Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Biphasic Insulins”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2002

Improved postprandial glycemic control with biphasic insulin aspart relative to biphasic insulin lispro and biphasic human insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: The rapid-acting insulin analogs aspart and lispro have now been developed in biphasic formulations. This trial compared the postprandial serum glucose control of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30: 30% aspart, 70% protaminated aspart) with that of biphasic insulin lispro 25 (Mix25: 25% lispro, 75% protaminated lispro) and biphasic human insulin 30 (BHI 30: 30% regular insulin, 70% NPH insulin) in insulin-treated subjects with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was an open-labeled, randomized, single-dose, three-way crossover trial of 61 insulin-treated subjects with type 2 diabetes who had no significant late diabetic complications. BIAsp 30 and Mix25 were injected subcutaneously immediately before a test meal, and BHI 30 was injected 15 min before a test meal. The primary target of analysis was serum glucose excursion 0-5 h after a meal. RESULTS: The postprandial glycemic control with BIAsp 30, as assessed by the 5-h postmeal serum glucose excursion, was superior to that with both BHI 30 and Mix25 (16.6 +/- 4.5 vs. 20.1 +/- 4.9 and 18.9 +/- 6.1 mmol/l per hour, respectively; P < 0.001 and P < 0.05). For BIAsp 30 versus BHI 30, this was supported by a reduced maximum glucose concentration [C(max(SG))] (-5%; P < 0.05) occurring earlier (-13 min; P < 0.01). Furthermore, BIAsp 30 displayed a higher maximum serum insulin concentration (+101%; P < 0.001) occurring earlier (-55 min; P < 0.001) compared with BHI 30. Compared with Mix25, there was a shorter time to C(max(SG)) (-11 min; P < 0.05) after treatment with BIAsp 30. CONCLUSIONS: This trial demonstrates that BIAsp 30 improves postprandial glycemic control compared with both Mix25 and BHI 30 in subjects with type 2 diabetes.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Randomized, multinational, open-label, 2-period, crossover comparison of biphasic insulin aspart 30 and biphasic insulin lispro 25 and pen devices in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (30% soluble insulin aspart and 70% protaminated insulin aspart [BIAsp 30]) and biphasic insulin lispro 25 (25% soluble insulin lispro and 75% neutral protamine lispro [Mix25]) used in a BID injection regimen in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Also assessed was patients' preference for pen device--the NovoMix 30 FlexPen /NovoLog Mix 70/30 FlexPen (FlexPen) versus the Humalog Mix25 Pen/Humalog Mix75/25 Pen (Humalog Pen). METHODS: Patients with type 2 DM receiving current insulin treatment were randomized to a multinational, multicenter, open-label, 2-period, crossover comparison of BIAsp 30 and Mix25. Efficacy (by analyses of variance) and safety profiles were assessed after 12 weeks of treatment. Patients' preference for pen device was assessed by questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 137 patients were randomized to treatment; 4 were withdrawn during the 2-week run-in treatment with biphasic human insulin 30. The mean (SD) characteristics of the remaining 133 patients (79 men, 54 women) were as follows: age, 62.3 (9.2) years; body mass index, 28.1 (3.9) kg/m(2); and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)), 8.5% (1.1). Glycemic control was assessed by the measurement of HbA(1c) after 12 weeks of treatment. Treatment with BIAsp 30 was noninferior to treatment with Mix25 (upper limit of 90% CI for estimated difference [BIAsp 30 - Mix25] was <0.4%). Self-monitored blood glucose levels were comparable (P = NS). Adverse-event profiles were similar between treatments, as was the incidence of hypoglycemic episodes (0.69 episode/mo with BIAsp 30 and 0.62 episode/mo with Mix25, P = 0.292). For all device features assessed, the FlexPen consistently received higher scores (all P < 0.005). A total of 9.0% of patients experienced problems with the FlexPen, compared with 32.4% with the Humalog Pen (P < 0.001). Furthermore, 74.6% preferred to continue using the FlexPen, whereas 14.3% preferred the Humalog Pen (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, glycemic control with BIAsp 30 and Mix25 was found to be comparable in these patients with type 2 DM. Safety profiles were similar for both regimens. Patients preferred and experienced fewer problems with the FlexPen than the Humalog Pen.

