Comparison of the Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of LY2963016 Insulin Glargine and EU- and US-Approved Versions of Lantus Insulin Glargine in Healthy Subjects: Three Randomized Euglycemic Clamp Studies

Survey of Data Package and Sample Size of Comparative Clinical Studies for Biosimilar Developments from PMDA Assessments

BACKGROUND

The Japanese biosimilar guideline requires that the sponsors conduct clinical studies such as comparative pharmacokinetic (PK), pharmacodynamic (PD), or efficacy studies. In each biosimilar development, the sponsors consider the clinical data package, and thus clinical data packages vary among biosimilar developments.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to elucidate the clinical data packages for the biosimilars approved in Japan. The details of clinical data packages and sample size for the regulatory approvals of biosimilars in Japan was reported.

METHODS

We surveyed the clinical data packages and sample size based on the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) website review reports between 2009 and 2023.

RESULTS

Twenty-four biosimilars have been approved based on the comparative PK and efficacy studies, 10 biosimilars have been approved based on the comparative PK/PD study, and one biosimilar has been approved based on the comparative efficacy study. Regarding the sample size, comparative PK studies were conducted in healthy volunteers or patients for up to 300 cases, although the majority enrolled only 1-100 cases (68.1%, 32/47). Comparative PD studies enrolling 1-30, 31-60, and 61-90 cases totaled 4, 7, and 4 cases, respectively. Finally, comparative efficacy studies enrolling 1-300, 301-600, and 601-900 totaled 6, 10, and 11 cases, respectively. In particular, the oncology and rheumatology areas were the first and second disease areas recruiting 601-900 patients.

CONCLUSION

Large numbers of patients were enrolled to conduct a comparative efficacy study. Efficient biosimilar development should be considered on the basis of the accumulation of scientific understanding of comparable features of biosimilars and their development.

A phase-I randomized euglycemic clamp study to demonstrate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic equivalence of an insulin degludec biosimilar (B01411) with the reference product in healthy Chinese volunteers

BACKGROUND

B01411 is a biosimilar candidate manufactured by Jilin Huisheng Biopharmaceutical Co. Ltd for the reference insulin degludec (Tresiba) (IDeg). This study aimed to evaluate the pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and safety of the two IDeg products and to assess the PK/PD similarity of B01411 compared with the reference IDeg product.

RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODS

A single-center, single-dose, randomized, crossover, open-labeled, phase I, euglycemic clamp study in healthy Chinese subjects to examine the bioequivalence of B01411 (0.4 U/kg) compared with the reference IDeg product. Blood samples were collected at a predefined time for the analysis of blood glucose (BG), IDeg, and C-peptide concentrations. The glucose infusion rate (GIR) was adjusted to maintain the BG at approximately 0.28 mmol/L below baseline throughout the clamp.

RESULTS

Thirty-two subjects (20 males and 12 females) were enrolled, 31 of whom received both treatments. The 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of the least-squares geometric means for AUCIDeg,0-24 h, AUCGIR,0-24 h, IDegmax, and GIRmax were all in the range of 0.80-1.25. Only one adverse event of puncture site bruising occurred once in a subject in the B01411 group.

CONCLUSION

B01411 exhibited a pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic similarity to the reference product. Both IDeg products were well tolerated.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

http://www.chinadrugtrials.org.cn/index.html#. Identifier is CTR20192122.

How to Achieve Sufficient Endogenous Insulin Suppression in Euglycemic Clamps Assessing the Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Long-Acting Insulin Preparations Employing Healthy Volunteers

The therapeutic effect of basal insulin analogs will be sustained at a rather low insulin level. When employing healthy volunteers to assess the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of long-acting insulin preparations by euglycemic clamp techniques, endogenous insulin cannot be ignored and sufficient endogenous insulin inhibition is crucial for the PD and/or PK assessment. This study aimed to explore a way to sufficiently inhibit endogenous insulin secretion. Healthy Chinese male and female volunteers were enrolled. After a subcutaneous injection of insulin glargine (IGlar) (LY2963016 or Lantus) (0.5 IU/kg), they underwent a manual euglycemic clamp for up to 24 h where the target blood glucose (BG) was set as 0.28 mmol/L below the individual’s baseline. Blood samples were collected for analysis of PK/PD and C-peptide. The subjects fell into two groups according to the reduction extent of postdose C-peptide from baseline. After matching for the dosage proportion of Lantus, there were 52 subjects in group A (C-peptide reduction<50%) and 26 in group B (C-peptide reduction≥50%), respectively. No significant difference was detected in age, body mass index, the proportion of Latus treatment and female participants. A lower basal BG was observed in group B compared to group A (4.35 ± 0.26 vs. 4.59 ± 0.22 mmol/L, p < 0.05). The clamp studies were all conducted with high quality (where BG was consistently maintained around the target and exhibited a low variety). The binary logistic regression analysis indicated low basal BG as an independent factor for the success of sufficient endogenous insulin suppression. In conclusion, setting a lower sub-baseline target BG (e.g., 10% instead of 5% below baseline) might be an approach to help achieve sufficient endogenous insulin suppression in euglycemic clamps with higher basal BG levels (e.g., beyond 4.60 mmol/L).

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.

Effects of Unsuppressed Endogenous Insulin on Pharmacokinetics and/or Pharmacodynamics of Study Insulin in the Healthy: A Retrospective Study

C‐peptide, a marker of endogenous insulin, should be consistently inhibited during euglycemic clamping, while an elevated postdosing C‐peptide (CP_postdosing) is not an occasional phenomenon. This was a retrospective study that included 33 men who underwent a manual euglycemic clamp with a subcutaneous injection of insulin aspart (IAsp) aiming to describe the effects of insufficient suppression of endogenous insulin on estimates of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of injected insulin. The time profiles of whole blood glucose, human insulin, glucose infusion rate (GIR), and C‐peptide were recorded. The subjects were divided into 2 groups at a ratio of 2:1: group A ([CP_postdosing]_max>baseline CP [CP_baseline]), group B ([CP_postdosing]_max ≤ CP_baseline). The endogenous insulin was approximately equal to the measured value of human insulin or calculated from the C‐peptide. The basal glucose, CP_baseline, basal human insulin, homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance, IAsp dose, and demographic statistics were all comparable between the 2 groups except the “clamped” glucose. The average clamped glucose was 99.7% (group A) and 94.9% (group B) of baseline. After correction for clamped glucose, GIR area under the concentration‐time curve from time 0 to 8 hours was higher in group A (P < .05) under comparable IAsp exposure. Endogenous insulin area under the concentration‐time curve from time 0 to 8 hours calculated from C‐peptide was different from that measured from human insulin in group A (P < .05), whereas no statistical difference between these measures was observed in group B. Hence, blood glucose should be controlled below the baseline to ensure the inhibition of endogenous insulin. Unsuppressed endogenous insulin may contribute to observed GIR, and the endogenous insulin–corrected pharmacokinetics estimated by C‐peptide may be inaccurate with insufficient endogenous insulin suppression.

