| Literature DB >> 23193211 |
Julia K Mader1, Thomas Birngruber, Stefan Korsatko, Sigrid Deller, Gerd Köhler, Susanne Boysen, Thomas Augustin, Selma I Mautner, Frank Sinner, Thomas R Pieber.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We investigated the impact of two different injection strategies on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of insulin aspart in vivo in an open-label, two-period crossover study and verified changes in the surface-to-volume ratio ex vivo. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Before the clinical trial, insulin aspart was injected ex vivo into explanted human abdominal skin flaps. The surface-to-volume ratio of the subcutaneous insulin depot was assessed by microfocus computed tomography that compared 1 bolus of 18 IU with 9 dispersed boluses of 2 IU. These two injection strategies were then tested in vivo, in 12 C-peptide-negative type 1 diabetic patients in a euglycemic glucose clamp (glucose target 5.5 ± 1.1 mmol/L) for 8 h after the first insulin administration.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23193211 PMCID: PMC3609526 DOI: 10.2337/dc12-1319
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diabetes Care ISSN: 0149-5992 Impact factor: 19.112
Figure 1A: Individual injection sites for the dispersed injection strategy (9 × 2 IU) were separated by 10 mm. B: A 3D reconstruction of the micro-CT measurements. C: Mean surface-to-volume ratios comparing two injection strategies (1 × 18 IU vs. 9 × 2 IU). **P < 0.01.
Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters for the two injection strategies
Figure 2A: Mean insulin curve for 9 × 2 IU (●) and 1 × 18 IU (○) injections of insulin aspart. Values represent mean ± SD (only one direction shown for clarity). B: Mean glucose infusion rate curve for 9 × 2 IU (solid line) and 1 × 18 IU (dashed line) injections of insulin aspart.
Figure 3Individual GIR profile data showing time to 10% of maximum GIR (A), time to 50% of maximum GIR (B), time to maximum GIR (C). Horizontal bars indicate means for the 1 × 18 IU and 9 × 2 IU injection strategies.