Biphasic Insulins↗
PubMed2003

Addition of biphasic insulin aspart 30 to rosiglitazone in type 2 diabetes mellitus that is poorly controlled with glibenclamide monotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is rapidly increasing worldwide. Results from large-scale studies show that tight blood glucose (BG) control improves the outcome of patients with type 2 DM. OBJECTIVE: This trial assessed the short-term efficacy and tolerability of adding a thiazolidinedione (rosiglitazone [ROS]) to existing sulfonylurea (SU) therapy (glibenclamide) compared with switching to combination treatment with a premixed insulin (biphasic insulin aspart 30 [BIAsp 30], a rapid-acting insulin analog) and the thiazolidinedione in a select group of patients with type 2 DM whose metabolic control was inadequate with SU monotherapy. METHODS: In this 6-week, multicenter, open-label, parallel-group trial, patients with type 2 DM whose BG level was not adequately controlled with glibenclamide monotherapy (glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c] 8%-13%) were randomized either to replace glibenclamide with BIAsp 30 (individually titrated dosages starting with 6-8 U BID) plus rosiglitazone (4 mg once daily) (BIAsp 30 + ROS group) or to add rosiglitazone (4 mg once daily) to their pretrial doses of glibenclamide (GLIB + ROS group). Patients measured their BG levels immediately before each of the 3 main meals, 90 minutes after the start of each meal, and at bedtime, and mean BG levels were calculated at weeks 0 (baseline), 1, 2, 4, 6, and at 2-week follow-up (week 8). The primary end point was change in mean daily BG level during treatment. Secondary end points included preprandial, postprandial, and bedtime BG levels, serum fructosamine level HbA, and fasting BG level, which were measured at each study visit. Tolerability was assessed using hematologic and biochemical parameters, vital signs, and physical examination. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients (32 men, 17 women; mean [SD] age, 59.1 [8.9] years; mean [SD] body mass index, 27.7 [3.7] kg/m2) participated in the study. A significant difference was found between treatments in the change in mean daily BG level from baseline to week 6 (P=0.01). After the 6-week treatment period, change in mean serum fructosamine level was significantly greater for BIAsp 30 + ROS compared with GLIB + ROS (P=0.02). HbA1c decreased in both treatment groups from baseline to study end, but the difference between groups was nonsignificant. The changes in fasting BG from baseline to study end also were nonsignificant between groups. Both combinations were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: This short-term study in patients with type 2 DM whose BG level was poorly controlled with glibenclamide monotherapy suggests that switching to a combination of BIAsp 30 + ROS was efficacious and well tolerated and provided an alternative to adding rosiglitazone to existing glibenclamide treatment. The study also suggests that BIAsp 30 may be associated with greater improvements in short-term metabolic control.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 versus biphasic human insulin 30: a double-blind crossover study in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the premixed insulin analogue biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp 30) with the equivalent premixed biphasic human insulin (BHI 30), administered twice daily, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, crossover trial, 13 patients (mean age, 64 years; baseline mean glycosylated hemoglobin, 7.7%; mean body mass index, 28.1 kg/m2) received 2 weeks of treatment with BIAsp 30 and 2 weeks of BHI 30 administered immediately before dinner and breakfast. At the end of each 2-week treatment period, 24-hour serum insulin and glucose profiles were determined using specific 2-sided enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. All pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic end points were analyzed using analysis of variance. RESULTS: Total daily insulin exposure was similar between treatment periods. Mean area under the total insulin concentration-time profile during the 2 hours following administration of BIAsp 30 was 17% greater than that of BHI 30 after dinner and 44% greater after breakfast; both differences were statistically significant. The maximum serum insulin aspart concentrations following BIAsp 30 were significantly higher after dinner (18%) and breakfast (35%). Peak serum insulin concentration was reached 1 hour earlier after breakfast and 45 minutes earlier after dinner in the BIAsp 30 group; differences were significant only after breakfast. The mean daily prandial glucose excursion was significantly lower for BIAsp 30 (16.2 mmol x h x L(-1)) than BHI 30 (17.9 mmol x h x L(-1)). Postprandial 4-hour glucose excursions were significantly lower with BIAsp 30 than with BHI 30 after dinner and breakfast, but were significantly greater after lunch. Mean 24-hour and nocturnal serum glucose concentrations were similar, and both insulins were associated with < or = 7 minor and no major hypoglycemic events. CONCLUSIONS: Premeal injection of BIAsp 30 in a twice-daily regimen significantly reduced overall postprandial glucose excursions. This effect may be of importance when improvement in postprandial glucose control is desired.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Biphasic insulin aspart compared to biphasic human insulin reduces postprandial hyperlipidemia in patients with Type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Premixed insulin analogues reduce postprandial hyperglycemia in patients with Type 2 diabetes in comparison to premixed regular insulin. Insulin also plays an important role in the regulation of postprandial lipid metabolism. It is known that increased levels of postprandial insulin reduce postprandial hyperlipemia but, on the other hand, no information exists with regard to the possible effect of insulin analogues in comparison to human insulin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 12 subjects (3 men; age 59 +/- 5 years; BMI 30.5 +/- 5.9 kg/m2, duration of diabetes 9 +/- 1 years, HbA1c 8.33 +/- 1.1 %) already on therapy with premixed insulin were treated either with biphasic human insulin (BHI30) or with biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp30) (1.3 IU fast acting insulin/12 g KH) in the setting of a standardized test meal. Serum levels of glucose, insulin, C-peptide and triglycerides as well as retinylpalmitate in plasma and chylomicron remnants were determined before and up to 8 hours after the meal. RESULTS: As was to be expected, therapy with BIAsp30 reduced the maximum increase of postprandial glucose from 7.10 +/- 2.00 mmol/l to 5.27 +/- 1.83 mmo/l (p = 0.007) compared to BHI30 insulin. In the same way, the maximum increase of triglycerides (from 2.33 +/- 1.03 to 1.65 +/- 0.69 mmol/l, p = 0.014) was reduced. The AUC 0 - 8 for triglycerides was not significantly influenced (34.20 +/- 19.86 vs. 31.46 +/- 16.21 mmol x 8 h/l) but the incremental area over baseline (AOB 0 - 8) was significantly reduced from 8.02 +/- 4.35 to 6.12 +/- 3.94 mmol x 8 h/l (p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to conventional human premixed insulin the prandial therapy with biphasic insulin aspart results not only in an improvement of glucose tolerance but also in a significant reduction of postprandial hyperlipemia.

