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.     

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 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.     

A randomized multicentre trial of insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin in people with type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND: To compare insulin glargine with NPH human insulin for basal insulin supply in adults with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: People with type 1 diabetes (n = 585), aged 17-77 years, were randomized to insulin glargine once daily at bedtime or NPH insulin either once- (at bedtime) or twice-daily (in the morning and at bedtime) according to their prior treatment regimen and followed for 28 weeks in an open-label, multicentre study. Both groups continued with pre-meal unmodified human insulin. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two insulins in change in glycated haemoglobin from baseline to endpoint (insulin glargine 0.21 +/- 0.05% (mean +/- standard error), NPH insulin 0.10 +/- 0.05%). At endpoint, self-monitored fasting blood glucose (FBG) had decreased similarly in each group (insulin glargine -1.17 +/- 0.12 mmol/L, NPH insulin -0.89 +/- 0.12 mmol/L; p = 0.07). However, people on >1 basal insulin injection per day prior to the study had a clinically relevant decrease in FBG on insulin glargine versus NPH insulin (insulin glargine -1.38 +/- 0.15 mmol/L, NPH insulin -0.72 +/- 0.15 mmol/L; p < 0.01). No significant differences in the number of people reporting >or=1 hypoglycaemic episode were found between the two groups, including severe and nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Insulin glargine was well tolerated, with a similar rate of local injection and systemic adverse events versus NPH insulin. CONCLUSIONS: A single, bedtime, subcutaneous dose of insulin glargine provided a level of glycaemic control at least as effective as NPH insulin, without an increased risk of hypoglycaemia.     

Comparison of insulin detemir and insulin glargine in subjects with Type 1 diabetes using intensive insulin therapy.

AIMS: To compare glycaemic control and risk of hypoglycaemia of twice-daily insulin detemir with once-daily insulin glargine in subjects with Type 1 diabetes. METHODS: In this 26-week, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group trial, 320 subjects with Type 1 diabetes received either insulin detemir twice daily or insulin glargine once daily. each in combination with premeal insulin aspart. RESULTS: After 26 weeks, HbA(1c) had decreased from 8.8 to 8.2% in the insulin detemir group and from 8.7 to 8.2% in the insulin glargine group. Home-measured fasting plasma glucose (PG) was lower with insulin glargine than with insulin detemir (7.0 vs. 7.7 mmol/l, P < 0.001). The overall shape of the home-measured nine-point PG profiles was comparable between treatments (P = 0.125). Overall, there was no significant difference in within-subject variation in PG (P = 0.437). Within-subject variation in predinner PG was lower with insulin detemir than with insulin glargine (P < 0.05). The overall risk of hypoglycaemia was similar with no differences in confirmed hypoglycaemia. However, the risk of severe and nocturnal hypoglycaemia was 72% and 32%, respectively, lower with insulin detemir than with insulin glargine (P < 0.05). Body weight gain was not significantly different comparing insulin detemir and insulin glargine (0.52 kg vs. 0.96 kg, P = 0.193). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with twice-daily insulin detemir or once-daily insulin glargine, each in combination with insulin aspart, resulted in similar glycaemic control. The overall risk of hypoglycaemia was comparable, whereas the risks of both severe and nocturnal hypoglycaemia were significantly lower with insulin detemir.     

Treatment satisfaction and psychological well-being with insulin glargine compared with NPH in patients with Type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: To assess satisfaction with treatment and psychological well-being associated with insulin glargine and Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH). Insulin glargine, a new long-acting insulin analogue, provides constant, peakless insulin release following once-daily administration and is associated with fewer hypoglycaemic episodes, despite metabolic control equivalent to that achieved with NPH human basal insulin. METHODS: The Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) and Well-being Questionnaire (W-BQ) were completed at baseline and at weeks 8, 20 or 28 by 517 patients with Type 1 diabetes participating in a randomized, controlled European trial comparing insulin glargine and NPH. Analysis of covariance was performed on change from baseline scores (main effects: treatment and pooled site; covariate: baseline scores). RESULTS: Treatment satisfaction improved with insulin glargine at all time points, including endpoint, but deteriorated slightly with NPH. These differences were significant throughout the study (change from baseline to endpoint: +1.27 vs. -0.56; P = 0.0001). Outcomes were better with insulin glargine for the DTSQ items, Perceived Frequency of Hyperglycaemia and Hypoglycaemia, with statistically significant differences at week 28 and endpoint for hyperglycaemia (P = 0.0373 and 0.0379) and at week 20 for hypoglycaemia (P = 0.0024). There was no difference in psychological well-being between the treatment groups, with mean scores increasing in both. CONCLUSIONS: Study participants had treatment-independent improvements in General Well-being. Advantages for insulin glargine were seen in significantly improved Treatment Satisfaction throughout the study, together with lower Perceived Frequency of Hyperglycaemia than for patients on NPH, without a significant increase in Perceived Frequency of Hypoglycaemia.     

