Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Clin Exp Immunol ; 181(3): 385-400, 2015 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25959571

ABSTRACT

Biopharmaceuticals (BPs) represent a rapidly growing class of approved and investigational drug therapies that is contributing significantly to advancing treatment in multiple disease areas, including inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, genetic deficiencies and cancer. Unfortunately, unwanted immunogenic responses to BPs, in particular those affecting clinical safety or efficacy, remain among the most common negative effects associated with this important class of drugs. To manage and reduce risk of unwanted immunogenicity, diverse communities of clinicians, pharmaceutical industry and academic scientists are involved in: interpretation and management of clinical and biological outcomes of BP immunogenicity, improvement of methods for describing, predicting and mitigating immunogenicity risk and elucidation of underlying causes. Collaboration and alignment of efforts across these communities is made difficult due to lack of agreement on concepts, practices and standardized terms and definitions related to immunogenicity. The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI; www.imi-europe.org), ABIRISK consortium [Anti-Biopharmaceutical (BP) Immunization Prediction and Clinical Relevance to Reduce the Risk; www.abirisk.eu] was formed by leading clinicians, academic scientists and EFPIA (European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations) members to elucidate underlying causes, improve methods for immunogenicity prediction and mitigation and establish common definitions around terms and concepts related to immunogenicity. These efforts are expected to facilitate broader collaborations and lead to new guidelines for managing immunogenicity. To support alignment, an overview of concepts behind the set of key terms and definitions adopted to date by ABIRISK is provided herein along with a link to access and download the ABIRISK terms and definitions and provide comments (http://www.abirisk.eu/index_t_and_d.asp).


Subject(s)
Drug Hypersensitivity/prevention & control , Drugs, Investigational/standards , Guidelines as Topic/standards , Terminology as Topic , Allergy and Immunology/standards , Drug Hypersensitivity/immunology , Drug Industry/organization & administration , Drug Industry/standards , Drugs, Investigational/adverse effects , Drugs, Investigational/therapeutic use , Humans , Organizational Innovation , Organizational Policy , Reference Standards
2.
Diabetes Obes Metab ; 15(7): 642-9, 2013 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23368510

ABSTRACT

AIM: Assess the pharmacodynamics of lixisenatide once daily (QD) versus liraglutide QD in type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled on metformin. METHODS: In 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. RESULTS: Lixisenatide reduced PPG significantly more than liraglutide [mean change in AUC(0:30-4:30h) : -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. CONCLUSIONS: Once 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.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/drug therapy , Glucagon-Like Peptide 1/analogs & derivatives , Hyperglycemia/prevention & control , Hypoglycemic Agents/therapeutic use , Incretins/therapeutic use , Peptides/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , C-Peptide/blood , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/blood , Drug Administration Schedule , Drug Resistance , Female , Glucagon/blood , Glucagon-Like Peptide 1/administration & dosage , Glucagon-Like Peptide 1/adverse effects , Glucagon-Like Peptide 1/therapeutic use , Glycated Hemoglobin/analysis , Humans , Hyperinsulinism/prevention & control , Hypoglycemic Agents/administration & dosage , Hypoglycemic Agents/adverse effects , Incretins/administration & dosage , Incretins/adverse effects , Injections, Subcutaneous , Liraglutide , Male , Metformin/therapeutic use , Middle Aged , Peptides/administration & dosage , Peptides/adverse effects
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...