The advent of biosimilars for the treatment of diabetes: current status and future directions

Application of machine learning in affordable and accessible insulin management for type 1 and 2 diabetes: A comprehensive review

Proper insulin management is vital for maintaining stable blood sugar levels and preventing complications associated with diabetes. However, the soaring costs of insulin present significant challenges to ensuring affordable management. This paper conducts a comprehensive review of current literature on the application of machine learning (ML) in insulin management for diabetes patients, particularly focusing on enhancing affordability and accessibility within the United States. The review encompasses various facets of insulin management, including dosage calculation and response, prediction of blood glucose and insulin sensitivity, initial insulin estimation, resistance prediction, treatment adherence, complications, hypoglycemia prediction, and lifestyle modifications. Additionally, the study identifies key limitations in the utilization of ML within the insulin management literature and suggests future research directions aimed at furthering accessible and affordable insulin treatments. These proposed directions include exploring insurance coverage, optimizing insulin type selection, assessing the impact of biosimilar insulin and market competition, considering mental health factors, evaluating insulin delivery options, addressing cost-related issues affecting insulin usage and adherence, and selecting appropriate patient cost-sharing programs. By examining the potential of ML in addressing insulin management affordability and accessibility, this work aims to envision improved and cost-effective insulin management practices. It not only highlights existing research gaps but also offers insights into future directions, guiding the development of innovative solutions that have the potential to revolutionize insulin management and benefit patients reliant on this life-saving treatment.

Building better biobetters: From fundamentals to industrial application

Biological drugs or biopharmaceuticals off patent open a large market for biosimilars and biobetters, follow-on biologics. Biobetters, in particular, are new drugs designed from existing ones with improved properties such as higher selectivity, stability, half-life and/or lower toxicity/immunogenicity. Glycosylation is one of the most used strategies to improve biological drugs, nonetheless bioconjugation is an additional alternative and refers to the covalent attachment of polymers to biological drugs. Extensive research on novel polymers is underway, nonetheless PEGylation is still the best alternative with the longest clinical track record. Innovative trends based on genetic engineering techniques such as fusion proteins and PASylation are also promising. In this review, all these alternatives wereexplored as well as current market trends, legislation and future perspectives.

RNA N6-methyladenosine: a promising molecular target in metabolic diseases

N6-methyladenosine is a prevalent and abundant transcriptome modification, and its methylation regulates the various aspects of RNAs, including transcription, translation, processing and metabolism. The methylation of N6-methyladenosine is highly associated with numerous cellular processes, which plays important roles in the development of physiological process and diseases. The high prevalence of metabolic diseases poses a serious threat to human health, but its pathological mechanisms remain poorly understood. Recent studies have reported that the progression of metabolic diseases is closely related to the expression of RNA N6-methyladenosine modification. In this review, we aim to summarize the biological and clinical significance of RNA N6-methyladenosine modification in metabolic diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, osteoporosis and immune-related metabolic diseases.

Biosimilar Insulins - What a Clinician Needs to Know?

As the first biologics produced by recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) technology were approved in the late 1980s and consequently the exclusive marketing rights of most of these biological medicinal products have expired or will expire very shortly, it is quite evident that biosimilars are being developed and marketed in developed as well as developing countries in line with these expiries. Hence, there is an explosion of published papers and scientific programs on biological medicinal products and biosimilar insulins in the last decade or so. Each of these papers or scientific programs generated more questions than providing clinically useful answers. The specific aim of the medical literature or scientific programs were blurred due to lot of attention (created by the innovators) directed towards confusing terminologies, past mishaps with biosimilars (in the era with the absence of regulatory guidelines for biosimilars) diverting our attention from the matters relevant to clinicians and patients. One of the principle reason behind this phenomenon has been our poor understanding of the manufacturing process, regulatory pathways, and study endpoints involved in developing a biosimilar in the present era. This drawback resulted in a nonsystematic approach in analyzing the biosimilars and apparently resulting in confusion. This review attempts at demystifying certain facets of frequently encountered information on biosimilars and acquire a personal understanding on the same, rather than depending on conflicting versions floated at different continuing medical educations (CMEs) and Diabetes Congresses.

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.

[Effectiveness of an intervention strategy in the biosimilar glargine prescription pattern in primary care]

Objetivos

Evaluar el impacto de una estrategia de intervención en el patrón de prescripción de la insulina glargina biosimilar (IGBio) respecto al compuesto de referencia y analizar la influencia del perfil del prescriptor y su repercusión económica.

Diseño

Estudio cuasiexperimental de tipo antes/después, con un grupo control.

Emplazamiento

Dos áreas de gestión sanitaria (AGS) de Sevilla: AGS Sur (área intervención) y AGS Osuna (área control).

Participantes

La totalidad de los médicos de atención primaria de cada área: 220 y 100, respectivamente.

Intervención

Se realizaron sesiones formativas, se envió un boletín farmacoterapéutico e informes de retroalimentación mensual durante los 6 meses tras la intervención formativa. El estudio fue llevado a cabo desde la comercialización del biosimilar, en octubre de 2015, hasta febrero de 2016 (pre-intervención) y desde febrero hasta agosto de 2016 (intervención).

Mediciones principales

Los indicadores analizados han sido porcentaje de pacientes y porcentaje de dosis diaria definida (DDD) con IGBio respecto al total y el coste. Los médicos han sido analizados por subgrupos de edad, sexo, formación, tipo de contrato, años de experiencia y cupo.