Biphasic Insulins↗
PubMed2002

Transduction of MIN6 beta cells with TAT-syntaxin SNARE motif inhibits insulin exocytosis in biphasic insulin release in a distinct mechanism analyzed by evanescent wave microscopy.

To investigate the in vivo interaction of syntaxin-mediated soluble N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive fusion protein attachment protein receptor (SNARE) assembly and insulin exocytosis in biphasic release, we examined the dynamics of insulin granule motion such as docking and fusion with the plasma membrane when the syntaxin SNARE motif (H3 domain) was transduced into living MIN6 beta cells. TAT-H3, produced by fusion of the protein transduction domain of human immunodeficiency virus-1 TAT to the syntaxin-H3 domain, was rapidly transduced into the subplasmalemmal region in living MIN6 cells. Immunoblotting analysis followed by immunoprecipitation on TAT-H3-treated MIN6 cells showed that TAT-H3 binds SNAP-25 and VAMP-2 in vivo. Transduction of MIN6 cells with TAT-H3 caused a decrease in both the first and second phase of insulin release. We therefore quantitatively analyzed approaching, docking, and fusing of green fluorescent protein-labeled single insulin granules in TAT-H3-transduced MIN6 cells by evanescent wave microscopy. Under high glucose stimulation, TAT-H3 treatment not only reduced the fusion events from previously docked granules for the first 120 s (first phase of release) but also strongly inhibited the docking and fusion from newly recruited insulin granules after this point (second phase of release). During the second phase of release we observed a marked reduction in the accumulation of newly docked insulin granules; subsequently, fusion events were significantly decreased. TAT-H3 treatment by itself, however, did not alter the number of previously docked granules without stimulation. We conclude that introduction of the H3 domain into MIN6 cells inhibits biphasic insulin release by two mechanisms. 1) In the first phase of insulin release, the H3 domain interferes with previously docked granules to be fused, and 2) in the second phase of insulin release reduced fusion events result from a marked decline of newly docked granules. Thus, syntaxin-mediated SNARE assembly modulates insulin exocytosis in biphasic insulin release in a distinct way.

Animals↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Starting patients with type 2 diabetes on insulin therapy using once-daily injections of biphasic insulin aspart 70/30, biphasic human insulin 70/30, or NPH insulin in combination with metformin.

Transitioning safely to insulin therapy when oral antidiabetic agents fail to provide adequate glycemic control is a critical aspect of care for the patient with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We evaluated the clinical effectiveness of starting patients on a relatively simple regimen of once-daily injections of either biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (10 min before dinner), NPH insulin (at 10 p.m.), or biphasic human insulin 70/30 (30 min before dinner) in combination with metformin. Enrolled patients had T2DM and inadequate glycemic control (AlC>/=7.5%) on a previous regimen of metformin as monotherapy or in combination with a sulphonylurea. One hundred and forty (140) patients received metformin monotherapy for 4 weeks followed by 12 weeks of combination treatment with metformin and once-daily insulin injections. AlC levels decreased from baseline by 1.1-1.3% for patients in each of the three treatment groups. Overall, FPG values decreased from baseline by 31% (biphasic insulin aspart), 37% (NPH insulin), and 28% (biphasic human insulin). Subjects whose final FPG level was <126 mg/dl experienced the largest decreases in AlC values (-2.3%, -1.9%, -1.8%, respectively). All three treatment regimens were well tolerated. The results indicate that patients with T2DM can safely and effectively begin insulin therapy using once-daily injections of biphasic insulin aspart 70/30, biphasic human insulin 70/30, or NPH insulin in combination with metformin.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2005

The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of biphasic insulin Aspart 70 (BIAsp 70) are significantly different from those of biphasic insulin Aspart 30 (BIAsp 30).

