Similar immunogenicity profiles between the proposed biosimilar MYL-1501D and reference insulin glargine in patients with diabetes mellitus: the phase 3 INSTRIDE 1 and INSTRIDE 2 studies.

BACKGROUND: MYL-1501D is a proposed biosimilar to insulin glargine. The noninferiority of MYL-1501D was demonstrated in patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes in 2 phase 3 trials. Immunogenicity of MYL-1501D and reference insulin glargine was examined in both studies. METHODS: INSTRIDE 1 and INSTRIDE 2 were multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel-group studies. In INSTRIDE 1, patients with type 1 diabetes received MYL-1501D or insulin glargine over a 52-week period. In INSTRIDE 2, patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral antidiabetic drugs, insulin naive or not, received MYL-1501D or reference insulin glargine over a 24-week period. Incidence rates and change from baseline in relative levels of antidrug antibodies (ADA) and anti-host cell protein (anti-HCP) antibodies in both treatment groups were determined by a radioimmunoprecipitation assay and a bridging immunoassay, respectively. Results were analyzed using a mixed-effects model (INSTRIDE 1) or a nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test (INSTRIDE 2). RESULTS: Total enrollment was 558 patients in INSTRIDE 1 and 560 patients in INSTRIDE 2. The incidence of total and cross-reactive ADA was comparable between treatment groups in INSTRIDE 1 and INSTRIDE 2 (P > 0.05 for both). A similar proportion of patients had anti-HCP antibodies in both treatment groups in INSTRIDE 1 at week 52 (MYL-1501D, 93.9 %; reference insulin glargine, 89.6 %; P = 0.213) and in INSTRIDE 2 at week 24 (MYL-1501D, 87.3 %; reference insulin glargine, 86.9 %; P > 0.999). CONCLUSIONS: In INSTRIDE 1 and INSTRIDE 2, similar immunogenicity profiles were observed for MYL-1501D and reference insulin glargine in patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes, respectively. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, INSTRIDE 1 ( NCT02227862 ; date of registration, August 28, 2014); INSTRIDE 2 ( NCT02227875 ; date of registration, August 28, 2014).

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic bioequivalence of proposed biosimilar MYL-1501D with US and European insulin glargine formulations in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

AIMS: To report phase 1 bioequivalence results comparing MYL-1501D, US reference insulin glargine (US IG), and European reference insulin glargine (EU IG). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The double-blind, randomized, three-way crossover study compared the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) characteristics of MYL-1501D, US IG and EU IG. In total, 114 patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) received 0.4 U/kg of each study treatment under automated euglycaemic clamp conditions. Insulin metabolite M1 concentrations, insulin glargine (IG) and glucose infusion rates (GIRs) were assessed over 30 hours. Primary PK endpoints were area under the serum IG concentration-time curve from 0 to 30 hours (AUCins.0-30h ) and maximum serum IG concentration (Cins.max ). Primary PD endpoints were area under the GIR-time curve from 0 to 30 hours (AUCGIR0-30h ) and maximum GIR (GIRmax ). RESULTS: Bioequivalence among MYL-1501D, US IG and EU IG was demonstrated for the primary PK and PD endpoints. Least squares mean ratios were close to 1, and 90% confidence intervals were within 0.80 to 1.25. The PD GIR-time profiles were nearly superimposable. There were no noticeable differences in the safety profiles of the three treatments, and no serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Equivalence with regard to PK and PD characteristics was shown among MYL-1501D, US IG and EU IG in patients with T1DM, and each treatment was well tolerated and safe.

Efficacy and safety of MYL-1501D versus insulin glargine in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus: Results of the INSTRIDE 3 phase 3 switch study.

