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.     

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.     

Preprandial combination of lispro and NPH insulin improves overall blood glucose control in type 1 diabetic patients: a multicenter randomized crossover trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM: While lispro insulin has been reported to lower postprandial blood glucose concentrations, less consistent effects have been shown for glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. Aim of this study was to determine whether pre-meal association of NPH, an intermediate-acting insulin, with lispro improves overall glycemic control in type 1 diabetic patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Eighty-five type 1 diabetic patients were studied in a multicenter randomized comparative (human regular vs lispro insulin) crossover (3-month) study in which NPH insulin was given as a dinner or bedtime injection and at breakfast and lunch if necessary. The number of injections was kept constant: 42% and 58% of patients injected insulin 3 and 4 times per day, respectively. Fasting and preprandial blood glucose levels were similar, while postprandial levels improved after lispro compared to human regular insulin (breakfast: 8.28 +/- 2.39 vs 9.28 +/- 2.72 mmol/l; lunch: 8.33 +/- 2.67 vs 9.06 +/- 2.67 mmol/l, dinner: 8.06 +/- 2.72 vs 9.28 +/- 2.44 mmol/l, ANOVA: p = 0.003). HbA1c also improved after lispro: 8.1 +/- 0.9 vs 8.3 +/- 0.8%, p < 0.05. The rate of hypoglycemia was similar. Patients showed better acceptance of lispro treatment (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Lispro improves overall blood glucose control in type 1 diabetic patients without increasing the incidence of hypoglycemia. This can be achieved by an optimal combination of lispro insulin with NPH whenever the time intervals between meals are too long.     

A comparison of insulin lispro Mix25 and human insulin 30/70 in the treatment of type 2 diabetes during Ramadan

OBJECTIVE: To compare insulin lispro Mix25 and human insulin 30/70 with regard to their effect on morning and evening postprandial glucose (PPG) control, and on average daily blood-glucose (BG), in patients with Type 2 diabetes who wish to fast during Ramadan. METHOD: Insulin lispro Mix25 and human insulin 30/70 were compared in an open-label, multicenter, randomised, crossover study involving 151 patients. Each treatment period had a duration of 14 days during which the patients self-monitored their BG before and 2 h after the main meals on any 3 days within the last 5 days of each treatment period. RESULTS: The 2 h PPG excursion following the main evening meal after sunset was significantly lower with insulin lispro Mix25 (3.4+/-2.9 mmol/l) compared with human insulin 30/70 (4.0+/-3.2 mmol/l, P=0.007). The evening pre-meal fasting BG values were also lower with insulin lispro Mix25 (7.1+/-2.2 mmol/l) versus human insulin 30/70 (7.5+/-2.6 mmol/l, P=0.034). The average daily BG concentration was 9.5+/-2.4 mmol/l during treatment with insulin lispro Mix25 versus 10.1+/-2.5 mmol/l with human insulin 30/70 given in identical doses (P=0.004). CONCLUSION: When compared with human insulin 30/70, treatment of insulin-requiring Type 2 patients with insulin lispro Mix25 during Ramadan resulted in better average daily glycaemia, and better BG control before and after the evening meal. Insulin lispro Mix25 should be considered as a therapeutic option during Ramadan.     

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.     

What is the role of between meal snacks with intensive basal bolus regimens using preprandial lispro?

AIMS: Hypoglycaemia avoidance for patients on intensive insulin regimens requires the eating of snacks between meals. Insulin lispro with its shorter action profile may permit omitting such snacks. METHODS: Ten Type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM) patients were rendered euglycaemic with a morning intravenous insulin infusion. Each was studied on six afternoons in random order, with previously determined equal doses of Humulin S (HS) injected at -30min, or lispro injected at 0 min before a standard lunch. The snack was either eaten mid-afternoon, combined with the lunch or omitted altogether. RESULTS: Lispro and lunch with a snack combined at 0 min gave equal control to HS at -30 min and lunch at 0 min with a mid-afternoon snack. Lispro and lunch at 0 min with a mid-afternoon snack gave a lower early postprandial glucose. At 120 min glucose (mean mmol/l +/- SEM) were 7.4+/-0.8 vs. 7.0+/-1.0 (P = 1.0) and 3.9+/-0.5 (P = 0.045), respectively. The area under the insulin curve over the whole afternoon was similar for HS and lispro (13193.3+/-974.6 vs. 13193.6+/-809.9 mIU/min, P = 1.0) but with a greater peak for lispro than HS with lispro falling more rapidly. Despite significantly lower lispro levels after 180 min, intermediary metabolites concentrations were similar in all HS and lispro study days. CONCLUSIONS: Lispro injected immediately before combined snack and lunch and with no subsequent snack achieves equivalent control to conventional regimens using HS -30 min before lunch and mid-afternoon snack. Lispro taken with traditional meal patterns without dose reduction risks early postprandial hypoglycaemia and late hyperglycaemia.     

