Ann Intern Med -- Rapid Responses for Mooradian et al., 145 (2) 125-134

Established in 1927 by the American College of Physicians

Rapid Responses to:

Reviews:
Arshag D. Mooradian, Marla Bernbaum, and Stewart G. Albert
Narrative Review: A Rational Approach to Starting Insulin Therapy
Ann Intern Med 2006; 145: 125-134 [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]

Send comment/rapid response letter

Electronic letters published:

PD characteristics need to be updated: Tim Heise (8 September 2006)

Insulin Therapy and Financial Disclosures: Amnon Schlegel (18 July 2006)

PD characteristics need to be updated 8 September 2006

Tim Heise,
MD
Profil Institute for Metabolic Research
Send rapid response to journal:
Re: PD characteristics need to be updated

tim.heise{at}profil-research.de Tim Heise

Having been involved in many pharmacodynamic (PD) insulin studies, I feel obliged to provide some important updates on the PD characteristics provided in table 1 of the interesting review by Mooradian and colleagues on initiation of insulin therapy that will slightly change the authors' conclusions on treatment strategies. In general, PD characteristics of insulin preparations should be studied in the "real users" [1], i.e. people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, as, in particular, duration of action tends to be overestimated in nondiabetic individuals [1].
The duration of action of NPH-insulin in type 1 diabetes is approximately 12-13 hours [1, 2] which certainly justifies its classification as intermediate-acting. In contrast, both insulin glargine and insulin detemir showed a significantly longer duration of action of about 20 hours in doses of 0.3-0.4 U/kg [1, 2]. Recent data (S.G. Ashwell et al. Diabetic Medicine 2006; 23: 879‚886) show that insulin glargine has to be used twice daily in some people with type 1 diabetes as it does not cover a whole 24h-period in 15‚30% of patients.
PD data in people with type 2 diabetes (who represent the majority of insulin users) are scarce, but we recently conducted a head-to-head comparison of detemir and glargine that showed almost super-imposable profiles and a dose-dependent duration of action of up to 24 h without relevant differences between these analogues at clinically relevant doses [3]. In addition, we observed a peak metabolic effect with both analogues after 8-12 hours in people with type 2 diabetes [3] and this has recently been confirmed for insulin glargine by the study of Luzio et al. [4]. Thus, in people with type 2 diabetes, the PD characteristics of insulin glargine and insulin detemir do not differ. Therefore, both analogues should be classified as long-acting (as e.g. implemented in the ATC categorization of the WHO) and both analogues should be regarded as equal in the recommended strategies to initiate insulin therapy (table 2 in the review of Mooradian et al.). It is also noteworthy that insulin detemir was shown to be associated with a lower intra-individual variability in PD endpoints in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes [3, 5], and future trials may prove this property to be clinically advantageous.
References:
1. Lepore M, Pampanelli S, Fanelli C, Porcellati F, Bartocci L, Di Vincenzo A, Cordoni C, Costa E, Brunetti P, Bolli GB. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of subcutaneous injection of long-acting human insulin analog glargine, NPH insulin, and ultralente human insulin and continuous subcutaneous infusion of insulin lispro. Diabetes. 2000;49(12):2142-8.
2. Plank J, Bodenlenz M, Sinner F, Magnes C, Gorzer E, Regittnig W, Endahl LA, Draeger E, Zdravkovic M, Pieber TR. A double-blind, randomized, dose-response study investigating the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of the long-acting insulin analog detemir. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(5):1107-12.
3. Klein O, Lynge J, Endahl L, Damholt B, Nosek L, Heise T. Insulin Detemir and Insulin Glargine: Similar Time-action Profiles in Subjects with Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes 2006;55(Suppl.1):A76 (abstract, paper submitted for publication).
4. Luzio S, Dunseath G, Peter R, Pauvaday V, Owens DR. Comparison of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of biphasic insulin aspart and insulin glargine in people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia. 2006;49:1163-8.
5. Heise T, Nosek L, Ronn BB, Endahl L, Heinemann L, Kapitza C, Draeger E. Lower within-subject variability of insulin detemir in comparison to NPH insulin and insulin glargine in people with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes. 2004;53(6):1614-20.
Conflict of Interest:
Tim Heise has received research grants, consultancy payments and/or speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly, Sanofi-Aventis, and Novo Nordisk which are all manufacturers of insulin and insulin analogue preparations.

Insulin Therapy and Financial Disclosures 18 July 2006

Amnon Schlegel,
M.D., Ph.D.
University of California, San Francisco
Send rapid response to journal:
Re: Insulin Therapy and Financial Disclosures

amnon.schlegel{at}ucsf.edu Amnon Schlegel

In publishing the review of insulin therapy by Mooradian and colleagues (1), the Annals of Internal Medicine joins the other three leading general medicine journals, JAMA (2), the New England Journal of Medicine (3), and The Lancet (4) in printing articles about this increasingly important and expensive topic written by paid consultants, grant recipients, and advisors to the manufacturers of the very medications being discussed. These financial ties are disclosed, and readers can draw their own conclusions about a review article that cites only one mortality trial (5) in a bibliography of over 50 articles that are largely industry-sponsored, short term trials using surrogate end points or other review articles written by said trials� authors.
The bigger question is not who writes these articles, but who approves these drugs. As Public Citizen has shown, FDA advisory committees are filled with members with close ties to the drugs being evaluated, and their financial associations lead to voting in favor of applications (6). The FDA advisory committee that reviews the medications discussed by Mooradian et al. has several members with financial ties to insulin analogue manufacturers (7). There is no easy solution to this all pervasive conflict of interest: to argue that these committees be purged of such members may leave us with rooms lacking quorums. Likewise, finding �thought leaders� who are not industry-supported to summarize new pharmacotherapies may be an impossible task.
1. Mooradian AD, Bernbaum M, Albert SG. Narrative review: a rational approach to starting insulin therapy. Ann Intern Med. 2006; 145:125-34.
2. DeWitt DE, Hirsch IB. Outpatient insulin therapy in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. JAMA. 2003;289:2254-2264. [PMID 12734137].
3. Hirsch IB, Insulin analogues. New Engl J Med. 2005; 352:174-83. [PMID: 15647580]
4. Daneman D. Type 1 diabetes. Lancet. 2006; 367:847-58. [PMID: 16530579].
5. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:977-86. [PMID: 8366922]
6. Lurie P, Almeida CM, Stine N, Stine AR, Wolfe SM. Financial Conflict of Interest Disclosure and Voting Patterns at Food and Drug Administration Drug Advisory Committee Meetings. JAMA. 2006;295:1921-1928. [PMID 16639051].
7. http://www.fda.gov/cder/audiences/acspage/endocrineroster1.htm
Conflict of Interest:
None declared