Dataset Information

Comprehensive Pulmonary Safety Review of Inhaled Technosphere® Insulin in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:Technosphere® Insulin (TI), a human insulin powder for inhalation (Afrezza®; MannKind Corporation, Westlake Village, CA, USA), is an ultra-rapid-acting inhaled insulin indicated to improve postprandial glycemic control in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM or T2DM). Because TI is absorbed across the alveolar membrane, the objective of this analysis was to characterize its pulmonary safety. METHODS:Pooled data from 13 phase 2/3 clinical studies in 5505 patients with T1DM or T2DM treated with TI, Technosphere inhalation powder without insulin (TP; placebo), or active-comparator treatment were analyzed for incidences of respiratory treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), changes in pulmonary function, and lung malignancies. Radiographic changes in the lungs were monitored in a subset of 229 patients. RESULTS:Among 3017 patients receiving TI, the median duration of TI exposure was 168 days; median active-comparator and TP exposure durations were 363 and 149 days for 2198 and 290 patients, respectively. Respiratory TEAEs were comparable across treatments, except for a higher incidence of mild cough with TI in active-comparator studies (28.0% vs. 5.2%). Slight reversible declines in pulmonary function from baseline were observed for TI versus TP and active-comparator treatments, including in a subpopulation of patients with retrospectively identified lung dysfunction. Lung malignancies were reported in two patients on active TI therapy with a smoking history. No clinically significant changes from baseline were observed in radiographic images. CONCLUSIONS:Pulmonary safety assessment of the TI inhalation system did not identify any safety issues in individuals with either T1DM or T2DM.

SUBMITTER: McGill JB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7511468 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comprehensive Pulmonary Safety Review of Inhaled Technosphere<sup>®</sup> Insulin in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus.

McGill Janet B JB Peters Anne A Buse John B JB Steiner Susanne S Tran Tiffany T Pompilio Frank M FM Kendall David M DM

Clinical drug investigation 20201001 10

<h4>Background and objective</h4>Technosphere<sup>®</sup> Insulin (TI), a human insulin powder for inhalation (Afrezza<sup>®</sup>; MannKind Corporation, Westlake Village, CA, USA), is an ultra-rapid-acting inhaled insulin indicated to improve postprandial glycemic control in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM or T2DM). Because TI is absorbed across the alveolar membrane, the objective of this analysis was to characterize its pulmonary safety.<h4>Methods</h4>Pooled data from ...[more]

PMID: 32720187

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The majority of therapies have generally targeted fasting glucose control, and current mealtime insulin therapies have longer time action profiles than that of endogenously secreted insulin. The primary purpose of this study was to assess both glucose time-in-range (TIR: 70-180?mg/dL) and postprandial glucose excursions (PPGE) in 1-4?h using a real-time continuous glucose monitor (CGM) with Technosphere insulin (TI) versus insulin aspart in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) on multiple daily injections (MDI). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS:This pilot, investigator-led, collaborative, open-label, multicenter, clinical research trial enrolled 60 patients with T1DM with HbA1c levels ?6.5% and ?10%. Individuals were randomized to treatment with titrated TI (n?=?26) or titrated insulin aspart (n?=?34), stratified by baseline HbA1c levels (?8% or >8%). All were required to wear a real-time CGM throughout the trial. All patients in the TI group were advised to take supplemental inhalations at 1 and 2?h after meals if indicated based on postprandial glucose (PPG) values. The coprimary outcomes were assessed both in the full intent-to-treat population and in those individuals randomized to TI who were compliant with supplemental doses ?90% of the time (n?=?15). The CGM data were analyzed using linear regression models. RESULTS:Overall, those treated with TI versus aspart achieved comparable TIR, but less time spent in hypoglycemia (<60 and <50?mg/dL, both P?<?0.05). In the TI-compliant group (n?=?15), TIR was significantly greater (62.5%?±?2.6% vs. 53.8%?±?1.7%, P?=?0.009) and time in hyperglycemia >180?mg/dL was lower (34.2%?±?2.7% vs. 41.0%?±?1.7%, P?=?0.045) as compared with the aspart group. PPG was also significantly lower in the TI cohort at 60 and 90?min postmeal, and PPGE were lower in the TI-compliant group as compared with the aspart group over 1-4-h postmeal (P?<?0.05). In addition, there was weight gain in the aspart group compared with weight loss in the TI group (P?=?0.006) despite higher prandial TI insulin dose. CONCLUSIONS:We conclude that using TI appropriately at mealtimes with supplemental dosing improves prandial glucose (TIR and 1-4?h) control without any increase in time in hypoglycemia or weight gain in patients with T1DM on MDI. The study results support a larger study using a treat-to-target design to confirm these findings. Clinical trial reg. no. NCT03143816, clinicaltrials.gov .