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.     

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.     

Insulin glargine in combination with nateglinide in people with Type 2 diabetes: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of adding nateglinide to therapy with insulin glargine in adults with Type 2 diabetes previously treated with insulin and with poor blood glucose control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this 16-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, people with Type 2 diabetes [n = 55, HbA(1c) 8.2 +/- 1.0 (+/- sd)%, duration of diabetes 12.8 +/- 6.0 years, duration of insulin treatment 6.0 +/- 4.0 years] were transferred to single bedtime injection of insulin glargine for a titration period of 4 weeks, and then randomized to nateglinide or matching placebo before meals in addition to insulin glargine. Metformin was continued if taken. Doses of insulin and oral medication were titrated to protocol for the treatment period of 12 weeks. RESULTS: Baseline-adjusted self-monitored capillary blood glucose concentration at 12 weeks was significantly lower with nateglinide + insulin glargine compared with placebo + insulin glargine after breakfast [difference -2.3 (95% confidence interval -4.4, -0.2) mmol/l, P = 0.030], before lunch [-2.5 (-4.6, -0.3) mmol/l, P = 0.029], and after lunch [-2.3 (-4.3, -0.4) mmol/l, P = 0.021], but not at other times. Baseline-adjusted HbA(1c) was not lower with nateglinide + insulin glargine as compared with placebo + insulin glargine [7.8 +/- 1.4 vs. 8.3 +/- 1.0%, difference -0.43 (-0.98, 0.12)%]. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of nateglinide before meals to once-daily insulin glargine in people with long-standing diabetes already requiring insulin therapy improves blood glucose control in the early part of the day after breakfast and lunch, but does not provide good control of blood glucose levels overall.     

Optimal timing of injection of once-daily insulin glargine in people with Type 1 diabetes using insulin lispro at meal-times.

AIMS: To compare blood glucose control when insulin glargine is given at lunch-time, dinner-time, and bed-time in people with Type 1 diabetes using insulin lispro at meal-times. METHODS: In this 16-week, three-way, cross-over study, 23 people with Type 1 diabetes were randomized to insulin glargine injection at lunch-time (L) [mean 12.37 +/- 00.34 (+/- sd) h], dinner-time (D) (18.12 +/- 00.40 h), or bed-time (B) (22.29 +/- 00.40 h), each plus meal-time insulin lispro. Each 4-week treatment period concluded with a 24-h inpatient metabolic profile. RESULTS: Insulin doses, HbA(1c), and fructosamine concentration did not differ between treatment periods. Pre-breakfast self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) concentration was higher with injection of glargine at lunch-time than at other times [L: 9.2 +/- 0.3 (+/- se) vs. D: 8.2 +/- 0.3 or B: 8.0 +/- 0.3 mmol/l, P = 0.016], as probably was pre-lunch SMBG (L: 8.6 +/- 0.7 vs. D: 6.4 +/- 0.7 or B: 6.4 +/- 0.8 mmol/l, P = 0.051). Pre-dinner SMBG level was higher with dinner-time glargine than other injection times (D: 9.4 +/- 0.9 vs. L: 4.9 +/- 0.9 or B: 7.4 +/- 1.1 mmol/l, P = 0.007). For 22.00 to 02.00 h, mean inpatient plasma glucose concentration was higher with injection of glargine at bed-time than other times (B: 9.1 +/- 0.6 vs. L: 7.8 +/- 0.6 or D: 6.7 +/- 0.6 mmol/l, P = 0.023). Plasma free insulin concentration was lower at the end of the afternoon with dinner-time glargine than other injection times (D: 11.5 +/- 1.4 vs. L: 20.2 +/- 1.3 or B: 16.5 +/- 1.3 mU/l, P < 0.001). Frequency of hypoglycaemia was not different, but timing of hypoglycaemia differed between treatment periods. CONCLUSIONS: Blood glucose levels rise around the time of injection of insulin glargine whether given at lunch-time, dinner-time or bed-time. Bed-time injection leads to hyperglycaemia in the early part of the night which is improved by giving insulin glargine at lunch-time or dinner-time.     

