Abstract
The pharmacokinetics of the novel, rapid-acting insulin aspart were compared with those of soluble human insulin following subcutaneous administration in nine children (aged 6–12 years) and nine adolescents (aged 13–17 years) with stable type 1 diabetes. The study had a randomised, double-blind, two-period crossover design. Each patient received a single subcutaneous dose of insulin aspart or human insulin (0.15 IU/kg body weight) 5 min before breakfast and the plasma insulin and glucose concentrations were measured at intervals during the following 5 h. The pharmacokinetic profile of insulin aspart differed significantly from that of human insulin with a higher mean maximum serum insulin (Cmax ins), 881 ± 321 (SD) pmol/l versus 422 ± 193 pmol/l for human insulin (P < 0.001); and with a shorter median serum insulin t max ins, 40.0 min (interquartile range: 40–50 min) versus 75.0 min (interquartile range: 60–120 min) for human insulin, (P < 0.001). An age-related effect on Cmax ins and area under the curve (AUC0–5h ins) was observed with higher values in adolescents than in children for both insulin aspart and human insulin. Postprandial glycaemic control was improved with insulin aspart; the baseline-adjusted ΔCmax glu being lower for insulin aspart compared with human insulin (increase of 7.6 ± 5.1 versus 9.4 ± 4.4 mmol/l respectively, P < 0.05). The incidence of adverse events was similar for the two insulin types.
Conclusion The more rapid onset of action of insulin aspart versus human insulin, previously observed in adults, is confirmed in a paediatric population with type 1 diabetes.
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Received: 30 June 1999 and in revised form: 20 September 1999 and 23 November 1999 /Accepted: 9 December 1999
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mortensen, H., Lindholm, A., Olsen, B. et al. Rapid appearance and onset of action of insulin aspart in paediatric subjects with type 1 diabetes. Eur J Pediatr 159, 483–488 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/s004310051315
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s004310051315