Background/Aims: To describe characteristics, auxological outcomes and safety in paediatric patients with growth disorders treated with growth hormone (GH), for cohorts from the USA, Germany and France enrolled in GeNeSIS, a post-authorisation surveillance programme. Methods: Diagnosis and biochemical measurement data were based on reporting from, and GH treatment was initiated at the discretion of, treating physicians. Auxological outcomes during the first 4 years of GH treatment and at near-adult height (NAH) were analysed. Serious and treatment-emergent adverse events were described. Results: Children in the USA (n = 9,810), Germany (n = 2,682) and France (n = 1,667) received GH (dose varied between countries), most commonly for GH deficiency. Across diagnostic groups and countries, mean height velocity standard deviation score (SDS) was > 0 and height SDS increased from baseline during the first 4 years of treatment, with greatest improvements during year 1. Most children achieved NAH within the normal range (height SDS >−2). No new or unexpected safety concerns were noted. Conclusion: GH treatment improved growth indices to a similar extent for patients in all three countries despite variations in GH doses. Data from these three countries, which together contributed > 60% of patients to GeNeSIS, indicated no new safety signals and the benefit-risk profile of GH remains unchanged.

No abstract

Rapid‐acting insulins (RAIs) have been instrumental in the management of diabetes because of their improved postprandial glucose (PPG) control compared with regular human insulin. However, their absorption rate and time action following subcutaneous administration still falls short of the normal physiological response to meal consumption, increasing the risk of early postmeal hyperglycaemia and late postmeal hypoglycaemia. Increased demand for faster acting insulins, which can quickly control PPG excursions without increasing the risk of late hypoglycaemia, led to the development of ultra‐rapid–acting insulins, including ultra‐rapid lispro (URLi). URLi is a novel formulation of insulin lispro with accelerated absorption driven by two excipients: treprostinil, which increases local vasodilation, and citrate, which increases local vascular permeability. Clinical pharmacology studies consistently showed an earlier onset and shorter duration of action with URLi compared with Lispro. In a head‐to‐head study with Faster aspart, Aspart and Lispro, URLi was absorbed faster, provided earlier insulin action, and more closely matched physiological glucose response than the other insulins tested. URLi's unique pharmacokinetic properties increase its potential for improved PPG control beyond that achieved with RAIs. Indeed, in pivotal phase 3 trials, URLi was superior to Lispro for PPG control both at 1 and 2 hours after a meal in type 1 and type 2 diabetes with multiple daily injections, and in type 1 diabetes with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. This was achieved without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. In this review, we focus on the clinical and pharmacological evidence for URLi in the treatment of diabetes and discuss the potential benefits and considerations with URLi compared with RAIs.

Brazil is expected to have 19.6 million patients with diabetes by the year 2030. A key concept in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is establishing individualized glycemic goals based on each patient’s clinical characteristics, which impact the choice of antihyperglycemic therapy. Targets for glycemic control, including fasting blood glucose, postprandial blood glucose, and glycated hemoglobin (A1C), are often not reached solely with antihyperglycemic therapy, and insulin therapy is often required. Basal insulin is considered an initial strategy; however, premixed insulins are convenient and are equally or more effective, especially for patients who require both basal and prandial control but desire a more simplified strategy involving fewer daily injections than a basal-bolus regimen. Most physicians are reluctant to transition patients to insulin treatment due to inappropriate assumptions and insufficient information. We conducted a nonsystematic review in PubMed and identified the most relevant and recently published articles that compared the use of premixed insulin versus basal insulin analogues used alone or in combination with rapid-acting insulin analogues before meals in patients with T2DM. These studies suggest that premixed insulin analogues are equally or more effective in reducing A1C compared to basal insulin analogues alone in spite of the small increase in the risk of nonsevere hypoglycemic events and nonclinically significant weight gain. Premixed insulin analogues can be used in insulin-naïve patients, in patients already on basal insulin therapy, and those using basal-bolus therapy who are noncompliant with blood glucose self-monitoring and titration of multiple insulin doses. We additionally provide practical aspects related to titration for the specific premixed insulin analogue formulations commercially available in Brazil.

Objective: Insulin lispro 200 U/mL (IL200) is a treatment choice for people with diabetes who have daily mealtime insulin (MTI) requirements of >20 U/day. We report clinical characteristics of real world IL200 users in Germany to understand clinical settings and the type of patients who would benefit from IL200 treatment. Methods: This retrospective database analysis used the patient-level data from "IMS Disease Analyzer" in Germany from February 2015 to June 2016. Clinical and demographic information were collected and analyzed for IL200 users alongside that of those who were using more than 20 U a day of 100 U/ mL analog MTI. Results: Of the 17,261 patients using insulin, 811 were identified in IL200 group. The IL200 group had 60% men, mean ± SD age of 63.6 ± 11.9 years, and BMI of 36.2 ± 6.7 kg/m 2. Of these, 63.5% (n ¼ 515) were seen by diabetologists, while 36.5% (n ¼ 296) were seen by general practitioners (GPs). In the IL200 group, 77.7% used basal insulin concomitantly, >90% had !1 comorbidity, and 52% had !4 comorbidities; the most common being hypertension (75.2%), neuropathy (66.0%), and nephropathy (59.6%). Diabetologist-treated IL200 users were more likely to have multiple comorbidities as compared with those treated by GPs (15.0% vs. 12.9% for >5 comorbidities). Conclusions: IL200 is prescribed to people with diabetes who need more than 20 U/day of mealtime insulin and tend to be more obese, older, and with multiple comorbidities. Future research should explore how concentrated MTI can impact adherence and long-term glycemia.