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.

Effect of exenatide on the pharmacokinetics of a combination oral contraceptive in healthy women: an open-label, randomised, crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Consistent with its effect on gastric emptying, exenatide, an injectable treatment for type 2 diabetes, may slow the absorption rate of concomitantly administered oral drugs resulting in a decrease in maximum concentration (Cmax). This study evaluated the drug interaction potential of exenatide when administered adjunctively with oral contraceptives, given their potential concomitant use. METHODS: This trial evaluated the effect of exenatide co-administration on single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of a combination oral contraceptive (ethinyl estradiol [EE] 30 µg, levonorgestrel [LV] 150 µg [Microgynon 30®]). Thirty-two healthy female subjects participated in an open-label, randomised, crossover trial with 3 treatment periods (oral contraceptive alone, 1 hour before exenatide, 30 minutes after exenatide). Subjects received a single dose of oral contraceptive on Day 8 of each period and QD doses on Days 10 through 28. During treatment periods of concomitant usage, exenatide was administered subcutaneously prior to morning and evening meals at 5 µg BID from Days 1 through 4 and at 10 µg BID from Days 5 through 22. Single- (Day 8) and multiple-dose (Day 22) pharmacokinetic profiles were assessed for each treatment period. RESULTS: Exenatide did not alter the bioavailability nor decrease daily trough concentrations for either oral contraceptive component. No substantive changes in oral contraceptive pharmacokinetics occurred when oral contraceptive was administered 1 hour before exenatide. Single-dose oral contraceptive administration 30 minutes after exenatide resulted in mean (90% CI) Cmax reductions of 46% (42-51%) and 41% (35-47%) for EE and LV, respectively. Repeated daily oral contraceptive administration 30 minutes after exenatide resulted in Cmax reductions of 45% (40-50%) and 27% (21-33%) for EE and LV, respectively. Peak oral contraceptive concentrations were delayed approximately 3 to 4 hours. Mild-to-moderate nausea and vomiting were the most common adverse events observed during the trial. CONCLUSIONS: The observed reduction in Cmax is likely of limited importance given the unaltered oral contraceptive bioavailability and trough concentrations; however, for oral medications that are dependent on threshold concentrations for efficacy, such as contraceptives and antibiotics, patients should be advised to take those drugs at least 1 hour before exenatide injection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00254800.

Recommendations for Systematic Statistical Computation of Immunogenicity Cut Points.

Today, the assessment of immunogenicity is integral in nonclinical and clinical testing of new biotherapeutics and biosimilars. A key component in the risk-based evaluation of immunogenicity involves the detection and characterization of anti-drug antibodies (ADA). Over the past couple of decades, much progress has been made in standardizing the generalized approach for ADA testing with a three-tiered testing paradigm involving screening, confirmation, and quasi-quantitative titer assessment representing the typical harmonized scheme. Depending on a biotherapeutic's structural attributes, more characterization and testing may be appropriate. Unlike bioanalytical assays used to support the evaluation of pharmacokinetics or toxicokinetics, an important component in immunogenicity testing is the calculation of cut points for the identification (screening), confirmation (specificity), and titer assessment responses in animals and humans. Several key publications have laid an excellent foundation for statistical design and data analysis to determine immunogenicity cut points. Yet, the process for statistical determination of cut points remains a topic of active discussion by investigators who conduct immunogenicity assessments to support biotherapeutic drug development. In recent years, we have refined our statistical approach to address the challenges that have arisen due to the evolution in biotherapeutics and the analytical technologies used for quasi-quantitative detection. Based on this collective experience, we offer a simplified statistical analysis process and flow-scheme for cut point evaluations that should work in a large majority of projects to provide reliable estimates for the screening, confirmatory, and titering cut points.

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.

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.

Effect of age on the pharmacokinetics of duloxetine in women.

AIMS: The effect of age on duloxetine pharmacokinetics was evaluated in healthy volunteers and in patients with urinary incontinence. METHODS: Twenty-four healthy subjects (12 women 65-77 years, and 12 women 32-50 years) were given a single 40-mg oral dose of duloxetine in Study 1. Plasma concentration-time data were analysed by noncompartmental pharmacokinetic methods. Sparse plasma samples were obtained from patients with urinary incontinence treated in two phase II studies: 70 women (24-77 years) who received duloxetine 20 mg day(-1), 30 mg day(-1), or 40 mg day(-1) in Study 2A and 128 women (28-64 years) who received duloxetine 20 mg day(-1), 40 mg day(-1), or 80 mg day(-1) in Study 2B. Based upon the combined data, a model was developed to characterize population pharmacokinetics of duloxetine using the nonlinear mixed-effects modelling program (NONMEM). RESULTS: In Study 1, the elderly (> or = 65 years) exhibited a statistically significant slower elimination rate constant lambdaz compared with younger subjects [elderly-younger difference = -0.022 h(-1)[95% confidence interval (CI) -0.036, -0.008]]. However, no statistically significant differences in either CL/F [elderly-younger difference = -17.4 l h(-1) (95% CI -41.1, 6.23)] or V/F [elderly-younger difference = 115.9 l (95% CI -168.6, 400.4)] were observed. The population pharmacokinetic analysis of Studies 2A and 2B revealed that the CL/F of duloxetine decreased with increasing age. Despite statistical significance, the age effect only accounted for 3% of the interindividual variability in CL/F and unexplained sources of the variation in clearance were still substantial (> 50%). Adverse events were generally mild to moderate, and the incidence of adverse events was generally similar in elderly and non-elderly participants in these studies. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas the results suggest that age has an effect on duloxetine pharmacokinetics, primarily reflected as a slower lambdaz in the elderly, the magnitude of mean changes in CL/F, or V/F was small relative to the large interindividual variation in pharmacokinetics. Elderly participants had a safety profile of duloxetine comparable to their younger counterparts. Specific dose recommendations for duloxetine in the elderly are not warranted.