Literature DB >> 23093664

Plasma exposure to insulin glargine and its metabolites M1 and M2 after subcutaneous injection of therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses of glargine in subjects with type 1 diabetes.

Geremia B Bolli1, Annke D Hahn, Ronald Schmidt, Tanja Eisenblaetter, Raphael Dahmen, Tim Heise, Reinhard H A Becker.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In vivo, after subcutaneous injection, insulin glargine (21(A)-Gly-31(B)-Arg-32(B)-Arg-human insulin) is enzymatically processed into 21(A)-Gly-human insulin (metabolite 1 [M1]). 21(A)-Gly-des-30(B)-Thr-human insulin (metabolite 2 [M2]) is also found. In vitro, glargine exhibits slightly higher affinity, whereas M1 and M2 exhibit lower affinity for IGF-1 receptor, as well as mitogenic properties, versus human insulin. The aim of the study was to quantitate plasma concentrations of glargine, M1, and M2 after subcutaneous injection of glargine in male type 1 diabetic subjects. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Glargine, M1, and M2 were determined in blood samples obtained from 12, 11, and 11 type 1 diabetic subjects who received single subcutaneous doses of 0.3, 0.6, or 1.2 units · kg(-1) glargine in a euglycemic clamp study. Glargine, M1, and M2 were extracted using immunoaffinity columns and quantified by a specific liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assay. Lower limit of quantification was 0.2 ng · mL(-1) (33 pmol · L(-1)) per analyte.
RESULTS: Plasma M1 concentration increased with increasing dose; geometric mean (percent coefficient of variation) M1-area under the curve between time of dosing and 30 h after dosing (AUC(0-30h)) was 1,261 (66), 2,867 (35), and 4,693 (22) pmol · h · L(-1) at doses of 0.3, 0.6, and 1.2 units · kg(-1), respectively, and correlated with metabolic effect assessed as pharmacodynamics-AUC(0-30h) of the glucose infusion rate following glargine administration (r = 0.74; P < 0.01). Glargine and M2 were detectable in only one-third of subjects and at a few time points.
CONCLUSIONS: After subcutaneous injection of glargine in male subjects with type 1 diabetes, exposure to glargine is marginal, if any, even at supratherapeutic doses. Glargine is rapidly and nearly completely processed to M1 (21(A)-Gly-human insulin), which mediates the metabolic effect of injected glargine.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23093664      PMCID: PMC3507590          DOI: 10.2337/dc12-0270

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


Insulin glargine design followed the physiology of human insulin formation in β-cells in which 31B-Arg-32B-Arg-human insulin is a final intermediate of the processing from proinsulin to human insulin (1–4). Although unmodified 31B-Arg-32B-Arg-human insulin failed subcutaneously despite being fully active intravenously (5), substitution of 21A-Asp for Gly rendered the molecule both chemically stable (6) and fully active subcutaneously without substantial alterations in receptor affinities (7–10). Soluble at acidic pH, glargine precipitates amorphously upon subcutaneous injection and becomes subject to enzymatic maturation into 21A-Gly-human insulin upon slow release from the depot (11). As a result, glargine exhibits a nearly flat action profile and duration beyond 24 h after multiple dosing in subjects with type 1 and type 2 diabetes (12,13). Glargine is preferred to human NPH insulin because it protects from the risk of hypoglycemia, primarily nocturnal (14). In vitro studies have indicated that glargine has greater binding affinity for the IGF-1 receptor (IGF-1R) and greater potency on DNA synthesis (so-called mitogenic effects) compared with human insulin, at least in malignant cell lines expressing primarily IGF-1R, not insulin receptors (IR) (8). However, the in vitro data are not directly applicable in vivo in humans; the natural precursor 31B-Arg-32B-Arg-human insulin shows even greater IGF-1R affinity than glargine (8,9). In addition, it is presently proposed that the mitogenic potential of insulin analogs is mediated primarily via IR, not IGF-1R (15,16). Nevertheless, the safety of glargine in humans has been questioned (16) based on in vitro experiments, even though glargine does not promote tumor growth in vivo in animals (17), in contrast to the insulin analog X10 (10B-Asp-human insulin) (16), which presents with greater affinity for both IR and IGF-1R. Some controversial registry studies have suggested a possible greater cancer risk in humans using glargine versus nonglargine insulin (18,19). However, in vivo, after subcutaneous injection, glargine undergoes an enzymatic removal of the basic arginine pair at positions 30B and 31B to yield 21A-Gly-human insulin (metabolite 1 [M1]), analogous to prohormone activation (4), with some further loss of threonine to 21A-Gly-des-30B-Thr-human insulin (metabolite 2 [M2]) (Fig. 1) (9,11). Both M1 and M2 exhibit lower affinity for IGF-1R and lower mitogenic potential in vitro compared with glargine, and even with human insulin, while fully retaining its metabolic properties (9,10). Thus, it is understood that most, if not all, of the glargine injected subcutaneously in humans is rapidly transformed to M1 and partly further to M2, resulting in minimal, if any, plasma exposure to parent glargine. Yet, because of technical constraints, the in vivo quantification of glargine metabolism to M1 and M2 in humans has so far been limited (11,20) and of uncertain interpretation (21).
Figure 1