AIMS: To evaluate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of two different formulations of premixed analogue (mixed biphasic insulin aspart [BIAsp]), BIAsp 30 (30 % soluble insulin aspart [IAsp] and 70 % protaminated IAsp) and BIAsp 70 (70 % soluble IAsp and 30 % protaminated IAsp), in patients with type 1 diabetes using a 12-hour euglycaemic clamp technique. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, two-period crossover trial, 27 patients with type 1 diabetes received 7 days of treatment with BIAsp 30 three times daily (TID) and 7 days of treatment with BIAsp 70 TID, with a 2 - 6 week washout period between treatment periods. At the start (day 1) and end (day 8) of each treatment period, 12-hour serum IAsp profiles and glucose infusion rate (GIR) profiles were determined during an overnight euglycaemic clamp following subcutaneous (sc) administration of a single 0.3 U/kg dose of trial insulin. All pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic endpoints were derived from individual serum IAsp and GIR profiles. RESULTS: The larger fraction of soluble IAsp in BIAsp 70 compared with BIAsp 30 resulted in greater metabolic effect during the initial post-dosing phase (0 - 6 hours) and decreased activity during the late phase (6 - 12 hours). On day 8, AUC (GIR 0 - 6 hours) was 16 % greater for BIAsp 70 than for BIAsp 30 (p = 0.016) and AUC (GIR 6 - 12 hours) was 90 % (p < 0.001) greater for BIAsp 30 relative to BIAsp 70, reflecting the increased proportion of intermediate-acting (protamine co-crystallised) IAsp in BIAsp 30. Overall metabolic effect (AUC (GIR 0 - 12 hours)) was similar for both insulin formulations on day 8 (Ratio, BIAsp 30:BIAsp 70 = 1.04, p = 0.538). Likewise, the larger fraction of soluble IAsp in BIAsp 70 compared with BIAsp 30 resulted in greater exposure to IAsp during the initial post-dosing phase (0 - 6 hours) and a smaller exposure to IAsp during the late phase (6 - 12 hours). On day 8, AUC (IAsp 0 - 6 hours) was 59 % (p < 0.001) greater for BIAsp 70 than for BIAsp 30, and AUC (IAsp 6 - 12 hours) was 61 % (p < 0.001) greater for BIAsp 30 than for BIAsp 70, reflecting the increased proportion of intermediate-acting (protamine co-crystallised) IAsp in BIAsp 30. However, the overall IAsp exposure (AUC 0 - 12 hours) on day 8 was significantly greater for BIAsp 70 than for BIAsp 30 (Ratio, BIAsp 30:BIAsp 70 = 0.73, p < 0.001). The GIR profiles on day 8 were similar to those on day 1. Serum IAsp profiles on day 8 showed a slight increase compared with day 1. CONCLUSIONS: The different proportions of soluble and protaminated IAsp result in differences in the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of BIAsp 30 and BIAsp 70. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences observed may allow for flexibility and individualised treatment regimens in patients with diabetes, while maintaining a limited number of daily injections.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Immune responses to insulin aspart and biphasic insulin aspart in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: The antibody responses to a novel rapid-acting insulin analog, insulin aspart (IAsp), and their potential clinical correlates were studied with a specifically developed method in 2,420 people with diabetes treated for up to 1 year with preprandial subcutaneous injections of IAsp. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Circulating insulin antibodies were analyzed by radioimmunoassay with (125)I insulin or IAsp tracers and polyethylene glycol precipitation. Four multinational, open, parallel group studies were conducted in Europe and North America, with a total of 1,534 people with diabetes exposed to IAsp and 886 people exposed to human insulin (HI) as meal-related insulin for 6-12 months. RESULTS: Insulin antibodies specific to HI or IAsp were absent in a majority of patients throughout the 6- to 12-month study periods. A majority of the patients (64-68%) had antibodies cross-reacting between HI and IAsp when entering the studies, with baseline levels (means +/- SD of percent bound/total) of 16.6 +/- 16.3% in study 1 and 10.3 +/- 14.0% in study 4. In all four studies, cross-reactive antibodies increased in patients exposed to IAsp, with a maximum at 3 months, and thereafter there was a decline toward baseline levels at 9-12 months (levels at 3 and 12 months: 22.3 +/- 19.7 and 16.8 +/- 16.5% in study 1 and 21.5 +/- 21.9 and 16.9 +/- 17.4% in study 4). Antibody levels showed similar changes in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and there was no consistent relationship between antibody formation and glycemic control or between antibody formation and safety in terms of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with IAsp is associated with an increase in cross-reactive insulin antibodies, with a subsequent fall toward baseline values, without any indication of clinical relevance because no effect on efficacy or safety could be identified.