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

Bin Sun, Nilanjan Sengupta, Anita Rao, Charles Donnelly, Vinit Waichale, Arnab Sinha Roy, Shilpa Ramaswamy, Divya Pathak, Ronald R Bowsher, Yaron Raiter, Patrick Aubonnet, Abhijit Barve, Bin Sun, Nilanjan Sengupta, Anita Rao, Charles Donnelly, Vinit Waichale, Arnab Sinha Roy, Shilpa Ramaswamy, Divya Pathak, Ronald R Bowsher, Yaron Raiter, Patrick Aubonnet, Abhijit Barve

Abstract

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).

Keywords: Biosimilar; Diabetes mellitus; Immunogenicity; Insulin glargine; MYL-1501D.

Conflict of interest statement

BS, CD, YR, PA, and AB are paid employees of Viatris Inc and may hold stock or stock options in the company. NS, AR, and SR are paid employees of Biocon Research Limited and may hold stock or stock options in the company. VW, ASR, and DP were employees of Biocon Research Limited during the time of the study and may hold stock or stock options in the company. RRB has served as a consultant for Viatris Inc.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study design of (a) INSTRIDE 1 and (b) INSTRIDE 2. T1DM, type 1 diabetes mellitus; T2DM, type 2 diabetes mellitus
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Fit plot of cross-reactive insulin antibody percent specific binding assays in (a) INSTRIDE 1 and (b) INSTRIDE 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
a Mean change in cross-reactive ADA by visit using the MYL-1501D assay in INSTRIDE 1a and b actual median cross-reactive ADA by visit using the MYL-1501D assay in INSTRIDE 2.b ADA, antidrug antibodies; BL, baseline; %SB, percentage specific binding. aError bars represent the SD. bError bars represent the interquartile range
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Proportion of patients with a cross-reactive insulin antibody response using the MYL-1501D assay in (a) INSTRIDE 1 and (b) INSTRIDE 2
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Mean actual ECL ratio (anti-HCP antibodies) in (a) INSTRIDE 1 and (b) INSTRIDE 2. Error bars represent the SD. ECL ratio is defined as ECL/ECL at baseline. BL, baseline; ECL, enhanced electrochemiluminescence; HCP, host cell protein

References

    1. American Diabetes Association Classification and diagnosis of diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(Suppl 1):S11-24.
    1. Daneman D. Type 1 diabetes. Lancet. 2006;367:847–58. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68341-4.
    1. Inzucchi SE, Sherwin RS. Type 2 diabetes mellitus. In: Goldman L, Shafer A, editors. Goldman’s Cecil medicine. 24th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2011. p. e78–94.
    1. American Diabetes Association Glycemic targets. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(Suppl 1):S48-56.
    1. American Diabetes Association Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(Suppl 1):S64-74.
    1. Lantus [package insert]. Bridgewater: Sanofi-Aventus US LLC; 2009.
    1. Verma M, Hazra P, Iyer H, Arun A, Akundi S, Dixit MN, et al. Basalog® is similar to Lantus® in producing glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus on multiple daily insulin regimens. Int J Diabetes Dev Ctries. 2011;31:26–31. doi: 10.1007/s13410-010-0010-2.
    1. US Food and Drug Administration: Insulin gains new pathway to increased competition. 2020. . Accessed 4 Oct 2020.
    1. Schellekens H. Recombinant human erythropoietins, biosimilars and immunogenicity. J Nephrol. 2008;21:497–502.
    1. Sethu S, Govindappa K, Alhaidari M, Pirmohamed M, Park K, Sathish J. Immunogenicity to biologics: mechanisms, prediction and reduction. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz) 2012;60:331–44. doi: 10.1007/s00005-012-0189-7.
    1. Blevins TC, Barve A, Raiter Y, Aubonnet P, Athalye S, Sun B, et al. 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. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2020;22:365–72. doi: 10.1111/dom.13904.
    1. Blevins TC, Barve A, Sun B, Ankersen M. Efficacy and safety of MYL-1501D vs insulin glargine in patients with type 1 diabetes after 52 weeks: results of the INSTRIDE 1 phase III study. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018;20:1944–50. doi: 10.1111/dom.13322.
    1. Blevins TC, Barve A, Sun B, Raiter Y, Aubonnet P, Muniz R, et al. 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. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2019;21:129–35. doi: 10.1111/dom.13495.
    1. American Diabetes Association Standards of medical care in diabetes—2014. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(Suppl 1):S14-80.
    1. Ilag LL, Deeg MA, Costigan T, Hollander P, Blevins TC, Edelman SV, et al. Evaluation of immunogenicity of LY2963016 insulin glargine compared with Lantus® insulin glargine in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2016;18:159–68. doi: 10.1111/dom.12584.
    1. Eibl N, Spatz M, Fischer GF, Mayr WR, Samstag A, Wolf HM, et al. Impaired primary immune response in type-1 diabetes: results from a controlled vaccination study. Clin Immunol. 2002;103(3 Pt 1):249–59. doi: 10.1006/clim.2002.5220.
    1. Fineberg SE, Huang J, Brunelle R, Gulliya KS, Anderson JH. Effect of long-term exposure to insulin lispro on the induction of antibody response in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:89–96. doi: 10.2337/diacare.26.1.89.
    1. Deshpande AD, Harris-Hayes M, Schootman M. Epidemiology of diabetes and diabetes-related complications. Phys Ther. 2008;88:1254–64. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20080020.
    1. Palmer JP, Asplin CM, Clemons P, Lyen K, Tatpati O, Raghu PK, et al. Insulin antibodies in insulin-dependent diabetics before insulin treatment. Science. 1983;222:1337–9. doi: 10.1126/science.6362005.
    1. Home P, Derwahl K-M, Ziemen M, Wernicke-Panten K, Pierre S, Kirchhein Y, et al. Anti-insulin antibodies and adverse events with biosimilar insulin lispro compared with humalog insulin lispro in people with diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20:160–70. doi: 10.1089/dia.2017.0373.
    1. US Food and Drug Administration: Assay development and validation for immunogenicity testing of therapeutic protein products, guidance for industry. 2018. . Accessed 7 May 2018.

Source: PubMed

3
Prenumerera