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.

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.

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.

Real-World Budget Impact of the Adoption of Insulin Glargine Biosimilars in Primary Care in England (2015-2018).

BACKGROUND: Lantus, the reference insulin glargine used for the treatment of diabetes, lost its patent protection in 2014, opening the market to biosimilar competitors. OBJECTIVE: First, to analyze the adoption rates of insulin glargine biosimilars in primary care in England and estimate the savings realized and missed, since an insulin glargine biosimilar was first used, and second, to assess potential variations in adoption rates across Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data sets capturing information on all insulin glargine items prescribed by all general practitioners up to December 2018 were used. Total costs of insulin glargine and uptake rates of biosimilars were calculated. The real-world budget impact was estimated assuming the cost of reference insulin glargine for all items and comparing the total costs in this scenario with the total costs in the real world. The missed savings were estimated assuming the cost of biosimilars for all insulin glargine items. Choropleth maps were generated to assess potential variations in uptake across CCGs. RESULTS: Insulin glargine biosimilars generated savings of £900,000 between October 2015 (time of first prescription) and December 2018. The missed savings amounted to £25.6 million in this period, indicating that only 3.42% of the potential savings were achieved. The analyses demonstrated a large level of variation in the uptake of insulin glargine biosimilars across CCGs, with market shares ranging from 0 to 53.3% (December 2018). CONCLUSIONS: These results may encourage decision makers in England to promote the use of best-value treatments in primary care and to reevaluate variation across CCGs.

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.

Lipid nanoparticles as vehicles for oral delivery of insulin and insulin analogs: preliminary ex vivo and in vivo studies.

AIMS: Subcutaneous administration of insulin in patients suffering from diabetes is associated with the distress of daily injections. Among alternative administration routes, the oral route seems to be the most advantageous for long-term administration, also because the peptide undergoes a hepatic first-pass effect, contributing to the inhibition of the hepatic glucose output. Unfortunately, insulin oral administration has so far been hampered by degradation by gastrointestinal enzymes and poor intestinal absorption. Loading in lipid nanoparticles should allow to overcome these limitations. METHODS: Entrapment of peptides into such nanoparticles is not easy, because of their high molecular weight, hydrophilicity and thermo-sensitivity. In this study, this objective was achieved by employing fatty acid coacervation method: solid lipid nanoparticles and newly engineered nanostructured lipid carriers were formulated. Insulin and insulin analog-glargine insulin-were entrapped in the lipid matrix through hydrophobic ion pairing. RESULTS: Bioactivity of lipid entrapped peptides was demonstrated through a suitable in vivo experiment. Ex vivo and in vivo studies were carried out by employing fluorescently labelled peptides. Gut tied up experiments showed the superiority of glargine insulin-loaded nanostructured lipid carriers, which demonstrated significantly higher permeation (till 30% dose/mL) compared to free peptide. Approximately 6% absolute bioavailability in the bloodstream was estimated for the same formulation through in vivo pharmacokinetic studies in rats. Consequently, a discrete blood glucose responsivity was noted in healthy animals. CONCLUSIONS: Given the optimized ex vivo and in vivo intestinal uptake of glargine insulin from nanostructured lipid carriers, further studies will be carried out on healthy and diabetic rat models in order to establish a glargine insulin dose-glucose response relation.

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.

[LY2963016 insulin glargine: The first biosimilar insulin approved in the European Union]. / Développement des biosimilaires de l'insuline : exemple de l'insuline glargine LY2963016.

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).

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.

LY2963016 Insulin Glargine: A Review in Type 1 and 2 Diabetes.

Subcutaneous once-daily LY2963016 insulin glargine (LY insulin glargine) [Abasaglar® (EU); Basaglar® (USA)] has been approved in the EU as a biosimilar to reference insulin glargine (Lantus®), and in the USA as a follow-on biologic to reference insulin glargine, for use in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes. Structural and functional characterization of LY insulin glargine in preclinical studies showed that it is similar to reference insulin glargine. In phase I euglycaemic clamp studies, LY insulin glargine demonstrated similar pharmacodynamic (including duration of action) and pharmacokinetic parameters to reference insulin glargine. In the phase III ELEMENT trials, LY insulin glargine and reference insulin glargine were noninferior to each other with respect to glycaemic control, indicating their equivalent efficacy, when administered with mealtime insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes or with oral antiglycaemic medications in adults with type 2 diabetes. LY insulin glargine was generally well tolerated, with a safety profile (including the risk of hypoglycaemia and immunogenicity) similar to that of reference insulin glargine and without any additional safety concerns identified. Basal insulin treatment status at baseline did not impact the relative efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of LY insulin glargine versus reference insulin glargine in the ELEMENT 1 and 2 trials. In conclusion, LY insulin glargine offers an additional basal insulin option for patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes, potentially at a lower cost.

Single-dose euglycaemic clamp studies demonstrating pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic similarity between MK-1293 insulin glargine and originator insulin glargine (Lantus) in subjects with type 1 diabetes and healthy subjects.

AIMS: MK-1293 is an insulin glargine that has an amino acid sequence identical to that of Lantus, the originator insulin glargine. Two euglycaemic clamp studies, 1 in subjects with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and 1 in healthy subjects, were conducted to demonstrate pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) similarity between MK-1293 and Lantus commercially procured in both the European Union (EU-Lantus) and the USA (US-Lantus). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Both studies were single-dose, randomized, double-blind, single-centre, crossover studies with ≥7 days between dosing periods. A 2-treatment, 4-period replicate crossover study in T1D subjects (N = 76) compared the PK and PD of MK-1293 to EU-Lantus for 30 hours after dosing. A 3-period crossover study in healthy subjects (N = 109) compared the PK and PD of MK-1293, EU-Lantus and US-Lantus for 24 hours after dosing. In both studies, all subjects received single 0.4 units/kg subcutaneous doses of MK-1293 or Lantus in all dosing periods. Pharmacokinetic assessment was based on LC-MS/MS-based measurement of the major insulin glargine metabolite (M1) and PD was characterized using the euglycaemic clamp platform. RESULTS: In both studies, pre-specified similarity criteria were met between MK-1293 and Lantus for comparison of PK (AUC0-24 and Cmax of M1) and PD (GIR-AUC0-24 , GIR-AUC0-12 , GIR-AUC12-24 , and GIRmax ) primary endpoints. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Based on comparative assessment in both T1D and healthy subjects, it can be concluded that the PK and PD properties of MK-1293 are highly similar to those of Lantus. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02059174).

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 [AUC0-24 ] and maximum observed drug concentration [Cmax ]) and PD parameters (total amount of glucose infused during the clamp [Gtot ] and maximum glucose infusion rate [Rmax ]) 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.

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.

Efficacy and safety of LY2963016 insulin glargine in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes previously treated with insulin glargine.

The safety and efficacy of LY2963016 insulin glargine (LY IGlar) and Lantus insulin glargine (IGlar), products with identical primary amino acid sequences, were assessed in subgroups of patients with type 1 (T1D, n = 452) or type 2 diabetes (T2D, n = 299) reporting prestudy IGlar treatment in 52-week open-label (ELEMENT-1) and 24-week double-blind (ELEMENT-2) studies. At randomization, patients transitioned from their prestudy IGlar to equivalent doses of LY IGlar or IGlar. Primary efficacy (change in glycated haemoglobin from baseline to 24 weeks), other efficacy and select safety outcomes of LY IGlar were compared with those of IGlar. Continuous data were analysed using analysis of covariance, categorical data by Fisher's exact test, and treatment comparisons for hypoglycaemia by Wilcoxon test. No statistically significant treatment differences were identified for efficacy and safety outcomes except for weight change (T1D), overall incidence of detectable insulin antibodies (T2D), and serious adverse events (T2D). These differences were neither consistently observed across both studies nor observed in the total study populations, and their magnitude suggests they were not clinically meaningful. LY IGlar and IGlar show similar efficacy and safety profiles in patients reporting prestudy IGlar treatment.

Evaluation of immunogenicity of LY2963016 insulin glargine compared with Lantus® insulin glargine in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIMS: To compare the immunogenicity profiles and the potential effects on clinical outcomes of LY2963016 insulin glargine (LY IGlar) and Lantus® insulin glargine (IGlar), products with identical primary amino acid sequences, in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM or T2DM). METHODS: To assess immunogenicity, anti-insulin glargine antibodies (measured as percent binding) were compared between treatments in 52-week (open-label) and 24-week (double-blind) randomized studies in total study populations of patients with T1DM (N = 535) and T2DM (N = 756), respectively, and two subgroups of patients with T2DM: insulin-naïve patients and those reporting prestudy IGlar treatment (prior IGlar). Relationships between insulin antibody levels and clinical outcomes were assessed using analysis of covariance and partial correlations. Insulin antibody levels were assessed using Wilcoxon rank sum. Treatment comparisons for treatment-emergent antibody response (TEAR) and incidence of detectable antibodies were analysed using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: No significant treatment differences were observed for insulin antibody levels, incidence of detectable anti-insulin glargine antibodies, or incidence of TEAR [overall and endpoint, by last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF)] in patients with T1DM or patients with T2DM, including the insulin-naïve subgroup. A statistically significant difference was noted in the overall incidence of detectable antibodies but not at endpoint (LOCF) nor in TEAR for the prior IGlar subgroup of patients with T2DM. Insulin antibody levels were low (<5%) in both treatment groups. Insulin antibody levels or developing TEAR was not associated with clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: LY IGlar and IGlar have similar immunogenicity profiles; anti-insulin glargine antibody levels were low for both treatments, with no observed effect on efficacy and safety outcomes.

Comparison of the Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of LY2963016 Insulin Glargine and EU- and US-Approved Versions of Lantus Insulin Glargine in Healthy Subjects: Three Randomized Euglycemic Clamp Studies.