Resultados principales

Ambos indicadores aumentan al mismo nivel en ambas áreas antes de la intervención. Sin embargo, después de la intervención fueron significativamente diferentes entre las áreas (p < 0,0005), intervalo de confianza al 95% (2,5-4,7). La razón del porcentaje de incremento relativo acumulado de ambas variables entre áreas fue 3,73 veces mayor tras la intervención. En el área intervención no se encontraron diferencias para los subgrupos de médicos evaluados.

Conclusiones

Estrategias encaminadas a la formación/información, así como el seguimiento a los profesionales sanitarios, inciden en el patrón de prescripción y pueden tener una repercusión económica. Nuestros resultados no se han visto influenciados por el perfil del prescriptor.

A GUIDE TO FOLLOW-ON BIOLOGICS AND BIOSIMILARS WITH A FOCUS ON INSULIN

OBJECTIVE

Many healthcare providers in the U.S. are not familiar with follow-on biologics and biosimilars nor with their critical distinctions from standard generics. Our aim is to provide a detailed review of both, with a focus on insulins in the U.S. regulatory system.

METHODS

Literature has been reviewed to provide information on various aspects of biosimilars and a follow-on biologic of insulin. This will include structure, efficacy, cost, switching, and legal issues.

RESULTS

Biologic products are large, complex molecules derived from living sources. Follow-on biologics are copies of the original innovator biologics. It is not possible to copy their structure exactly, leading to possible differences in efficacy and safety. Thus, regulations involving biologics are complex. Follow-on biologics are regulated under two Federal laws until March 23, 2020: the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Biosimilars are follow-on biologics which have been approved via the PHS Act. They consist of those which are "highly similar" to the reference drug and those which are "expected" to produce the same clinical result as the reference drug (interchangeable biosimilars). Interchangeable biosimilars have been determined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to be substitutable by the pharmacist "without the intervention" of the prescriber. From the patient perspective, switching to a follow-on biologic may necessitate a change in delivery device, which may create issues for patient adherence and dosing.

CONCLUSION

Although they present several challenges in terms of regulation and acceptance, follow-on biologics have the potential to significantly reduce costs for patients requiring insulin therapy.

ABBREVIATIONS

BLA = biologics license application EU = European Union FDA = Food and Drug Administration FD&C = Food, Drug, and Cosmetic HCPCS = Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System INN = internatinal nonproprietary name NDA = new drug application PHS = Public Health Service.

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.

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.

Recombinant Human Insulin in Global Diabetes Management - Focus on Clinical Efficacy

Biosynthetic human insulin and insulin analogues are the mainstay of insulin therapy for both type 1 and type 2 diabetes although access to human insulin at affordable prices remains a global issue. The world is experiencing an exponential rise in the prevalence of diabetes presenting an urgent need to establish effective diabetes therapy in countries burdened by inadequate health care budgets, malnutrition and infectious diseases. Recombinant human insulin has replaced animal insulins and animal-based semisynthetic human insulin thereby available in sufficient quantities and at affordable prices able to provide global access to insulin therapy. In many patients, analog insulins can offer additional clinical benefit, although at a considerably higher price thus severely restricting availability in low income countries. The approval process for recombinant human insulins (i.e. biosimilars) and analogue insulins is highly variable in the developing countries in contrast to Europe and in North America, where it is well established within a strict regulatory framework. This review aims to discuss the future access to human insulin therapy in a global context with an ever increasing burden of diabetes and significant economic implications.

Biopharmaceuticals from microorganisms: from production to purification

The use of biopharmaceuticals dates from the 19th century and within 5–10 years, up to 50% of all drugs in development will be biopharmaceuticals. In the 1980s, the biopharmaceutical industry experienced a significant growth in the production and approval of recombinant proteins such as interferons (IFN α, β, and γ) and growth hormones. The production of biopharmaceuticals, known as bioprocess, involves a wide range of techniques. In this review, we discuss the technology involved in the bioprocess and describe the available strategies and main advances in microbial fermentation and purification process to obtain biopharmaceuticals.

Biosimilar infliximab for the management of rheumatoid arthritis in France: what are the expected savings?

Objectives

Biosimilar infliximab, the first similar biological medicinal product containing monoclonal antibodies to be commercialised, is likely to contribute to a significant reduction in healthcare costs. We aimed to assess the cost savings potential over 1 year of the use of biosimilar infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in Alsace and in France, in a real-life setting.

Methods

The analysis was based on a previously conducted observational study which evaluated the annual cost of the care of patients with RA treated with biological therapies in 2012 in Alsace. Average annual costs to manage RA patients were calculated, taking into account the decrease in the retail price between 2012 and 2015 (as given in the official national price list) and the local negotiated price for biosimilar infliximab. Annual cost savings for different biosimilar prescription scenarios were calculated using 2015 prices.

Results

Management of RA patients with biosimilar infliximab was significantly cheaper than with adalimumab or etanercept (€11 907 vs €12 981 and €13 551, respectively). The projected annual cost savings reached €13.6 million nationally, if all adult RA patients treated with the originator infliximab switched to the biosimilar drug. These savings, if fully reallocated for the treatment of RA, would enable the treatment of 1141 additional patients.

Conclusions

The study showed a positive financial impact of introducing biosimilar infliximab for the treatment of RA patients in France. Such savings could contribute to improved patient care by allowing more patients to be treated without more money being spent.