A comparison of mealtime insulin aspart and human insulin in combination with metformin in type 2 diabetes patients

This randomized, open-label, cross-over study compares the efficacy of mealtime rapid-acting analog insulin aspart with human insulin, in combination with metformin. A total of 30 patients with type 2 diabetes, inadequately controlled (HbA(1c)>7.5%) with oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs), were assigned to human insulin 30 min before meals or aspart immediately before meals, both with metformin 500 mg t.i.d. for 90 days. Patients then switched to the alternate insulin. At 90 and 180 days, blood glucose and lipids were measured at baseline and every 30 min after test meals, for 3h. HbA(1c) and hypoglycemic events were also assessed. After 3 months, HbA(1c) was significantly reduced with aspart, but not human insulin (-0.4+/-0.7% versus +0.1+/-0.7%, p<0.05). During meal tests, blood glucose area under the curve (AUC) was significantly lower with aspart than human insulin (1240+/-476 min/mmol/l versus 1588+/-766 min/mmol/l, p<0.01). AUCs for lipids were similar for both treatments. Neither group experienced serious hypoglycemic events. These results encourage treatment with mealtime insulin aspart plus metformin, in type 2 diabetes patients with postprandial hyperglycemia inadequately controlled by OHAs alone.     

Efficacy, safety and lack of immunogenicity of insulin aspart compared with regular human insulin for women with gestational diabetes mellitus.

AIM: The efficacy and safety of insulin aspart (IAsp), a rapid-acting human insulin analogue, were compared with regular human insulin (HI) as the bolus component of basal-bolus therapy for subjects with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). METHODS: In a randomized, parallel-group, open-labelled trial, 27 women with GDM (age 30.7 +/- 6.3 years, HbA(1c) < 7%) were randomized to receive IAsp (5 min before meal) or HI (30 min before meal). The trial period extended from diagnosis of GDM (18-28 weeks) to 6 weeks postpartum. RESULTS: Both treatment groups maintained good overall glycaemic control during the study (beginning and end of study HbA(1c)< or = 6%). During the meal test, mean glucose at week 6 (IAsp 4.2 +/- 0.57 mmol/l, HI 4.8 +/- 0.86 mmol/l) was slightly lower than at week 0 (IAsp 4.9 +/- 0.59 mmol/l, HI 5.1 +/- 0.36 mmol/l). However, change from baseline values for average glucose (IAsp -1.09 +/- 0.54 mmol/l, HI -0.54 +/- 0.74 mmol/l; P = 0.003) and C-peptide (IAsp -0.50 +/- 0.67 nmol/l, HI -0.30 +/- 0.70 nmol/l; P = 0.027) were significantly lower after IAsp treatment than HI treatment. No major hypoglycaemic events were reported during the study. Cross-reacting insulin antibody binding increased slightly from baseline in both treatments groups (end of study: IAsp 2.1 +/- 5.4%, HI 6.4 +/- 13.9%), whereas antibodies specific to IAsp or HI remained relatively low (< 1% binding). CONCLUSION: IAsp was more effective than HI in decreasing postprandial glucose concentrations. Duration of IAsp injection 5 min before a meal rather than 30 min prior to meals offers a more convenient therapy for subjects with GDM. Overall safety and effectiveness of IAsp were comparable to HI in pregnant women with GDM.     

Improved glycaemic control with insulin glargine plus insulin lispro: a multicentre, randomized, cross-over trial in people with Type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: To compare blood glucose control using insulin glargine + insulin lispro with that on NPH insulin + unmodified human insulin in adults with Type 1 diabetes managed with a multiple injection regimen. METHODS: In this 32-week, five-centre, two-way cross-over study, people with Type 1 diabetes (n = 56, baseline HbA1c 8.0 +/- 0.8%) were randomized to evening insulin glargine + mealtime insulin lispro or to NPH insulin (once- or twice-daily) + mealtime unmodified human insulin. Each 16-week period concluded with a 24-h inpatient plasma glucose profile. RESULTS: HbA1c was lower with glargine + lispro than with NPH + human insulin [7.5 vs. 8.0%, difference -0.5 (95% CI -0.7, -0.3) %, P < 0.001]. This was confirmed by an 8% lower 24-h plasma glucose area under the curve (AUC) (187 vs. 203 mmol l(-1) h(-1), P = 0.037), a 24% reduction in plasma glucose AUC > 7.0 mmol/l1 (47 vs. 62 mmol l(-1) h(-1), P = 0.017) and a 15% lower post-prandial plasma glucose AUC (75 vs. 88 mmol l(-1) h(-1), P = 0.002). There was no reduction in night-time plasma glucose AUC or increase in plasma glucose area < 3.5 mmol/l. Monthly rate of nocturnal hypoglycaemia was reduced by 44% with glargine + lispro (0.66 vs. 1.18 episodes/month, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with NPH insulin + unmodified human insulin, the combination of insulin glargine with a rapid-acting insulin analogue as multiple-injection therapy for Type 1 diabetes improves overall glycaemic control as assessed by HbA1c and 24-h plasma glucose monitoring to a clinically significant degree, together with a reduction in nocturnal hypoglycaemia.     

