Efficacy and safety of phospholipid nanoparticles (VBI-S) in reversing intractable hypotension in patients with septic shock: a multicentre, open-label, repeated measures, phase 2a clinical pilot trial.

Background: Since the 1990's attempts to favorably modulate nitric oxide (NO) have been unsuccessful. We hypothesized that because NO is lipophilic it would preferentially localize into intravascularly infused hydrophobic nanoparticles, thereby reducing its bioavailability and adverse effects without inhibiting its production. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of intravenous infusion of a fluid comprised of hydrophobic phospholipid nanoparticles (VBI-S) that reversibly absorb NO in the treatment of hypotension of patients in severe septic shock. Methods: This is a multicentre, open-label, repeated measures, phase 2a clinical pilot trial done at six hospital centers in the USA. Patients in severe septic shock were enrolled after intravenous fluid therapy had failed to raise mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) to at least the generally accepted level of 65 mmHg, requiring the use of vasopressors. The primary endpoint of this study is the proportion of patients in whom MAP increased by at least 10 mmHg. VBI-S was administered intravenously to patients as boluses of 100 ml, 200 ml, 400 ml, and 800 ml at 999 ml/min until the blood pressure goal was reached after which the infusion was stopped, and the MAP was recorded. All patients who received any volume of VBI-S were included in the primary and safety analysis. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04257136. Findings: Between February 17, 2020 and January 3, 2023, 20 eligible patients were enrolled in the study. In all 20 (100%) patients, the goal of increasing MAP by at least 10 mmHg using VBI-S was achieved (p = 0.0087, effect size = 0.654). Mean VBI-S volume required to meet the primary goal was 561.0 ± 372.3 ml. The goal of lowering vasopressor dose was also achieved (p = 0.0017). Within 48 h or less after VBI-S, there was a statistically significant improvement in oxygenation, serum creatinine, clotting variables, procalcitonin, lactic acid, and the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score. At 24 h and 48 h following administration of VBI-S, 12/15 (80%) and 9/12 (75%) patients developed hyperlipidemia, respectively. No severe adverse events of VBI-S were observed, and there were no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation: These preliminary findings suggest the safety and efficacy of VBI-S in treating hypotension in patients with septic shock. However, a definitive mortality benefit cannot be demonstrated without a randomized controlled study. Funding: The Naval Medical Research Command-Naval Advanced Medical Development program via the Medical Technology Enterprise Consortium.

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.

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.

Continuous glucose monitoring-based time-in-range using insulin glargine 300 units/ml versus insulin degludec 100 units/ml in type 1 diabetes: The head-to-head randomized controlled InRange trial.

AIM: To use continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-based time-in-range (TIR) as a primary efficacy endpoint to compare the second-generation basal insulin (BI) analogues insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) and insulin degludec 100 U/ml (IDeg-100) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: InRange was a 12-week, multicentre, randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group, open-label study comparing glucose TIR and variability between Gla-300 and IDeg-100 using blinded 20-day CGM profiles. The inclusion criteria consisted of adults with T1D treated with multiple daily injections, using BI once daily and rapid-acting insulin analogues for at least 1 year, with an HbA1c of 7% or higher and of 10% or less at screening. RESULTS: Overall, 343 participants were randomized: 172 received Gla-300 and 171 IDeg-100. Non-inferiority (10% relative margin) of Gla-300 versus IDeg-100 was shown for the primary endpoint (percentage TIR ≥ 70 to ≤ 180 mg/dl): least squares (LS) mean (95% confidence interval) 52.74% (51.06%, 54.42%) for Gla-300 and 55.09% (53.34%, 56.84%) for IDeg-100; LS mean difference (non-inferiority): 3.16% (0.88%, 5.44%) (non-inferiority P = .0067). Non-inferiority was shown on glucose total coefficient of variation (main secondary endpoint): LS mean 39.91% (39.20%, 40.61%) and 41.22% (40.49%, 41.95%), respectively; LS mean difference (non-inferiority) -5.44% (-6.50%, -4.38%) (non-inferiority P < .0001). Superiority of Gla-300 over IDeg-100 was not shown on TIR. Occurrences of self-measured and CGM-derived hypoglycaemia were comparable between treatment groups. Safety profiles were consistent with known profiles, with no unexpected findings. CONCLUSIONS: Using clinically relevant CGM metrics, InRange shows that Gla-300 is non-inferior to IDeg-100 in people with T1D, with comparable hypoglycaemia and safety profiles.

