The Future of Biosimilar Insulins.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kim AP
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5001215 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The Future of Biosimilar Insulins.
Kim Anne Park AP Bindler Ross Jason RJ
Diabetes spectrum : a publication of the American Diabetes Association 20160801 3
IN BRIEF Biosimilar insulins are available in many countries and will be made available in the United States in the near future. Some concerns associated with biosimilar insulins include potential differences in the efficacy and safety between a biosimilar product and its reference insulin, the ramifications of having the same name or different names for a biosimilar and its reference insulin, the prospects of and limitations to substituting insulin products, and the proper implementation of pha ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Biosimilar insulins are likely to enter clinical practice in Europe in the near future. It is important that clinicians are familiar with and understand the concept of biosimilarity and how a biosimilar drug may differ from its reference product. The present article provides an overview of biosimilars, the European regulatory requirements for biosimilars and safety issues. It also summarizes the current biosimilars approved in Europe and the key clinical issues associated with the use of biosimilar insulins.
| S-EPMC4403967 | biostudies-other
Project description:Regulatory approval of the first biosimilar insulin in Europe, LY2963016 insulin glargine (Abasaglar® ), in 2014 expanded the treatment options available to people with diabetes. As biosimilar insulin products come to market, it is important to recognize that insulin products are biologicals manufactured through complex biotechnology processes, and thus biosimilar insulins cannot be considered identical to their reference products. Strict regulatory guidelines adopted by authorities in Europe, the USA and some other countries help to ensure that efficacy and safety profiles of biosimilar insulins are not meaningfully different from those of the reference products, preventing entry of biological compounds not meeting quality standards and potentially affecting people's glycaemic outcomes. This review explains the concept of biosimilar medicines and outlines regulatory requirements for registration of biosimilar insulins in Europe, which is illustrated by the successful development of LY2963016 insulin glargine and MK-1293 insulin glargine (Lusduna® ). Preclinical and clinical comparative studies of the biosimilar insulin glargine programmes include in vitro bioassays for insulin and insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor binding, assessment of in vitro biological activity, evaluation of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles in phase I studies and assessment of long-term safety and efficacy in phase III studies. The emergence of biosimilar insulins may help broaden access to modern insulins, increase individualized treatment options and reduce costs of insulin therapy.
| S-EPMC5637898 | biostudies-literature
Project description:For nearly a century, no generic form of insulin has been available in the United States. However, the first biosimilar insulin, Basaglar, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2015, and subsequently Admelog and Lusduna in 2017.To summarize the scientific evidence comparing the safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of biosimilar and reference insulin products.We conducted a systematic review using PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Latin America and Caribbean Health Sciences, South Asian Database of Controlled Clinical Trials, and IndiaMED from their inception through January 14, 2018.We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing safety, clinical efficacy, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of any biosimilar insulin with a reference product in adults regardless of sample size and location.Two researchers independently reviewed all titles, abstracts and text; extracted data; and performed quality assessments.Efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of biosimilar and reference insulin products.Of 6945 articles screened, 11 studies were included in the data synthesis. LY2963016, Basalog, Basalin, and MK-1293 were compared to Lantus while SAR342434 was compared to Humalog. Three trials enrolled healthy volunteers, five enrolled type 1 diabetics, and two enrolled type 2 diabetics. One study enrolled both healthy and type 1 diabetics. Of the eleven studies, six examined pharmacokinetic and/or pharmacodynamic parameters and five examined clinical efficacy and immunogenicity. All studies included adverse events. All PK and/or PD studies showed that comparable parameters of biosimilar and reference products were within the pre-specified equivalence margins. Clinical studies suggested similar clinical efficacy and immunogenicity. Adverse events were similar between the groups across all studies.Few published studies have compared biosimilar and reference insulins, though those that did suggest that the biosimilars have comparable safety and clinical efficacy as its reference product.
| S-EPMC5905882 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IN BRIEF As more patents on biological medicines expire, increased numbers of biologic copies, referred to as "biosimilars," will likely become available in the United States in the coming years. With greater availability and the drive for health care savings, the use of biosimilars and of "follow-on" biological products is likely to increase in routine clinical practice. Health care practitioners need to be fully aware of these products and accompanying considerations if they are to make informed decisions together with their patients.
| S-EPMC5669137 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Insulin therapy plays a critical role in the treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, there is still a need to find basal insulins with 24-hour coverage and reduced risk of hypoglycemia. Additionally, with increasing obesity and insulin resistance, the ability to provide clinically necessary high doses of insulin at low volume is also needed.This review highlights the published reports of the pharmacokinetic (PK) and glucodynamic properties of concentrated insulins: Humulin-R U500, insulin degludec U200, and insulin glargine U300, describes the clinical efficacy, risk of hypoglycemic, and metabolic changes observed, and finally, discusses observations about the complexity of introducing a new generation of concentrated insulins to the therapeutic market.Humulin-R U500 has a similar onset but longer duration of action compared with U100 regular insulin. Insulin glargine U300 has differential PK/pharmacodynamic effects when compared with insulin glargine U100. In noninferiority studies, glycemic control with degludec U200 and glargine U300 is similar to insulin glargine U100 and nocturnal hypoglycemia is reduced. Concentrated formulations appear to behave as separate molecular entities when compared with earlier U100 insulin analog compounds. In the review of available published data, newer concentrated basal insulins may offer an advantage in terms of reduced intraindividual variability as well as reducing the injection burden in individuals requiring high-dose and large volume insulin therapy. Understanding the PK and pharmacodynamic properties of this new generation of insulins is critical to safe dosing, dispensing, and administration.
| S-EPMC4790523 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundIncreasing availability of competing biosimilar alternatives makes it challenging to make treatment decisions. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin products and biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and grey literature were searched from inception to March 27, 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, and cohort studies of adults with T1DM receiving ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin, compared to each other, as well as biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened studies, abstracted data, and appraised risk-of-bias. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted. Summary effect measures were mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR).ResultsWe included 65 unique studies examining 14,200 patients with T1DM. Both ultra-long-acting and long-acting insulin were superior to intermediate-acting insulin in reducing A1c, FPG, weight gain, and the incidence of major, serious, or nocturnal hypoglycemia. For fasting blood glucose, long-acting once a day (od) was superior to long-acting twice a day (bid) (MD - 0.44, 95% CI: - 0.81 to - 0.06) and ultra-long-acting od was superior to long-acting bid (MD - 0.73, 95% CI - 1.36 to - 0.11). For weight change, long-acting od was inferior to long-acting bid (MD 0.58, 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.10) and long-acting bid was superior to long-action biosimilar od (MD - 0.90, 95% CI: - 1.67 to - 0.12).ConclusionsOur results can be used to tailor insulin treatment according to the desired results of patients and clinicians and inform strategies to establish a competitive clinical market, address systemic barriers, expand the pool of potential suppliers, and favor insulin price reduction.Prospero registrationCRD42017077051.
| S-EPMC8342652 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Insulin-like proteins in Oulactis sp. tentacle transcriptome
| PRJEB34263 | ENA
Project description:Basal insulin is an important component of treatment for both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. One of the principal aims of treatment in patients with diabetes is the prevention of diabetic complications, including cardiovascular disease. There is some evidence, although controversial, that attainment of good glycemic control reduces long-term cardiovascular risk in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the potential cardiovascular safety of the different available preparations of basal insulin. Current basal insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn [NPH], or isophane) and basal insulin analogs (glargine, detemir, and the more recent degludec) differ essentially by various measures of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects in the bloodstream, presence and persistence of peak action, and within-subject variability in the glucose-lowering response. The currently available data show that basal insulin analogs have a lower risk of hypoglycemia than NPH human insulin, in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, then excluding additional harmful effects on the cardiovascular system mediated by activation of the adrenergic system. Given that no biological rationale for a possible difference in cardiovascular effect of basal insulins has been proposed so far, available meta-analyses of publicly disclosed randomized controlled trials do not show any signal of increased risk of major cardiovascular events between the different basal insulin analogs. However, the number of available cardiovascular events in these trials is very small, preventing any clear-cut conclusion. The results of an ongoing clinical trial comparing glargine and degludec with regard to cardiovascular safety will provide definitive evidence.
| S-EPMC4504337 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Over time, clinicians have become increasingly comfortable embracing the prescription of biosimilars-highly similar versions of innovator or reference biological agents-for their patients with inflammatory diseases. Although a switch from a reference product to a licensed biosimilar version (or vice versa) is a medical decision robustly supported by the stepwise accumulation of clinical trial evidence concerning comparable safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy between these products, a switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference product, or a cross-switch, is not. Similarity among biosimilars of a reference product is not a regulatory agency concern and therefore is unlikely to be investigated in randomized controlled trials in the foreseeable future. Yet in clinical practice, across a diverse range of patients, the option to cross-switch from one biosimilar to another can and does arise for valid reasons such as convenience or tolerability issues, or driven by third parties (e.g., payers). In the absence of clinical trial data, clinicians must attempt to objectively evaluate the emerging real-world cross-switching evidence within the context of what is known about the science underpinning a designation of biosimilar. That knowledge then needs to be integrated with what clinicians know about their patients and their disease on a case-by-case basis. This review aims to consolidate relevant emerging real-world data and other key information about biosimilar-to-biosimilar cross-switching for prescribing clinicians. In the absence of clear clinical guidelines addressing this topic at present, this review may serve to facilitate discretionary and educated treatment decision making.
| S-EPMC8578069 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAccording to Chinese guidelines, basal insulin (BI) or premixed insulins are recommended insulin starters following the failure of oral antihyperglycemic medication (OAM) in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This pragmatic study investigated the long-term effectiveness, safety, and cost of add-on BI and mid-mixture insulin analog (MMI) regimens in Chinese patients with T2D.MethodsThis multicenter, open-label, pragmatic study randomized patients 1:1 to receive either BI or MMI with OAMs adjusted according to current standards of care. We evaluated the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline, safety parameters, and antidiabetic medication costs.ResultsChange in HbA1c from baseline showed a statistically greater decrease at week 48 in the MMI group (MMI: - 2.03% [0.06] vs. BI: - 1.82% [0.06]; P < 0.05). Both groups showed decreases in fasting plasma glucose (mmol/L) (MMI: - 2.53 [0.14] vs. BI: - 3.19 [0.14]; P < 0.01) and postprandial glucose (mmol/L) (MMI: - 4.35 [0.22] vs. BI: - 4.33 [0.23]). More patients in the BI group showed increases in OAM use, while OAM use decreased in the MMI group. Both groups showed stable glycemic control with a very limited insulin dose change from week 24 to week 48. The incidence of total hypoglycemia was higher in the MMI group (MMI: 124% [30.7] vs. BI: 76% [18.5], P < 0.0001), but no incidence of severe hypoglycemia was reported in either group. Treatment costs, in terms of average daily cost and cost of glycemic control, were higher in the BI group.ConclusionIn long-term real-world use, the MMI and BI groups demonstrated improved glycemic control, with the MMI group showing more significant improvement than the BI group. Hypoglycemia incidence was higher in the MMI group, with no major safety issues through week 48. MMI is likely to provide better price value than BI for the treatment of T2D in Chinese patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03018938.
| S-EPMC7947078 | biostudies-literature