Comparison of pharmacodynamic intrasubject variability of insulin lispro protamine suspension and insulin glargine in subjects with type 1 diabetes.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of the study was to evaluate pharmacodynamic (PD) intrasubject variability of a single, s.c. dose of insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) compared with insulin glargine in subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus and additionally, to compare the intrasubject variability of pharmacokinetic parameters of both insulins.


METHODS
This was a single-center, investigator-blinded and subject-blinded, two-arm, parallel, randomized, four-period study. During the replicate visits, subjects received a single s.c. 0.6 U/kg dose of either ILPS or glargine, and underwent 24-h euglycemic glucose clamps.


RESULTS
The intrasubject variabilities of the primary PD parameters, total amount of glucose infused (G(tot)) and maximum glucose infusion rate (GIR; R(max)), were statistically significantly lower for ILPS when compared with glargine (P<0.0001). Least-square (LS) mean estimates for G(tot) and R(max) were 2512.7 mg/kg and 3.740 mg/min per kg respectively for ILPS, and 1291.9 mg/kg and 1.793 mg/min per kg respectively for glargine. The LS mean estimates for G(tot) and R(max) were statistically greater (P=0.0010 and P<0.0001 respectively) for ILPS compared with glargine, suggesting that ILPS had greater 24-h glucose-lowering activity. Glargine demonstrated a flatter GIR-time curve, and ILPS demonstrated a significantly shorter time of maximum GIR (tR(max)) and earlier time to half-maximal GIR before tR(max) and time to half-maximal GIR after tR(max). ILPS administration resulted in significantly greater exposure compared with glargine (area under the baseline-corrected serum concentration versus time curve from time 0 to 24 h (AUC(0-24)): 77 150 vs 53 111 pmol min/l; maximum serum insulin concentration (C(max)): 119 vs 68 pmol/l; ILPS versus glargine respectively), but the intrasubject variabilities for AUC and C(max) were comparable.


CONCLUSIONS
Although glargine demonstrated a flatter GIR-time profile, the lower PD intrasubject variability of ILPS may provide a more predictable response.
Ocheltree
S M
SM
Lilly Research Laboratories, Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, Indiana 46285, USA.
Hompesch
M
M
Wondmagegnehu
E T
ET
Morrow
L
L
Win
K
K
Jacober
S J
SJ
D000328:Adult; D019540:Area Under Curve; D001786:Blood Glucose; D015992:Body Mass Index; D003922:Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 / Q000097:blood / Q000188:drug therapy*; D004311:Double-Blind Method; D005260:Female; D015309:Glucose Clamp Technique; D006801:Humans; D007004:Hypoglycemic Agents / Q000494:pharmacology / Q000627:therapeutic use; D007206:Individuality; D007328:Insulin / Q000031:analogs & derivatives* / Q000097:blood / Q000494:pharmacology / Q000627:therapeutic use; D000069036:Insulin Glargine; D061268:Insulin Lispro; D049528:Insulin, Long-Acting; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric
D001786:Blood Glucose; D007004:Hypoglycemic Agents; D007328:Insulin; D061268:Insulin Lispro; D049528:Insulin, Long-Acting; D000069036:Insulin Glargine