Similar Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Biosimilar SAR342434 Insulin Lispro and Japan-Approved Humalog Insulin Lispro in Healthy Japanese Subjects

This phase 1 study compared the pharmacokinetic (PK) and glucose pharmacodynamic (PD) characteristics of biosimilar SAR342434 insulin lispro and Japan‐reference Humalog insulin lispro. This was a randomized, double‐blind, 2‐period, crossover study. Thirty‐six healthy Japanese male subjects underwent a 10‐hour euglycemic clamp following a single subcutaneous 0.3‐U/kg dose of SAR342434 or Humalog. Insulin lispro concentration and blood glucose were measured, and the glucose infusion rate (GIR) was adjusted to maintain the target blood glucose level. Primary PK end points were maximum plasma insulin lispro concentration and area under the plasma insulin concentration–time curve (AUC) from time 0 to the last quantifiable concentration. Primary PD end points were area under the GIR–time curve from time 0 to 10 hours and maximum GIR. PK exposure (maximum plasma concentration and AUC from time 0 to the last quantifiable concentration) and PD activity (GIR‐AUC from time 0 to 10 hours and maximum GIR) were similar between treatments. Geometric mean ratios were close to 1, and the corresponding 90% and 95%CIs (PK and PD activity, respectively) were within the 0.80 to 1.25 equivalence range. SAR342434 and Humalog were well tolerated. In healthy Japanese males, SAR342434 and Humalog showed similar PK exposure profiles and PD potency, in support of SAR342434 use as a biosimilar product.

Reduction in C-Peptide Levels and Influence on Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Insulin Preparations: How to Conduct a High-Quality Euglycemic Clamp Study

Objective: The aim of the study was to investigate the different extent of inhibition of endogenous insulin secretion by the reduction of C-peptide levels in an euglycemic clamp study and its effects on the evaluation of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics of insulin preparations, and quality of clamp study to determine the best reduction range of C-peptide levels. Methods: Healthy Chinese male volunteers were enrolled and underwent a single-dose euglycemic clamp test. Participants were subcutaneously injected with long-acting insulin glargine (0.4 IU/kg). Blood samples were collected pretest and up to 24 h post-test to assess pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and C-peptide levels. Results: We divided the 39 volunteers enrolled in the study into three groups according to the reduction of C-peptide levels: group A (ratio of C-peptide reduction <30%, n = 13), group B (ratio of C-peptide reduction between ≥ 30% and <50%, n = 15), and group C (ratio of C-peptide reduction ≥50%, n = 11); there were significant differences in the three groups (p = 0.000). The upper and lower limits of blood glucose oscillation in group C was statistically lower than the other groups, the range of oscillating glucose levels in group C was -17.0 ± 6.6% to -1.1 ± 6.7%. The AUC_0-24 h in groups A, B, and C were 9.7 ± 2.2, 11.0 ± 2.9, and 11.9 ± 2.1 ng/ml × min, respectively, which indicated an increasing trend in the three groups (P _trend = 0.041). For quality assessment, the average glucose (p = 0.000) and MEFTG (p = 0.001) levels in three groups were significantly different. Conclusion: The different extent of inhibition of endogenous insulin will influence the PK/PD of insulin preparations and the quality of the euglycemic clamp. Furthermore, the ratio of C-peptide reduction should be above 50% to free from the interference of endogenous insulin, and the range of blood glucose levels should be consistently maintained at -10% to 0 in the euglycemic clamp.

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.

Comparable efficacy and safety between LY2963016 insulin glargine and insulin glargine (Lantus®) in Chinese patients with type 1 diabetes: A phase III, randomized, controlled trial

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of LY2963016 insulin glargine (LY IGlar) with the reference product (Lantus®) insulin glargine (IGlar) in Chinese patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This phase III, prospective, multicentre, open-label study enrolled patients with T1DM, age ≥18 years, with haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≤11.0%, who were randomized to LY IGlar (n = 137) or IGlar (n = 135) in combination with premeal insulin lispro for 24 weeks. The treatment targets were to achieve HbA1c <7% and preprandial capillary blood glucose 79-126 mg/dl (4.4-7.0 mmol/L), avoiding hypoglycaemia. The primary efficacy endpoint was testing the non-inferiority of LY IGlar to IGlar by a margin of 0.4% using the mixed model repeated measure approach, as measured by changes in HbA1c levels from baseline to 24 weeks. Continuous laboratory measures were analysed using analysis of covariance. For categorical measures, Fisher's exact test was used.

RESULTS

The least squares mean difference between treatments (LY IGlar - IGlar) in change from baseline was -0.12% (95% confidence interval -0.32%, 0.08%), meeting the non-inferiority criteria. There were no clinically meaningful differences (p > .05) in other efficacy outcomes, including proportions of patients achieving HbA1c <7.0% and HbA1c ≤6.5%, self-monitored blood glucose and insulin dose at week 24. Weight change, insulin antibodies and all adverse events including allergic reactions and hypoglycaemia, were also similar between the two treatment groups (all p > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

LY IGlar and IGlar had equivalent efficacy in glycaemic control and similar safety profiles in Chinese patients with T1DM, when used in combination with mealtime insulin lispro.

A Euglycemic Glucose Clamp Study to Evaluate the Bioavailability of LY2963016 Relative to Insulin Glargine in Healthy Chinese Subjects

Insulin glargine (IGlar) and LY2963016 (LY IGlar) are long-acting insulin analogs with identical primary amino acid sequences. We conducted a randomized, open-label, 2-treatment, 2-period, crossover study in healthy Chinese subjects to evaluate the relative bioavailability of LY IGlar to IGlar and pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) characteristics of LY IGlar. Subjects (n = 58) were randomized to receive single subcutaneous doses (0.5 U/kg) of LY IGlar and IGlar with a ≥7-day washout period between study treatments. Serum was collected before and up to 24 hours after dosing to assess PK characteristics. PD characteristics were assessed by euglycemic clamp up to 24 hours after dosing. Linear mixed-effects models were used to fit the log-transformed primary PK (maximum observed concentration and area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to 24 hours) and PD parameters (maximum glucose infusion rate and total amount of glucose infused during clamp period). The geometric least squares means ratios (90% confidence interval) of LY IGlar to IGlar for maximum observed concentration and area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to 24 hours were 0.961 (0.887-1.04) and 0.941 (0.872-1.01), respectively. The geometric least squares means ratios (90% confidence interval) of LY IGlar to IGlar were 0.91 (0.85-0.98) for maximum glucose infusion rate and 0.89 (0.82-0.97) for total amount of glucose infused during clamp period. LY IGlar demonstrated similarity to IGlar in PK and PD characteristics following single-dose (0.5 U/kg) administration in healthy Chinese subjects.

Similar pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a new biosimilar and reference insulin aspart in healthy Chinese males

Insulin aspart (IAsp) is one of the main therapies used to control blood glucose after a meal. This study aimed to compare the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of 2 rapid-acting IAsp products: a new IAsp biosimilar (RD10046) and NovoRapid. In a single-center, randomized, single-dose, 2-period, crossover, euglycemic clamp study (registry number: CTR20180517, registration date: 2018-05-30), healthy Chinese males were randomized to receive 0.2 U/kg of the IAsp biosimilar RD10046 and NovoRapid under fasted conditions on two separate occasions. PK and PD were assessed for up to 10 h. Of the 30 randomized subjects, all 30 completed both treatment periods. The PK (area under the curve [AUC] of total IAsp; maximum observed IAsp concentration [C_max]) and PD (maximum glucose infusion rate [GIR_max]; total glucose infusion during the clamp [AUC_GIR,0–10h]) were similar between the new IAsp biosimilar RD10046 and NovoRapid. In all cases, the 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means were completely contained in the prespecified acceptance limits of 0.80–1.25. No hypoglycemic events, allergic reactions, or local injection adverse reactions occurred in this trial. We concluded that the studied IAsp biosimilar (RD10046) was bioequivalent to NovoRapid.

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.

Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of a new type of recombinant insulin Lisargine injection

Background

Recombinant insulin Lisargine is a new type of insulin. In this study, we aimed to compare its pharmacodynamic (PD) and pharmacokinetic (PK) with Lantus.

Methods

The PD test was performed by exploring the effect of single administration on blood glucose of normal rats and STZ-induced diabetic rats, and the effect of multiple administrations on blood glucose of STZ-induced diabetic rats. Further PD tests include receptor affinity test, receptor autophosphorylation test and adipocyte glucose uptake test. Four IU and 8 IU per dog Lisargine was used for PK test, insulin was measured and area under curve (AUC) was calculated.

Results

With single injection, Lisargine 1.5 IU/kg had significant hypoglycemic effects at 1 and 2 h, similar to that of Lantus. Lisargine 5 IU/kg and 10 IU/kg lowered the blood glucose of STZ-induced diabetic rats at 1, 2, 4 & 6 h significantly. With multiple injections, Lantus lowered blood glucose at 2, 4 & 6 h, Lisargine 2.5 IU/kg, 5 IU/kg, and 10 IU/kg lowered blood glucose at 2 & 4 h significantly, compared with vehicle. There was no difference for receptor affinity test, receptor autophosphorylation test and adipocyte glucose uptake test between Lisargine and Lantus. The PK of Lisargine and Lantus of healthy Beagle dogs was very similar.

Conclusions

This animal study demonstrated that PK and PD of Lisargine and Lantus were similar, suggesting the bioequivalence of these products.

The Evolution of Insulin and How it Informs Therapy and Treatment Choices

Insulin has been available for the treatment of diabetes for almost a century, and the variety of insulin choices today represents many years of discovery and innovation. Insulin has gone from poorly defined extracts of animal pancreata to pure and precisely controlled formulations that can be prescribed and administered with high accuracy and predictability of action. Modifications of the insulin formulation and of the insulin molecule itself have made it possible to approximate the natural endogenous insulin response. Insulin and insulin formulations had to be designed to produce either a constant low basal level of insulin or the spikes of insulin released in response to meals. We discuss how the biochemical properties of endogenous insulin were exploited to either shorten or extend the time-action profiles of injectable insulins by varying the pharmacokinetics (time for appearance of insulin in the blood after injection) and pharmacodynamics (time-dependent changes in blood sugar after injection). This has resulted in rapid-acting, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting insulins, as well as mixtures and concentrated formulations. An understanding of how various insulins and formulations were designed to solve the challenges of insulin replacement will assist clinicians in meeting the needs of their individual patients.

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.

Biosimilars and Novel Insulins

BACKGROUND

Insulin therapy is the mainstay of treatment for type 1 diabetes and may be necessary in type 2 diabetes. Current insulin analogues present a more physiological profile, are effective, and with less risk of hypoglycemia, but they are expensive. Biosimilar insulins should offer the advantages of insulin analogues at reduced costs. In addition, current rapid-acting insulin analogues are not fast enough to control excessive postprandial glucose excursions in many patients.

AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY

Biosimilar insulins demonstrated that are safe and effective, but interchangeability and automatic substitution remain an issue. Ultrafast-acting insulins should reduce postprandial hyperglycemia and improve flexibility in insulin dosing.

DATA SOURCES

This systematic review was conducted following widely recommended methods. We searched for each topic in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and SCISEARCH for relevant citations for the appropriate period.

THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES

LY2963016 and MK-1293 are biosimilar insulins of insulin glargine, and SAR342434 is a biosimilar of insulin lispro. The abbreviated developed program demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety and supports their use for treatment of people with diabetes but no interchangeability. Faster-acting insulin aspart is a new formulation of insulin aspart with accelerated subcutaneous absorption. Faster aspart demonstrated noninferiority in reducing HbA1c as compared to insulin aspart with superiority in controlling postprandial hyperglycemia without increasing hypoglycemia, and flexible insulin dosing.

CONCLUSIONS

Biosimilar insulins have comparable PK-PD profiles and equivalent efficacy and safety to original insulins at a lower price, making them available for more people with diabetes. Faster aspart is the first ultrafast-acting insulin. New upcoming clinical trials and more clinical experience with faster aspart will show the real potential of this new insulin.

Long-term safety and effectiveness of biosimilar insulin glargine in Japanese patients with diabetes mellitus in routine clinical practice: results of a post-marketing safety study

Objective: To evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of biosimilar insulin glargine (GLY) in real-world clinical practice.Methods: This prospective, non-interventional, multicenter, observational, post-marketing safety study (PMSS) enrolled Japanese patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM or T2DM) starting GLY therapy, and was required by Japanese Pharmaceutical Affairs Law mandating post-marketing safety surveillance to acquire safety and effectiveness data of biosimilar products. Data collected from the 12-month observation included patient characteristics, adverse events, and blood glucose control.Results: The study enrolled 141 patients with T1DM and 1104 patients with T2DM. Pre-study insulin was used by 94.1% of patients with T1DM and 75.0% with T2DM. 65.4% of patients with T1DM and 64.3% with T2DM switched from the reference product (GLY-switched), while 25.0% with T2DM were insulin-naive. Adverse events were reported by 5.7% and 8.5% in T1DM and T2DM, respectively. Similar incidences were reported in GLY-switched. Adverse events were reported by 10.7% in insulin-naive T2DM. Baseline mean hypoglycemic events/month were 1.8 and 0.1 in T1DM and T2DM, respectively: the mean change from baseline (CFB) was -1.2 (p = .066) and 0.0 (p = .915), respectively. Baseline mean HbA1c was 8.4% and 8.7% in T1DM and T2DM, respectively; the mean CFB was -0.5% (p < .001) and -0.9% (p < .001), respectively, and -1.5% (p < .001) in insulin-naive T2DM.Conclusions: This first long-term Japanese PMSS of GLY demonstrated adverse events, hypoglycemia, and glycemic control consistent with the known GLY profile for T1DM and T2DM patients, in routine clinical practice.

Results of the Estimation of Biosimilarity of RinLiz® (LLC «GEROPHARM», Russia) and Humalog® (Lilly France, France) Using the Method of the Hyperinsulinemic Eulygemic Clamp on Healthy Voluntary

Introduction. Insulin is the most effective hypoglycemic agent currently used in the clinical practice. Compared with recombinant human insulin, insulin lispro have a blood glucose profile that is much closer to physiological. The clinical trials program of insulin bioassays includes pharmacology studies: pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and a clinical safety study.

Aim. To compare PK and PD of RinLiz® U100, solution for intravenous and subcutaneous administration (LLC «GEROFARM», Russia) and Humalog® U100, solution for intravenous and subcutaneous administration (Lilly France, France) in hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp.

Materials and methods. This was randomized double-blind, two-arm crossover study in 28 healthy volunteers (NCT03604575). The studied preparations were injected before the clamp with a dose of 0.3 U/kg once subcutaneously in the area of subcutaneous fat in the anterior abdominal wall. During the study, regular blood sampling was performed; the amount of insulin lispro was determined by ELISA in the samples. The results of the determination were used to calculate the PK parameters and construct the curves «concentration – time». Based on the measurement of glycemia, the glucose infusion rate was adjusted. These data were used to calculate the PD parameters. The comparability of the studied drugs was considered proven if 90 % confidence intervals (CI) for the ratio of geometric mean PK parameters Cins. max and AUCins. 0-8 and 95 % CI for the ratio of geometric mean PD parameters GIRmax and AUCGIR0-8,5 were in the range of 80–125 %. Statistical data processing and presentation of the results was carried out using software packages R 3.4.2.

Results and discussion. In the course of CI comparative PK and PD of RinLiz® and Humalog®, it was revealed that they have comparable PK and PD profiles. The CI for the logarithmically converted ratios of the values of the PK parameters was Cins. max 85.99–96.85 % and AUCins. 0-8 90.58–97.28 %, the PD of the parameters were 95.64–118.94 for GIRmax and 96.5–121.36 for AUCGIR0-8.5, all the CIs correspond to the set the boundaries of 80–125 % to establish comparability between RinLiz® and the original drug.

Conclusion. The results demonstrated the high degree of similarity of RinLiz® U100 and Humalog® U100 in terms of PK, PD profiles and safety.

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.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic bioequivalence of proposed biosimilar MYL-1501D with US and European insulin glargine formulations in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

To report phase 1 bioequivalence results comparing MYL-1501D, US reference insulin glargine (US IG), and European reference insulin glargine (EU IG).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The double-blind, randomized, three-way crossover study compared the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) characteristics of MYL-1501D, US IG and EU IG. In total, 114 patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) received 0.4 U/kg of each study treatment under automated euglycaemic clamp conditions. Insulin metabolite M1 concentrations, insulin glargine (IG) and glucose infusion rates (GIRs) were assessed over 30 hours. Primary PK endpoints were area under the serum IG concentration-time curve from 0 to 30 hours (AUC_ins.0-30h ) and maximum serum IG concentration (C_ins.max ). Primary PD endpoints were area under the GIR-time curve from 0 to 30 hours (AUC_GIR0-30h ) and maximum GIR (GIR_max ).

RESULTS

Bioequivalence among MYL-1501D, US IG and EU IG was demonstrated for the primary PK and PD endpoints. Least squares mean ratios were close to 1, and 90% confidence intervals were within 0.80 to 1.25. The PD GIR-time profiles were nearly superimposable. There were no noticeable differences in the safety profiles of the three treatments, and no serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Equivalence with regard to PK and PD characteristics was shown among MYL-1501D, US IG and EU IG in patients with T1DM, and each treatment was well tolerated and safe.

Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay Method Application in the Study of Comparative Pharmacokinetics of Insulin Glargin Preparations

Aims: adaptation and validation of the ELISA method insulin glargine determination for the pharmacokinetic study, practical approval in the biosimilars clinical trial.

Materials and methods. Serum insulin glargine determination was measured using a commercial ELISA kit. All tests were run on a Personal LAB machine (Adaltis S.r.l., Rome, Italy) with test systems for measuring the concentration of insulin glargine (Invitron Ltd., United Kingdom); human insulin concentrations were measured in the samples from the study for correction of cross-reactivity. Clinical part of this study included 42 male patients aged 18–65 with diabetes mellitus type 1. This was a double-blind, randomized, crossover clamp study with wash-out period of 7–14 days. Comparisons drugs: Insulin Glargine (glargine) solution for subcutaneous administration, 100 U/ml (GEROPHARM, Russia) and Lantus® (glargine) solution for subcutaneous administration, 100 U/ml (Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Germany).

Results. At the stage of the method adaptation the modification of original manufacturer’s method was performed; the full validation of modified analytical method for all parameters (selectivity, specificity, precision of calibration curves, intra- and inter-batch precision and accuracy, carry-over, dilution integrity, stability of solutions, stability in biologic matrix, parallelism) in accordance with regulatory authorities requirements has been done. The primary endpoint for long-acting insulins – AUCins.0-τ was calculated. Insulin Glargine and Lantus® are equivalent based on AUCins.0-τ data (point estimation for ratio of geometric means was 99 %, the confidence intervals for the ratio of the geometric mean for AUCins.0-τ was 81.02–120.62 %, that correspond to acceptance range 80.00–125.00 %).

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.

Biosimilar and Follow-on Insulin: The Ins, Outs, and Interchangeability

Objective: To provide an overview of the differences between biosimilars and generics, and to summarize regulatory requirements and outstanding issues related to biosimilar insulins in the United States, including the issue of interchangeability. Data Sources: References were obtained using MEDLINE searches, the bibliographies of articles identified during the searches, review articles, and general Internet searches. Key words included the following: diabetes, insulin, biosimilar, regulatory, follow-on, and interchangeability. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Articles, studies, regulatory documents, and opinion pieces that addressed issues around biosimilar/follow-on insulins and interchangeability of insulins in people with diabetes were selected for inclusion in this narrative review. Data Synthesis: There is understandable interest in the potential for new copies of existing insulins-termed biosimilar insulins or follow-on insulins-to reduce the substantial and growing costs associated with managing the diabetes epidemic and to improve access, as has been achieved with conventional generic drugs. However, biosimilars or follow-on insulins are not generics. There are critical differences between biologic products and conventional chemical drugs, which present specific challenges to manufacturers, regulators, and clinicians. Conclusions: Health care providers and payers need to be aware of the issues surrounding biosimilar and follow-on insulins as they become more widely available in the coming years. In particular, in the face of limited data on comparative safety and efficacy, careful consideration needs to be given when interchanging between originator and biosimilar drugs, when switching patients from one biosimilar drug to the other.

[LY2963016 insulin glargine: The first biosimilar insulin approved in the European Union]

Biosimilars are not generics. They are similar, but not exactly identical to the biological reference product. The development plan of a biosimilar should assess the physical, chemical and biological properties (quality), as well as toxicological (safety), pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic, and clinical (efficacy and safety) characteristics of the biosimilar developed. The development of generics requires bioequivalence studies in healthy volunteers. Abasaglar^®, a biosimilar of insulin glargine, is the first insulin biosimilar approved in the European Union. Phase III studies, ELEMENT 1 in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and ELEMENT 2 in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, showed LY2963016 insulin glargine to have similar efficacy and a comparable safety profile to the insulin glargine Lantus^®. Policies for interchangeability/substitutability between a biosimilar and the reference product are decided at national level in Europe (LFSP, ANSM).

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.

Efficacy and safety of MK-1293 insulin glargine compared with originator insulin glargine (Lantus) in type 1 diabetes: A randomized, open-label clinical trial

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of MK-1293 insulin glargine (Mk-Gla; 100 U/mL) with originator insulin glargine, Lantus (Sa-Gla), in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This phase 3, randomized, active-controlled, open-label, 52-week study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02059161) enrolled 508 people with T1DM (HbA1c ≤11.0%; 97 mmol/mol) taking basal and prandial insulin. Participants were randomized 1:1 to once-daily Mk-Gla (n = 245) or Sa-Gla (n = 263). Dose titration of basal insulin was by a pre-breakfast plasma glucose dosing algorithm. The primary efficacy objective was assessment of the non-inferiority of HbA1c change from baseline (margin of 0.40% [4.4 mmol/mol]) for Mk-Gla compared with Sa-Gla over 24 weeks. The primary safety objective was assessment of anti-insulin antibody development over 24 weeks.

RESULTS

The least squares (LS) mean HbA1c change from baseline at week 24 was -0.62 (95% CI -0.79, -0.45)% (-6.8 [-8.7, -4.9] mmol/mol) and -0.66 (-0.82, -0.50)% (-7.2 [-9.0, -5.4] mmol/mol) for Mk-Gla and Sa-Gla. The LS mean HbA1c difference was 0.04 (-0.11, 0.19)% (0.4 [-1.2, 2.0] mmol/mol) for Mk-Gla minus Sa-Gla, meeting the primary and secondary objective criteria for non-inferiority and equivalence. Week 24 mean insulin glargine dose for Mk-Gla and Sa-Gla was 0.46 and 0.48 U/kg, respectively. Similarity of HbA1c response and basal insulin dose trajectory persisted over the 52 weeks. Safety and tolerability, including anti-insulin antibody responses, hypoglycaemia, adverse events and body weight, were similar between insulins over the 52-week study duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Mk-Gla and Sa-Gla exhibited similar efficacy and safety over 52 weeks in people with T1DM. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02059161.

Similar Intrapatient Blood Glucose Variability with LY2963016 and Lantus® Insulin Glargine in Patients with Type 1 (T1D) or Type 2 Diabetes, Including a Japanese T1D Subpopulation

INTRODUCTION

LY2963016 insulin glargine (LY IGlar) and Lantus® (IGlar), both with identical primary amino acid sequences, were compared in two phase 3 studies for intrapatient blood glucose variability.

METHODS

ELEMENT-1 was a 52-week study in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D), which included Japanese patients, and ELEMENT-2 was a 24-week study in non-Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). In ELEMENT-1, 535 patients with T1D were evaluable (268 LY IGlar and 267 IGlar). Of these, 100 were Japanese patients (49 LY IGlar and 51 IGlar). In ELEMENT-2, 756 patients with T2D were evaluable (376 LY IGlar and 380 IGlar). We evaluated and compared intrapatient blood glucose variability of LY IGlar and IGlar in these studies from three different perspectives: intrapatient between-day fasting blood glucose variability, intrapatient between-day daily mean blood glucose variability, and intrapatient within-day blood glucose variability.

