AIM: To evaluate the time-action profiles and the dose-response relationship of the long-acting insulin analogues insulin detemir (IDet) and NPH insulin (NPH) in type 2 diabetic patients belonging to different ethnic groups. METHODS:Forty-eight type 2 diabetic patients belonging to different ethnic groups (three groups of 16 African Americans (AA), 16 Hispanics/Latinos (HL) and 16 Caucasians) participated in this double-blind crossover trial. Each patient took part in six 16-h isoglycaemic glucose clamps (clamp target 7.2 mmol/l) and was randomly allocated to three doses (0.3, 0.6 and 1.2 (I)U/kg) of IDet and NPH, respectively. RESULTS: IDet and NPH showed comparable pharmacodynamic effects [the area under the glucose infusion rate curve (AUC(GIR 0-16 h)) (mg/kg)] in the investigated dose range: IDet, 0.3 U/kg, 207 AA, 535 HL, 285 Caucasians; 0.6 U/kg, 1203 AA, 824 HL and 1126 Caucasians; 1.2 U/kg, 1502 AA, 1977 HL and 2269 Caucasians; NPH, 0.3 IU/kg, 733 AA, 1148 HL and 1148 Caucasians; 0.6 IU/kg, 1395 AA, 1976 HL and 1077 Caucasians; 1.2 IU/kg, 2452 AA, 3296 HL and 2455 Caucasians. Both IDet and NPH showed a linear dose-response relationship in all three groups (p = 0.31), without any significant differences in slope (p = 0.71) or intercept (p = 0.51). Comparable results were obtained for pharmacokinetics. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm a linear dose-response relationship of IDet, without any relevant differences between ethnic groups. This suggests that similar dosing recommendation can be used for IDet in type 2 diabetic patients belonging to different ethnic group.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To evaluate the time-action profiles and the dose-response relationship of the long-acting insulin analogues insulin detemir (IDet) and NPH insulin (NPH) in type 2 diabeticpatients belonging to different ethnic groups. METHODS: Forty-eight type 2 diabeticpatients belonging to different ethnic groups (three groups of 16 African Americans (AA), 16 Hispanics/Latinos (HL) and 16 Caucasians) participated in this double-blind crossover trial. Each patient took part in six 16-h isoglycaemic glucose clamps (clamp target 7.2 mmol/l) and was randomly allocated to three doses (0.3, 0.6 and 1.2 (I)U/kg) of IDet and NPH, respectively. RESULTS: IDet and NPH showed comparable pharmacodynamic effects [the area under the glucose infusion rate curve (AUC(GIR 0-16 h)) (mg/kg)] in the investigated dose range: IDet, 0.3 U/kg, 207 AA, 535 HL, 285 Caucasians; 0.6 U/kg, 1203 AA, 824 HL and 1126 Caucasians; 1.2 U/kg, 1502 AA, 1977 HL and 2269 Caucasians; NPH, 0.3 IU/kg, 733 AA, 1148 HL and 1148 Caucasians; 0.6 IU/kg, 1395 AA, 1976 HL and 1077 Caucasians; 1.2 IU/kg, 2452 AA, 3296 HL and 2455 Caucasians. Both IDet and NPH showed a linear dose-response relationship in all three groups (p = 0.31), without any significant differences in slope (p = 0.71) or intercept (p = 0.51). Comparable results were obtained for pharmacokinetics. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm a linear dose-response relationship of IDet, without any relevant differences between ethnic groups. This suggests that similar dosing recommendation can be used for IDet in type 2 diabeticpatients belonging to different ethnic group.
Authors: Luiz Henrique Guerreiro; Mariana F A N Guterres; Bruno Melo-Ferreira; Luiza C S Erthal; Marcela da Silva Rosa; Daniela Lourenço; Priscilla Tinoco; Luís Maurício T R Lima Journal: AAPS PharmSciTech Date: 2013-07-02 Impact factor: 3.246