Insulin — a drug that brings pharmaceutical companies huge profits?

Aim of the study: To summarize the scientific evidence comparing the safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of biosimilar and reference insulin products.

Results: 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.

Aim of the study: Until now most insulin used in developed countries is manufactured and distributed by a small number of multinational companies. Other pharmaceutical companies - many of these are located in countries such as India or China - are also able to manufacture insulin with modern biotechnological methods.

Results: The guidelines already in place in the EU for market approval require that the manufacturer demonstrates that his insulin has a safety and efficacy profile that is similar to that of the 'original' insulin formulation. Recently guidelines for biosimilars were issued in the US; however, these do not cover insulin. Although a challenging approval process for insulins to become BI might be regarded as a hurdle to keep companies out of certain markets, it is fair to say that the potential safety and efficacy issues surrounding BI are substantial and relevant, and do warrant a careful and evidence-driven approval process. Nevertheless, it is very likely that in the next years, BIs will come to the market also in highly regulated markets.

Aim of the study: To provide clinicians with an overview of similar biologic products including biosimilars and new insulin versions available in the U.S. and of key issues associated with such products, including differences in manufacturing and regulatory approaches and their impact on clinical use.

Results: Patent protections for many biologics including several insulin preparations have or will expire shortly. This opens the door for new insulin versions to enter the U.S. and global marketplace. The development, manufacturing, and approval process for similar biologic products is more complex than for generic versions of small molecules. Most similar biologic products in the U.S. will be submitted for approval under section 351(k), a newly created biosimilar regulatory pathway. However, some biologics, including new insulin versions, will be submitted via the existing 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway. These regulatory pathways have implications for how such products may be labeled, how they may be dispensed, and how patients may perceive them. The immunogenicity of biologics can affect safety and efficacy and can be altered through subtle changes in manufacturing.

Aim of the study: To evaluate the use of insulin glargine in its licensed basal-bolus indication in terms of both clinical and cost-effectiveness.

Results: Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria but full reports were available for only six. For type 1 diabetes patients, insulin glargine appears to be more effective than neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) in reducing fasting blood glucose (FBG) but not in reducing glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and there is some evidence that both insulins are as effective as each other in both FBG and HbA1c control. For type 2 patients for whom oral antidiabetic agents provide inadequate glycaemic control, there is no evidence that insulin glargine is more effective than NPH in reducing either FBG or HbA1c and some evidence that both insulins are as effective as each other in both FBG and HbA1c control. Evidence for control of hypoglycaemia is equivocal. In studies where insulin glargine is demonstrated to be superior to NPH in controlling nocturnal hypoglycaemia, this may be only apparent when compared with once-daily NPH and not twice-daily NPH.

Aim of the study: Standards allow us to manage expectations for a diverse range of goods and services across the globe. From coordinating international global telecommunications across 24 different time zones to ensuring access to safe drinking water, standards allow us to work, communicate, collaborate, and live with certain expectations about safety and efficacy.

Results: Here we review the value of public standards as applied to the pharmaceutical industry. Using case studies, we demonstrate how standards for complex products, such as biologics, can be created and managed to ensure their optimal value to society while minimizing the burden to the industry. We also discuss the sustainability of standard development and whether there is sufficient transparency to maintain their role in the public trust. Finally, we assess the ability of standards to promote access to reasonably priced and high-quality biosimilars while enabling efficient product development and review.

Aim of the study: 2021 to 2022 marks the one hundredth anniversary of ground-breaking research in Toronto that changed the course of what was, then, a universally fatal disease: type 1 diabetes. Some would argue that insulin's discovery by Banting, Best, Macleod, and Collip was the greatest scientific advance of the 20th century, being one of the first instances in which modern medical science was able to provide lifesaving therapy.

Results: Furthermore, the Toronto work ushered in a century of discovery of the purification, isolation, structural characterization, and genetic sequencing of insulin, all of which influenced ongoing improvements in therapeutic insulin formulations. Here we discuss the body of knowledge prior to 1921 localizing insulin to the pancreas and establishing insulin's role in glucoregulation, and provide our views as to why researchers in Toronto ultimately achieved the purification of pancreatic extracts as a therapy. We discuss the pharmaceutical industry's role in the early days of insulin production and distribution and provide insights into why the discoverers chose not to profit financially from the discovery. This fascinating story of bench-to-beside discovery provides useful considerations for scientists now and in the future.