Efficacy and safety of MYL-1501D versus insulin glargine in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus: Results of the INSTRIDE 3 phase 3 switch study

Immunogenicity, Efficacy, and Safety of Biosimilar Insulin Glargine (Gan & Lee Glargine) Compared With Originator Insulin Glargine (Lantus) in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes After 26 Weeks Treatment

OBJECTIVE

To compare the immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy of Gan & Lee insulin glargine (GL Glargine) with that of the originator insulin glargine (Lantus) in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

METHODS

This was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, open-label, equivalence study. Five hundred seventy-six subjects with T1DM were randomized 1:1 to receive either GL Glargine or Lantus treatment for 26 weeks. The primary end point was the percentage of subjects in each treatment group who developed treatment-induced anti-insulin antibody after baseline and up to visit week 26, which was evaluated using a country-adjusted logistic regression model. The study also compared the changes in glycated hemoglobin, and adverse events including hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

The percentage of subjects positive for treatment-induced anti-insulin antibody by Week 26 was 25.8% in the GL Glargine treatment group and 25.3% in the Lantus treatment group, with a 90% confidence interval (-5.4, 6.5) of the difference in proportions that fell completely between the similarity margins (-11.3, 11.3). The least squares mean difference between treatment groups for changes in glycated hemoglobin was -0.08 (90% confidence interval: -0.23, 0.06), and the other immunogenicity and safety profiles were comparable.

CONCLUSION

GL Glargine demonstrated similar immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety compared to Lantus over 26 weeks in patients with T1DM.

Immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety of biosimilar insulin glargine (Gan & Lee glargine) compared with originator insulin glargine (Lantus®) in patients with type 2 diabetes after 26 weeks' treatment: A randomized open label study

AIM

To evaluate the equivalence of immunogenicity, safety and efficacy of Gan & Lee (GL) Glargine (Basalin®; Gan & Lee Pharmaceutical) with that of the reference product (Lantus®) in adult participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

This was a phase 3, multicenter, open-label, equivalence trial conducted across 57 sites. In total, 567 participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to undergo treatment with either GL Glargine or Lantus® for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants in each treatment arm who manifested treatment-induced anti-insulin antibodies (AIA). Secondary endpoints included efficacy and safety metrics, changes in glycated haemoglobin levels, and a comparative assessment of adverse events. Results were analysed using an equivalence test comparing the limits of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for treatment-induced AIA development to the prespecified margins.

RESULTS

The percentages of participants positive for treatment-induced glycated haemoglobin by week 26 were similar between the GL Glargine (19.2%) and Lantus® (21.3%) treatment groups, with a treatment difference of -2.1 percentage points and a 90% CI (-7.6%, 3.5%) (predefined similarity margins: -10.7%, 10.7%). The difference in glycated haemoglobin was -0.08% (90% CI, -0.23, 0.06). The overall percentage of participants with any treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between the GL Glargine (80.1%) and Lantus® (81.6%) treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

GL Glargine was similar to Lantus® in terms of immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety, based on the current study.

Insulin Access Enhancement in India: Expert Views on Integrating Interchangeable Biosimilar Insulin Glargine

Achieving and maintaining optimal glycemic targets is the fundamental goal of the management of diabetes. However, failure of oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) to sustain the targeted glycemic levels in individuals with progressing disease often requires initiation of insulin therapy. This article consolidates the expert opinions of 377 doctors who participated in 34 advisory board meetings held digitally (n=23) and in person (n=11) across India. The present report underscores the need for readily available alternatives, such as biosimilar insulins, in the Indian healthcare market to make insulin accessible to every patient with diabetes. The introduction of biosimilar insulins in the Indian healthcare market is the key to making insulin accessible to every patient with diabetes. Biosimilars are biologic products that closely resemble reference/originator biologics and demonstrate no clinically meaningful differences in safety and effectiveness. The concept of interchangeability serves as a pivotal differentiator for biosimilars, underlining their reliability and safety, and plays a significant role in their broader acceptance and integration into healthcare systems. The 'interchangeability' designation by the United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) elevates the biosimilar concept, promoting faster and broader adoption of insulin biosimilars, especially benefiting patients prone to non-adherence to insulin therapy. Healthcare providers are encouraged to consider the option of initiating or transitioning to biosimilar insulin glargine to address the insulin accessibility challenges.

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.

Biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars: facts every prescriber, payor, and patient should know. Insulins perspective

INTRODUCTION

For many of the 537 million adults living now with diabetes, the cost of insulin is becoming prohibitive as the insulin prices have tripled between 2002-2013. Globally, the direct annual cost of healthcare expenditure due to diabetes will soon be US$1 Trillion. Biosimilars provide access to high-quality, affordable biologic therapy that is otherwise inaccessible due to the high costs of original biologics.

AREAS COVERED

A primer to the development of biosimilars shows comparable structural and analytical characterization to the original biologics (e.g. insulins), with no clinically significant or meaningful differences in efficacy and safety. 'Interchangeability' status, a regulatory designation by the US FDA, bestowed to some biosimilars, enables confidence in high-quality, bio-equivalent biosimilar of insulin with key global approvals. This can allow rapid uptake of biosimilars by the prescribers, formulary decision-makers, and payors. Biocon-Viatris's biosimilar Insulin Glargine (Semglee®) is the first interchangeable biosimilar insulin approved by the US FDA.

EXPERT OPINION

The 'interchangeable' status can prompt faster and wider uptake of insulin biosimilars and keep the insulin expenditure under control, especially for patients who otherwise practice non-adherence or rationing of life-saving insulin. Education, support, and awareness can ensure that interchangeable biosimilars gain wider acceptance.

Breaking Barriers With Basal Insulin Biosimilars in Type 2 Diabetes

Despite increases in the availability and effectiveness of other therapies, insulin remains an essential treatment for approximately 30 million people with type 2 diabetes worldwide. The development of biosimilars has created the potential for significant health care cost savings and may lead to greater access to basal insulin for vast populations. In this review, we discuss evidence demonstrating equipoise between basal insulin biosimilars and the patented analogs they may replace.

A randomized pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic trial of two regular human insulins demonstrates bioequivalence in type 1 diabetes and availability of biosimilar insulin may improve access to this medication

AIMS

To compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) effects and safety of therapeutic dosages of a regular insulin (experimental drug) produced by Bioton S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) versus Humulin® R, a regular insulin (reference drug) produced by Eli Lilly (Indianapolis, Indiana).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a single-centre, randomized, double-blinded phase 1 crossover study, we used the manual euglycaemic clamp technique to compare PK and PD profiles between single subcutaneous doses (0.3 units/kg) of the two regular insulins in participants with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) with a washout period of 14 (± 7) days between tests.

RESULTS

We evaluated 56 participants. The mean participant age and body mass index were 32.9 years and 22.9 kg/m² , respectively. The ratios (experimental/reference) of the geometric means of maximum plasma insulin concentration and for plasma insulin area under the curve (AUC) were 0.909 (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.822-1.01) and 0.993 (90% CI 0.944-1.04), respectively. The ratios of the geometric means of maximum glucose infusion rate (GIR) and for GIR AUC were 0.999 (95% CI 0.912-1.09) and 1.04 (95% CI 0.962-1.12), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The experimental product regular human insulin and comparator Humulin® R are bioequivalent in patients with T1DM. Wider entry to the pharmaceutical market of affordable, biosimilar regular insulins may substantially improve access to insulin for many socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with diabetes.

The Impact of Mandatory Nonmedical Switching From Originator to Biosimilar Insulin Glargine

PURPOSE

This study monitors for early changes in health services utilization after a mandatory policy to switch patients from originator to biosimilar insulin glargine in British Columbia, Canada.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients treated with originator insulin glargine. The policy cohort included patients treated with originator insulin glargine in the 6 months before the policy change (May 27, 2019). Three historical control cohorts included users of originator insulin glargine during the 6 months before May 27 each year in 2016, 2017, and 2018. Patients who discontinued or switched use of the originator insulin glargine and those without cost coverage by the provincial drug plan were excluded. Using likelihood ratios, we compared the daily use of medications, outpatient visits, and hospitalizations in the 12 months after the policy change with the daily use in 3 historical control cohorts. A sustained likelihood ratio above a predefined threshold of 7.1 was interpreted as an early signal of a possible policy impact.

FINDINGS

Each cohort included 15,344 to 17,310 patients. In the first year of the policy, we observed increases in (1) insulin glargine use (the cumulative incidence increased by 2.5% compared with the mean of the 3 historical cohorts), (2) oral antidiabetic medication use (increased by 2.8%), and (3) outpatient visits (increased by 1.4%). Likelihood ratios greater than the threshold of 7.1 were detected for these 3 outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS

We observed marginal changes in health services utilization without detecting signals of negative health impacts on patients targeted by the British Columbia policy of mandatory switching from originator to biosimilar insulin glargine.

Utilisation Trend of Long-Acting Insulin Analogues including Biosimilars across Europe: Findings and Implications

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus rates and associated costs continue to rise across Europe enhancing health authority focus on its management. The risk of complications is enhanced by poor glycaemic control, with long-acting insulin analogues developed to reduce hypoglycaemia and improve patient convenience. There are concerns though with their considerably higher costs, but moderated by reductions in complications and associated costs. Biosimilars can help further reduce costs. However, to date, price reductions for biosimilar insulin glargine appear limited. In addition, the originator company has switched promotional efforts to more concentrated patented formulations to reduce the impact of biosimilars. There are also concerns with different devices between the manufacturers. As a result, there is a need to assess current utilisation rates for insulins, especially long-acting insulin analogues and biosimilars, and the rationale for patterns seen, among multiple European countries to provide future direction. Methodology. Health authority databases are examined to assess utilisation and expenditure patterns for insulins, including biosimilar insulin glargine. Explanations for patterns seen were provided by senior-level personnel.

RESULTS

Typically increasing use of long-acting insulin analogues across Europe including both Western and Central and Eastern European countries reflects perceived patient benefits despite higher prices. However, activities by the originator company to switch patients to more concentrated insulin glargine coupled with lowering prices towards biosimilars have limited biosimilar uptake, with biosimilars not currently launched in a minority of European countries. A number of activities were identified to address this. Enhancing the attractiveness of the biosimilar insulin market is essential to encourage other biosimilar manufacturers to enter the market as more long-acting insulin analogues lose their patents to benefit all key stakeholder groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There are concerns with the availability and use of insulin glargine biosimilars among European countries despite lower costs. This can be addressed.

Current utilization patterns for long-acting insulin analogues including biosimilars among selected Asian countries and the implications for the future

INTRODUCTION

Prevalence rates for diabetes mellitus continue to rise, which, coupled with increasing costs of complications, has appreciably increased expenditure in recent years. Poor glycaemic control including hypoglycaemia enhances complication rates and associated morbidity, mortality and costs. Consequently, this needs to be addressed. Whilst the majority of patients with diabetes have type-2 diabetes, a considerable number of patients with diabetes require insulin to help control their diabetes. Long-acting insulin analogues were developed to reduce hypoglycaemia associated with insulin and help improve adherence, which can be a concern. However, their considerably higher costs have impacted on their funding and use, especially in countries with affordability issues. Biosimilars can help reduce the costs of long-acting insulin analogues thereby increasing available choices. However, the availability and use of long-acting insulin analogues can be affected by limited price reductions versus originators and limited demand-side initiatives to encourage their use. Consequently, we wanted to assess current utilisation rates for long-acting insulin analogues, especially biosimilars, and the rationale for patterns seen, across multiple Asian countries ranging from Japan (high-income) to Pakistan (lower-income) to inform future strategies.

METHODOLOGY

Multiple approaches including assessing utilization and prices of insulins including biosimilars among six Asian countries and comparing the findings especially with other middle-income countries.

RESULTS

Typically, there was increasing use of long-acting insulin analogues among the selected Asian countries. This was especially the case enhanced by biosimilars in Bangladesh, India, and Malaysia reflecting their perceived benefits. However, there was limited use in Pakistan due to issues of affordability similar to a number of African countries. The high use of biosimilars in Bangladesh, India and Malaysia was helped by issues of affordability and local production. The limited use of biosimilars in Japan and Korea reflects limited price reductions and demand-side initiatives similar to a number of European countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing use of long-acting insulin analogues across countries is welcomed, adding to the range of insulins available, which increasingly includes biosimilars. A number of activities are needed to enhance the use of long-acting insulin analogue biosimilars in Japan, Korea and Pakistan.

Evidence-based public policy making for medicines across countries: findings and implications for the future

Aim: Global expenditure on medicines is rising up to 6% per year driven by increasing prevalence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and new premium priced medicines for cancer, orphan diseases and other complex areas. This is difficult to sustain without reforms. Methods: Extensive narrative review of published papers and contextualizing the findings to provide future guidance. Results: New models are being introduced to improve the managed entry of new medicines including managed entry agreements, fair pricing approaches and monitoring prescribing against agreed guidance. Multiple measures have also successfully been introduced to improve the prescribing of established medicines. This includes encouraging greater prescribing of generics and biosimilars versus originators and patented medicines in a class to conserve resources without compromising care. In addition, reducing inappropriate antibiotic utilization. Typically, multiple measures are the most effective. Conclusion: Multiple measures will be needed to attain and retain universal healthcare.

Availability and accessibility of monoclonal antibodies in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Findings and implications

Background:

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) represent the most numerous and significant group of biotherapeutics. While mAbs have undoubtedly improved treatment for many chronic diseases, including inflammatory diseases, they are typically expensive for health care systems and patients. Consequently, access to mAbs has been a problem for many patients especially among Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. However, biosimilars can potentially help with costs, although there are concerns with their effectiveness and safety. This includes biosimilars for long-acting insulin analogues.

Aim:

Assess the availability and use of biological medicines, including biosimilars within Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H).

Methods:

Assess the availability of mAbs via the current lists of approved and accessed mAbs versus those licenced in Europe and the United States and their utilisation, as well as specifically insulin glargine and its biosimilars, within B&H.

Results:

The availability of the mAbs in B&H appears satisfactory, which is encouraging. However, current usage is limited to a few mAbs which is a concern for subsequent patient care especially with limited use of biosimilars to address issues of affordability. We also see limited use of biosimilar insulin glargine.

Conclusion

The limited use of mAbs including biosimilars needs to be addressed in B&H to improve the future care of patients within finite resources. We will monitor these developments.

Similar immunogenicity profiles between the proposed biosimilar MYL-1501D and reference insulin glargine in patients with diabetes mellitus: the phase 3 INSTRIDE 1 and INSTRIDE 2 studies

BACKGROUND

MYL-1501D is a proposed biosimilar to insulin glargine. The noninferiority of MYL-1501D was demonstrated in patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes in 2 phase 3 trials. Immunogenicity of MYL-1501D and reference insulin glargine was examined in both studies.

METHODS

INSTRIDE 1 and INSTRIDE 2 were multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel-group studies. In INSTRIDE 1, patients with type 1 diabetes received MYL-1501D or insulin glargine over a 52-week period. In INSTRIDE 2, patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral antidiabetic drugs, insulin naive or not, received MYL-1501D or reference insulin glargine over a 24-week period. Incidence rates and change from baseline in relative levels of antidrug antibodies (ADA) and anti-host cell protein (anti-HCP) antibodies in both treatment groups were determined by a radioimmunoprecipitation assay and a bridging immunoassay, respectively. Results were analyzed using a mixed-effects model (INSTRIDE 1) or a nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test (INSTRIDE 2).

RESULTS

Total enrollment was 558 patients in INSTRIDE 1 and 560 patients in INSTRIDE 2. The incidence of total and cross-reactive ADA was comparable between treatment groups in INSTRIDE 1 and INSTRIDE 2 (P > 0.05 for both). A similar proportion of patients had anti-HCP antibodies in both treatment groups in INSTRIDE 1 at week 52 (MYL-1501D, 93.9 %; reference insulin glargine, 89.6 %; P = 0.213) and in INSTRIDE 2 at week 24 (MYL-1501D, 87.3 %; reference insulin glargine, 86.9 %; P > 0.999).

CONCLUSIONS

In INSTRIDE 1 and INSTRIDE 2, similar immunogenicity profiles were observed for MYL-1501D and reference insulin glargine in patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes, respectively.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, INSTRIDE 1 ( NCT02227862 ; date of registration, August 28, 2014); INSTRIDE 2 ( NCT02227875 ; date of registration, August 28, 2014).

The Current Situation Regarding Long-Acting Insulin Analogues Including Biosimilars Among African, Asian, European, and South American Countries; Findings and Implications for the Future

Background: Diabetes mellitus rates continue to rise, which coupled with increasing costs of associated complications has appreciably increased global expenditure in recent years. The risk of complications are enhanced by poor glycaemic control including hypoglycaemia. Long-acting insulin analogues were developed to reduce hypoglycaemia and improve adherence. Their considerably higher costs though have impacted their funding and use. Biosimilars can help reduce medicine costs. However, their introduction has been affected by a number of factors. These include the originator company dropping its price as well as promoting patented higher strength 300 IU/ml insulin glargine. There can also be concerns with different devices between the manufacturers. Objective: To assess current utilisation rates for insulins, especially long-acting insulin analogues, and the rationale for patterns seen, across multiple countries to inform strategies to enhance future utilisation of long-acting insulin analogue biosimilars to benefit all key stakeholders. Our approach: Multiple approaches including assessing the utilisation, expenditure and prices of insulins, including biosimilar insulin glargine, across multiple continents and countries. Results: There was considerable variation in the use of long-acting insulin analogues as a percentage of all insulins prescribed and dispensed across countries and continents. This ranged from limited use of long-acting insulin analogues among African countries compared to routine funding and use across Europe in view of their perceived benefits. Increasing use was also seen among Asian countries including Bangladesh and India for similar reasons. However, concerns with costs and value limited their use across Africa, Brazil and Pakistan. There was though limited use of biosimilar insulin glargine 100 IU/ml compared with other recent biosimilars especially among European countries and Korea. This was principally driven by small price differences in reality between the originator and biosimilars coupled with increasing use of the patented 300 IU/ml formulation. A number of activities were identified to enhance future biosimilar use. These included only reimbursing biosimilar long-acting insulin analogues, introducing prescribing targets and increasing competition among manufacturers including stimulating local production. Conclusions: There are concerns with the availability and use of insulin glargine biosimilars despite lower costs. This can be addressed by multiple activities.

