Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes Care
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Diabetes

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • Diabetes COVID-19 Article Collection
    • Diabetes Symposium 2020
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit Cover Art
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes Care
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Diabetes
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • Diabetes COVID-19 Article Collection
    • Diabetes Symposium 2020
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit Cover Art
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
Commentaries

Smarter Modeling to Enable a Smarter Insulin

  1. Simeon I. Taylor1⇑ and
  2. Richard D. DiMarchi2
  1. 1Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
  2. 2Department of Chemistry, Indiana University. Bloomington, IN
  1. Corresponding author: Simeon I. Taylor, staylor2{at}som.umaryland.edu
Diabetes 2020 Aug; 69(8): 1608-1610. https://doi.org/10.2337/dbi20-0011
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

I dream things that never were, and I say “Why not?”

—George Bernard Shaw

Pancreatic β-cells secrete insulin to maintain physiological health. While the glucose level is the principle driver of insulin secretion, β-cells also respond to other regulatory inputs including circulating metabolites (most notably amino acids), regulatory hormones, gut peptides, and neurotransmitters. Insulin secretion increases when glucose levels are high, thereby increasing total body glucose utilization and suppressing endogenous glucose production. Of critical importance, insulin secretion is suppressed when glucose levels are low, which protects against life-threatening hypoglycemia.

There have been remarkable advances to enhance efficacy and safety of insulin therapy since the discovery of insulin 100 years ago. Insulin pharmacokinetics has been optimized through both formulation and modification of the peptide itself. Sophisticated mechanical devices can provide continuous insulin delivery and continuous glucose monitoring. Pancreatic islets can be transplanted, and bihormonal pumps more closely mimic normal physiology. Despite technological advances, most insulin-dependent patients do not achieve physiological glucose control. The risk of severe hypoglycemia is particularly troublesome because it limits the ability to safely achieve optimal glycemic control, which in turn makes it harder to protect against the long-term risk of microvascular complications (1,2). To underscore this point, half of the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT)/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) cohort experienced severe hypoglycemia (∼40 episodes per 100 patient-years) (3). Furthermore, self-reported severe hypoglycemia is associated with 3.4-fold increased risk of death during a 5-year follow-up period (4).

The pursuit of a glucose-responsive insulin (GRI) therapy is an ambitious technical objective. In type 2 diabetes, incretin therapy enhances insulin secretion when glucose levels are high but does not cause hypoglycemia because it does not promote insulin secretion when glucose levels are low. Similarly, GRI technology aims to mimic the ability of β-cells to respond differentially to high versus low glucose. At least three approaches have been attempted, broadly including the following:

  • Insulin formulations with glucose-responsive release properties, either in the form of subcutaneous microemulsion or a defined nanoparticle (5,6)

  • Glucose-regulated insulin clearance (7,8)

  • An insulin with intrinsic activity that is glucose responsive (9)

At least one GRI (MK-2640) advanced into clinical studies but failed to achieve clinical proof of concept despite having achieved improved therapeutic index in small and large animal models (10,11). Thus, from a drug discovery perspective, there is an important unmet research need to improve the predictive value of experimental results obtained in preclinical animal models. In this issue of Diabetes, Yang et al. (12) address this unmet need by providing a mathematical model (Pharmacokinetic Algorithm Mapping GRI Efficacies in Rodents and Humans [PAMERAH]) to predict whether a GRI can provide a favorable outcome in clinical studies based upon preclinical observations in mice and rats. Their compartmental model describes the complex set of integrated interactions that control plasma glucose. The mathematical details may prove daunting to most readers of Diabetes (including the authors of this Commentary), but the insights are nonetheless potentially important. Most importantly, the model is testable. Furthermore, data obtained in pursuit of an optimized GRI will permit further refinement of mathematical models. Similar mathematical models integrating pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) are often applied in drug discovery projects, but the extensive literature about insulin PK/PD contributed to the ability to construct the high-quality PAMERAH model. Of particular note, Yang et al. (12) suggest that a universal signature of glucose responsiveness is the ability of GRI therapy to enhance hepatic glucose uptake in hyperglycemia more than an equivalent concentration of a non-GRI treatment. This is consistent with the hypothesis that an insulin preferentially active at the liver might diminish hypoglycemia risk (13). Nevertheless, an optimized GRI would need to achieve the optimal balance among all the pharmacodynamic actions of insulin.

GRI technology can transform insulin therapy, but the model underscores the challenge in its design and the inability to directly translate rodent pharmacology to humans. Here are some of the principal challenges that must be successfully addressed.

