AimAssess the pharmacodynamics of lixisenatide once daily (QD) versus liraglutide QD in type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled on metformin.MethodsIn this 28-day, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre study (NCT01175473), patients (mean HbA1c 7.3%) received subcutaneous lixisenatide QD (10 µg weeks 1–2, then 20 µg; n = 77) or liraglutide QD (0.6 mg week 1, 1.2 mg week 2, then 1.8 mg; n = 71) 30 min before breakfast. Primary endpoint was change in postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) exposure from baseline to day 28 during a breakfast test meal.ResultsLixisenatide reduced PPG significantly more than liraglutide [mean change in AUC0:30–4:30h: −12.6 vs. −4.0 h·mmol/L, respectively; p < 0.0001 (0:30 h = start of meal)]. Change in maximum PPG excursion was −3.9 mmol/l vs. −1.4 mmol/l, respectively (p < 0.0001). More lixisenatide-treated patients achieved 2-h PPG <7.8 mmol/l (69% vs. 29%). Changes in fasting plasma glucose were greater with liraglutide (−0.3 vs. −1.3 mmol/l, p < 0.0001). Lixisenatide provided greater decreases in postprandial glucagon (p < 0.05), insulin (p < 0.0001) and C-peptide (p < 0.0001). Mean HbA1c decreased in both treatment groups (from 7.2% to 6.9% with lixisenatide vs. 7.4% to 6.9% with liraglutide) as did body weight (−1.6 kg vs. −2.4 kg, respectively). Overall incidence of adverse events was lower with lixisenatide (55%) versus liraglutide (65%), with no serious events or hypoglycaemia reported.ConclusionsOnce daily prebreakfast lixisenatide provided a significantly greater reduction in PPG (AUC) during a morning test meal versus prebreakfast liraglutide. Lixisenatide provided significant decreases in postprandial insulin, C-peptide (vs. an increase with liraglutide) and glucagon, and better gastrointestinal tolerability than liraglutide.
Background Alirocumab, a monoclonal antibody to proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9), lowers plasma low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and apolipoprotein B100 (apoB). Although studies in mice and cells have identified increased hepatic LDL receptors as the basis for LDL lowering by PCSK9 inhibitors, there have been no human studies characterizing the effects of PCSK9 inhibitors on lipoprotein metabolism. In particular, it is not known if inhibition of PCSK9 has any effects on very low density lipoprotein (VLDL) or intermediate density lipoprotein (IDL) metabolism. Inhibition of PCSK9 also results in reductions of plasma Lp(a) levels. The regulation of plasma Lp(a) levels, including the role of LDL receptors (LDLRs) in the clearance of Lp(a), is poorly defined, and there have been no mechanistic studies of the Lp(a) lowering by alirocumab in humans. Methods Eighteen (10F, 8M) participants completed a placebo-controlled, two-period study. They received 2 doses of placebo, 2 weeks apart, followed by 5 doses of 150 mg of alirocumab, 2 weeks apart. At the end of each period, fractional clearance rates (FCR) and production rates (PR) of apoB and apo(a) were determined. In 10 participants, postprandial triglycerides (TG) and apoB48 levels were measured. Results Alirocumab reduced ultracentrifugally isolated LDL-C by 55.1%, LDL-apoB by 56.3%, and plasma Lp(a) by 18.7%. The fall in LDL-apoB was due to an 80.4% increase in LDL-apoB FCR and a 23.9% reduction in LDL-apoB PR. The latter was associated with a 46.1% increase in IDL-apoB FCR coupled with a 27.2% decrease in conversion of IDL to LDL. The FCR of apo(a) tended to increase (24.6%) without any change in apo(a) PR. Alirocumab had no effects on FCRs or PRs of VLDL-apoB and VLDL-TG, or on postprandial plasma TG or apoB48 concentrations. Conclusions Alirocumab decreased LDL-C and LDL-apoB by increasing IDL- and LDL-apoB FCRs, and decreasing LDL-apoB PR. These results are consistent with increases in LDLRs available to clear IDL and LDL from blood during PCSK9 inhibition. The possible increase in apo(a) FCR during alirocumab treatment suggests that increased LDLRs may also play a role in the reduction of plasma Lp(a). Clinical Trials Registration Clinical trials.gov # NCT01959971
WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT • Numerous cocktails using concurrent administration of several cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoform‐selective probe drugs have been reported to investigate drug–drug interactions in vivo.• This approach has several advantages: characterize the inhibitory or induction potential of compounds in development toward the CYP enzymes identified in vitro in an in vivo situation, assess several enzymes in the same trial, and have complete in vivo information about potential CYP‐based drug interactions. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS • This study describes a new cocktail containing five probe drugs that has never been published.• This cocktail can be used to test the effects of a new chemical entity on multiple CYP isoforms in a single clinical study: CYP1A2 (caffeine), CYP2C9 (warfarin), CYP2C19 (omeprazole), CYP2D6 (metoprolol), and CYP3A (midazolam) and was designed to overcome potential liabilities of other reported cocktails.AIMS To assess the pharmacokinetics (PK) of selective substrates of CYP1A2 (caffeine), CYP2C9 (S‐warfarin), CYP2C19 (omeprazole), CYP2D6 (metoprolol) and CYP3A (midazolam) when administered orally and concurrently as a cocktail relative to the drugs administered alone.METHODS This was an open‐label, single‐dose, randomized, six‐treatment six‐period six‐sequence William's design study with a wash‐out of 7 or 14 days. Thirty healthy male subjects received 100 mg caffeine, 100 mg metoprolol, 0.03 mg kg−1 midazolam, 20 mg omeprazole and 10 mg warfarin individually and in combination (cocktail). Poor metabolizers of CYP2C9, 2C19 and 2D6 were excluded. Plasma samples were obtained up to 48 h for caffeine, metoprolol and omeprazole, 12 h for midazolam, 312 h for warfarin and the cocktail. Three different validated liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry methods were used. Noncompartmental PK parameters were calculated. Log‐transformed Cmax, AUClast and AUC for each analyte were analysed with a linear mixed effects model with fixed term for treatment, sequence and period, and random term for subject within sequence. Point estimates (90% CI) for treatment ratios (individual/cocktail) were computed for each analyte Cmax, AUClast and AUC.RESULTS There was no PK interaction between the probe drugs when administered in combination as a cocktail, relative to the probes administered alone, as the 90% CI of the PK parameters was within the prespecified bioequivalence limits of 0.80, 1.25.CONCLUSION The lack of interaction between probes indicates that this cocktail could be used to evaluate the potential for multiple drug–drug interactions in vivo.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.