Insulin glargine maturation and metabolism after subcutaneous injection. Enzymatic removal of the COOH-terminal basic arginine pair yields 21A-Gly-human insulin metabolite M1, the principal active moiety of glargine. Subsequent cleavage of 30B-threonine yields M2.

Insulin glargine maturation and metabolism after subcutaneous injection. Enzymatic removal of the COOH-terminal basic arginine pair yields 21A-Gly-human insulin metabolite M1, the principal active moiety of glargine. Subsequent cleavage of 30B-threonine yields M2. Recently, a new bioanalytical method has been developed for specific measurement of glargine and its metabolites M1 and M2 in human plasma. Therefore, the current study was undertaken to characterize the in vivo metabolism of glargine after subcutaneous injection of therapeutic as well as supratherapeutic doses in type 1 diabetic subjects and to correlate the glucodynamic effects of injected glargine with plasma concentration of glargine and/or its M1 and M2 metabolites.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Subjects

Male subjects (aged 21–56 years) with type 1 diabetes on stable basal and prandial insulin regimen (<1.2 units · kg−1), fasting serum C-peptide (<0.3 nmol · L−1), and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c ≤75 mmoL · mol−1, [9.0%]) for at least 2 months participated in the study. The study was performed in accordance with the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice and adhered to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and with all the laws, regulations, and guidelines of Germany, where the study was conducted at the Profil Institute (Neuss). The study protocol and its amendments received local institution review board approval.

Study design

Within a single-center, double-blind euglycemic clamp study, subjects were randomized to receive single doses of 0.3, or 0.6, or 1.2 units · kg−1 glargine. Each subject was studied with only one glargine dose. Subjects were admitted to the study center before the clamp experiment for baseline evaluation, and those taking glargine or detemir had their last injection of these insulins that evening. All subjects used human isophane insulin as basal insulin at their usual dose on the next day with the last injection no later than noon.

Euglycemic clamp

For the euglycemic clamp, subjects were connected to a Biostator (MTB Medizintechnik, Amstetten, Germany) in the morning, in the fasting state, ∼4–6 h before administration of the glargine test dose, as previously described (22). In short, a variable manual intravenous infusion of insulin glulisine or 20% glucose was initiated to obtain a clamp target blood glucose level of 5.5 mmol · L−1 (100 mg · dL−1) ± 30% that was to be maintained without glucose infusion for at least 1 h before subcutaneous periumbilical injection of glargine at approximately 9:00 a.m., and the glulisine infusion was stopped immediately before injection. After glargine injection, an intravenous variable-rate glucose infusion was initiated to maintain blood glucose at 5.5 mmol · L−1 (100 mg · dL−1) for 30 h. Subjects fasted for the duration of the clamp.

Analytical methods

Blood samples for determination of the plasma concentration of glargine and its metabolites M1 and M2 were collected before dosing and at 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 30 h postdose. A total of 300 µL of plasma from each sample was mixed with 50 µL of a working internal standard solution (50 µg · L−1 15N72-glargine, 25 µg · L−1 15N64-M1, and 25 µg · L−1 15N63-M2) and 300 µL of PBS buffer (pH 7.8). Subsequently, glargine and its metabolites were extracted using an immunoaffinity purification protocol that was based on a protocol from Thevis et al. (23) and determined with a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry system (Supplementary Data). The lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) for this method was 33 pmol · L−1 for glargine, M1, and M2.

Statistical analyses and calculations

All subjects were included in the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) population. PK and PD data were summarized by dose using descriptive statistics. Data in the text are expressed as geometric mean with coefficient of variation. Glargine and its metabolite concentrations were determined for a 30-h interval and were integrated for areas under concentration-time curves (PK-AUC0–30h [pmol · h · L−1]) using the trapezoidal rule. The PD effect was determined as the glucose infusion rate and integrated for the area under the curve between time of dosing and 30 h after dosing (PD-AUC0–30h [mg · kg−1]) using the linear rectangle method.

