Bioequivalence and immunogenicity of insulin LisPro biosimilar compared to reference drug
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction . Insulin therapy is the only treatment for type 1 DM and one of the options for intensifying the treatment for type 2 DM. The production of own insulin biosimilars will increase patients access to the providing drugs and can potentially reduce medical costs on healthcare for government. Aim . Compare the equivalence of pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD), safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity between insulin biosimilar RinLis®, 100 IU/ml (LLC GEROPHARM, Russia) to original Humalog®, 100 IU/ml (Lilly France, France). Materials and methods . The clinical trial was conducted in two phases. Phase I – randomized double-blind, two-arm crossover study of PK and PD using hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp (HEC) method in 28 healthy volunteers (NCT03604575). During HEC regular blood sampling was performed to assess glucose and insulin concentrations. The glucose infusion rate (GIR) was adjusted based on glycemia measurement. These data were used to calculate the PD parameters: the total area under the GIR-time curve (AUC GIR ) and the maximum GIR over the observation period (GIR max ); PK parameters: the total area under the concentration – time curve (AUC ins. ) and the maximum insulin concentration over the HEC (С ins. max ). Phase II – randomized multicenter open-label comparative study in parallel groups with an assessment the frequency of an immune response after 26 weeks of therapy (NCT04023344). The comparability of the studied drugs was considered proven if 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the ratio of geometric means of FC and PD were in the range of 80–125%. Results . In the course of the study, it was revealed that RinLiz® and Humalog® insulin had comparable PK and PD profiles. The ratio of the geometric mean values of the AUC GIR and GIR max were in the range of 80–125% and amounted to 106 [95–118] % and 108 [97–121] %, respectively. The equivalence also was confirmed by the ratio of the geometric mean values of the AUC ins. and С ins. max , which amounted to 91 [86–97] % and 94 [91–97] %. In the second phase of the study after 26 weeks of therapy the frequency of immune response between two groups did not differ. Conclusion . The obtained data have demonstrated the bioequivalence and immunogenicity of RinLiz® insulin to the original Humalog® in terms of PK, PD and safety parameters.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".