Pharmacokinetics of diluted (U20) insulin aspart compared with standard (U100) in children aged 3-6 years with type 1 diabetes during closed-loop insulin delivery: a randomised clinical trial

Yue Ruan, Daniela Elleri, Janet M Allen, Martin Tauschmann, Malgorzata E Wilinska, David B Dunger, Roman Hovorka, Yue Ruan, Daniela Elleri, Janet M Allen, Martin Tauschmann, Malgorzata E Wilinska, David B Dunger, Roman Hovorka

Abstract

Aims/hypothesis: The aim of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetics of two different concentrations of insulin aspart (B28Asp human insulin) in children aged 3-6 years with type 1 diabetes.

Methods: Young children with type 1 diabetes underwent an open-label, randomised, two-period crossover study in a clinical research facility, 2-6 weeks apart. In random order, diluted (1:5 dilution with saline [154 mmol/l NaCl]; 20 U/ml) or standard strength (100 U/ml) insulin aspart was administered via an insulin pump as a meal bolus and then overnight by closed-loop insulin delivery as determined by a model predictive algorithm. Plasma insulin was measured every 30-60 min from 17:00 hours on day 1 to 8:00 hours on day 2. We measured the time-to-peak insulin concentration (tmax), insulin metabolic clearance rate (MCR(I)) and background insulin concentration (ins(c)) using compartmental modelling.

Results: Eleven children (six male; age range 3.75-6.96 years, HbA1c 7.6% ± 1.3% [60 ± 14 mmol/mol], BMI standard deviation score 1.0 ± 0.8, duration of diabetes 2.2 ± 1.0 years, total daily dose 12.9 [10.6-16.5] U, fasting C-peptide concentration 5 [5-17.1] pmol/l; mean ± SD or median [interquartile range]) participated in the study. No differences between standard and diluted insulin were observed in terms of t max (59.2 ± 14.4 vs 61.6 ± 8.7) min for standard vs diluted, p = 0.59; MCR I (1.98 × 10(-2) ± 0.99 × 10(-2) vs 1.89 × 10(-2) ± 0.82 × 10(-2) 1/kg/min, p = 0.47), and ins c (34 [1-72] vs 23 [3-65] pmol/l, p = 0.66). However, t max showed less intersubject variability following administration of diluted aspart (SD 14.4 vs 8.7 min, p = 0.047).

Conclusions/interpretation: Diluting insulin aspart does not change its pharmacokinetics. However, it may result in less variable absorption and could be used in young children with type 1 diabetes undergoing closed-loop insulin delivery.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01557634.

Funding: FUNDING was provided by the JDRF, 7th Framework Programme of the European Union, Wellcome Trust Strategic Award and the National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Model fit to plasma insulin concentration in a sample participant during the delivery of diluted (a) and standard strength (b) insulin. Evening meals were consumed at time 0 and were accompanied by split prandial insulin boluses, indicated by blue arrows. The dotted vertical line indicates time that closed-loop delivery started. The red solid line shows the median of the fitted model. The blue dashed lines show the 95% credible interval of the fitted model. The solid blue line shows insulin infusion

References

    1. Hovorka R. Closed-loop insulin delivery: from bench to clinical practice. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2011;7:385–395. doi: 10.1038/nrendo.2011.32.
    1. Sindelka G, Heinemann L, Berger M, Frenck W, Chantelau E. Effect of insulin concentration, subcutaneous fat thickness and skin temperature on subcutaneous insulin absorption in healthy subjects. Diabetologia. 1994;37:377–380. doi: 10.1007/BF00408474.
    1. Heinemann L, Chantelau EA, Starke AA. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of subcutaneously administered U40 and U100 formulations of regular human insulin. Diabete Metab. 1992;18:21–24.
    1. Petersen SB, Nielsen FS, Ribel U, Sturis J, Skyggebjerg O. Comparison of the pharmacokinetics of three concentrations of insulin aspart during continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in a pig model. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2013;65:230–235. doi: 10.1111/j.2042-7158.2012.01596.x.
    1. Elleri D, Allen JM, Tauschmann M, et al. Feasibility of overnight closed-loop therapy in young children with type 1 diabetes aged 3 to 6 years: comparison between diluted and standard insulin strength. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2014
    1. Hovorka R, Canonico V, Chassin LJ, et al. Nonlinear model predictive control of glucose concentration in subjects with type 1 diabetes. Physiol Meas. 2004;25:905–920. doi: 10.1088/0967-3334/25/4/010.
    1. Haidar A, Elleri D, Kumareswaran K, et al. Pharmacokinetics of insulin aspart in pump-treated subjects with type 1 diabetes: reproducibility and effect of age, weight, and duration of diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2013;36:e173–e174. doi: 10.2337/dc13-0485.
    1. Haidar A, Duval C, Legault L, Rabasa-Lhoret R. Pharmacokinetics of insulin aspart and glucagon in type 1 diabetes during closed-loop operation. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013;7:1507–1512.
    1. Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, Spiegelhalter D. WinBUGS – a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Stat Comput. 2000;10:325–337. doi: 10.1023/A:1008929526011.
    1. Hedman CA, Lindstrom T, Arnqvist HJ. Direct comparison of insulin lispro and aspart shows small differences in plasma insulin profiles after subcutaneous injection in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2001;24:1120–1121. doi: 10.2337/diacare.24.6.1120.
    1. Trajanoski Z, Wach P, Kotanko P, Ott A, Skraba F. Pharmacokinetic model for the absorption of subcutaneously injected soluble insulin and monomeric insulin analogues. Biomed Tech (Berl) 1993;38:224–231. doi: 10.1515/bmte.1993.38.9.224.

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel