Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2021
Comparison of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Inhaled Technosphere Insulin and Subcutaneous Insulin Lispro in the Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Grant Marshall, Heise Tim, Baughman Robert
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This study was performed to satisfy a US Food and Drug Administration post-marketing requirement to compare the dose responses for Technosphere® Insulin (TI; MannKind Corporation, Westlake Village, CA, USA) and subcutaneous insulin lispro (LIS) across a wide range of doses.
OBJECTIVES: This single-center, open-label, randomized, cross-over study defined the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic curves for inhaled TI vs subcutaneous LIS in persons with type 1 diabetes mellitus.
METHODS: Each volunteer received six treatments while undergoing euglycemic clamps: three doses of TI (10, 30 and 120 U) and LIS (8, 30, and 90 U). Primary endpoint was area under the glucose infusion rate vs time curve from start of treatment administration to end of clamp. Key secondary endpoints included readouts of insulin exposure and timing of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles.
RESULTS: Insulin exposure was more than dose proportional, increasing with dose1.08 for LIS and dose1.35 for TI. Time to reach 10% of the maximum glucose infusion rate was 7 to 15 min for TI vs 21 to 38 min for LIS. End of effect was dose dependent for both treatments, ranging from 2 to 6 h (TI) and 5 to 10 h (LIS). Glucose infusion rate exhibited saturation for both treatments. Technosphere Insulin produced a lesser total effect per unit insulin than LIS due to its faster absorption and correspondingly shorter duration of exposure. The difference was large enough to require significantly different doses to achieve the same total effect.
CONCLUSIONS: Technosphere Insulin has a considerably faster onset and shorter duration of action than LIS. Consequently, the overall effect of TI is smaller than that of LIS and unit-for-unit dose conversion is not appropriate.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02470637; 12 June, 2015.
OBJECTIVES: This single-center, open-label, randomized, cross-over study defined the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic curves for inhaled TI vs subcutaneous LIS in persons with type 1 diabetes mellitus.
METHODS: Each volunteer received six treatments while undergoing euglycemic clamps: three doses of TI (10, 30 and 120 U) and LIS (8, 30, and 90 U). Primary endpoint was area under the glucose infusion rate vs time curve from start of treatment administration to end of clamp. Key secondary endpoints included readouts of insulin exposure and timing of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles.
RESULTS: Insulin exposure was more than dose proportional, increasing with dose1.08 for LIS and dose1.35 for TI. Time to reach 10% of the maximum glucose infusion rate was 7 to 15 min for TI vs 21 to 38 min for LIS. End of effect was dose dependent for both treatments, ranging from 2 to 6 h (TI) and 5 to 10 h (LIS). Glucose infusion rate exhibited saturation for both treatments. Technosphere Insulin produced a lesser total effect per unit insulin than LIS due to its faster absorption and correspondingly shorter duration of exposure. The difference was large enough to require significantly different doses to achieve the same total effect.
CONCLUSIONS: Technosphere Insulin has a considerably faster onset and shorter duration of action than LIS. Consequently, the overall effect of TI is smaller than that of LIS and unit-for-unit dose conversion is not appropriate.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02470637; 12 June, 2015.