Pharmacokinetic similarity of switching SAR341402 insulin aspart biosimilar and NovoLog insulin aspart versus continuous use of NovoLog in adults with type 1 diabetes: The GEMELLI X trial.

AIM: To assess whether multiple switches between SAR341402 biosimilar insulin aspart (SAR-Asp) and the insulin aspart reference product (NovoLog; NN-Asp) leads to equivalent pharmacokinetic (PK) exposure compared with continuous use of NN-Asp in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study randomized (1:1) 210 subjects with T1D treated with once-daily insulin glargine U100 as basal insulin to four 4-week periods of alternating multiple daily injections of SAR-Asp and NN-Asp (NN-Asp for the first 4 weeks, SAR-Asp in the last 4 weeks; switching group) versus 16 weeks of continuous NN-Asp (non-switching group). At week 16, a single dose (0.15 U/kg) of SAR-Asp in the switching group (n = 95) or NN-Asp in the non-switching group (n = 105) was given in the morning before breakfast. Primary PK endpoints were area under the plasma concentration curve (AUC) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ) of SAR-Asp versus NN-Asp after the single dose at week 16. RESULTS: The extent of PK exposure was similar between the two treatments (SAR-Asp in the switching group and NN-Asp in the non-switching group) at week 16, with point estimates of treatment ratios close to 1. The 90% confidence intervals for AUC treatment ratios were contained within 0.8-1.25. For Cmax in the primary analysis set, the upper confidence limit was 1.32. This was because of the profiles of three participants with implausible high values. A prespecified sensitivity analysis excluding implausible values showed results contained within 0.8-1.25. CONCLUSIONS: PK exposure of SAR-Asp (switching group) and reference NN-Asp (non-switching group) were similar, supporting interchangeability between these two insulin aspart products.

Similar pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of rapid-acting insulin lispro products SAR342434 and US- and EU-approved Humalog in subjects with type 1 diabetes.

AIM: To compare the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of 3 rapid-acting insulin lispro products: SAR342434 solution, United States (US)-approved Humalog and European Union (EU)-approved Humalog. METHODS: In a single-centre, randomized, double-blind, 3-treatment, 3-period, 6-sequence, crossover, euglycaemic clamp study (NCT02273258), adult male subjects with type 1 diabetes were randomized to receive 0.3 U/kg of SAR342434 solution, US-approved and EU-approved Humalog under fasted conditions. PK and PD (glucose infusion rate [GIR]) were assessed up to 12 hours. RESULTS: Of the 30 subjects randomized, 28 completed all 3 treatment periods. Mean concentration and GIR vs time profiles were similar for all 3 products. Exposure (INS-Cmax , INS-AUClast and INS-AUC) and activity (GIRmax and GIR-AUC0-12h ) of SAR342434, US-approved and EU-approved Humalog were similar in all comparisons (point estimates of treatment ratios, 0.95-1.03 for PK parameters and 1.00-1.07 for PD parameters), with 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of geometric least squares means within the pre-specified bioequivalence limit (0.80-1.25) and no significant differences in time-related parameters. Within-subject variability of exposure and activity was low across the 3 clamps, indicating high day-to-day reproducibility in clamp performance, irrespective of the individual product. Adverse events were similar for all 3 products. No safety concerns were noted in vital signs or in laboratory and electrocardiogram data. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate similarity in insulin lispro exposure profiles and PD activity of SAR342434 solution to both US- and EU-approved Humalog, and between both US- and EU-approved Humalog, supporting the use of SAR342434 solution for injection as a follow-on product.

Safety and Efficacy of Switching SAR341402 Insulin Aspart and Originator Insulin Aspart vs Continuous Use of Originator Insulin Aspart in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: The GEMELLI X Trial.

BACKGROUND: SAR341402 insulin aspart (SAR-Asp) is a rapid-acting insulin analog developed as an interchangeable biosimilar to the marketed insulin aspart reference product (NovoLog; NN-Asp). GEMELLI X was a randomized controlled trial to assess outcomes with a biosimilar in line with the US Food and Drug Administration requirements for designation as an interchangeable biosimilar. This report assessed whether multiple switches between SAR-Asp and NN-Asp lead to equivalent safety and efficacy compared with continuous use of NN-Asp in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) treated with multiple daily injections, using once-daily insulin glargine U100 (Lantus) as the basal insulin. METHODS: This open-label randomized (1:1), parallel-group, phase 3 trial compared four × four weeks of alternating use of individually titrated SAR-Asp and NN-Asp (NN-Asp for first four weeks, SAR-Asp in last four weeks; switching group) vs 16 weeks of continuous use of NN-Asp (nonswitching group). End points included pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, adverse events, hypoglycemia, insulin dose, and change in efficacy parameters. RESULTS: Of the 210 patients randomized, 200 (95.5%) completed the trial. Patients assigned to switching group (n = 104) and nonswitching group (n = 106) showed similar safety and tolerability, including anti-insulin aspart antibody responses, adverse events, and hypoglycemia. At week 16, there was no relevant difference between switching vs nonswitching groups in the change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (least square [LS] mean difference = 0.05% [95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.13, 0.22]; 0.50 mmol/mol [-1.40, 2.39]), fasting plasma glucose (LS mean difference = 0.23 mmol/L [95% CI = -1.08, 1.53]; 4.12 mg/dL [-19.38, 27.62]), and changes in insulin dosages. CONCLUSIONS: Alternating doses of SAR-Asp and NN-Asp compared with continuous use of NN-Asp showed similar safety, immunogenicity, and clinical efficacy in adults with T1D. This study supports interchangeability between SAR-Asp and NN-Asp in T1D management.

