Disease Analysis: Type 1 Diabetes

Disease definition

Diabetes mellitus is a group of chronic endocrine disorders characterized by hyperglycemia due to insufficient levels of insulin, a hormone responsible for regulating blood sugar. Symptoms include excessive excretion of urine (polyuria), thirst (polydipsia),
constant hunger, weight loss, vision changes, and fatigue. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 8.5% of adults had diabetes in 2014. Type 1 diabetes accounts for around 5–10% of the total diabetic population. The majority of cases of type 1 diabetes may be classified as type 1a, an autoimmune disease characterized by the destruction of pancreatic beta cells, with a minority of cases making up type 1b, which is described as idiopathic diabetes mellitus.

Latest key takeaways

• Despite newer products with improved PK/PD profiles, the type 1 diabetes treatment market has been gradually declining in value, driven by declines in the US, and factors contributing to this are expected to continue, including net pricing pressures following the launches of biosimilars, saturation with multiple maturing insulins, and limited or uncertain prospects of non-insulin therapies. That said, if very early-stage transformative technologies succeed, such as glucose-responsive insulins, they could recast the market, but there is a lack of good clinical data on these to date.
• In the basal insulin segment, with the advent of biosimilars/follow-on copies to segment leader Sanofi’s Lantus, Sanofi and Novo Nordisk have introduced next-generation, longer-acting products; however, due to continued price pressures, especially in the US, these have not prevented overall sales declines. Sanofi’s longer-acting Toujeo does have some signals for a hypoglycemia benefit over Lantus, but not as much in type 1 diabetes as in type 2, and does allow some patients who require twice-daily Lantus to inject once daily. However, KOLs interviewed by Datamonitor Healthcare suggest that the advantages are somewhat limited, and with modest sales in the US due to competition with Basaglar, a follow-on copy of Lantus, Toujeo has not prevented a steep drop in combined US sales with Lantus over the past few years, leading to a moderate drop worldwide, despite some combined stability ex-US. Prescriptions of Lantus and Toujeo have stabilized somewhat over the past few years in the US, but the introduction of another follow-on copy, Semglee, in 2020 could introduce further pricing pressures, particularly as it was designated as an interchangeable biosimilar in July 2021.
• Novo Nordisk’s basal analog Levemir, which requires twice-daily dosing in many type 1 patients, has generally lost share to its successor product Tresiba due to the company’s promotion of Tresiba’s longer-acting duration of 42+ hours and its flexible dosing window (it can be administered at different times each day), which offer improved convenience for patients. Tresiba also has hypoglycemia benefits over Lantus, with a reduction in severe hypoglycemia in a large outcomes study, albeit in type 2 diabetes, with data appearing on its US label. Nevertheless, while Tresiba appears more differentiated than Toujeo, it has been difficult to discern whether there are substantial differences in other clinical benefits between the two, because each sponsor has conducted head-to-head PK/PD and longer-term hypoglycemia studies, but those studies have either shown equivalence or an advantage for the sponsor’s drug (the larger studies have been in type 2). While Tresiba initially had helped increase combined overall usage of the Novo Nordisk franchises, more recently it appears to be just stabilizing combined usage (with some combined volume loss in major developed markets), and all this has come at the expense of increasing rebates, so in recent years, US sales have declined steeply and despite combined sales growth ex-US, worldwide sales have declined moderately, though these declines have not been as large as for the Sanofi basal franchise. Tresiba’s volume share growth in the US also appeared to stall in 2020, with a notable drop in sales due to net price decreases, so it is somewhat unclear how much more it can capitalize there on its advantageous profile.
• Payers are severely restricting the use of specific insulin brands in the US. While list prices are increasing, rebates are also rising, particularly in the past few years. Interviewed endocrinologists emphasized the impact of pricing on prescribing trends, as formulary changes in the US lead to regular switching among patients.
• Dynamics are somewhat different in the fast-acting/bolus segment of the market, due to more exclusive contracting in the US which has made it more difficult for biosimilar/follow-on copies to gain a foothold, though they still contribute to pricing pressure. It has also been more difficult to differentiate next-generation, faster-acting products.
• The segment leaders to date have been Eli Lilly’s Humalog and Novo Nordisk’s NovoLog. Interviewed KOLs believe there are no definitive clinical differentiators between the two in a real-world setting. Overall worldwide sales of NovoLog appear modestly higher than Humalog, though there are differences within particular geographic regions (and there can be some impact from exchange rates). However, largely due to price pressures, Humalog and NovoLog sales have declined in the US over the past five years, and sales gains for both outside the US have not been enough to prevent moderate declines overall. While the introduction of Sanofi’s biosimilar/follow-on copy to Humalog, Admelog, has only led to modest sales, primarily in the Medicaid market in the US, it did prompt the other manufacturers to launch “authorized follow-ons/generics” with 50% lower list prices in 2019–20, in order to increase competitiveness in plans such as US Medicare Part D, where patients can end up having to pay a portion of a drug’s gross cost. Viatris and Sanofi are pursuing US approval as interchangeable insulins for their biosimilars of NovoLog, so it will be interesting to see whether that makes a difference.
• Novo Nordisk’s faster-acting Fiasp can be injected at the start of a meal or within 20 minutes after, rather than immediately before or soon after for NovoLog. Nevertheless, clinicians have been underwhelmed as its faster onset of action has not provided a substantial therapeutic benefit, so uptake has been limited so far. Eli Lilly’s faster-acting Lyumjev launched in mid-2020 in major markets, and while it can also be injected within 20 minutes after a meal, its data are somewhat weaker than Fiasp’s, and expectations are limited.
• Use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), or insulin pumps, has been increasing, with penetration in the US in a large minority of type 1 patients. The most advanced currently available systems are still hybrid closed-loop, meaning that while they adjust basal insulin frequently in response to a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) – or in some cases, also give an automatic bolus dose – they do not take over glucose control completely, and patients need to still input information for mealtime boluses. The latter may be a difficult issue to overcome, given time lags between interstitial fluid CGM measurements and blood glucose measures, though companies are also working on incorporating glucagon and using AI to better adapt insulin delivery to each patient’s fluctuating glucose trends.
• Pipeline product teplizumab has shown promising potential to prevent or delay the onset of type 1 diabetes, as Phase II data have demonstrated that a single course of the drug significantly delayed disease onset in at-risk patients by a median of 2.7 years. However, due to issues with the comparability of the drug product intended for commercialization versus that used in the pivotal trial, it received a complete response letter from the FDA, and it is not clear how the issue will be resolved, though the company hopes further data from an ongoing pivotal trial in newly diagnosed type 1 patients will help. In addition, repeat dosing has not been tested, and patients are still being followed. Hence, it will face the challenge of appropriate pricing to reflect the market value of delaying or preventing diabetes while ensuring that a high upfront cost does not prevent reimbursement or lead to overbearing prior authorization. Another challenge is the lack of existing screening programs to detect the broader group of patients who are at risk for type 1 diabetes, which could limit the drug’s target population (at least initially). Teplizumab’s commercial success will therefore require healthcare services, physicians, and industry to collaborate on creating and integrating accessible screening programs into different health services globally.
• SGLT inhibitors may offer benefits to type 1 diabetes patients beyond improved glycemic control (such as blood pressure reduction, weight loss, and cardiorenal benefits), but the FDA has now rejected all three members of the class that have been filed for regulatory approval, and Farxiga and Jardiance are no longer pursuing US approval, leaving Zynquista, which has had a couple of appeals denied. Recently, however, the FDA has apparently signaled willingness to discuss a possible path forward, though details are unclear, and it is quite uncertain whether the class will ever gain FDA approval for type 1 diabetes without additional studies to further investigate the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis, the durability of glycemic benefits, and the effectiveness of proposed risk-management strategies – studies that at this point appear unlikely.
• Datamonitor Healthcare estimates that in 2018, there were approximately 46.6 million prevalent cases of type 1 diabetes in adults aged 20 years and over worldwide, and forecasts that number to increase to 51.8 million prevalent cases by 2027.
• Datamonitor Healthcare estimates that in children and adolescents aged below 20 years, there were approximately 1.08 million prevalent cases of type 1 diabetes worldwide in 2018, which are expected to increase to 1.12 million prevalent cases by 2027.
• The overall likelihood of approval of a Phase I type 1 diabetes asset is 13.6%, and the average probability a drug advances from Phase III is 76.9%. Type 1 diabetes drugs, on average, take 9.4 years from Phase I to approval, compared to 9.8 years in the overall endocrine space.