AccScience Publishing / JCTR / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/JCTR026250056
Cite this article
6
Download
96
Views
Related Info Links
More by Authors Links
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
News and Announcements
View All
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

Pharmacokinetic bioequivalence of semaglutide injection in healthy adults under fasting conditions: A randomized study

Sohel Mohammed Khan1 Mohammed Shareef Khan2 Anand Arumugam1 Mansij Biswas3 Anuj Kumar Saini1,2 Sivacharan Kollipara2*
Show Less
1 Clinical Pharmacokinetics, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd., Integrated Product Development Organization, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
2 Biopharmaceutics Group, Global Clinical Management, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd., Integrated Product Development Organization, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
3 Global Medical Affairs, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Corporate Office, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
Received: 15 June 2026 | Revised: 6 July 2026 | Accepted: 7 July 2026 | Published online: 16 July 2026
© 2026 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Abstract

Background: Semaglutide is a long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist used in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Broader access to semaglutide therapy may be supported by clinically suitable alternative formulations if pharmacokinetic comparability with the reference product is established. Aim: To evaluate the pharmacokinetic bioequivalence of semaglutide 0.5 mg solution for injection developed by Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited, India, compared with Ozempic® (semaglutide) 0.5 mg solution for injection in a pre-filled pen under fasting conditions in healthy adult subjects. Methods: This was an open-label, balanced, randomized, two-treatment, single-dose, parallel-group bioequivalence study. Eighty healthy volunteers were enrolled, 78 were dosed, and 74 were included in the pharmacokinetic and statistical analyses. Plasma semaglutide concentrations were measured using a validated liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry method across 31 sampling time points up to 816 hours after dosing. Primary pharmacokinetic endpoints were Cmax, area under the curve (AUC)0–t, and AUC0–∞. Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test/reference ratio were within 80% to 125%. Results: The 90% confidence intervals were 93.11%–107.22% for Cmax, 93.76%–112.65% for AUC0–t, and 91.48%–104.47% for AUC0–∞, meeting bioequivalence criteria for all primary parameters. Forty-six non-serious adverse events were reported in 28 subjects. No serious adverse events or deaths occurred. Conclusion: The test semaglutide formulation was bioequivalent to the reference product and was generally well tolerated in healthy adult subjects under fasting conditions. Relevance for patients: A pharmacokinetically comparable semaglutide injection may help expand access to long-term semaglutide treatment where innovator product cost or availability may limit patient use.

Graphical abstract
Keywords
Semaglutide
Bioequivalence; Pharmacokinetics
Healthy adults
Injectable peptide
Access to therapy
Funding
This study was sponsored by Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad, India.
Conflict of interest
All authors are employees of Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. and were involved in the design and conduct of the bioequivalence study. The authors declare no other competing interests.
References
  1. Bajaj M, McCoy RG, Balapattabi K, et al. Summary of Revisions: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2026. Diabetes Care. 2025;49(Supplement_1):S6-S13. doi: 10.2337/dc26-srev
  2. Yang XD, Yang YY. Clinical pharmacokinetics of semaglutide: a systematic review. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2024;18:2555-2570. doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S470826
  3. Holst JJ. The physiology of glucagon-like peptide 1. Physiol Rev. 2007;87(4):1409-1439. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00034.2006
  4. Drucker DJ. Mechanisms of action and therapeutic application of glucagon-like peptide-1. Cell Metab. 2018;27(4):740-756. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2018.03.001
  5. Nauck MA, Meier JJ. Management of endocrine disease: are all GLP-1 receptor agonists equal in the treatment of type 2 diabetes? Eur J Endocrinol. 2019;181(6):R211-R234. doi: 10.1530/EJE-19-0566
  6. Lau J, Bloch P, Schäffer L, et al. Discovery of the once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue semaglutide. J Med Chem. 2015;58(18):7370-7380. doi: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.5b00726
  7. Jensen L, Helleberg H, Roffel A, et al. Absorption, metabolism and excretion of the GLP-1 analogue semaglutide in humans and nonclinical species. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2017;104:31-41. doi: 10.1016/j.ejps.2017.03.020
