Insulin biosimilars in clinical practice

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is an important medical and social problem throughout the world due to its high prevalence. At the same time, the majority of patients have type 2 diabetes. The onset of the disease is gradual, with a prolonged asymptomatic preclinical stage. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct screening among patients at risk. Therapy for type 2 diabetes is carried out with oral hypoglycemic drugs. If it is impossible with their help to achieve adequate glycemic control, it is possible to add basal insulin to therapy, and if the own insulin secretion is depleted, an intensive insulin therapy regimen must be prescribed. Insulin preparations differ in the source of receipt, as well as in the duration of action: background, or basal (insulin of medium duration, long-term or ultra-long-acting) and prandial, or food (ultrashort and short insulin). Currently, along with original insulin preparations, their analogues, or biosimilars (biosimilars), appear on the pharmaceutical market. Biosimilar (biosimilar) is a biological product similar in quality, efficacy and safety parameters to a reference biological medicinal product in the same dosage form and having an identical route of administration. Biosimilars are used all over the world, and this applies not only to insulin preparations, but also to other biological preparations. Proof of bioequivalence is a long-term process that ensures comparability and the absence of clinically significant differences between the study and the reference drug, and includes preclinical and clinical studies. The task of studies of biosimilars of insulin is to confirm the comparability with a reference, previously well-studied biological product. The efficacy and safety of domestically produced biosimilars has been studied in a number of clinical studies, during which the bioequivalence of the drugs was shown. These drugs are of high quality and safe, and their pharmacological characteristics, immunogenicity and effectiveness do not differ from the original drugs.

Measurement of Plasma Resistin Concentrations in Horses with Metabolic and Inflammatory Disorders

Obesity and its associated complications, such as metabolic syndrome, are an increasing problem in both humans and horses in the developed world. The expression patterns of resistin differ considerably between species. In rodents, resistin is expressed by adipocytes and is related to obesity and ID. In humans, resistin is predominantly produced by inflammatory cells, and resistin concentrations do not reflect the degree of obesity, although they may predict cardiovascular outcomes. The aim of this study was to investigate the usefulness of resistin and its relationship with ID and selected indicators of inflammation in horses. Seventy-two horses, included in one of the four following groups, were studied: healthy controls (C, n = 14), horses with inflammatory conditions (I, n = 21), horses with mild ID (ID1, n = 18), and horses with severe ID (ID2, n = 19). Plasma resistin concentrations were significantly different between groups and the higher values were recorded in the I and ID2 groups (C: 2.38 ± 1.69 ng/mL; I: 6.85 ± 8.38 ng/mL; ID1: 2.41 ± 2.70 ng/mL; ID2: 4.49 ± 3.08 ng/mL). Plasma resistin was not correlated with basal insulin concentrations. A significant (r = 0.336, p = 0.002) correlation was found between resistin and serum amyloid A. Our results show that, as is the case in humans, plasma resistin concentrations in horses are predominantly related to inflammatory conditions and not to ID. Horses with severe ID showed an elevation in resistin that may be secondary to the inflammatory status associated with metabolic syndrome.

Soliqua (Lixi Lan): Sustained Long Term Cost Efficacy and Safety When Used in Combination with Metformin and Glimepiride

Background: Previous studies using basal insulin documented the lowest daily dose and least hypoglycemic events when combined with Glimepiride and Metformin while attaining desirable glycemic control. However, Pivotal trials with Soliqua excluded Glimepiride as a part of therapy as well as subjects with moderate obesity (BMI > 35kg/m2). Moreover, these trials were relatively short term. Objective: Assess long term efficacy and safety of Soliqua in combination with Glimepiride and Metformin in subjects with type 2 diabetes irrespective of BMI in ‘real world’ experience. Subjects: 30 adults with type 2 diabetes, age range 32-72 years with HbA1C >7.5% while receiving therapy with 1) Glimepiride, Metformin and Basal insulin and 2) Metformin and/or DPP 4 inhibitors and/or other SUs and /or GLP1 RA and/or Basal insulin and/or prandial insulin. Type 2 diabetes was confirmed by presence of C-peptide. Subjects with history of gastroparesis, Triglycerides over 300 mg/dl and pancreatitis were excluded. Subjects with elevated liver enzymes, over 2.5 times normal and EGFR < 30 ml/min were excluded as well. Methods: All prior therapies were discontinued. All subjects were started on Glimepiride 8 mg, Metformin 1000-2000 mg and SC Soliqua was initiated prior to breakfast with daily dose 15 or 30 units as recommended. Daily dose was increased by 2 units every 3 days until AM fasting plasma glucose of 80-130 mg/dl was attained or the dose of 60 units was reached. The stable daily dose of Soliqua was continued until the time of analysis. Comparisons were conducted between body weights (kg), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and HbA1C prior to initiation of combination therapy (pre Rx) and every 3-6 months until the time of analysis (post Rx). Results: BMI ranged between 22-67 kg/m2. Duration of diabetes was 5-25 years. Duration of therapy with the combination therapy range, 7-56 months. Subjects were divided into 2 groups according to desirable HbA1C levels as per recommendations by ADA: 1) desirable HbA1C is < 7.0%, 2) desirable HbA1C 7-8 %. Both Fasting plasma glucose (mg/dl) and HbA1C (%) declined from 167 ± 10 and 9.7 ± 0.8 to 114 ± 4 and 7.6± 0.3 at the time of analyses (post Rx) respectively in the whole cohort. In 4 (0.13 %) morbidly obese subjects, FPG and HbA1C levels declined though not achieving desirable glycemic goals despite receiving maximal daily dose, 60 units of Soliqua. All four belonged to group 1. In the remaining 17 subjects desirable glycemic levels were attained and maintained. In group 2, desirable glycemia was reached in all 9 subjects. Symptomatic hypoglycemic events confirmed by blood sugar <70 mg/dl were reported by 4 subjects, none requiring secondary assistance. No severe hypoglycemia was reported. Mean daily dose of Soliqua was lower when compared to the pivotal trials. Conclusion: Soliqua is effective and safe in the long term in all subjects irrespective of BMI when administered in combination with Glimepiride and Metformin. Moreover, lesser daily dose required to attain desirable glycemia with this oral combination may render it to be effective without attaining maximum daily dose in subjects with higher BMIs documented in pivotal trials using Metformin alone.

