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) characte...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Diabetes, obesity & metabolism obesity & metabolism, 2020-04, Vol.22 (4), p.521-529
Main Authors: Heise, Tim, Donnelly, Charles, Barve, Abhijit, Aubonnet, Patrick
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bioequivalence
biosimilar
Diabetes
Diabetes mellitus (insulin dependent)
Insulin
insulin glargine
Metabolites
Original
Pharmacodynamics
Pharmacokinetics
phase 1
type 1 diabetes mellitus
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:1462-8902
1463-1326
1463-1326
DOI:10.1111/dom.13919