Literature DB >> 12547873

Control of postprandial plasma glucose by an oral insulin product (HIM2) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Mark Kipnes1, Paresh Dandona, Devjit Tripathy, J Gordon Still, Gordana Kosutic.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this exploratory study were to assess the postprandial glucose-lowering effects and evaluate the safety and tolerability of single, escalating doses of an oral insulin product, hexyl-insulin monoconjugate 2 (HIM2), in patients with type 2 diabetes. Subcutaneous insulin and oral placebo were also administered for comparison. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Eighteen patients with type 2 diabetes were enrolled in this randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled, three-way crossover, dose-escalation study. A single dose of each of the following study drugs was administered to each patient on 3 separate days: oral HIM2 (at one of three dose levels: 0.375, 0.5, or 1.0 mg/kg), subcutaneous regular insulin (8 units Humulin R), and oral placebo. At 30 min after dosing, patients ingested a standardized test meal (16 oz/720 calories of Boost Plus). Serial blood samples were collected for determination of plasma glucose and insulin concentrations during the 4-h postdose period.
RESULTS: The mean glucose area under the curve for 0 to 240 min (AUC(0-240)) values were lower following administration of 0.5 and 1.0 mg/kg HIM2 vs. placebo (1,097.1 vs. 1,196.9 and 801.1 vs. 992.1 mg x h(-1) x dl(-1), respectively). This difference was statistically significant at the 1.0-mg/kg HIM2 dose level. Insulin exposure, as measured by insulin AUC(0-240) values, for the 0.375-, 0.5-, and 1.0-mg/kg dose levels of HIM2 were 169.9, 193.1, and 230.8 micro U x h(-1) x ml(-1), respectively; insulin AUC(0-240) values for placebo were 165.8, 196.1, and 169.2 micro U x h(-1) x ml(-1), respectively. The mean glucose AUC(0-240) values were similar following administration of 0.5 and 1.0 mg/kg HIM2 vs. subcutaneous insulin (1,097.1 vs. 1,048.0 and 801.1 vs. 875.2 mg x h(-1) x dl(-1), respectively). For pooled data from the 0.5- and 1.0-mg/kg dose groups, the HIM2/subcutaneous insulin ratios for the 2-h postprandial glucose concentration (0.97, 95% CI 0.90-1.06), maximum postprandial glucose concentration (0.99, 95% CI 0.93-1.06), and glucose AUC(0-240) (0.98, 95% CI 0.9-1.06) were within 10% of unity, implying glucodynamic equivalence. Although HIM2 (0.5 and 1.0 mg/kg) and subcutaneous insulin (8 units) provided comparable control of postprandial plasma glucose concentrations, HIM2 resulted in peripheral insulin concentrations that were lower than subcutaneous insulin (mean insulin AUC(0-240) of 193.1 vs. 233.6 and 230.8 vs. 270.3 micro U x h(-1) x ml(-1), respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Single, oral doses of HIM2 were safe and well tolerated. HIM2 (0.5 and 1.0 mg/kg) was more effective than placebo and as effective as subcutaneous regular insulin (8 units) at controlling postprandial glycemia with respect to the following parameters: 2-h postprandial glucose concentration, maximum glucose concentration, and glucose AUC(0-240). This occurred even though peripheral insulin concentrations were lower following the administration of HIM2 (0.5 and 1.0 mg/kg) than subcutaneous insulin. Thus, HIM2 therapy may control postprandial glycemia without causing peripheral hyperinsulinemia in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12547873     DOI: 10.2337/diacare.26.2.421

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Care        ISSN: 0149-5992            Impact factor:   19.112


  14 in total

Review 1.  Waiting to inhale: noninjectable insulin, are we there yet?

Authors:  Kjeld Hermansen
Journal:  Curr Diab Rep       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 4.810

Review 2.  Oral insulin and buccal insulin: a critical reappraisal.

Authors:  Lutz Heinemann; Yves Jacques
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2009-05-01

Review 3.  Efficacy and safety of oral insulin compared to subcutaneous insulin: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  V Akbari; F Hendijani; A Feizi; J Varshosaz; Z Fakhari; S Morshedi; S A Mostafavi
Journal:  J Endocrinol Invest       Date:  2015-06-24       Impact factor: 4.256

Review 4.  Insulin therapy for type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  Afshin Sasali; Jack L Leahy
Journal:  Curr Diab Rep       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 4.810

Review 5.  Approaches for enhancing oral bioavailability of peptides and proteins.

Authors:  Jwala Renukuntla; Aswani Dutt Vadlapudi; Ashaben Patel; Sai H S Boddu; Ashim K Mitra
Journal:  Int J Pharm       Date:  2013-02-18       Impact factor: 5.875

Review 6.  [Efficacy of oral/buccal insulin in the treatment of diabetes mellitus.].

Authors:  Zaida Herrador Ortiz; Aurora Llanos Méndez
Journal:  Aten Primaria       Date:  2009-09-25       Impact factor: 1.137

7.  Differential effects of glucose on agonist-induced relaxations in human mesenteric and subcutaneous arteries.

Authors:  A MacKenzie; E J Cooper; F J Dowell
Journal:  Br J Pharmacol       Date:  2007-11-26       Impact factor: 8.739

8.  In vitro and in vivo evaluation of a water-in-oil microemulsion system for enhanced peptide intestinal delivery.

Authors:  Dongyun Liu; Taku Kobayashi; Steven Russo; Fengling Li; Scott E Plevy; Todd M Gambling; Johnny L Carson; Russell J Mumper
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2012-11-30       Impact factor: 4.009

9.  Protein and Peptide drug delivery: oral approaches.

Authors:  Jessy Shaji; V Patole
Journal:  Indian J Pharm Sci       Date:  2008 May-Jun       Impact factor: 0.975

10.  The control of hyperglycemia by a novel trypsin resistant oral insulin preparation in alloxan induced type I diabetic mice.

Authors:  Sarbashri Bank; Arjun Ghosh; Suman Bhattacharya; Smarajit Maiti; Gausal A Khan; Asru K Sinha
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-05-26       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.