A randomized trial of insulin aspart with intensified basal NPH insulin supplementation in people with Type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: Insulin aspart has been shown to improve post-prandial and overall glycaemic control in people with Type 1 diabetes. We hypothesized that insulin aspart with intensified basal NPH insulin supplementation would result in better overall glycaemic control than human regular insulin with standard basal NPH insulin. METHODS: The trial was conducted in 43 centres in seven countries. People with Type 1 diabetes were randomized to mealtime insulin aspart with up to four daily NPH doses if meals were > 5 h apart and a 25% increase in bedtime NPH dose (n = 187), or to mealtime human unmodified insulin with once or twice daily basal NPH insulin (n = 181). Efficacy and safety were evaluated at 12 weeks (primary evaluation period) and 64 weeks. RESULTS: At 12 and 64 weeks there was no statistically significant difference in HbA1c between the insulin aspart and regular insulin groups: -0.09 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.23, +0.05)% and -0.14 (-0.32, +0.04)%. Post-prandial glucose values were lower and the area under the 24-h self-monitored blood glucose curve above 7.0 mmol/l was 28% smaller with insulin aspart (35.2 +/- 3.2 vs. 48.9 +/- 3.1 mmol/l h, P = 0.0015). No significant differences were found in mild or severe hypoglycaemia, or adverse event rate. At 64 weeks treatment satisfaction was higher in the insulin aspart group (difference 1.57 (95% CI 0.49, 2.64) points, P = 0.004), while quality of life was not different. CONCLUSIONS: Improved post-prandial glycaemic control and treatment satisfaction with insulin aspart were confirmed. Intensifying basal insulin supplementation resulted in a similar HbA1c decrement as previously found with the use of insulin aspart and standard NPH insulin supplementation. This does not support routinely basal NPH insulin intensification when using rapid-acting insulin analogues in daily practice.     

Short-term fully closed-loop insulin delivery using faster insulin aspart compared with standard insulin aspart in type 2 diabetes

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of short-term fully closed-loop insulin delivery using faster versus standard insulin aspart in type 2 diabetes. Fifteen adults with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes underwent 22 hours of closed-loop insulin delivery with either faster or standard insulin aspart in a double-blind randomized crossover design. Basal-bolus regimen was replaced by model predictive control algorithm-directed insulin delivery based on sensor glucose levels. The primary outcome was time with plasma glucose in target range (5.6–10.0 mmol/L) and did not differ between treatments (mean difference [95% CI] 3.3% [−8.2; 1.7], P = 0.17). Mean glucose and glucose variability were comparable, as was time spent below and above target range. Hypoglycaemia (<3.5 mmol/L) occurred once with faster insulin aspart and twice with standard insulin aspart. Mean total insulin dose was higher with faster insulin aspart (mean difference [95% CI] 3.7 U [0.7; 6.8], P = 0.021). No episodes of severe hypoglycaemia or other serious adverse events occurred. In conclusion, short-term fully closed-loop in type 2 diabetes may require higher dose of faster insulin aspart compared with standard insulin aspart to achieve comparable glucose control.     

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.     

