Human Insulin Inhalation Powder Research Articles

Differences in Relative Bioavailability (BA) of Inhalation Insulin Determined using Insulin and Glucose Levels Following Subcutaneous and Inhalation Administration in Humans

BA may be determined using both plasma concentrations of a drug (pharmacokinetic parameters) and its pharmacological effects (pharmacodynamic parameters). However, the resulting assessments of BA can be substantially different. In a relative BA study (N=30) 10 IU (0.35 mg) Actrapid ® was administered subcutaneously with comparison to a 6.5 mg dose of recombinant human insulin inhalation powder (RHIIP) administered using the Cyclohaler TM dry powder inhaler under euglycemic glucose clamp conditions. Relative BA following the inhalation administration compared with the subcutaneous dose was 12.0±1.8% and 6.3±0.6% when determined using baseline-adjusted insulin and glucose infusion rate (GIR), respectively. To explain the observed differences in BA, a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model was developed and BAs were predicted at different doses of inhalation insulin with the fixed 10 IU subcutaneous dose. BA predicted for 3.25 mg inhaled insulin and GIR were 12% and 7.5%, respectively. When the potency of the two insulin formulations was compared, it was shown that Actrapid ® was approximately 1.4 times greater than the RHIIP formulation. Furthermore, when AUC values for GIR were normalized based on potency BA predicted for a 3.25 mg RHIIP dose was approximately 11%. Thus, the difference in BA dependent upon insulin and glucose could be explained by the non-linear pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationship and potency difference between RHIIP and Actrapid ® .

PROMAXX® inhaled insulin: safe and efficacious administration with a commercially available dry powder inhaler

We investigated the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) properties of recombinant human insulin inhalation powder (RHIIP), manufactured with PROMAXX technology, which allows formation of uniform protein microspheres. Thirty healthy male subjects [age 30 +/- 1 years (mean +/- s.e.), body mass index 24.2 +/- 0.3 kg/m(2)] in a randomized crossover study received 10 IU subcutaneous regular human insulin (SCIns) and 6.5 mg of RHIIP [187 IU, Cyclohaler dry powder inhaler (DPI)] under euglycaemic glucose clamp conditions. Subjects were trained to inhale RHIIP with a flow rate of 90 +/- 30 l/min prior to dosing. Inhalation of RHIIP was well tolerated with no episode of cough or shortness of breath. RHIIP showed a faster onset of action than SCIns [time to reach 10% of total area under the glucose infusion rate (GIR) curves 73 +/- 2 vs. 95 +/- 3 min, time to maximal metabolic effect (T(max)GIR) 173 +/- 13 vs. 218 +/- 9 min, both p < 0.0001]. Duration of action (371 +/- 11 vs. 366 +/- 7 min) and total metabolic effect (AUCGIR0-10 h 2734 +/- 274 vs. 2482 +/- 155 mg/kg) were comparable. PK results were in accordance with the PD findings. Relative bioavailability (BA) of RHIIP was 12 +/- 2%, and relative biopotency (BP) was 6 +/- 1%. PROMAXX technology allowed for safe and efficacious administration of RHIIP to the deep lung with an off-the-shelf DPI. RHIIP showed a fast onset of action and BA/BP comparable to that reported for other inhaled insulin formulations using specifically designed inhalers. Improvements in the insulin delivery technique might allow to optimize drug application in all cases with even higher BA/BP with RHIIP.

A 6-Month Inhalation Study to Characterize the Toxicity, Pharmacokinetics, and Pharmacodynamics of Human Insulin Inhalation Powder (HIIP) in Beagle Dogs

The purpose of this study was to characterize the toxicity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of human insulin inhalation powder (HIIP) in beagle dogs when administered daily as an aerosolized dry powder formulation for 26 weeks via head-only inhalation. Conscious beagle dogs were exposed for 15 mins/day to an air control, placebo, maximal placebo (approximately three-fold the placebo dose), or one of three doses of HIIP (mean inhaled doses of 80, 240, or 701 microg/kg/day for the HIIP-low, HIIP-mid, and HIIP-high dose, respectively), The mass median aerodynamic diameters (MMAD) were between 2 and 3 microm and geometric standard deviation (GSD) values were approximately 2 across the groups, which is the ideal size range for favorable lung deposition. All groups were comprised of four dogs/sex, with the air control, HIIP-high, and maximal placebo groups having an additional two dogs/sex as recovery subgroups. Concentrations of serum insulin and glucose were determined from blood samples obtained following the first and last exposure for evaluation of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of HIIP. Dose-related exposure (C(max), AUC) to inhaled insulin was observed with rapid absorption and no apparent gender differences or accumulation after repeated inhalation exposures for 26 weeks. The expected pharmacological effect of insulin was observed with dose-related decreases in serum glucose levels following HIIP administration. There were no toxic effects observed including no HIIP or placebo treatment-related effects on mean body weights, absolute body weight changes, clinical observations, food consumption, respiratory function parameters, ophthalmic examinations, electrocardiograms, heart rates, clinical pathology, or urinalysis. Similarly, there were no HIIP or placebo treatment-related effects on pulmonary assessments that included respiratory function parameters, bronchial alveolar lavage assessments, organ weights, or macroscopic and microscopic evaluations, including lung cell proliferation indices. HIIP was considered to have either low or no immunogenic potential in dogs. The no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) and maximum tolerated dose were the average inhaled dose of 701 microg insulin/kg/day.

Review of Phase 2 Studies Utilizing the AIR® Particle Technology in the Delivery of Human Insulin Inhalation Powder Versus Subcutaneous Regular or Lispro Insulin in Subjects with Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes

Insulin therapy is underutilized in the treatment of diabetes mellitus for many reasons, including both patient and provider resistance. Targeting postprandial blood glucose control in patients with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes has been demonstrated to improve overall glycemic control, but the reluctance to use injectable insulin demonstrates the need for the development of alternative routes for insulin delivery. The development of inhaled insulin systems was designed to improve the ease of insulin use for patients and help alleviate fears they may have with injectable insulin. Human insulin inhalation powder (HIIP) (Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, IN/Alkermes, Cambridge, MA) has been demonstrated in Phase 2 studies to have similar effects on glycemic profiles compared to both insulin lispro and regular insulin. Hypoglycemia during HIIP was similar to that of regular insulin but was associated with greater hypoglycemic risk compared to insulin lispro. In addition, the AIR Inhaled Insulin system (Lilly/Alkermes), which delivers HIIP, has been demonstrated to be easy to use and requires minimal patient education, which may improve overall medication compliance. Phase 3 studies are ongoing to further evaluate safety and efficacy of HIIP.

Comparison of Standard (Self-Directed) Versus Intensive Patient Training for the Human Insulin Inhalation Powder (HIIP) Delivery System in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Efficacy, Safety, and Training Measures

The Lilly/Alkermes human insulin inhalation powder (HIIP) delivery system [AIR (a registered trademark of Alkermes, Inc., Cambridge, MA) Inhaled Insulin System] was designed to be easy to use. Training methods were compared in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients (n = 102) were randomized to standard or intensive training. With standard training, patients learned how to use the HIIP delivery system by reading directions for use (DFU) and trying on their own. Intensive training included orientation to the HIIP delivery system with individual coaching and inspiratory flow rate training. Both groups received preprandial HIIP + metformin with or without a thiazolidinedione for 4 weeks. Overall 2-h postprandial blood glucose (PPBG) excursion was the primary measure. Noninferiority was defined as the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference between groups being 1.2 < or = mmol/L. Overall 2-h PPBG excursions (least squares mean +/- SE) at endpoint were -0.11 +/- 0.38 (standard training) and 0.23 +/- 0.36 (intensive training) mmol/L. The mean difference (standard minus intensive training) and two-sided 95% confidence interval were -0.35 (-1.02, 0.33) mmol/L. No statistically or clinically significant differences were observed between training methods in premeal, postmeal, or bedtime blood glucose values, HIIP doses at endpoint, or blood glucose values after a test meal. No discontinuations occurred because of difficulty of use or dislike of the HIIP system. DFU compliance was >90% in both training groups. There were no significant differences between training methods in safety measures. The HIIP delivery system is easy to use, and most patients can learn to use it by reading the DFU without assistance from health care professionals.

Effect of Standard (Self-Directed) Training Versus Intensive Training for Lilly/Alkermes Human Insulin Inhalation Powder Delivery System on Patient-Reported Outcomes and Patient Evaluation of the System

