Lilly Insulin Glargine Versus Lantus® in Insulin-Naïve and Insulin-Treated Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized, Controlled Trial (ELEMENT 5)

Clinical perspectives on the frequency of hypoglycemia in treat-to-target randomized controlled trials comparing basal insulin analogs in type 2 diabetes: a narrative review

The objective of this review was to comprehensively present and summarize trends in reported rates of hypoglycemia with one or two times per day basal insulin analogs in individuals with type 2 diabetes to help address and contextualize the emerging theoretical concern of increased hypoglycemic risk with once-weekly basal insulins.Hypoglycemia data were extracted from treat-to-target randomized clinical trials conducted during 2000-2022. Published articles were identified on PubMed or within the US Food and Drug Administration submission documents. Overall, 57 articles were identified: 44 assessed hypoglycemic outcomes in participants receiving basal-only therapy (33 in insulin-naive participants; 11 in insulin-experienced participants), 4 in a mixed population (insulin-naive and insulin-experienced participants) and 9 in participants receiving basal-bolus therapy. For the analysis, emphasis was placed on level 2 (blood glucose <3.0 mmol/L (<54 mg/dL)) and level 3 (or severe) hypoglycemia.Overall, event rates for level 2 or level 3 hypoglycemia across most studies ranged from 0.06 to 7.10 events/person-year of exposure (PYE) for participants receiving a basal-only insulin regimen; the rate for basal-bolus regimens ranged from 2.4 to 13.6 events/PYE. Rates were generally lower with second-generation basal insulins (insulin degludec or insulin glargine U300) than with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin or first-generation basal insulins (insulin detemir or insulin glargine U100). Subgroup categorization by sulfonylurea usage, end-of-treatment insulin dose or glycated hemoglobin reduction did not show consistent trends on overall hypoglycemia rates. Hypoglycemia rates reported so far for once-weekly basal insulins are consistent with or lower than those reported for daily-administered basal insulin analogs.

An Institutional Guide for Formulary Decisions of Biosimilars

Biologics have changed the landscape for the management of many debilitating chronic diseases but account for a significant expenditure of medications globally. Fortunately, advances in technology paved the way for the introduction of biosimilars, which are highly similar to the originator biologics. In the quest to reduce the budget impact of biologics, organizations have begun to adopt biosimilars. Institutions evaluating biosimilars for inclusion in the hospital formulary must make informed formulary decisions by conducting a thorough review of key elements for evaluation of biosimilars and address the multidimensional aspects during the selection process of different biosimilar products. Therefore, we aim to present an institutional guide of these elements to inform formulary decisions. These key elements include biosimilar evaluation for formulary addition; regulatory approval; substitution, interchangeability, and switching; extrapolation; product characteristics, manufacturing, and supply chain issues; pharmacoeconomic evaluations; traceability, nomenclature, and coding; education; and pharmacovigilance.

Immunogenicity of LY2963016 insulin glargine and Lantus® insulin glargine in Chinese patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

To evaluate the immunogenicity of LY2963016 insulin glargine (LY IGlar) versus originator insulin glargine (IGlar [Lantus®]) in Chinese patients with type 1 (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

ABES and ABET were prospective, randomized, active control, open-label, phase III studies, which enrolled Chinese patients with T1DM (N = 272) and T2DM (N = 536), respectively. Using data from these trials, immunogenicity of LY IGlar and IGlar was evaluated by comparing the proportion of patients with detectable anti-insulin glargine antibodies and the median antibody levels (percent binding) between the treatment groups. The incidence of anti-insulin antibodies and treatment-emergent antibody response (TEAR) were compared using Fisher's exact test or Pearson's chi-squared test. Levels of anti-insulin antibodies were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. We also evaluated the relationship between antibody formation or TEAR and clinical outcomes using analysis of covariance, negative binomial regression, or partial correlations.

RESULTS

There were no significant treatment differences in the incidence of detectable anti-insulin antibodies, median antibody levels or TEAR, overall or at Week 24 with last observation carried forward, and median antibody levels were low (<5%) after 24 weeks of treatment, in patients with T1DM or T2DM. Levels of anti-insulin antibodies and development of TEAR were not associated with efficacy (glycated haemoglobin, insulin dose [U/kg/d] and hypoglycaemia) or safety outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The immunogenicity profiles of LY IGlar and IGlar are similar, with low levels of anti-insulin antibodies observed for both insulins. No association was observed between antibody levels or TEAR status and clinical outcomes.

Efficacy and Safety of LY2963016 Insulin Glargine in Chinese Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Previously Treated with Insulin Glargine (Lantus®): a Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 3 Trial

INTRODUCTION

LY2963016 insulin glargine (LY IGlar), a biosimilar of Lantus® insulin glargine (IGlar), demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety versus the reference product in Chinese patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) in the randomized, phase III ABES trial. This post hoc analysis aimed to provide the first evidence for switching from IGlar to LY IGlar in Chinese patients with T1DM.

METHODS

This analysis included 210/272 patients with T1DM (77.2%) from the ABES trial who were receiving IGlar at screening. We compared antihyperglycemic efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity in patients randomized to LY IGlar (n = 104) versus those who continued to receive IGlar (n = 106).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between groups in least-squares mean (LSMean) change in HbA1c from baseline to 24 weeks (LY IGlar - 0.10%, IGlar - 0.08%; LSMean difference [95% confidence interval] - 0.02% [- 0.24, 0.19]). At 24 weeks (last observation carried forward), a similar proportion of patients in each group achieved glycated hemoglobin less than 7.0% (LY IGlar 26.5%, IGlar 32.1%; P = 0.447) and 6.5% or less (LY IGlar 16.7%, IGlar 20.8%; P = 0.482). There were no significant differences between groups in LSMean of self-monitored blood glucose values, or total or basal insulin dose at 24 weeks. Patients in the LY IGlar and IGlar groups had a similar incidence of total hypoglycemia (blood glucose level 70 mg/dL or less, 91.4% vs. 92.5%) and treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs; 75.0% vs. 67.0%), and a low and similar incidence of serious AEs, injection site AEs, and allergic AEs. Similar proportions of patients in the LY IGlar and IGlar groups had treatment-emergent antibody responses (LY IGlar 27.2%, IGlar 28.3%) and detectable insulin antibodies (LY IGlar 52.4%, IGlar 53.8%).

CONCLUSION

In Chinese patients with T1DM previously treated with IGlar, switching to LY IGlar for 24 weeks resulted in similar efficacy and safety outcomes as remaining on IGlar therapy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03338023.

Efficacy of Dulaglutide in Chinese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Different Glycemic Patterns: a Post-hoc Analysis of the Phase 3 AWARD-CHN2 Trial

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated the effect of dulaglutide on the relative contributions of fasting glucose (FG) and postprandial glucose (PPG) to overall hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and assessed responses to dulaglutide versus insulin glargine (glargine) in patients with different baseline glycemic patterns.

METHODS

This post-hoc analysis of the phase 3 AWARD-CHN2 trial included data from 560 Chinese patients with uncontrolled T2D who received once-weekly dulaglutide (1.5 or 0.75 mg) or once-daily glargine for 26 weeks. The relative contributions of FG and PPG to overall hyperglycemia across different glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) categories were calculated using the area under the curve of 7-point self-monitored blood glucose profiles. Patients were also categorized into four subgroups according to median baseline FG (cutoff 8.9 mmol/L) and PPG (cutoff 12.5 mmol/L): low FG/low PPG, low FG/high PPG, high FG/low PPG and high FG/high PPG. Changes in glycemic parameters and body weight were calculated for patients in each subgroup.

RESULTS

Among patients receiving dulaglutide, higher HbA1c was associated with higher relative contributions of FG and lower relative contributions of PPG to overall hyperglycemia at baseline and week 26 of dulaglutide treatment. After 26 weeks, dulaglutide 1.5 mg led to statistically greater decreases in HbA1c from baseline versus glargine in most subgroups, including the high FG subgroups, and a numerically greater decrease in HbA1c was observed in the low FG/high PPG subgroup. Across all subgroups, higher proportions of patients achieved HbA1c ≤ 6.5% with dulaglutide 1.5 mg than with glargine (all P < 0.05). Dulaglutide 1.5 mg showed better control of body weight than glargine in all subgroups (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Dulaglutide reduced HbA1c through reductions in both FG and PPG across HbA1c categories in T2D patients with uncontrolled hyperglycemia. Furthermore, treatment with dulaglutide provided a greater reduction in HbA1c than glargine, regardless of baseline FG and PPG levels.

Evolving Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Beyond Intensive Insulin Treatment

Numerous studies have demonstrated the clinical benefits of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use in individuals with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes (T2D) who are treated with intensive insulin therapy. A growing body of evidence suggests that CGM use may also confer similar glycemic benefits in T2D individuals who are treated with less-intensive therapies. Investigators are also exploring the potential use of CGM as an aid in weight management. This article reviews the continuing evolution of CGM, focusing on how CGM may be used to improve glycemic control and promote adoption of desired health behaviors within broader T2D and prediabetes populations.

Efficacy and safety of LY2963016 insulin glargine versus insulin glargine (Lantus) in Chinese adults with type 2 diabetes: A phase III, randomized, open-label, controlled trial

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of LY2963016 insulin glargine (LY IGlar) with insulin glargine (Lantus; IGlar) combined with oral antihyperglycaemic medications (OAMs) in insulin-naive Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this phase III, open-label trial, adult patients with T2D receiving two or more OAMs at stable doses for 12 weeks or longer, with HbA1c of 7.0% or more and 11.0% or less, were randomized (2:1) to receive once-daily LY IGlar or IGlar for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of LY IGlar to IGlar at a 0.4% margin, and a gated secondary endpoint tested non-inferiority of IGlar to LY IGlar (-0.4% margin), assessed by least squares (LS) mean change in HbA1c from baseline to 24 weeks.

RESULTS

Patients assigned to LY IGlar (n = 359) and IGlar (n = 177) achieved similar and significant reductions (p < .001) in HbA1c from baseline. LY IGlar was non-inferior to IGlar for change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24 (-1.27% vs. -1.23%; LS mean difference: -0.05% [95% CI, -0.19% to 0.10%]) and IGlar was non-inferior to LY IGlar. The study therefore showed equivalence of LY IGlar and IGlar for the primary endpoint. At week 24, there were no between-group differences in the proportion of patients achieving an HbA1c of less than 7.0%, seven-point self-measured blood glucose, insulin dose or weight gain. Adverse events, allergic reactions, hypoglycaemia and insulin antibodies were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily LY IGlar and IGlar, combined with OAMs, provide effective and similar glycaemic control with comparable safety profiles in insulin-naive Chinese patients with T2D.

Immunogenicity and Efficacy of Insulin Glargine Biosimilar Ezelin versus Originator Insulin Glargine in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

PURPOSE

To compare the immunogenicity and efficacy of insulin glargine biosimilar Ezelin (EZL) versus originator insulin glargine Lantus (LAN) as a reference basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a randomized, multicenter, open-label, 24-week study in insulin-naïve patients with T2D, with HbA1c of >7.0%. We randomly assigned 133 eligible patients to receive either EZL or LAN. Baseline characteristics, including insulin autoantibody (IAA), zinc transporter 8 (ZnT8) antibody, HbA1C, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose (2hPPG), AST, ALT, BUN, eGFR, and oral antidiabetic drugs, were obtained before starting insulin treatment. After starting treatment, insulin dose was titrated to achieve FPG target along with oral antidiabetic drugs. Patients were given home glucometer and assisted to record plasma glucose measurement and adverse event (AE). Every month, patients came to the diabetes clinic and performed a regular physical examination and intensifying treatment if needed. Out of the 133 randomized patients, only 122 completed the study and can be examined for their IAA and ZnT8 after 6 months of treatment. The study was registered in clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03352674.

RESULTS

There is a similar proportion of patients with changes of IAA from baseline: 1 out of 58 (1.7%) patients receiving EZL versus 1 out of 64 (1.6%) patients receiving LAN (p = 1.000). One patient in the EZL group (1.7%) versus none in the LAN group experienced a change of ZnT8 antibody from baseline. Similar glucose control in EZL versus LAN was determined by the change in HbA1c, FPG, and 2hPPG (-2.0%, -67.46 mg/dL, and -76.51 mg/dL in the EZL group versus -1.7%, -58.11 mg/dL, and -70.03 mg/dL in the LAN group). There were six events of documented hypoglycemia in the EZL group versus five events in the LAN group. No patients experienced diabetic ketoacidosis during the study.

CONCLUSION

Overall, insulin glargine biosimilar EZL and originator insulin glargine LAN have shown a similar immunogenicity profile, as well as efficacy in providing glucose control and safety findings in T2D populations.

Treatment satisfaction, safety, and effectiveness of biosimilar insulin glargine is comparable in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus after switching from insulin glargine or insulin degludec: a post-marketing safety study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate insulin treatment satisfaction, safety, and effectiveness of biosimilar insulin glargine (GLY) in real-world clinical practice for Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who switched from originator insulin glargine (100 U/mL) or insulin degludec treatment to GLY treatment.

METHODS

The Insulin Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (ITSQ) was used to assess treatment satisfaction in a subgroup analysis of a post-marketing safety study. Hypoglycemia incidence rates and blood glucose control are also reported during the 12-month observation period for GLY-switched patients.

RESULTS

Of 1104 patients with T2DM enrolled to participate, 565 patients switched from either insulin glargine U100/mL (n = 470) or insulin degludec (n = 95) to GLY. The mean total change from baseline to 3 months for total ITSQ score was 1.35 (95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.13 to 2.83, p = .073) for patients who switched from insulin glargine and 2.63 (95% CI -1.43 to 6.70, p = .195) for patients who switched from insulin degludec to GLY treatment. The mean change from baseline to 12 months in hypoglycemia events reported per month was -0.04% (95% CI -0.12 to 0.03, p = .236) for patients who switched from insulin glargine and no change for patients who switched from insulin degludec (0.00, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.20, p = 1.000). Non-significant mean changes from baseline to 12 months were observed for hemoglobin A1c and fasting plasma glucose in GLY-switched patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment satisfaction does not change significantly in Japanese patients with T2DM who switch to GLY from the reference product or from insulin degludec. Safety and effectiveness over a 12-month period were similar in GLY-treated patients who switched from either insulin glargine or insulin degludec.

CLINICALTRIALS.GOV

Not applicable.

Switching to Degludec is Associated with Reduced Hypoglycaemia, Irrespective of Definition Used or Patient Characteristics: Secondary Analysis of the ReFLeCT Prospective, Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

Hypoglycaemia is a common side effect of insulin therapy; low or high glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) levels, history of hypoglycaemia or long diabetes duration are known modifiers of hypoglycaemia risk. In randomised clinical trials, lower rates of hypoglycaemia have been observed with the new-generation insulin analogue, long-acting insulin degludec, compared with other basal insulins.

METHODS

The ReFLeCT study was a prospective observational study over 12 months. Patient-reported diary data on hypoglycaemia were collected from patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) who were switching from other basal insulins to insulin degludec (degludec) at their physician's discretion in routine clinical care. Two secondary analyses were undertaken to investigate the change in number of hypoglycaemic events: a post hoc analysis using the updated American Diabetes Association (ADA) level 1, 2 and 3 hypoglycaemia definitions, and a pre-specified analysis using patient characteristics (baseline HbA_1c, diabetes duration, and physician's rationale for initiating degludec).

RESULTS

Switching to degludec was associated with significantly fewer hypoglycaemic events for all definitions in T1D, and level 1 and 2 in T2D (too few level 3 events for statistical comparison). Moreover, patient characteristics did not influence the observed reduction in hypoglycaemia in T1D and T2D.

CONCLUSION

These results demonstrate that switching to degludec from other basal insulins was associated with reduced rates of hypoglycaemia, irrespective of the definition used or baseline patient characteristics.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02392117.

Update on Biosimilar Insulins: A US Perspective

The development of biosimilar insulin products has slowly evolved with only two follow-on biologics currently available to patients in the US. Both Basaglar^® (insulin glargine) and Admelog^® (insulin lispro) have undergone extensive testing, and have gained significant use by patients in the US. Despite the availability of these follow-on products, the price of insulin has remained stubbornly high. New regulatory guidance under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovations Act that came into effect in March 2020 introduced an abbreviated pathway for the approval of biosimilar insulins and introduced the option to apply for interchangeability of the biosimilar insulin with the reference product. This abbreviated clinical testing may open the doors for numerous follow-on insulin products, with unknown supply-chain and fiscal ramifications. This review will highlight the development process of biosimilar insulin in the US and the recent regulatory changes that can aid this process. We will also discuss challenges for prescribers and patients who are navigating this ever-changing landscape. These new regulations for biosimilar insulins will have ramifications for patients, healthcare providers, and third-party payers, though the direction and scope of these changes is unclear.

Lilly Insulin Glargine Versus Lantus® in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients: India and East Asia Subpopulation Analyses of the ELEMENT 5 Study

Background and Objectives

Lilly insulin glargine (LY IGlar; Basaglar^®) and the reference insulin glargine product (IGlar; Lantus^®) are basal insulin glargine analogs with identical amino acid sequence and similar pharmacological profiles. ELEMENT 5, a Phase 3, prospective, randomized, multinational, two-arm, active-controlled, open-label, parallel-design study in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients (N = 493) showed similar efficacy and safety profiles with LY IGlar and IGlar. This study reports results from India (N = 100) and East Asia (N = 134) subpopulations.

Methods

Patients from India and East Asia (Korea and Taiwan) with T2DM who were insulin naïve (glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥ 7.0% and ≤ 11.0%) or on basal insulin (HbA1c ≤ 11.0%) were randomized to receive LY IGlar or IGlar along with oral antihyperglycemic medications (OAMs) for 24 weeks. Patients were instructed to self-titrate from the starting dose by 1 unit/day until fasting blood glucose (FBG) ≤ 5.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) was achieved. The key outcome was HbA1c change from baseline to Week 24.

Results

Within-group least-squares mean (LSM) decrease (baseline to Week 24) in HbA1c was similar between treatments. The upper limit of confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference was below the defined 0.4% noninferiority margin in India (LY IGlar: − 0.83%; IGlar: − 0.62%; difference [95% CI] − 0.21 [− 0.70, 0.28]) and East Asia (LY IGlar: − 1.28%; IGlar: − 1.26%; difference [95% CI] − 0.02 [− 0.34, 0.30]) subpopulations. Results of other efficacy and safety endpoints at Week 24 were similar between treatments in both subpopulations. LSM self-monitored FBG levels were similar between treatments at all visits in both subpopulations except at Week 24 in the India subpopulation (LY IGlar: 5.65 [0.10] mmol/L or 101.8 [1.86] mg/dL; IGlar: 5.18 [0.10] mmol/L or 93.3 [1.75] mg/dL; p = 0.002).

Conclusion

Efficacy and safety profiles of LY IGlar and IGlar, in combination with OAMs, were similar in India and East Asia subpopulations. This was consistent with the ELEMENT 5 total population.

Clinical Trial Registration

NCT02302716.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40261-019-00798-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.