Single-Dose Euglycemic Clamp Study Demonstrating Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Similarity Between SAR341402 Insulin Aspart and US- and EU-Approved Versions of Insulin Aspart in Subjects with Type 1 Diabetes

Biosimilar insulins: Narrative review of the regulatory framework and registration studies

Biosimilar insulins have been commercially available in the EU since 2014. Currently, six biosimilar insulins are approved in the EU and four in the US. However, commercial success has been limited, which may be in part due to concerns among physicians and people with diabetes that biosimilar insulins are substandard in efficacy, safety, and quality compared to reference products. Indeed, unlike generic drugs, which are identical chemical copies of their reference counterparts, in a biological manufacturing process, subtle differences can arise between products, even if the tertiary molecular structures are the same. Therefore, there is a clear regulatory pathway for the approval of biosimilars. For biosimilar insulins, preclinical (hormone receptor and cell) studies are needed to investigate potential differences in the response to biosimilar insulins and their reference medicinal products. In addition, there is a requirement for pivotal clinical pharmacology studies involving the euglycaemic glucose clamp technique to investigate comparative time-action profiles, whereas later-phase clinical safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity studies usually are no longer needed for the approval of biosimilar insulins. This narrative review provides an overview of pivotal phase 1 clamp and supportive larger phase 3 studies that supported the registration of biosimilar insulins in the EU and US, and discusses the need for interchangeability and immunogenicity studies. Overall, the current regulatory approach in the EU and in the USA ensures that there are no relevant differences between biosimilar insulins and their reference products. Therefore, people with diabetes and prescribers can use EU or US approved biosimilars without any concerns. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Six biosimilar insulins are approved by the EU regulator, the European Medicines Agency, and are currently available on the EU market. Three biosimilar insulins are approved by the US regulator, the Food and Drugs Agency, and are currently available on the US market. However, commercial success has been limited, which may be in part due to concerns among physicians and people with diabetes that biosimilar insulins are perhaps not quite the same as the original products with respect to efficacy, safety, and quality. Such concerns could be valid, because unlike generic drugs, which are identical chemical copies of their reference counterparts, biosimilar protein biosimilar and originator drugs cannot be chemically identical. In a biological manufacturing process, subtle difference can and will arise between products, even if the tertiary molecular structures, that is the amino acid sequence, the interactions between different parts of the protein and the three-dimensional folding, are the same. To assure that these unavoidable subtle differences do not result in differences in efficacy, safety and quality, there is a clear regulatory pathway for the approval of biosimilars. In addition to chemical studies, preclinical studies are needed to investigate potential differences in the response to biosimilar insulins and their reference medicinal products. These include e.g. studies investigating affinity to the insulin receptor, and how the insulins induce their effect in cell models. Next, pivotal clinical pharmacology studies involving the euglycaemic glucose clamp technique to investigate comparative time action profiles are required. Later phase clinical safety, efficacy and immunogenicity studies usually are no longer needed for the approval of biosimilar insulins. This narrative review provides an overview of pivotal phase 1 clamp and supportive larger phase 3 studies which supported registration of biosimilar insulins in the EU and US, and discusses the need for interchangeability and immunogenicity studies. Overall, the current regulatory approach in the EU and in the USA ensures that there are no relevant differences between biosimilar insulins and their reference products. Therefore, people with diabetes and prescribers can use EU or US approved biosimilars without any concerns.

Equivalence of Biosimilarity in Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Properties of Recombinant Human Insulin Aspart

Insulin aspart, a rapid-acting analog, achieves faster subcutaneous absorption than regular insulin. This study aimed to demonstrate equivalence in the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) characteristics of Recombinant Human Insulin Aspart from BioGenomics Limited (as test) and Novo-Nordisk (as reference) in healthy adult males. This was a double-blind, randomized, cross-over study, assessing PK and PD parameters under fasting conditions. Participants received either 0.2 U/kg of test or reference product via a subcutaneous route in the abdominal area. PK parameters included maximum serum concentration (Cmax), area under the curve [(AUC[0-t]) and (AUC [0-∞])], time to maximum serum concentration (Tmax), and half-life (t½). PD parameters included amount of glucose infused (Gtot), maximum glucose infusion rate (Rmax), time of Rmax (tRmax), late time of half-maximal glucose infusion rate (tRmax50), time of first measured glucose infusion rate (tonset), and cessation of glucose infusion/clamp (tRlast). Seventy subjects between 18 and 45 years of age and body mass index between 18 and 27 kg/m2 were enrolled. The 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for Cmax, AUC[0-t], AUC [0-∞] for insulin, and the 95% CIs for Gtot, Rmax for glucose were within 80%-125% as required to assess test-reference bioequivalence. No serious adverse events were observed. Both the preparations showed bioequivalence under fasting conditions with a similar safety profile.

