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.

Hypoglycemia at the time of Covid-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Hypoglycemia is the limiting factor in the glycemic management of diabetes, which need to be addressed critically to avoid complications. Lockdown because of new coronavirus strain (COVID-19) pandemic has further complicated the issue of hypoglycemia due to limitations in access to food, outpatient clinics, pathological services and medicines.

AIM

To assess the factors associated with the risk of hypoglycemia during April-May 2020 lockdown in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODOLOGY

We analyzed the data retrospectively from 146 patients of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) reporting to the emergency department (ED) during lockdown period with symptoms suggestive of hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

The majority of patients were male (90/146) with a mean age of 59.88 ± 10.09 years and a mean random blood glucose level of 57.67 ± 9.00 mg/dL. Two-third of patients (70.83%) had level 1 hypoglycemia, while level 2 hypoglycemia was reported in 29.16% of patients. A combination of Metformin and Sulfonylureas (SU) was most commonly associated with the risk of hypoglycemia (65.75%) followed by insulin (33.56%). Subjects who received insulin reported a lower blood glucose value (50.75 ± 8.20 mg/dL) as compared to those receiving a combination of metformin and SU (60.95 ± 7.10 mg/dl). 330.56% of patients who had received prophylaxis hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) 400 mg twice a day along with the routine anti-hyperglycemic agents without their dose adjustment reported hypoglycemia. Patients with hypertension, micro-vascular, macro-vascular complications, and coexistent with each other had a higher propensity to the risk of hypoglycemia (46.58%, 33.56%, 23.29%, and 32.88%) respectively.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 lockdown has shown to influence the risk of hypoglycemia in patients with T2DM, especially those receiving SU, insulin, HCQ especially in patients with associated co-morbidities. Patient education, support, and telemedicine plays a pivotal role to prevent hypoglycemia.