This pedagogical review illustrates the differences between pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) measures, using insulin therapy as the primary example. The main conclusion is that PD parameters are of greater clinical significance for insulin therapy than PK parameters. The glucose-clamp technique, the optimal method for determining insulin PD, is explained so that the reader can understand the important studies in the literature. Key glucose-clamp studies that compare two basal insulin analogues – insulin glargine and insulin detemir – to Neutral Protamine Hagedorn insulin and to each other are then presented. The review further explains how PD parameters have been translated into useful clinical concepts and simple titration algorithms for everyday clinical practice. Finally, the necessity of overcoming patient and/or physician barriers to insulin therapy and providing continuing education and training is emphasised.

Insulin autoantibodies (IAA) have been identified in newly diagnosed insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) patients and in individuals at high risk of developing the disease. However, the literature is not in agreement regarding the prevalence, significance, and predictive value of IAA. Previous workshops have shown that certain sera give markedly different results depending upon assay methodology and, therefore, have suggested that these discrepancies may be due to variations in the assay methodologies used: either the fluid phase RIA or the solid phase enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Sera from controls (n = 61), newly diagnosed IDDM patients (n = 30), healthy subjects who later became diabetic (n = 8), and first degree relatives of diabetic probands (n = 22) were randomly numbered and sent without category identification to 19 RIA and 10 ELISA laboratories. Each laboratory's raw data from the control sera were used to determine the cut-off point for positive (3 SD above the mean of control sera) in the disease relevant categories. RIA and ELISA methods were comparable in obtaining a low frequency of IAA in control sera. However, the laboratories using RIA methods found a much higher percentage of sera to be IAA positive among both newly diagnosed patients and healthy individuals who later developed diabetes than laboratories using ELISA methods (P less than 0.005). In contrast, there was considerable overlap in the percentage of sera from first degree relatives found positive by both assays. These data strongly suggest that IAA measured by RIA methodology are more disease related than those measured by ELISA methods. Consequently, RIA assays or assays proven to perform as well should be used to measure IAA associated with IDDM.

IgG proinsulin autoantibodies (IgG-PAAs) have been found in a fraction of sera from patients with newly diagnosed insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) before onset of insulin treatment. Only sera lacking insulin antibodies have been analyzed, to avoid interference. Competitive inhibition studies provide specificity for human proinsulin but not for insulin. IgG-PAAs largely cross-react with human C-peptide. Precursors of insulin thus are involved in the immune process of IDDM.

The disease association of autoantibodies to proinsulin and insulin was compared in patients with Type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus and first-degree relatives. Following the recommendation of the Fourth International Workshop on the Standardization of insulin autoantibodies, autoantibodies were determined by fluid-phase radioimmunoassay using equimolar concentrations of mono-125I-A14-insulin or -proinsulin to detect insulin or proinsulin autoantibodies, respectively. A higher prevalence of proinsulin autoantibodies vs insulin autoantibodies was found in 97 patients with Type 1 diabetes prior to insulin treatment (34.0% vs 22.7%, p less than 0.05) and in 16 islet cell antibody-positive relatives (43.8% vs 31.3%, NS). There was only one serum positive for insulin and proinsulin autoantibodies in 110 islet cell antibody-negative first degree relatives (0.9%). None of 88 normal sera contained proinsulin autoantibodies or insulin autoantibodies. There was a close correlation of proinsulin autoantibody and insulin autoantibody titres in individual sera (r = 0.95, p less than 0.01) due to crossreaction of all insulin autoantibodies with proinsulin. However, some proinsulin autoantibodies did not crossreact with insulin. Background binding in normal sera was lower for proinsulin autoantibodies. We conclude that proinsulin autoantibodies have a higher association to acute Type 1 diabetes than insulin autoantibodies.

Report prepared by C.J. Greenbaum 1, T. J. Wilkin 2 and J. P. Palmer 1 on behalf of the Immunology and Diabetes Workshops and participating laboratories*