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

Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Equivalence of Biosimilar and Reference Ultra-Rapid Lispro: A Comparative Clamp Study in Healthy Volunteers

Ultra-rapid insulin lispro is an innovative insulin analogue designed to achieve rapid onset and short duration of action, aimed at optimizing glycemic control in patients with diabetes. This was a double-blind, randomized, 2-period, crossover clamp study to evaluate the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD), along with safety profiles, of a potential biosimilar ultra-rapid insulin lispro compared to the reference product in healthy White men. A total of 35 healthy volunteers completed hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp procedures across both study periods. Blood samples were collected at predefined intervals up to 8 hours to assess PK parameters. Plasma glucose levels were monitored every 5 minutes during the 8-hour clamps, with adjustments to the glucose infusion rate to maintain the target range. Insulin quantification in plasma was conducted using a validated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay method. PD assessment was based on glucose infusion rate profiles during both clamps. Geometric mean ratios for maximum plasma concentration and area under the concentration-time curve from insulin administration to the last measurable concentration for the test and reference drugs fell within the bioequivalence range of 80%-125%. Furthermore, the investigational drugs demonstrated comparable PK/PD profiles of insulin lispro. Both formulations exhibited similar safety profiles primarily characterized by mild injection site reactions.

Evaluation of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic similarity of an IDegAsp biosimilar versus the originator in healthy Chinese volunteers

OBJECTIVES

22011 is an insulin degludec/insulin aspart co-formulation (IDegAsp) that shares an identical amino acid sequence with Ryzodeg, the originator IDegAsp. This study aimed to compare the pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and safety of 22011 with Ryzodeg.

METHODS

In a single-center, randomized, open-label, two-treatment, two-period, two-sequence, crossover, euglycemic clamp study, healthy Chinese adults were randomized to receive 0.5 U/kg of 22011 and Ryzodeg under fasting conditions. PK was evaluated for up to 120 h and PD (represented by glucose infusion rate [GIR]) was assessed for up to 24 h.

RESULTS

Of 46 subjects randomized, all completed both treatment periods and were included in the PK/PD and safety analysis set. Insulin exposure (AUCIDeg, 0-24 h, AUCIAsp, 0-12 h, and Cmax, IAsp) and activity (GIRmax and AUCGIR, 0-24 h) were comparable (estimates of treatment ratios 0.916 ~ 1.076 for primary PK parameters and 0.946 ~ 1.037 for primary PD parameters), with 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of least square means falling within the range of 0.80 ~ 1.25. Adverse events were similar for both products and no significant safety concerns were noted in the laboratory results, vital signs, or electrocardiogram.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the PK/PD similarity of 22011 to Ryzodeg with a comparable safety profile.Trial Registration: http://www.chinadrugtrials.org.cn/index.html with an identifier of CTR20230678, registered 15 March 2023.

Clinical Pharmacology of GP40321 (Insulin Glulisine Biosimilar): Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Comparability in a Hyperinsulinemic-Euglycemic Clamp Procedure

The aim of the study was to compare the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of T-glu (GP40321, test drug), and reference insulin glulisine in a hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp procedure. During this study, 34 healthy male volunteers underwent the hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp procedure following subcutaneous 0.3 U/kg injection of T-glu or reference insulin glulisine in a randomized, double-blind, crossover study. Plasma glucose levels were monitored every 5 minutes for 8 hours. Glucose infusion rate adjustment was based on the blood glucose measurements. Evaluation of PD was performed using the glucose infusion rate values, while PK was calculated using insulin concentrations measured via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The study results showed that the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratios of primary PK and PD of T-glu and reference insulin glulisine were within 80%-125% comparability limits, and that the safety profiles were comparable. PK, PD, and safety similarity of T-glu and reference insulin glulisine was demonstrated.

Bioequivalence of Reference and Biosimilar Preparations of Premixed Biphasic Insulin Aspart: A Comparative Clamp Study

Biphasic insulin aspart 30 is a premixed formulation containing a soluble fraction of insulin aspart (30%) and a protamine-crystallized fraction (70%) that was developed to combine the rapid-acting and prolonged advantages of commercially available insulins. The aim of this bioequivalence study was to compare the pharmacokinetics (PKs) of GP-bi-asp and Novo-bi-asp, and evaluate the pharmacodynamic (PD) properties as well as the safety of these drugs in the hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp (HEC) procedure. This was a phase 1, randomized, double-blind, 2-sequence, 2-period crossover study. Thirty-four male volunteers who met the inclusion criteria underwent the HEC procedure following a single subcutaneous injection of 0.4 IU/kg of either GP-bi-asp or Novo-bi-asp in the abdomen. After the treatment, the subjects' plasma glucose levels were monitored for 24 hours and the glucose infusion rate (GIR) was adjusted to maintain the target blood glucose level. The PD parameters were calculated using GIR values. Insulin aspart concentrations were measured in blood plasma using validated ELISA assays to evaluate the PK parameters of the investigated drugs. The 90% confidence intervals for the geometric mean ratios of PK (Cins and AUCins-T ) parameters of Gp-bi-asp and Novo-bi-asp were close to 100% and within the 80%-125% limits for establishing bioequivalence. The safety profiles of both drugs were also comparable.

The efficacy and safety of GP40081 (insulin aspart biphasic 30) compared with NovoMix® 30 in Type 2 diabetes patients

Aim: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of insulin Aspart-Mix biosimilar candidate GP40081 (GP-Asp30) compared with NovoMix® 30 (NN-Asp30). Materials & methods: In a randomized open-label, active-controlled, 26-week non-inferiority clinical trial 264 patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomized 1:1 to receive once-daily GP-Asp30 or NN-Asp30. The primary safety end point was the immune response rate. Efficacy outcomes were a mean change in HbA1c (primary), frequency of achieving a glycemic g fasting plasma glucose levels, 7-point glucose profiles, and insulin doses. Results: The immune response developed in 10/126 (8%) participants in the GP-Asp30 group and in 10/125 (8%) participants in the NN-Asp30 group (p = 1.000). The mean difference in HbA1c change between groups was 0.12 (95%CI [-0.14, 0.38]). Other secondary efficacy and safety outcomes weren't statistically different between the two groups. Conclusion: GP-Asp30 demonstrated similar safety and efficacy compared with NN-Asp30 and may be considered a biosimilar insulin.

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).