Analysis of alternatives for insulinizing patients to achieve glycemic control and avoid accompanying risks of hypoglycemia

Comparative assessment of immunogenicity of recombinant insulin Aspart from BioGenomics and its originator NovoRapid® in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the immunogenicity of recombinant Insulin Aspart [manufactured by BioGenomics Limited (BGL-ASP)] with its originator NovoRapid® (manufactured by Novo Nordisk) in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

BGL-IA-CTP301 study was a randomized, open label, parallel group, multicenter phase-III clinical study to compare the efficacy and safety of recombinant Insulin Aspart 100 U/mL [manufactured by BioGenomics Limited (BGL-ASP)] with its reference medicinal product (RMP); NovoRapid® [manufactured by Novo Nordisk], in adult patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The primary objective of the study was to compare the immunogenicity of BGL-ASP and RMP; NovoRapid® in patient serum samples collected from phase-III clinical study. Immunogenicity was studied as the incidence of patients positive for anti-insulin Aspart (AIA) antibodies, developed against BGL-ASP/RMP at baseline, end of 12 week and end of 24 week of the treatment period. The changes in incidence of patients positive for AIA antibodies post-baseline were also studied to assess and compare the treatment-emergent antibody response (TEAR) between the treatment groups (BGL-ASP and RMP). Statistical evaluation was done by Fisher's exact test to compare the overall incidence of patients positive for AIA antibodies and the TEAR positives observed post-baseline in both the treated groups. An in-vitro neutralizing antibody assay (Nab assay) was also performed to study the effect of AIA antibodies in neutralizing the biological activity/metabolic function of the insulin. The neutralizing potential of AIA was studied by its effect on %glucose uptake. We also evaluated the association between AIA antibody levels and its impact on biological activity by studying the correlation between them.

RESULTS

Analysis of immunogenicity data suggested that the percentage of patients positive for AIA antibodies until week 24 was similar and comparable in both the treatment groups, BGL-ASP and RMP; NovoRapid®. The changes in incidence of patients positive for AIA post-baseline in terms of TEAR positives were also similar and comparable between the treatment groups. The results of the Nab assay with confirmed positive AIA samples from BGL-ASP- and RMP-treated groups did not have any negative impact on %glucose uptake by the cells in Nab assay, confirming the absence of neutralizing antibodies in both the treatment groups. The correlation studies also showed absence of association between AIA antibody levels and percentage glucose uptake in both BGL-ASP and RMP-NovoRapid® treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: The immunogenicity assessment based on the overall incidence of patients positive for AIA, changes in incidence of patients positive for AIA post-baseline, TEAR rates and absence of neutralizing antibodies, were found to be apparently similar and comparable in both the treatment groups (BGL-ASP and RMP). We conclude from our studies that the immunogenicity of BGL-ASP is similar and comparable to RMP and the observed immunogenicity in terms of anti-insulin Aspart antibody levels had no impact on the biological activity of insulin.

Multicentre randomized controlled trial with sensor-augmented pump vs multiple daily injections in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes in China: Time to reach target glucose

AIM

Sensor-augmented pump (SAP) technology, which combines continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM), has been available for several years in China. In this study, the time required to reach predefined glycaemic targets with SAP vs multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy was compared in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

Adults (aged 18-65 years) with T2DM treated with insulin and admitted to hospital for glucose management were randomized to either SAP (Medtronic MiniMed™ Paradigm™ 722 system) or MDI with blinded CGM (Medtronic MiniMed CGMS System Gold™) for a 2-week period. Glycaemic targets were defined as three preprandial measurements between 80 and 130mg/dL (4.4 and 7.2mmol/L) and three 2-h postprandial measurements between 80 and 180mg/dL (4.4 and 10.0mmol/L) within the same day.

RESULTS

When data from 81 patients (40 SAP, 41 MDI) were analysed, 21 patients using SAP therapy, compared with six using MDI therapy, achieved their glycaemic targets within 3 days, and their time to reach their glucose targets was significantly shorter (3.7±1.1 vs 6.3±3.1 days for MDI; P<0.001), while three MDI patients failed to reach glycaemic targets within 14 days. SAP vs MDI patients experienced significantly less hypoglycaemia [sensor glucose<50mg/dL (2.8mmol/L): 0.04% vs 0.32%, respectively; P<0.05] and significantly less hyperglycaemia [sensor glucose>180mg/dL (10mmol/L): 21.56% vs 35.03%, respectively; P<0.05].

CONCLUSION

SAP vs MDI therapy in hospitalized patients with T2DM significantly reduced the time required to achieve glycaemic targets, and such systems may be a cost-effective way to improve glucose control and reduce hospital stays in T2DM patients.