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Efficacy of biphasic insulin aspart in patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that 39% of people with diabetes worldwide who use insulin are prescribed premixes, largely because of the practical advantages of addressing both prandial and basal insulin needs with a single product. Rapid-acting premixed insulin analogues such as biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30 [30% soluble insulin aspart and 70% protamine-crystallized insulin aspart], NovoLog Mix 70/30, Novo Nordisk, Bagsvaerd, Denmark) have been developed recently to overcome the pharmacokinetic limitations of regular human insulin used in the most commonly prescribed premix, biphasic human insulin 30 (BHI 30, 30% human insulin and 70% neutral protamine Hagedorn [NPH] insulin). It would be expected that these pharmacokinetic improvements would enhance clinical performance. However, the efficacy of BIAsp 30 compared with other common treatment regimens has not yet been systematically reviewed. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to review current data on the efficacy of BIAsp 30 in comparison with other treatment strategies in type 2 diabetes, including oral antidiabetic drugs (eg, metformin, sulfonylureas, meglitinides, thiazolidinediones), conventional insulins (eg, BHI 30, NPH insulin), and other analogue insulins (eg, insulin glargine, biphasic insulin lispro 25 [Mix 25, 25% biphasic insulin lispro and 75% protaminated lispro]). The focus will be on comparative efficacy (ie, postprandial glucose [PPG], blood glucose profiles, and glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c]). METHODS: We identified human clinical studies published through February 2005 involving BIAsp 30 in patients with type 2 diabetes by performing a MEDLINE search (key words: biphasic insulin aspart, BIAsp 30, biphasic insulin, and premixed insulin). Additional papers were identified by assessing (1) the reference lists in these studies, (2) published conference proceedings, and (3) our reference files. A total of 21 relevant papers were retrieved: 13 were published as full manuscripts, 1 as a short communication, 5 as abstracts, and 1 as a poster. One paper is currently in press. Novo Nordisk supplied data from an unpublished trial (Study 1536, 2004), as well as data from a trial published in abstract form only (Study 1269, 2002). RESULTS: A regimen of BIAsp 30 BID, at breakfast and dinner, provides improved PPG control compared with BHI 30 BID, NPH BID, and insulin glargine OD for patients with type 2 diabetes. Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) with BIAsp 30 was not significantly different from FPG with insulin glargine; however, FPG was higher with BIAsp 30 than with NPH. BIAsp 30 prevented excessive PPG excursions whether it was injected at the beginning of a meal or < or =15 minutes after starting a meal. BIAsp 30 was not associated with an increased risk of major hypoglycemia compared with other insulin regimens used in the studies reviewed. The incidence of minor hypoglycemic events with BIAsp 30 varied across studies but occurred with frequency or risk similar to BHI 30, Mix 25, or NPH. Treat-to-target trials reported that BIAsp 30 can be used to intensify insulin therapy and to reach the glycemic target recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ie, HbA1c <7.0%). One study reported a greater lowering of postprandial triglyceride levels with BIAsp 30 than with BHI 30. CONCLUSIONS: BIAsp 30 BID can reduce PPG levels to a greater extent than other common treatment regimens, including basal insulin OD. Using BIAsp 30, even once daily, may allow some patients to reach glycemic targets with a degree of convenience and tolerability that may not be achievable with other treatment regimens.

