Dataset Information

Hybrid Closed-Loop Control with Ultrarapid Lispro Compared with Standard Insulin Aspart and Faster Insulin Aspart: An In Silico Study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

There is room for improvement in the performance of closed-loop regulation algorithms during the prandial period. This in silico study evaluated the efficiency and safety of ultrarapid lispro insulin using the Diabeloop DBLG1® algorithm.

Methods

We modeled the insulin profile of URLi according to literature data and integrated it to the model used within a simulation platform built from a 60 patients' virtual cohort. We then ran the DBLG1® algorithm in silico with various meal intakes using modeled URLi, Aspart and Faster Aspart. The primary endpoints were glucose metrics (time in 70-180 mg/dL range and time below range).

Results

When insulin time constant values were tuned, time in 70-180 mg/dL range was 69.4 [61.1-75.6] (Aspart) vs 74.7 [65.5-81.5] (URLi). Glucose coefficient of variation was reduced from 34.1 [29.7-37.8] to 28.4 [25.7-34.6]. Time below 70 mg/dL and 54 mg/dL were significantly reduced with URLi, whether or not DBLG1 was specifically tuned to this insulin. Metrics with Faster Aspart were intermediate and did not significantly differ from URLi.

Conclusions

This simulation study performed on a virtual T1D population suggests that the use of URLi within an unmodified closed-loop DBLG1 regulation algorithm is safe and, with DBLG1 being tuned to this specific insulin type, improved the regulation performances as compared with Aspart. This fact supports the use of such an insulin in clinical investigations.

SUBMITTER: Lachal S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9846416 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Hybrid Closed-Loop Control with Ultrarapid Lispro Compared with Standard Insulin Aspart and Faster Insulin Aspart: An In Silico Study.

Lachal Sylvain S Tourki Yousra Y Franc Sylvia S Huneker Erik E Charpentier Guillaume G Benhamou Pierre Yves PY

Journal of diabetes science and technology 20211017 1

<h4>Objective</h4>There is room for improvement in the performance of closed-loop regulation algorithms during the prandial period. This in silico study evaluated the efficiency and safety of ultrarapid lispro insulin using the Diabeloop DBLG1® algorithm.<h4>Methods</h4>We modeled the insulin profile of URLi according to literature data and integrated it to the model used within a simulation platform built from a 60 patients' virtual cohort. We then ran the DBLG1® algorithm in silico with variou ...[more]

PMID: 34658265

Similar Datasets

Project description:Aims/hypothesisThe aim of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetics of two different concentrations of insulin aspart (B28Asp human insulin) in children aged 3-6 years with type 1 diabetes.MethodsYoung children with type 1 diabetes underwent an open-label, randomised, two-period crossover study in a clinical research facility, 2-6 weeks apart. In random order, diluted (1:5 dilution with saline [154 mmol/l NaCl]; 20 U/ml) or standard strength (100 U/ml) insulin aspart was administered via an insulin pump as a meal bolus and then overnight by closed-loop insulin delivery as determined by a model predictive algorithm. Plasma insulin was measured every 30-60 min from 17:00 hours on day 1 to 8:00 hours on day 2. We measured the time-to-peak insulin concentration (tmax), insulin metabolic clearance rate (MCR(I)) and background insulin concentration (ins(c)) using compartmental modelling.ResultsEleven children (six male; age range 3.75-6.96 years, HbA1c 7.6% ± 1.3% [60 ± 14 mmol/mol], BMI standard deviation score 1.0 ± 0.8, duration of diabetes 2.2 ± 1.0 years, total daily dose 12.9 [10.6-16.5] U, fasting C-peptide concentration 5 [5-17.1] pmol/l; mean ± SD or median [interquartile range]) participated in the study. No differences between standard and diluted insulin were observed in terms of t max (59.2 ± 14.4 vs 61.6 ± 8.7) min for standard vs diluted, p = 0.59; MCR I (1.98 × 10(-2) ± 0.99 × 10(-2) vs 1.89 × 10(-2) ± 0.82 × 10(-2) 1/kg/min, p = 0.47), and ins c (34 [1-72] vs 23 [3-65] pmol/l, p = 0.66). However, t max showed less intersubject variability following administration of diluted aspart (SD 14.4 vs 8.7 min, p = 0.047).Conclusions/interpretationDiluting insulin aspart does not change its pharmacokinetics. However, it may result in less variable absorption and could be used in young children with type 1 diabetes undergoing closed-loop insulin delivery.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT01557634.FundingFUNDING was provided by the JDRF, 7th Framework Programme of the European Union, Wellcome Trust Strategic Award and the National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre.

Project description:AimsTo evaluate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of faster-acting insulin aspart and insulin aspart in a randomized, single-centre, double-blind study.MethodsFifty-two patients with type 1 diabetes (mean age 40.3 years) received faster-acting insulin aspart, insulin aspart, or another faster aspart formulation (not selected for further development), each as a single 0.2 U/kg subcutaneous dose, under glucose-clamp conditions, in a three-way crossover design (3-12 days washout between dosing).ResultsFaster-acting insulin aspart had a faster onset of exposure compared with insulin aspart, shown by a 57% earlier onset of appearance [4.9 vs 11.2 min; ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36; 0.51], a 35% earlier time to reach 50% maximum concentration (20.7 vs 31.6 min; ratio 0.65, 95% CI 0.59; 0.72) and a greater early exposure within 90 min after dosing. The greatest difference occurred during the first 15 min, when area under the serum insulin aspart curve was 4.5-fold greater with faster-acting insulin aspart than with insulin aspart. Both treatments had a similar time to maximum concentration, total exposure and maximum concentration. Faster-acting insulin aspart had a significantly greater glucose-lowering effect within 90 min after dosing [largest difference: area under the curve for the glucose infusion rate (AUC(GIR), 0-30 min) ratio 1.48, 95% CI 1.13; 2.02] and 17% earlier time to reach 50% maximum glucose infusion rate (38.3 vs 46.1 min; ratio 0.83, 95% CI 0.73; 0.94). The primary endpoint (AUC(GIR, 0-2 h)) was 10% greater for faster-acting insulin aspart, but did not reach statistical significance (ratio 1.10, 95% CI 1.00; 1.22). Both treatments had similar total and maximum glucose-lowering effects, indicating similar overall potency.ConclusionsFaster-acting insulin aspart was found to have earlier onset and higher early exposure than insulin aspart, and a greater early glucose-lowering effect, with similar potency.

Dataset Information

Hybrid Closed-Loop Control with Ultrarapid Lispro Compared with Standard Insulin Aspart and Faster Insulin Aspart: An In Silico Study.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Hybrid Closed-Loop Control with Ultrarapid Lispro Compared with Standard Insulin Aspart and Faster Insulin Aspart: An In Silico Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets