Gan & Lee Pharmaceuticals Presented Multiple Results in Novel Diabetes Therapies at the American Diabetes Association's 85th Scientific Sessions

In a Phase 2a clinical trial, the GLP-1 RA bofanglutide injection demonstrated a favorable safety and tolerability profile after 23 weeks of once weekly treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), with significant HbA1c reductions alongside comprehensive benefits for body weight, blood pressure and blood lipid profiles.
In a Phase 2b clinical trial, the bofanglutide injection showed superior HbA1c and body weight reduction than semaglutide (Ozempic®) after 24 weeks of bi-weekly treatment in patients with T2DM, along with an acceptable safety and tolerability profile.
In a Phase 2 clinical trial, the once-weekly insulin GZR4 injection demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety profiles in patients with T2DM after 16 weeks of treatment. Notably, GZR4 injection achieved superior HbA1c reduction in patients with inadequate glycemic control on prior basal insulin therapy compared to once-daily insulin degludec (Tresiba®).
BEIJING and BRIDGEWATER, N.J., June 21, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Gan & Lee Pharmaceuticals (Gan & Lee, stock code: 603087.SH) announced that the company presented multiple Phase 2 clinical study results of ultra-long-acting GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) bofanglutide (research code: GZR18) injection and once-weekly basal insulin analog GZR4 injection during a poster presentation at the American Diabetes Association (ADA)'s 85th Scientific Sessions.
Statement:
Bofanglutide injection and GZR4 injection are investigational drugs that have not yet been launched in any country.
Gan & Lee Pharmaceuticals does not recommend the use of any unapproved drugs/indications.
Bofanglutide injection: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Phase 2a Clinical Study to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy of Bofanglutide (GZR18) Injection in Chinese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM)
In this Phase 2a clinical trial (NCT06256523), 36 adults with T2DM who had inadequate glycemic control through diet and exercise and/or irregular use of antidiabetic medications, were randomized to receive either bofanglutide injection (N=27) or placebo (N=9) once weekly (QW) for 23 weeks, with a dose escalating from 1.5 mg to 13 mg. The key efficacy endpoint was HbA1c change from baseline to week 23.
After 23 weeks of treatment, the mean HbA1c change from baseline in the bofanglutide groups was -1.81% compared to 0.12% in the placebo group, with an estimated treatment difference of -1.93% points*. The proportion of participants achieving an HbA1c target of <7.0% and ≤6.5% was 57.7% and 46.2%, respectively, compared to zero in the placebo group. In terms of weight management, participants treated with bofanglutide experienced a mean reduction in body weight of 6.92 kg from baseline, corresponding to a 9.3% decrease, compared to a minimal reduction of 1.2% in the placebo group. Furthermore, bofanglutide showed comprehensive improvements over placebo in multiple metabolic parameters, including fasting plasma glucose (FPG), glycated albumin (GA), waist circumference (WC), blood pressure, and lipid profiles. In terms of safety, bofanglutide was well tolerated in patients with T2DM. Consistent with known GLP-1 RAs, the most common adverse events were gastrointestinal-related, primarily observed during the early dose-escalation period with mostly mild to moderate in severity. No hypoglycemic events or investigational product-related serious adverse events were reported during the study.
Bofanglutide injection: A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-label, Active comparator-controlled Phase 2 Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of bofanglutide Injection versus Semaglutide (Ozempic®) in Chinese Patients with T2DM
In this Phase 2b clinical trial (NCT06256549), a total of 272 eligible Chinese patients with T2DM, who had inadequate glycemic control either after lifestyle intervention or despite stable use of oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) for at least 3 months, were randomized to receive bi-weekly (Q2W) 12 mg (N=55), 18 mg (N=54), 24 mg (N=55) bofanglutide injections, or once-weekly (QW) 24 mg (N=54) bofanglutide injections, or 1 mg semaglutide (Ozempic®, N=54) for 24 weeks of treatment, including the dose-escalation period. The primary endpoint was HbA1c change from baseline to week 24.
After 24 weeks of treatment, the mean reductions in HbA1c from baseline were 1.87%, 2.28%, and 1.94% in the bofanglutide groups at 12 mg, 18 mg, and 24 mg Q2W, respectively, and -2.32% in the 24 mg QW group. All these treatment regimens showed greater HbA1c reductions compared to the semaglutide group (-1.60%), with the 18 mg Q2W and 24 mg QW bofanglutide groups demonstrating statistically significant superiority (p<0.001)*. Among drug-naïve patients with inadequate glycemic control despite lifestyle interventions, the 18 mg Q2W bofanglutide group achieved a mean HbA1c reduction of 2.98%, which was significantly greater than that observed with semaglutide (-2.04%; p<0.001)*. The proportions of patients achieving HbA1c target of <7.0% were 63.0% to 73.6% in the Q2W bofanglutide group, 75.0% in the QW bofanglutide group, and 70.0% in the semaglutide group. For the HbA1c ≤6.5% target, the corresponding proportions were 58.2% to 67.9%, 69.2%, and 62.0%, respectively.
Furthermore, the mean change in body weight for all bofanglutide groups from baseline to week 24 ranged from -4.26 to -6.54 kg, compared to -3.25 kg in the semaglutide group*. Bofanglutide also greatly improved FPG, blood pressure, lipid profiles, and other metabolic parameters. In this study, bofanglutide was generally well tolerated, with safety and tolerability consistent with other known GLP-1 RAs. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal-related, mostly mild to moderate in severity, and no severe hypoglycemic events were observed.
GZR4 injection: A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-label, Active-controlled, Treat-to-target Phase 2 Clinical Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of GZR4 Injection Versus Insulin degludec (IDeg, Tresiba®) in Chinese patients with T2DM
This Phase 2 clinical study (NCT06202079) enrolled a total of 83 Chinese patients with T2DM who had inadequate glycemic control on OADs (Part A), and 96 patients with inadequate control on OADs combined with basal insulin therapy (Part B). Participants were randomized to receive QW GZR4 injection (Part A: N=42; Part B: N=41) or once-daily IDeg (Tresiba®) injection (Part A: N=48; Part B: N=48) for 16 weeks of treatment. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 16.
After 16 weeks of treatment, in patients from Part A, the mean change in HbA1c was comparable between GZR4 groups and IDeg groups (−1.50% versus -1.48%, p = 0.90). The proportion of participants achieving HbA1c target of <7.0% was 59.5% in the GZR4 group and 70.7% in the IDeg group, while the proportion achieving HbA1c target of ≤6.5% was 38.1% and 29.3%, respectively. In patients from Part B, GZR4 demonstrated significantly greater HbA1c reduction compared to IDeg (-1.26% vs -0.87%; p<0.01), with a higher proportion of patients achieving HbA1c targets of <7.0% and ≤6.5% (52.1% vs 29.2%; 25.0% vs 10.4%).
In addition, improvements from baseline in FPG and time in range (TIR) were comparable between the GZR4 group and IDeg group. GZR4 achieved effective glycemic control without the need for a loading dose at the first administration, while the total weekly insulin dosage (mole) for GZR4 was approximately 40–50% of that for IDeg (p<0.001). In terms of safety, the incidence of adverse events was similar between the two groups. No severe hypoglycemic events or investigational product-related serious adverse events were reported during the study.
* The clinical data were presented as mean (SE) value.
The detailed results of the above Phase 2 clinical study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Conclusion and Future Direction
The latest clinical results presented at this year's ADA conference highlight Gan & Lee Pharmaceuticals' leading position in the development of long-acting antidiabetic therapies. Building on these positive outcomes, the company will continue to advance the research and development of innovative treatments for diabetes. Currently, Gan & Lee has initiated and is accelerating large-scale Phase 3 clinical programs in China for bofanglutide injection and GZR4 injections for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, aiming to provide more effective treatment options for patients with diabetes.
Forward-looking statements
Forward-looking statements are based on our expectations and assumptions as of the date of the statements. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed in these forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors, and we can give no assurance that such results will be achieved in the future. We undertake no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.
About Gan & Lee
Gan & Lee Pharmaceuticals developed the first Chinese domestic insulin analog. Currently, Gan & Lee has six core insulin products, including five insulin analog varieties: long-acting glargine injection (Basalin®), fast-acting lispro injection (Prandilin™), fast-acting aspart injection (Rapilin®), mixed protamine zinc lispro injection (25R) (Prandilin™25), aspart 30 injection (Rapilin®30), and one human insulin injection - mixed protamine human insulin injection (30R) (Similin®30). The company has two approved medical devices in China, namely reusable insulin injection pen (GanleePen), and disposable pen needle (GanleeFine®).
In China's 2024 National Insulin-Specific Centralized Procurement, Gan & Lee Pharmaceuticals ranked first among all selected companies in terms of procurement demand for insulin analogs. The company is also making strides in international markets, with the disposable pen needle (GanleeFine®) approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2020 and received GMP inspection approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2024. These achievements significantly boost Gan & Lee's competitiveness in both international and domestic markets.
In the future, Gan & Lee will strive for comprehensive coverage in diabetes treatment. Moving forward with its mission to become a world-class pharmaceutical company, Gan & Lee will also actively develop new chemical entities and biological drugs, focusing on treatments for metabolic diseases, cardiovascular diseases, and other therapeutic areas.
SOURCE Gan & Lee Pharmaceuticals

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Bloomberg

2 hours ago

• Bloomberg

Chinese Biotech Showcases Challenger to Eli Lilly's Obesity Drug

An obesity drug from China helped patients lose a lot of weight in a late-stage clinical trial, making it a prospective new challenger to blockbusters from Novo Nordisk A/S and Eli Lilly & Co. Hangzhou Sciwind Biosciences Co. said its drug, ecnoglutide, led to more than 15% weight loss after 48 weeks when given at the highest dose. Although the trial did not compare ecnoglutide directly with existing medicines, the results were very similar to what Lilly's Zepbound showed in previous China studies, Sciwind Chief Executive Officer Hai Pan said in an interview.

Medscape

2 hours ago

• Medscape

Stem Cell-Derived Islets Still Producing Insulin at 1 Year

CHICAGO — Ten people with type 1 diabetes, who had recurrent severe hypoglycemia and hypoglycemic unawareness, have remained insulin-independent for over a year following allogeneic stem cell-derived islet-cell therapy with immunosuppression, according to new phase 1/2 data from the multicenter FORWARD study sponsored by Vertex Pharmaceuticals. The insulin-producing therapy VX-880, now named zimislecel, is delivered by infusion into the hepatic portal vein. A steroid-free immunosuppressive regimen is used, involving induction with antithymocyte globulin followed by maintenance with tacrolimus plus sirolimus. "It's really exciting to have a consistent, scalable source of insulin-producing tissue," study investigator Michael R. Rickels, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News . Even with the need for immunosuppression, there are many patients who could benefit from cell therapy, including those experiencing severe hypoglycemia or having challenges with glycemic control, or those already immunosuppressed for an organ transplant, he said. "Having a product with reproducible efficacy and an established safety record will be important in testing new immunomodulatory approaches, and ultimately other approaches for immune evasion, whether that's through engineering or gene-editing types of approaches in the future," added Rickels. The findings were presented on June 20 here at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 85th Scientific Sessions and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine . Asked for comment, Jeffrey R. Millman, PhD, a professor of medicine and biomedical engineering at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, who helped develop the technique for deriving islets from stem cells, told Medscape Medical News: "It's what we hoped, but seeing it actually happen is just amazing. There's no stem cell-based therapy has come close to what they've been able to accomplish." But, Millman added, "It's still only going to be for a small portion [of people] with type 1 diabetes, which is why we need to have things like encapsulation or genetic engineering to avoid the immunosuppression part, to make it a therapy that's much more applicable to most or all people living with type 1 diabetes." 1-Year Data The new data extend the findings reported at last year's ADA meeting and continue to demonstrate the feasibility of the therapy for people with type 1 diabetes in whom the risks of immunosuppression outweigh the benefits. The 14 participants (5 men, 9 women) included in the analysis who completed 1 year of follow-up had a mean age of 43.6 years and a mean type 1 diabetes duration of 22.8 years. All had undetectable C-peptide at baseline, a mean A1c of 7.8%, and a mean total daily insulin dose of 39.3 units. All used continuous glucose monitors, 9 used insulin pumps, and 6 used automated insulin delivery systems. Despite the technology, study participants had had an average of 2.7 severe hypoglycemic episodes in the year prior to screening. All participants had engraftment and infusion, as detected by the appearance of C-peptide. Two patients received a half dose of zimislecel, and 12 received a full dose (0.8 × 109 cells) in a single infusion. At 1 year, none of the 14 patients had experienced severe hypoglycemia. All 12 who received the full dose were free of severe hypoglycemic events and had an A1c level below 7%. They also spent more than 70% of the time in the target glucose range (70-180 mg/dL), and 10 patients were insulin independent at 365 days. There were 14 adverse events, including diarrhea, headache, and nausea. Most were mild to moderate and attributed to the immune suppression. Neutropenia occurred in six participants. Two patients died, one from cryptococcal meningitis attributed to the immune suppression and one from severe dementia with agitation owing to the progression of preexisting neurocognitive impairment. The deaths resulted in a temporary pause of the research in early 2024. Overcoming the Need for Immune Suppression Millman said he is not optimistic about the potential of islet encapsulation techniques — several of which were discussed at the ADA meeting — of overcoming the need for immune suppression. "Encapsulation is promising in the sense that it is relatively simple in concept and execution, but historically it's been very challenging," he said. "The problem is that you need a certain amount of islets creating a certain amount of insulin to control blood sugars in an adult human. These cells have certain metabolic needs for glucose for the oxygen that they breathe, and if you are encapsulating them, these cells are not able to rely on blood vessels to provide the nutrients and oxygen that they need," Millman explained. He added, "There can potentially be more advanced ways of doing that that can overcome those barriers, but so far there hasn't been conclusive proof that that can be done in a way that translates to patients." Indeed, in March 2025 Vertex discontinued a phase 1/2 trial of an encapsulated islet product VX-264 because of lack of efficacy. Instead, Millman and others in the field are more optimistic about hypoimmune gene editing of the islets to avoid the necessity for immunosuppressant drugs. "There's been a lot of interesting scientific work coming out from both companies and academic labs with different ways of engineering cells to avoid immune destruction," he noted. Although this research is still in its early stages, Millman pointed to upcoming programs, such as one announced by Sana Biotechnology, for which a 6-month update will be presented here at the ADA meeting on Monday. "I'm hoping that we can learn from that, similar to what we just learned here today from Vertex Pharmaceuticals, about the challenges and the promises of genetic engineering to avoid the need for immunosuppression." Zimislecel will now be studied in a phase 3 trial, with a planned enrollment of 50 patients, to be completed by the end of summer 2025. Rickels has reported being a consultant for Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Sernova, receiving research support from Dompé and Tandem Diabetes Care, and being a consultant for Novo Nordisk. Millman has reported holding stock in and receiving research support from Sana Biotechnology.

Health Line

7 hours ago

• Health Line

Intermittent Fasting May Be as Effective as Calorie Restriction for Weight Loss

Intermittent fasting resulted in similar weight loss as traditional calorie restriction, according to a new review. One form of intermittent fasting, known as whole-day fasting, did yield slightly more weight loss than caloric restriction. Experts say that the similar results across different diet protocols mean individuals trying to lose weight have more options available to suit their lifestyle. New research suggests that intermittent fasting is as effective as calorie-restricted diets for weight loss and cardiometabolic risk factors. A systematic review of nearly 100 randomized clinical trials involving intermittent fasting (IF) and traditional calorie restriction (CR) found that both approaches yielded similar health benefits. The study, published on June 18 in The BMJ, found that IF and CR were equally effective. IF involves designated periods of eating and fasting and places less emphasis on what you eat than when you eat. By contrast, CR targets a specific daily calorie goal and allows any eating schedule. The analysis included several of the most common IF protocols, including: Alternate day fasting (ADF) alternates standard eating days with fasting days or very low calorie days. Time-restricted eating (TRE) restricts food intake to a daily window, typically 8 or 12 hours. Whole day fasting, also known as the 5:2 diet, involves two or three weekly fasting days. All forms of IF and traditional CR produced weight loss compared with no intervention at all — known as an ad libitum, or unrestricted, diet. Of the three primary IF methods, only alternate day fasting resulted in greater weight loss than CR. However, the authors note that longer trials are needed to substantiate their findings. 'This analysis suggests that all three approaches, for the most part, lead to similar weight losses. This is why many of us believe that the best approach to losing weight is finding an approach that matches your lifestyle and is something you can practice for the long term,' said David B. Sarwer, PhD, director of the Center for Obesity Research and Education at Temple University and a spokesperson for the Obesity Society. Sarwer wasn't involved in the research. IF has grown rapidly in popularity over the past decade, but evidence of its health benefits — namely, weight loss and cardiometabolic measures, such as blood glucose — has been inconsistent compared with more traditional, calorie-restricted diets. Although proponents of IF may be disappointed by the latest findings, experts say that similar results across diets mean that people have more options to find a method that works best for them. No clear 'best' when it comes to diet protocols Researchers included 99 randomized clinical trials involving more than 6,500 adults in the systematic review. The average age of participants was 45, and two-thirds were women. A small percentage was considered healthy, but the vast majority (about 90%) had existing health conditions, including overweight, obesity, and both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Participants' average BMI was 31, meeting the standard clinical definition of obesity, which is a body mass index (BMI of 30 or higher. Trials ranged between 3 and 52 weeks — with an average of 12 weeks — and varied in quality. The review found that both IF and CR led to small reductions in body weight compared to an unrestricted diet. Among the different IF protocols, only ADF resulted in slightly more weight loss (nearly three pounds) than CR. Sarwer pointed out that while this may be statistically significant, such additional weight loss would be trivial in improving weight-related health issues. ADF also slightly outperformed both TRE and whole-day fasting in terms of weight loss, but these findings were not deemed significant. ADF also resulted in slight improvements to total and LDL cholesterol compared to time-restricted eating. 