Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of Same-Knee Intra-Articular Injection of Corticosteroid and Lorecivivint Within 7 Days: An Open-Label, Randomized, Parallel-Arm Study.

INTRODUCTION: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a common painful disorder. Intra-articular (IA) corticosteroid injections are frequently prescribed to treat knee pain. Lorecivivint (LOR), a novel IA cdc2-Like Kinase (CLK)/Dual-Specificity Tyrosine Phosphorylation-Regulated Kinase (DYRK) inhibitor thought to modulate Wnt and inflammatory pathways, has appeared safe and demonstrated improved patient-reported outcomes compared with placebo. While LOR is proposed for stand-alone use, in clinical practice, providers might administer LOR in close time proximity to IA corticosteroid. This open-label, parallel-arm, healthy volunteer study assessed potential short-term safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetic (PK) interactions between IA LOR and triamcinolone acetonide (TCA) administered 7 days apart. METHODS: Healthy volunteers were randomized to Treatment Sequence 1 (IA 40 mg TCA followed by IA 0.07 mg LOR) or Treatment Sequence 2 (IA 0.07 mg LOR followed by IA 40 mg TCA). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were categorized by "epoch", with epoch 1 spanning from first until second injection, and epoch 2 spanning from second injection until end of study. Plasma PK was assessed pre injection and out to 22 days after to assess PK treatment interaction. RESULTS: A total of 18 TEAEs were reported by 11 (27.5%) of 40 enrolled participants, and there were no serious adverse events. Thirteen TEAEs were reported in Treatment Sequence 1 and five in Treatment Sequence 2, similarly distributed between epochs 1 and 2. In all participants and at all time points, plasma LOR concentrations were below the limit of quantification (0.100 ng/mL). Geometric mean concentrations and PK parameters for TCA were similar between treatment sequences. CONCLUSION: No safety signals were observed. There were no quantifiable plasma concentrations of LOR in either Treatment Sequence. The PK of TCA was unaffected by previous LOR injection. These results suggest that IA administration of LOR and TCA in close time proximity is unlikely to pose a safety concern. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04598542.

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a common disorder characterized by pain and loss of function. This clinical trial tested if two different treatments for OA injected into the same knee 1 week apart would impact the safety or exposure of either treatment. The treatments evaluated were an injection of a corticosteroid, triamcinolone acetonide, and a potential OA treatment in development, lorecivivint, a novel small molecule thought to inhibit inflammation and a biological pathway called the Wnt pathway. The amount of either treatment found in circulation was not different when injected before or after the other treatment. The order of injection did not change the safety profile for either agent, suggesting injection of the two agents 1 week apart is unlikely to pose a safety concern.

First-in-human study of a pharmacological duodenal exclusion therapy shows reduced postprandial glucose and insulin and increased bile acid and gut hormone concentrations.

AIMS: To address the need for noninvasive alternatives to metabolic surgery or duodenal exclusion devices for the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity by developing an orally administered therapeutic polymer, GLY-200, designed to bind to and enhance the barrier function of mucus in the gastrointestinal tract to establish duodenal exclusion noninvasively. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Phase 1, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single- (SAD) and multiple-ascending-dose (MAD) healthy volunteer study was conducted. In the SAD arm, four cohorts received a single dose of 0.5 g up to 6.0 g GLY-200 or placebo, while in the MAD arm, four cohorts received 5 days of twice-daily or three-times-daily dosing (total daily dose 2.0 g up to 6.0 g GLY-200 or placebo). Assessments included safety and tolerability (primary) and exploratory pharmacodynamics, including serum glucose, insulin, bile acids and gut hormones. RESULTS: No safety signals were observed; tolerability signals were limited to mild to moderate dose-dependent gastrointestinal events. In the MAD arm (Day 5), reductions in glucose and insulin and increases in bile acids, glucagon-like peptide-1, peptide YY and glicentin, were observed following a nonstandardized meal in subjects receiving twice-daily dosing of 2.0 g GLY-200 (N = 9) versus those receiving placebo (N = 8). CONCLUSIONS: GLY-200 is safe and generally well tolerated at doses of ≤2.0 g twice daily. Pharmacodynamic results mimic the biomarker signature observed after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and duodenal exclusion devices, indicating a pharmacological effect in the proximal small intestine. This study represents the first clinical demonstration that duodenal exclusion can be achieved with an oral drug and supports further development of GLY-200 for the treatment of obesity and/or T2D.

Improved glycemic control with minimal systemic metformin exposure: Effects of Metformin Delayed-Release (Metformin DR) targeting the lower bowel over 16 weeks in a randomized trial in subjects with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Metformin use is restricted in patients with renal impairment due to potential excess systemic accumulation. This study evaluated the glycemic effects and safety of metformin delayed-release (Metformin DR), which targets metformin delivery to the ileum to leverage its gut-based mechanisms of action while minimizing systemic exposure. RESEARCH DESIGNS AND METHODS: Participants (T2DM [HbA1c 7-10.5%], eGFR ≥60 mL/min/1.73m2, not taking metformin for ≥2 months) were randomized to QD placebo (PBO); QD Metformin DR 600, 900, 1200, or 1500 mg; or to single-blind BID Metformin immediate-release (IR) 1000 mg. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c for Metformin DR vs. PBO at 16 weeks in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population (≥ 1 post-baseline HbA1c while on study drug), using a mixed-effects repeated measures model. RESULTS: 571 subjects were randomized (56 years, 53% male, 80% white; BMI 32.2±5.5 kg/m2; HbA1c 8.6±0.9%; 51% metformin naive); 542 were in the mITT population. Metformin DR 1200 and 1500 mg significantly reduced HbA1c (-0.49±0.13% and -0.62±0.12%, respectively, vs. PBO -0.06±0.13%; p<0.05) and FPG (Caverage Weeks 4-16: -22.3±4.2 mg/dL and -25.1±4.1 mg/dL, respectively vs. -2.5±4.2 mg/dL p<0.05). Metformin IR elicited greater HbA1c improvement (-1.10±0.13%; p<0.01 vs. Placebo and all doses of Metformin DR) but with ~3-fold greater plasma metformin exposure. Normalizing efficacy to systemic exposure, glycemic improvements with Metformin DR were 1.5-fold (HbA1c) and 2.1-fold (FPG) greater than Metformin IR. Adverse events were primarily gastrointestinal but these were less frequent with Metformin DR (<16% incidence) vs. Metformin IR (28%), particularly nausea (1-3% vs 10%). CONCLUSION: Metformin DR exhibited greater efficacy per unit plasma exposure than Metformin IR. Future studies will evaluate the effects of Metformin DR in patients with type 2 diabetes and advanced renal disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02526524.

Spinal Disinhibition in Experimental and Clinical Painful Diabetic Neuropathy.

Impaired rate-dependent depression (RDD) of the Hoffman reflex is associated with reduced dorsal spinal cord potassium chloride cotransporter expression and impaired spinal γ-aminobutyric acid type A receptor function, indicative of spinal inhibitory dysfunction. We have investigated the pathogenesis of impaired RDD in diabetic rodents exhibiting features of painful neuropathy and the translational potential of this marker of spinal inhibitory dysfunction in human painful diabetic neuropathy. Impaired RDD and allodynia were present in type 1 and type 2 diabetic rats but not in rats with type 1 diabetes receiving insulin supplementation that did not restore normoglycemia. Impaired RDD in diabetic rats was rapidly normalized by spinal delivery of duloxetine acting via 5-hydroxytryptamine type 2A receptors and temporally coincident with the alleviation of allodynia. Deficits in RDD and corneal nerve density were demonstrated in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy compared with healthy control subjects and patients with painless diabetic neuropathy. Spinal inhibitory dysfunction and peripheral small fiber pathology may contribute to the clinical phenotype in painful diabetic neuropathy. Deficits in RDD may help identify patients with spinally mediated painful diabetic neuropathy who may respond optimally to therapies such as duloxetine.

Once-daily delayed-release metformin lowers plasma glucose and enhances fasting and postprandial GLP-1 and PYY: results from two randomised trials.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Delayed-release metformin (Metformin DR) was developed to maximise gut-based mechanisms of metformin action by targeting the drug to the ileum. Metformin DR was evaluated in two studies. Study 1 compared the bioavailability and effects on circulating glucose and gut hormones (glucagon-like peptide-1, peptide YY) of Metformin DR dosed twice-daily to twice-daily immediate-release metformin (Metformin IR). Study 2 compared the bioavailability and glycaemic effects of Metformin DR dosages of 1,000 mg once-daily in the morning, 1,000 mg once-daily in the evening, and 500 mg twice-daily. METHODS: Study 1 was a blinded, randomised, crossover study (three × 5 day treatment periods) of twice-daily 500 mg or 1,000 mg Metformin DR vs twice-daily 1,000 mg Metformin IR in 24 participants with type 2 diabetes conducted at two study sites (Celerion Inc.; Tempe, AZ, and Lincoln, NE, USA). Plasma glucose and gut hormones were assessed over 10.25 h at the start and end of each treatment period; plasma metformin was measured over 11 h at the end of each treatment period. Study 2 was a non-blinded, randomised, crossover study (three × 7 day treatment periods) of 1,000 mg Metformin DR once-daily in the morning, 1,000 mg Metformin DR once-daily in the evening, or 500 mg Metformin DR twice-daily in 26 participants with type 2 diabetes performed at a single study site (Celerion, Tempe, AZ). Plasma glucose was assessed over 24 h at the start and end of each treatment period, and plasma metformin was measured over 30 h at the end of each treatment period. Both studies implemented centrally generated computer-based randomisation using a 1:1:1 allocation ratio. RESULTS: A total of 24 randomised participants were included in study 1; of these, 19 completed the study and were included in the evaluable population. In the evaluable population, all treatments produced similar significant reductions in fasting glucose (median reduction range, -0.67 to -0.81 mmol/l across treatments) and postprandial glucose (Day 5 to baseline AUC0-t ratio = 0.9 for all three treatments) and increases in gut hormones (Day 5 to baseline AUC0-t ratio range: 1.6-1.9 for GLP-1 and 1.4-1.5 for PYY) despite an almost 60% reduction in systemic metformin exposure for 500 mg Metformin DR compared with Metformin IR. A total of 26 randomised participants were included in study 2: 24 had at least one dose of study medication and at least one post-dose pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic assessment and were included in the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic intent-to-treat analysis; and 12 completed all treatment periods and were included in the evaluable population. In the evaluable population, Metformin DR administered once-daily in the morning had 28% (90% CI -16%, -39%) lower bioavailability (least squares mean ratio of metformin AUC0-24) compared with either once-daily in the evening or twice-daily, although the glucose-lowering effects were maintained. In both studies, adverse events were primarily gastrointestinal in nature, and indicated similar or improved tolerability for Metformin DR vs Metformin IR; there were no clinically meaningful differences in vital signs, physical examinations or laboratory values. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Dissociation of gut hormone release and glucose lowering from plasma metformin exposure provides strong supportive evidence for a distal small intestine-mediated mechanism of action. Directly targeting the ileum with Metformin DR once-daily in the morning may provide maximal metformin efficacy with lower doses and substantially reduce plasma exposure. Metformin DR may minimise the risk of lactic acidosis in those at increased risk from metformin therapy, such as individuals with renal impairment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01677299, NCT01804842 FUNDING: : This study was funded by Elcelyx Therapeutics Inc.

