasma IGF-I concentration was 78.8 +/- 10.9 microg/l on lispro and 82.3 +/- 10.5 microg/l on human regular insulin (not significant). AUC for IGFBP-1 did not show a significant difference even when divided from 0710 h to 0910 h and from 0930 h to 1430 h. Blood glucose AUC after administration of the bolus was significantly lower during treatment with lispro (P = 0.006) but glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was 6.4 +/- 0.2% on both therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that the effect of lispro on IGF-I and IGFBP-1 in patients with type 1 diabetes does not differ from that of human regular insulin.     

Efficacy and safety of insulin glulisine in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus

Aim: The rapid‐acting insulin analogue insulin glulisine (glulisine) was compared with insulin lispro (lispro) for efficacy and safety in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), using insulin glargine (glargine) as basal insulin. Methods: This was an open, randomized, parallel‐group, comparative non‐inferiority study. The primary efficacy measure was change in adjusted mean haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to endpoint. Safety and treatment satisfaction using the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) were also assessed. Patients were treated for 28 weeks with either glulisine or lispro administered 0–15 min before a meal. Doses were titrated to obtain 2‐h postprandial plasma glucose (2h‐PPG) of 7.11–9.55 mmol/l (128–172 mg/dl). All patients were concomitantly treated with glargine at bedtime, titrated to obtain a fasting (prebreakfast) plasma glucose level of 5.27–7.11 mmol/l (95–128 mg/dl). Results: Baseline mean HbA1c values were similar for the glulisine (n = 132) and lispro (n = 135) groups (7.44 and 7.50% respectively). From baseline to endpoint, adjusted mean HbA1c increased by 0.10% in the glulisine group and by 0.04% in the lispro group. Non‐inferiority of glulisine compared with lispro was shown. There were no significant differences between glulisine and lispro in adjusted mean 2h‐PPG [glulisine, 9.06 mmol/l (163 mg/dl) vs. lispro, 8.13 mmol/l (146 mg/dl); p = 0.065] and change in adjusted mean daily rapid‐acting insulin dose (glulisine, 0.26 U vs. lispro, 0.26 U; p = 0.994) at study endpoint. There was a significant difference for change in adjusted mean daily basal insulin dose from baseline to study endpoint (glulisine, –0.54 U vs. lispro, 0.26 U; p = 0.013). The most common serious adverse events were hypoglycaemia‐related events (hypoglycaemia, hypoglycaemic seizure and hypoglycaemic coma) with no difference observed between the two groups [glulisine, 6.8% (9/132) vs. lispro, 4.4% (6/135); p = 0.437]. No noteworthy differences were observed for change in insulin antibodies from baseline to endpoint. Assessment of treatment satisfaction score and perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia by DTSQ showed no changes from baseline in either group. Conclusions: Glulisine was as effective as lispro with respect to change in HbA1c and was well tolerated when used in combination with glargine in Japanese patients with T1DM.     

Efficacy of Humalog injections before an afternoon meal and their acceptance by children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: To evaluate the acceptability and efficacy of an injection of insulin lispro, before an afternoon meal. METHODS: The subjects, 43 patients with Type 1 diabetes, 16 boys and 27 girls, aged 12.4 +/- 2.4 years, were randomly assigned to the treatment (n = 20) or the untreated control group (n = 23). The treatment was an injection of insulin lispro immediately before the afternoon meal. The control group had no injection. The treatment and the control group consumed identical types of meals for 2 months. The mean before-dinner blood glucose was measured during the last 2 weeks of the study. RESULTS: Injection of insulin lispro resulted in a significant reduction in the before-dinner blood glucose compared with the untreated control group (10.4 +/- 3.8 mmol/l vs. 14.7 +/- 3.9 mmol/l, respectively). The number of days on which the blood glucose was > 10 mmol/l was reduced by half in the insulin lispro group. The difference in HbA1c between baseline and endpoint differed slightly but significantly between the two groups, in boys. Treated patients ate the meal less frequently (11.4 +/- 3.0 times per 15 days) than the control patients (14.4 +/- 0.6 times per 15 days) and injected themselves with insulin 8.9 +/- 3.6 times per 15 days. The HbA1c increased significantly with the number of meals taken without injection. There was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of hypoglycaemia or changes in weight between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that an injection of insulin lispro before the afternoon meal can effectively lower the before-dinner blood glucose, and in boys also lowers the HbA1c. Patients were satisfied with the lower blood glucose before dinner, and did not find the insulin lispro injection difficult. However, compliance with the protocol procedures decreased during a subsequent 6-month period.     

