Regulatory Verification by Health Canada of Content in Recombinant Human Insulin, Human Insulin Analog, and Porcine Insulin Drug Products in the Canadian Market Using Validated Pharmacopoeial Methods Over Nonvalidated Approaches

Abstract

Background: For diabetes mellitus treatment plans, the consistency and quality of insulin drug products are crucial for patient well-being. Because biologic drugs, such as insulin, are complex heterogeneous products, the methods for drug product evaluation should be carefully validated for use. As such, these criteria are rigorously evaluated and monitored by national authorities. Consequently, reports that describe significantly lower insulin content than their label claims are a concern. This issue was raised by a past publication analyzing insulin drug products available in Canada, and, as a result, consumers and major patient organizations have requested clarification. Methods: To address these concerns, this study independently analyzed insulin drug products purchased from local Canadian pharmacies—including human insulin, insulin analogs, and porcine insulin—by compendial and noncompendial reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC) methods. Results: We demonstrated the importance of using methods fit for purpose when assessing insulin quality. In a preliminary screen, the expected insulin peak was seen in all products except two insulin analogs—insulin detemir and insulin degludec. Further investigation showed that this was not caused by low insulin content but insufficient solvent conditions, which demonstrated the necessity for methods to be adequately validated for product-specific use. When drug products were appropriately assessed for content using the validated type-specific compendial RP-HPLC methods for insulin quantitation, values agreed with the label claim content. Conclusions: Because insulin drug products are used daily by over a million Canadians, it is important that researchers and journals present data using methods fit for purpose and that readers evaluate such reports critically.