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.     

Improvement of blood glucose control in Type 1 diabetic patients treated with lispro and multiple NPH injections.

AIMS: To evaluate a multiple daily injections (MDI) regimen combining lispro with multiple NPH insulin injections in order to replace basal insulin optimally. METHODS: Twenty-five C-peptide negative Type 1 patients already trained to MDI were randomized to lispro (lispro + NPH 5 min before breakfast and lunch, lispro before dinner, NPH at bedtime) or soluble insulin (20-30 min before each meal and NPH at bed-time) for 3 months before crossing over to the other regimen for another 3 months. The mean initial HbA1c level was 8.32+/-1.5%. RESULTS: The variability of capillary blood glucose values was significantly lower with lispro (MAGE 0.75+/-0.36 g/l vs. 0.99+/-0.50, P<0.01; MODD 0.64+/-0.26 g/l vs. 0.80+/-0.40, P<0.05). There was a nonsignificant reduction in HbA1c with lispro: -0.40+/-0.86 vs. -0.08+/-0.71. Mean daily blood glucose levels were significantly lower with lispro (1.53+/-0.48 g/l vs. 1.82+/-0.57 g/l, P<0.05). The frequency of all hypoglycaemic episodes was the same with both regimens but the number of severe hypoglycaemic events was reduced with lispro, P = 0.048. At the end of the study, 75% of the patients chose the lispro associated with multiple NPH regimen for their own treatment. The total insulin doses was the same with both regimens but the proportion of NPH was higher with lispro (53% vs. 34%). CONCLUSIONS: An MDI regimen using lispro combined with multiple NPH compared to a standard MDI regimen using soluble insulin reduced day-to-day blood glucose fluctuations, was generally preferred by patients and was associated with a reduced incidence of severe hypoglycaemia with no loss of overall control.     

A randomized, controlled trial comparing insulin lispro with human soluble insulin in patients with Type 1 diabetes on intensified insulin therapy. The UK Trial Group.

AIMS: Despite considerable experience with insulin lispro, few blinded comparisons with soluble insulin are available. This study compared insulin lispro with human soluble insulin in patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus on multiple injection therapy who inject shortly before meals. METHODS: Glucose control, frequency of hypoglycaemia and patient preference were examined in the course of a prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison, with a 6-week run-in period and 12 weeks on each therapy. Ninety-three patients took part, all on multiple daily doses of insulin, with soluble insulin before meals and NPH (isophane) insulin at night. The main outcome measures were self-monitored blood glucose profiles, glycated haemoglobin, frequency of hypoglycaemic episodes, patient satisfaction and well-being and patient preference. RESULTS: Blood glucose levels were significantly lower after breakfast and lunch, but higher before breakfast, lunch and supper, in patients taking insulin lispro. Levels of HbA(1c) were 7.4 +/- 1.1% on Humulin S and 7.5 +/- 1.1% on insulin lispro (P = 0.807). The overall frequency of symptomatic hypoglycaemia did not differ, but patients on insulin lispro were less likely to experience hypoglycaemia between midnight and 6 a.m., and more likely to experience episodes from 6 a.m. to midday. Questionnaires completed by 84/87 patients at the end of the study showed that 43 (51%) were able to identify each insulin correctly, nine (11%) were incorrect, and 32 (38%) were unable to tell the insulins apart. No significant preference emerged: 35 (42%) opted for insulin lispro, 24 (29%) opted for Humulin S, while the remainder had no clear preference. CONCLUSIONS: Substitution of insulin lispro for soluble insulin in a multiple injection regimen improved post-prandial glucose control at the expense of an increase in fasting and pre-prandial glucose levels. Patients who already injected shortly before meals expressed no clear preference for the fast-acting analogue, and did not improve their overall control as a result of using it. Nocturnal hypoglycaemia was however, less frequent on insulin lispro, and may emerge as a robust indication for its use.     

Differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of insulin lispro and aspart in healthy volunteers.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of the rapid-acting insulin analogues lispro and aspart were compared in a randomized, double-blind crossover study of 20 fasting healthy men following a single subcutaneous injection. Either insulin lispro or aspart, 0.05 U/kg-body-weight, was injected subcutaneously and followed by determination of 5-h profiles of plasma glucose, serum C-peptide and insulin concentrations. Lowest glucose concentrations were observed after 50 min in the aspart group (3.2 +/- 0.1 mmol/l versus lispro 3.5 +/- 0.1 mmol/l; p = 0.026) and after 60 min in the lispro group (3.4 +/- 0.1 mmol/l). For blood glucose t min was 59.3 +/- 3.4 min in the aspart and 63.5 +/- 5.3 min in the lispro group (ns). After 40 min a lower C-peptide was determined for aspart (225 +/- 21 pmol/l versus lispro 309 +/- 33 pmol/l; p = 0.031), whereas minimal C-peptide concentrations were reached in both groups after 105 min (lispro 117 +/- 21 pmol/l versus aspart 105 +/- 18 pmol/l). The maximal concentration of insulin was detected in both groups after 40 min (lispro 20.8 +/- 1.1 mU/l versus aspart 24.6 +/- 1.3 mU/l; p = 0.032). For insulin t max was 33.0 +/- 2.6 min in the aspart versus 33.3 +/- 2.6 min in the lispro group (ns). The present results indicate a more rapid absorption of insulin aspart in comparison to insulin lispro. Higher insulin concentrations after subcutaneus injection may be advantageous in meal-related treatment of diabetes.     

A comparison of intensive mixture therapy with basal insulin therapy in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes receiving oral antidiabetes agents

Aim: In patients with type 2 diabetes, insulin therapy is commonly initiated with either a single dose of basal insulin or twice‐daily premixed (basal plus prandial) insulin despite no widely accepted recommendation. We compared the glycaemic control, as measured by a change in HbA1c, of intensive mixture therapy (IMT), a basal plus prandial regimen using insulin lispro mixture 50/50 (50% lispro and 50% NPL) before breakfast and lunch and insulin lispro mixture 25/75 (25% lispro and 75% NPL) before dinner, vs. once‐daily insulin glargine therapy, while continuing patients on oral antidiabetes medications. Methods: Following inadequate glycaemic control (HbA1c 1.2–2.0 times the upper limit of normal) and at least 2 months of two or more oral antidiabetes agent therapy, 60 insulin‐naïve patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized to one of the insulin regimens for 4 months with crossover to the alternative regimen for an additional 4 months. Glycaemic goals were preprandial blood glucose <120 mg/dl (6.7 mmol/l) and 2‐h postprandial blood glucose <180 mg/dl (10.0 mmol/l). The insulin dose was optimized by investigators without forced titration. Results: Mean prestudy (baseline) HbA1c for all patients was 9.21 ± 1.33% (±s.d.). IMT compared to glargine resulted in both a lower endpoint in HbA1c (7.08 ± 0.11% vs. 7.34 ± 0.11%; p = 0.003) and a greater change in HbA1c from pretherapy (?1.01 ± 0.10% vs. ?0.75 ± 0.10%; p = 0.0068). Forty‐four per cent of patients receiving IMT and 31% of patients receiving insulin glargine achieved HbA1c ≤ 7%. Two‐hour postprandial glucose values (for all three meals) and predinner glucose values were significantly less with IMT than with insulin glargine (p = 0.0034, 0.0001, 0.0066 and 0.0205). Overall hypoglycaemia throughout the complete treatment period was infrequent (IMT vs. Glargine: 3.98 ± 4.74 vs. 2.57 ± 3.22 episodes/patient/30 days, p = 0.0013), and no severe hypoglycaemia was observed during the study with either therapy. There was no difference in nocturnal hypoglycaemia between the two therapies. The mean insulin dose at the end of therapy was greater for IMT than for once‐daily insulin glargine (0.353 ± 0.256 vs. 0.276 ± 0.207 IU/kg, p = 0.0107). Conclusions: In combination with oral antidiabetes agents, multiple daily injections of a basal plus prandial insulin IMT regimen (using premixed insulin lispro formulations) resulted in greater improvements and a lower endpoint in HbA1c compared with a basal‐only insulin regimen. IMT also resulted in improved postprandial blood glucose control at each meal and enabled administration of a greater daily dose of insulin, which most likely contributed to these lower HbA1c measures. This greater reduction in HbA1c with IMT is accompanied by a small increased occurrence of mild hypoglycaemia but without any severe hypoglycaemia. Greater consideration should be given to initiating insulin as a basal plus prandial regimen rather than a basal‐only regimen.     