  8. Knudsen LB, Lau J. The discovery and development of liraglutide and semaglutide. Front Endocrinol. 2019;10:155. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2019.00155
  9. Granhall C, Donsmark M, Blicher TM, et al. Safety and pharmacokinetics of single and multiple ascending doses of the novel oral human GLP-1 analogue, oral semaglutide, in healthy subjects and subjects with type 2 diabetes. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2019;58(6):781-791. doi: 10.1007/s40262-018-0728-4
  10. Kapitza C, Nosek L, Jensen L, Hartvig H, Jensen CB, Flint A. Semaglutide, a once-weekly human GLP-1 analog, does not reduce the bioavailability of the combined oral contraceptive ethinylestradiol/levonorgestrel. J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;55(5):497-504. doi: 10.1002/jcph.443
  11. Bækdal TA, Breitschaft A, Donsmark M, Maarbjerg SJ, Søndergaard FL, Borregaard J. Effect of various dosing conditions on the pharmacokinetics of oral semaglutide, a human glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue in a tablet formulation. Diabetes Ther. 2021;12(7):1915-1927. doi: 10.1007/s13300-021-01078-y
  12. Petri KCC, Ingwersen SH, Flint A, Zacho J, Overgaard RV. Exposure-response analysis for evaluation of semaglutide dose levels in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018;20(9):2238-2245. doi: 10.1111/dom.13358
  13. Overgaard RV, Navarria A, Ingwersen SH, Bækdal TA, Kildemoes RJ. Clinical pharmacokinetics of oral semaglutide: analyses of data from clinical pharmacology trials. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2021;60(10):1335-1348. doi: 10.1007/s40262-021-01025-x
  14. Sorli C, Harashima SI, Tsoukas GM, et al. Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide monotherapy versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 1): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multinational, multicentre phase 3a trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5(4):251-260. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30013-X
  15. Ahrén B, Masmiquel L, Kumar H, et al. Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide versus once-daily sitagliptin as add-on to metformin, thiazolidinediones, or both, in patients with type 2 diabetes: SUSTAIN 2. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5(5):341-354. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30092-X
  16. Ahmann AJ, Capehorn M, Charpentier G, et al. Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide versus exenatide ER in subjects with type 2 diabetes: SUSTAIN 3. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(2):258-266. doi: 10.2337/dc17-0417
  17. Aroda VR, Bain SC, Cariou B, et al. Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide versus once-daily insulin glargine as add-on to metformin with or without sulfonylureas in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: SUSTAIN 4. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5(5):355-366. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30085-2
  18. Rodbard HW, Lingvay I, Reed J, et al. Semaglutide added to basal insulin in type 2 diabetes: SUSTAIN 5. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018;103(6):2291-2301. doi: 10.1210/jc.2018-00070
  19. Marso SP, Bain SC, Consoli A, et al. Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1834-1844. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1607141
  20. Pratley RE, Aroda VR, Lingvay I, et al. Semaglutide versus dulaglutide once weekly in patients with type 2 diabetes: SUSTAIN 7. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018;6(4):275-286. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(18)30024-X
  21. Lingvay I, Catarig AM, Frias JP, et al. Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide versus daily canagliflozin as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: SUSTAIN 8. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019;7(11):834- 844. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30311-0
  22. Perkovic V, Tuttle KR, Rossing P, et al. Effects of semaglutide on chronic kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2024;391(2):109-121. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2403347
  23. Lincoff AM, Brown-Frandsen K, Colhoun HM, et al. Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in obesity without diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(24):2221-2232. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2307563
  24. Wilding JPH, Batterham RL, Calanna S, et al. Once-weekly semaglutide in adults with overweight or obesity. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(11):989-1002. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2032183
  25. Davies M, Færch L, Jeppesen OK, et al. Semaglutide 2·4 mg once a week in adults with overweight or obesity, and type 2 diabetes (STEP 2): a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;397(10278):971-984. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00213-0
  26. Aroda VR, Rosenstock J, Terauchi Y, et al. PIONEER 1: randomized clinical trial of oral semaglutide monotherapy in comparison with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(9):1724-1732. doi: 10.2337/dc19-0749
  27. Rosenstock J, Allison D, Birkenfeld AL, et al. Effect of additional oral semaglutide vs sitagliptin on glycated hemoglobin in adults with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with metformin alone or with sulfonylurea: PIONEER 3. JAMA. 2019;321(15):1466-1480. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.2942
  28. Nielsen MS, Brøndsted L, Kankam M, Morelli G, Nguyen D, Skjøth TV, et al. A bioequivalence study of two formulations of oral semaglutide in healthy participants. Diabetes Ther. 2025;16(2):269-287. doi: 10.1007/s13300-024-01674-8
  29. Bouhajib M, Tayab Z, Di Marco C, Suh D. The pharmacokinetics and comparative bioavailability of oral and subcutaneous semaglutide in healthy volunteers. J Basic Clin Physiol Pharmacol. 2025;36(2-3):221-227. doi: 10.1515/jbcpp-2025-0026
  30. Mayabhate MM, Kapure N, Sharma A, Vaddem R. Bridging Innovation and Access: Randomized, Single-Dose, Open- Label, Parallel-Group Bioequivalence Study of Generic and Innovator Injection Semaglutide in India. Am J Pharmacol Toxicol. 2026;20(1):9-15. doi: 10.3844/ajptsp.2026.9.15
  31. Mendis S, Fukino K, Cameron A, et al. The availability and affordability of selected essential medicines for chronic diseases in six low- and middle-income countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2007;85(4):279-288. doi: 10.2471/BLT.06.033647
  32. Alatorre C, Fernández Landó L, Yu M, et al. Treatment patterns in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: higher adherence and persistence with dulaglutide compared with once-weekly exenatide and liraglutide. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2017;19(7):953-961. doi: 10.1111/dom.12902
  33. European Medicines Agency. Guideline on the Investigation of Bioequivalence. CPMP/EWP/QWP/1401/98 Rev. 1/ Corr**. 2010. Accessed July 1, 2026. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/investigation-bioequivalence-scientific-guideline
  34. US Food and Drug Administration. Statistical approaches to establishing bioequivalence: guidance for industry. 2026. Accessed July 1, 2026. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/statistical-approaches-establishing-bioequivalence
  35. US Food and Drug Administration. Bioavailability studies submitted in NDAs or INDs—general considerations: guidance for industry. 2022. Accessed July 1, 2026. https://www.fda.gov/media/121311/download
  36. Schuirmann DJ. A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing bioequivalence. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1987;15(6):657- 680. doi: 10.1007/BF01068419
  37. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. RDC No. 742 of 10 August 2022: provides for the criteria to conduct relative bioavailability/bioequivalence studies and pharmacokinetic studies. 2022. Accessed July 1, 2026. https://www.gov.br/ anvisa/en/rules-and-regulations/arquivos/rdc-742-2022-e.pdf
  38. International Council for Harmonisation. ICH E6(R3): Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. 2025. Accessed July 1, 2026. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/ICH_E6%28R3%29_Step4_FinalGuideline_2025_0106.pdf
  39. Indian Council of Medical Research. National Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical and Health Research Involving Human Participants. 2017. Accessed July 1, 2026. https://www.icmr.gov.in/icmrobject/custom_data/pdf/resource-guidelines/ICMR_Ethical_Guidelines_2017.pdf
  40. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human participants. JAMA. 2025;333(1):71-74. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.21972
  41. International Council for Harmonisation. ICH M10: Bioanalytical Method Validation and Study Sample Analysis. 2022. Accessed July 1, 2026. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/M10_Guideline_Step4_2022_0524.pdf
  42. US Food and Drug Administration. M10 Bioanalytical Method Validation and Study Sample Analysis: Guidance for Industry. 2022. Accessed July 1, 2026. https://www.fda.gov/ regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/m10-bioanalytical-method-validation-and-study-sample-analysis
  43. Viswanathan CT, Bansal S, Booth B, et al. Quantitative bioanalytical methods validation and implementation: best practices for chromatographic and ligand binding assays. AAPS J. 2007;9(1):E30-E42. doi: 10.1208/aapsj0901004
  44. Bansal S, DeStefano A. Key elements of bioanalytical method validation for small molecules. AAPS J. 2007;9(1):E109-E114. doi: 10.1208/aapsj0901011
  45. DeSilva B, Smith W, Weiner R, et al. Recommendations for the bioanalytical method validation of ligand-binding assays to support pharmacokinetic assessments of macromolecules. Pharm Res. 2003;20(11):1885-1900. doi: 10.1023/B:PHAM.0000003390.51761.3d
Share
Back to top
Journal of Clinical and Translational Research, Electronic ISSN: 2424-810X Print ISSN: 2382-6533, Published by AccScience Publishing