Biphasic Insulins↗
PubMed2005

Biphasic insulin aspart 30: literature review of adverse events associated with treatment.

BACKGROUND: Biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30 [30% soluble, rapid-acting insulin aspart and 70% protamine-bound insulin aspart], NovoLog Mix 70/30, Novo Nordisk, Bagsvaerd, Denmark), a premixed insulin analogue, addresses both the prandial and basal aspects of glucose regulation when used once or twice daily in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. It provides overall glycemic control similar to biphasic human insulin 30 (BHI 30, 30% human insulin and 70% neutral protamine Hagedorn [NPH] insulin) in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to evaluate the safety profile associated with BIAsp 30 in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes versus that of comparator insulin products, including BHI 30 and biphasic insulin lispro 25 (Mix 25 [25% biphasic insulin lispro and 75% protaminated lispro], Humalog Mix 75/25, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana), together with the basal insulins, including NPH insulin and insulin glargine (Lantus, Sanofi-Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Paris, France). METHODS: Data from human clinical studies published in peer-reviewed journals or as conference proceedings that reported safety results in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who were treated with BIAsp 30 versus comparator insulins were evaluated. To locate the appropriate articles, a MEDLINE search was performed for all years up to February 2005, using the following key words: biphasic insulin aspart, BIAsp 30, biphasic insulin, and premixed insulin. Additional papers were identified by examining the reference lists in these papers as well as our own personal reference files. Results from 17 publications were analyzed. The analysis included >2600 patients with type 2 diabetes (mean [range] age, 58 [36-70] years; duration of diabetes, 11.8 [9-17] years; and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c], 8.6% [7.5%-9.9%]). It also included 104 patients with type 1 diabetes (mean [range] age, 44.5 [30-58] years; duration of diabetes, 16 [2-30] years; and baseline HbA1c, 8.4% [7.2%-10.4%]). RESULTS: Hypoglycemia occurred in 43% to 57% of patients receiving BIAsp 30 versus 32% to 57% of patients receiving BHI 30 and 28% of patients receiving NPH insulin. Major hypoglycemic events were uncommon in most studies; but when they did occur, they were reported less frequently in patients receiving BIAsp 30 (2%-8% of patients) than in patients receiving BHI 30 (2%-14% of patients). Furthermore, patients treated with BIAsp 30 were at lower risk of experiencing minor nocturnal hypoglycemia than patients receiving comparator insulin; in 1 study, the relative risk (BIAsp 30 vs BHI 30) was calculated to be 0.63 (95% CI, 0.37 to 1.09). The adverse event (AE) profile, weight gain during treatment, and formation of cross-reactive antibodies were not different between BIAsp 30 and BHI 30. AEs were reported in 36% to 90% of patients receiving BIAsp 30, 38% to 88% of patients receiving BHI 30, and 51% of patients receiving Mix 25. The use of oral antidiabetic drugs in combination with BIAsp 30 did not alter the safety profile of BIAsp 30. CONCLUSION: The flexible and convenient treatment regimen offered by BIAsp 30, together with its ability to improve postprandial glucose control, is associated with a safety profile comparable to that of BHI 30 and NPH insulin, with a lower risk of major and nocturnal hypoglycemic events.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Importance of nonionic signals for glucose-induced biphasic insulin secretion.

Glucose induces biphasic insulin secretion by the islet beta-cell. Based on recent knowledge on glucose signaling in the beta-cell, the underlying mechanisms for this biphasicity could be envisaged as follows. Glucose-induced elevation of cytosolic free Ca(2+) concentration, which is due to the electrophysiological events that originate in closure of the ATP-sensitive K(+) (K(ATP)) channel, most likely triggers the first phase. The second phase is produced by gradual augmentation and potentiation of Ca(2+)-triggered insulin release by the K(ATP) channel-independent, nonionic signals. Protein acylation may be involved in the nonionic signaling. In patients lacking functional K(ATP) channels, however, the first phase of glucose-induced insulin secretion is clearly retained, casting doubt on the simplistic view outlined above. In this pathological condition, the K(ATP) channel-independent, most likely nonionic, glucose action alone is sufficient for the first-phase response.

Adenosine Triphosphate↗
PubMed2006

A comparison of twice-daily exenatide and biphasic insulin aspart in patients with type 2 diabetes who were suboptimally controlled with sulfonylurea and metformin: a non-inferiority study.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this 52-week, open-label, non-inferiority trial was to compare the safety and efficacy of exenatide (an incretin mimetic) with that of biphasic insulin aspart. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients on metformin and a sulfonylurea were randomised to exenatide (n = 253; 5 microg twice daily for 4 weeks, 10 microg thereafter) or biphasic insulin aspart (n = 248; twice-daily doses titrated for optimal glucose control), while continuing with metformin and sulfonylurea treatment. RESULTS: Glycaemic control achieved with exenatide was non-inferior to that achieved with biphasic insulin aspart (mean+/-SEM, HbA(1c) change: exenatide -1.04 +/- 0.07%, biphasic insulin aspart -0.89 +/- 0.06%; difference -0.15 [95% CI -0.32 to 0.01]%). Exenatide-treated patients lost weight, while patients treated with biphasic insulin aspart gained weight [between-group difference -5.4 (95% CI -5.9 to -5.0) kg]. Both treatments reduced fasting serum glucose (exenatide -1.8 +/- 0.2 mmol/l, p < 0.001; biphasic insulin aspart -1.7 +/- 0.2 mmol/l, p < 0.001). Greater reductions in postprandial glucose excursions following morning (p < 0.001), midday (p = 0.002) and evening meals (p < 0.001) were observed with exenatide. The withdrawal rate was 21.3% (54/253) for exenatide and 10.1% (25/248) for biphasic insulin aspart. Nausea (33% incidence, 3.5% discontinuation) was the most common adverse event observed with exenatide. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Exenatide treatment resulted in HbA(1c) reduction similar to biphasic insulin aspart and provided better postprandial glycaemic control, making it a potential alternative for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Treatment with biphasic insulin aspart was associated with weight gain and lower risk of adverse gastrointestinal events. Although the availability of glucose-lowering agents associated with weight reduction may be considered a therapeutic advance, the long-term implications of progressive weight reduction observed with exenatide have yet to be defined.