Safety and Efficacy of Switching SAR341402 Insulin Aspart and Originator Insulin Aspart vs Continuous Use of Originator Insulin Aspart in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: The GEMELLI X Trial

BACKGROUND

SAR341402 insulin aspart (SAR-Asp) is a rapid-acting insulin analog developed as an interchangeable biosimilar to the marketed insulin aspart reference product (NovoLog; NN-Asp). GEMELLI X was a randomized controlled trial to assess outcomes with a biosimilar in line with the US Food and Drug Administration requirements for designation as an interchangeable biosimilar. This report assessed whether multiple switches between SAR-Asp and NN-Asp lead to equivalent safety and efficacy compared with continuous use of NN-Asp in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) treated with multiple daily injections, using once-daily insulin glargine U100 (Lantus) as the basal insulin.

METHODS

This open-label randomized (1:1), parallel-group, phase 3 trial compared four × four weeks of alternating use of individually titrated SAR-Asp and NN-Asp (NN-Asp for first four weeks, SAR-Asp in last four weeks; switching group) vs 16 weeks of continuous use of NN-Asp (nonswitching group). End points included pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, adverse events, hypoglycemia, insulin dose, and change in efficacy parameters.

RESULTS

Of the 210 patients randomized, 200 (95.5%) completed the trial. Patients assigned to switching group (n = 104) and nonswitching group (n = 106) showed similar safety and tolerability, including anti-insulin aspart antibody responses, adverse events, and hypoglycemia. At week 16, there was no relevant difference between switching vs nonswitching groups in the change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (least square [LS] mean difference = 0.05% [95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.13, 0.22]; 0.50 mmol/mol [-1.40, 2.39]), fasting plasma glucose (LS mean difference = 0.23 mmol/L [95% CI = -1.08, 1.53]; 4.12 mg/dL [-19.38, 27.62]), and changes in insulin dosages.

CONCLUSIONS

Alternating doses of SAR-Asp and NN-Asp compared with continuous use of NN-Asp showed similar safety, immunogenicity, and clinical efficacy in adults with T1D. This study supports interchangeability between SAR-Asp and NN-Asp in T1D management.

Pharmacokinetic similarity of switching SAR341402 insulin aspart biosimilar and NovoLog insulin aspart versus continuous use of NovoLog in adults with type 1 diabetes: The GEMELLI X trial

AIM

To assess whether multiple switches between SAR341402 biosimilar insulin aspart (SAR-Asp) and the insulin aspart reference product (NovoLog; NN-Asp) leads to equivalent pharmacokinetic (PK) exposure compared with continuous use of NN-Asp in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study randomized (1:1) 210 subjects with T1D treated with once-daily insulin glargine U100 as basal insulin to four 4-week periods of alternating multiple daily injections of SAR-Asp and NN-Asp (NN-Asp for the first 4 weeks, SAR-Asp in the last 4 weeks; switching group) versus 16 weeks of continuous NN-Asp (non-switching group). At week 16, a single dose (0.15 U/kg) of SAR-Asp in the switching group (n = 95) or NN-Asp in the non-switching group (n = 105) was given in the morning before breakfast. Primary PK endpoints were area under the plasma concentration curve (AUC) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ) of SAR-Asp versus NN-Asp after the single dose at week 16.

RESULTS

The extent of PK exposure was similar between the two treatments (SAR-Asp in the switching group and NN-Asp in the non-switching group) at week 16, with point estimates of treatment ratios close to 1. The 90% confidence intervals for AUC treatment ratios were contained within 0.8-1.25. For Cmax in the primary analysis set, the upper confidence limit was 1.32. This was because of the profiles of three participants with implausible high values. A prespecified sensitivity analysis excluding implausible values showed results contained within 0.8-1.25.

CONCLUSIONS

PK exposure of SAR-Asp (switching group) and reference NN-Asp (non-switching group) were similar, supporting interchangeability between these two insulin aspart products.

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).

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.

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.

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.

A single-dose euglycaemic clamp study in two cohorts to compare the exposure of SAR341402 (insulin aspart) Mix 70/30 with US- and European-approved versions of insulin aspart Mix 70/30 and SAR341402 rapid-acting solution in subjects with type 1 diabetes

AIM

To compare the pharmacokinetic exposure of SAR341402 Mix 70/30 (SAR_Asp -Mix) with US- and European (EU)-approved versions of insulin aspart Mix 70/30 (NovoLog Mix 70/30 [NN-Mix-US]/NovoMix 30 [NN-Mix-EU]) and SAR341402 insulin aspart solution (SAR-Asp) in subjects with type 1 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, crossover trial in two cohorts. Fifty-two subjects received a single subcutaneous 0.3 U/kg dose of each treatment and underwent a euglycaemic clamp procedure lasting for a maximum of 24 hours after dosing. In cohort 1, subjects (N = 36) were exposed once each to SAR_Asp -Mix, NN-Mix-US and NN-Mix-EU. In cohort 2, subjects (N = 16) were exposed once each to SAR_Asp -Mix and SAR-Asp.

