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

An exploratory analysis of the cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine 300 units/mL versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL over a lifetime horizon using the BRAVO diabetes model

BACKGROUND

This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (Gla-100) in insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs).

METHODS

Costs and outcomes for Gla-300 versus Gla-100 from a US healthcare payer perspective were assessed using the BRAVO diabetes model. Baseline clinical data were derived from EDITION-3, a 12-month randomized controlled trial comparing Gla-300 with Gla-100 in insulin-naïve adults with inadequately controlled T2D on OADs. Treatment costs were calculated based on doses observed in EDITION-3 and 2020 US net prices, while costs for complications were based on published literature. Lifetime costs ($US) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were predicted and used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimates; extensive scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Lifetime medical costs were estimated to be $353,441 and $352,858 for individuals receiving Gla-300 and Gla-100 respectively; insulin costs were $52,613 and $50,818. Gla-300 was associated with a gain of 8.97 QALYs and 21.12 life-years, while Gla-100 was associated with a gain of 8.89 QALYs and 21.07 life-years. This resulted in an ICER of $7522/QALY gained for Gla-300 versus Gla-100. Thus, Gla-300 was cost-effective versus Gla-100 based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Compared with Gla-100, Gla-300 provided a net monetary benefit of $3290. Scenario and sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the base case.

CONCLUSION

Gla-300 may be a cost-effective treatment option versus Gla-100 over a lifetime horizon for insulin-naïve people in the United States with T2D inadequately controlled on OADs.

Injectable systems for long-lasting insulin therapy

Insulin therapy is the mainstay to treat diabetes characterizedd by hyperglycemia. However, its short half-life of only 4-6 min limits its effectiveness in treating chronic diabetes. Advances in recombinant DNA technology and protein engineering have led to several insulin analogue products that have up to 42 h of glycemic control. However, these insulin analogues still require once- or twice-daily injections for optimal glycemic control and have poor patient compliance and adherence issues. To achieve insulin release for more than one day, different injectable delivery systems including microspheres, in situ forming depots, nanoparticles and composite systems have been developed. Several of these delivery systems have advanced to clinical trials for once-weekly insulin injection. This review comprehensively summarizes the developments of injectable insulin analogs and delivery systems covering the whole field of injectable long-lasting insulin technologies from prototype design, preclinical studies, clinical trials to marketed products for the treatment of diabetes.

Immunogenicity and Efficacy of Insulin Glargine Biosimilar Ezelin versus Originator Insulin Glargine in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

PURPOSE

To compare the immunogenicity and efficacy of insulin glargine biosimilar Ezelin (EZL) versus originator insulin glargine Lantus (LAN) as a reference basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a randomized, multicenter, open-label, 24-week study in insulin-naïve patients with T2D, with HbA1c of >7.0%. We randomly assigned 133 eligible patients to receive either EZL or LAN. Baseline characteristics, including insulin autoantibody (IAA), zinc transporter 8 (ZnT8) antibody, HbA1C, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose (2hPPG), AST, ALT, BUN, eGFR, and oral antidiabetic drugs, were obtained before starting insulin treatment. After starting treatment, insulin dose was titrated to achieve FPG target along with oral antidiabetic drugs. Patients were given home glucometer and assisted to record plasma glucose measurement and adverse event (AE). Every month, patients came to the diabetes clinic and performed a regular physical examination and intensifying treatment if needed. Out of the 133 randomized patients, only 122 completed the study and can be examined for their IAA and ZnT8 after 6 months of treatment. The study was registered in clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03352674.

RESULTS

There is a similar proportion of patients with changes of IAA from baseline: 1 out of 58 (1.7%) patients receiving EZL versus 1 out of 64 (1.6%) patients receiving LAN (p = 1.000). One patient in the EZL group (1.7%) versus none in the LAN group experienced a change of ZnT8 antibody from baseline. Similar glucose control in EZL versus LAN was determined by the change in HbA1c, FPG, and 2hPPG (-2.0%, -67.46 mg/dL, and -76.51 mg/dL in the EZL group versus -1.7%, -58.11 mg/dL, and -70.03 mg/dL in the LAN group). There were six events of documented hypoglycemia in the EZL group versus five events in the LAN group. No patients experienced diabetic ketoacidosis during the study.

CONCLUSION

Overall, insulin glargine biosimilar EZL and originator insulin glargine LAN have shown a similar immunogenicity profile, as well as efficacy in providing glucose control and safety findings in T2D populations.

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.

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.