Ultra-Rapid Lispro Efficacy and Safety Compared to Humalog® in Japanese Patients with Type 1 Diabetes: PRONTO-T1D Subpopulation Analysis

Introduction We evaluated the efficacy and safety of ultra-rapid lispro (URLi) in comparison to lispro in a subgroup analysis of Japanese adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus from the phase 3 PRONTO-T1D trial. Methods After an 8-week lead-in to optimize basal insulin treatment, patients were randomi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Diabetes therapy 2020-09, Vol.11 (9), p.2089-2104
Main Authors: Miura, Junnosuke, Imori, Makoto, Nishiyama, Hiroshi, Imaoka, Takeshi
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adults
Asian people
Cardiology
Clinical outcomes
Diabetes
Drug therapy
Endocrinology
Hyperglycemia
Hypoglycemia
Insulin
Internal Medicine
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Original Research
Side effects
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Introduction We evaluated the efficacy and safety of ultra-rapid lispro (URLi) in comparison to lispro in a subgroup analysis of Japanese adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus from the phase 3 PRONTO-T1D trial. Methods After an 8-week lead-in to optimize basal insulin treatment, patients were randomized to 52-week double-blind mealtime URLi or lispro, or 26-week open-label postmeal URLi. The primary endpoint was change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline (week 0) to week 26 between mealtime URLi and lispro. The multiplicity adjusted objectives were 1- and 2-h postprandial glucose (PPG) excursions after a meal test between mealtime URLi and lispro, and change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 between postmeal URLi and mealtime lispro. Results This manuscript presents pre-specified exploratory analyses of 26-week data from Japanese patients randomized to double-blind URLi ( n  = 62) or lispro ( n  = 59), or open-label URLi ( n  = 46). Mean baseline HbA1c levels were 7.52% for mealtime URLi, 7.44% for lispro, and 7.51% for postmeal URLi at randomization. At week 26, the least squares mean (LSM) difference compared to lispro was 0.04% (95% confidence interval [CI] − 0.14 to 0.22) for mealtime URLi, and 0.16% (95% CI − 0.04 to 0.35) for postmeal URLi. In comparison to lispro, mealtime URLi resulted in statistically significantly lower 1- and 2-h PPG excursions during the mixed-meal tolerance test. LSM differences were − 40.5 mg/dL, 95% CI − 59.5 to 21.4 (− 2.25 mmol/L, 95% CI − 3.3 to − 1.2) for 1-h PPG excursions and − 51.7 mg/dL, 95% CI − 81.7 to − 21.8 (− 2.87 mmol/L, 95% CI − 4.5 to − 1.2) for 2-h PPG excursions at week 26. There were no significant treatment differences in rates of severe/overall hypoglycemia, or incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. Conclusions Mealtime and postmeal URLi provide effective and comparable glycemic control in Japanese patients. Mealtime URLi demonstrated more effective PPG control compared to lispro. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03214367.
ISSN:1869-6953
1869-6961
DOI:10.1007/s13300-020-00892-0