Blood Glucose↗
PubMed2006

Starting insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: twice-daily biphasic insulin Aspart 30 plus metformin versus once-daily insulin glargine plus glimepiride.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of two analog insulins as starting regimens in insulin-naïve Type 2 diabetes patients. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label parallel study, twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 (30% soluble and 70% protaminated insulin aspart; BIAsp 30) plus metformin (met) was compared with once-daily insulin glargine (glarg) plus glimepiride (glim) in 255 insulin-naïve patients (131 male; mean+/-SD age, 61.2+/-9.1 years). Mean baseline HbA (1c) (+/-SD) was 9.2+/-1.4% and 8.9+/-1.3% for BIAsp 30 plus met ( N=128) and glarg plus glim ( N=127), respectively ( P=0.0747). Primary endpoint was the difference in absolute change in HbA (1c) between groups after 26 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: HbA (1c) change was significantly greater in the BIAsp 30 plus met group than the glarg plus glim group (between-group difference: -0.5% (95% CI: -0.8; -0.2); P=0.0002). Mean prandial plasma glucose increment was significantly lower for BIAsp 30 plus met compared with glarg plus glim: 1.4+/-1.4 mmol/l vs. 2.2+/-1.8 mmol/l; P=0.0002. During the maintenance phase (weeks 6-26), one major hypoglycemic episode occurred in each group; 20.3% and 9% of patients experienced minor hypoglycemic episodes in the BIAsp 30 plus met and glarg plus glim groups, respectively ( P=0.0124). At end-of-trial, mean daily insulin doses were 0.40 U/kg BIAsp 30 and 0.39 U/kg glarg. Glarg plus glim-treated patients experienced significant weight gain of 1.5 kg (95% CI: 0.84; 2.19; P<0.0001). Weight change with BIAsp 30 plus met of +0.7 kg was not statistically significant (95% CI: -0.07; 1.42; P=0.0762). CONCLUSIONS: Starting insulin in Type 2 diabetes patients with twice-daily BIAsp 30 plus met can reduce HbA (1c) and mean prandial plasma glucose increment to a greater extent than once-daily glarg plus glim.

Aged↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Glucose-stimulated signaling pathways in biphasic insulin secretion.

Glucose-stimulated biphasic insulin secretion involves at least two signaling pathways, the KATP channel-dependent and KATP channel-independent pathways, respectively. In the former, enhanced glucose metabolism increases the cellular adenosine triphosphate/adenosine diphosphate (ATP/ADP) ratio, closes KATP channels and depolarizes the cell. Activation of voltage-dependent Ca(2+) channels increases Ca(2+) entry and [Ca(2+)]i and stimulates insulin release. The KATP channel-independent pathways augment the response to increased [Ca(2+)]i by mechanisms that are currently unknown. However, they affect different pools of insulin-containing granules in a highly coordinated manner. The beta-cell granule pools can be minimally described as reserve, morphologically docked, readily and immediately releasable. Activation of the KATP channel-dependent pathway results in exocytosis of an immediately releasable pool that is responsible for the first phase of glucose-stimulated insulin release. Following glucose metabolism, the rate-limiting step for the first phase lies in the rate of signal transduction between sensing the rise in [Ca(2+)]i and exocytosis of the immediately releasable granules. The immediately releasable pool of granules can be enlarged by previous exposure to glucose (by time-dependent potentiation, TDP), and by second messengers such as cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cyclic AMP) and diacylglycerol (DAG). The second phase of glucose-stimulated insulin secretion is due mainly to the KATP channel-independent pathways acting in synergy with the KATP channel-dependent pathway. The rate-limiting step here is the conversion of readily releasable granules to the state of immediate releasability, following which, in an activated cell they will undergo exocytosis. In the rat and human beta-cell the KATP channel-independent pathways induce a time-dependent increase in the rate of this step that results in the typical rising second-phase response. In the mouse beta-cell the rate appears not to be changed much by glucose. Potential intermediates involved in controlling the rate-limiting step include increases in cytosolic long-chain acyl-CoA levels, adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and guanosine triphosphate (GTP), DAG binding proteins, including some isoforms of protein kinase (PKC), and protein acyl transferases. Agonists that can change the rate-limiting steps for both phases of insulin release include those like glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) that raise cyclic AMP levels and those like acetylcholine that act via DAG.

