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.

Efficacy and safety of LY2963016 insulin glargine compared with insulin glargine (Lantus®) in patients with type 1 diabetes in a randomized controlled trial: the ELEMENT 1 study.

AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of LY2963016 insulin glargine (LY IGlar) and the reference product (Lantus®) insulin glargine (IGlar) in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). METHODS: This phase III, randomized, open-label, 52-week study enrolled patients with T1D [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≤11%] being treated with basal (once-daily) and bolus insulin. Patients were randomized to receive once-daily LY IGlar (n = 268) or IGlar (n = 267) in combination with mealtime insulin lispro for 52 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 the non-inferiority criteria compared with IGlar for change in HbA1c from baseline to 24 weeks [-0.35 vs -0.46%, least-squares mean difference 0.108% (95% confidence interval -0.002 to 0.219), p > 0.05]. There were no significant (p > 0.05) treatment differences in other efficacy measures, including proportion of patients reaching HbA1c <7%, daily mean blood glucose, and insulin dose at 24 and 52 weeks. At 52 weeks, similar findings were observed between LY IGlar and IGlar for safety outcomes, including adverse events, allergic reactions, hypoglycaemia, weight change and insulin antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: Both LY IGlar and IGlar, when used in combination with mealtime insulin lispro, provided effective and similar glucose control and similar safety profiles.

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.