Survey of glargine use in 115 pregnant women with Type 1 diabetes

Aim To examine pregnancy outcome in women with Type 1 diabetes treated with glargine. Methods Glargine use in pregnancy was surveyed over 2 years in 20 UK obstetric‐diabetes centres. Outcomes, including maternal complications, miscarriage, congenital abnormalities, perinatal morbidity and mortality, were recorded in a standardized format. Results Outcomes on 109 babies from 115 women with Type 1 diabetes were collected. Insulin glargine was used prior to pregnancy in 69% of women, started during pregnancy in 30%, and stopped at booking in one patient. Insulin aspart was the bolus insulin in 45%, lispro in 42% and human soluble in 8% of women. HbA_1c fell from 8.1 ± 0.2% at booking to 6.8 ± 0.1% during the third trimester. Background retinopathy developed in one patient, worsened in seven and laser photocoagulation was required in three women. Preeclampsia occurred in 12%, and 14% of women had more than one episode of severe hypoglycaemia. One hundred and nine babies were live born, with six miscarriages and no neonatal deaths. The mean gestational age was 37.5 weeks, and mean birth weight was 3500 g. Three babies had congenital abnormalities (malformation rate = 28/1000). Neonatal hypoglycaemia was seen in 46% and hyperbilirubinaemia in 22% of babies. No major adverse outcome was noted in a smaller subset of five Type 2 and seven gestational diabetes patients on glargine. Conclusions The use of glargine in Type 1 diabetes during pregnancy was not associated with any unexpected adverse maternal or fetal outcome in this study.     

Comparison of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of biphasic insulin aspart and insulin glargine in people with type 2 diabetes

Aims/hypothesis The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp 30) (30% soluble, 70% protaminated insulin aspart [IAsp]) and insulin glargine (IGlarg) were compared.Methods Twelve people with type 2 diabetes took part in two 24-h isoglycaemic clamp studies, 1 week apart. Patients were randomised to treatment with 0.5 U/kg of BIAsp 30 (0.25 U/kg at 08.30 h and 0.25 U/kg at 20.30 h) or 0.50 U/kg IGlarg at 08.30 h. Both insulins were given by subcutaneous injection into the anterior abdominal wall. The plasma glucose, glucose infusion rates, plasma insulin and C-peptide concentrations were measured.Results All 12 patients were men; mean (±SD) age was 58.8 (8.9) years, BMI 31.0 (3.0) kg/m² and HbA_1c 7.1 (0.6)%. Plasma glucose was constant throughout the 24-h clamp period. After each injection of BIAsp 30, glucose infusion rates increased, reaching a distinct peak approximately 3–5 h after injection. A much flatter postinjection profile was observed following IGlarg administration. Plasma insulin concentrations rose rapidly after each injection of BIAsp 30, reaching a distinct peak after approximately 2–3 h. A flatter plasma insulin profile reached a plateau approximately 6–16 h after IGlarg administration. Plasma C-peptide fell below baseline after both injections of BIAsp 30 but remained unaltered after IGlarg injection.Conclusions/interpretation The pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles were 34 and 28%, respectively, higher following equivalent doses (0.5 U/kg) of BIAsp 30 given as two split doses than following IGlarg given as a single daily dose.     

No evidence for accumulation of insulin glargine (LANTUS): a multiple injection study in patients with Type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: Insulin glargine is a long-acting insulin analogue that is metabolically active for at least 24 h. We investigated the multiple-dose pharmacokinetic properties of insulin glargine to determine whether daily injections lead to the accumulation of circulating insulin levels and a corresponding decrease in blood glucose levels in patients with Type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Fifteen patients using preprandial insulin lispro (mean age 36 +/- 9 years, body mass index 24.6 +/- 2.2 kg/m(2)) completed the study. Each patient's optimal insulin glargine dose was determined during a dose-finding phase. After a washout period, patients were treated over 12 days with a constant daily dose of insulin glargine injected in the abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue at 22:00 h, and with preprandial insulin lispro. Free serum insulin (FSI) and blood glucose concentrations were assessed hourly after the first, fourth, and eleventh injection, after which patients fasted for 24 h and did not use any other insulin preparation. RESULTS: There were no changes in daily insulin doses during the dose-finding phase (insulin glargine: initial dose 24 +/- 6 IU, mean change 0 +/- 3 IU; insulin lispro: 18 +/- 9 IU, 0 +/- 7 IU). The time course of FSI was comparable on the three pharmacokinetic study days. Notably, the trough FSI at the end of the sampling periods was almost identical (day 1, 79 +/- 56 pmol/l, day 4, 77 +/- 56 pmol/l, day 11, 86 +/- 60 pmol/l). No changes occurred in any of the pharmacokinetic parameters studied. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that insulin glargine accumulates after multiple injections over 12 days. These results indicate that the predetermined dose of insulin glargine will not need to be reduced after commencing treatment because of a risk of accumulation.     

Hypoglycaemia with insulin aspart: a double-blind, randomised, crossover trial in subjects with Type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: To compare the effects of the rapid-acting insulin analogue insulin aspart and soluble human insulin on hypoglycaemia and glycaemic control in patients with Type 1 diabetes when injected immediately before meals as part of intensive insulin therapy. METHODS: In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, crossover trial, 155 patients with Type 1 diabetes (HbA(1c) < 8.0%) were symmetrically randomised to two 16-week treatment periods on either type of insulin, both injected 0-5 min before meals. NPH insulin was given as basal insulin once or twice daily as needed, and insulin dosages were regularly adjusted using pre-defined algorithms to maintain tight glycaemic control. Treatment periods were separated by a 4-week washout. RESULTS: The rate of major nocturnal (24.00-06.00 h) hypoglycaemic episodes was 72% lower with insulin aspart than with human insulin (0.067 vs. 0.225 events/month; P = 0.001). Total rate of major hypoglycaemia did not differ significantly between treatments (insulin aspart/human insulin relative risk 0.72; 95% CI 0.47-1.09, P = 0.12). The rate of minor events was significantly reduced by 7% with insulin aspart (P = 0.048). Reductions in rate of hypoglycaemia were achieved with maintained overall glycaemic control: Mean HbA(1c) remained constant, slightly below 7.7% on both treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The use of insulin aspart in an intensive insulin regimen in patients with tightly controlled Type 1 diabetes led to clinically significant reductions in major nocturnal hypoglycaemia with no deterioration in glycaemic control. Major nocturnal hypoglycaemia appears to be a strong clinical indication for the use of rapid-acting insulin analogues during intensive insulin therapy.     

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.     

Pharmacokinetic profiles of biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 and 70/30 in patients with Type 1 diabetes: a randomized double-blinded crossover study.

AIMS: To compare pharmacokinetic characteristics of two biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp) formulations: BIAsp30 and BIAsp70 (30% and 70%, respectively, of fast-acting insulin aspart) during 15 days of multiple dosing (thrice daily). METHODS: A total of 22 patients with Type 1 diabetes (nine women, 13 men) aged 41.4 +/- 9.9 years (mean +/- sd) with a diabetes duration of 18.9 (2.3-40.3) years (median and range) completed the randomized, double-blinded, two-period crossover study. On day 1 and day 15 of each treatment period, 24-h serum insulin and glucose profiles were evaluated. Total area under the insulin aspart concentration-time curve (AUC(0-24 h)), AUC after dinner administration stratified into early (AUCdinner(0-6 h)) and intermediate-phase (AUCdinner(6-14 h)), maximum insulin concentration (Cmax), time to maximum insulin concentration (Tmax) after each meal were recorded. RESULTS: On day 15 BIAsp70 was associated with a shorter Tmax, and more than 40% elevated Cmax. Comparing with BIAsp30, AUC(0-24 h) and AUCdinner(0-6 h) were increased by 25% and 28%, respectively, but AUCdinner (6-14 h) was markedly lower for BIAsp70 [BIAsp30/BIAsp70: 1.9; 95% CI (1.42, 2.55)]. Similar findings were also observed on day 1. The fasting or pre-meal serum insulin levels on day 15 tended to be higher with BIAsp30, but the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS The pharmacokinetic properties of BIAsp30 and 70 remain constant during 2 weeks of daily administration in patients with Type 1 diabetes. In comparison with BIAsp30, the administration of BIAsp70 results in a shorter time to and larger maximum insulin aspart concentration. Furthermore, total and early post-dinner insulin AUC were greater, whereas late-phase insulin exposure was lower with BIAsp70.