AIMS: To assess the efficacy, insulin dose, safety and immunogenicity when people with type 1 diabetes mellitus switched between MYL-1501D and reference insulin glargine (Lantus®; Sanofi-Aventis US LLC, Bridgewater, New Jersey). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible participants from INSTRIDE 1 who completed 52 weeks of reference insulin glargine treatment were randomized 1:1 to the reference sequence (n = 63; reference insulin glargine for 36 weeks) or to the treatment-switching sequence (n = 64; MYL-1501D [weeks 0-12], reference insulin glargine [weeks 12-24] and MYL-1501D [weeks 24-36]). Change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to week 36 was the primary efficacy endpoint used to demonstrate equivalence between the two treatment sequences. Secondary endpoints included: change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) and insulin dose; immunogenicity; and adverse events, including hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: Mean changes in HbA1c (least squares [LS] mean [SE]) from baseline to week 36 were -0.05 (0.032) and -0.06 (0.034) for the treatment-switching and reference sequences, respectively (LS mean difference 0.01 [95% CI -0.085 to 0.101]). Treatment sequences were comparable in terms of secondary endpoints, including FPG, SMBG and insulin dose, and the safety and immunogenicity profiles of the two sequences were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Switching participants between MYL-1501D and reference insulin glargine demonstrated equivalent efficacy and similar safety and immunogenicity, showing that people taking reference insulin glargine can safely switch to MYL-1501D.

Efficacy and safety of MYL-1501D versus insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes after 24 weeks: Results of the phase III INSTRIDE 2 study.

AIMS: To assess the non-inferiority of MYL-1501D, a proposed biosimilar or follow-on biological agent to marketed insulin glargine, to reference insulin glargine (Lantus®; Sanofi-Aventis US LLC, Bridgewater, New Jersey) based on change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). MATERIALS AND METHODS: INSTRIDE 2 was a multicentre, open-label, randomized, parallel-group, phase III non-inferiority study comparing the efficacy and safety of MYL-1501D with those of reference insulin glargine in insulin-naive and insulin-non-naive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). The primary efficacy endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24. Secondary endpoints included metabolic readouts (eg, changes in fasting plasma glucose, insulin dosage, self-monitored blood glucose), immunogenicity and adverse events, including hypoglycaemia and nocturnal hypoglycaemic events. RESULTS: In all, 560 patients were randomized to MYL-1501D or insulin glargine in combination with OADs for 24 weeks. The mean change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24 was -0.60% (95% CI -0.78, -0.41) and - 0.66% (95% CI -0.84, -0.48) for MYL-1501D and reference insulin glargine, respectively. MYL-1501D was well tolerated and had a safety profile similar to that of reference insulin glargine. CONCLUSIONS: Demonstration of non-inferiority between MYL-1501D and reference insulin glargine for reduction of HbA1c during 24 weeks of treatment was achieved. The two treatment groups were similar in terms of secondary endpoints, including hypoglycaemia and nocturnal hypoglycaemia, local and systemic reactions, other safety variables, and immunogenicity.

New Fixed-Dose Combinations of Fenofibrate/Simvastatin Therapy Significantly Improve the Lipid Profile of High-Risk Patients with Mixed Dyslipidemia Versus Monotherapies.

AIMS: Guidelines propose additional therapy to statin to treat elevated triglycerides (TG) and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLC) in dyslipidemic patients. We evaluated the effects of new fixed-dose combinations (FDC) of fenofibrate/simvastatin on plasma lipids versus simvastatin or fenofibrate monotherapies. METHODS: Subjects with mixed dyslipidemia at high or very high cardiovascular risk on stable statin therapy for at least 3 months were included in a randomized, double-blind, active-control, parallel-group study. Patients were treated with FDC fenofibrate/simvastatin 145/20 mg or 145/40 mg, simvastatin 20 mg or 40 mg, or fenofibrate 145 mg for 12 weeks. Plasma lipids, C-reactive protein, and cystatin C were measured before and after treatments. Differences in % changes were compared between FDC fenofibrate/simvastatin and monotherapies. RESULTS: Significant differences between FDC fenofibrate/simvastatin and simvastatin monotherapies were observed for the % change of TG (LS mean difference [two-sided 95% CI]: -32.2% [-38.6%, -25.8%], P < 0.001) and HDL-C (7.5% [4.7%, 10.2%], P < 0.001). A significant difference between the FDC fenofibrate/simvastatin and fenofibrate was observed for LDLC % changes (-34.7% [-40.8%, -28.5%], P < 0.001). Significant differences between FDC fenofibrate/simvastatin and their respective monotherapies were also observed for Apo B and non-HDLC % changes. The FDC were well tolerated with a similar safety profile compared with monotherapies. CONCLUSIONS: FDC fenofibrate/simvastatin are effective and well-tolerated therapies to improve the TG and HDLC profile in high-risk patients with mixed dyslipidemia.

Effects of fenofibric acid on diabetic macular edema: the MacuFen study.

