To assess the relative roles of insulin and hypoglycaemia on induction of neuroendocrine responses, symptoms and deterioration of cognitive function (12 cognitive tests) during progressive decreases in plasma glucose, and to quantitate glycaemic thresholds, 22 normal, non-diabetic subjects (11 males, 11 females) were studied on four occasions: prolonged fast (n = 8, saline euglycaemia study, SA-EU), stepped hypoglycaemia (plasma glucose plateaus of 4.3, 3.7, 3 and 2.3 mmol/l) or euglycaemia during insulin infusion at 1 and 2 mU.kg-1.min-1 (n = 22, high-insulin hypoglycaemia and euglycaemia studies, HI-INS-HYPO and HI-INS-EU, respectively), and stepped hypoglycaemia during infusion of insulin at 0.35 mU.kg-1.min-1 (n = 9, low-insulin hypoglycaemia study, LO-INS-HYPO). Insulin per se (SA-EU vs HI-INS-EU), suppressed plasma glucagon (approximately 20%) and pancreatic polypeptide (approximately 30%), whereas it increased plasma noradrenaline (approximately 10%, p < 0.05). Hypoglycaemia per se (HI-INS-HYPO vs HI-INS-EU) induced responses of counterregulatory hormones (CR-HORM), symptoms and deteriorated cognitive function. With the exception of suppression of endogenous insulin secretion, which had the lowest glycaemic threshold of 4.44 +/- 0.06 mmol/l, pancreatic polypeptide, glucagon, growth hormone, adrenaline and cortisol had similar glycaemic thresholds (approximately 3.8-3.6 mmol/l); noradrenaline (3.1 +/- 0.0 mmol/l), autonomic (3.05 +/- 0.06 mmol/l) and neuroglycopenic (3.05 +/- 0.05 mmol/l) symptoms had higher thresholds. All 12 tests of cognitive function deteriorated at a glycaemic threshold of 2.45 +/- 0.06 mmol/l, but 7 out of 12 tests were already abnormal at a glycaemic threshold of 2.89 +/- 0.06 mmol/l. Although all CR-HORM had a similar glycaemic threshold, the lag time of response (the time required for a given parameter to increase) of glucagon (15 +/- 1 min) and growth hormone (14 +/- 3 min) was shorter than adrenaline (19 +/- 3 min) and cortisol (39 +/- 4 min) (p < 0.05). With the exception of glucagon (which was suppressed) and noradrenaline (which was stimulated), insulin per se (HI-INS-HYPO vs LO-INS-HYPO) did not affect the responses of CR-HORM, and did not influence the symptoms or the cognitive function during hypoglycaemia. Despite lower responses of glucagon, adrenaline and growth hormone (but not thresholds) in females than males, females were less insulin sensitive than males during stepped hypoglycaemia.

We concluded that mealtime injection of lispro + NPH improves the 24-h blood glucose and the percentage HbA1c as compared with Hum-R. The improvement can be maintained long term. Intensive therapy with lispro + NPH results in less frequent hypoglycemia and better awareness and counterregulation of hypoglycemia.

The substitution of Hum-R with lispro (group 2) resulted in lower postprandial blood glucose, but greater postabsorptive blood glucose (P < 0.05 vs. group 1). The postprandial blood glucose AUC was lower (161 +/- 19 vs. 167 +/- 20 mg.100 ml-1.h-1), but the postabsorptive blood glucose AUC was greater (155 +/- 22 vs. 142 +/- 19 mg.100 ml-1.h-1) (P < 0.05). Therefore, the 24-h blood glucose AUC was no different (NS). Consequently, HbA1c was no different (NS). This occurred because in group 2, mealtime lispro resulted in normal prandial plasma insulin, but also resulted in lower interprandial concentration (P < 0.05 vs. group 1). When NPH was added to lispro (30% at breakfast, 40% at lunch, 10% at dinner) in group 3, postabsorptive plasma insulin was similar to group 1 (NS), in group 3, the postprandial blood glucose AUC (153 +/- 17 mg.100 ml-1.h-1) was lower and the postabsorptive blood glucose AUC was no different, as compared with group 1 (NS). Therefore, the 24-h blood glucose AUC was lower (147 +/- 17 vs. 155 +/- 21 and 158 +/- 20 mg.100 ml-1.h-1), and HbA1c was lower (6.41 +/- 0.12 vs. 6.84 +/- 0.2 and 6.96 +/- 0.2% (groups 3, 1, and 2 respectively, P < 0.05). Frequency of hypoglycemia was greater in group 2 (P < 0.05), but not in group 3 (NS) vs. group 1.

To establish whether lispro may be a suitable short-acting insulin preparation for meals in intensive treatment of Type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM) in patients already in chronic good glycaemic control with conventional insulins, 69 patients on intensive therapy (4 daily s.c. insulin injections, soluble at each meal, NPH at bedtime, HbA1c <7.5%) were studied with an open, cross-over design for two periods of 3 months each (lispro or soluble). The % HbA1c and frequency of hypoglycaemia were assessed under four different conditions (Groups I-IV). Lispro was always injected at mealtime, soluble 10-40 min prior to meals (with the exception of Group IV). Bedtime NPH was continued with both treatments. When lispro replaced soluble with no increase in number of daily NPH injections (Group I, n = 15), HbA1c was no different (p = NS), but frequency of hypoglycaemia was greater (p < 0.05). When NPH was given 3-4 times daily, lispro (Group II, n = 18), but not soluble (Group III, n = 12) decreased HbA1c by 0.35 +/- 0.25% with no increase in hypoglycaemia. When soluble was injected at mealtimes, HbA1c increased by 0.18 +/- 0.15% and hypoglycaemia was more frequent than when soluble was injected 10-40 min prior to meals (Group IV, n = 24) (p < 0.05). It is concluded that in intensive management of Type 1 DM, lispro is superior to soluble in terms of reduction of % HbA1c and frequency of hypoglycaemia, especially for those patients who do not use a time interval between insulin injection and meal. However, these goals cannot be achieved without optimization of basal insulin.

At meals, in order for Lispro to improve postprandial blood glucose not only at 2-h, but also over a 7-h period in C-peptide-negative IDDM, basal insulin must be optimally replaced.