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.

Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of Insulin Aspart Biosimilar SAR341402 Compared with Originator Insulin Aspart in Adults with Diabetes (GEMELLI 1): A Subgroup Analysis by Prior Type of Mealtime Insulin.

INTRODUCTION: The biosimilar SAR341402 insulin aspart (SAR-Asp) was compared to its originator NovoLog®/NovoRapid® insulin aspart (NN-Asp) in terms of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity, in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes switching from different rapid-acting insulin analogs. METHODS: This phase 3, randomized, open-label, multinational, 52-week study (GEMELLI 1) enrolled participants with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (n = 597). At randomization, participants transitioned from NovoLog/NovoRapid (n = 380) or Humalog®/Liprolog® (n = 217) to equivalent (1:1) doses (or a dose at the discretion of the investigator) of either SAR-Asp or NN-Asp (1:1 randomization). Participants were treated with multiple daily injections in combination with insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Lantus®). In this subgroup analysis, efficacy measures (change in hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c], insulin dose [total, basal and mealtime]), and safety outcomes (hypoglycemia incidence, adverse events, anti-insulin aspart antibodies) of SAR-Asp were compared with those of NN-Asp separately according to the participants' prestudy mealtime insulin. RESULTS: At week 26 (primary efficacy endpoint), change in HbA1c was similar between SAR-Asp and NN-Asp in those participants pre-treated with NovoLog/NovoRapid (least squares [LS] mean difference - 0.04%, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.182 to 0.106%) or Humalog/Liprolog (LS mean difference - 0.15%, 95% CI - 0.336 to 0.043%) (P value for treatment by subgroup interaction = 0.36). This HbA1c response persisted over the 52 weeks of the study similarly for both treatments within each subgroup. In both subgroups, changes in insulin doses were similar between treatments over 26 weeks and 52 weeks, as were the incidences of severe or any hypoglycemia, adverse events (including hypersensitivity and injection site reactions), and anti-insulin aspart antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy and safety (including immunogenicity) profiles of SAR-Asp are similar to those of NN-Asp over 52 weeks in adults with diabetes irrespective of prior type of mealtime insulin. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03211858.

A single-dose euglycaemic clamp study in two cohorts to compare the exposure of SAR341402 (insulin aspart) Mix 70/30 with US- and European-approved versions of insulin aspart Mix 70/30 and SAR341402 rapid-acting solution in subjects with type 1 diabetes.

AIM: To compare the pharmacokinetic exposure of SAR341402 Mix 70/30 (SARAsp -Mix) with US- and European (EU)-approved versions of insulin aspart Mix 70/30 (NovoLog Mix 70/30 [NN-Mix-US]/NovoMix 30 [NN-Mix-EU]) and SAR341402 insulin aspart solution (SAR-Asp) in subjects with type 1 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, crossover trial in two cohorts. Fifty-two subjects received a single subcutaneous 0.3 U/kg dose of each treatment and underwent a euglycaemic clamp procedure lasting for a maximum of 24 hours after dosing. In cohort 1, subjects (N = 36) were exposed once each to SARAsp -Mix, NN-Mix-US and NN-Mix-EU. In cohort 2, subjects (N = 16) were exposed once each to SARAsp -Mix and SAR-Asp. RESULTS: Of the 52 subjects randomized, 48 completed all treatment periods. In cohort 1, the extent of exposure (total and maximum concentration) was similar among the three treatments, with the 90% confidence intervals for pairwise treatment ratios meeting the predefined acceptance range (0.80 to 1.25). In cohort 2, statistically significant differences (P < .001) in early (0-4 hours) and intermediate (4-12 hours) exposure to SARAsp -Mix compared with SAR-Asp were observed, all exceeding a 20% difference. Pharmacodynamic results were in support of the pharmacokinetic findings for both cohorts. All treatments were well tolerated and there were no relevant differences in safety variables among treatments. CONCLUSIONS: SARAsp -Mix showed similar pharmacokinetic exposure to commercially available insulin aspart Mix 70/30 formulations, and a distinct exposure profile compared with SAR-Asp.