RESULTS

A total of 34 normal weight male subjects with type 1 diabetes without substantial intersubject differences for diabetes complications and concomitant medications were included in the study to receive glargine at doses of 0.3 (n = 12), 0.6 (n = 11), or 1.2 units · kg−1 (n = 11). Their clinical characteristics are shown in Supplementary Table 1.

Glucose metabolism

Blood glucose concentrations were <6.5 mmol · L−1 (118 mg · dL−1) for 17, 30, and 30 h following 0.3, 0.6, and 1.2 units · kg−1 glargine, respectively (Fig. 2), and PD-AUC0–30h increased from 562 (61) to 2,726 (37) and 6,260 (29) mg · kg−1, verifying a positive correlation between injected dose of glargine and glucose metabolism.
Figure 2

Plasma concentration of metabolite M1 (left panel), glucose infusion rate (GIR) to maintain euglycemia (middle panel), and blood glucose concentration (right panel) in the clamp studies after subcutaneous injection of 0.3, 0.6, and 1.2 units · kg−1 glargine (upper, middle, and lower panels) in subjects with type 1 diabetes. Medians (solid lines) and 25th–75th percentiles are given (dotted and dashed lines). LLOQ: 33 pmol · L−1 (solid line) for M1. Plasma glargine and M2 concentrations are not presented since its concentrations nearly always fall below LLOQ (see results).

Plasma concentration of metabolite M1 (left panel), glucose infusion rate (GIR) to maintain euglycemia (middle panel), and blood glucose concentration (right panel) in the clamp studies after subcutaneous injection of 0.3, 0.6, and 1.2 units · kg−1 glargine (upper, middle, and lower panels) in subjects with type 1 diabetes. Medians (solid lines) and 25th–75th percentiles are given (dotted and dashed lines). LLOQ: 33 pmol · L−1 (solid line) for M1. Plasma glargine and M2 concentrations are not presented since its concentrations nearly always fall below LLOQ (see results).

Plasma concentrations of glargine, M1, and M2

M1 was the predominant metabolite of glargine found in plasma (Fig. 2), and its exposure increased with increasing dose of injected glargine. M1-maximum plasma concentration was 78 (percent coefficient of variation 52), 136 (37), and 206 (26) pmol · L−1, and M1-AUC0–30h was 1,261 (66), 2,867 (35), and 4,693 (22) pmol · h · L−1 for doses of 0.3, 0.6, and 1.2 units · kg−1 of injected glargine, respectively. The PK profile of M1 showed maximum plasma concentrations ∼12 h after subcutaneous injection of glargine and by 30 h was still elevated over baseline at doses >0.3 units · kg−1 (Fig. 2). The metabolic activity (PD-AUC0–30h) observed after the single doses of injected glargine correlated with the PK-AUC0–30h of M1 plasma concentrations (r = 0.74; P < 0.001) (Fig. 3).
Figure 3

Linear regression of exposure to metabolite M1 (closed circles) and glucose infusion as AUC0–30h. Open circles indicate two far outside values, excluded from linear regression analysis.

Linear regression of exposure to metabolite M1 (closed circles) and glucose infusion as AUC0–30h. Open circles indicate two far outside values, excluded from linear regression analysis. Glargine or M2 was not detectable in the plasma of most subjects at any dose of glargine and at any time point of the study. When detectable, glargine appeared early; however, plasma concentrations did not increase with increasing dose of injected glargine. M2 first appeared after 12 h and was associated with the presence of a high M1 concentration. Individual values are given in Supplementary Fig. 1. Two subjects given 0.6 units · kg−1 presented with M1 values more than three times the interquartile spread (Supplementary Fig. 1) that did not correlate with glucodynamic efficacy. Therefore, their M1 as well as glargine and M2 values were excluded from statistical and graphical PK analysis. Both subjects presented with uncommon nonneutralizing insulin-antibody profiles at baseline that may have caused the observed high insulin concentrations.

CONCLUSIONS

This investigation was undertaken to specifically address the question of insulin glargine metabolism in vivo, after subcutaneous injection of therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses in subjects with type 1 diabetes. The results indicate there is virtually no parent glargine circulating in plasma regardless of the dose given. In contrast, there is a rapid increase in plasma 21A-Gly-human insulin (M1) concentration that is proportional to the dose of glargine injected. Because M2 is also virtually not present in plasma, it is concluded that in vivo in humans glargine is rapidly processed to M1, and M1, not glargine itself, mediates the glucodynamic effects. This conclusion is also supported by the correlation between plasma concentration of M1 and the metabolic effects of injected glargine on glucose metabolism. Moreover, the same metabolic pattern has been observed in steady state in preschool children with type 1 diabetes (24) and also in type 2 diabetes (25), showing that glargine is rapidly metabolized to 21A-Gly-human insulin regardless of type of diabetes or age. This study has not examined the effects of glargine metabolites further to glucose metabolism, but it is reasonable to assume that M1 conveys the entire array of well-known insulin-mediated effects, such as those on lipid, protein, and endothelium metabolism. The processing of glargine after subcutaneous injection as presented in this study has been previously reported in humans with a less specific and sensitive bioanalytical method (11). Other determinations used a radioimmunoassay that did not discriminate between parent glargine, M1, and M2, or a radioimmunoassay sensitive for human insulin and so detected almost exclusively M1 (21). The present report, based on a new, specific methodology in a dose-response study in subjects with type 1 diabetes, confirms and more precisely quantifies glargine metabolism to yield almost completely M1 in humans compared with previous observations. It is reasonable to assume that exposure data using the unspecific radioimmunoassay method also reflect in effect M1 exposure, as indicated by a study in type 2 diabetes (25). The late appearance of M2 points to unspecific degradation once M1 is formed. Corroborating evidence is given by an in vitro study using mass spectrometry, which found that, within 1 h at 37°C, insulin glargine in human serum is quantitatively degraded into M1, which was used to quantify glargine by radioimmunoassay in the presence of human insulin (22). Even the assumption that parent glargine concentrations quantified below LLOQ are not zero but rather at the limit of 33 pmol · L−1, this would be a quite low concentration of glargine, which, according to in vitro findings, is not capable of promoting greater binding to IGF-1R in vivo or of promoting greater mitogenesis in cancer cell lines (26) compared with human insulin. Thus, in the absence of glargine, and because M1 and M2 exhibit even lower binding to IGF-1R and less mitogenetic potential (10), the hypothesis that after subcutaneous injection glargine could promote mitogenesis in humans more than human insulin does not find scientific support. One limitation of the current study is that glargine metabolism has been assessed after first, not multiple, daily injections of insulin glargine (steady state). In the latter condition, insulin glargine increases in plasma more, and its PD effects are more pronounced and of longer duration compared with those following first injection (27). In theory, one might expect at steady state greater glargine, M1, and M2 concentrations in plasma compared with those of the current study. However, the small increase in plasma insulin observed at steady-state glargine administration (27) is still far below the concentrations observed with the 1.2 units · kg−1 dose in this study and therefore is likely also attributed more to the increase in M1 than to glargine itself. The current study has examined male subjects with type 1 diabetes without obesity, and although findings in subjects with type 2 diabetes corroborate the proposed glargine metabolism (Lucidi et al. [25]), additional studies are needed in obese, older type 2 diabetic subjects to verify in these subjects given a high dose of glargine that the metabolism of glargine follows a pattern quantitatively similar to that demonstrated in type 1 diabetes. In conclusion, the current study confirms that after subcutaneous injection, insulin glargine, even at a supratherapeutic dose, is rapidly and near completely processed to 21A-Gly-human insulin, the prime mediator of the metabolic effects of injected glargine.

ADDENDUM

While this article was in proof, an elegant in vitro study was published that showed that glargine displays higher potency than human insulin for stimulation of insulin/IGF-1 hybrid receptors with greater proliferative/antiapoptotic effects in MCF-7 cells. In contrast, M1 and M2 display lower potency than human insulin. Pierre-Eugene C, Pagesy P, Nguyen TT, Neuillé M, Tschank G, Tennagels N, Hampe C, Issad T. Effect of insulin analogues on insulin/IGF1 hybrid receptors: increased activation by glargine but not by its metabolites M1 and M2. PLoS One 2012;7:e41992.
  24 in total

1.  Does diabetes therapy influence the risk of cancer?

Authors:  U Smith; E A M Gale
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 10.122

2.  In vitro metabolic and mitogenic signaling of insulin glargine and its metabolites.

Authors:  Mark R Sommerfeld; Günter Müller; Georg Tschank; Gerhard Seipke; Paul Habermann; Roland Kurrle; Norbert Tennagels
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-03-04       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Studies on the conversion of proinsulin to insulin. I. Conversion in vitro with trypsin and carboxypeptidase B.

Authors:  W Kemmler; J D Peterson; D F Steiner
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  1971-11-25       Impact factor: 5.157

4.  Biotransformation of insulin glargine after subcutaneous injection in healthy subjects.

Authors:  G U Kuerzel; U Shukla; H E Scholtz; S G Pretorius; D H Wessels; C Venter; M A Potgieter; A M Lang; T Koose; E Bernhardt
Journal:  Curr Med Res Opin       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.580

5.  Correlations of receptor binding and metabolic and mitogenic potencies of insulin analogs designed for clinical use.

Authors:  P Kurtzhals; L Schäffer; A Sørensen; C Kristensen; I Jonassen; C Schmid; T Trüb
Journal:  Diabetes       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 9.461

6.  Risk of malignancies in patients with diabetes treated with human insulin or insulin analogues: a cohort study.

Authors:  L G Hemkens; U Grouven; R Bender; C Günster; S Gutschmidt; G W Selke; P T Sawicki
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 10.122

Review 7.  Growth effects of insulin and insulin analogues.

Authors:  Juergen Sandow
Journal:  Arch Physiol Biochem       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 4.076

8.  Insulin glargine use and short-term incidence of malignancies-a population-based follow-up study in Sweden.

Authors:  J M Jonasson; R Ljung; M Talbäck; B Haglund; S Gudbjörnsdòttir; G Steineck
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2009-07-09       Impact factor: 10.122

9.  Lower within-subject variability of insulin detemir in comparison to NPH insulin and insulin glargine in people with type 1 diabetes.

Authors:  Tim Heise; Leszek Nosek; Birgitte Biilmann Rønn; Lars Endahl; Lutz Heinemann; Christoph Kapitza; Eberhard Draeger
Journal:  Diabetes       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 9.461

10.  Synchronization in G0/G1 enhances the mitogenic response of cells overexpressing the human insulin receptor A isoform to insulin.

Authors:  Christine Bonnesen; Gitte-Mai Nelander; Bo Falck Hansen; Pia Jensen; Jonas S Krabbe; Marianne B Jensen; Anne Charlotte Hegelund; Jette E Svendsen; Martin B Oleksiewicz
Journal:  Cell Biol Toxicol       Date:  2009-11-08       Impact factor: 6.691

View more
  28 in total

1.  Insulin requirements in patients with diabetes and declining kidney function: differences between insulin analogues and human insulin?

Authors:  Felix Kulozik; Christoph Hasslacher
Journal:  Ther Adv Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 3.565

2.  Non-metabolisable insulin glargine does not promote breast cancer growth in a mouse model of type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  Emily J Gallagher; Zara Zelenko; Aviva Tobin-Hess; Ulrich Werner; Norbert Tennagels; Derek LeRoith
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2016-05-30       Impact factor: 10.122

Review 3.  New Horizons: Next-Generation Insulin Analogues: Structural Principles and Clinical Goals.

Authors:  Mark A Jarosinski; Yen-Shan Chen; Nicolás Varas; Balamurugan Dhayalan; Deepak Chatterjee; Michael A Weiss
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2022-03-24       Impact factor: 5.958

Review 4.  Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Insulin Glargine 300 U/mL.

Authors:  Jennifer N Clements; Tiffaney Threatt; Eileen Ward; Kayce M Shealy
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 6.447

5.  Detection of insulins in postmortem tissues: an optimized workflow based on immunopurification and LC-MS/HRMS detection.

Authors:  Charline Bottinelli; Fabien Bévalot; Nathalie Cartiser; Laurent Fanton; Jérôme Guitton
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2021-05-01       Impact factor: 2.686

Review 6.  Co-Managing Patients with Type 1 Diabetes and Cancer.

Authors:  Conor J Best; Sonali Thosani; Marjorie Ortiz; Celia Levesque; Sigi S Varghese; Victor R Lavis
Journal:  Curr Diab Rep       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 4.810

7.  Differences in metabolic and mitogenic signallingof insulin glargine and AspB10 human insulin in rats [corrected].

Authors:  N Tennagels; S Welte; M Hofmann; P Brenk; R Schmidt; U Werner
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2013-05-08       Impact factor: 10.122

Review 8.  The metabolic and mitogenic properties of basal insulin analogues.

Authors:  Norbert Tennagels; Ulrich Werner
Journal:  Arch Physiol Biochem       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.076

9.  Glargine and cancer: can we now suggest closure?

Authors:  David R Owens
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 19.112

10.  Metabolism of insulin glargine after repeated daily subcutaneous injections in subjects with type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  Paola Lucidi; Francesca Porcellati; Paolo Rossetti; Paola Candeloro; Anna Marinelli Andreoli; Patrizia Cioli; Annke Hahn; Ronald Schmidt; Geremia B Bolli; Carmine G Fanelli
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2012-10-18       Impact factor: 19.112

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.