RESULTS

Overall, evaluations of all three indices showed that intrapatient blood glucose variability was similar between LY IGlar and IGlar throughout the study periods both in the overall populations of patients with T1D and T2D and also in the subgroup of Japanese patients with T1D.

CONCLUSION

Intrapatient blood glucose variability between LY IGlar and IGlar was shown to be similar in patients with T1D or T2D.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01421147 (ELEMENT-1) and NCT01421459 (ELEMENT-2).

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company (Indianapolis, IN, USA); Boehringer-Ingelheim (Ridgefield, CT, USA); Eli Lilly Japan K.K. (Kobe, Japan) and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim Co., Ltd. (Tokyo, Japan).

A Review of Basal-Bolus Therapy Using Insulin Glargine and Insulin Lispro in the Management of Diabetes Mellitus

Basal-bolus therapy (BBT) refers to the combination of a long-acting basal insulin with a rapid-acting insulin at mealtimes. Basal insulin glargine 100 U/mL and prandial insulin lispro have been available for many years and there is a substantial evidence base to support the efficacy and safety of these agents when they are used in BBT or basal-plus therapy for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM, T2DM). With the growing availability of alternative insulins for use in such regimens, it seems timely to review the data regarding BBT with insulin glargine 100 U/mL and insulin lispro. In patients with T1DM, BBT with insulin glargine plus insulin lispro provides similar or better glycemic control and leads to less nocturnal hypoglycemia compared to BBT using human insulin as the basal and/or prandial component, and generally provides similar glycemic control and rates of severe hypoglycemia to those achieved with insulin lispro administered by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). Studies evaluating BBT with insulin glargine plus insulin lispro in patients with T2DM also demonstrate the efficacy and safety of these insulins. Available data suggest that BBT with insulin glargine and insulin lispro provides similar levels of efficacy and safety in pediatric and adult populations with T1DM and in adult patients and those aged more than 65 years with T2DM. These insulin preparations also appear to be safe and effective for controlling T2DM in people of different ethnicities and in patients with T1DM or T2DM and comorbidities.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

Comparative evaluation of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of insulin glargine (Glaritus®) and Lantus® in healthy subjects: a double-blind, randomized clamp study

AIMS

The objective of the study was to compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) properties of an insulin glargine formulation, Glaritus^® (test) with the innovator's formulation Lantus^® (reference) using the euglycemic clamp technique in a single-dose, double-blind, randomized, two sequences, four-period replicate crossover study in healthy volunteers (n = 40).

METHODS

Subjects received subcutaneous administration of the insulin glargine (0.4 IU/kg) formulation at two occasions for test and reference and a 20% glucose solution was infused at variable rate to maintain euglycemia for 24 h.

RESULTS

Both PK [area under the plasma concentration time curve (AUC_0-24 h) and maximum insulin concentration (C_max)] and PD endpoints [area under glucose infusion rate time curve (_AUCGIR0-24) and maximum glucose infusion rate (GIR_max)] demonstrated bioequivalence of Glaritus to Lantus with the 90% confidence interval of geometric mean ratio of test to reference entirely contained within 0.80-1.25. Both formulations showed equivalent geometric least-square mean LSM value (0.08 nmol/L) for C_max. The geometric LSM AUC_0-24 h value for Glaritus^® (1.09 h nmol/L) was comparable to Lantus (1.05 h nmol/L). Median T_max values were also identical (12 h for both), and median t1/2 values were also equal (18 h for both). For GIR_Tmax, the difference between the means for the two was not statistically significant. No AEs related to study formulations were reported, and both products were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

The test product (Glaritus) was found to be bioequivalent to the reference product (Lantus).

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CTRI/2015/06/005890; http://www.ctri.nic.in/ .

Efficacy and safety of biosimilar insulins compared to their reference products: A systematic review

Importance

For nearly a century, no generic form of insulin has been available in the United States. However, the first biosimilar insulin, Basaglar, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2015, and subsequently Admelog and Lusduna in 2017.

Objective

To summarize the scientific evidence comparing the safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of biosimilar and reference insulin products.

Data sources

We conducted a systematic review using PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Latin America and Caribbean Health Sciences, South Asian Database of Controlled Clinical Trials, and IndiaMED from their inception through January 14, 2018.

Study selection

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing safety, clinical efficacy, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of any biosimilar insulin with a reference product in adults regardless of sample size and location.

Data extraction and synthesis

Two researchers independently reviewed all titles, abstracts and text; extracted data; and performed quality assessments.

Main outcomes and measures

Efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of biosimilar and reference insulin products

Results

Of 6945 articles screened, 11 studies were included in the data synthesis. LY2963016, Basalog, Basalin, and MK-1293 were compared to Lantus while SAR342434 was compared to Humalog. Three trials enrolled healthy volunteers, five enrolled type 1 diabetics, and two enrolled type 2 diabetics. One study enrolled both healthy and type 1 diabetics. Of the eleven studies, six examined pharmacokinetic and/or pharmacodynamic parameters and five examined clinical efficacy and immunogenicity. All studies included adverse events. All PK and/or PD studies showed that comparable parameters of biosimilar and reference products were within the pre-specified equivalence margins. Clinical studies suggested similar clinical efficacy and immunogenicity. Adverse events were similar between the groups across all studies.

Conclusions and relevance

Few published studies have compared biosimilar and reference insulins, though those that did suggest that the biosimilars have comparable safety and clinical efficacy as its reference product.

Long-acting insulin analogues for type 1 diabetes: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

The comparison between long acting insulin analogues (LAIA) and human insulin (NPH) has been investigated for decades, with many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews giving mixed results. This overlapping and contradictory evidence has increased uncertainty on coverage decisions at health systems level.

Aim

To conduct an overview of systematic reviews and update existing reviews, preparing new meta-analysis to determine whether LAIA are effective for T1D patients compared to NPH.

Methods

We identified systematic reviews of RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of LAIA glargine or detemir, compared to NPH insulin for T1D, assessing glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and hypoglycemia. Data sources included Pubmed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and hand-searching. The methodological quality of studies was independently assessed by two reviewers, using AMSTAR and Jadad scale. We found 11 eligible systematic reviews that contained a total of 25 relevant clinical trials. Two reviewers independently abstracted data.