Correction to: InRange: Comparison of the Second-Generation Basal Insulin Analogues Glargine 300 U/mL and Degludec 100 U/mL in Persons with Type 1 Diabetes Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Study Design.

In the original publication, the timing of baseline CGM assessment was incorrectly stated.

Correction to: InRange: Comparison of the Second-Generation Basal Insulin Analogues Glargine 300 U/mL and Degludec 100 U/mL in Persons with Type 1 Diabetes Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Study Design.

In the original publication, the timing of baseline CGM assessment was incorrectly stated in the text in two instances; it is correct in Fig. 1.

Safety, Immunogenicity, and Glycemic Control of Insulin Aspart Biosimilar SAR341402 Versus Originator Insulin Aspart in People with Diabetes Also Using Insulin Glargine: 12-Month Results from the GEMELLI 1 Trial.

Background: SAR341402 (SAR-Asp) is a biosimilar/follow-on of the originator insulin aspart-NovoLog®/NovoRapid® (NN-Asp). This study investigated whether the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity findings for SAR-Asp versus NN-Asp, observed over 6 months in people with type 1 (n = 497) or type 2 diabetes (n = 100) treated with multiple daily injections in combination with insulin glargine (Lantus®), are maintained after 12 months. Materials and Methods: GEMELLI 1 was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 study. Participants completing the initial 6-month treatment period continued on SAR-Asp or NN-Asp, as randomized, for a 6-month safety extension. Results: Of the 597 participants randomized, 264 out of 301 (87.7%) and 263 out of 296 (88.9%) assigned to SAR-Asp and NN-Asp, respectively, completed 12 months of treatment. Improved glycemic control was sustained at 12 months in both treatment groups, with similar least-squares mean reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline (SAR-Asp: -0.25%; NN-Asp: -0.26%). Fasting plasma glucose and seven-point self-monitored plasma glucose profile changes, including postprandial glucose excursions, and changes in mealtime and basal insulin dosages were similar between groups. Safety and tolerability, including anti-insulin aspart antibodies (AIAs; incidence, prevalence, titers, cross-reactivity to human insulin), neutralizing antibodies (incidence, prevalence), hypoglycemia, and treatment-emergent adverse events (including hypersensitivity events and injection site reactions), were similar between groups. No relationship was observed between maximum individual AIA titers and change in HbA1c or insulin dose, hypoglycemia, or hypersensitivity reactions or between efficacy/safety measures and subgroups by presence or absence of treatment-emergent AIA. Conclusions: SAR-Asp and NN-Asp demonstrated similar efficacy and safety (including immunogenicity) in people with diabetes over 12 months of treatment.

InRange: Comparison of the Second-Generation Basal Insulin Analogues Glargine 300 U/mL and Degludec 100 U/mL in Persons with Type 1 Diabetes Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Study Design.

