GFRAL is the receptor for GDF15 and is required for the anti-obesity effects of the ligand.

Growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF15; also known as MIC-1) is a divergent member of the TGF-ß superfamily and is associated with body-weight regulation in humans and rodents. However, the cognate receptor of GDF15 is unknown. Here we show that GDF15 binds specifically to GDNF family receptor α-like (GFRAL) with high affinity, and that GFRAL requires association with the coreceptor RET to elicit intracellular signaling in response to GDF15 stimulation. We also found that GDF15-mediated reductions in food intake and body weight of mice with obesity were abolished in GFRAL-knockout mice. We further found that GFRAL expression was limited to hindbrain neurons and not present in peripheral tissues, which suggests that GDF15-GFRAL-mediated regulation of food intake is by a central mechanism. Lastly, given that GDF15 did not increase energy expenditure in treated mice with obesity, the anti-obesity actions of the cytokine are likely driven primarily by a reduction in food intake.

Influence of drugs interacting with CYP3A4 on the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of the prandial glucose regulator repaglinide.

The object of this study was to analyze drug interactions between repaglinide, a short-acting insulin secretagogue, and five other drugs interacting with CYP3A4: ketoconazole, rifampicin, ethinyloestradiol/levonorgestrel (in an oral contraceptive), simvastatin, and nifedipine. In two open-label, two-period, randomized crossover studies, healthy subjects received repaglinide alone, repaglinide on day 5 of ketoconazole treatment, or repaglinide on day 7 of rifampicin treatment. In three open-label, three-period, randomized crossover studies, healthy subjects received 5 days of repaglinide alone; 5 days of ethinyloestradiol/levonorgestrel, simvastatin, or nifedipine alone; or 5 days of repaglinide concomitant with ethinyloestradiol/levonorgestrel, simvastatin, or nifedipine. Compared to administration of repaglinide alone, concomitant ketoconazole increased mean AUC0-infinity for repaglinide by 15% and mean Cmax by 7%. Concomitant rifampicin decreased mean AUC0-infinity for repaglinide by 31% and mean Cmax by 26%. Concomitant treatment with CYP3A4 substrates altered mean AUC0-5 h and mean Cmax for repaglinide by 1% and 17% (ethinyloestradiol/levonorgestrel), 2% and 27% (simvastatin), or 11% and 3% (nifedipine). Profiles of blood glucose concentration following repaglinide dosing were altered by less than 8% by both ketoconazole and rifampicin. In all five studies, most adverse events were related to hypoglycemia, as expected in a normal population given a blood glucose regulator. The safety profile of repaglinide was not altered by pretreatment with ketoconazole or rifampicin or by coadministration with ethinyloestradiol/levonorgestrel. The incidence of adverse events increased with coadministration of simvastatin or nifedipine compared to either repaglinide or simvastatin/nifedipine treatment alone. No clinically relevant pharmacokinetic interactions occurred between repaglinide and the CYP3A4 substrates ethinyloestradiol/levonorgestrel, simvastatin, or nifedipine. The pharmacokinetic profile of repaglinide was altered by administration of potent inhibitors or inducers, such as ketoconazole or rifampicin, but to a lesser degree than expected. These results are probably explained by the metabolic pathway of repaglinide that involves other enzymes than CYP3A4, reflected to some extent by a small change in repaglinide pharmacodynamics. Thus, careful monitoring of blood glucose in repaglinide-treated patients receiving strong inhibitors or inducers of CYP3A4 is recommended, and an increase in repaglinide dose may be necessary. No safety concerns were observed, except a higher incidence in adverse events in patients receiving repaglinide and simvastatin or nifedipine.