Ultra-long pharmacokinetic properties of insulin degludec are comparable in elderly subjects and younger adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus

S Korsatko, S Deller, J K Mader, K Glettler, G Koehler, G Treiber, M Urschitz, M Wolf, H Hastrup, F Søndergaard, H Haahr, T R Pieber, S Korsatko, S Deller, J K Mader, K Glettler, G Koehler, G Treiber, M Urschitz, M Wolf, H Hastrup, F Søndergaard, H Haahr, T R Pieber

Abstract

Background: Management of diabetes in elderly subjects is complex and careful management of glucose levels is of particular importance in this population because of an increased risk of diabetes-related complications and hypoglycaemia.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of insulin degludec (IDeg), a basal insulin with an ultra-long duration of action, in elderly subjects with type 1 diabetes compared with younger adults.

Methods: This trial was a randomised, double-blind, two-period, crossover trial conducted in a single centre and included both inpatient and outpatient periods. Subjects were men and women aged 18-35 years inclusive (younger adult group) or ≥65 years (elderly group) with type 1 diabetes who received IDeg (0.4 U/kg) via subcutaneous injection in the thigh once-daily for six days. Following 6-day dosing, a 26-hour euglycaemic glucose clamp procedure was conducted to evaluate the steady-state pharmacodynamic effects of IDeg. Blood samples were taken for pharmacokinetic analysis up to 120 h post-dose. Pharmacokinetic endpoints included the total exposure of IDeg, ie the area under the IDeg serum concentration curve during one dosing interval at steady state (AUC(IDeg,τ,SS)) (τ = 0-24 h, equal to one dosing interval) and the maximum IDeg serum concentration at steady state (C(max,IDeg,SS)). Pharmacodynamic endpoints included the total glucose-lowering effect of IDeg, ie the area under the glucose infusion rate (GIR) curve at steady state (AUC(GIR,τ,SS)), and the maximum GIR at steady state (GIR(max,IDeg,SS)).

Results: Total exposure (AUC(IDeg,τ,SS)) and maximum concentration (C(max,IDeg,SS)) of IDeg were comparable between elderly subjects and younger adults. Estimated mean age group ratios (elderly/younger adult) for AUC(IDeg,τ,SS) and C(max,IDeg,SS) and corresponding two-sided 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were 1.04 (95 % CI 0.73-1.47) and 1.02 (95 % CI 0.74-1.39), respectively. Mean AUC(IDeg,0-12h,SS)/AUC(IDeg,τ,SS) was 53 % in both younger adult and elderly subjects, showing that in both age groups IDeg exposure was evenly distributed across the first and second 12 h of the 24-hour dosing interval. No statistically significant differences were observed between younger adult and elderly subjects with regard to AUC(GIR,τ,SS) (the primary endpoint of this study) and GIR(max,IDeg,SS). Estimated mean age group ratios (elderly/younger adult) for AUC(GIR,τ,SS) and GIR(max,IDeg,SS) and corresponding two-sided 95 % CIs were 0.78 (95 % CI 0.47-1.31) and 0.80 (95 % CI 0.54-1.17), respectively. Duration of action was beyond the clamp duration of 26 h in all subjects.

Conclusions: The exposure of IDeg at steady state during once-daily dosing was similar in younger adult and elderly subjects. The glucose-lowering effect of IDeg was numerically lower in elderly subjects compared with younger adults, but no significant differences were observed between age groups. The ultra-long pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of IDeg observed in younger adults were preserved in elderly subjects with type 1 diabetes. Clinical trials.gov number: NCT00964418.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Mean pharmacokinetic profiles for insulin degludec at steady state

References

    1. American Diabetes Association Standards of medical care in diabetes: 2012. Diabetes Care. 2012;35:S11–S63. doi: 10.2337/dc12-s011.
    1. Ligthelm RJ, Kaiser M, Vora J, Yale JF. Insulin use in elderly adults: risk of hypoglycemia and strategies for care. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60:1564–1570. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04055.x.
    1. Brown AF, Mangione CM, Saliba D, Sarkisian CA. Guidelines for improving the care of the older person with diabetes mellitus. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51:S265–S280. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0579.2003.00211.x.
    1. Meneilly GS, Tessier D. Diabetes in the elderly. Diabet Med. 1995;12:949–960. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.1995.tb00405.x.
    1. Heise T, Nosek L, Bøttcher SG, Hastrup H, Haahr H. Ultra-long-acting insulin degludec has a flat and stable glucose-lowering effect in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2012;14:944–950. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1326.2012.01638.x.
    1. Heise T, Hermanski L, Nosek L, Feldman A, Rasmussen S, Haahr H. Insulin degludec: four times lower pharmacodynamic variability than insulin glargine under steady-state conditions in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2012;14:859–864. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1326.2012.01627.x.
    1. Frid A, Hirsch L, Gaspar R, Hicks D, Kreugel G, Liersch J, Letondeur C, Sauvanet JP, Tubiana-Rufi N, Strauss K. New injection recommendations for patients with diabetes. Diabetes Metab. 2010;36:S3–S18. doi: 10.1016/S1262-3636(10)70002-1.
    1. American Diabetes Association Workgroup on Hypoglycemia Defining and reporting hypoglycemia in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2005;28:1245–1249. doi: 10.2337/diacare.28.5.1245.
    1. Kurtzhals P, Heise T, Strauss HM, et al. Multi-hexamer formation is the underlying mechanism behind the ultra-long glucose-lowering effect of insulin degludec. Diabetes. 2011;60(Suppl 1A):42-LB.
    1. Scheen AJ. Diabetes mellitus in the elderly: insulin resistance and/or impaired insulin secretion? Diabetes Metab. 2005;31:5S27–5S34.
    1. Kerlan V, Vergès B, Tawil C, Lahrichi N, Doucet J. Insulin initiation in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes in France: a subpopulation of the LIGHT study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2012;28:503–511. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2012.664549.
    1. Garber AJ, Clauson P, Pedersen CB, Kølendorf K. Lower risk of hypoglycemia with insulin detemir than with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin in older persons with type 2 diabetes: a pooled analysis of phase III trials. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55:1735–1740. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01414.x.
    1. Papa G, Fedele V, Chiavetta A, Lorenti I, Leotta C, Luca S, Rabuazzo AM, Piro S, Alagona C, Spadaro L, Purrello F, Pezzino V. Therapeutic options for elderly diabetic subjects: open label, randomized clinical trial of insulin glargine added to oral antidiabetic drugs versus increased dosage of oral antidiabetic drugs. Acta Diabetol. 2008;45:53–59. doi: 10.1007/s00592-007-0023-6.
    1. Wolffenbuttel BH, Klaff LJ, Bhushan R, Fahrbach JL, Jiang H, Martin S. Initiating insulin therapy in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: efficacy and safety of lispro mix 25 vs. basal insulin combined with oral glucose-lowering agents. Diabet Med. 2009;26:1147–1155. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2009.02824.x.
    1. Janka HU, Plewe G, Busch K. Combination of oral antidiabetic agents with basal insulin versus premixed insulin alone in randomized elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55:182–188. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01043.x.
    1. Sorli C, Warren M, Oyer D, Mersebach H, Johansen T, Gough SCL. Elderly patients with diabetes experience a lower rate of nocturnal hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec than with insulin glargine: a meta-analysis of phase IIIa trials. Drugs Aging 2013. doi:10.1007/s40266-013-0128-2.

Source: PubMed

3
Prenumerera