INTRODUCTION: Suboptimal glycaemic control among people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) is known to lead to long-term micro- and macrovascular complications and, unfortunately, it is still prevalent even in the most affluent societies. Although glycated haemoglobin monitoring is considered to be the gold standard for assessing glycaemic control, such monitoring is unable to reliably measure acute glycaemic excursions. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to improve glucose control and reduce the incidence of hypoglycaemia, and also allow a more complete assessment of overall glycaemic control and hyper- and hypoglycaemic excursions. The use of CGM has led to time-in-range, which is the time that a patient is within the glycaemic range of 70 to 180 mg/dL, to be adopted as a treatment target. To date, only limited data comparing the second-generation insulins glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and degludec 100 U/mL (IDeg-100) in people with T1D are available, and there is no CGM literature on comparisons of the use of CGM results to assess primary, secondary and tertiary endpoints. The aim of the InRange study was to address this unmet need. METHODS: InRange is a multicentre, randomised, active-controlled, parallel-group, 12-week, open-label, phase 4, comparative study. Adults with T1D will be randomised to receive once-daily Gla-300 or IDeg-100 by subcutaneous injection in the morning. Following an 8-week titration period, CGM data will be collected over 20 consecutive days. PLANNED OUTCOMES: The primary objective is to demonstrate that Gla-300 is noninferior to IDeg-100 in terms of glycaemic control [time-in-range ≥ 70 to ≤ 180 mg/dL (≥ 3.9 to ≤ 10 mmol/L)] and variability, as assessed using CGM, in adults with T1D. The results are expected to help confirm the utility of CGM in clinical practice in this population and provide insight into its application as an outcome measure in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04075513.

Safety and Tolerability of Insulin Aspart Biosimilar SAR341402 Versus Originator Insulin Aspart (NovoLog) When Used in Insulin Pumps in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized, Open-Label Clinical Trial.

Background: The aim was to assess the safety and tolerability of the insulin aspart biosimilar/follow-on product SAR341402 (100 U/mL solution; SAR-Asp) and originator insulin aspart (100 U/mL; NN-Asp; NovoLog®) self-administered through an insulin pump. Materials and Methods: This randomized, open-label, 2 × 4-week crossover study enrolled 45 adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Participants were randomized 1:1 to the treatment sequence SAR-Asp/NN-Asp or NN-Asp/SAR-Asp. The basal and prandial insulin doses were individually titrated. The primary outcome was the number of participants with at least one infusion set occlusion (infusion set change due to failure-to-correct hyperglycemia [plasma glucose ≥250 mg/dL] by insulin pump bolus) during the 4-week treatment. The main secondary outcome was the number of participants with at least one episode of unexplained hyperglycemia (regardless of correction by an insulin pump bolus without apparent material defect, medical, dietary, insulin dosing reason, or pump problem). Results: The number of participants reporting ≥1 infusion set occlusion were similar between treatments: 14/43 on SAR-Asp (33 events) and 12/43 on NN-Asp (24 events). The estimated difference in infusion set occlusion risk for SAR-Asp versus NN-Asp was 4.1% (95% confidence interval: -9.3% to 17.4%). The number of participants with ≥1 episode of unexplained hyperglycemia was similar between treatments (31/43 on SAR-Asp [154 events]; 32/43 on NN-Asp [175 events]). Hypoglycemia, treatment-emergent adverse events, hypersensitivity, and injection site reactions were similar between treatments. Conclusions: SAR-Asp and NN-Asp were well tolerated and had similar infusion set occlusions over a 4-week period in insulin pump users with T1D.

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Aspart Biosimilar SAR341402 Versus Originator Insulin Aspart in People with Diabetes Treated for 26 Weeks with Multiple Daily Injections in Combination with Insulin Glargine: A Randomized Open-Label Trial (GEMELLI 1).