RESULTS

Of the 52 subjects randomized, 48 completed all treatment periods. In cohort 1, the extent of exposure (total and maximum concentration) was similar among the three treatments, with the 90% confidence intervals for pairwise treatment ratios meeting the predefined acceptance range (0.80 to 1.25). In cohort 2, statistically significant differences (P < .001) in early (0-4 hours) and intermediate (4-12 hours) exposure to SAR_Asp -Mix compared with SAR-Asp were observed, all exceeding a 20% difference. Pharmacodynamic results were in support of the pharmacokinetic findings for both cohorts. All treatments were well tolerated and there were no relevant differences in safety variables among treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

SAR_Asp -Mix showed similar pharmacokinetic exposure to commercially available insulin aspart Mix 70/30 formulations, and a distinct exposure profile compared with SAR-Asp.

Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of Insulin Aspart Biosimilar SAR341402 Compared with Originator Insulin Aspart in Adults with Diabetes (GEMELLI 1): A Subgroup Analysis by Prior Type of Mealtime Insulin

INTRODUCTION

The biosimilar SAR341402 insulin aspart (SAR-Asp) was compared to its originator NovoLog®/NovoRapid® insulin aspart (NN-Asp) in terms of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity, in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes switching from different rapid-acting insulin analogs.

METHODS

This phase 3, randomized, open-label, multinational, 52-week study (GEMELLI 1) enrolled participants with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (n = 597). At randomization, participants transitioned from NovoLog/NovoRapid (n = 380) or Humalog®/Liprolog® (n = 217) to equivalent (1:1) doses (or a dose at the discretion of the investigator) of either SAR-Asp or NN-Asp (1:1 randomization). Participants were treated with multiple daily injections in combination with insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Lantus®). In this subgroup analysis, efficacy measures (change in hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c], insulin dose [total, basal and mealtime]), and safety outcomes (hypoglycemia incidence, adverse events, anti-insulin aspart antibodies) of SAR-Asp were compared with those of NN-Asp separately according to the participants' prestudy mealtime insulin.

RESULTS

At week 26 (primary efficacy endpoint), change in HbA1c was similar between SAR-Asp and NN-Asp in those participants pre-treated with NovoLog/NovoRapid (least squares [LS] mean difference - 0.04%, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.182 to 0.106%) or Humalog/Liprolog (LS mean difference - 0.15%, 95% CI - 0.336 to 0.043%) (P value for treatment by subgroup interaction = 0.36). This HbA1c response persisted over the 52 weeks of the study similarly for both treatments within each subgroup. In both subgroups, changes in insulin doses were similar between treatments over 26 weeks and 52 weeks, as were the incidences of severe or any hypoglycemia, adverse events (including hypersensitivity and injection site reactions), and anti-insulin aspart antibodies.

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy and safety (including immunogenicity) profiles of SAR-Asp are similar to those of NN-Asp over 52 weeks in adults with diabetes irrespective of prior type of mealtime insulin.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03211858.

Safety and Tolerability of Insulin Aspart Biosimilar SAR341402 Versus Originator Insulin Aspart (NovoLog) When Used in Insulin Pumps in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized, Open-Label Clinical Trial

Background: The aim was to assess the safety and tolerability of the insulin aspart biosimilar/follow-on product SAR341402 (100 U/mL solution; SAR-Asp) and originator insulin aspart (100 U/mL; NN-Asp; NovoLog®) self-administered through an insulin pump. Materials and Methods: This randomized, open-label, 2 × 4-week crossover study enrolled 45 adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Participants were randomized 1:1 to the treatment sequence SAR-Asp/NN-Asp or NN-Asp/SAR-Asp. The basal and prandial insulin doses were individually titrated. The primary outcome was the number of participants with at least one infusion set occlusion (infusion set change due to failure-to-correct hyperglycemia [plasma glucose ≥250 mg/dL] by insulin pump bolus) during the 4-week treatment. The main secondary outcome was the number of participants with at least one episode of unexplained hyperglycemia (regardless of correction by an insulin pump bolus without apparent material defect, medical, dietary, insulin dosing reason, or pump problem). Results: The number of participants reporting ≥1 infusion set occlusion were similar between treatments: 14/43 on SAR-Asp (33 events) and 12/43 on NN-Asp (24 events). The estimated difference in infusion set occlusion risk for SAR-Asp versus NN-Asp was 4.1% (95% confidence interval: -9.3% to 17.4%). The number of participants with ≥1 episode of unexplained hyperglycemia was similar between treatments (31/43 on SAR-Asp [154 events]; 32/43 on NN-Asp [175 events]). Hypoglycemia, treatment-emergent adverse events, hypersensitivity, and injection site reactions were similar between treatments. Conclusions: SAR-Asp and NN-Asp were well tolerated and had similar infusion set occlusions over a 4-week period in insulin pump users with T1D.