Preprandial vs. postprandial insulin lispro-a comparative crossover trial in patients with Type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: Administration of bolus insulin after eating may be a useful therapeutic option for some patients. This 6-month, crossover study compared metabolic effects of routine use of preprandial vs. postprandial injection of bolus insulin lispro. METHODS: Thirty-one patients with Type 1 diabetes injected insulin lispro either preprandially or postprandially for a 3-month period followed by the alternate regimen for a further 3 months. HbA1c, fructosamine and eight-point self-determined blood glucose profiles were measured and analysed using an anova model appropriate for a crossover design. RESULTS: Mean HbA1c decreased slightly from baseline with preprandial (-0.15 +/- 0.41%) and increased slightly with postprandial (0.11 +/- 0.48%) insulin lispro so that there was a significant (P = 0.008) difference between treatments in final HbA1c level. Mean fructosamine also decreased slightly with preprandial (-15 +/- 31 micro mol/l) but was almost unchanged (1 +/- 39 micro mol/l) with postprandial insulin lispro. Overall daily blood glucose was not different (P = 0.312) for preprandial compared with postprandial administration. However, mean preprandial glucose was lower (7.5 +/- 2.01 vs. 6.6 +/- 1.22 mmol/l; P = 0.026), whereas mean postprandial glucose was higher (7.7 +/- 1.8 vs. 8.7 +/- 2.1 mmol/l; P = 0.031) with postprandial insulin lispro administration. Mean blood glucose excursions were higher with postprandial compared with preprandial insulin lispro, indicating greater daily fluctuations. No difference in incidence of hypoglycaemia was observed with the two treatment regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Postprandial insulin lispro administration appeared to be an acceptable treatment regimen and may be of benefit in certain situations. However, the benefits of postprandial administration may have to be balanced against poorer glycaemic control with continuous long-term use.     

Biphasic insulin aspart compared to biphasic human insulin reduces postprandial hyperlipidemia in patients with Type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Premixed insulin analogues reduce postprandial hyperglycemia in patients with Type 2 diabetes in comparison to premixed regular insulin. Insulin also plays an important role in the regulation of postprandial lipid metabolism. It is known that increased levels of postprandial insulin reduce postprandial hyperlipemia but, on the other hand, no information exists with regard to the possible effect of insulin analogues in comparison to human insulin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 12 subjects (3 men; age 59 +/- 5 years; BMI 30.5 +/- 5.9 kg/m2, duration of diabetes 9 +/- 1 years, HbA1c 8.33 +/- 1.1 %) already on therapy with premixed insulin were treated either with biphasic human insulin (BHI30) or with biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp30) (1.3 IU fast acting insulin/12 g KH) in the setting of a standardized test meal. Serum levels of glucose, insulin, C-peptide and triglycerides as well as retinylpalmitate in plasma and chylomicron remnants were determined before and up to 8 hours after the meal. RESULTS: As was to be expected, therapy with BIAsp30 reduced the maximum increase of postprandial glucose from 7.10 +/- 2.00 mmol/l to 5.27 +/- 1.83 mmo/l (p = 0.007) compared to BHI30 insulin. In the same way, the maximum increase of triglycerides (from 2.33 +/- 1.03 to 1.65 +/- 0.69 mmol/l, p = 0.014) was reduced. The AUC 0 - 8 for triglycerides was not significantly influenced (34.20 +/- 19.86 vs. 31.46 +/- 16.21 mmol x 8 h/l) but the incremental area over baseline (AOB 0 - 8) was significantly reduced from 8.02 +/- 4.35 to 6.12 +/- 3.94 mmol x 8 h/l (p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to conventional human premixed insulin the prandial therapy with biphasic insulin aspart results not only in an improvement of glucose tolerance but also in a significant reduction of postprandial hyperlipemia.     

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus injection therapy: a randomized cross-over trial under usual diabetic clinic conditions

Twelve C-peptide negative insulin-dependent diabetic patients participated in a randomized cross-over study of 6 months treatment with twice or thrice daily insulin injection therapy and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). Standard, non-intensified management conditions were maintained throughout. Glycosylated haemoglobin levels were similar on both regimens (9.2 +/- 0.5% versus 9.0 +/- 0.4%; CSII vs injection therapy; (mean +/- SEM). Capillary blood glucose concentrations before breakfast (5.2 +/- 0.4 mmol/l vs 9.1 +/- 0.8 mmol/l), after lunch (6.5 mmol/l +/- 0.8 vs 7.9 +/- 1.0 mmol/l) and before the evening meal (5.0 +/- 0.7 mmol/l vs 7.7 +/- 0.7 mmol/l) were lower on CSII, as were 24-hour urine glucose excretion and total insulin dose (39.3 +/- 2.2 vs 49.8 +/- 4.0 U/day). There was a significant positive correlation between fasting blood glucose values and glycosylated haemoglobin on injection but not pump treatment. Thus although blood glucose control at some individual daytime points appeared lower on CSII, overall diabetic control was similar on the two regimens.