The Primary Glucose-Lowering Effect of Metformin Resides in the Gut, Not the Circulation: Results From Short-term Pharmacokinetic and 12-Week Dose-Ranging Studies.

OBJECTIVE: Delayed-release metformin (Met DR) is formulated to deliver the drug to the lower bowel to leverage the gut-based mechanisms of metformin action with lower plasma exposure. Met DR was assessed in two studies. Study 1 compared the bioavailability of single daily doses of Met DR to currently available immediate-release metformin (Met IR) and extended-release metformin (Met XR) in otherwise healthy volunteers. Study 2 assessed glycemic control in subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) over 12 weeks. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Study 1 was a phase 1, randomized, four-period crossover study in 20 subjects. Study 2 was a 12-week, phase 2, multicenter, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study in 240 subjects with T2DM randomized to receive Met DR 600, 800, or 1,000 mg administered once daily; blinded placebo; or unblinded Met XR 1,000 or 2,000 mg (reference). RESULTS: The bioavailability of 1,000 mg Met DR b.i.d. was ∼50% that of Met IR and Met XR (study 1). In study 2, 600, 800, and 1,000 mg Met DR q.d. produced statistically significant, clinically relevant, and sustained reductions in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels over 12 weeks compared with placebo, with an ∼40% increase in potency compared with Met XR. The placebo-subtracted changes from baseline in HbA1c level at 12 weeks were consistent with changes in FPG levels. All treatments were generally well tolerated, and adverse events were consistent with Glucophage/Glucophage XR prescribing information. CONCLUSIONS: Dissociation of the glycemic effect from plasma exposure with gut-restricted Met DR provides strong evidence for a predominantly lower bowel-mediated mechanism of metformin action.

Exenatide once weekly versus liraglutide once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes (DURATION-6): a randomised, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists exenatide and liraglutide have been shown to improve glycaemic control and reduce bodyweight in patients with type 2 diabetes. We compared the efficacy and safety of exenatide once weekly with liraglutide once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We did a 26 week, open-label, randomised, parallel-group study at 105 sites in 19 countries between Jan 11, 2010, and Jan 17, 2011. Patients aged 18 years or older with type 2 diabetes treated with lifestyle modification and oral antihyperglycaemic drugs were randomly assigned (1:1), via a computer-generated randomisation sequence with a voice response system, to receive injections of once-daily liraglutide (1·8 mg) or once-weekly exenatide (2 mg). Participants and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) from baseline to week 26. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01029886. FINDINGS: Of 912 randomised patients, 911 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (450 liraglutide, 461 exenatide). The least-squares mean change in HbA(1c) was greater in patients in the liraglutide group (-1·48%, SE 0·05; n=386) than in those in the exenatide group (-1·28%, 0·05; 390) with the treatment difference (0·21%, 95% CI 0·08-0·33) not meeting predefined non-inferiority criteria (upper limit of CI <0·25%). The most common adverse events were nausea (93 [21%] in the liraglutide group vs 43 [9%] in the exenatide group), diarrhoea (59 [13%] vs 28 [6%]), and vomiting 48 [11%] vs 17 [4%]), which occurred less frequently in the exenatide group and with decreasing incidence over time in both groups. 24 (5%) patients allocated to liraglutide and 12 (3%) allocated to exenatide discontinued participation because of adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Both once daily liraglutide and once weekly exenatide led to improvements in glycaemic control, with greater reductions noted with liraglutide. These findings, plus differences in injection frequency and tolerability, could inform therapeutic decisions for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company and Amylin Pharmaceuticals LLC.

Clinical relevance of anti-exenatide antibodies: safety, efficacy and cross-reactivity with long-term treatment.

AIMS: Antibody formation to therapeutic peptides is common. This analysis characterizes the time-course and cross-reactivity of anti-exenatide antibodies and potential effects on efficacy and safety. METHODS: Data from intent-to-treat patients in 12 controlled (n = 2225,12-52 weeks) and 5 uncontrolled (n = 1538, up to 3 years) exenatide twice-daily (BID) trials and 4 controlled (n = 653,24-30 weeks) exenatide once weekly (QW) trials with 1 uncontrolled period (n = 128,52 weeks) were analysed. RESULTS: Mean titres peaked early (6-22 weeks) and subsequently declined. At 30 weeks, 36.7% of exenatide BID patients were antibody-positive; 31.7% exhibited low titres (≤125) and 5.0% had higher titres (≥625). Antibody incidence declined to 16.9% (1.4% higher titre) at 3 years. Similarly, 56.8% of exenatide QW patients were antibody-positive (45.0% low/11.8% higher titre) at 24-30 weeks, declining to 45.4% positive (9.2% higher titre) at 52 weeks. Treatment-emergent anti-exenatide antibodies from a subset of patients tested did not cross-react with human GLP-1 or glucagon. Other than injection-site reactions, adverse event rates in antibody-positive and antibody-negative patients were similar. Efficacy was robust in both antibody-negative and antibody-positive patients (mean HbA1c change: -1.0 and -0.9%, respectively, exenatide BID; -1.6% and -1.3% exenatide QW). No correlation between change in HbA1c and titre was observed for exenatide BID, although mean reductions were attenuated in the small subset of patients (5%) with higher titres. A significant correlation was observed for exenatide QW with no difference between antibody-negative and low-titre patients, but an attenuated mean reduction in the subset of patients (12%) with higher titres. CONCLUSIONS: Low-titre anti-exenatide antibodies were common with exenatide treatment (32% exenatide BID, 45% exenatide QW patients), but had no apparent effect on efficacy. Higher-titre antibodies were less common (5% exenatide BID, 12% exenatide QW) and within that titre group, increasing antibody titre was associated with reduced average efficacy that was statistically significant for exenatide QW. Other than injection-site reactions, anti-exenatide antibodies did not impact the safety of exenatide.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of exenatide extended-release after single and multiple dosing.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Exenatide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, available in an immediate-release (IR), twice-daily formulation, which improves glycaemic control through enhancement of glucose-dependent insulin secretion, suppression of inappropriately elevated postprandial glucagon secretion, slowing of gastric emptying and reduction of food intake. The objectives of these studies were to assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of an extended-release (ER) exenatide formulation in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with type 2 diabetes participated in either a single-dose trial (n = 62) or a repeated-administration trial (n = 45). The pharmacokinetic and safety effects of single-dose subcutaneous administration of exenatide ER (2.5 mg, 5 mg, 7 mg or 10 mg) versus placebo were studied over a period of 12 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes. These results were used to predict the dose regimen of exenatide ER required to achieve steady-state therapeutic plasma exenatide concentrations. A second clinical study investigated the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety of weekly exenatide ER subcutaneous injections (0.8 mg or 2 mg) versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes over a period of 15 weeks. Furthermore, population-based analyses of these studies were performed to further define the exposure-response relationships associated with exenatide ER. RESULTS: Exenatide exposure increased with dose (2.5 mg, 5 mg, 7 mg or 10 mg) and exhibited a multiple-peak profile over approximately 10 weeks. Multiple-dosing pharmacokinetics were predicted from superpositioning of single-dose data; weekly administration of exenatide ER 0.8 mg and 2 mg for 15 weeks confirmed the predictions. Weekly dosing resulted in steady-state plasma exenatide concentrations after 6-7 weeks. Fasting plasma glucose levels were reduced similarly with both doses after 15 weeks (-42.7 ± 15.7 mg/dL with the 0.8 mg dose and -39.0 ± 9.3 mg/dL with the 2 mg dose; both p < 0.001 vs placebo), and the integrated exposure-response analysis demonstrated that the drug concentration producing 50% of the maximum effect (EC(50)) on fasting plasma glucose was 56.8 pg/mL (a concentration achieved with both the 0.8 mg and 2 mg doses of exenatide ER). The 2 mg dose reduced bodyweight (-3.8 ± 1.4 kg; p < 0.05 vs placebo) and postprandial glucose excursions. Glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) levels were reduced with the 0.8 mg dose (-1.4 ± 0.3%; baseline 8.6%) and with the 2 mg dose (-1.7 ± 0.3%; baseline 8.3%) [both p < 0.001 vs placebo]. Adverse events were generally transient and mild to moderate in intensity. CONCLUSION: These studies demonstrated that (i) a single subcutaneous dose of exenatide ER resulted in dose-related increases in plasma exenatide concentrations; (ii) single-dose exposure successfully predicted the weekly-dosing exposure, with 0.8 mg and 2 mg weekly subcutaneous doses of exenatide ER eliciting therapeutic concentrations of exenatide; and (iii) weekly dosing with either 0.8 or 2 mg of exenatide ER improved fasting plasma glucose control, whereas only the 2 mg dose was associated with improved postprandial glucose control and weight loss. [Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00103935].

Pharmacology and tolerability of a single dose of exenatide in adolescent patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus being treated with metformin: a randomized, placebo-controlled, single-blind, dose-escalation, crossover study.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and tolerability of single doses of exenatide in adolescent patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: This was a randomized, single-blind, dose-escalation, crossover study in adolescent (age 10-16 years) patients with T2DM who were being treated with diet and exercise or a stable dose of metformin, a sulfonylurea, or a combination of metformin and a sulfonylurea for at least 3 months before screening. Eligible patients were allocated to receive single subcutaneous doses of exenatide 2.5 microg, exenatide 5 microg, and placebo, each followed by a standardized meal, on 3 separate days (maximum interval between first and third doses, 5 weeks). Exenatide 2.5 microg always preceded exenatide 5 microg in each treatment sequence. The primary end points were the pharmacokinetics and safety profile of exenatide; secondary end points included postprandial plasma glucose, serum insulin, and plasma glucagon concentrations. RESULTS: The study enrolled 13 adolescent patients with T2DM (7 females, 6 males; mean [SD] age, 15 [1] years; body mass index, 32.5 [5.0] kg/m(2); glycosylated hemoglobin, 8.2% [1.5%]). After administration of exenatide 5 microg, the geometric mean (SE) exenatide AUC(0-infinity) and C(max) were 339.5 (39.6) pg * h/mL and 85.1 (11.5) pg/mL, respectively (n = 12). The exenatide AUC appeared to be dose dependent, although exenatide was not quantifiable in all patients at the 2.5-microg dose; after administration of exenatide 2.5-microg, the geometric mean AUC(0-infinity)) was 159.2 (23.1) pg * h/mL (n = 6) and the geometric mean C(max) was 56.3 (10.1) pg/mL (n = 9). Both exenatide doses were associated with significant reductions in postprandial plasma glucose excursions compared with placebo (P < 0.01); the incremental mean (SE) AUC(15-360min) was -3465.6 (1587.3) mg * min/dL for exenatide 2.5 pg, -4422.2 (2434.4) mg * min/dL for exenatide 5 microg, and 3457.4 (1615.5) mg * min/dL for placebo. The 2 exenatide doses were also associated with significant reductions in postprandial plasma glucagon concentrations compared with placebo (P < 0.01); the respective incremental mean values for AUC(15-180min) were 125.5 (658.4), -1403.8 (632.1), and 1843.1 (540.6) pg * min/mL. There were no significant differences in serum insulin concentrations between exenatide and placebo. Exenatide was generally well tolerated, with no hypoglycemic events recorded during the study. CONCLUSIONS: In these adolescent patients with T2DM, administration of single 2.5- and 5-microg doses of exenatide were associated with dose-dependent increases in plasma exenatide concentrations and improved postprandial glucose concentrations compared with placebo. Both doses appeared to be well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00254254.

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, tolerability, and safety of exenatide in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

In this single-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled study, the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, tolerability, and safety of subcutaneous exenatide were evaluated in 40 Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients were allocated to 4 groups and randomized to receive exenatide (n = 8/group) or placebo (n = 2/group), with all receiving placebo on day 1. On day 2, patients received single-dose exenatide (2.5 microg [group A] or 5 microg [groups B, C, and D]) or placebo and then bid on days 3 to 5. On days 6 to 10, groups A and B continued on 2.5 and 5 microg bid; groups C and D received 10 and 15 microg bid, respectively. The last dose was given on the morning of day 10. All adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. Exenatide was generally well tolerated up to 10 microg. Exenatide was well absorbed with a median t(max) of 1.5 hours and mean t((1/2)) of 1.6 hours; exposure increased with dose. Up to 10 microg, exenatide reduced postprandial glucose concentrations in a dose-dependent fashion compared with placebo; decreases were similar for 10 and 15 microg. An E(max) model demonstrated that doses higher than 2.5 microg were necessary for adequate glycemic response. Based on tolerability and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships, 5 and 10 microg exenatide may be considered for further clinical development in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

Effect of exenatide on gastric emptying and relationship to postprandial glycemia in type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of exenatide on gastric emptying (GE) in type 2 diabetes using scintigraphy. METHODS: Seventeen subjects with type 2 diabetes participated in a randomized, single-blind, 3-period, crossover study. In each 5-day period, 5 or 10 microg exenatide or placebo was administered subcutaneously BID. Oral antidiabetic treatments were continued. The presence of cardiac autonomic neuropathy was assessed during screening. On day 5, after the morning dose, subjects consumed a 450-kcal breakfast containing (99m)Tc-labeled eggs and (111)In-labeled water, and GE was measured by scintigraphy. Plasma glucose and insulin, perceptions of appetite, and plasma exenatide were also quantified. RESULTS: Exenatide slowed GE of both solid and liquid meal components [solid (T(50)(90% confidence interval [CI]); placebo, 60(50-70) min; 5 microg exenatide, 111(94-132) min; 10 microg exenatide, 169(143-201) min; both P<0.01); liquid (T(50)(90% CI), placebo, 34(25-46) min; 5 microg exenatide, 87(65-117) min; 10 microg exenatide, 114(85-154) min; both P<0.01)]. GE was not different between subjects with cardiac autonomic neuropathy (n=7), compared with those without (n=10) (P>/=0.68). Exenatide reduced postprandial glucose (area under the curve [AUC((0-6 h))]) by 69-76% and peak insulin (C(max)) by 84-86% compared with placebo. There was an inverse relationship between the postprandial rise in glucose (AUC((0-3 h))) and GE (solid T(50), r=-0.49, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Exenatide slows GE substantially in type 2 diabetes, which could be an important mechanism contributing to the beneficial effect of exenatide on postprandial glycemia.

The incretin mimetic exenatide as a monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Exenatide is an adjunctive therapy for type 2 diabetes, and preliminary evidence suggests that its glucoregulatory effects may be similar in the absence of oral therapy. METHODS: Study A was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 99 patients with type 2 diabetes that received either 10 microg twice-daily, 10 microg once-daily, or 20 microg once-daily exenatide or placebo for 28 days in the absence of background pharmacotherapy. Study B was an open-label extension of a short-term study of 127 patients with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin or diet and exercise. Patients received exenatide 5 microg twice-daily for 4 weeks followed by 10 microg for 26 weeks. Subjects treated with metformin continued oral therapy. RESULTS: Monotherapeutic treatment with 10 microg of exenatide twice-daily for 28 days resulted in significant mean reductions in glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) of -0.4 +/- 0.1% and fasting plasma glucose of -36.1 +/- 11.0 mg/dL compared to increases of +0.2 +/- 0.1% and +11.0 +/- 12.7 mg/dL with placebo. Self-monitored blood glucose profiles showed significant mean reductions in daily blood glucose concentrations in exenatide-treated patients compared to placebo. Exenatide treatment for 30 weeks in an open-label extension study resulted in similar mean reductions from baseline in A1C and body weight in patients treated with diet and exercise alone (-1.0 +/- 0.2% and -4.3 +/- 1.3 kg, respectively) as those treated on a background of metformin (-0.9 +/- 0.1% and -3.7 +/- 0.5 kg, respectively). In both studies, the most frequent adverse events were gastrointestinal and predominantly mild to moderate in intensity. Incidence of mild-to-moderate hypoglycemia was low, with no severe hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: Exenatide twice-daily monotherapy resulted in glycemic improvements and reductions in body weight comparable to that of exenatide combination therapy with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Pharmacokinetics of an oral drug (acetaminophen) administered at various times relative to subcutaneous injection of pramlintide in subjects with type 2 diabetes.

Pramlintide, an adjunct treatment to mealtime insulin for patients with type 2 and type 1 diabetes, aids glycemic control by suppressing postprandial glucagon secretion, slowing gastric emptying, and enhancing satiety. Because gastric emptying affects oral medication absorption, this placebo-controlled, single-blind, crossover study examined the absorption of 1000 mg of acetaminophen elixir administered -2, -1, 0, +1, and +2 hours relative to pramlintide (120 microg) or 0 hours relative to placebo in 24 patients with type 2 diabetes. When acetaminophen administration occurred 0, +1, or +2 hours relative to pramlintide, the maximum observed plasma concentration of acetaminophen decreased 14% to 29%, and time to maximum observed plasma concentration increased by 0.8 to 1.2 hours compared with administration 0 hours relative to placebo. Pramlintide treatment slowed but did not alter the extent of acetaminophen absorption (area under the concentration-time curve). No serious adverse events or withdrawals were reported. Oral agents should be administered at least 1 hour before or 2 hours after pramlintide injection if rapid onset of action is required for efficacy.