The choice of the insulin basal rate regimen at initiation of insulin pump therapy in routine clinical practice

Background: Numbers of patients with diabetes mellitus using insulin pumps have been increasing every year. Successful achievement of glycemic targets with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) is based on an adequate basal rate of infusion, carbohydrate coefficient and insulin sensitivity index. There are two approaches to basal insulin infusion rate, namely the flat one and the circadian; however, at present there is no convincing data on which one should be chosen at the start of insulin pump therapy.Aim: To compare two regimens of basal insulin infusion rate at initiation of insulin pump therapy in routine clinical practice.Materials and methods: We analyzed data from 120 patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus, who were switched on insulin pump therapy in the Department of Endocrinology from 2017 to 2018. At initiation of CSII, 60 patients used the flat basal rate profile and the other 60 patients used the circadian basal rate, calculated with the Renner's scale. Safety of the two basal rate regimens was assessed based on glucose variability measured with continuous glucose monitoring during the first two days after the start of insulin pump therapy.Results: Mean (± SD) coefficients of variation in the groups with circadian and flat basal rate at Day 1 were 31.06±12.13 and 32.74±10.7, respectively (p=0.423); at Day 2, 26.78±11.27 and 28.83±10.7 (p=0.309). Median [Q1; Q3] areas under glucose curve (AUC) values above the glucose targets in the groups with circadian and flat basal rate at Day 1 were 0.37 [0.03; 0.89] and 0.48 [0.08; 1.75], respectively, at Day 2 0.44 [0.03; 1.57] and 0.31 [0.1; 1.5], respectively (p>0.05). Median glucose AUC values below the goal in groups with circadian basal rate and flat basal rate on the first day were 0.01 [0; 0.06] and 0.02 [0; 0.1], respectively (p=0.855), on the second day – 0.00 [0; 0.01] and 0.00 [0; 0.02], respectively (р=0.085). We also haven’t found any between-group differences in the prevalence of glucose deviations below and above the target, as well as in the time spent in normoglycaemia.Conclusion: The comparative analysis of two basal insulin rate regimens in Type 1 diabetic patients switched to insulin pump therapy has shown no significant differences between them. The use of Renner’s scale has no clinical advantages over the fixed basal insulin regimen at initiation of insulin pump therapy in adults.

Comparison of amylase and lipase levels of patients with Type 2 diabetes under different treatment modalities

Aim: Study aims to assess amylase, lipase of patients with Type 2 diabetes under different types of treatments. Materials & methods: Patients’ treatment modalities including insulin, metformin, pioglitazone, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors, insulin secretagogues, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonists were compared. Results: There was no difference in amylase and lipase levels between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor users and non-users (p = 0.2, p = 0.3, respectively) and glucagon like peptide-1 analog users and non-users (p = 0.1, p = 0.7, respectively). Patients who use insulin secretagogues had significantly higher amylase, lipase and (77.2 ± 39.8 vs 69.5 ± 33.0, p = 0,038 and 47.2 ± 33.2 vs 39.6 ± 26.8, p = 0.01, respectively) patients on basal insulin had lower amylase levels (69.9 ± 37.7 vs 77.2 ± 33.7, p = 0.014). Conclusion: Incretin-based therapies showed no difference in amylase and lipase levels whereas there was increase with secretagogues and decrease with basal insulin.

Thyroid Hormones, Peripheral White Blood Count, and Dose of Basal Insulin Are Associated with Changes in Nerve Conduction Studies in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the child population is the third most common chronic disease. Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is a very disabling and silently developing complication. This prospective, observational study enrolled 182 (93 girls) patients with T1D, aged 16.5–18 years. The aim of the study was to assess the correlation between factors of diabetes metabolic control, blood count, thyroid hormones, thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), level of cortisol, vitamin D3, metabolic factors, demographic data, and nerve conduction study (NCS) parameters. We revealed that in multivariate regression models for almost all NCS parameters, beside height and diabetes duration, significant factors were basal insulin dose per kilogram of weight (BID/kg), body mass index (BMI), and thyroid hormones. For conduction velocities of the motor nerves, mean HbA1c exists in models. In all models for all NCS parameters there exists at least one parameter of peripheral white blood cell counts (predominantly monocytes). There is a significant influence of thyroid hormones, peripheral blood white cells count, and BID per weight on parameters of NCS. It is essential to take care of the proper insulin dose per weight of patients and the adequate proportion of basal to prandial insulin.