Efficacy and safety of LY2963016 insulin glargine compared with insulin glargine (Lantus®) in patients with type 1 diabetes in a randomized controlled trial: the ELEMENT 1 study

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.

Understanding Biosimilar Insulins - Development, Manufacturing, and Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

A wave of expiring patents for first-generation insulin analogues has created opportunities in the global insulin market for highly similar versions of these products, biosimilar insulins. Biologics are generally large, complex molecules produced through biotechnology in a living system, such as a microorganism, plant cell, or animal cell. Since manufacturing processes of biologics vary, biosimilars cannot be exact copies of their reference product but must exhibit a high degree of functional and structural similarity. Biosimilarity is proven by analytical approaches in comparative assessments, preclinical cell-based and animal studies, as well as clinical studies in humans facilitating the accumulation of evidence across all assessments. The approval of biosimilars follows detailed regulatory pathways derived from those of their reference products and established by agencies such as the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration. Regulatory authorities impose requirements to ensure that biosimilars meet high standards of quality, safety, and efficacy and are highly similar to their reference product.

PURPOSE

This review aims to aid clinical understanding of the high standards of development, manufacturing, and regulation of biosimilar insulins.

METHODS

Recent relevant studies indexed by PubMed and regulatory documents were included.

CONCLUSIONS

Driven by price competition, the emergence of biosimilar insulins may help expand global access to current insulin analogues. To maximize the impact of the advantage for falling retail costs of biosimilar insulins compared with that of reference insulins, healthcare professionals and insulin users must gain further awareness and confidence.

An Institutional Guide for Formulary Decisions of Biosimilars

Biologics have changed the landscape for the management of many debilitating chronic diseases but account for a significant expenditure of medications globally. Fortunately, advances in technology paved the way for the introduction of biosimilars, which are highly similar to the originator biologics. In the quest to reduce the budget impact of biologics, organizations have begun to adopt biosimilars. Institutions evaluating biosimilars for inclusion in the hospital formulary must make informed formulary decisions by conducting a thorough review of key elements for evaluation of biosimilars and address the multidimensional aspects during the selection process of different biosimilar products. Therefore, we aim to present an institutional guide of these elements to inform formulary decisions. These key elements include biosimilar evaluation for formulary addition; regulatory approval; substitution, interchangeability, and switching; extrapolation; product characteristics, manufacturing, and supply chain issues; pharmacoeconomic evaluations; traceability, nomenclature, and coding; education; and pharmacovigilance.

Prescriber Perspectives on Biosimilar Adoption and Potential Role of Clinical Pharmacology: A Workshop Summary

The approval and adoption of biosimilar products are essential to contain increasing healthcare costs and provide more affordable choices for patients. Despite steady progress in the number of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) biosimilar approvals over the years, biosimilar adoption in the United States has been slow and gradual, largely driven by payers rather than clinicians. In order to better understand the barriers to biosimilar adoption in the clinic, the University of Maryland Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (M-CERSI) and the FDA jointly hosted a virtual workshop on April 13, 2022, titled "Biosimilars: A Decade of Experience and Future Directions - Strategies for Improving Biosimilar Adoption and the Potential Role of Clinical Pharmacology." This summary documents the experiences of four leading academic clinicians with specialties in oncology, rheumatology, gastroenterology, and endocrinology and their perspectives on how to increase biosimilar adoption, including the role of clinical pharmacology. Besides systemic changes in pricing and reimbursement, there is a need for additional education of a broad range of providers, including advanced care practitioners, and patients themselves. Educational efforts highlighting the rigor of the studies that support the approval of biosimilars-including the clinical pharmacology studies-and the benefits of biosimilars, can play a major role in improving biosimilar acceptance.

Real-World Impact of Switching From Insulin Glargine (Lantus®) to Basaglar® and Potential Cost Saving in a Large Public Healthcare System in Saudi Arabia

Background

The advent of Basaglar^®, which is a biosimilar insulin glargine formulation for Lantus^® has brought hope that it will result in similar outcomes and lower costs. However, some health practitioners raised some concerns about the therapeutic equivalence of this new biosimilar. Therefore, we aimed to examine the clinical and financial impact of switching from Lantus^® to Basaglar^®.

Methods

This was a single–center retrospective chart review study of adult patients (e.g., ≥18 years) with diabetes mellitus (DM) who were treated with insulin glargine (Lantus^®) for at least 12 months and then switched to Basaglar^® for another 12 months. The potential cost savings for the years 2018 to 2021 and the cost avoidance for 2022 were estimated using different conversion ratios between the two insulin glargine products (Basaglar^® and Lantus^®) and acquisition prices.

Results

One–hundred patients with DM who were previously treated with Lantus^® and switched to Basaglar^® were retrospectively recruited. About two–thirds of the patients (68%) had type 2 DM, and the male and female patients were equally represented. The mean glycated hemoglobin (A1C) at baseline was 9, and the mean difference in the A1C levels before and after switching to Basaglar^® was not significant (0.18, p-value = 0.503, 95% CI [−0.36–0.72]). Although the difference in the total daily insulin units between Lantus^® and Basaglar^® was not significant, the difference was leaning toward statistical significance despite the small sample size (−1.88, P-value = 0.25, 95% CI [−5.15–1.38]). Switching from Lantus^® to Basaglar^® could have led to significant cost savings that would range from approximately 1.77 to 23.7 million United States Dollars (USD) for the years 2018 to 2021 assuming an equal conversion ratio. However, those cost savings might not be realized if the switching to Basaglar^® required higher daily insulin units, and the difference in the public tender acquisition price between Lantus^® and Basaglar^® is less than 15%.

Conclusion

Basaglar^® and potentially other biosimilar insulin glargine products can lead to significant cost savings without compromising the quality of care. However, their acquisition prices should be discounted.

Immunogenicity of LY2963016 insulin glargine and Lantus® insulin glargine in Chinese patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

To evaluate the immunogenicity of LY2963016 insulin glargine (LY IGlar) versus originator insulin glargine (IGlar [Lantus®]) in Chinese patients with type 1 (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

ABES and ABET were prospective, randomized, active control, open-label, phase III studies, which enrolled Chinese patients with T1DM (N = 272) and T2DM (N = 536), respectively. Using data from these trials, immunogenicity of LY IGlar and IGlar was evaluated by comparing the proportion of patients with detectable anti-insulin glargine antibodies and the median antibody levels (percent binding) between the treatment groups. The incidence of anti-insulin antibodies and treatment-emergent antibody response (TEAR) were compared using Fisher's exact test or Pearson's chi-squared test. Levels of anti-insulin antibodies were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. We also evaluated the relationship between antibody formation or TEAR and clinical outcomes using analysis of covariance, negative binomial regression, or partial correlations.

RESULTS

There were no significant treatment differences in the incidence of detectable anti-insulin antibodies, median antibody levels or TEAR, overall or at Week 24 with last observation carried forward, and median antibody levels were low (<5%) after 24 weeks of treatment, in patients with T1DM or T2DM. Levels of anti-insulin antibodies and development of TEAR were not associated with efficacy (glycated haemoglobin, insulin dose [U/kg/d] and hypoglycaemia) or safety outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The immunogenicity profiles of LY IGlar and IGlar are similar, with low levels of anti-insulin antibodies observed for both insulins. No association was observed between antibody levels or TEAR status and clinical outcomes.

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.

Efficacy and immunogenicity of insulin biosimilar compared to their reference products: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To ascertain the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity from existing evidence via conducting a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials between biosimilar and originator insulins.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrails.gov were searched to identify head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compare the efficacy and safety of biosimilar insulin and its originator. Efficacy was assessed by change of HbA1C, fasting plasma glucose (laboratory or self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG)), and change all mean of 7 points- or 8 points- SMBG. Safety was assessed by change in proportion hypoglycemia and serious hypoglycemia. The occurrence of anti-insulin antibodies (AIAs) was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs with 6188 patients from different countries were included. Data were pooled using a random-effects model and were expressed as the mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence interval (CI). In efficacy, Insulin biosimilar products showed similar in change of HbA1C at weeks 26 and 52, the MD were 0.03 (95% CI - 0.02 to 0.07, p = 0.28), and 0.05 (95% CI - 0.05 to 0.15, p = 0.36), respectively. The proportion of HbA1C less than 7% at endpoint, the OR were 1.04 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.20, p = 0.64). The change of fasting plasma glucose (laboratory or SMBG) mmol/L in 24-52 weeks and change all mean of 7 points-/8 points- SMBG mmol/L in 24-52 weeks, the MD were 0.02 (95% CI - 0.20 to 0.24, p = 0.87) and - 0.34 (95% CI - 1.35 to 0.67, p = 0.51), respectively. In occurrence of hypoglycemia (≥ 1 events) and severe hypoglycemia, the OR were 0.96 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.09, p = 0.52) and 1.06 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.31, p = 0.62). The AIA was 1.02 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.16, p = 0.76). Analysis stratified by type of diabetes and duration of insulin. There was no significant difference between the biosimilar and their reference group in a different type of diabetes and different duration of insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin biosimilar showed comparable characteristics with the reference drug in terms of efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, through comprehensive and specific conventional meta-analysis.

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.

Efficacy and safety of LY2963016 insulin glargine versus insulin glargine (Lantus) in Chinese adults with type 2 diabetes: A phase III, randomized, open-label, controlled trial

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of LY2963016 insulin glargine (LY IGlar) with insulin glargine (Lantus; IGlar) combined with oral antihyperglycaemic medications (OAMs) in insulin-naive Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this phase III, open-label trial, adult patients with T2D receiving two or more OAMs at stable doses for 12 weeks or longer, with HbA1c of 7.0% or more and 11.0% or less, were randomized (2:1) to receive once-daily LY IGlar or IGlar for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of LY IGlar to IGlar at a 0.4% margin, and a gated secondary endpoint tested non-inferiority of IGlar to LY IGlar (-0.4% margin), assessed by least squares (LS) mean change in HbA1c from baseline to 24 weeks.

RESULTS

Patients assigned to LY IGlar (n = 359) and IGlar (n = 177) achieved similar and significant reductions (p < .001) in HbA1c from baseline. LY IGlar was non-inferior to IGlar for change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24 (-1.27% vs. -1.23%; LS mean difference: -0.05% [95% CI, -0.19% to 0.10%]) and IGlar was non-inferior to LY IGlar. The study therefore showed equivalence of LY IGlar and IGlar for the primary endpoint. At week 24, there were no between-group differences in the proportion of patients achieving an HbA1c of less than 7.0%, seven-point self-measured blood glucose, insulin dose or weight gain. Adverse events, allergic reactions, hypoglycaemia and insulin antibodies were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily LY IGlar and IGlar, combined with OAMs, provide effective and similar glycaemic control with comparable safety profiles in insulin-naive Chinese patients with T2D.

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.

Real-World Evaluation of Dosing in Patients Converted From Insulin Glargine (Lantus) to Insulin Glargine (Basaglar)

Background: Basaglar, insulin glargine (BGlar; Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, IN), a follow-on biologic, was developed after the patent for Lantus, insulin glargine (LGlar; Sanofi-Aventis, Paris, France) expired. Objective: To compare the dosing and hemoglobin A_1C (A1C)-lowering effects of BGlar compared with LGlar in a real-world setting. Methods: Adult patients, at 5 clinics, with type 1 (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who were converted from LGlar to BGlar were included in this retrospective observational study. The primary outcome compared mean basal insulin dose (U/d) from the date of conversion to 6 months. Basal insulin and total daily insulin doses were also compared from baseline to 3- and 12-months postconversion, as also change in A1C, body weight, and estimated monthly acquisition costs of basal insulin. Results: Of the 225 patients included, 56% were male, and 81% had T2DM. The mean conversion dose (U/d) of LGlar was 46.3 ± 32.7. There was no significant difference in the mean BGlar dose (U/d) at 6 months (45.9 ± 33.5; P = 0.52), nor was there a statistical difference at 3 or 12 months. There were no significant differences in change in A1C at any time point. The estimated monthly acquisition cost of BGlar was significantly less than that for LGlar at conversion ($286 vs $341, P < 0.001) and 6 months ($290 vs $351, P < 0.001) respectively. Conclusion/Relevance: The results of this retrospective study suggest that BGlar resulted in similar glycemic outcomes compared with LGlar in a real-world setting and may be a preferable option in a value-based health care environment.

Safety and efficacy of GP40061 compared with originator insulin glargine (Lantus®): a randomized open-label clinical trial

Aim: To compare safety (immunogenicity) and efficacy of GP40061 insulin glargine (GP-Gla) and Lantus^® (Sanofi glargine, Sa-Gla) in people with diabetes mellitus. Materials & methods: This randomized open-label, 26-week clinical trial enrolled 180 Type 1 diabetes mellitus patients (HbA1c 6.5-12.0%), randomized 1:1 to once daily GP-Gla (n = 90) or Sa-Gla (n = 90). The primary end point was immune response at 26th week. Results: The frequency of immune response was similar in GP-Gla and Sa-Gla (p = 1.000). Groups were similar in terms of other safety end points. Mean HbA1c change from baseline was -0.66% for GP-Gla and -0.77% for Sa-Gla, and did not differ between groups (p = 0.326). Insulin doses, fasting plasma glucose and seven-point glucose profiles were similar between groups. Conclusion: GP-Gla and Sa-Gla demonstrated similar safety and efficacy. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04022993.

Insulin Therapy in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: a Narrative Review

Here, we review insulin management options and strategies in nonpregnant adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Most patients with T1DM should follow a regimen of multiple daily injections of basal/bolus insulin, but those not meeting individual glycemic targets or those with frequent or severe hypoglycemia or pronounced dawn phenomenon should consider continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. The latter treatment modality could also be an alternative based on patient preferences and availability of reimbursement. Continuous glucose monitoring may improve glycemic control irrespective of treatment regimen. A glycemic target of glycated hemoglobin < 7% (53 mmol/mol) is appropriate for most nonpregnant adults. Basal insulin analogues with a reduced peak profile and an extended duration of action with lower intraindividual variability relative to neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin are preferred. The clinical advantages of basal analogues compared with older basal insulins include reduced injection burden, better efficacy, lower risk of hypoglycemic episodes (especially nocturnal), and reduced weight gain. For prandial glycemic control, any rapid-acting prandial analogue (aspart, glulisine, lispro) is preferred over regular human insulin. Faster-acting insulin aspart is a relatively new option with the advantage of better postprandial glucose coverage. Frequent blood glucose measurements along with patient education on insulin dosing based on carbohydrate counting, premeal blood glucose, and anticipated physical activity is paramount, as is education on the management of blood glucose under different circumstances.Plain Language Summary: Plain language summary is available for this article.

Risk of clinically relevant hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes self-titrating insulin glargine U-100

AIMS

We evaluated risk factors for clinically relevant hypoglycaemia (blood glucose <3 mmol/L) in patients with type 2 diabetes during insulin glargine self-titration. Data were from two clinical trials in which patients were able to improve glycaemic control by self-titration of insulin glargine using a simple algorithm.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed post hoc analyses of pooled treatment groups from each of two Phase 3 studies comparing LY2963016 with LANTUS: ELEMENT-2 (double-blind) and ELEMENT-5 (open label). Clinically relevant hypoglycaemia was analysed by category of HbA1c (<7%, 7%-8.5%, >8.5%) at Week 12 (titration period) and at Week 24 (overall study), and by subgroups of age (<65, ≥65 years) and previous insulin use (naïve or not).

RESULTS

In the ELEMENT-2 study (N = 756), there were no overall differences in rate or incidence of hypoglycaemia among HbA1c categories. In the ELEMENT-5 study (N = 493), patients with HbA1c greater than 8.5% had a lower rate and incidence of hypoglycaemia throughout the study compared to those in the lower HbA1c categories. In both studies, patients 65 years of age or older, compared to those less than 65 years, had a higher rate and incidence of hypoglycaemia during the titration phase, had lower baseline HbA1c, and experienced smaller increases in dose, with no differences in HbA1c post baseline. The rate and incidence of hypoglycaemia was similar between naïve patients and patients previously using basal insulin, across all levels of glycaemic control. With the exception of the older subgroup, hypoglycaemia rates were similar during titration and maintenance periods.

CONCLUSION

Our results support broader use of self-titration algorithms for patients with type 2 diabetes.

[Insulin therapy-new insulin analogues]

A multitude of short-acting and long-acting insulin analogues are currently available for the treatment of diabetes mellitus, which mimic physiological insulin secretion better than normal insulins. By the use of ultrarapid insulin analogues postprandial glucose increases can be significantly reduced. Newer long-acting insulin analogues have a very stable action profile and reduce the rate of hypoglycemia, especially nocturnal hypoglycemia, even more than first generation long-acting insulin analogues. Future developments focus on a further acceleration of prandial insulin effects with a simultaneous shorter effect time and an even more prolonged action of long-acting insulin analogues.

Impact of Dosing Conversion From Basal Insulin to Follow-On Insulin Glargine

BACKGROUND

Several basal insulins have recently come to market including follow-on insulin glargine (Basaglar®). Currently, there is no real-world data published on the implications of conversion to Basaglar on dosing or glycemic control.

OBJECTIVE

To identify differences in basal insulin dosing requirements, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and incidence of hypoglycemia or weight gain when converting a patient to Basaglar from another basal insulin.

METHODS

Single-center, retrospective chart review at an academic medical center. All patients prescribed Basaglar between December 15, 2016, and August 31, 2017 were included for review if converted from another basal insulin.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Difference in basal insulin requirements in both units/d and units/kilogram (kg)/d after conversion to Basaglar.

SECONDARY OUTCOME

Change in HbA1c and weight.

RESULTS

Mean basal insulin dose was 38.4 ± 26.3 units/d pre-conversion and 40.5 ± 29.8 units/d post-conversion (P = .031). Results were significant for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM; pre-conversion basal dose 34.6 ± 24.3 units/d; post-conversion basal dose 37.6± 29.0 units/d; P = .009). Weight-based dosing changed from 0.37 ± 0.25 units/kg/d pre-conversion to 0.39 ± 0.29 units/kg/d post-conversion (P = .056) and was significant for patients with T2DM (P = .040). A nonsignificant decrease in HbA1c was seen (-0.14% ± 1.24%; P = .142). There was no difference seen in weight (111.6 ± 46.3 kg vs 111.7 ± 46.9 kg; P = .662).

CONCLUSION

Patients with diabetes require similar basal insulin doses upon conversion to Basaglar. Clinicians should monitor blood glucose closely during basal insulin transition.

Comparative effectiveness and harms of long-acting insulins for type 1 and type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To review evidence comparing benefits and harms of long-acting insulins in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes.

METHODS

MEDLINE and two Cochrane databases were searched during February 2018. Two authors selected studies meeting inclusion criteria and assessed their quality. Comparative studies of adult or paediatric patients with diabetes treated with insulin degludec, detemir or glargine were included. Meta-analysis was used to combine results of similar studies, and the I² statistic calculated to assess statistical heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Of 2534 citations reviewed, 70 studies met the inclusion criteria. No statistically significant differences in HbA1c were seen between any two insulins or formulations. Hypoglycaemia was less probable with degludec than with glargine, including nocturnal hypoglycaemia in type 1 (rate ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.56-0.81) and type 2 diabetes (rate ratio 0.73, 95% CI 0.65-0.82), and severe hypoglycaemia in type 2 diabetes (relative risk 0.72, 95% CI 0.54-0.96). Patients with type 2 diabetes had higher rates of withdrawal because of adverse events when treated with detemir compared with glargine (relative risk 2.1, 95% CI 1.4-3.3). Adults taking detemir gained about 1 kg less body weight than those taking degludec (type 1) or glargine (type 2).

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in glycaemic control were seen between insulin degludec, detemir and glargine. Hypoglycaemia was less probable with degludec than glargine, and patients taking detemir gained less body weight than those given degludec or glargine. In type 2 diabetes, withdrawals as a result of adverse events were more probable with detemir than glargine.

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.

Lessons for modern insulin development

There have been many advances in insulin with a realistic possibility of mimicking nature to improve insulin replacement, with a view to achieving improved metabolic control. Lessons can be learnt from the evolution of insulin, insulin development, and new advances in technology. This may lead to fewer side effects of therapy resulting in a lower risk of hypoglycaemia and less weight gain, which could in turn could reduce long-term complications for people with diabetes.

[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.

Formulary Considerations for Insulins Approved Through the 505(b)(2) "Follow-on" Pathway

OBJECTIVE

To summarize formulary-relevant issues for follow-on insulins approved through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 505(b)(2) approval pathway (Basaglar and Admelog).

DATA SOURCES

A search of the MEDLINE database was performed for articles pertaining to clinical and formulary considerations for follow-on insulin products through July 2018.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All clinical trials used in the 505(b)(2) approval process for follow-on insulin glargine and insulin lispro products were included and summarized.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Follow-on insulin glargine and insulin lispro products have been recently approved as the first lower-cost alternatives to innovator insulin products. The follow-on insulins were approved via the 505(b)(2) pathway, making them neither generics nor biosimilars. Current data do not suggest any clinically relevant differences between the follow-on insulins and their respective innovator products. Clinicians should be aware that follow-on insulins will be reclassified as biologic products in the year 2020. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This article provides information about currently available follow-on insulin products that were approved through the 505(b)(2) pathway, including product characteristics and efficacy and safety data. These products will likely be considered for both clinical use and formulary placement because of their potentially lower cost compared with innovator products.

CONCLUSIONS

Follow-on insulin products approved through the 505(b)(2) pathway are supported by robust efficacy and safety data. As new follow-on insulins are approved and the regulatory change that will occur with these products in 2020 approaches, formulary decisions and clinical policies (eg, substitution) will continue to be revisited.

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).

Biosimilar vs originator insulins: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Biosimilar insulins have expanded the treatment options for diabetes. We compared the clinical efficacy and safety of biosimilar insulins with those of originator insulins by conducting a meta-analysis. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed on randomized controlled trials comparing biosimilar and originator insulins in adults with diabetes. Studies were obtained by searching electronic databases up to December 2017. Ten trials, in a total of 4935 patients, were assessed (2 trials each on LY2963016, MK-1293, Mylan's insulin glargine and SAR342434, and 1 trial each on FFP-112 and Basalog). The meta-analysis found no differences between long-acting biosimilar and originator insulins with regard to reduction in glycated haemoglobin at 24 weeks (0.04%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.01, 0.08; P for efficacy = .14, I² = 0%) or at 52 weeks (0.03%, 95% CI -0.04, 0.1), or reduction in fasting plasma glucose (0.08 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.36, 0.53), hypoglycaemia (odds ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.96, 1.03), mortality, injection site reactions, insulin antibodies and allergic reactions. Analyses stratified by type of diabetes and prior insulin use yielded similar findings. Similarly, no significant differences were found between short-acting biosimilar and originator insulins. In summary, our meta-analysis showed no significant differences in clinical efficacy and safety, including immune reactions, between biosimilar and originator insulins. Biosimilar insulins can increase access to modern insulin therapy and reduce medical costs.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Duration of action of two insulin glargine products, LY2963016 insulin glargine and Lantus insulin glargine, in subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

LY2963016 (LY IGlar) and Lantus (IGlar) are insulin glargine products manufactured by distinct processes, but with identical amino acid sequences. This study compared the duration of action of LY IGlar and IGlar in subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, single-dose, two-period, crossover study. Twenty subjects underwent 42-hour euglycaemic clamps after a single subcutaneous 0.3-U/kg dose of LY IGlar or IGlar. In this study, the duration of action was defined as the time required for blood glucose levels to rise consistently above a predefined cut-off of 8.3 mmol/L (150 mg/dL) from a state of euglycaemia. Blood samples were collected to measure blood glucose for pharmacodynamic (PD) evaluations.

RESULTS

End of action was reached within 42 hours in 26 of 40 clamps (13 LY IGlar and 13 IGlar). The median duration of action for all subjects was 37.1 and 40.0 hours, and the mean duration of action (calculated using only patients who reached end of action) was 23.8 and 25.5 hours for LY IGlar and IGlar, respectively. The duration of action was demonstrated to be similar between the treatments using time-to-event analysis (log-rank test of equality p = .859). Following administration of LY IGlar and IGlar, the PD parameters of maximum glucose infusion rate (R _max ) and total glucose infusion during the clamp (G _tot ) were comparable.

CONCLUSION

LY IGlar and IGlar had similar duration of action and comparable PD parameters in subjects with T1DM.

Insulin: Making Sense of Current Options

Newer insulin products have advanced the evolution of insulin replacement options to more accurately mimic natural insulin action. There are new, modified, and concentrated insulins; administration devices calibrated for both increased concentrations and administration accuracy to improve adherence and safety; and inhaled insulin. There are new combinations of longer-acting basal insulin and rapid-acting insulin or glucagon like protein-1 receptor agonists. Existing insulin replacement designs and methods can be updated using these tools to improve efficacy and safety. Individualized decisions to use them should be based on patient physiologic needs, self-care ability, comorbidities, and cost considerations.

[Comparison of two insulin glargine formulations: biosimilar vs. reference product]

BACKGROUND

Biosimilar medicinal products have been in use in the European Union since 2006. In September 2014, insulin glargine (LY IGlar) was approved as a long-acting insulin analogue. In accordance with EMA (European Medicines Agency) and FDA (Food and Drug Administration) guidelines, analytical, preclinical and clinical studies were submitted demonstrating drug safety and biosimilarity of LY IGlar with the reference insulin glargine (IGlar).

METHOD

In a review article, study data collected in the clinical development of LY IGlar are summarized.

RESULTS

A program of Phase 1 studies investigated whether the criteria for bioequivalence were met. Based on these standards, the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of the two insulins were shown to be similar. The clinical comparability of LY IGlar versus IGlar was demonstrated in two Phase 3 studies in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The tolerability profiles of LY IGlar and IGlar were similar in these studies; no significant differences were observed in the rate of adverse events, hypoglycemic events or immunogenicity.

CONCLUSION

The results of these studies show that LY IGlar represents an alternative treatment option for basal insulin therapy in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes because its efficacy and tolerability is similar to that of IGlar.