Background: This study compared the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of insulin aspart biosimilar/follow-on biologic product SAR341402 (SAR-Asp) with originator insulin aspart-NovoLog®/NovoRapid® (NN-Asp) in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with multiple daily injections in combination with insulin glargine (Lantus®; Gla-100). Materials and Methods: This 6-month, randomized, open-label, phase 3 study (NCT03211858) enrolled 597 people with T1D (n = 497) or T2D (n = 100). Participants were randomized 1:1 to mealtime SAR-Asp (n = 301) or NN-Asp (n = 296) in combination with Gla-100. The primary objective was to demonstrate noninferiority (by 0.3% margin in the intent-to-treat population) of SAR-Asp versus NN-Asp in HbA1c change from baseline to week 26. Immunogenicity was also assessed in terms of anti-insulin aspart antibody (AIA) status (positive/negative) and titers during the study. Results: HbA1c was similarly improved in both treatment groups (SAR-Asp -0.38%; NN-Asp -0.30%); the least squares mean difference at week 26 for SAR-Asp minus NN-Asp was -0.08% (95% confidence interval: -0.192 to 0.039), thus meeting the criteria for noninferiority between SAR-Asp and NN-Asp and inverse noninferiority of NN-Asp versus SAR-Asp. Changes in fasting plasma glucose and seven-point self-monitored plasma glucose profile, including postprandial glucose excursions, and insulin dosages were similar in both groups at week 26. Safety and tolerability, including AIA responses (incidence, prevalence), hypoglycemia, and adverse events (including hypersensitivity events and injection site reactions), were similar between groups. Conclusions: SAR-Asp demonstrated effective glycemic control with a similar safety and immunogenicity profile to NN-Asp in people with diabetes treated for 26 weeks.

Evaluation of the innate immunostimulatory potential of originator and non-originator copies of insulin glargine in an in vitro human immune model.

BACKGROUND: The manufacture of insulin analogs requires sophisticated production procedures which can lead to differences in the structure, purity, and/or other physiochemical properties of resultant products that can affect their biologic activity. Here, we sought to compare originator and non-originator copies of insulin glargine for innate immune activity and mechanisms leading to differences in these response profiles in an in vitro model of human immunity. METHODS: An endothelial/dendritic cell-based innate immune model was used to study antigen-presenting cell activation, cytokine secretion, and insulin receptor signalling pathways induced by originator and non-originator insulin glargine products. Mechanistic studies included signalling pathway blockade with specific inhibitors, analysis of the products in a Toll-like receptor reporter cell line assay, and natural insulin removal from the products by immunopurification. FINDINGS: All insulin glargine products elicited at least a minor innate immune response comparable to natural human insulin, but some lots of a non-originator copy product induced the elevated secretion of the cytokines, IL-8 and IL-6. In studies aimed at addressing the mechanisms leading to differential cytokine production by these products, we found (1) the inflammatory response was not mediated by bacterial contaminants, (2) the innate response was driven by the native insulin receptor through the MAPK pathway, and (3) the removal of insulin glargine significantly reduced their capacity to induce innate activity. No evidence of product aggregates was detected, though the presence of some high molecular weight proteins argues for the presence of insulin glargine dimers or others contaminants in these products. CONCLUSION: The data presented here suggests some non-originator insulin glargine product lots drive heightened in vitro human innate activity and provides preliminary evidence that changes in the biochemical composition of non-originator insulin glargine products (dimers, impurities) might be responsible for their greater immunostimulatory potential.

A Bayesian approach for inference from a bridging study with binary outcomes.

To address concerns that ethnic differences in any clinical trial may affect the performance of a treatment, separate clinical trials may be required for different regions. If a drug is approved in one region based on a bigger clinical trial, a bridging study with smaller size may be conducted in a new region to evaluate the similarity of the earlier clinical data to the new population. This article applies a Bayesian strategy to combine a bridging study with reference studies to assess treatment effect similarity for binary endpoints. The methods have been illustrated with a numerical example using Markov-chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) techniques.

Accelerated test system strength models based on Birnbaum-Saunders distribution: a complete Bayesian analysis and comparison.

Several models for studies related to tensile strength of materials are proposed in the literature where the size or length component has been taken to be an important factor for studying the specimens' failure behaviour. An important model, developed on the basis of cumulative damage approach, is the three-parameter extension of the Birnbaum-Saunders fatigue model that incorporates size of the specimen as an additional variable. This model is a strong competitor of the commonly used Weibull model and stands better than the traditional models, which do not incorporate the size effect. The paper considers two such cumulative damage models, checks their compatibility with a real dataset, compares them with some of the recent toolkits, and finally recommends a model, which appears an appropriate one. Throughout the study is Bayesian based on Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation.