Comparison of pharmacodynamic intrasubject variability of insulin lispro protamine suspension and insulin glargine in subjects with type 1 diabetes

Abstract

ObjectiveThe 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.DesignThis 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.ResultsThe intrasubject variabilities of the primary PD parameters, total amount of glucose infused (Gtot) and maximum glucose infusion rate (GIR; Rmax), were statistically significantly lower for ILPS when compared with glargine (P<0.0001). Least-square (LS) mean estimates for Gtot and Rmax 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 Gtot and Rmax 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 (tRmax) and earlier time to half-maximal GIR before tRmax and time to half-maximal GIR after tRmax. 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 (AUC0–24): 77 150 vs 53 111 pmol min/l; maximum serum insulin concentration (Cmax): 119 vs 68 pmol/l; ILPS versus glargine respectively), but the intrasubject variabilities for AUC and Cmax were comparable.ConclusionAlthough glargine demonstrated a flatter GIR–time profile, the lower PD intrasubject variability of ILPS may provide a more predictable response.