  • Chemistry: set point and kinetics. Daily glucose concentrations vary between ∼95–150 mg/dL (5.3–8.3 mmol/L) in healthy volunteers; insulin levels range between ∼10–50 μU/mL (1.7–8.3 pmol/L) (14). Higher insulin levels (i.e., >50 μU/mL; >8.3 pmol/L) are often required to manage hyperglycemia in patients with diabetes. Insulin levels are suppressed to <5 μU/mL (<0.8 pmol/L) during hypoglycemia (15). In other words, circulating insulin bioactivity varies tenfold to prevent excessive glucose elevation on one end while avoiding hypoglycemia at the other end. A GRI must be near-maximally suppressed when plasma glucose levels are ≤50 mg/dL (≤2.8 mmol/L) while having at least tenfold higher bioactivity when plasma glucose levels are ≥150 mg/dL (8.3 mmol/L). Thus, a threefold decrease in plasma glucose concentration must drive a greater than tenfold decrease in insulin bioactivity. By way of contrast, for enzymes following Michaelis–Menten kinetics, the rates of chemical reactions typically change less than threefold in response to a threefold change in substrate concentration. Consequently, it may be extremely challenging to achieve the necessary greater-than-proportional change in insulin bioactivity in response to glucose levels. Just as the pancreatic β-cell responds rapidly to changes in glucose concentration, the biological activity of a GRI must change on a similarly rapid timescale.

  • Biology: inter- and intrapatient variation. Certain GRI designs rely on endogenous biological processes. For example, MK-2640 acquired glucose responsivity by virtue of being cleared by the lectin mannose receptor C-type 1 (MRC1) (7,8,10,11). This molecular mechanism has the potential to be altered by interindividual variation in MRC1 expression levels and inherent activity. If an individual patient displayed enhanced MRC1-mediated clearance, this might accelerate the rate of GRI clearance, thereby compromising glucose-lowering efficacy. A very low level of MRC1 expression could diminish, or even abolish, glucose responsiveness. Other GRI technologies use glucose-regulated insulin release from otherwise quiescent drug depots. Differences in administration technique and adiposity at site of injection have the potential to introduce a high degree of both interday and interindividual variation in the dynamic response of this class of GRI. Furthermore, physical exercise may alter blood flow and glucose metabolism, thereby indirectly potentially altering GRI performance. It may be challenging to model all these complexities in a simple experimental protocol (e.g., a euglycemic insulin clamp).

  • Compatibility with current technology. Advances in biomedical devices—including continuous glucose monitoring and glucagon as a buffering agent against excessively low glucose concentration—are beginning to replicate endogenous pancreatic regulation of insulin secretion in response to ambient glucose levels (16,17). To the extent that these advances succeed at minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia, they have potential to decrease the need for a GRI. Nevertheless, a GRI technology that uses a mechanism compatible with closed-loop technologies might prove doubly valuable relative to those that are incompatible. Indeed, it is possible that a GRI could be optimized to function in the context of a closed-loop system, further refining the ability to provide an optimal combination of efficacy and safety. Of course, to the extent that the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a GRI would differ from human insulin, this would necessitate changes in algorithms underlying a closed-loop insulin delivery system.

  • Cost considerations. List prices of insulin have increased rapidly in the U.S. in recent years (18), which has created a public health crisis for affordable access, especially for uninsured patients. Although space does not permit a thorough discussion of challenges to achieve the right balance between medical economics and technological innovation, these two perspectives are inextricably intertwined. In any case, the current politically charged environment complicates the challenges to attract the investments required to support the high risk/high reward research required to develop a GRI.

MK-2640 provides a case study illustrating uncertainties about whether rodent pharmacology studies will predict clinical efficacy in humans. The mathematical model of Yang et al. (12) holds promise to eventually facilitate design and selection of molecules with improved probability of achieving clinical proof of concept. The same mathematical model can be used for all species, albeit the model’s parameters must be estimated by empirical data obtained in each species. Such models also hold promise to define a role for large animal models such as minipigs, despite their increased expense and lower throughput. Ultimately, clinical data will be required to validate any drug candidate and to refine the predictive value of the proposed mathematical model (12). This mathematical model comes at a time of increased interest in mathematical modeling and other in silico approaches to increase the eventual likelihood of success by better targeting investment of time and money in support of research and development.

Article Information

Funding. S.I.T. has received grant support from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30DK072488 and R01DK188942).

Duality of Interest. R.D.D. is a cofounder of Marcadia, a company that pioneered the discovery of glucagon mixed agonists. It was acquired by Roche and later Novo Nordisk. He is a co-inventor on multiple patents owned by Indiana University. S.I.T. serves as a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Footnotes

  • See accompanying article, p. 1815.