In vitro Stability of Biosimilar Insulin Aspart SAR341402 in the Medtronic MiniMed Insulin Pumps.

SAR341402 (Insulin aspart Sanofi®) is an insulin aspart biosimilar that can be used for continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in pump systems. The physicochemical stability of SAR341402 for CSII use was evaluated in several in vitro experiments. Insulin aspart products (SAR341402, NovoLog®, NovoRapid®) were filled into pump reservoirs and pumped through Medtronic insulin pumps (MiniMedTM 530G-Model 751, Medtronic, Northridge, CA) and their related infusion sets under simulated stress conditions, including elevated temperature and mechanical agitation on a continuously vibrating platform, up to 13 days. Samples pumped through the infusion sets and retained in reservoirs (non-pumped) were analyzed using suitable analytical methods. All products showed stable insulin aspart content and no unwanted impurities. Minor pH changes were seen in all products but were not considered relevant. A time-dependent increase in high-molecular-weight proteins and largest other insulin aspart impurities was observed for each product but each remained within acceptance limits. Concentrations of phenol and metacresol decreased but remained at levels to ensure preservative efficacy. Samples collected from the infusion sets were clear of visible particles and showed comparable subvisible particle counts. No occlusion events were observed. Leachable profiles from pump and reservoir samples were similar in all product batches. Like NovoLog®/NovoRapid®, SAR341402 demonstrates appropriate physicochemical stability when used in these insulin pump systems.

Pharmacokinetic Similarity between Biosimilar Insulin Aspart Premix SAR341402 Mix 70/30 and Originator Insulin Aspart Mix 70/30 (NovoMix 30) in Indian Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: GEMELLI M Substudy.

Background: We compared the pharmacokinetic exposure, efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of biosimilar insulin aspart premix SAR341402 Mix 70/30 (SARAsp-Mix) with its originator NovoMix® 30 insulin aspart mix (NN-Mix) in adults with type 2 diabetes. Methods: This was a randomized, open-label, parallel-group, substudy of the phase 3 GEMELLI M trial performed in three Indian centres. Totally 13 Indian participants previously treated with premix insulin received a single subcutaneous 0.3 U/kg dose of each treatment and underwent pharmacokinetic sampling for 16 h after dosing. Participants were then treated for 26 weeks as per the main GEMELLI M trial with efficacy, safety and immunogenicity compared between groups. Results: The extent of exposure (area under the plasma concentration-time curve and maximum insulin aspart concentration) to SAR341402 insulin aspart in SARAsp-Mix and to insulin aspart in NN-Mix was similar following single doses of the allocated treatment. After 26 weeks, the mean ± SD [median] change in HbA1c from baseline was similar in both treatment groups (SARAsp-Mix -0.38% ± 1.54 [-1.00%]; NN-Mix -0.18% ± 1.97 [-0.80%]). Other efficacy endpoints, insulin dosages, anti-insulin aspart antibody response, hypoglycemia and adverse events were similar between groups. Conclusions: Our results support the findings from previous studies, that SARAsp-Mix has a similar pharmacokinetic profile to NN-Mix and provides effective glycemic control with similar safety and immunogenicity profile in Indian adults with type 2 diabetes.

Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of Biosimilar Insulin Aspart Premix SAR341402 Mix 70/30 Compared with Originator Insulin Aspart Mix 70/30 in Adults with Diabetes (GEMELLI M): A Subgroup Analysis by Prior Type of Premix Insulin.

INTRODUCTION: We compared the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of biosimilar insulin aspart premix SAR341402 Mix 70/30 (70% intermediate SAR341402 protamine and 30% rapid SAR341402 solution) (SARAsp-Mix) with its originator NovoMix 30 insulin aspart mix (NN-Mix) in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes switching from different premix insulin analogs. METHODS: This phase 3, randomized, open-label, multinational, 26-week trial (GEMELLI M) enrolled 402 participants with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. At randomization, participants switched from their prestudy premix insulin NovoMix 30 (n = 341) or Humalog Mix 25/Liprolog Mix 25 (n = 61) to equivalent (1:1) doses of either SARAsp-Mix or NN-Mix at least twice daily (1:1 randomization). In this subgroup analysis, efficacy measures [change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), daily insulin dose], and safety outcomes [hypoglycemia incidence, adverse events (including hypersensitivity and injection site reactions), anti-insulin aspart antibodies] of SARAsp-Mix were compared with those of NN-Mix separately according to the participants' prestudy premix insulin. RESULTS: At week 26, change from baseline in HbA1c (primary efficacy endpoint) was similar between SARAsp-Mix and NN-Mix in those participants pretreated with NovoMix 30 [least squares (LS) mean difference 0.05%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.195% to 0.289%] or Humalog Mix 25/Liprolog Mix 25 (LS mean difference 0.28%, 95% CI -0.279% to 0.830%) (P value for treatment-by-subgroup interaction = 0.46). In both subgroups, safety outcomes, including immunogenicity, and changes in daily insulin doses were similar between treatments over 26 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity profiles of SARAsp-Mix are similar to NN-Mix over 26 weeks in adults with diabetes irrespective of prior type of premix insulin. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number 2017-000092-84.

Biosimilar Insulin Aspart Premix SAR341402 Mix 70/30 Versus Originator Insulin Aspart Mix 70/30 (NovoMix 30) in People with Diabetes: A 26-Week, Randomized, Open-Label Trial (GEMELLI M).

INTRODUCTION: This study compared the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of biosimilar insulin aspart premix SAR341402 Mix 70/30 (SARAsp-Mix) with European-approved insulin aspart mix 70/30 - NovoMix® 30 (NN-Mix) in people with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: This 26-week, open-label, phase 3 trial enrolled 402 people with T1D (n = 105) or T2D (n = 297) previously treated with premix insulin, who were randomized (1:1) to SARAsp-Mix (n = 204) or NN-Mix (n = 198). RESULTS: After 26 weeks, the least squares (LS) mean [median] change in HbA1c from baseline was similar in both treatment groups (SARAsp-Mix - 0.55% [- 0.60%]; NN-Mix - 0.64% [- 0.60%]). The LS mean difference for SARAsp-Mix versus NN-Mix was 0.08%, with the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (- 0.139 to 0.303) slightly above the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.3%. Noninferiority of SARAsp-Mix over NN-Mix was not demonstrated in the primary intent-to-treat analysis, primarily because of one extreme outlying value impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic in the SARAsp-Mix group. Noninferiority was achieved in all secondary analyses, including prespecified per-protocol supportive and COVID-19 sensitivity analyses, as well as post hoc sensitivity analyses. Other efficacy endpoints, insulin dosages, anti-insulin aspart antibody response, hypoglycemia, and adverse events were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The totality of evidence indicates that SARAsp-Mix provides effective glycemic control with a similar safety and immunogenicity profile to NN-Mix in people with diabetes treated for 26 weeks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number 2017-000092-84.

Safety of Insulin Lispro and a Biosimilar Insulin Lispro When Administered Through an Insulin Pump.

BACKGROUND: SAR342434 (U100; SAR-Lis; insulin lispro) is a biosimilar/follow-on to insulin lispro (U100; Ly-Lis). Similar pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics between the two products has been demonstrated in a hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp study. The current study evaluated the safety of SAR-Lis and Ly-Lis when administered by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII; insulin pumps). METHODS: This was a randomized, open-label, 2 × 4-week, two-arm crossover study in 27 patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (NCT02603510). The main outcome was the incidence of infusion set occlusions (ISOs), defined as failure to correct hyperglycemia (plasma glucose ≥≥ 300 mg/dl) by 50 mg/dl within 60 minutes by insulin bolus via the pump. Secondary outcomes included intervals between infusion set changes, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) including infusion site, hypersensitivity reactions and hypoglycemic events, and safety. RESULTS: The number of patients reporting at least one ISO was small: 6/25 patients on SAR-Lis reported 14 ISOs and 4/27 on Ly-Lis reported nine ISOs. The estimated difference in ISO risk for SAR-Lis versus Ly-Lis was 7.9% (95% CI, -1.90 to 17.73). Mean interval between infusion set changes for any reason was similar with SAR-Lis (3.09 days) and Ly-Lis (2.95 days). The event rate (events/patient-month) of any hypoglycemia was similar with SAR-Lis (7.15) and Ly-Lis (7.98), as was the percentage of patients who experienced any TEAE (12.0% and 14.8%). CONCLUSION: Both SAR-Lis and Ly-Lis were well tolerated by patients using insulin pumps. The results do not suggest a clinically significant difference in the risk of ISO between SAR-Lis and Ly-Lis when used in CSII.