MYL1501D Insulin Glargine: A Review in Diabetes Mellitus

Subcutaneous MYL1501D insulin glargine 100 U/mL (hereafter referred to as MYL1501D insulin glargine) [Semglee®] is a long-acting human insulin analogue approved as a biosimilar of insulin glargine 100 U/mL (hereafter referred to as reference insulin glargine 100 U/mL) [Lantus®] in various countries, including those of the EU for the treatment of diabetes mellitus in patients aged ≥ 2 years, as well as Japan for diabetes where insulin therapy is indicated. MYL1501D insulin glargine has similar physicochemical characteristics and biological properties to those of EU- and US-sourced reference insulin glargine 100 U/mL, with the bioequivalence of pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic parameters between these agents shown in adults with type 1 diabetes. Once-daily MYL1501D insulin glargine demonstrated noninferior glycaemic efficacy to that of once-daily reference insulin glargine 100 U/mL in adults with type 1 or 2 diabetes, with its glycated haemoglobin-lowering benefits maintained over the longer-term (52 weeks) and unaffected by previous insulin exposure. Switching between MYL1501D insulin glargine and reference insulin glargine 100 U/mL did not appear to impact glycaemic efficacy in adults with type 1 diabetes. MYL1501D insulin glargine was well tolerated, demonstrating a safety and immunogenicity profile similar to that of reference insulin glargine 100 U/mL in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes, and in those with type 1 diabetes switching between the two agents. As expected, hypoglycaemia was the most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse event. Thus, MYL1501D insulin glargine provides an effective biosimilar alternative for patients requiring insulin glargine therapy.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic bioequivalence of proposed biosimilar MYL-1501D with US and European insulin glargine formulations in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

To report phase 1 bioequivalence results comparing MYL-1501D, US reference insulin glargine (US IG), and European reference insulin glargine (EU IG).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The double-blind, randomized, three-way crossover study compared the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) characteristics of MYL-1501D, US IG and EU IG. In total, 114 patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) received 0.4 U/kg of each study treatment under automated euglycaemic clamp conditions. Insulin metabolite M1 concentrations, insulin glargine (IG) and glucose infusion rates (GIRs) were assessed over 30 hours. Primary PK endpoints were area under the serum IG concentration-time curve from 0 to 30 hours (AUCins.0-30h ) and maximum serum IG concentration (Cins.max ). Primary PD endpoints were area under the GIR-time curve from 0 to 30 hours (AUCGIR0-30h ) and maximum GIR (GIRmax ).

RESULTS

Bioequivalence among MYL-1501D, US IG and EU IG was demonstrated for the primary PK and PD endpoints. Least squares mean ratios were close to 1, and 90% confidence intervals were within 0.80 to 1.25. The PD GIR-time profiles were nearly superimposable. There were no noticeable differences in the safety profiles of the three treatments, and no serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Equivalence with regard to PK and PD characteristics was shown among MYL-1501D, US IG and EU IG in patients with T1DM, and each treatment was well tolerated and safe.

Efficacy and safety of MYL-1501D versus insulin glargine in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus: Results of the INSTRIDE 3 phase 3 switch study

AIMS

To assess the efficacy, insulin dose, safety and immunogenicity when people with type 1 diabetes mellitus switched between MYL-1501D and reference insulin glargine (Lantus®; Sanofi-Aventis US LLC, Bridgewater, New Jersey).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eligible participants from INSTRIDE 1 who completed 52 weeks of reference insulin glargine treatment were randomized 1:1 to the reference sequence (n = 63; reference insulin glargine for 36 weeks) or to the treatment-switching sequence (n = 64; MYL-1501D [weeks 0-12], reference insulin glargine [weeks 12-24] and MYL-1501D [weeks 24-36]). Change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to week 36 was the primary efficacy endpoint used to demonstrate equivalence between the two treatment sequences. Secondary endpoints included: change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) and insulin dose; immunogenicity; and adverse events, including hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

Mean changes in HbA1c (least squares [LS] mean [SE]) from baseline to week 36 were -0.05 (0.032) and -0.06 (0.034) for the treatment-switching and reference sequences, respectively (LS mean difference 0.01 [95% CI -0.085 to 0.101]). Treatment sequences were comparable in terms of secondary endpoints, including FPG, SMBG and insulin dose, and the safety and immunogenicity profiles of the two sequences were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching participants between MYL-1501D and reference insulin glargine demonstrated equivalent efficacy and similar safety and immunogenicity, showing that people taking reference insulin glargine can safely switch to MYL-1501D.