  • © 2020 by the American Diabetes Association
https://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license

Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. More information is available at https://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Nathan DM,
    2. Genuth S,
    3. Lachin J, et al.; 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;329:977–986
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. ↵
    1. McCrimmon RJ,
    2. Sherwin RS
    . Hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes 2010;59:2333–2339
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Gubitosi-Klug RA,
    2. Braffett BH,
    3. White NH, et al.; Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT)/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) Research Group
    . Risk of severe hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes over 30 years of follow-up in the DCCT/EDIC Study. Diabetes Care 2017;40:1010–1016
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Cryer PE
    . Severe hypoglycemia predicts mortality in diabetes. Diabetes Care 2012;35:1814–1816
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Gu Z,
    2. Aimetti AA,
    3. Wang Q, et al
    . Injectable nano-network for glucose-mediated insulin delivery. ACS Nano 2013;7:4194–4201
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Hoeg-Jensen T,
    2. Ridderberg S,
    3. Havelund S, et al
    . Insulins with built-in glucose sensors for glucose responsive insulin release. J Pept Sci 2005;11:339–346
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Yang R,
    2. Wu M,
    3. Lin S, et al
    . A glucose-responsive insulin therapy protects animals against hypoglycemia. JCI Insight 2018;3:e97476
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Kaarsholm NC,
    2. Lin S,
    3. Yan L, et al
    . Engineering glucose responsiveness into insulin. Diabetes 2018;67:299–308
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Chou DH,
    2. Webber MJ,
    3. Tang BC, et al
    . Glucose-responsive insulin activity by covalent modification with aliphatic phenylboronic acid conjugates. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2015;112:2401–2406
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Visser SAG,
    2. Kandala B,
    3. Fancourt C,
    4. Krug AW,
    5. Cho CR
    . A model-informed drug discovery and development strategy for the novel glucose-responsive insulin MK-2640 enabled rapid decision making. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2020;107:1296–1311
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Krug AW,
    2. Visser SAG,
    3. Tsai K, et al
    . Clinical evaluation of MK-2640: an insulin analog with glucose-responsive properties. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2019;105:417–425
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Yang JF,
    2. Gong X,
    3. Bakh NA, et al
    . Connecting rodent and human pharmacokinetic models for the design and translation of glucose-responsive insulin. Diabetes 2020;69:1815–1826
  13. ↵
    1. Gregory JM,
    2. Kraft G,
    3. Scott MF, et al
    . Peripherally delivered hepatopreferential insulin analog insulin-406 mimics the hypoglycaemia-sparing effect of portal vein human insulin infusion in dogs. Diabetes Obes Metab 2019;21:2294–2304
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Polonsky KS,
    2. Given BD,
    3. Van Cauter E
    . Twenty-four-hour profiles and pulsatile patterns of insulin secretion in normal and obese subjects. J Clin Invest 1988;81:442–448
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. ↵
    1. van Bon AC,
    2. Benhadi N,
    3. Endert E,
    4. Fliers E,
    5. Wiersinga WM
    . Evaluation of endocrine tests. D: the prolonged fasting test for insulinoma. Neth J Med 2009;67:274–278
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Brown SA,
    2. Kovatchev BP,
    3. Raghinaru D, et al.; iDCL Trial Research Group
    . Six-month randomized, multicenter trial of closed-loop control in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2019;381:1707–1717
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Bruttomesso D
    . Toward automated insulin delivery. N Engl J Med 2019;381:1774–1775
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Cefalu WT,
    2. Dawes DE,
    3. Gavlak G, et al.; Insulin Access and Affordability Working Group
    . Conclusions and recommendations. Diabetes Care 2018;41:1299–1311
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Diabetes: 69 (8)

In this Issue

August 2020, 69(8)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
  • Masthead (PDF)
Sign up to receive current issue alerts
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Diabetes.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Smarter Modeling to Enable a Smarter Insulin
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Diabetes
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Diabetes web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Smarter Modeling to Enable a Smarter Insulin
Simeon I. Taylor, Richard D. DiMarchi
Diabetes Aug 2020, 69 (8) 1608-1610; DOI: 10.2337/dbi20-0011

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Add to Selected Citations
Share

Smarter Modeling to Enable a Smarter Insulin
Simeon I. Taylor, Richard D. DiMarchi
Diabetes Aug 2020, 69 (8) 1608-1610; DOI: 10.2337/dbi20-0011
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Article Information
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Adipose Tissue Malfunction Drives Metabolic Dysfunction in Alström Syndrome
  • Staying Connected: Transcriptomics in the Search for Novel Diabetic Kidney Disease Treatments
  • Going in Early: Hypoxia as a Target for Kidney Disease Prevention in Diabetes?
Show more Commentaries

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Online Ahead of Print
  • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Collections
  • Archives
  • Submit
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • About the Journal
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Journal Policies
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
  • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
  • Contact Us

Other ADA Resources

  • Diabetes Care
  • Clinical Diabetes
  • Diabetes Spectrum
  • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
  • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
  • Professional Books
  • Diabetes Forecast

 

  • DiabetesJournals.org
  • Diabetes Core Update
  • ADA's DiabetesPro
  • ADA Member Directory
  • Diabetes.org

© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Print ISSN: 0012-1797, Online ISSN: 1939-327X.