OBJECTIVE: LY2963016 (LY IGlar) and Lantus (IGlar) are insulin glargine products manufactured by distinct processes but with identical amino acid sequences. Three studies evaluated the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) similarity of LY IGlar and the European Union- and US-approved versions of IGlar. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: These were three single-site, randomized, double-blind, two-treatment, four-period, crossover, euglycemic clamp studies. In each study, fasted healthy subjects received 0.5 units/kg s.c. doses of two different insulin glargine products on two occasions each, following a randomized sequence. A ≥7-day washout period separated the doses. Blood samples were collected predose and up to 24 h postdose to assess PK; PD was assessed by a euglycemic clamp lasting up to 24 h. RESULTS: A total of 211 subjects participated in the three studies. The PK (area under the curve [AUC]; maximum observed concentration [Cmax]) and PD (maximum glucose infusion rate [Rmax]; total glucose infusion during the clamp [Gtot]) were similar between LY IGlar and IGlar, with the ratios of geometric means ranging from 0.90 to 0.95 for PK parameters and from 0.91 to 0.99 for PD parameters across studies. In all cases, the 90% CIs for the ratios of geometric means were completely contained in the prespecified acceptance limits of 0.80-1.25. Adverse events were similar between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: These studies demonstrated that the PK and PD properties of LY IGlar and IGlar were similar after single 0.5 units/kg s.c. doses in healthy subjects, contributing to the totality of evidence supporting similarity of these products.

A Comparison of the Effects of the GLP-1 Analogue Liraglutide and Insulin Glargine on Endothelial Function and Metabolic Parameters: A Randomized, Controlled Trial Sapporo Athero-Incretin Study 2 (SAIS2).

OBJECTIVES: GLP-1 improves hyperglycemia, and it has been reported to have favorable effects on atherosclerosis. However, it has not been fully elucidated whether GLP-1 is able to improve endothelial function in patients with type 2 diabetes. Therefore, we investigated the efficacy of the GLP-1 analogue, liraglutide on endothelial function and glycemic metabolism compared with insulin glargine therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, prospective randomized parallel-group comparison study, 31 diabetic outpatients (aged 60.3 ± 10.3 years with HbA1c levels of 8.6 ± 0.8%) with current metformin and/or sulfonylurea treatment were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive liraglutide or glargine therapy once daily for 14 weeks. Flow mediated dilation (FMD), a comprehensive panel of hemodynamic parameters (Task Force Monitor), and serum metabolic markers were assessed before and after the treatment period. RESULTS: A greater reduction (worsening) in %FMD was observed in the glargine group, although this change was not statistically different from the liraglutide group (liraglutide; 5.7 to 5.4%, glargine 6.7 to 5.7%). The augmentation index, C-peptide index, derivatives of reactive oxygen metabolites and BMI were significantly improved in the liraglutide group. Central systolic blood pressure and NT-proBNP also tended to be improved in the liraglutide-treated group, while improvements in HbA1c levels were similar between groups. Cardiac index, blood pressure and most other metabolic parameters were not different. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of glycemic improvement, early liraglutide therapy did not affect endothelial function but may provide favorable effects on beta-cell function and cardioprotection in type 2 diabetics without advanced atherosclerosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry System as trial ID UMIN000005331.

Similar efficacy and safety of LY2963016 insulin glargine and insulin glargine (Lantus®) in patients with type 2 diabetes who were insulin-naïve or previously treated with insulin glargine: a randomized, double-blind controlled trial (the ELEMENT 2 study).

AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of LY2963016 insulin glargine (LY IGlar) and the reference product (Lantus(®)) insulin glargine (IGlar) in combination with oral antihyperglycaemic medications in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: This phase III, randomized, double-blind, 24-week study enrolled patients with T2D who were insulin-naïve [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7 and ≤11.0%] or previously on IGlar (HbA1c ≤11%) and treated with ≥2 oral antihyperglycaemic medications. Patients were randomized to receive once-daily LY IGlar (n = 376) or IGlar (n = 380) for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy outcome was to test the non-inferiority (0.4% and then 0.3% margin) of LY IGlar to IGlar, as measured by change in HbA1c from baseline to 24 weeks. RESULTS: Both treatment groups had similar and significant (p < 0.001) within-group decreases in mean HbA1c values from baseline. LY IGlar met non-inferiority criteria compared with IGlar for change in HbA1c from baseline [-1.29 vs -1.34%; respectively, least-squares mean difference 0.052% (95% confidence interval -0.070 to 0.175); p > 0.05]. There were no treatment differences (p > 0.05) in fasting plasma glucose, proportion of patients reaching HbA1c <7% or insulin dose at 24 weeks. Adverse events, allergic reactions, weight change, hypoglycaemia and insulin antibodies were similar between treatment groups. Similar findings were observed in patients who were insulin-naïve or previously treated with IGlar at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Both LY IGlar and IGlar, when used in combination with oral antihyperglycaemic medications, provided effective and similar glucose control with similar safety profiles in patients with T2D.