Adenosine Triphosphate↗
PubMed1991

Impaired biphasic insulin release in mildly diabetic rats bearing a chronic portal vein catheter.

Using a new technique of chronic portal vein catheterization in freely moving rats, we investigated the insulin release to intravenous (IV) glucose (0.5 g/kg) injection in mildly diabetic (35 mg/kg streptozotocin, IV) rats. In nondiabetic rats, plasma insulin of the portal vein showed a clear biphasic release pattern, which peaked within two min after glucose injection, reached a nadir between three and six min, then began to rise to a second peak between 7 and 10 min, and reached a second nadir at 14 min. In mildly diabetic rats, a biphasic insulin release was evident, but both the first and the second phase insulin releases were impaired. In spite of this impaired insulin release, glucose intolerance was mild. Simultaneous blood sampling from the portal and peripheral veins after IV glucose injection revealed that diabetic rats showed diminished hepatic insulin extraction. These results suggest that the biphasic insulin release to glucose is impaired in mildly diabetic rats, but diminished hepatic insulin extraction contributes at least to keeping glucose tolerance mild.

Animals↗
PubMed1989

Difference in the potentiating effect of adenosine triphosphate and alpha, beta-methylene ATP on the biphasic insulin response to glucose.

1. The effects of exogenous adenine nucleotides and structural analogues on the biphasic insulin response to an increase of glucose concentration in the physiological range (from 4.2 to 8.3 mM) were studied in the isolated perfused rat pancreas. Purinoceptor agonists were added either simultaneously or 15 min before increasing glucose. 2. ATP and ADP at 16.5 microM were ineffective per se in the presence of the non stimulatory glucose concentration (4.2 mM) but markedly potentiated the biphasic insulin response to glucose rise in both experimental protocols. 3. Two more stable analogues of ATP and ADP (adenylylimidodiphosphate and alpha, beta-methylene ADP (alpha, beta-MeADP)) at 16.5 microM behaved like the natural compounds: they were ineffective at a glucose concentration of 4.2 mM and potentiated both phases of insulin response to glucose rise. 4. alpha, beta-MeATP added simultaneously with the high glucose concentration, markedly potentiated the first phase of insulin response to glucose rise but did not potentiate the second one. When alpha, beta-MeATP infusion began 15 min before glucose rise, the biphasic response to glucose was not potentiated, in contrast to what occurred with ATP. 5. In the presence of alpha, beta-MeATP, the ATP potentiating effect was unaffected. 6. It is concluded that ATP and ADP, via activation of beta cell P2 gamma purinoceptors, potentiates the biphasic insulin response to an increase of glucose concentration. On the other hand, alpha, beta-MeATP did not behave like natural and other structural analogues of ATP and ADP: this difference appears not to be the consequence of desensitization of beta cell P2 gamma purinoceptors by alpha, beta-MeATP.

Adenosine Diphosphate↗
PubMed2005

Impact of insulin antibodies on insulin aspart pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics after 12-week treatment with multiple daily injections of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in patients with type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of insulin antibodies on insulin aspart pharmaco-kinetics and pharmacodynamics after 12-week multiple daily injections of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (30% fast-acting and 70% protamine-crystallised insulin aspart, BIAsp30) in patients with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Twenty-three patients (8 women, 15 men) aged 44.8 (20.6-62.5) years (median and range) with diabetes duration of 19.5 (1.6-44.6) years and haemoglobin (Hb)A(1C) of 9.2% (8.1-12.3%) participated in the study, which consisted of 12-week treatment with multiple injections of BIAsp30. At the end of the treatment period, all patients attended two 24-h profile days 1 week apart for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic assessments. HbA(1C) and insulin antibodies were also determined. RESULTS: Patients were stratified into two groups depending on whether the level of insulin binding to insulin antibodies was below or above 75% (moderate vs high (%, median and range): 62 (15-74) vs 80 (75-89)). High levels of insulin antibodies resulted in about threefold increase in AUC((0 - 24 h)) (the area under the concentration-time curve during 24 h) for total insulin aspart (analysis of variance, P < 0.05). The differences in free insulin aspart pharmacokinetics, insulin pharmacodynamics and HbA(1C) were not statistically significant between patients with different levels of insulin antibodies. Total daily insulin dosage was significantly lower in patients with high than moderate levels of insulin antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: In type 1 diabetic patients, high levels of circulating insulin antibodies result in elevated total, but not free, insulin aspart profiles. Consistent with the finding of similar insulin pharmacodynamics, the long-term glycaemic control is not significantly different between patients with different levels of insulin antibodies.

Adult↗