Effects of once-weekly dosing of a long-acting release formulation of exenatide on glucose control and body weight in subjects with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: In patients with type 2 diabetes, exenatide reduces A1C, postprandial and fasting glucose, and weight. In this study we investigated the effects of continuous exenatide administration from a long-acting release (LAR) formulation. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 study, exenatide LAR (0.8 or 2.0 mg) was administered subcutaneously once weekly for 15 weeks to subjects with type 2 diabetes (n = 45) suboptimally controlled with metformin (60%) and/or diet and exercise (40%): 40% female, A1C (mean +/- SD) 8.5 +/- 1.2%, fasting plasma glucose 9.9 +/- 2.3 mmol/l, weight 106 +/- 20 kg, and diabetes duration 5 +/- 4 years. RESULTS: From baseline to week 15, exenatide LAR reduced mean +/- SE A1C by -1.4 +/- 0.3% (0.8 mg) and -1.7 +/- 0.3% (2.0 mg), compared with +0.4 +/- 0.3% with placebo LAR (P < 0.0001 for both). A1C of < or =7% was achieved by 36 and 86% of subjects receiving 0.8 and 2.0 mg exenatide LAR, respectively, compared with 0% of subjects receiving placebo LAR. Fasting plasma glucose was reduced by -2.4 +/- 0.9 mmol/l (0.8 mg) and -2.2 +/- 0.5 mmol/l (2.0 mg) compared with +1.0 +/- 0.7 mmol/l with placebo LAR (P < 0.001 for both). Exenatide LAR reduced self-monitored postprandial hyperglycemia. Subjects receiving 2.0 mg exenatide LAR had body weight reductions (-3.8 +/- 1.4 kg) (P < 0.05), whereas body weight was unchanged with both placebo LAR and the 0.8-mg dose. Mild nausea was the most frequent adverse event. No subjects treated with exenatide LAR withdrew from the study. CONCLUSIONS: Exenatide LAR offers the potential of 24-h glycemic control and weight reduction with a novel once-weekly treatment for type 2 diabetes.

Exenatide augments first- and second-phase insulin secretion in response to intravenous glucose in subjects with type 2 diabetes.

CONTEXT: First-phase insulin secretion (within 10 min after a sudden rise in plasma glucose) is reduced in type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2). The incretin mimetic exenatide has glucoregulatory activities in DM2, including glucose-dependent enhancement of insulin secretion. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to determine whether exenatide can restore a more normal pattern of insulin secretion in subjects with DM2. DESIGN: Fasted subjects received iv insulin infusion to reach plasma glucose 4.4-5.6 mmol/liter. Subjects received iv exenatide (DM2) or saline (DM2 and healthy volunteers), followed by iv glucose challenge. PATIENTS: Thirteen evaluable DM2 subjects were included in the study: 11 males, two females; age, 56 +/- 7 yr; body mass index, 31.7 +/- 2.4 kg/m2; hemoglobin A1c, 6.6 +/- 0.7% (mean +/- sd) treated with diet/exercise (n = 1), metformin (n = 10), or acarbose (n = 2). Controls included 12 healthy, weight-matched subjects with normal glucose tolerance: nine males, three females; age, 57 +/- 9 yr; and body mass index, 32.0 +/- 3.0 kg/m2. SETTING: The study was conducted at an academic hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Plasma insulin, plasma C-peptide, insulin secretion rate (derived by deconvolution), and plasma glucagon were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: DM2 subjects administered saline had diminished first-phase insulin secretion, compared with healthy control subjects. Exenatide-treated DM2 subjects had an insulin secretory pattern similar to healthy subjects in both first (0-10 min) and second (10-180 min) phases after glucose challenge, in contrast to saline-treated DM2 subjects. In exenatide-treated DM2 subjects, the most common adverse event was moderate nausea (two of 13 subjects). CONCLUSIONS: Short-term exposure to exenatide can restore the insulin secretory pattern in response to acute rises in glucose concentrations in DM2 patients who, in the absence of exenatide, do not display a first phase of insulin secretion. Loss of first-phase insulin secretion in DM2 patients may be restored by treatment with exenatide.

Exenatide improves glycemic control and reduces body weight in subjects with type 2 diabetes: a dose-ranging study.

