Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Aspart Biosimilar SAR341402 Versus Originator Insulin Aspart in People with Diabetes Treated for 26 Weeks with Multiple Daily Injections in Combination with Insulin Glargine: A Randomized Open-Label Trial (GEMELLI 1)

Safety and Efficacy of Switching SAR341402 Insulin Aspart and Originator Insulin Aspart vs Continuous Use of Originator Insulin Aspart in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: The GEMELLI X Trial

BACKGROUND

SAR341402 insulin aspart (SAR-Asp) is a rapid-acting insulin analog developed as an interchangeable biosimilar to the marketed insulin aspart reference product (NovoLog; NN-Asp). GEMELLI X was a randomized controlled trial to assess outcomes with a biosimilar in line with the US Food and Drug Administration requirements for designation as an interchangeable biosimilar. This report assessed whether multiple switches between SAR-Asp and NN-Asp lead to equivalent safety and efficacy compared with continuous use of NN-Asp in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) treated with multiple daily injections, using once-daily insulin glargine U100 (Lantus) as the basal insulin.

METHODS

This open-label randomized (1:1), parallel-group, phase 3 trial compared four × four weeks of alternating use of individually titrated SAR-Asp and NN-Asp (NN-Asp for first four weeks, SAR-Asp in last four weeks; switching group) vs 16 weeks of continuous use of NN-Asp (nonswitching group). End points included pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, adverse events, hypoglycemia, insulin dose, and change in efficacy parameters.

RESULTS

Of the 210 patients randomized, 200 (95.5%) completed the trial. Patients assigned to switching group (n = 104) and nonswitching group (n = 106) showed similar safety and tolerability, including anti-insulin aspart antibody responses, adverse events, and hypoglycemia. At week 16, there was no relevant difference between switching vs nonswitching groups in the change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (least square [LS] mean difference = 0.05% [95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.13, 0.22]; 0.50 mmol/mol [-1.40, 2.39]), fasting plasma glucose (LS mean difference = 0.23 mmol/L [95% CI = -1.08, 1.53]; 4.12 mg/dL [-19.38, 27.62]), and changes in insulin dosages.

CONCLUSIONS

Alternating doses of SAR-Asp and NN-Asp compared with continuous use of NN-Asp showed similar safety, immunogenicity, and clinical efficacy in adults with T1D. This study supports interchangeability between SAR-Asp and NN-Asp in T1D management.

Pharmacokinetic similarity of switching SAR341402 insulin aspart biosimilar and NovoLog insulin aspart versus continuous use of NovoLog in adults with type 1 diabetes: The GEMELLI X trial

AIM

To assess whether multiple switches between SAR341402 biosimilar insulin aspart (SAR-Asp) and the insulin aspart reference product (NovoLog; NN-Asp) leads to equivalent pharmacokinetic (PK) exposure compared with continuous use of NN-Asp in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study randomized (1:1) 210 subjects with T1D treated with once-daily insulin glargine U100 as basal insulin to four 4-week periods of alternating multiple daily injections of SAR-Asp and NN-Asp (NN-Asp for the first 4 weeks, SAR-Asp in the last 4 weeks; switching group) versus 16 weeks of continuous NN-Asp (non-switching group). At week 16, a single dose (0.15 U/kg) of SAR-Asp in the switching group (n = 95) or NN-Asp in the non-switching group (n = 105) was given in the morning before breakfast. Primary PK endpoints were area under the plasma concentration curve (AUC) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ) of SAR-Asp versus NN-Asp after the single dose at week 16.

RESULTS

The extent of PK exposure was similar between the two treatments (SAR-Asp in the switching group and NN-Asp in the non-switching group) at week 16, with point estimates of treatment ratios close to 1. The 90% confidence intervals for AUC treatment ratios were contained within 0.8-1.25. For Cmax in the primary analysis set, the upper confidence limit was 1.32. This was because of the profiles of three participants with implausible high values. A prespecified sensitivity analysis excluding implausible values showed results contained within 0.8-1.25.

CONCLUSIONS

PK exposure of SAR-Asp (switching group) and reference NN-Asp (non-switching group) were similar, supporting interchangeability between these two insulin aspart products.

Comparative efficacy and safety of two insulin aspart formulations (Rapilin and NovoRapid) when combined with metformin, for patients with diabetes mellitus: a multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

This phase 3 confirmatory diabetes mellitus treatment study compared the safety and efficacy of Rapilin and NovoRapid insulin asparts in combination with metformin.

METHODS

This 24-week, open-label, randomized, active-controlled, noninferiority phase 3 confirmatory study conducted across centers in China aimed to enroll patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and blood sugar glucose inadequately controlled by oral antidiabetic drugs. Randomized patients received subcutaneous mealtime Rapilin or NovoRapid (3:1) injections, with metformin. The primary objectives were to demonstrate noninferiority (margin of 0.4%) in HbA1c change from baseline and compare safety profiles of Rapilin versus NovoRapid after 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes included 2-h postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and patients achieving HbA1c <7.0% and ≤6.5%.

RESULTS

590 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomized to Rapilin (n = 441) and NovoRapid (n = 149) groups. After 24 weeks, the mean HbA1c change from baseline was -2.20% (Rapilin) and -2.32% (NovoRapid); the estimated treatment difference based on least-square means was 0.04% (95% CI: -0.17, 0.26), meeting the noninferiority criteria for Rapilin versus NovoRapid. Comparable improvements were reported for mean 2-hour PPG (6.14 and 6.29 mmol/L), FPG (2.02 and 1.70 mmol/L), and patients with HbA1c <7.0% (52.6% and 51.0%) and ≤6.5% (34.2% and 30.9%), in the Rapilin and NovoRapid groups, respectively, with no significant safety or immunogenicity outcome differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapilin demonstrated non-inferior glycemic control, and matching safety and immunogenicity to NovoRapid in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus also receiving metformin over 24 weeks.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR20003129041.

Immunogenicity, Efficacy, and Safety of Biosimilar Insulin Aspart (MYL-1601D) Compared with Originator Insulin Aspart (Novolog®) in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes After 24 Weeks: A Randomized Open-Label Study

Background

MYL-1601D is a proposed biosimilar of originator insulin aspart, Novolog^®/NovoRapid^® (Ref-InsAsp-US/Ref-InsAsp-EU).

Objective

This study assessed the immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety of MYL-1601D with Ref-InsAsp-US in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D).

Methods

This was a 24-week, open-label, randomized, phase III study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to mealtime MYL-1601D or Ref-InsAsp-US in combination with insulin glargine (Lantus SoloSTAR^®) once daily. The treatment-emergent antibody response (TEAR) rate (defined as patients who were anti-insulin antibody [AIA] negative at baseline and became positive at any timepoint post-baseline or patients who were AIA positive at baseline and demonstrated a 4-fold increase in titer values at any timepoint post-baseline) was the primary endpoint. The study also compared the change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), prandial, basal, and total daily insulin, 7-point self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) profiles, immunogenicity, and adverse events (AEs) including hypoglycemia.

Results

In total, 478 patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis (MYL-1601D: 238; Ref-InsAsp-US: 240) set. The 90% confidence interval (CI) for the primary endpoint was within the pre-defined equivalence margin of ±11.7% and the treatment differences (SE) in TEAR responders between the treatment groups was − 2.86 (4.16) with 90% CI − 9.71 to 3.99. The mean (SD) changes from baseline for HbA1c, FPG, and insulin dosages were similar in both groups at week 24. The safety profiles including hypoglycemia, immune-related events, AEs, and other reported variables were similar between the treatment groups at week 24.

Conclusions

MYL-1601D demonstrated similar immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety profiles to Ref-InsAsp-US in patients with T1D over 24 weeks.

Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov:

NCT03760068.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40259-022-00554-6.

An Introduction to Biosimilars for the Treatment of Retinal Diseases: A Narrative Review

Biological therapies have revolutionized the treatment of disease across a number of therapeutic areas including retinal diseases. However, on occasion, such treatments may be relatively more expensive compared to small molecule therapies. This can restrict patient access and treatment length leading to suboptimal clinical outcomes. Several biosimilar candidates of ranibizumab and aflibercept are currently in development and the first biosimilar of ranibizumab received EMA approval in August and FDA approval in September 2021. Biosimilars are biological medicines that are highly similar to an already-approved biological medicine (reference product). The physicochemical and clinical similarity of a biosimilar is determined by a rigorous analytical and clinical program, including extensive pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis with phase III equivalence studies where appropriate. These phase III studies are carried out in a patient population that is representative of all of the potential approved therapeutic indications of the originator product and the most sensitive for detecting potential differences between the biosimilar and the reference product. Biosimilars have been used successfully across a wide range of therapeutic areas for the past 15 years where they have achieved substantial cost savings that can be reinvested into healthcare systems without affecting the quality of patient care. The current review provides an introduction to biosimilars with the aim of preparing retinal specialists for discussing these products with their patients.

Clinical Pharmacology of Insulin Aspart Biosimilar GP40071: Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Comparability in Hyperinsulinemic Euglycemic Clamp Procedure

Insulin aspart is a short‐acting insulin analogue that is used to control postprandial glycemia levels in diabetic patients. The aim of this clinical trial was to compare the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of GP40071 (GP‐Asp) and NovoRapid Penfill (Novo‐Asp) in a hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp (HEC). This trial was conducted as a part of a GP40071 biosimilar clinical development program. This was a phase I randomized, double‐blind, two‐period crossover study. Twenty‐six healthy male volunteers aged 18 to 45 years who met the inclusion criteria underwent the procedure of an HEC following a single subcutaneous injection of 0.3 IU/kg of either GP‐Asp or Novo‐Asp into the abdomen. After doses, plasma glucose levels were monitored every 5 minutes for 8 hours. The adjustment of the glucose infusion rate (GIR) was based on the blood glucose measurements. The GIR values were used to evaluate the PD profiles of the studied drugs. Regular blood sampling was performed during the study to obtain sufficient pharmacokinetic data. The 90% confidence intervals for the geometric mean ratios of the pharmacokinetic (AUC_ins.0‐t, C_ins.max) and pharmacodynamic (GIR_max, AUC_GIR0‐t) parameters of GP‐Asp were within the 80%–125% comparability limits. The safety profiles of the drugs were also comparable. Bioequivalence, similar PD, and safety of GP‐Asp and Novo‐Asp were demonstrated.

Efficacy and immunogenicity of insulin biosimilar compared to their reference products: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To ascertain the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity from existing evidence via conducting a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials between biosimilar and originator insulins.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrails.gov were searched to identify head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compare the efficacy and safety of biosimilar insulin and its originator. Efficacy was assessed by change of HbA1C, fasting plasma glucose (laboratory or self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG)), and change all mean of 7 points- or 8 points- SMBG. Safety was assessed by change in proportion hypoglycemia and serious hypoglycemia. The occurrence of anti-insulin antibodies (AIAs) was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs with 6188 patients from different countries were included. Data were pooled using a random-effects model and were expressed as the mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence interval (CI). In efficacy, Insulin biosimilar products showed similar in change of HbA1C at weeks 26 and 52, the MD were 0.03 (95% CI - 0.02 to 0.07, p = 0.28), and 0.05 (95% CI - 0.05 to 0.15, p = 0.36), respectively. The proportion of HbA1C less than 7% at endpoint, the OR were 1.04 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.20, p = 0.64). The change of fasting plasma glucose (laboratory or SMBG) mmol/L in 24-52 weeks and change all mean of 7 points-/8 points- SMBG mmol/L in 24-52 weeks, the MD were 0.02 (95% CI - 0.20 to 0.24, p = 0.87) and - 0.34 (95% CI - 1.35 to 0.67, p = 0.51), respectively. In occurrence of hypoglycemia (≥ 1 events) and severe hypoglycemia, the OR were 0.96 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.09, p = 0.52) and 1.06 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.31, p = 0.62). The AIA was 1.02 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.16, p = 0.76). Analysis stratified by type of diabetes and duration of insulin. There was no significant difference between the biosimilar and their reference group in a different type of diabetes and different duration of insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin biosimilar showed comparable characteristics with the reference drug in terms of efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, through comprehensive and specific conventional meta-analysis.

The Role of Natural Products on Diabetes Mellitus Treatment: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

The present study was carried out to relate the role of natural products in the metabolism of an increasingly prevalent disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus. At present, in addition to the pharmacological resources, an attempt is being made to treat diabetes mellitus with natural products. We carried out a systematic review of studies focusing on the role of natural products on diabetes mellitus treatment. The bibliographic search was done through Medline (Pubmed) and Web of Science. From 193 records, the title and summary of each were examined according to the criteria and whether they met the selection criteria. A total of 15 articles were included; after reviewing the literature, it is apparent that the concept of natural products is ambiguous as no clear boundary has been established between what is natural and what is synthetic, therefore we feel that a more explicit definition of the concept of "natural product" is needed. Gut microbiota is a promising therapeutic target in the treatment of diabetes. Therefore, it would be necessary to work on the relationship between the microbiome and the benefits in the treatment of diabetes mellitus. Treatment based solely on these natural products is not currently recommended as more studies are needed.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic similarity between SAR341402 insulin aspart and Japan-approved NovoRapid in healthy Japanese subjects

This study compared the pharmacokinetic and glucodynamic profiles of biosimilar SAR341402 insulin aspart to Japan-approved insulin aspart (NovoRapid) in healthy Japanese males. In this single-center, randomized, double-blind, single-dose, two-period, crossover study, subjects received 0.3 U/kg of SAR341402 or NovoRapid before undergoing a 10 h euglycemic clamp procedure. Plasma insulin aspart concentrations and blood glucose levels were measured, and glucose infusion rates (GIRs) were assessed. Primary endpoints were maximum plasma insulin aspart concentration (INS-C_max), area under the plasma insulin concentration–time curve to the last quantifiable concentration (INS-AUC_last), area under the GIR–time curve during the clamp (GIR-AUC_0–10 h), and maximum GIR (GIR_max). Forty subjects were randomized with 39 completing both treatment periods. Pharmacokinetic exposure showed a mean ratio between products of 1.00 (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.94–1.05) for INS-C_max and 1.02 (90% CI 1.00–1.04) for INS-AUC_last. Glucodynamic activity showed a mean ratio between products of 1.00 (95% CI 0.93–1.06) for GIR-AUC_0–10 h and 1.01 (95% CI 0.95–1.08) for GIR_max. The 90% CIs for pairwise treatment ratios were within the predefined equivalence range of 0.80–1.25. Both treatments were well tolerated. We concluded that similar pharmacokinetic exposure and glucodynamic potency were shown for SAR341402 and NovoRapid in healthy Japanese males.

Novel approaches to pharmacological management of type 2 diabetes in Japan

INTRODUCTION

Newly developed anti-diabetic medications have had multiple activities, beyond a blood glucose-lowering effect. Current drugs for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are based on the use of gastrointestinal hormones. Representative incretin preparations, such as those with glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 or gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP) activity, aim to provide new means of controlling blood glucose levels, body weight, and lipid metabolism.

AREA COVERED

In this manuscript, the pathophysiology of T2DM and the activities and characteristics of novel diabetic drugs are reviewed in the context of the Japanese population. This review also highlights the need for novel medicines to overcome the accompanying challenges. Finally, the author provides the reader with their expert perspectives.

EXPERT OPINION

The incidence of T2DM has been increasing in the aging of Japanese society. In older people, medical development should focus on safety, easier self-administration, and the relief of caregiver burden in terms of continuous administration. In the young, the focus should be on effectiveness, with a particular emphasis on the protection of organs, increasing the ease of adherence, and safety. Novel medicines will need to push the envelope in these areas.

Safety and efficacy of GP40071 compared with originator insulin aspart (NovoRapid® Penfill®) in Type 1 diabetes mellitus

Aim: To compare safety and efficacy of GP40071 insulin aspart (GP-Asp) and NovoRapid^® (NN-Asp). Materials & methods: This randomized open-label, active-controlled, 26-week non-inferiority Phase III clinical trial enrolled 264 Type 1 diabetes mellitus patients (HbA1c: 7.1-12.0%) randomized 1:1 to once daily GP-Asp (n = 132) or NN-Asp (n = 132). The primary safety end point was immune response at week 26. Results: The groups were similar in frequency of immune response (p = 0.323) and in other safety end points. Mean HbA1c change from baseline was -0.57% for GP-Asp and -0.56% for NN-Asp and did not differ between groups (p = 0.955). Intergroup mean difference of HbA1c level change (95% CI) at week 26 from baseline was 0.00 (-0.26, 0.25) %. Insulin doses, fasting plasma glucose levels and seven-point glucose profiles were similar between groups (p > 0.05). The number of patients experiencing hypoglycemic episodes did not differ between the groups (p = 0.497). Conclusion: GP-Asp demonstrated similar safety and efficacy. Trial registration number: NCT04079413 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

A single-dose euglycaemic clamp study in two cohorts to compare the exposure of SAR341402 (insulin aspart) Mix 70/30 with US- and European-approved versions of insulin aspart Mix 70/30 and SAR341402 rapid-acting solution in subjects with type 1 diabetes

AIM

To compare the pharmacokinetic exposure of SAR341402 Mix 70/30 (SAR_Asp -Mix) with US- and European (EU)-approved versions of insulin aspart Mix 70/30 (NovoLog Mix 70/30 [NN-Mix-US]/NovoMix 30 [NN-Mix-EU]) and SAR341402 insulin aspart solution (SAR-Asp) in subjects with type 1 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, crossover trial in two cohorts. Fifty-two subjects received a single subcutaneous 0.3 U/kg dose of each treatment and underwent a euglycaemic clamp procedure lasting for a maximum of 24 hours after dosing. In cohort 1, subjects (N = 36) were exposed once each to SAR_Asp -Mix, NN-Mix-US and NN-Mix-EU. In cohort 2, subjects (N = 16) were exposed once each to SAR_Asp -Mix and SAR-Asp.

RESULTS

Of the 52 subjects randomized, 48 completed all treatment periods. In cohort 1, the extent of exposure (total and maximum concentration) was similar among the three treatments, with the 90% confidence intervals for pairwise treatment ratios meeting the predefined acceptance range (0.80 to 1.25). In cohort 2, statistically significant differences (P < .001) in early (0-4 hours) and intermediate (4-12 hours) exposure to SAR_Asp -Mix compared with SAR-Asp were observed, all exceeding a 20% difference. Pharmacodynamic results were in support of the pharmacokinetic findings for both cohorts. All treatments were well tolerated and there were no relevant differences in safety variables among treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

SAR_Asp -Mix showed similar pharmacokinetic exposure to commercially available insulin aspart Mix 70/30 formulations, and a distinct exposure profile compared with SAR-Asp.

Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of Insulin Aspart Biosimilar SAR341402 Compared with Originator Insulin Aspart in Adults with Diabetes (GEMELLI 1): A Subgroup Analysis by Prior Type of Mealtime Insulin

INTRODUCTION

The biosimilar SAR341402 insulin aspart (SAR-Asp) was compared to its originator NovoLog®/NovoRapid® insulin aspart (NN-Asp) in terms of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity, in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes switching from different rapid-acting insulin analogs.

METHODS

This phase 3, randomized, open-label, multinational, 52-week study (GEMELLI 1) enrolled participants with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (n = 597). At randomization, participants transitioned from NovoLog/NovoRapid (n = 380) or Humalog®/Liprolog® (n = 217) to equivalent (1:1) doses (or a dose at the discretion of the investigator) of either SAR-Asp or NN-Asp (1:1 randomization). Participants were treated with multiple daily injections in combination with insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Lantus®). In this subgroup analysis, efficacy measures (change in hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c], insulin dose [total, basal and mealtime]), and safety outcomes (hypoglycemia incidence, adverse events, anti-insulin aspart antibodies) of SAR-Asp were compared with those of NN-Asp separately according to the participants' prestudy mealtime insulin.

RESULTS

At week 26 (primary efficacy endpoint), change in HbA1c was similar between SAR-Asp and NN-Asp in those participants pre-treated with NovoLog/NovoRapid (least squares [LS] mean difference - 0.04%, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.182 to 0.106%) or Humalog/Liprolog (LS mean difference - 0.15%, 95% CI - 0.336 to 0.043%) (P value for treatment by subgroup interaction = 0.36). This HbA1c response persisted over the 52 weeks of the study similarly for both treatments within each subgroup. In both subgroups, changes in insulin doses were similar between treatments over 26 weeks and 52 weeks, as were the incidences of severe or any hypoglycemia, adverse events (including hypersensitivity and injection site reactions), and anti-insulin aspart antibodies.

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy and safety (including immunogenicity) profiles of SAR-Asp are similar to those of NN-Asp over 52 weeks in adults with diabetes irrespective of prior type of mealtime insulin.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03211858.

Safety and Tolerability of Insulin Aspart Biosimilar SAR341402 Versus Originator Insulin Aspart (NovoLog) When Used in Insulin Pumps in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized, Open-Label Clinical Trial

Background: The aim was to assess the safety and tolerability of the insulin aspart biosimilar/follow-on product SAR341402 (100 U/mL solution; SAR-Asp) and originator insulin aspart (100 U/mL; NN-Asp; NovoLog^®) self-administered through an insulin pump. Materials and Methods: This randomized, open-label, 2 × 4-week crossover study enrolled 45 adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Participants were randomized 1:1 to the treatment sequence SAR-Asp/NN-Asp or NN-Asp/SAR-Asp. The basal and prandial insulin doses were individually titrated. The primary outcome was the number of participants with at least one infusion set occlusion (infusion set change due to failure-to-correct hyperglycemia [plasma glucose ≥250 mg/dL] by insulin pump bolus) during the 4-week treatment. The main secondary outcome was the number of participants with at least one episode of unexplained hyperglycemia (regardless of correction by an insulin pump bolus without apparent material defect, medical, dietary, insulin dosing reason, or pump problem). Results: The number of participants reporting ≥1 infusion set occlusion were similar between treatments: 14/43 on SAR-Asp (33 events) and 12/43 on NN-Asp (24 events). The estimated difference in infusion set occlusion risk for SAR-Asp versus NN-Asp was 4.1% (95% confidence interval: -9.3% to 17.4%). The number of participants with ≥1 episode of unexplained hyperglycemia was similar between treatments (31/43 on SAR-Asp [154 events]; 32/43 on NN-Asp [175 events]). Hypoglycemia, treatment-emergent adverse events, hypersensitivity, and injection site reactions were similar between treatments. Conclusions: SAR-Asp and NN-Asp were well tolerated and had similar infusion set occlusions over a 4-week period in insulin pump users with T1D.

Safety, Immunogenicity, and Glycemic Control of Insulin Aspart Biosimilar SAR341402 Versus Originator Insulin Aspart in People with Diabetes Also Using Insulin Glargine: 12-Month Results from the GEMELLI 1 Trial

Background: SAR341402 (SAR-Asp) is a biosimilar/follow-on of the originator insulin aspart-NovoLog^®/NovoRapid^® (NN-Asp). This study investigated whether the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity findings for SAR-Asp versus NN-Asp, observed over 6 months in people with type 1 (n = 497) or type 2 diabetes (n = 100) treated with multiple daily injections in combination with insulin glargine (Lantus^®), are maintained after 12 months. Materials and Methods: GEMELLI 1 was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 study. Participants completing the initial 6-month treatment period continued on SAR-Asp or NN-Asp, as randomized, for a 6-month safety extension. Results: Of the 597 participants randomized, 264 out of 301 (87.7%) and 263 out of 296 (88.9%) assigned to SAR-Asp and NN-Asp, respectively, completed 12 months of treatment. Improved glycemic control was sustained at 12 months in both treatment groups, with similar least-squares mean reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline (SAR-Asp: -0.25%; NN-Asp: -0.26%). Fasting plasma glucose and seven-point self-monitored plasma glucose profile changes, including postprandial glucose excursions, and changes in mealtime and basal insulin dosages were similar between groups. Safety and tolerability, including anti-insulin aspart antibodies (AIAs; incidence, prevalence, titers, cross-reactivity to human insulin), neutralizing antibodies (incidence, prevalence), hypoglycemia, and treatment-emergent adverse events (including hypersensitivity events and injection site reactions), were similar between groups. No relationship was observed between maximum individual AIA titers and change in HbA1c or insulin dose, hypoglycemia, or hypersensitivity reactions or between efficacy/safety measures and subgroups by presence or absence of treatment-emergent AIA. Conclusions: SAR-Asp and NN-Asp demonstrated similar efficacy and safety (including immunogenicity) in people with diabetes over 12 months of treatment.