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

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.

[1]  L. Lind,et al.  Serum aldosterone changes during hyperinsulinemia are correlated to body mass index and insulin sensitivity in patients with essential hypertension , 2001, Journal of hypertension.

[2]  M. Matsuhisa,et al.  Increased responses of glucagon and glucose production to hypoglycemia with intraperitoneal versus subcutaneous insulin treatment. , 2000, Metabolism: clinical and experimental.

[3]  P. Oskarsson,et al.  Continuous intraperitoneal insulin infusion partly restores the glucagon response to hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetic patients. , 2000, Diabetes & metabolism.

[4]  P. Raskin,et al.  Report of the expert committee on the diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. , 1999, Diabetes care.

[5]  R. Holman,et al.  Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. , 1998 .

[6]  Uk-Prospective-Diabetes-Study-Group Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33) , 1998, The Lancet.

[7]  A. Hamsten,et al.  Progression of coronary artery disease in young male post-infarction patients is linked to disturbances of carbohydrate and lipoprotein metabolism and to impaired fibrinolytic function. , 1998, European heart journal.

[8]  E. Beghi,et al.  Diabetic polyneuropathy in the elderly , 1997, Acta neurologica Scandinavica.

[9]  E. Ziv,et al.  Pharmacokinetic Considerations of New Insulin Formulations and Routes of Administration , 1997, Clinical pharmacokinetics.

[10]  J. Schrezenmeir Hyperinsulinemia, hyperproinsulinemia and insulin resistance in the metabolic syndrome , 1996, Experientia.

[11]  V. Mohan,et al.  Vascular complications in long-term south Indian NIDDM of over 25 years' duration. , 1996, Diabetes research and clinical practice.

[12]  E. Araki,et al.  Intensive insulin therapy prevents the progression of diabetic microvascular complications in Japanese patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: a randomized prospective 6-year study. , 1995, Diabetes research and clinical practice.

[13]  E. Feskens,et al.  Hyperinsulinemia, risk factors, and coronary heart disease. The Zutphen Elderly Study. , 1994, Arteriosclerosis and thrombosis : a journal of vascular biology.

[14]  A. Cherrington,et al.  Effects of hyperinsulinemia on the subsequent hormonal response to hypoglycemia in conscious dogs. , 1993, The American journal of physiology.

[15]  R. Henry,et al.  Intensive Conventional Insulin Therapy for Type II Diabetes: Metabolic effects during a 6-mo outpatient trial , 1993, Diabetes Care.

[16]  J. Skyler,et al.  Algorithms for Adjustment of Insulin Dosage by Patients Who Monitor Blood Glucose , 1981, Diabetes Care.

[17]  J. Still Development of oral insulin: progress and current status. , 2002 .

[18]  A. Elias,et al.  Insulin and C-peptide levels following oral administration of insulin in intestinal-enzyme protected capsules. , 1991, General pharmacology.