Results

We found evidence that LAIA are efficacious compared to NPH, with estimates showing a reduction in nocturnal hypoglycemia episodes (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.57; 0.76) and A1C (95% CI 0.23; 0.12). No significance was found related to severe hypoglycemia (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.71; 1.24).

Conclusion

This study design has allowed us to carry out the most comprehensive assessment of RCTs on this subject, filling a gap in diabetes research. Our paper addresses a question that is important not only for decision makers but also for clinicians.

Similar Efficacy and Safety of Basaglar® and Lantus® in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Age Groups (< 65 Years, ≥ 65 Years): A Post Hoc Analysis from the ELEMENT-2 Study

INTRODUCTION

To compare efficacy and safety of Basaglar^® [insulin glargine 100 units/mL; LY insulin glargine (LY IGlar)] to Lantus^® [insulin glargine 100 units/mL; SA insulin glargine (SA IGlar)] in older (≥ 65 years) or younger (< 65 years) patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

This subgroup analysis of a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multinational, 24-week study compared LY IGlar and SA IGlar on several clinical efficacy (change in glycated hemoglobin (A1c), basal insulin dose, weight) and safety outcomes (incidence of adverse events, insulin antibodies, hypoglycemia incidence and rates) in patients either ≥ 65 or < 65 years.

RESULTS

Compared with patients aged < 65 years (N = 542), patients aged ≥ 65 years (N = 214) had a significantly longer duration of diabetes; lower baseline A1c and body weight; and body mass index; and were more likely to report prestudy SA IGlar use. Compared to patients < 65 years, patients ≥ 65 years needed a lower basal insulin dose and experienced lower body weight gain. There were no significant treatment-by-age interactions for the clinical efficacy and safety outcomes, indicating that there was no differential treatment effect (LY IGlar vs SA IGlar) for patients ≥ 65 years vs those < 65 years. Moreover, within each age subgroup, LY IGlar and SA IGlar were similar for all clinical efficacy and safety outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

LY IGlar and SA IGlar exhibit similar efficacy and safety in patients with T2D who are ≥ 65 years and in those < 65 years.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov trial registration: NCT01421459.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company and Boehringer-Ingelheim.

Switching basal insulins in type 2 diabetes: practical recommendations for health care providers

Basal insulin remains the mainstay of treatment of type 2 diabetes when diet changes and exercise in combination with oral drugs and other injectable agents are not sufficient to control hyperglycemia. Insulin therapy should be individualized, and several factors influence the choice of basal insulin; these include pharmacological properties, patient preferences, and lifestyle, as well as health insurance plan formularies. The recent availability of basal insulin formulations with longer durations of action has provided further dosing flexibility; however, patients may need to switch agents throughout therapy for a variety of personal, clinical, or economic reasons. Although a unit-to-unit switching approach is usually recommended, this conversion strategy may not be appropriate for all patients and types of insulin. Glycemic control and risk of hypoglycemia must be closely monitored by health care providers during the switching process. In addition, individual changes in care and formulary coverage need to be adequately addressed in order to enable a smooth transition with optimal outcomes.

Understanding how pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences of basal analog insulins influence clinical practice

This article reviews pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) concepts relating to the pharmacology of basal insulin analogs. Understanding the pharmacology of currently available long-acting basal insulins and the techniques used to assess PK and PD parameters (e.g. the euglycemic clamp method) is important when considering the efficacy and safety of these agents, and can help in understanding the rationale for specific dosing strategies when tailoring therapy for a specific patient. Basal insulins such as insulin glargine 100 units (U)/mL and insulin detemir show improved PK/PD characteristics compared with the intermediate-acting NPH insulin, with a longer duration of action, a more consistent glucose-lowering effect and less prominent concentration peaks. However, more recently developed basal insulins (insulin glargine 300 U/mL, and insulin degludec 100 U/mL and 200 U/mL) have PK/PD profiles closer to the physiologic profile of endogenous basal insulin owing to a more evenly distributed, predictable and prolonged time-action profile that exceeds 24 hours and improved within-patient variability in glucose-lowering effect. The clinical implications and relevance of these PK/PD profiles is explored, including the potential effect of PK/PD parameters on glycemic control and hypoglycemia, and the timing of dosing. The improved PK/PD properties of newer longer-acting basal insulins may translate into clinical benefits for patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, such as more consistent insulin levels in the blood over 24 hours, lower intra-patient variability, a reduced risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia, and more flexibility in dosing time, all of which are important to consider when choosing a basal insulin regimen.

Introduction of biosimilar insulins in Europe

Regulatory approval of the first biosimilar insulin in Europe, LY2963016 insulin glargine (Abasaglar^® ), in 2014 expanded the treatment options available to people with diabetes. As biosimilar insulin products come to market, it is important to recognize that insulin products are biologicals manufactured through complex biotechnology processes, and thus biosimilar insulins cannot be considered identical to their reference products. Strict regulatory guidelines adopted by authorities in Europe, the USA and some other countries help to ensure that efficacy and safety profiles of biosimilar insulins are not meaningfully different from those of the reference products, preventing entry of biological compounds not meeting quality standards and potentially affecting people's glycaemic outcomes. This review explains the concept of biosimilar medicines and outlines regulatory requirements for registration of biosimilar insulins in Europe, which is illustrated by the successful development of LY2963016 insulin glargine and MK-1293 insulin glargine (Lusduna^® ). Preclinical and clinical comparative studies of the biosimilar insulin glargine programmes include in vitro bioassays for insulin and insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor binding, assessment of in vitro biological activity, evaluation of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles in phase I studies and assessment of long-term safety and efficacy in phase III studies. The emergence of biosimilar insulins may help broaden access to modern insulins, increase individualized treatment options and reduce costs of insulin therapy.

How Similar Are Biosimilars? What Do Clinicians Need to Know About Biosimilar and Follow-On Insulins?

IN BRIEF As more patents on biological medicines expire, increased numbers of biologic copies, referred to as "biosimilars," will likely become available in the United States in the coming years. With greater availability and the drive for health care savings, the use of biosimilars and of "follow-on" biological products is likely to increase in routine clinical practice. Health care practitioners need to be fully aware of these products and accompanying considerations if they are to make informed decisions together with their patients.

LY2963016 Insulin Glargine and Insulin Glargine (Lantus) Produce Comparable Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics at Two Dose Levels

LY2963016 (LY IGlar) and Lantus (IGlar) are insulin glargine products with identical amino acid sequences. This was a phase 1 single-site, randomized, subject- and investigator-blinded, 4-treatment, 4-period crossover study to compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) properties of LY IGlar and IGlar at 2 different doses. Fasted healthy subjects were randomly assigned to receive 2 single doses of LY IGlar and IGlar (0.3 and 0.6 U/kg for each product). Blood samples were collected up to 24 hours postdose to assess PK, and a euglycemic clamp lasting up to 24 hours postdose was conducted to assess PD. Twenty-four healthy subjects aged 23 to 52 years participated in the study. The primary PK parameters (area under the concentration versus time curve from 0 to 24 hours [AUC_0-24 ] and maximum observed drug concentration [C_max ]) and PD parameters (total amount of glucose infused during the clamp [G_tot ] and maximum glucose infusion rate [R_max ]) were not statistically different between LY IGlar and IGlar at either dose. No safety concerns were noted with either drug. The study demonstrated that the PK and PD parameters for LY IGlar and IGlar were comparable following single doses at both 0.3 and 0.6 U/kg.

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.

Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Diabetes Who Exhibit Upper-Quartile Insulin Antibody Responses After Treatment with LY2963016 or Lantus® Insulin Glargine

INTRODUCTION

We compared insulin antibody response (IAR) profiles in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) who received LY2963016 insulin glargine (LY IGlar) or Lantus^® insulin glargine (IGlar) and evaluated the potential relationship between higher IARs and clinical and safety outcomes with a focus on patients who exhibited antibody responses in the upper quartile.

METHODS

Data from ELEMENT-1 (52-week open-label in T1D) and ELEMENT-2 (24-week, double-blind study in T2D) were analyzed. Maximum postbaseline IAR levels and proportions of patients in the upper quartile of maximum antibody percent binding (UQMAPB; patients with maximum postbaseline percent binding in the highest 25% of maximum values observed) were compared for differential treatment effects on clinical efficacy outcomes and incidence of adverse events. Continuous outcomes were analyzed by analysis of covariance. Categorical data were analyzed by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel or Breslow-Day test.

RESULTS

In both studies (N = 532 evaluable patients with T1D; N = 730 with T2D), no statistically significant differences between LY IGlar and IGlar were observed for maximum antibody percent binding (MAPB) levels or for proportions of patients in the respective UQMAPB. No statistically significant differential treatment effects were observed in the relationship between MAPB and clinical efficacy and safety outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Maximum postbaseline IAR levels and the proportion of patients with high IAR levels were similar for LY IGlar and IGlar. High antibody levels did not affect clinical outcomes. These results add further evidence supporting similar IARs of LY IGlar and IGlar.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company and Boehringer-Ingelheim.

Modeling Pharmacokinetic Profiles of Insulin Regimens to Enhance Understanding of Subcutaneous Insulin Regimens

Insulin pharmacokinetics following subcutaneous administration were modeled, simulated, and displayed through an interactive and user‐friendly interface to illustrate the time course of administered insulins frequently prescribed, providing a simple tool for clinicians through a straightforward visualization of insulin regimens. Pharmacokinetic data of insulin formulations with different onset and duration of action from several clinical studies, including insulin glargine, regular insulin, neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH), insulin lispro, and premixed preparations of NPH with regular insulin (Mix 70/30), and insulin lispro protamine suspension with insulin lispro (Mix 50/50, Mix 75/25), were used to develop a predictive population pharmacokinetic model of insulins with consideration of factors such as insulin formulation, weight‐based dosing, body‐weight effect on volume of distribution, and administration time relative to meals, on the insulin time‐action profile. The model‐predicted insulin profile of each insulin was validated and confirmed to be comparable to observed data via an external validation method. Model‐based simulations of clinically relevant insulin‐dosing scenarios to cater to specific initial patient and prescribing conditions were then implemented with differential equations using the R statistical program (version 3.2.2). The R package Shiny was subsequently applied to build a web browser interface to execute and visualize the model simulation outputs. The application of insulin pharmacokinetic modeling enabled informative visualization of insulin time‐action profiles and provided an efficient and intuitive educational tool to quickly convey and interactively explore many insulin time‐action profiles to ease the understanding of insulin formulations in clinical practice.

Comparison of morning basal + 1 bolus insulin therapy (insulin glulisine + insulin glargine 300 U/mL vs insulin lispro + insulin glargine biosimilar) using continuous glucose monitoring: A randomized crossover study

INTRODUCTION

We compared the effects of morning administration of insulin glulisine + insulin glargine 300 U/mL (G + G300) with that of insulin lispro + insulin glargine biosimilar (L + GB).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 30 patients with type 2 diabetes who wore a continuous glucose monitoring device on admission after glucose levels were stabilized by morning long-acting and ultra-rapid-acting insulins were randomly allocated to groups who received G + G300 on days 1 and 2, and the same dose L + GB on days 3 and 4, or vice versa. Data collected on days 2 and 4 (mean amplitude of glycemic excursion, mean of daily differences: all days) were analyzed. Insulin was injected at 08.00 h. A day was defined as the period from 08.00 h one day, to 08.00 h the next day. Test meals were given.

RESULTS

Increased post-breakfast glucose level, post-breakfast glucose gradient, mean glucose level, standard deviation and M-value (24 h, 00.00-06.00 h), mean amplitude of glycemic excursion, and mean of daily differences were significantly lower in patients taking G + G300 than those taking L + GB (P ≤ 0.0001-0.04). The area over the glucose curve (<70 mg/dL) was not significantly different between groups. Pre-lunch - pre-breakfast glucose levels were significantly lower in patients taking L + GB than those taking G + G300 (P < 0.0001). The difference in the highest post-breakfast glucose level between groups (Δ = G + G300 - L + GB) was significantly correlated to 24-h mean glucose level (r = 0.40, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with L + GB, G + G300 decreases post-breakfast glucose level reducing rate of rise of that, nocturnal and 24-h glucose variability and level without causing hypoglycemia, and daily variance.