Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic equivalence of Biocon's biosimilar Insulin-R with the US-licensed Humulin® R formulation in healthy subjects: Results from the RHINE-1 (Recombinant Human INsulin Equivalence-1) study

Clinical Pharmacology of GP40321 (Insulin Glulisine Biosimilar): Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Comparability in a Hyperinsulinemic-Euglycemic Clamp Procedure

The aim of the study was to compare the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of T-glu (GP40321, test drug), and reference insulin glulisine in a hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp procedure. During this study, 34 healthy male volunteers underwent the hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp procedure following subcutaneous 0.3 U/kg injection of T-glu or reference insulin glulisine in a randomized, double-blind, crossover study. Plasma glucose levels were monitored every 5 minutes for 8 hours. Glucose infusion rate adjustment was based on the blood glucose measurements. Evaluation of PD was performed using the glucose infusion rate values, while PK was calculated using insulin concentrations measured via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The study results showed that the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratios of primary PK and PD of T-glu and reference insulin glulisine were within 80%-125% comparability limits, and that the safety profiles were comparable. PK, PD, and safety similarity of T-glu and reference insulin glulisine was demonstrated.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic equivalence of Biocon's biosimilar insulin N with US-licensed Humulin® N formulation in healthy subjects: Results from the RHINE-2 (Recombinant Human INsulin Equivalence-2) study

AIM

To establish the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) equivalence of proposed biosimilar Insulin N (Biocon's Insulin-N; Biocon Biologics Ltd., Bangalore, India) and US-licensed Humulin® N (Humulin-N; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA) in healthy subjects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a phase-1, single-centre, double-blind, randomized, three-period, six-sequence, partially replicated, crossover, 24-h euglycaemic clamp study. Overall, 90 healthy subjects were randomized, of whom 85 completed the study. The subjects received either two single doses of Biocon's Insulin-N and a single dose of Humulin-N or two single doses of Humulin-N and a single dose of Biocon's Insulin-N subcutaneously at a dose of 0.4 IU/kg. The primary PK endpoints were the area under the insulin concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC_ins.0-24h ) and the maximum insulin concentration (C_ins.max ). The primary PD endpoints were the area under the glucose infusion rate (GIR) curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC_GIR.0-24h ) and the maximum GIR (GIR_max ).

RESULTS

Biocon's Insulin-N was found to be equivalent to Humulin-N for the primary PK (geometric 90% confidence interval for the least squares mean ratio: AUC_ins.0-24h , 100.98%-115.66% and C_ins.max , 95.91%-110.16%) and PD endpoints (intra-subject variability ≥0.294; 95% upper confidence interval [(μT - μR)²  - θσ² WR] <0; point estimates of geometric least squares mean ratio: AUC_GIR.0-24h , 104.61% and GIR_max , 100.81%). The safety profile of Biocon's Insulin-N was similar to that of Humulin-N, and no serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

PK and PD equivalence was shown between Biocon's Insulin-N and Humulin-N in healthy subjects, and both treatments were well tolerated and considered safe.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic equivalence of Biocon's biosimilar Insulin 70/30 with US-licensed HUMULIN® 70/30 formulation in healthy subjects: Results from the RHINE-3 (Recombinant Human INsulin Equivalence-3) study

AIM

To establish the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) equivalence of proposed biosimilar insulin 70/30 (Biocon's Insulin-70/30) and HUMULIN® 70/30 (HUMULIN-70/30; Eli Lilly and Company, IN).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this phase 1, automated euglycaemic glucose clamp study, 78 healthy subjects were randomized (1:1) to receive a single dose of 0.4 IU/kg of Biocon's Insulin-70/30 and HUMULIN-70/30. Plasma insulin concentrations and glucose infusion rates (GIRs) were assessed over 24 hours. Primary PK endpoints were area under the insulin concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 hours - AUC_ins.0-24h - and maximum insulin concentration - C_ins.max . Primary PD endpoints were area under the GIR time curve from 0 to 24 hours - AUC_GIR.0-24h - and maximum GIR - GIR_max .