BACKGROUND: Exenatide is the first of a new class of agents known as incretin mimetics that are in development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Exenatide has been shown to reduce fasting and postprandial glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes, as well as provide sustained reductions in hemoglobin A 1c (HbA 1c). This study was designed to assess the dose dependencies of the glucoregulatory effects and tolerability of exenatide when added to diet and exercise or metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In this randomized, triple-blinded, placebo-controlled Phase 2 clinical trial, 156 patients were randomized to placebo or exenatide at 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, or 10.0 microg administered b.i.d. for 28 days. RESULTS: After 28 days of therapy, exenatide was associated with significant (P < 0.0001, linear contrast testing), dose-dependent reductions in HbA 1c (0.1 +/- 0.1%, -0.3 +/- 0.1%, -0.4 +/- 0.1%, +/-0.5 +/- 0.0%, and -0.5 +/- 0.1% for placebo and 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 10.0 microg b.i.d. exenatide, respectively) and significant (P = 0.0006, linear contrast testing) reductions in fasting plasma glucose (+6.8 +/- 4.1, -20.1 +/- 5.2, -21.2 +/- 3.9, -17.7 +/- 4.8, and -17.3 +/- 4.4 mg/dL for placebo and 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 10.0 microg b.i.d. exenatide, respectively) by Day 28. These reductions were similar for patients treated with diet/exercise and those treated with metformin. In addition, patients receiving exenatide exhibited dose-dependent reductions in body weight (0.0 +/- 0.3, -0.7 +/- 0.3, -0.7 +/- 0.2, -1.4 +/- 0.3, and -1.8 +/- 0.3 kg for placebo and 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 10.0 microg b.i.d. exenatide, respectively; P < 0.01 for 7.5 and 10.0 microg b.i.d. exenatide doses compared with placebo) at Day 28. The most common adverse event was mild-to-moderate nausea that was dose-dependent (seven of 123 patients randomized to exenatide withdrew from the study because of gastrointestinal effects). CONCLUSIONS: Exenatide dose-dependently improved glycemic control and reduced body weight over 28 days in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with diet/exercise or metformin.

A randomized, open-label, crossover study examining the effect of injection site on bioavailability of exenatide (synthetic exendin-4).

BACKGROUND: Exenatide (synthetic exendin-4;AC2993) is a 39-amino acid peptide in the new class of antidiabetic agents known as incretin mimetics. In clinical trials, exenatide exhibited glucoregulatory effects (glucose-dependent stimulation of insulin secretion, suppression of inappropriately elevated glucagon secretion, slowing of gastric emptying) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to determine the relative bioavailability of exenatide injected subcutaneously into the abdomen, arm, or thigh. METHODS: Patients with type 2 DM were randomized in an open-label, crossover study to assess relative bioavailability of exenatide (10 microg) injected into the arm and thigh versus injection into the abdomen. Serial plasma exenatide concentrations were measured for 10 hours after injection. A sample size of >24 patients provided approximately 80% power to ensure that 90% CIs were within the 80% to 125% interval for the ratios (geometric least squares [LS] means) of AUC(0-infinity). RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients were randomized into the study (mean age, 56 [8] years; glycosylated hemoglobin, 8.0 [1.7]%; body mass index, 33 [5] kg/m2; all values given as mean [SD]). AUC(0-infinity) values (geometric LS mean SE for SC injections into the abdomen arm and thigh were 63,935 (6608), 59,573 (6157), and 62,148 (6424) pg./mL, respectively. The AUC (geometric LS mean ratio for relative bioavailability) for arm versus abdomen was 0.93 (geometric 90% CI, 0.82-1.05); for thigh versus abdomen it was 0.97 (geometric 90% CI, 0.86-1.10). Consistent with the observed data, intrasubject variability of AUC(0-infinity) was low among the 3 treatments (coefficient of variation, 26%). C(max) values (geometric LS mean [SE]) were 220 (24) pg/mL, abdomen; 218 (23) pg/mL, arm; and 193 (21) pg/mL, thigh. The C(max) (geometric LS mean ratio) for arm versus abdomen was 0.99 (geometric 90% CI, 0.85-1.15), and for thigh versus abdomen it was 0.88 (geometric 90% CI, 0.75-1.02). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were mild to moderate nausea (36%), headache (25%), vomiting (21%), and dizziness (18%). Three patients received an inadvertent 10-fold overdose and were withdrawn from the study immediately. All experienced severe nausea and vomiting, and 1 patient experienced severe hypoglycemia requiring aid. All recovered without mishap and were excluded from statistical and tolerability results. There were no adverse events related to the injection or the injection site. CONCLUSION: In this study of patients with type 2DM, SC administration of exenatide into the abdomen, arm, or thigh resulted in comparable bioavailability.

Properties of pramlintide and insulin upon mixing.

PURPOSE: The pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of pramlintide and various insulin formulations in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM) when given as separate injections or mixed in the same syringe before injection were studied. METHODS: In two randomized, open-label, placebo-controlled, five-period-crossover studies, patients with type 1 DM received preprandial injections of pramlintide, short-acting insulin, and long-acting insulin administered either by separate injections or after mixing in various combinations. Serum free insulin and plasma glucose concentrations were measured for 10 hours and plasma pramlintide concentrations for 5 hours after injection. RESULTS: Blood samples were collected from a total of 51 patients. All treatments involving mixtures were comparable to separate injections with respect to the area under the concentration-versus-time curve (AUC) and the maximum concentration (Cmax) of serum free insulin. There were some minor differences in the AUC and Cmax of pramlintide. No injection-site reactions or other unexpected adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION: Mixing pramlintide with short- or long-acting insulin in the same syringe before subcutaneous injection did not affect the pharmacodynamics of glucose or the pharmacokinetics of insulin or pramlintide in a clinically significant manner.