Safety, Immunogenicity, and Glycemic Control of Insulin Aspart Biosimilar SAR341402 Versus Originator Insulin Aspart in People with Diabetes Also Using Insulin Glargine: 12-Month Results from the GEMELLI 1 Trial

Background: SAR341402 (SAR-Asp) is a biosimilar/follow-on of the originator insulin aspart-NovoLog^®/NovoRapid^® (NN-Asp). This study investigated whether the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity findings for SAR-Asp versus NN-Asp, observed over 6 months in people with type 1 (n = 497) or type 2 diabetes (n = 100) treated with multiple daily injections in combination with insulin glargine (Lantus^®), are maintained after 12 months. Materials and Methods: GEMELLI 1 was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 study. Participants completing the initial 6-month treatment period continued on SAR-Asp or NN-Asp, as randomized, for a 6-month safety extension. Results: Of the 597 participants randomized, 264 out of 301 (87.7%) and 263 out of 296 (88.9%) assigned to SAR-Asp and NN-Asp, respectively, completed 12 months of treatment. Improved glycemic control was sustained at 12 months in both treatment groups, with similar least-squares mean reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline (SAR-Asp: -0.25%; NN-Asp: -0.26%). Fasting plasma glucose and seven-point self-monitored plasma glucose profile changes, including postprandial glucose excursions, and changes in mealtime and basal insulin dosages were similar between groups. Safety and tolerability, including anti-insulin aspart antibodies (AIAs; incidence, prevalence, titers, cross-reactivity to human insulin), neutralizing antibodies (incidence, prevalence), hypoglycemia, and treatment-emergent adverse events (including hypersensitivity events and injection site reactions), were similar between groups. No relationship was observed between maximum individual AIA titers and change in HbA1c or insulin dose, hypoglycemia, or hypersensitivity reactions or between efficacy/safety measures and subgroups by presence or absence of treatment-emergent AIA. Conclusions: SAR-Asp and NN-Asp demonstrated similar efficacy and safety (including immunogenicity) in people with diabetes over 12 months of treatment.

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Aspart Biosimilar SAR341402 Versus Originator Insulin Aspart in People with Diabetes Treated for 26 Weeks with Multiple Daily Injections in Combination with Insulin Glargine: A Randomized Open-Label Trial (GEMELLI 1)

Background: This study compared the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of insulin aspart biosimilar/follow-on biologic product SAR341402 (SAR-Asp) with originator insulin aspart-NovoLog^®/NovoRapid^® (NN-Asp) in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with multiple daily injections in combination with insulin glargine (Lantus^®; Gla-100). Materials and Methods: This 6-month, randomized, open-label, phase 3 study (NCT03211858) enrolled 597 people with T1D (n = 497) or T2D (n = 100). Participants were randomized 1:1 to mealtime SAR-Asp (n = 301) or NN-Asp (n = 296) in combination with Gla-100. The primary objective was to demonstrate noninferiority (by 0.3% margin in the intent-to-treat population) of SAR-Asp versus NN-Asp in HbA1c change from baseline to week 26. Immunogenicity was also assessed in terms of anti-insulin aspart antibody (AIA) status (positive/negative) and titers during the study. Results: HbA1c was similarly improved in both treatment groups (SAR-Asp -0.38%; NN-Asp -0.30%); the least squares mean difference at week 26 for SAR-Asp minus NN-Asp was -0.08% (95% confidence interval: -0.192 to 0.039), thus meeting the criteria for noninferiority between SAR-Asp and NN-Asp and inverse noninferiority of NN-Asp versus SAR-Asp. Changes in fasting plasma glucose and seven-point self-monitored plasma glucose profile, including postprandial glucose excursions, and insulin dosages were similar in both groups at week 26. Safety and tolerability, including AIA responses (incidence, prevalence), hypoglycemia, and adverse events (including hypersensitivity events and injection site reactions), were similar between groups. Conclusions: SAR-Asp demonstrated effective glycemic control with a similar safety and immunogenicity profile to NN-Asp in people with diabetes treated for 26 weeks.