Project description:IntroductionTight glycemic control and timely treatment can improve outcomes in patients with diabetes yet many remain sub-optimally controlled. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the effect of switching patients with sub-optimally controlled diabetes to the V-Go® (Valeritas Inc., Bridgewater, NJ, USA) Disposable Insulin Delivery device.MethodsA retrospective analysis of electronic medical records was conducted to assess patients with sub-optimal glycemic control defined as a glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) >7%, switched to V-Go. Blood glucose control defined as change from baseline in HbA1c, prescribed insulin doses, body weight, concomitant anti-hyperglycemic agents, and reported hypoglycemia were collected prior to switching to V-Go and during V-Go use.ResultsTwo-hundred and four patients were evaluated during the study period. Overall, there was a significant decrease in HbA1c after switching to V-Go at the 14- and 27-week follow-up visits. The least-squares mean (LSM) change in HbA1c (95% confidence interval) from baseline to 14 weeks was -1.53% (-1.69% to -1.37%; P < 0.001), and from baseline to 27 weeks was -1.79% (-1.97% to -1.61%; P < 0.001). Significant reductions in mean HbA1c were achieved at both visits in all patient subsets: Patients with type 2 and type 1/latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA); patients using insulin at baseline and patients naïve to insulin at baseline. Patients administering insulin at baseline required significantly less insulin on V-Go (86-99 LSM units/day at baseline to 58 LSM units/day at 27 weeks; P < 0.001). Across all patients, reported hypoglycemic events were no more frequent on V-Go than on previous therapy.ConclusionV-Go is safe and effective in patients with sub-optimally controlled diabetes requiring insulin therapy. Glycemic control improved significantly, less insulin was required, and hypoglycemic events were similar after patients switched to insulin delivery by V-Go.FundingValeritas, Inc.

Project description:IntroductionLiraglutide effectively controls blood glucose level and reduces body weight. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a biosimilar liraglutide (Melitide®; CinnaGen, Tehran, Iran) to the reference liraglutide (Victoza®; Novo Nordisk, Bagsvaerd, Denmark) in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MethodsIn this phase 3 clinical noninferiority trial, adult patients with inadequately controlled T2DM and with hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) levels of 7-10.5% on at least two oral glucose-lowering drugs with stable doses for at least 3 months were randomized to receive Melitide® (n = 150) or Victoza® (n = 150) 1.8 mg/day for 26 weeks. The primary outcome was assessment of the noninferiority of Melitide® to Victoza® in terms of change in HbA1C level with a prespecified margin of 0.4%. The secondary outcomes were the assessment of additional efficacy parameters (including the proportion of patients achieving HbA1C levels of < 7%), the incidence of adverse events, and immunogenicity.ResultsOf the 300 participants enrolled in this study, 235 were included in the per-protocol analysis (112 in the Melitide® group and 123 in the Victoza® group). The mean (standard deviation) changes in HbA1C were - 1.76% (1.22) in the Melitide® group and - 1.59% (1.31) in the Victoza® group. The upper limit of the 95% one-sided confidence interval (CI) of the mean difference between Melitide® and Victoza® in lowering HbA1C was lower than the predefined margin (mean difference - 0.18, 95% CI - 0.5 to 0.15). Similar findings were obtained with the intention-to-treat analysis. No statistically significant differences were observed between the two study arms regarding the proportion of patients achieving HbA1C < 7% (p = 0.210), other efficacy parameters (p > 0.05), and reported adverse events (p = 0.916). Furthermore, none of the patients developed anti-liraglutide antibodies.ConclusionThe biosimilar liraglutide (Melitide®) was noninferior in efficacy and comparable in safety when compared with the reference liraglutide.Trial registrationNCT03421119.

Dataset Information

Comprehensive Pulmonary Safety Review of Inhaled Technosphere® Insulin in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus.

Publications

Comprehensive Pulmonary Safety Review of Inhaled Technosphere<sup>®</sup> Insulin in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets