Efficacy and safety of LY2963016 insulin glargine in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes previously treated with insulin glargine

Understanding Biosimilar Insulins - Development, Manufacturing, and Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

A wave of expiring patents for first-generation insulin analogues has created opportunities in the global insulin market for highly similar versions of these products, biosimilar insulins. Biologics are generally large, complex molecules produced through biotechnology in a living system, such as a microorganism, plant cell, or animal cell. Since manufacturing processes of biologics vary, biosimilars cannot be exact copies of their reference product but must exhibit a high degree of functional and structural similarity. Biosimilarity is proven by analytical approaches in comparative assessments, preclinical cell-based and animal studies, as well as clinical studies in humans facilitating the accumulation of evidence across all assessments. The approval of biosimilars follows detailed regulatory pathways derived from those of their reference products and established by agencies such as the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration. Regulatory authorities impose requirements to ensure that biosimilars meet high standards of quality, safety, and efficacy and are highly similar to their reference product.

PURPOSE

This review aims to aid clinical understanding of the high standards of development, manufacturing, and regulation of biosimilar insulins.

METHODS

Recent relevant studies indexed by PubMed and regulatory documents were included.

CONCLUSIONS

Driven by price competition, the emergence of biosimilar insulins may help expand global access to current insulin analogues. To maximize the impact of the advantage for falling retail costs of biosimilar insulins compared with that of reference insulins, healthcare professionals and insulin users must gain further awareness and confidence.

No two classes of biosimilars: Urgent advice to the US Congress and the FDA

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

The United States is the only country with legislation to approve two classes of biosimilars. One has "no clinically meaningful difference" from the reference product, and when it is tested for switching and alternating, it can receive an interchangeable status. The objective of this review is to establish whether it is possible from the switching and alternating studies to evaluate additional safety or efficacy.

METHODS

Analysed published data to ascertain if the testing with switching and alternating provide additional proof of safety or efficacy. Political and scientific rationale of creating a new class of biosimilars and how this affects the confidence in biosimilars.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

There is no safety or efficacy concern when switching or alternating biosimilars with the reference product. Unfortunately, the rationale for interchangeability is more political than scientific, and it has brought more confusion and mistrust in using biosimilars in the United States.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The US Congress is requested to remove the interchangeability clause from the Biological Price and Competition Act to enable faster acceptance of biosimilars and remove the threat of lack of confidence in the safety of biosimilars.

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.

Current utilization patterns for long-acting insulin analogues including biosimilars among selected Asian countries and the implications for the future

INTRODUCTION

Prevalence rates for diabetes mellitus continue to rise, which, coupled with increasing costs of complications, has appreciably increased expenditure in recent years. Poor glycaemic control including hypoglycaemia enhances complication rates and associated morbidity, mortality and costs. Consequently, this needs to be addressed. Whilst the majority of patients with diabetes have type-2 diabetes, a considerable number of patients with diabetes require insulin to help control their diabetes. Long-acting insulin analogues were developed to reduce hypoglycaemia associated with insulin and help improve adherence, which can be a concern. However, their considerably higher costs have impacted on their funding and use, especially in countries with affordability issues. Biosimilars can help reduce the costs of long-acting insulin analogues thereby increasing available choices. However, the availability and use of long-acting insulin analogues can be affected by limited price reductions versus originators and limited demand-side initiatives to encourage their use. Consequently, we wanted to assess current utilisation rates for long-acting insulin analogues, especially biosimilars, and the rationale for patterns seen, across multiple Asian countries ranging from Japan (high-income) to Pakistan (lower-income) to inform future strategies.

METHODOLOGY

Multiple approaches including assessing utilization and prices of insulins including biosimilars among six Asian countries and comparing the findings especially with other middle-income countries.

RESULTS

Typically, there was increasing use of long-acting insulin analogues among the selected Asian countries. This was especially the case enhanced by biosimilars in Bangladesh, India, and Malaysia reflecting their perceived benefits. However, there was limited use in Pakistan due to issues of affordability similar to a number of African countries. The high use of biosimilars in Bangladesh, India and Malaysia was helped by issues of affordability and local production. The limited use of biosimilars in Japan and Korea reflects limited price reductions and demand-side initiatives similar to a number of European countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing use of long-acting insulin analogues across countries is welcomed, adding to the range of insulins available, which increasingly includes biosimilars. A number of activities are needed to enhance the use of long-acting insulin analogue biosimilars in Japan, Korea and Pakistan.

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.

The Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of Switching Between Reference Biopharmaceuticals and Biosimilars: A Systematic Review

To date, no consensus exists among stakeholders about switching patients between reference biological products (RPs) and biosimilars, which may have been curbing the implementation of biosimilars in clinical practice. This study synthesizes the available data on switching and assesses whether switching patients from a RP to its biosimilar or vice versa affects efficacy, safety, or immunogenicity outcomes. A total of 178 studies, in which switch outcomes from a RP to a biosimilar were reported, was identified. Data were derived from both randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence. Despite the limitations stemming from a lack of a robust design for most of the studies, the available switching data do not indicate that switching from a RP to a biosimilar is associated with any major efficacy, safety, or immunogenicity issues. Some open-label and observational studies reported increased discontinuation rates after switching, which were mainly attributed to nocebo effects. Involvement of the prescriber in any decision to switch should remain and attention should be paid to the mitigation of a potential nocebo effect.

Are newer insulin analogues better for people with Type 1 diabetes?

Achieving optimal blood glucose control in Type 1 diabetes is a delicate balance between ensuring tight glycaemic control and achieving this without the expense of hypoglycaemia and weight gain, two major factors impacting quality of life. This is a real challenge for people with Type 1 diabetes and underpins many of the struggles they face in self-managing on a day-to-day basis. The main goals of insulin delivery are to try to simulate the physiology of β-cell insulin secretion as closely as possible and to overcome the challenges of peripheral insulin administration by achieving rapidity of onset with mealtime insulins and stability of the glucose-lowering effects of long-acting insulins. Since the early days of human insulin use, there have been many developments in insulin formulations that aim to achieve these goals as much as possible, thus contributing to better glycaemic control whilst minimizing hypoglycaemia. In the present review we discuss the currently available insulin analogues and the challenges of achieving glucose control using current analogues in those on multiple daily injections, and appraise the evidence base for newer-generation insulin analogues, such as insulin degludec, glargine U300, faster-acting insulin aspart and BioChaperone lispro. We also highlight new insulins in development and unmet needs in people with Type 1 diabetes.

Appropriate Titration of Basal Insulin in Type 2 Diabetes and the Potential Role of the Pharmacist

A substantial proportion of patients with suboptimal control of their type 2 diabetes experience delays in treatment intensification. Additionally, patients often experience overuse of basal insulin, commonly referred to as "over-basalization," whereby basal insulin continues to be uptitrated in order to meet targets, when addition of a mealtime bolus insulin dose may be a more appropriate option. In order to overcome these challenges, there is a need to develop the capacity of allied healthcare professionals to provide appropriate support to these patients, such as during initiation or titration of basal insulin. Pharmacists play an integral role in healthcare delivery, with patients seeing their pharmacist, on average, seven times more often than their primary care physician. This places pharmacists in a unique position to provide diabetes education and care, which may help patients avoid clinical inertia. Nevertheless, the management of the disease with basal insulin is becoming increasingly complex, with growing numbers of treatment options (such as recent second-generation longer-acting basal insulin formulations) and frequently updated titration algorithms. The two most common titration schedules specify either increasing doses by a set amount every 2-3 days or a treat-to-target strategy. Neither schedule has been shown to be superior, and the decision to use one or the other should be based on a discussion between the clinician and patient after assessment of mental and physical acumen, comfort of both parties, and follow-up plans. This review article discusses basal insulin therapy options and titration algorithms from the unique perspective of the pharmacist in order to help ensure that optimal antidiabetes therapy is initiated, appropriately titrated, and maintained.Funding: Sanofi US, Inc.

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

INTRODUCTION

This study compared the efficacy and safety of similar U-100 insulin glargine products, namely, Lilly insulin glargine (LY IGlar; Basaglar®) and the reference insulin glargine product (IGlar; Lantus®), used once daily in combination with oral antihyperglycemic medications (OAMs) in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

ELEMENT 5 was a phase III, randomized, multinational, open-label, treat-to-target, 24-week trial. Participants were insulin naïve (glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] ≥ 7.0% to ≤ 11.0%) or on basal insulin (IGlar, neutral protamine Hagedorn or insulin detemir; HbA1c ≤ 11.0%) and taking ≥ 2 OAMs. The primary objective was to show  that LY IGlar is noninferior to IGlar in terms of HbA1c reduction (0.4% noninferiority margin).

RESULTS

The study population (N = 493) was predominantly Asian (48%) or White (46%), with similar baseline characteristics between arms (P > 0.05). At 24 weeks, LY IGlar was noninferior to IGlar in terms of change in HbA1c level from baseline (- 1.25 vs. - 1.22%, respectively; least squares mean difference - 0.04%; 95% confidence interval - 0.22%, 0.15%). Other 24-week efficacy and safety results were also similar between treatments (P > 0.05), including insulin dose; percentage of patients having HbA1c of < 7% and ≤ 6.5%; overall rate and incidence of total, nocturnal, and severe hypoglycemia; adverse events; insulin antibody response; and weight gain. Daily mean 7-point self-monitored blood glucose reduction was similar between treatments at 24 weeks, with no differences at any time point except premorning-meal (fasting) blood glucose (LY IGlar - 2.37 mmol/L; IGlar - 2.69 mmol/L; P = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

Overall, LY IGlar and IGlar combined with OAMs provided similar glucose control and safety findings in this T2D population, which included a greater proportion of Asian patients and had broader background basal insulin experience than a previously studied T2D population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02302716.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company and Boehringer Ingelheim. Plain language summary available for this article.

A comparison of the clinical courses of type 2 diabetic patients whose basal insulin preparation was replaced from insulin glargine 100 units/mL to insulin glargine biosimilar or 300 units/mL: a propensity score-matched observation study

Objective: We compared the clinical course of type 2 diabetic patients whose basal insulin preparations were replaced from insulin glargine (IGlar) 100 units/mL (U100) to IGlar biosimilar or IGlar 300 units/mL (U300).

Methods: After propensity score matching, 34 patients whose basal insulin preparation was switched from IGlar U100 to IGlar biosimilar and 102 switched to IGlar U300 were observed for 6 months.

Results: The HbA1c level and body weight did not change significantly after the replacement in the IGlar biosimilar or IGlar U300 groups. In the IGlar biosimilar group, the frequency of subjects who experienced hypoglycemia after the replacement (12%) was not different from before (12%). However, the frequency was significantly lower after the replacement (2%) than before (13%) in the IGlar U300 group. The change in the HbA1c level after the replacement showed a significant association with the HbA1c level at the baseline but not with the kind of IGlar. Hypoglycemia was frequently observed in subjects who had experienced hypoglycemia before the replacement.

Conclusions: IGlar biosimilar and IGlar U300 induced similar HbA1c and body weight changes among type 2 diabetic patients. IGlar biosimilar is a suitable option for patients with a low risk for hypoglycemia.

Biosimilarity and Interchangeability: Principles and Evidence: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The efficacy, safety and immunogenicity risk of switching between an originator biologic and a biosimilar or from one biosimilar to another are of potential concern.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to conduct a systematic literature review of the outcomes of switching between biologics and their biosimilars and identify any evidence gaps.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library from inception to June 2017. Relevant societal meetings were also checked. Peer-reviewed studies reporting efficacy and/or safety data on switching between originator and biosimilar products or from one biosimilar to another were selected. Studies with fewer than 20 switched patients were excluded. Data were extracted on interventions, study population, reason for treatment switching, efficacy outcomes, safety and anti-drug antibodies.

RESULTS

The systematic literature search identified 63 primary publications covering 57 switching studies. The reason for switching was reported as non-medical in 50 studies (23 clinical, 27 observational). Seven studies (all observational) did not report whether the reasons for switching were medical or non-medical. In 38 of the 57 studies, fewer than 100 patients were switched. Follow-up after switching went beyond 1 year in eight of the 57 studies. Of the 57 studies, 33 included statistical analysis of disease activity or patient outcomes; the majority of these studies found no statistically significant differences between groups for main efficacy parameters (based on P < 0.05 or predefined acceptance ranges), although some studies observed changes for some parameters. Most studies reported similar safety profiles between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There are important evidence gaps around the safety of switching between biologics and their biosimilars. Sufficiently powered and appropriately statistically analysed clinical trials and pharmacovigilance studies, with long-term follow-ups and multiple switches, are needed to support decision-making around biosimilar switching.

Insulin analogues in type 1 diabetes mellitus: getting better all the time

The treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus consists of external replacement of the functions of β cells in an attempt to achieve blood levels of glucose as close to the normal range as possible. This approach means that glucose sensing needs to be replaced and levels of insulin need to mimic physiological insulin-action profiles, including basal coverage and changes around meals. Training and educating patients are crucial for the achievement of good glycaemic control, but having insulin preparations with action profiles that provide stable basal insulin coverage and appropriate mealtime insulin peaks helps people with type 1 diabetes mellitus to live active lives without sacrificing tight glycaemic control. Insulin analogues enable patients to achieve this goal, as some have fast action profiles, and some have very slow action profiles, which gives people with type 1 diabetes mellitus the tools to achieve dynamic insulin-action profiles that enable tight glycaemic control with a risk of hypoglycaemia that is lower than that with human short-acting and long-acting insulins. This Review discusses the established and novel insulin analogues that are used to treat patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and provides insights into the future development of insulin analogues.

Interchangeability among reference insulin analogues and their biosimilars: regulatory framework, study design and clinical implications

Biosimilars are regulated differently from small-molecule generic, chemically derived medicines. The complexity of biological products means that small changes in manufacturing or formulation may result in changes in efficacy and safety of the final product. In the face of this complexity, the regulatory landscape for biosimilars continues to evolve, and global harmonization regarding requirements is currently lacking. It is essential that clinicians and patients are reassured that biosimilars are equally safe and effective as their reference product, and this is particularly important when interchangeability, defined as 'changing one medicine for another one which is expected to achieve the same clinical effect in a given clinical setting in any one patient', is considered. Although the automatic substitution (i.e. substitution without input from the prescribing healthcare provider) of biosimilars for reference products is currently not permitted by the majority of countries, this may change in the future. In order to demonstrate interchangeability between reference products and a biosimilar, more stringent and specific studies of the safety and efficacy of biosimilars are likely to be needed; however, guidance on the design of and the need for any such studies is currently limited. The present article provides an overview of the current regulatory framework around the demonstration of interchangeability with biosimilars, with a specific focus on biosimilar insulin analogues, and details experiences with other biosimilar products. In addition, designs for studies to evaluate interchangeability with a biosimilar insulin analogue product are proposed and a discussion about the implications of interchangeability in clinical practice is included.

Insulin Therapy Improves Adeno-Associated Virus Transduction of Liver and Skeletal Muscle in Mice and Cultured Cells

Adeno-associated virus (AAV) gene transfer is a promising treatment for genetic abnormalities. Optimal AAV vectors are showing success in clinical trials. Gene transfer to skeletal muscle and liver is being explored as a potential therapy for some conditions, that is, α₁-antitrypsin (AAT) disorder and hemophilia B. Exploring approaches that enhance transduction of liver and skeletal muscle, using these vectors, is beneficial for gene therapy. Regulating hormones as an approach to improve AAV transduction is largely unexplored. In this study we tested whether insulin therapy improves liver and skeletal muscle gene transfer. In vitro studies demonstrated that the temporary coadministration (2, 8, and 24 hr) of insulin significantly improves AAV2-CMV-LacZ transduction of cultured liver cells and differentiated myofibers, but not of lung cells. In addition, there was a dose response related to this improved transduction. Interestingly, when insulin was not coadministered with the virus but given 24 hr afterward, there was no increase in the transgene product. Insulin receptor gene (INSR) expression levels were increased 5- to 13-fold in cultured liver cells and differentiated myofibers when compared with lung cells. Similar INSR gene expression profiles occurred in mouse tissues. Insulin therapy was performed in mice, using a subcutaneously implanted insulin pellet or a high-carbohydrate diet. Insulin treatment began just before intramuscular delivery of AAV1-CMV-schFIX or liver-directed delivery of AAV8-CMV-schFIX and continued for 28 days. Both insulin augmentation therapies improved skeletal muscle- and liver-directed gene transduction in mice as seen by a 3.0- to 4.5-fold increase in human factor IX (hFIX) levels. The improvement was observed even after the insulin therapy ended. Monitoring insulin showed that insulin levels increased during the brief period of rAAV delivery and during the entire insulin augmentation period (28 days). This study demonstrates that AAV transduction of liver or skeletal muscle can be improved by insulin therapy.