PURPOSE: Fenofibrate reduced progression of diabetic retinopathy in two large randomized studies. The effect of 135 mg fenofibric acid on diabetic macular edema (DME) was evaluated in subjects with existing DME. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, 110 subjects with DME not requiring immediate photocoagulation or intraocular treatment with adequate diabetes and blood pressure control received either fenofibric acid or placebo once daily for 1 year. Total macula volume (TMV) and thickness were measured in the worse eye and all eligible eyes with time-domain optical coherence tomography at baseline and quarterly thereafter. RESULTS: TMV decreased by -0.35 mm(3) (within-group difference) after fenofibric acid treatment and by -0.11 mm(3) after placebo. The between-group comparison of the change was -0.25 mm(3) (95% confidence interval, CI, -0.645-0.155; p = 0.227, worse eye analysis). Weighted inner zone thickness and volume decreased by -18.7 µm and -0.13 mm(3), respectively, for within group difference after fenofibric acid and by -3.1 µm and -0.02 mm(3), respectively, after placebo. Considering all eligible eyes, thicknesses at central zone, mean inner zone, and entire retina decreased by -21.3 µm, -19.8 µm, and -20.4 µm, respectively, after fenofibric acid. No between-group difference in changes of these measurements was observed. Triglycerides decreased by 23% after fenofibric acid (vs 4% after placebo, p = 0.001) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol increased by 8% (vs 0.3%, p = 0.014). No safety concern was identified. CONCLUSION: Subjects treated with fenofibric acid had a modest improvement in TMV, although the study was probably underpowered to detect a benefit over placebo after 1 year.

Pharmacokinetic interaction between simvastatin and fenofibrate with staggered and simultaneous dosing: Does it matter?

Simvastatin and fenofibrate are frequently co-prescribed at staggered intervals for the treatment of dyslipidemia. Since a drug-drug interaction has been reported when the two drugs are given simultaneously, it is of clinical interest to know whether the interaction differs between simultaneous and staggered combinations. A study, assessing the impact of both combinations on the interaction, was conducted with 7-day treatment regimens using simvastatin 40 mg and fenofibrate 145 mg: (A) simvastatin only (evening), (B) simvastatin and fenofibrate (both in evening), and (C) simvastatin (evening) and fenofibrate (morning). Eighty-five healthy subjects received the respective treatments in a randomized, 3-way cross-over study. The pharmacokinetics of simvastatin and the active metabolite simvastatin acid were determined. There was a limited reduction in the AUC0-24h of simvastatin acid of 21 and 29% for simultaneous and staggered combination, respectively. The geometric mean AUC0-24h ratio of simvastatin acid for the two combined dosing regimens (B/C) and 90% confidence interval were 111% (102-121). The interaction apparently had no impact on lipid markers. The findings imply that the observed pharmacokinetic interaction is unlikely clinically relevant, and support the combined use of simvastatin and fenofibrate not only given at staggered interval but also given simultaneously.

Primary prevention of diabetic retinopathy with fibrates: a retrospective, matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the progression of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in people with type 2 diabetes treated with fibrates with that of non-exposed controls. DESIGN: Retrospective, matched cohort study. SETTING: UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). PARTICIPANTS: 5038 people with type 2 diabetes with a history of fibrate exposure but without evidence of DR were identified. Three thousand one hundred and seventy-six (63%) people could be randomly matched to one non-exposed control; of these, 2599 (81.8%) were matched without any missing blood pressure or glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) values. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was first recorded DR with a secondary endpoint of all-cause mortality or first DR. Time to clinical endpoints was compared using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 5.1 and 5.0 years for fibrate-exposed and non-exposed patients, respectively. For fibrate-exposed participants, there was a reduction in DR: 33.4 events/1000 person-years vs 40.4 (p=0.002), and in death or DR: 50.6 vs 60.2 (p<0.001). For those matched with full systolic blood pressure and HbA1c data, crude event rates were 34.3 versus 43.9 for DR (p<0.001) and 51.2 vs 63.4 (p<0.001) for death or DR. Following adjustment, DR was significantly delayed for those treated with fibrates, with an adjusted HR (aHR) of 0.785 (p<0.001) for participants with complete data and an aHR of 0.802 (p<0.001) for all participants. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment with fibrates in people with type 2 diabetes was independently associated with reduced progression to a first diagnosis of DR.