RESULTS

Equivalence was shown between Biocon's Insulin-70/30 and HUMULIN-70/30 for the primary PK/PD endpoints. The 90% confidence intervals of the treatment ratios were entirely within the acceptance range of 80.00%-125.00%. The secondary PK/PD profiles were also comparable. There were no clinically relevant differences in the safety profiles of the two treatments and no serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

PK/PD equivalence was demonstrated between Biocon's Insulin-70/30 and HUMULIN-70/30 in healthy subjects. Treatment with Biocon's Insulin-70/30 and HUMULIN-70/30 was well tolerated.

How to Achieve Sufficient Endogenous Insulin Suppression in Euglycemic Clamps Assessing the Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Long-Acting Insulin Preparations Employing Healthy Volunteers

The therapeutic effect of basal insulin analogs will be sustained at a rather low insulin level. When employing healthy volunteers to assess the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of long-acting insulin preparations by euglycemic clamp techniques, endogenous insulin cannot be ignored and sufficient endogenous insulin inhibition is crucial for the PD and/or PK assessment. This study aimed to explore a way to sufficiently inhibit endogenous insulin secretion. Healthy Chinese male and female volunteers were enrolled. After a subcutaneous injection of insulin glargine (IGlar) (LY2963016 or Lantus) (0.5 IU/kg), they underwent a manual euglycemic clamp for up to 24 h where the target blood glucose (BG) was set as 0.28 mmol/L below the individual’s baseline. Blood samples were collected for analysis of PK/PD and C-peptide. The subjects fell into two groups according to the reduction extent of postdose C-peptide from baseline. After matching for the dosage proportion of Lantus, there were 52 subjects in group A (C-peptide reduction&lt;50%) and 26 in group B (C-peptide reduction≥50%), respectively. No significant difference was detected in age, body mass index, the proportion of Latus treatment and female participants. A lower basal BG was observed in group B compared to group A (4.35 ± 0.26 vs. 4.59 ± 0.22 mmol/L, p &lt; 0.05). The clamp studies were all conducted with high quality (where BG was consistently maintained around the target and exhibited a low variety). The binary logistic regression analysis indicated low basal BG as an independent factor for the success of sufficient endogenous insulin suppression. In conclusion, setting a lower sub-baseline target BG (e.g., 10% instead of 5% below baseline) might be an approach to help achieve sufficient endogenous insulin suppression in euglycemic clamps with higher basal BG levels (e.g., beyond 4.60 mmol/L).

Effects of Unsuppressed Endogenous Insulin on Pharmacokinetics and/or Pharmacodynamics of Study Insulin in the Healthy: A Retrospective Study

C‐peptide, a marker of endogenous insulin, should be consistently inhibited during euglycemic clamping, while an elevated postdosing C‐peptide (CP_postdosing) is not an occasional phenomenon. This was a retrospective study that included 33 men who underwent a manual euglycemic clamp with a subcutaneous injection of insulin aspart (IAsp) aiming to describe the effects of insufficient suppression of endogenous insulin on estimates of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of injected insulin. The time profiles of whole blood glucose, human insulin, glucose infusion rate (GIR), and C‐peptide were recorded. The subjects were divided into 2 groups at a ratio of 2:1: group A ([CP_postdosing]_max>baseline CP [CP_baseline]), group B ([CP_postdosing]_max ≤ CP_baseline). The endogenous insulin was approximately equal to the measured value of human insulin or calculated from the C‐peptide. The basal glucose, CP_baseline, basal human insulin, homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance, IAsp dose, and demographic statistics were all comparable between the 2 groups except the “clamped” glucose. The average clamped glucose was 99.7% (group A) and 94.9% (group B) of baseline. After correction for clamped glucose, GIR area under the concentration‐time curve from time 0 to 8 hours was higher in group A (P < .05) under comparable IAsp exposure. Endogenous insulin area under the concentration‐time curve from time 0 to 8 hours calculated from C‐peptide was different from that measured from human insulin in group A (P < .05), whereas no statistical difference between these measures was observed in group B. Hence, blood glucose should be controlled below the baseline to ensure the inhibition of endogenous insulin. Unsuppressed endogenous insulin may contribute to observed GIR, and the endogenous insulin–corrected pharmacokinetics estimated by C‐peptide may be inaccurate with insufficient endogenous insulin suppression.