Twice-daily compared with once-daily insulin glargine in people with Type 1 diabetes using meal-time insulin aspart.

AIM: To compare blood glucose control when using insulin glargine twice daily at breakfast- and dinner-times with insulin glargine once daily at dinner time, in unselected people with Type 1 diabetes using insulin aspart at meal-times. METHODS: In this 8-week, two-way, cross-over study, 20 people with Type 1 diabetes were randomized to insulin glargine injection once daily at dinner-time or twice daily at breakfast- and dinner-times, both plus meal-time insulin aspart. Each 4-week treatment period concluded with a 24-h inpatient metabolic profile. RESULTS: Insulin doses, HbA1c, fructosamine concentration and pre-breakfast self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) concentration did not differ between treatment periods. SMBG concentrations after breakfast, after lunch and before dinner were lower with twice-daily compared with once-daily dinner-time glargine [9.3 +/- 0.5 (+/- se) vs. 6.7 +/- 0.5 mmol/l, P = 0.003; 10.2 +/- 0.9 vs. 7.0 +/- 0.9 mmol/l, P = 0.024; 9.6 +/- 0.5 vs. 6.6 +/- 0.5 mmol/l, P = 0.001]. Mean 24-h SMBG concentration was lower with twice-daily glargine (7.1 +/- 0.5 vs. 8.8 +/- 0.5 mmol/l, P = 0.031). Within-day variability of SMBG concentration was lower with twice-daily glargine (sd 3.2 +/- 0.2 vs. 4.0 +/- 0.3 mmol/l, P = 0.044). Plasma free insulin concentration was higher in the afternoon with twice-daily glargine (21.9 +/- 1.4 vs. 16.1 +/- 1.3 mU/l, P = 0.009), but lower overnight (12.1 +/- 1.7 vs. 17.8 +/- 1.7 mU/l, P = 0.030), compared with once-daily injection. Plasma glucose concentration overnight was higher with twice-daily compared with once-daily glargine (mean 9.0 +/- 0.4 vs. 6.6 +/- 0.4 mmol/l, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Blood glucose concentration rises in the late afternoon in association with falling plasma insulin levels towards the end of the 24-h period after insulin glargine injection in some people with Type 1 diabetes using once-daily glargine at dinner-time plus a rapid-acting insulin analogue at meal-times. This is prevented by twice-daily injection of insulin glargine.     

Does Flexibility at Mealtimes Disturb Blood Glucose Control on a Multiple Insulin Injection Regimen?

Randomized crossover studies of a half-sized lunch with reduced insulin dose in 21 patients, and a delayed (by 2 h) evening meal in 22 patients, compared with normal meals, were performed in Type 1 diabetic patients. The aim was to examine whether the size and timing of meals can be varied in patients on multiple injection regimens without disturbance of blood glucose control. All patients had previously had their control optimized on multiple injection therapy using a pen-injector. The studies were carried out at home on 6 days (3 changed meals, 3 control) over 2 months, and as 8- and 7-h metabolic profiles (1 study day, 1 control) in an investigation unit. A halved calorie lunch with half the usual insulin dose resulted in equivalent blood glucose control on the study day (area under curve: changed meal 40.0 +/- 3.4 vs control meal 40.3 +/- 3.5 mmol l-1 h for the 5-h period after the meal). Ketone body levels were also unchanged. The late evening meal shifted the post-prandial blood glucose concentration accordingly, but the excursion was not different in extent from the control day (24.8 +/- 1.9 vs 21.0 +/- 1.7 mmol l-1 h). A small excursion of 3-hydroxybutyrate levels before the delayed meal (to 187 +/- 48 mumol l-1) was quickly corrected on eating. Hypoglycaemia was not different in frequency on the changed meal days. Thus no problems of clinical significance were observed when some flexibility in meal size and timing was allowed.