Immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety of biosimilar insulin glargine (Gan & Lee glargine) compared with originator insulin glargine (Lantus®) in patients with type 2 diabetes after 26 weeks' treatment: A randomized open label study.

AIM: To evaluate the equivalence of immunogenicity, safety and efficacy of Gan & Lee (GL) Glargine (Basalin®; Gan & Lee Pharmaceutical) with that of the reference product (Lantus®) in adult participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: This was a phase 3, multicenter, open-label, equivalence trial conducted across 57 sites. In total, 567 participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to undergo treatment with either GL Glargine or Lantus® for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants in each treatment arm who manifested treatment-induced anti-insulin antibodies (AIA). Secondary endpoints included efficacy and safety metrics, changes in glycated haemoglobin levels, and a comparative assessment of adverse events. Results were analysed using an equivalence test comparing the limits of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for treatment-induced AIA development to the prespecified margins. RESULTS: The percentages of participants positive for treatment-induced glycated haemoglobin by week 26 were similar between the GL Glargine (19.2%) and Lantus® (21.3%) treatment groups, with a treatment difference of -2.1 percentage points and a 90% CI (-7.6%, 3.5%) (predefined similarity margins: -10.7%, 10.7%). The difference in glycated haemoglobin was -0.08% (90% CI, -0.23, 0.06). The overall percentage of participants with any treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between the GL Glargine (80.1%) and Lantus® (81.6%) treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: GL Glargine was similar to Lantus® in terms of immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety, based on the current study.

A 52-week placebo-controlled trial of evolocumab in hyperlipidemia.

BACKGROUND: Evolocumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9), significantly reduced low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels in phase 2 studies. We conducted a phase 3 trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 52 weeks of treatment with evolocumab. METHODS: We stratified patients with hyperlipidemia according to the risk categories outlined by the Adult Treatment Panel III of the National Cholesterol Education Program. On the basis of this classification, patients were started on background lipid-lowering therapy with diet alone or diet plus atorvastatin at a dose of 10 mg daily, atorvastatin at a dose of 80 mg daily, or atorvastatin at a dose of 80 mg daily plus ezetimibe at a dose of 10 mg daily, for a run-in period of 4 to 12 weeks. Patients with an LDL cholesterol level of 75 mg per deciliter (1.9 mmol per liter) or higher were then randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either evolocumab (420 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks. The primary end point was the percent change from baseline in LDL cholesterol, as measured by means of ultracentrifugation, at week 52. RESULTS: Among the 901 patients included in the primary analysis, the overall least-squares mean (±SE) reduction in LDL cholesterol from baseline in the evolocumab group, taking into account the change in the placebo group, was 57.0±2.1% (P<0.001). The mean reduction was 55.7±4.2% among patients who underwent background therapy with diet alone, 61.6±2.6% among those who received 10 mg of atorvastatin, 56.8±5.3% among those who received 80 mg of atorvastatin, and 48.5±5.2% among those who received a combination of 80 mg of atorvastatin and 10 mg of ezetimibe (P<0.001 for all comparisons). Evolocumab treatment also significantly reduced levels of apolipoprotein B, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, lipoprotein(a), and triglycerides. The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, influenza, and back pain. CONCLUSIONS: At 52 weeks, evolocumab added to diet alone, to low-dose atorvastatin, or to high-dose atorvastatin with or without ezetimibe significantly reduced LDL cholesterol levels in patients with a range of cardiovascular risks. (Funded by Amgen; DESCARTES ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01516879.).

Influence of patient perceptions and preferences for osteoporosis medication on adherence behavior in the Denosumab Adherence Preference Satisfaction study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate patient perceptions of subcutaneous denosumab or oral alendronate in postmenopausal women with or at risk for osteoporosis and how these perceptions influence adherence. METHODS: Postmenopausal women with low bone mass were randomized to denosumab 60 mg every 6 months for 1 year (treatment period 1 [TP1]) followed by alendronate 70 mg once weekly for 1 year (treatment period 2 [TP2]), or vice versa. Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire data were collected at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months; a necessity-concerns differential (NCD) was calculated for each time point. Logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the influences of baseline characteristics on nonadherence. RESULTS: Participants included 250 women (alendronate/denosumab, n = 124; denosumab/alendronate, n = 126). During TP1, the NCD at month 6 was higher with denosumab than with alendronate (P = 0.0076). In TP2, the NCD was higher for women switched to denosumab than for women switched to alendronate at 6 months (P = 0.0126) and 12 months (P = 0.4605). Denosumab was preferred to alendronate regardless of treatment sequence (P < 0.0001). Covariate analysis revealed that higher TP2 baseline necessity scores were associated with lower odds of nonadherence (P = 0.0055), whereas higher concerns about medication scores were associated with higher odds of nonadherence (P = 0.0247). Higher NCD scores were also associated with lower odds of nonadherence (P = 0.0015). CONCLUSIONS: Participants preferred denosumab to alendronate while on treatment and had more positive perceptions of denosumab than alendronate. These perceptions were associated with better adherence.

Comparison of aliskiren/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy with hydrochlorothiazide monotherapy in older patients with stage 2 systolic hypertension: results of the ACTION study.

Patients with stage 2 systolic hypertension require sizable blood pressure (BP) reductions to achieve recommended targets. This randomized double-blind study compared a single-pill combination of the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren and hydrochlorothiazide (aliskiren/HCTZ) with HCTZ monotherapy in older patients (older than 55 years) with systolic BP ≥160 mm Hg and <200 mm Hg. After a 1- to 4-week washout, 451 patients were randomized to once-daily aliskiren/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg or HCTZ 12.5 mg for 1 week, and then double the doses for 7 weeks. Overall baseline BP was 168.8/91.4 mm Hg. At week 4 (primary) end point, aliskiren/HCTZ provided significantly greater BP reductions from baseline than HCTZ monotherapy (29.6/9.3 mm Hg vs 22.3/6.8 mm Hg) and resulted in a greater proportion of patients achieving BP goal of <140/90 mm Hg (51.1% vs 33.3%). Aliskiren/HCTZ therapy provides substantial BP reductions and may thus be a useful treatment option for older patients with stage 2 hypertension.

Effects of denosumab on bone mineral density and bone turnover in postmenopausal women transitioning from alendronate therapy.

Patients treated with bisphosphonates for osteoporosis may discontinue or require a switch to other therapies. Denosumab binds to RANKL and is a potent inhibitor of bone resorption that has been shown to increase bone mineral density (BMD) and decrease fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. This was a multicenter, international, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study in 504 postmenopausal women > or = 55 years of age with a BMD T-score of -2.0 or less and -4.0 or more who had been receiving alendronate therapy for at least 6 months. Subjects received open-label branded alendronate 70 mg once weekly for 1 month and then were randomly assigned to either continued weekly alendronate therapy or subcutaneous denosumab 60 mg every 6 months and were followed for 12 months. Changes in BMD and biochemical markers of bone turnover were evaluated. In subjects transitioning to denosumab, total hip BMD increased by 1.90% at month 12 compared with a 1.05% increase in subjects continuing on alendronate (p < .0001). Significantly greater BMD gains with denosumab compared with alendronate also were achieved at 12 months at the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and 1/3 radius (all p < .0125). Median serum CTX levels remained near baseline in the alendronate group and were significantly decreased versus alendronate (p < .0001) at all time points with denosumab. Adverse events and serious adverse events were balanced between groups. No clinical hypocalcemic adverse events were reported. Transition to denosumab produced greater increases in BMD at all measured skeletal sites and a greater reduction in bone turnover than did continued alendronate with a similar safety profile in both groups.