==== Front PLoS One PLoS One plos PLOS ONE 1932-6203 Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA 10.1371/journal.pone.0278794 PONE-D-22-32238 Research Article Medicine and Health Sciences Endocrinology Diabetic Endocrinology Insulin Biology and Life Sciences Biochemistry Hormones Insulin Biology and Life Sciences Bioengineering Biotechnology Medical Devices and Equipment Medical Implants Engineering and Technology Bioengineering Biotechnology Medical Devices and Equipment Medical Implants Medicine and Health Sciences Medical Devices and Equipment Medical Implants Medicine and Health Sciences Pharmacology Routes of Administration Subcutaneous Injections Biology and Life Sciences Anatomy Body Fluids Blood Blood Plasma Medicine and Health Sciences Anatomy Body Fluids Blood Blood Plasma Biology and Life Sciences Physiology Body Fluids Blood Blood Plasma Medicine and Health Sciences Endocrinology Endocrine Disorders Diabetes Mellitus Medicine and Health Sciences Medical Conditions Metabolic Disorders Diabetes Mellitus Medicine and Health Sciences Pharmacology Pharmacokinetics Drug Absorption Physical Sciences Chemistry Chemical Compounds Organic Compounds Carbohydrates Monosaccharides Glucose Physical Sciences Chemistry Organic Chemistry Organic Compounds Carbohydrates Monosaccharides Glucose Biology and Life Sciences Anatomy Body Fluids Blood Blood Sugar Medicine and Health Sciences Anatomy Body Fluids Blood Blood Sugar Biology and Life Sciences Physiology Body Fluids Blood Blood Sugar Accelerated absorption of regular insulin administered via a vascularizing permeable microchamber implanted subcutaneously in diabetic Rattus norvegicus Rapid insulin absorption via a subcutaneously implanted microchamber in R. norvegicus Steyn Leah V. Data curation Formal analysis Investigation Methodology Project administration Validation 1 Drew Delaney Investigation Resources 1 Vlachos Demetri Investigation Resources 1 Huey Barry Investigation Resources 1 Cocchi Katie Investigation Resources 1 Price Nicholas D. Investigation Resources 1 Johnson Robert Conceptualization Methodology Writing – review & editing 2 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4487-9358 Putnam Charles W. Formal analysis Visualization Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1 Papas Klearchos K. Conceptualization Funding acquisition Supervision Writing – review & editing 1 2 * 1 Institute for Cellular Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine-Tucson, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States of America 2 Procyon Technologies, LLC., Medical Research Building (Room 121), University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States of America Balaji P. Editor MGR College, INDIA Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: [R.J. and KKP are co-founders of and have financial interests in Procyon Technologies LLC.]. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. * E-mail: kkpapas@surgery.arizona.edu 29 6 2023 2023 18 6 e027879422 11 2022 13 6 2023 © 2023 Steyn et al 2023 Steyn et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. In Type 1 diabetes patients, even ultra-rapid acting insulins injected subcutaneously reach peak concentrations in 45 minutes or longer. The lag time between dosing and peak concentration, as well as intra- and inter-subject variability, render prandial glucose control and dose consistency difficult. We postulated that insulin absorption from subcutaneously implantable vascularizing microchambers would be significantly faster than conventional subcutaneous injection. Male athymic nude R. norvegicus rendered diabetic with streptozotocin were implanted with vascularizing microchambers (single chamber; 1.5 cm2 surface area per side; nominal volume, 22.5 μl). Plasma insulin was assayed after a single dose (1.5 U/kg) of diluted insulin human (Humulin®R U-100), injected subcutaneously or via microchamber. Microchambers were also implanted in additional animals and retrieved at intervals for histologic assessment of vascularity. Following conventional subcutaneous injection, the mean peak insulin concentration was 22.7 (SD 14.2) minutes. By contrast, when identical doses of insulin were injected via subcutaneous microchamber 28 days after implantation, the mean peak insulin time was shortened to 7.50 (SD 4.52) minutes. Peak insulin concentrations were similar by either route; however, inter-subject variability was reduced when insulin was administered via microchamber. Histologic examination of tissue surrounding microchambers showed mature vascularization on days 21 and 40 post-implantation. Implantable vascularizing microchambers of similar design may prove clinically useful for insulin dosing, either intermittently by needle, or continuously by pump including in “closed loop” systems, such as the artificial pancreas. http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100008871 Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation United States of America 2-SRA-2020-870-S-B Papas Klearchos K. K.K.P. 2-SRA-2020-870-S-B Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation www.jdrf.org The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Data AvailabilityAll relevant data are within the manuscript. Data Availability All relevant data are within the manuscript. ==== Body pmcIntroduction In response to perturbations of plasma glucose concentration and other physiologic cues, the normal endocrine pancreas modulates its release of insulin (and other hormones); insulin, entering the portal venous circulation in approximately five second pulses and longer oscillations, rapidly and precisely maintains glucose homeostasis [1]. In Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), the endocrine pancreas fails to produce insulin in sufficient quantities, if at all [2]. Although pharmacologic insulins are a life-saving therapy, they fail to mimic the rapidity and precision of glucose modulation conferred by the normal pancreas [3]. Consequently, despite insulin therapy, diabetic patients remain vulnerable to a range of costly, long-term, disabling complications. Pharmacologic insulins are most often injected into the subcutaneous (SC) tissue of the abdominal wall or extremities; however, because of the relative avascularity of SC tissue [4], the dispensed insulin—depending upon its formulation—may require an hour or longer to attain its peak concentration in the blood [4]. This delay in absorption renders insulin therapy an exercise in predictive dosing, especially when anticipating the substantial swings in blood glucose concentration encountered during and following meals [5]. The lag time between SC dosing and achieving an effective insulin concentration in the blood also blunts the precision otherwise afforded by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices, sophisticated dosing decision algorithms, precision insulin pumps, open- or closed-loop systems, and the “artificial pancreas” [4, 6]. Efforts to accelerate absorption of insulin have pursued two general approaches: novel formulations of pharmacologic insulins and altered routes of administration. One or more amino acid changes of the insulin molecule itself [7–12] and/or the addition of chemicals [13] reduce the tendency of native insulin to form multimeric complexes which first must dissociate into monomers or dimers in order to be absorbed [14]. These modifications of pharmacologic insulin have yielded only incremental increases in the rate of absorption (reviewed in [4, 15]). Consequently, ultra-rapid insulins have not achieved wide-spread patient acceptance [4], in part because of increased drug costs [15] and a greater frequency of injection site reactions [16]. The second approach–alternative routes of administration affording more rapid uptake of insulin—have included intradermal microinjection [17] or “jet spray” [18, 19], intraperitoneal instillation [20, 21], or the inhalation of specially formulated insulins [22, 23]. None of these strategies has gained widespread clinical acceptance, in part because of unpredictable dosing, increased complication rates, and patient hesitancy [24, 25]. Although the lag times between SC injection and peak time (Tmax) have been somewhat foreshortened by the development of “ultra-rapid acting insulins” [Faster aspart (Fiasp), 63 min, URLj (Lyumjev), 57 min [15]], the subcutaneous route is beleaguered by a second confounding problem: intra-patient variability of absorption of the specified dose [26–28] resulting in unanticipated blood glucose effects. This variance between anticipated and actual effect upon blood glucose concentration contributes to the incidence of both diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and importantly, hypoglycemic episodes [6], especially in those individuals who are constitutively “hypoglycemia unaware” [29, 30]. Unpredictable discrepancies between the intended and evinced biochemical effects of a particular SC dose are multifactorial. The vascularity of the subcutaneous space is not homogenous even within individuals [22, 31–35] and the SC composition is further altered by repeated injections [36, 37]. In a 2018 review [38], the multitude of factors affecting absorption of SC insulin are discussed in detail; they include, among many others: variations in the depth of needle penetration, including inadvertent intramuscular injection; dislodged catheters or mechanical issues associated with insulin pump infusion sets [39]; and seepage of drug from the injection site. It stands to reason that intra-patient variability compounds inter-patient dosage algorithms; predictions and comparisons are therefore fraught, requiring complex modeling [40, 41]. To address the challenges posed by lagging absorption of even ultra-fast insulins and the inconsistency of intrasubject dosing, we evaluated in a diabetic R. norvegicus model, subcutaneously implantable vascularizing microchambers, IVMs (Fig 1A). These microchambers–of various footprints and capacities–are engineered of polytetrafluoroethylene membranes (PTFE) and have a surface configuration with large pores (∼ 5 μm) which promotes angiogenic ingrowth; the inner, membrane, which has much smaller pores, serves to block host cells from entering and occupying the microchamber [42, 43]. We report here that the IVM, implanted in the SC space, accelerates the absorption of inexpensive regular human insulin, achieving pharmacokinetic profiles potentially superior to ultra-rapid acting insulins. Importantly, our data also suggest that the IVM improves consistency of insulin delivery, thereby potentially avoiding hazardous deviations in blood glucose concentration. 10.1371/journal.pone.0278794.g001 Fig 1 The Procyon implantable vascularizing microchamber (IVM) and an illustrative clinical application. (A) The vascularizing, microchamber (depicted before implantation), fabricated of PTFE, has a surface area per side of 1.5 cm2 and a nominal volume of 22.5μL. (B) One potential clinical application of the IVM is to couple it with an insulin pump. The infusion set connects the insulin pump to the SC implanted microchamber; the IVM’s connection tubing is fitted with a heal in place cuff fabricated from material that promotes vascularization. (C) A schematic of the vascularized microchamber, depicting the ingrowth of blood vessels to its surface and the flow of insulin from within the microchamber, through the permeable membranes, and into the richly vascularized SC space surrounding the IVM. Materials and methods Ethical care of experimental animals All experiments were performed with the written approval of and in accordance with the guidelines established by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at The University of Arizona. Anesthesia for procedures was provided with inhaled isoflurane with oxygen; SR Buprenorphine, which provides approximately 72 hours of pain relief, was included for analgesia. To alleviate suffering, analgesics (SR Buprenorphine) were provided for 72 hours postoperatively. The animals were observed daily and weighed weekly; any animal showing signs of severe distress or a body weight loss exceeding 20% was removed from the study and immediately euthanized. The Body Condition Score (BCS) and the Early Removal Score (ERS) were utilized to assess the overall health of the rodents and to communicate this information to University Animal Care (UAC) veterinary staff. Rats were euthanized using American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) approved methods, notably overdose of inhaled CO2 or isoflurane in oxygen. Secondary methods to assure death were also used; these included exsanguination, bilateral thoracotomy, or vital organs harvest. Animal subjects Male athymic nude R. norvegicus between 9–12 weeks of age and weighing 250–350 g were purchased from Envigo (Livermore, CA, USA). Because estrogen interferes with streptozotocin [44] (see next), only male animals were included. Athymic nude rats were chosen to abrogate a possible antibody response against the human insulin to be injected [45]. Animals were housed for a seven-day acclimatization period before initiating any experimental procedures. Induction of diabetes To avoid endogenous insulin in subject rats from cross-reacting in the human insulin assays, animals were rendered diabetic by a single intraperitoneal injection, 60 mg/kg, of streptozotocin (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) [44]. Blood glucose concentrations were monitored daily using a Freestyle Lite Glucose Monitoring System (Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Alameda, CA, USA). Rats were considered diabetic when blood glucose concentrations greater than 200 mg/dl were recorded on three consecutive days. Rats verified as diabetic were maintained with exogenous long-acting insulin (Lantus, Sanofi-Aventis, Bridgewater, NJ, USA) throughout the study; maintenance insulin treatment also serves to forestall insulin resistance [46]. Maintenance insulin therapy was suspended for 24 hours prior to each insulin kinetics study. Implantation of vascularizing microchambers (IVMs) Two days after the initial insulin-kinetics assay two empty, 1.5 cm2 per side, single-chamber (having a nominal internal volume of 22.5 μl), implantable vascularizing microchambers, IVMs (Procyon Technologies LLC, Tucson, AZ, USA) (Fig 1A) were implanted subcutaneously on the dorsal aspect of each rat. Insulin kinetics assays Subcutaneous injection of human insulin The initial insulin kinetics assays were performed 7 days after STZ induction of diabetes. Nonfasted rats received a single subcutaneous injection of insulin human, 1.5 U/kg (Humulin R; Lilly, Indianapolis, IN, USA). Each dose of insulin was diluted in 0.5 mL of sterile saline (0.9%) solution, then injected subcutaneously using a glass Hamilton syringe fitted with a 20-gauge sharp needle. Blood sample collection Blood samples (150 μl) were collected from the tail vein before injection (time = 0), and at 5-, 15-, 30-, 60-, 90-, and 120-minutes following injection. Blood samples for insulin assays were stored on ice in 1.5 ml centrifuge tubes with EDTA until separation of plasma by centrifugation at 13,300 x g for 15 minutes at 4° C. Plasma samples were stored at -20° C. Administration of human insulin via subcutaneously implanted IVMs On day 28 post-implantation, each rat received a single dose of insulin human, Humulin R, 1.5 U/kg (Lilly, Indianapolis, IN, USA), diluted as described above. The insulin was then instilled into one of the two IVMs via its port. Blood samples for plasma insulin were collected and processed as described above. Analysis of rat plasma samples for human insulin concentration Plasma samples collected from each insulin kinetics assay were analyzed for human insulin concentration using a commercial human insulin ELISA kit (Alpco, Salem, NH, USA). Samples were run in duplicate. The ELISA kit has a detection range of 3.0–200 μIU/ml and a sensitivity of 0.399 μIU/ml. The measured insulin concentrations were converted from IU/ml to μg/ml according to the manufacturer’s recommended conversion ratios of 1 IU of human insulin = 6nmol = 34.8 μg of insulin. IVM retrieval and histopathology At the conclusion of the study (day 40), rats were euthanized, and the IVMs were retrieved for histology. Additional specimens were obtained 7 and 21 days after implantation from rats in a cohort not included in the insulin analyses reported herein. After removal, each IVM including its adherent tissue was placed in 10% neutral buffered formalin for fixation, then processed for paraffin embedding. Paraffin blocks were sectioned and 5 μm slices were collected throughout the microchamber. Sections were stained with hematoxylin and eosin and imaged with a Keyence BZ-X710 microscope (Keyence Co, Osaka, Japan). Statistical analysis Insulin kinetic curves The concentrations of human insulin in each rat were normalized to zero by simple subtraction of the variance at t = 0 from all values for that animal. The insulin kinetic curves were created by calculating the mean values and standard deviations at each time point. In several instances, complete plasma insulin concentration data were not obtained for a given rat in a particular assay; if more than three of the seven data points were unavailable, the subject was excluded from analysis. Data from one animal in the subcutaneous injection (control) group was excluded from analysis on that basis. Peak insulin times and concentrations The mean peak times (Tmax) and concentrations of the insulin kinetic assays were obtained as follows: for each subject the greatest plasma insulin concentration was identified, and both the time point (e.g., 10 min) and the insulin concentration at that time point were tabulated. The mean and standard deviation (SD) for each category were then calculated. The two assays, subcutaneous injection at day -2, and IVM administration on day 28, were compared by the unpaired, two-tailed, t-test. The full kinetic curves were compared with the nonparametric Friedman’s test [47]. Statistical tests were conducted with GraphPad Prism version 9.4.1 for Windows (GraphPad Software, San Diego, California USA, www.graphpad.com). Results Insulin-kinetics study after subcutaneous (SC) injection in diabetic rats Five days after successful induction of STZ diabetes, rats were injected subcutaneously with diluted human insulin (Humulin R), followed by blood sampling for plasma insulin concentration over a two-hour period. Consonant with the extensive literature documenting inter-subject variability of insulin absorption after SC injection, the individual insulin curves were quite variable in timing and concentration between animals (Fig 2A), with no clear peak by visual inspection (Fig 2C). The mean peak of plasma insulin–Tmax−was calculated as 22.7 (n = 11, SD 14.2, 95% CI 13.18–32.27) min post-injection and the peak concentrations averaged 12.3 (SD 3.16) ng/ml (Table 1). In the experiments described above, the Humulin R stock suspension was diluted in 500 ul sterile saline, approximately a 100-fold dilution. Because the rate of insulin absorption directly correlates with the concentration of mono- and dimers, dilution of the stock solution might seem to favor dissociation of multimeric insulin [9, 14]. In another experiment we compared two concentrations–diluted versus stock–of Humulin R insulin after SC injection. The plasma insulin curves did not vary significantly between the two concentrations (unpublished data), confirming that dilution of Humulin R did not per se affect its rate of absorption. 10.1371/journal.pone.0278794.g002 Fig 2 Plasma insulin kinetics after either SC or IVM injection of regular insulin. Plasma concentrations of human insulin were collected over 120 minutes following either subcutaneous injection (A,C) or instillation into subcutaneous IVMs 28 days after implantation (B,D) of regular insulin human (Humulin R) in identical doses. Shown in A and B are the data for the individual subjects in each group of rats; in C and D are the insulin kinetic curves generated by plotting means and standard deviations (SD); n = 11 rats in the SC injection group (one rat was excluded from the analysis because of incomplete plasma insulin concentration data); n = 12 rats in the IVM group. 10.1371/journal.pone.0278794.t001 Table 1 Mean peak times and concentrations of plasma insulin after subcutaneous or IVM injection in diabetic rats of insulin human (1.5 U/kg body weight). Subcutaneous injection IVM injection on day 28 Number of subjects (n) 11 12 Body weight (g) 302.1 (SD 25.1) 364.9 (SD 29.6) Tmax (min) 22.7 (SD 14.2) 7.50 (SD 4.52) ** 95% CI of Tmax (min) 13.18–32.27 4.626–10.39 Insulin concentration (ng/ml) 12.3 (SD 3.16) 11.7 (SD 4.97) NS Given are means, standard deviations (SD), and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI). Although the peak concentrations are not significantly different (NS), the interval to peak concentration (Tmax) was significantly shorter (** p = 0.0020, by the unpaired, two-tailed t test) when insulin was delivered via microchamber. Insulin kinetics after administration via a subcutaneous microchamber The implantable vascularizing microchamber (IVM) by Procyon (Fig 1A) is designed to provide a means for rapid, consistent absorption of insulin without repeated needle (or pen or pump cannula) injections; it measures 1.5 cm2 in surface area per side. Its surface is engineered to promote rapid vascularization. Published reports suggested that to be effectively vascularized, subcutaneously implanted devices typically require three to four weeks in mice [48, 49], two to four weeks in rats [50], and two months or less in primates [51]. We therefore conducted the insulin kinetics assays at 28 days after implantation, anticipating mature vascularization by that time. Diluted insulin human was instilled into the IVM at the same dose by body weight as in the SC injection control studies, described above. At 28 days after implantation, 10 of the 12 individual plasma insulin curves peaked just five minutes after injection (Fig 2B), as did the mean value (Fig 2D). The Tmax for insulin (Table 1) was calculated as 7.50 (SD 4.52, 95% CI 4.626–10.37) min versus 22.7 (SD 14.2) min with conventional SC injection, a statistically significant difference (p = 0.0020, Table 1). Not only was uptake of insulin from the microchamber accelerated but the inter-subject variability appeared reduced (Fig 2B); this was also attested to by the standard deviations of the mean peak (Table 1) and of the early time points of the insulin curve (Fig 2D). Together, the data at day 28 after implantation, indicate that insulin absorption from the IVM is significantly accelerated with improved inter-subject consistency, compared to conventional SC needle injection. Evidence of vascularization revealed by histopathology of retrieved IVMs The peak insulin data presented in the preceding section strongly support the notion that vascularization of the SC tissues surrounding and invading the vascularizing membranes of the microchambers had matured by 28 days and had thereby facilitated the very rapid uptake of insulin. If so, histologic evidence of blood vessels immediately adjacent to the microchambers is likewise expected in the same time frame. To examine this supposition, IVMs implanted subcutaneously in rats for 7, 21 and 40 days were retrieved and examined histologically. Although the 1.5 cm2 microchambers were identical to the ones used for insulin kinetics studies, they had not been injected with insulin to avoid confounding effects on morphology that might be induced by the diffusion of human insulin into the surrounding rat subcutaneous tissues. At 7 days after implantation (Fig 3A) a few vessels can be identified but by day 21, subcutaneous vessels in proximity to the vascularizing membranes are both prominent and plentiful (Fig 3B). Images of subcutaneous tissue surrounding the microchambers at 40 days (Fig 3C-3F) reveal the presence of mature vasculature structures with larger vessels quite close to the inner membranes of the IVMs. There was no histologic evidence of fibrotic overgrowth, even at the latest time point. Thus, the histopathology of explanted IVMs indicates that vascularization begins soon after implantation; the numbers of blood vessels greatly increase by three to about six weeks after implantation, an observation congruent with the increased rapidity of insulin uptake on day 28. 10.1371/journal.pone.0278794.g003 Fig 3 Histopathologic images of retrieved microchambers and the surrounding subcutaneous tissues. The images of H & E (hematoxylin and eosin)-stained sections, using 20X (A-C) and 40X (D-F) objectives, of IVMs retrieved 7, 21 or 40 days after implantation. The arrows point to vascular structures. For orientation purposes, the image in C is labeled to identify the surrounding (SC) tissue and the insulin delivery chamber. The linear structure (gray) is the inner membrane of the IVM. Discussion Here we report that a small (1.5 cm2 surface area per side), specially engineered PTFE, vascularizing microchamber (Fig 1) implanted subcutaneously facilitates more rapid uptake of insulin than conventional SC injection. The outer membrane of the IVM has large pores (∼5μm) which allow the ingrowth of blood vessels [42, 43]; this surrounding vasculature fully matures by about one month (Fig 3). Regular insulin human (Humulin R), when instilled into the IVM 28 days after implantation, achieves peak plasma concentrations significantly faster than an identical dose delivered by conventional SC injection, 7.50 versus 22.7 min (Fig 2 and Table 1). Additionally, inter-subject variability was reduced (Fig 2A and 2B). We therefore conclude that the subcutaneously implanted microchambers are functionally mature within weeks, not months. The subcutaneous space is favored for insulin injection for patient convenience: it is a large space readily accessible for injection and easily examined for problems at the sites of skin penetration. Physiologically, however, it is less than ideal; its vascularity is both sparse and heterogenous. Moreover, repeated injections may generate inflammation and consequent fibrosis, rendering the microenvironment even less conducive to absorption of injected insulin. Finally, utilizing the SC space for insulin delivery currently requires repeated injections, by needle, pen or pump, their frequency depending upon the chosen insulin formulation(s) and the means of injection. The primary clinical scenario for which we envisage the IVM achieving clinical utility for T1DM patients (Fig 1) is a conceptual extension of the experiments described in this report–namely, implantation in diabetic patients to facilitate the very rapid uptake of regular insulin. One might argue that accelerating absorption via an IVM is an unnecessary redundancy now that ultra-rapid acting insulins are available. However, the very rapid peak plasma insulin concentrations achieved with regular insulin via IVM more closely mimic the normal human pancreas and are likely superior to even ultra-rapid acting insulins injected SC [16, 52, 53]. The insulin kinetic curves (Fig 2B and 2D) are compatible with an “inject-eat continuum” strategy: this would, first, synchronize the insulin peak with the prandial requirement; and second, avoid the pitfalls of inopportune delays of a meal by simply postponing the injection. As shown in Fig 1, an insulin pump is easily connected to an IVM, ensuring rapid uptake of the pumped insulin; this would allow greater precision in dosing and rapid uptake of prandial boluses. Other challenging clinical scenarios would likewise benefit from rapid uptake of insulin and therefore better glucose control. One example is insulin therapy of diabetics during pregnancy, where precise glucose homeostasis is vital to the well-being, both immediate and long-term, of mother and fetus [54]. Another argument sometimes made is that rapid uptake of insulin confers more risk than benefit, for example, by triggering hypoglycemic episodes. However, the clinical safety and efficacy, especially in post-prandial control, of ultra-rapid acting insulins is now supported by many studies [15, 16, 55, 56]. The factitious “too rapid” assertion also deflects the many advances in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices, insulin dosage-predicting algorithms, precision-dosing insulin pumps, open and closed loop systems, and the “artificial pancreas” (AP) [6]. To this point, a recent, comprehensive review of multiple input AP systems [57], identified two persistent challenges: lag times in acquiring blood glucose concentration data, and delays in absorption of insulin from SC depots. Our study is relevant to the latter concern, which echoes an earlier sentiment: for APs (and similar approaches) to achieve their full potential, the “applied insulin should induce ideally an instantaneous effect” [4]. The IVM potentially offers a clinical means of further closing the gap between insulin dose and blood glucose response. Conclusion Regular insulin human instilled into SC implantable vascularizing microchambers (IVMs) implanted 28 days previously in diabetic rats attains mean peak plasma insulin concentrations in 7.5 (SD 4.50) min, versus 22.7 (SD 14.2) min following conventional SC injection. Inter-subject variability was likewise reduced. Histologically, mature vascularization was evident at 21 and 40 days after implantation, indicating that neovascularization surrounding the IVMs was a significant contributor to the rapidity of insulin uptake. We suggest that the implantable vascularizing microchambers reported herein have clinical potential for the painless, repetitive, reproduceable delivery of regular insulin with an absorption rate potentially exceeding that of ultra-rapid acting insulins. The authors wish to acknowledge Chan A. Ion and Jennifer Kitzmann-Miner for their assistance in preparing graphic work. 10.1371/journal.pone.0278794.r001 Decision Letter 0 Balaji P. Academic Editor © 2023 P. Balaji 2023 P. Balaji https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Submission Version0 12 Apr 2023 PONE-D-22-32238Accelerated absorption of regular insulin administered via a vascularizing permeable microchamber implanted subcutaneously in diabetic Rattus norvegicusPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Putnam, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. There are a few questions raised by the reviewer that need to be answered by the authors. Therefore, the authors are greatly recommended to address the two questions raised by one of the reviewers. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 27 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, P. Balaji, Ph D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering. 2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: “I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: [R.J. and KKP are co-founders of and have financial interests in Procyon Technologies LLC.]” Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. Please respond by return email with your amended Competing Interests Statement and we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: There are a few questions raised by the reviewer that need to be answered by the authors. Therefore, the authors are greatly recommended to address the two questions raised by one of the reviewers. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: 1. What was the reason behind to select the immunodeficient rat for the study ? 2. Why particular sex(male) being preferred for the study ? 3. Kindly specify the significant contributing factor(Increasing vascular permeability or novelty of pumping design or location of implantation or if any other factors) for rapid insulin absorption in the conclusion. Reviewer #2: The manuscript submitted on the titled, "Accelerated absorption of regular insulin administered via a vascularizing permeable microchamber implanted subcutaneously in diabetic Rattus norvegicus" is worth publishing in the PLOS ONE journal, with further minor revision of the manuscript. 1. What are the triggers to induce vascularization in the inserted microchamber? 2. Have you observed any allergic reactions after implanting the microchamber? ********** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ********** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachment Submitted filename: Review comments.docx Click here for additional data file. 10.1371/journal.pone.0278794.r002 Author response to Decision Letter 0 Submission Version1 18 Apr 2023 Reviewers’ Comments Reviewer #1: 1. What was the reason behind selecting the immunodeficient rat for the study? Because the rats were to receive human insulin, we were concerned that a potential antibody response to the human protein by the subject rat might sequester or otherwise interfere with measurements of the insulin kinetic response. The nude rodent model is often used to avoid interference by the immune system in xenogeneic systems (most commonly, in human tumor models). However, the athymic nude model has also been used to avert immune antibody responses to xeno-proteins [1]. (We have added this citation to the manuscript.) 2. Why particular sex(male) being preferred for the study? Thank you for raising this question! Even investigators working with the streptozotocin (STZ)-induced diabetes model may not be aware that estrogen interferes with the action of STZ in inducing diabetes; hence males are more sensitive to STZ and can be induced with lower doses, thereby diminishing off-target toxicities [2]. (We have also added this citation to the manuscript.) 3. Kindly specify the significant contributing factor (Increasing vascular permeability or novelty of pumping design or location of implantation or if any other factors) for rapid insulin absorption in the conclusion. Your suggestion is an excellent one and we have revised the Conclusion to clearly state that our data indicate that robust neovascularization abetted by the outer membrane of the IVM device is important to rapid insulin absorption; the Conclusion now reads in part: “…neovascularization surrounding the IVMs was a significant contributor to the rapidity of insulin uptake.” Reviewer # 2: 1. What are the triggers to induce vascularization in the inserted microchamber? Membrane microarchitecture [3, 4] is the established trigger of neovascularization surrounding our microchambers. The outer (vascularizing) membrane of the mirochamber is composed of a PTFE (i.e. Teflon), having pores of ∼5μm. These pores enable ingrowth of smaller blood vessels facilitating neovascularization, which is 80 – 100X that found surrounding a 0.02 μm PTFE membrane that does not allow cells to penetrate it [3]. (Both citations are now included in the manuscript). We have revised the opening paragraph of the Discussion to emphasize these points (see Manuscript with Track Changes). 2. Have you observed any allergic reactions after implanting the microchamber? The devices were fashioned of PTFE in large part because of its many-years’ record of successful use in humans [5]. In fact, it is so hypo-allergenic that it has been used to wrap metal or silastic devices in patients having allergic responses to the latter materials. We did not observe any signs or symptoms of systemic or local allergic reactions to the microchambers in the rats; moreover, the histology of the devices after removal showed well-developed vascularization and integration with the host tissues. In addition to this “Response to the Reviewers”, we have uploaded the “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes” and the unmarked version, “Manuscript.” We appreciate your careful consideration of our responses and look forward to our report appearing in PLOS ONE! Sincerely, Charles W. Putnam Klearchos K. Papas Submitting Author Corresponding Author References cited in response to Reviewers’ queries: 1. Bartholomaeus WN, O'Donoghue H, Reed WD. Thymus-dependence of autoantibody responses to liver specific lipoprotein in the mouse. Clin Exp Immunol. 1984;55(3):541-5. PubMed PMID: 6323073; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC1535937. 2. Goyal SN, Reddy NM, Patil KR, Nakhate KT, Ojha S, Patil CR, et al. Challenges and issues with streptozotocin-induced diabetes - A clinically relevant animal model to understand the diabetes pathogenesis and evaluate therapeutics. Chem Biol Interact. 2016;244:49-63. Epub 20151202. doi: 10.1016/j.cbi.2015.11.032. PubMed PMID: 26656244. 3. Brauker JH, Carr-Brendel VE, Martinson LA, Crudele J, Johnston WD, Johnson RC. Neovascularization of synthetic membranes directed by membrane microarchitecture. J Biomed Mater Res. 1995;29(12):1517-24. doi: 10.1002/jbm.820291208. PubMed PMID: 8600142. 4. Geller RL, Loudovaris T, Neuenfeldt S, Johnson RC, Brauker JH. Use of an immunoisolation device for cell transplantation and tumor immunotherapy. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1997;831:438-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1997.tb52216.x. PubMed PMID: 9616733. 5. Yorita K, Takahashi J, Tano K, Ichikawa Y, Hamaguchi N, Yasui W. Twenty years' use of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene sheet for an artificial cardiac pacemaker. Clin Case Rep. 2021;9(6):e04334. Epub 20210624. doi: 10.1002/ccr3.4334. PubMed PMID: 34194807; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC8223883. Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers-FINAL.docx Click here for additional data file. 10.1371/journal.pone.0278794.r003 Decision Letter 1 Balaji P. Academic Editor © 2023 P. Balaji 2023 P. Balaji https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Submission Version1 19 Jun 2023 Accelerated absorption of regular insulin administered via a vascularizing permeable microchamber implanted subcutaneously in diabetic Rattus norvegicus PONE-D-22-32238R1 Dear Dr. Putnam, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, P. Balaji, Ph D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): All the comments / suggestion have been addressed by the Authors and hence the manuscript may be accepted for publication in its Current Form Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ********** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: (No Response) ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #2: No ********** 10.1371/journal.pone.0278794.r004 Acceptance letter Balaji P. Academic Editor © 2023 P. Balaji 2023 P. Balaji https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. 21 Jun 2023 PONE-D-22-32238R1 Accelerated absorption of regular insulin administered via a vascularizing permeable microchamber implanted subcutaneously in diabetic Rattus norvegicus Dear Dr. Putnam: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. P. Balaji Academic Editor PLOS ONE ==== Refs References 1 Matveyenko AV , Liuwantara D , Gurlo T , Kirakossian D , Dalla Man C , Cobelli C , et al . Pulsatile portal vein insulin delivery enhances hepatic insulin action and signaling. Diabetes. 2012;61 (9 ):2269–79. Epub 20120611. doi: 10.2337/db11-1462 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3425431.22688333 2 Linsley PS , Greenbaum CJ , Nepom GT . Uncovering Pathways to Personalized Therapies in Type 1 Diabetes. Diabetes. 2021;70 (4 ):831–41. doi: 10.2337/db20-1185 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7980192.33741606 3 Kramer CK , Retnakaran R , Zinman B . Insulin and insulin analogs as antidiabetic therapy: A perspective from clinical trials. Cell Metab. 2021;33 (4 ):740–7. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2021.03.014 .33826916 4 Heinemann L , Muchmore DB . Ultrafast-acting insulins: state of the art. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012;6 (4 ):728–42. Epub 20120701. doi: 10.1177/193229681200600402 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3440142.22920797 5 Luijf YM , van Bon AC , Hoekstra JB , Devries JH . Premeal injection of rapid-acting insulin reduces postprandial glycemic excursions in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2010;33 (10 ):2152–5. Epub 20100806. doi: 10.2337/dc10-0692 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2945151.20693354 6 Domingo-Lopez DA , Lattanzi G , L HJS , Wallace EJ , Wylie R , O’Sullivan J , et al . Medical devices, smart drug delivery, wearables and technology for the treatment of Diabetes Mellitus. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2022;185 :114280. Epub 20220408. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2022.114280 .35405298 7 Becker RH , Frick AD , Burger F , Scholtz H , Potgieter JH . A comparison of the steady-state pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a novel rapid-acting insulin analog, insulin glulisine, and regular human insulin in healthy volunteers using the euglycemic clamp technique. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 2005;113 (5 ):292–7. doi: 10.1055/s-2005-865637 .15926116 8 Bode BW . Comparison of pharmacokinetic properties, physicochemical stability, and pump compatibility of 3 rapid-acting insulin analogues-aspart, lispro, and glulisine. Endocr Pract. 2011;17 (2 ):271–80. doi: 10.4158/EP10260.RA .21134878 9 Brange J , Ribel U , Hansen JF , Dodson G , Hansen MT , Havelund S , et al . Monomeric insulins obtained by protein engineering and their medical implications. Nature. 1988;333 (6174 ):679–82. doi: 10.1038/333679a0 .3287182 10 Mudaliar SR , Lindberg FA , Joyce M , Beerdsen P , Strange P , Lin A , et al . Insulin aspart (B28 asp-insulin): a fast-acting analog of human insulin: absorption kinetics and action profile compared with regular human insulin in healthy nondiabetic subjects. Diabetes Care. 1999;22 (9 ):1501–6. doi: 10.2337/diacare.22.9.1501 .10480516 11 Sheldon B , Russell-Jones D , Wright J . Insulin analogues: an example of applied medical science. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2009;11 (1 ):5–19. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1326.2008.01015.x .19120431 12 Vajo Z , Fawcett J , Duckworth WC . Recombinant DNA technology in the treatment of diabetes: insulin analogs. Endocr Rev. 2001;22 (5 ):706–17. doi: 10.1210/edrv.22.5.0442 .11588149 13 Kildegaard J , Buckley ST , Nielsen RH , Povlsen GK , Seested T , Ribel U , et al . Elucidating the Mechanism of Absorption of Fast-Acting Insulin Aspart: The Role of Niacinamide. Pharm Res. 2019;36 (3 ):49. Epub 20190211. doi: 10.1007/s11095-019-2578-7 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6373292.30746556 14 Brange J , Owens DR , Kang S , Volund A . Monomeric insulins and their experimental and clinical implications. Diabetes Care. 1990;13 (9 ):923–54. doi: 10.2337/diacare.13.9.923 .2226110 15 Wong EY , Kroon L . Ultra-Rapid-Acting Insulins: How Fast Is Really Needed? Clin Diabetes. 2021;39 (4 ):415–23. doi: 10.2337/cd20-0119 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8603316.34866783 16 Heise T , Piras de Oliveira C , Juneja R , Ribeiro A , Chigutsa F , Blevins T . What is the value of faster acting prandial insulin? Focus on ultra rapid lispro. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2022. Epub 20220519. doi: 10.1111/dom.14773 .35593434 17 Narayan RJ . Transdermal delivery of insulin via microneedles. J Biomed Nanotechnol. 2014;10 (9 ):2244–60. doi: 10.1166/jbn.2014.1976 .25992456 18 Malone JI , Lowitt S , Grove NP , Shah SC . Comparison of insulin levels after injection by jet stream and disposable insulin syringe. Diabetes Care. 1986;9 (6 ):637–40. doi: 10.2337/diacare.9.6.637 .3542456 19 Pehling GB , Gerich JE . Comparison of plasma insulin profiles after subcutaneous administration of insulin by jet spray and conventional needle injection in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Mayo Clin Proc. 1984;59 (11 ):751–4. doi: 10.1016/s0025-6196(12)65585-2 .6387316 20 Dirnena-Fusini I , Am MK , Fougner AL , Carlsen SM , Christiansen SC . Physiological effects of intraperitoneal versus subcutaneous insulin infusion in patients with diabetes mellitus type 1: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2021;16 (4 ):e0249611. Epub 20210413. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249611 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8043377.33848314 21 van Dijk PR , Logtenberg SJ , Gans RO , Bilo HJ , Kleefstra N . Intraperitoneal insulin infusion: treatment option for type 1 diabetes resulting in beneficial endocrine effects beyond glycaemia. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2014;81 (4 ):488–97. Epub 20140728. doi: 10.1111/cen.12546 .25041605 22 Al-Tabakha MM . Future prospect of insulin inhalation for diabetic patients: The case of Afrezza versus Exubera. J Control Release. 2015;215 :25–38. Epub 20150726. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2015.07.025 .26222134 23 Boss AH , Petrucci R , Lorber D . Coverage of prandial insulin requirements by means of an ultra-rapid-acting inhaled insulin. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012;6 (4 ):773–9. Epub 20120701. doi: 10.1177/193229681200600406 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3440146.22920801 24 Bally L , Thabit H , Hovorka R . Finding the right route for insulin delivery—an overview of implantable pump therapy. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2017;14 (9 ):1103–11. Epub 20161207. doi: 10.1080/17425247.2017.1267138 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5581917.27911116 25 Spaan N , Teplova A , Stam G , Spaan J , Lucas C . Systematic review: continuous intraperitoneal insulin infusion with implantable insulin pumps for diabetes mellitus. Acta Diabetol. 2014;51 (3 ):339–51. Epub 20140305. doi: 10.1007/s00592-014-0557-3 .24595518 26 Heinemann L. Variability of insulin absorption and insulin action. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2002;4 (5 ):673–82. doi: 10.1089/152091502320798312 .12450450 27 Heise T , Nosek L , Ronn BB , Endahl L , Heinemann L , Kapitza C , et al . Lower within-subject variability of insulin detemir in comparison to NPH insulin and insulin glargine in people with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes. 2004;53 (6 ):1614–20. doi: 10.2337/diabetes.53.6.1614 .15161770 28 Morrow L , Muchmore DB , Ludington EA , Vaughn DE , Hompesch M . Reduction in intrasubject variability in the pharmacokinetic response to insulin after subcutaneous co-administration with recombinant human hyaluronidase in healthy volunteers. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011;13 (10 ):1039–45. Epub 20110629. doi: 10.1089/dia.2011.0115 .21714645 29 Cryer PE , Davis SN , Shamoon H . Hypoglycemia in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2003;26 (6 ):1902–12. doi: 10.2337/diacare.26.6.1902 .12766131 30 Fanelli CG , Porcellati F , Pampanelli S , Bolli GB . Insulin therapy and hypoglycaemia: the size of the problem. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2004;20 Suppl 2:S32–42. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.514 .15551297 31 Han D , Rahimi E , Aramideh S , Ardekani AM . Transport and Lymphatic Uptake of Biotherapeutics Through Subcutaneous Injection. J Pharm Sci. 2022;111 (3 ):752–68. Epub 20211006. doi: 10.1016/j.xphs.2021.09.045 .34624293 32 Hildebrandt P. Subcutaneous absorption of insulin in insulin-dependent diabetic patients. Influence of species, physico-chemical properties of insulin and physiological factors. Dan Med Bull. 1991;38 (4 ):337–46. .1914533 33 Hildebrandt P. Skinfold thickness, local subcutaneous blood flow and insulin absorption in diabetic patients. Acta Physiol Scand Suppl. 1991;603 :41–5. .1789128 34 Hildebrandt PR , Vaag AA . Local skin-fold thickness as a clinical predictor of depot size during basal rate infusion of insulin. Diabetes Care. 1993;16 (1 ):1–3. doi: 10.2337/diacare.16.1.1 .8422761 35 Gradel AKJ , Porsgaard T , Brockhoff PB , Seested T , Lykkesfeldt J , Refsgaard HHF . Delayed insulin absorption correlates with alterations in subcutaneous depot kinetics in rats with diet-induced obesity. Obes Sci Pract. 2019;5 (3 ):281–8. Epub 20190318. doi: 10.1002/osp4.326 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6587326.31275602 36 Hajheydari Z , Kashi Z , Akha O , Akbarzadeh S . Frequency of lipodystrophy induced by recombinant human insulin. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2011;15 (10 ):1196–201. .22165682 37 Radermecker RP , Piérard GE , Scheen AJ . Lipodystrophy reactions to insulin: effects of continuous insulin infusion and new insulin analogs. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2007;8 (1 ):21–8. doi: 10.2165/00128071-200708010-00003 .17298103 38 Gradel AKJ , Porsgaard T , Lykkesfeldt J , Seested T , Gram-Nielsen S , Kristensen NR , et al . Factors Affecting the Absorption of Subcutaneously Administered Insulin: Effect on Variability. J Diabetes Res. 2018;2018 :1205121. Epub 20180704. doi: 10.1155/2018/1205121 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6079517.30116732 39 Kanapka LG , Lum JW , Beck RW . Insulin Pump Infusion Set Failures Associated with Prolonged Hyperglycemia: Frequency and Relationship to Age and Type of Infusion Set During 22,741 Infusion Set Wears. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2022;24 (6 ):396–402. Epub 20220223. doi: 10.1089/dia.2021.0548 .35104166 40 Garcia-Jaramillo M , Calm R , Bondia J , Vehi J . Prediction of postprandial blood glucose under uncertainty and intra-patient variability in type 1 diabetes: a comparative study of three interval models. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2012;108 (1 ):224–33. Epub 20120605. doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2012.04.003 .22677264 41 Zheng H , Nathan DM , Schoenfeld DA . Using a multi-level B-spline model to analyze and compare patient glucose profiles based on continuous monitoring data. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011;13 (6 ):675–82. Epub 20110413. doi: 10.1089/dia.2010.0199 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3101946.21488799 42 Brauker JH , Carr-Brendel VE , Martinson LA , Crudele J , Johnston WD , Johnson RC . Neovascularization of synthetic membranes directed by membrane microarchitecture. J Biomed Mater Res. 1995;29 (12 ):1517–24. doi: 10.1002/jbm.820291208 .8600142 43 Geller RL , Loudovaris T , Neuenfeldt S , Johnson RC , Brauker JH . Use of an immunoisolation device for cell transplantation and tumor immunotherapy. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1997;831 :438–51. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1997.tb52216.x .9616733 44 Goyal SN , Reddy NM , Patil KR , Nakhate KT , Ojha S , Patil CR , et al . Challenges and issues with streptozotocin-induced diabetes—A clinically relevant animal model to understand the diabetes pathogenesis and evaluate therapeutics. Chem Biol Interact. 2016;244 :49–63. Epub 20151202. doi: 10.1016/j.cbi.2015.11.032 .26656244 45 Bartholomaeus WN , O’Donoghue H , Reed WD . Thymus-dependence of autoantibody responses to liver specific lipoprotein in the mouse. Clin Exp Immunol. 1984;55 (3 ):541–5. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1535937.6323073 46 Nordquist L , Sjoquist M . Improvement of insulin response in the streptozotocin model of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Insulin response with and without a long-acting insulin treatment. Animal. 2009;3 (5 ):685–9. doi: 10.1017/S175173110800387X .22444446 47 Friedman M. The Use of Ranks to Avoid the Assumption of Normality Implicit in the Analysis of Variance. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1937;32 (200 ):675–701. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1937.10503522 48 Hussey AJ , Winardi M , Han XL , Thomas GP , Penington AJ , Morrison WA , et al . Seeding of pancreatic islets into prevascularized tissue engineering chambers. Tissue Eng Part A. 2009;15 (12 ):3823–33. doi: 10.1089/ten.TEA.2008.0682 .19558221 49 Pepper AR , Pawlick R , Gala-Lopez B , MacGillivary A , Mazzuca DM , White DJ , et al . Diabetes Is Reversed in a Murine Model by Marginal Mass Syngeneic Islet Transplantation Using a Subcutaneous Cell Pouch Device. Transplantation. 2015;99 (11 ):2294–300. doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000000864 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4623852.26308506 50 Rafael E , Wernerson A , Arner P , Tibell A . In vivo studies on insulin permeability of an immunoisolation device intended for islet transplantation using the microdialysis technique. Eur Surg Res. 1999;31 (3 ):249–58. doi: 10.1159/000008700 .10352353 51 Sasikala M , Rao GV , Vijayalakshmi V , Pradeep R , Pothani S , Kumar PP , et al . Long-term functions of encapsulated islets grafted in nonhuman primates without immunosuppression. Transplantation. 2013;96 (7 ):624–32. doi: 10.1097/TP.0b013e31829e26cf .23883970 52 Bolli GB , Porcellati F , Lucidi P , Fanelli CG , Owens DR . One-hundred year evolution of prandial insulin preparations: From animal pancreas extracts to rapid-acting analogs. Metabolism. 2022;126 :154935. Epub 20211108. doi: 10.1016/j.metabol.2021.154935 .34762931 53 Owens DR , Bolli GB . The continuing quest for better subcutaneously administered prandial insulins: a review of recent developments and potential clinical implications. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2020;22 (5 ):743–54. Epub 20200203. doi: 10.1111/dom.13963 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7187182.31930670 54 Amigó J , Corcoy R . Type 1 diabetes and pregnancy: An update on glucose monitoring and insulin treatment. Endocrinol Diabetes Nutr (Engl Ed). 2022. Epub 20220701. doi: 10.1016/j.endien.2022.06.008 .35787359 55 Avgerinos I , Papanastasiou G , Karagiannis T , Michailidis T , Liakos A , Mainou M , et al . Ultra-rapid-acting insulins for adults with diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2021;23 (10 ):2395–401. Epub 20210622. doi: 10.1111/dom.14461 .34105242 56 De Block CEM , Van Cauwenberghe J , Bochanen N , Dirinck E . Rapid-acting insulin analogues: Theory and best clinical practice in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2022. Epub 20220411. doi: 10.1111/dom.14713 .35403348 57 Hettiarachchi C , Daskalaki E , Desborough J , Nolan CJ , O’Neal D , Suominen H . Integrating Multiple Inputs Into an Artificial Pancreas System: Narrative Literature Review. JMIR Diabetes. 2022;7 (1 ):e28861. Epub 20220224. doi: 10.2196/28861 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8914747.35200143