'There is no compelling evidence that there is a 'best' diet for weight loss,' said Sarwer. 'Rather, the 'best' approach is one where the person can make small, yet impactful changes to their food choices, eating behaviors, and level of physical activity that cause minimal disruption to their lifestyle and that they can maintain for the long term,' he said. Who benefits from intermittent fasting? Though IF is touted as the diet du jour, there isn't enough compelling evidence to support it yet. Nonetheless, it has been linked to an array of health benefits, including: weight loss improved insulin resistance reduced inflammation brain health The key question, though, is not whether IF is beneficial compared to an unrestricted diet, but whether it's better than CR. That's where things are a little unclear. A 2024 review found that IF and CR were both associated with weight loss and equally effective across cardiometabolic, cancer, and neurocognitive outcomes. However, they noted that IF studies reported greater adherence, meaning people were better able to stick to them for the trial duration. A slightly older study published in NEJM in 2022 also concluded that among people with obesity, TRE wasn't more beneficial than CR. On the other hand, in a clinical trial funded by the NIH, the results of which were published in April 2025, participants who did a variation of whole-day fasting (a 4:3 schedule rather than the more common 5:2) lost 50% more weight than CR (7.6% vs 5% body weight) after one year. The additional weight loss also translated into cardiometabolic improvements, such as blood pressure, total cholesterol, and A1C. Another trial, published in May 2025, found that just three months of TRE led to long-term weight loss, even after participants stopped the protocol. CR isn't perfect either. Though it's long been a standard dietary intervention, it can be harmful, leading to fatigue, nutrient deficiencies, and even depression. For now, experts agree that the right diet solution comes down to the individual. The best diet for you is the one you can stick to. 'Fasting diets are easier to follow because the rules are fairly simple vs trying to start a Mediterranean diet, for example. Some patients who may particularly benefit from a time-restricted diet, for example, are individuals who tend to snack a lot at night,' said Sun Kim, MD, an associate professor of Endocrinology, Gerontology, and Metabolism at Stanford Medicine who wasn't involved in the research. She also cautions that individuals with diabetes who take insulin should be careful with fasting diets, as they may necessitate adjustments to insulin dosage and scheduling. You should also be cautious with intermittent fasting if you: are over age 65 have a history of disordered eating have low blood pressure are pregnant or nursing Adherence is key to long-term weight loss One final notable finding of the study was that adherence rates dropped precipitously the longer trials went on. Studies shorter than 24 weeks had high adherence, above 80%, while trials longer than 52 weeks typically reported poor adherence. In one trial involving whole-day fasting, adherence crashed from 74% at six weeks to just 22% at 52 weeks. These findings reinforce the idea that diet protocols should not be viewed as 'one size fits all' but rather as tailored to each individual's lifestyle. 'I wish there was an easy solution to weight loss. In our society, there are many forces that push individuals toward weight gain. I always discuss with patients about finding a lifestyle change that they can sustain for the long haul,' said Kim. According to Sarwer, small, sustainable changes are key. 'I'm more likely to suggest that people reduce the number of days a week that they eat ice cream, or reduce the portion size they eat, than to recommend that they stop eating ice cream all together,' he said.