Inhaled insulin may provide patients with diabetes a safe, efficacious method of insulin delivery without the burden of injection, but complexity of and time required for training in proper use of delivery systems have not been evaluated. This 4-week, multicenter, single-blind, randomized parallel-group study compared the effect of self-directed [written text-graphic directions for use (DFU) with patient-assistance phone number] or intensive (same DFU, personal training by study personnel, inspiratory flow rate coaching) training for the Lilly/Alkermes human insulin inhalation powder (HIIP) delivery system on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Patients with type 2 diabetes poorly controlled on oral therapy (n = 102, mean hemoglobin A1C = 9.3%) were administered measures of vitality, diabetes-associated symptoms, fear of hypoglycemia, insulin-delivery system satisfaction, and a delivery system-specific evaluation questionnaire. Analysis of covariance models were used to compare the effect on PROs of treatment of diabetes for 1 month following the two training methods. Paired t tests were used to determine change in PROs after treatment with HIIP. PROs did not differ significantly between training groups. Patients in both groups positively evaluated the delivery system, but the intensive group agreed significantly (P < 0.05) more strongly that the DFU was easy to follow. Improvements in vitality and symptoms of fatigue and increases in fear of hypoglycemia were detected among all patients after using HIIP (P < 0.05). Training for this HIIP delivery system can be self-directed without detrimental effects on PROs, making it potentially a more patient-friendly insulin-delivery method that should appeal to both clinicians and patients.

An Assessment of Eligibility for Inhaled Insulin (Exubera)

The product information (1) for human insulin inhalation powder (Exubera; Pfizer) recommends spirometry at baseline, 6 months postinitiation, and at least annually thereafter. Patients with a forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) <70% of that predicted for age, sex, and height should not start Exubera. In those exhibiting ≥20% decline in FEV1 during follow-up, Exubera should be discontinued. Exubera is contraindicated for patients with unstable or poorly controlled lung disease, and its efficacy and safety have not been established for patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. To determine the proportions and characteristics of patients predicted to fall into these categories, we analyzed spirometric and other data from the representative community-based Fremantle Diabetes Study (FDS) (2). The FDS was a longitudinal observational study involving 127 type 1 and 1,294 type 2 diabetic patients from a population of 120,097 in the state of Western Australia (2). Between May 1993 and September 1994, we performed spirometry on 70 type 1 and 647 type 2 diabetic patients (55 and 50% of all type 1 and type 2 diabetic FDS subjects, respectively). We had additional data from 107 nonsmoking Europid type 2 diabetic patients with no history of chronic respiratory disease who were restudied a mean ± SD 7.0 ± 0.5 years later. Aspects of the data from the type 2 patients …

Effect of inhaled insulin on patient-reported outcomes and treatment preference in patients with type 1 diabetes

ABSTRACTObjective: To compare patient-reported outcomes and treatment preference between preprandial inhaled insulin and preprandial subcutaneous (SC) insulin in the context of a clinical trial of crossover design with a primary objective of comparing HbA1c between groups.Research design and methods: Multi-center, random­ized, open-label, two-arm crossover trial conducted in the US and Canada with two 12-week periods comparing preference between preprandial human insulin inhalation powder (HIIP; AIR inhaled insulin) and preprandial SC insulin (regular human insulin or insulin lispro) in patients with type 1 diabetes. Patients received HIIP plus insulin glargine during period 1 and SC insulin plus insulin glargine during period 2, or the reverse sequence.Main outcome measures: SF-36 Vitality Subscale, Diabetes Symptom Checklist-Revised subscales, Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire, Insulin Delivery System Questionnaire, HIIP-specific questionnaire, preference question.Results: Of 137 patients entered, 119 completed the study (54% female, mean age 40.9 ± 12.4 years, mean HbA1C 8.1 ± 1.0%). Patients had significantly greater treatment satisfaction and more positive evaluation of their insulin delivery system (easier to control blood sugar, less lifestyle impact) with HIIP than with SC insulin (all p < 0.01). Patients preferring HIIP (80%) were significantly more confident about ( p = 0.005) and comfortable with ( p = 0.003) using the system than those preferring SC insulin. Results may not be generalizable to all patients with type 1 diabetes.Conclusions: Some patients desire alternatives to insulin injection. In this study 80% preferred HIIP to injected insulin. Other patients feel more comfortable with familiar insulin delivery. Healthcare providers should help patients find insulin delivery that corresponds to individual preferences.

Smoking enhances absorption of insulin but reduces glucodynamic effects in individuals using the Lilly‐Dura inhaled insulin system

To quantify the pharmacokinetic (PK) and glucodynamic (GD) impact of smoking on inhaled and subcutaneous (SC) insulin administration in healthy subjects. This study employed the euglycemic clamp procedure in a four-period, four-way randomized crossover design. Eight smoking and eight non-smoking healthy males were given SC insulin on two occasions and human insulin inhalation powder (HIIP) on two other occasions. Smokers exhibited greater insulin exposure (AUC(0-t')) than non-smokers, following both routes of insulin administration (HIIP, P = 0.003, 58% increase; SC, P = 0.006, 24% increase). The maximum insulin concentration (C(max)) following HIIP was greater in smokers by 172% (P = 0.001) compared with non-smokers. The glucodynamic effects were greater in smokers following HIIP, consistent with the insulin concentration difference observed. However, maximum glucose response (R(max)) following SC was decreased by 36% (P = 0.001) and obtained later [time of maximum glucose response (TR(max)); P < 0.001] in smokers than in non-smokers. Smokers appeared less sensitive to insulin [total glucose infused during the clamp procedure normalised by total insulin exposure (G(tot))/AUC(0-t')] than non-smokers following both SC (P = 0.001) and inhaled (P = 0.011) routes of administration. Smokers had substantially increased peak HIIP insulin concentration, but the glucodynamic effect was partially offset, most likely because of increased insulin resistance.

Efficacy and safety of preprandial human insulin inhalation powder versus injectable insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes

The efficacy and safety of human insulin inhalation powder (HIIP) plus insulin glargine were compared to subcutaneously injected insulin (SC insulin) plus insulin glargine in patients with type 1 diabetes. This was a randomised, open-label crossover study in which one group of patients received preprandial HIIP plus insulin glargine for 12 weeks, followed by the same duration with preprandial SC insulin (lispro or regular) plus insulin glargine. Another group of patients received the reverse treatment sequence. The trial was designed as a non-inferiority comparison of the two treatments for effect on HbA(1c); blood glucose levels were also monitored. Safety assessments included adverse event reporting and hypoglycaemic events. HbA(1c) at endpoint was 7.95+/-0.12% for the HIIP treatment and 8.06+/-0.12% for the SC insulin treatment; mean changes from baseline to endpoint were -0.08 and 0.00%, respectively, (p=NS). The upper limit of the 95% CI of mean difference in HbA(1c) between the two treatments was 0.02%, indicating that HIIP was not inferior relative to SC insulin, as measured against the pre-defined margin of 0.3%. Fasting blood glucose was significantly lower for HIIP treatment (8.09+/-0.33 mmol/l; n=117) than for SC insulin treatment (9.05+/-0.33 mmol/l; n=111) (p=0.01). Safety profiles were comparable between the two treatments. The rate of any hypoglycaemia (least-squares mean adjusted for 30 days+/-SE) was 8.9+/-0.7 and 8.2+/-0.8 for HIIP and SC insulin treatments, respectively, (p=0.29). The rate of nocturnal hypoglycaemia was greater for HIIP (4.2+/-0.4) than for SC insulin (2.7+/-0.4; p<0.001). HIIP was similar in efficacy to SC insulin for glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes mellitus. The two treatments had comparable safety profiles.

Dose Response of Inhaled Dry-Powder Insulin and Dose Equivalence to Subcutaneous Insulin Lispro

To determine the pharmacokinetic (PK) and glucodynamic (GD) dose response of human insulin inhalation powder (HIIP) delivered via AIR particle technology and dose equivalence to subcutaneous (SC) insulin lispro. Twenty healthy, nonsmoking, male or female subjects (aged 29.6 +/- 6.9 years, BMI 23.2 +/- 2.3 kg/m2, means +/- SD) with normal forced vital capacity and forced expiratory volume were enrolled in an open-label, randomized, seven-period, euglycemic glucose clamp, cross-over trial. Each subject received up to four single doses of HIIP (2.6, 3.6, 5.2, or 7.8 mg) and three doses of SC lispro (6, 12, or 18 units) from 5 to 18 days apart. HIIP demonstrated a similar rapid onset but an extended time exposure and a prolonged duration of effect (late t(50%) 412 vs. 236 min, P < 0.001) compared with SC lispro. The HIIP versus SC lispro doses of 2.6 mg vs. 6 units, 5.2 mg vs. 12 units, and 7.8 mg vs. 18 units achieved similar PK area under the serum immunoreactive insulin (IRI) concentration-versus-time curve from time zero until the serum IRI concentrations returned to the predose baseline value [AUC(0-t')] and GD (G(tot)) responses. The median insulin (t(max)) was not different between HIIP and SC lispro (45 min for both), although the median time of return to baseline for PK was apparently longer for HIIP compared with SC lispro (480 vs. 360 min). Relative bioavailability and relative biopotency of HIIP were consistent across doses (8 and 9%). While the time-action profile was longer for HIIP than for SC lispro, both treatments showed rapid initial absorption and similar overall PK exposure and GD effect. HIIP was as well tolerated as SC lispro, thereby offering a promising alternative to injectable insulin therapy.