Insulin glulisine, a new rapid-acting insulin analogue, displays a rapid time-action profile in obese non-diabetic subjects

• Published in: Experimental and clinical endocrinology & diabetes Vol. 113; no. 8; p. 435
• Main Authors: Becker, R H A, Frick, A D, Burger, F, Potgieter, J H, Scholtz, H
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Germany 01-09-2005
• Subjects: Adult; Blood Glucose - drug effects; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents - administration & dosage; Hypoglycemic Agents - pharmacokinetics; Injections, Subcutaneous; Insulin - administration & dosage; Insulin - analogs & derivatives; Insulin - pharmacokinetics; Insulin Lispro; Male; Middle Aged; Obesity - blood; Time
• DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-865806
• ISSN: 0947-7349

This study compared the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of insulin glulisine, insulin lispro, and regular human insulin in obese subjects.
In this single-dose, randomized, double-blind, crossover euglycaemic clamp study, 18 non-diabetic subjects (mean body mass index [BMI] 34.7 kg . m (-2)) were randomized to receive subcutaneous injections of each insulin (0.3 U . kg (-1)) in pre-determined sequences.
Insulin glulisine and insulin lispro had more rapid-acting profiles than regular human insulin. Fractional glucose infusion rate (GIR)-area under curves (AUC) of the GIR curve and maximum GIR were greater for insulin glulisine and insulin lispro versus regular human insulin. Total glucose disposal was slightly greater with insulin glulisine than with regular human insulin, and was comparable to insulin lispro, although it decreased with increasing insulin resistance (HOMA index) with all insulins. Time to 20 % (early glucose disposal) and 80 % (bulk of activity) of total GIR-AUC were shorter for insulin glulisine and insulin lispro versus regular human insulin. This was corroborated by more rapid and shorter residing pharmacokinetic profiles of insulin glulisine and insulin lispro versus regular human insulin, evidenced by shorter times to 20 % of total INS-AUC, INS-C (max) (INS-t (max)), and mean residence time. Moreover, time to 20 % of total GIR-AUC demonstrated a less rapid-acting profile for insulin lispro versus insulin glulisine, which was consistent with the slightly less rapid pharmacokinetic profile of insulin lispro. There was no significant correlation between BMI or subcutaneous fat thickness and pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic profiles for insulin glulisine, unlike insulin lispro and regular human insulin.
Insulin glulisine and insulin lispro demonstrated substantially more rapid time-action profiles than regular human insulin in obese non-diabetic subjects, which prevailed with insulin glulisine irrespective of BMI and subcutaneous fat thickness.