A Bayesian pharmacokinetics integrated phase I-II design to optimize dose-schedule regimes.

The schedule of administering a drug has profound impact on the toxicity and efficacy profiles of the drug through changing its pharmacokinetics (PK). PK is an innate and indispensable component of the dose-schedule optimization. Motivated by this, we propose a Bayesian PK integrated dose-schedule finding (PKIDS) design to identify the optimal dose-schedule regime by integrating PK, toxicity, and efficacy data. Based on the causal pathway that dose and schedule affect PK, which in turn affects efficacy and toxicity, we jointly model the three endpoints by first specifying a Bayesian hierarchical model for the marginal distribution of the longitudinal dose-concentration process. Conditional on the drug concentration in plasma, we jointly model toxicity and efficacy as a function of the concentration. We quantify the risk-benefit of regimes using utility-continuously updating the estimates of PK, toxicity, and efficacy based on interim data-and make adaptive decisions to assign new patients to appropriate dose-schedule regimes via adaptive randomization. The simulation study shows that the PKIDS design has desirable operating characteristics.

Bayesian adaptive model selection design for optimal biological dose finding in phase I/II clinical trials.

Identification of the optimal dose presents a major challenge in drug development with molecularly targeted agents, immunotherapy, as well as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell treatments. By casting dose finding as a Bayesian model selection problem, we propose an adaptive design by simultaneously incorporating the toxicity and efficacy outcomes to select the optimal biological dose (OBD) in phase I/II clinical trials. Without imposing any parametric assumption or shape constraint on the underlying dose-response curves, we specify curve-free models for both the toxicity and efficacy endpoints to determine the OBD. By integrating the observed data across all dose levels, the proposed design is coherent in dose assignment and thus greatly enhances efficiency and accuracy in pinning down the right dose. Not only does our design possess a completely new yet flexible dose-finding framework, but it also has satisfactory and robust performance as demonstrated by extensive simulation studies. In addition, we show that our design enjoys desirable coherence properties, while most of existing phase I/II designs do not. We further extend the design to accommodate late-onset outcomes which are common in immunotherapy. The proposed design is exemplified with a phase I/II clinical trial in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Rituximab, gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in relapsed or refractory indolent and mantle cell lymphoma: results of a multicenter phase I/II-study of the German Low Grade Lymphoma Study Group.

Rituximab, gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (R-GemOx) has demonstrated to be effective and safe in lymphoma patients. We aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of oxaliplatin in combination with rituximab and gemcitabine and to explore the efficacy and safety of R-GemOx in relapsed or refractory (r/r) indolent and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). In this single-arm, phase I/II trial, we enrolled 55 patients with r/r indolent lymphoma and MCL not suitable for autologous stem-cell transplantation. Patients received 4 cycles of R-GemOx. In the dose escalation group, 70 mg/m2 of oxaliplatin was applied and interindividually increased by 10 mg/m2 until the MTD was reached together with fixed doses of rituximab and gemcitabine. At the oxaliplatin MTD, an extension cohort was opened. Primary aim was to detect an overall response rate (ORR) greater than 65% (α = 0.05). Oxaliplatin 70 mg/m2 (MTD) was chosen for the extension cohort after 3 of 6 patients experienced a DLT at 80 mg/m2. Among 46 patients evaluable for the efficacy analysis ORR was 72% (33/46), missing the primary aim of the study (p = 0.21). After a median follow-up of 7.9 years, median PFS and OS were 1.0 and 2.1 years. Most frequent grade ≥ 3 adverse events were cytopenias. R-GemOx induces decent response rates in r/r indolent lymphoma and MCL, though novel targeted therapies have largely replaced chemotherapy in the relapse setting. Particularly in MCL, R-GemOx might be an alternative option in late relapses or as bridging to CAR-T-cells. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on Aug 4th, 2009, number NCT00954005.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of once-weekly insulin icodec in individuals with type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: To investigate the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties of once-weekly insulin icodec in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, two-period crossover trial, 66 individuals with T1D (age 18-64 years; glycated haemoglobin ≤75 mmol/mol [≤ 9%]) were to receive once-weekly icodec (8 weeks) and once-daily insulin glargine U100 (2 weeks) at individualized fixed equimolar total weekly doses established during up to 10 weeks' run-in with glargine U100 titrated to pre-breakfast plasma glucose (PG) of 4.4-7.2 mmol/L (80-130 mg/dL). Insulin aspart was used as bolus insulin. Blood sampling for icodec pharmacokinetics was performed from the first icodec dose until 35 days after the last dose. The glucose infusion rate at steady state was assessed in glucose clamps (target 6.7 mmol/L [120 mg/dL]) at 16-52 h and 138-168 h after the last icodec dose and 0-24 h after the last glargine U100 dose. Icodec pharmacodynamics during 1 week were predicted by pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling. Hypoglycaemia was recorded during the treatment periods based on self-measured PG. RESULTS: Icodec reached pharmacokinetic steady state on average within 2-3 weeks. At steady state, model-predicted daily proportions of glucose infusion rate during the 1-week dosing interval were 14.3%, 19.6%, 18.3%, 15.7%, 13.1%, 10.6% and 8.4%, respectively. Rates and duration of Level 2 hypoglycaemic episodes (PG <3.0 mmol/L [54 mg/dL]) were 32.8 versus 23.9 episodes per participant-year of exposure and 33 ± 25 versus 30 ± 18 min (mean ± SD) for icodec versus glargine U100. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties of icodec suggest its potential to provide basal coverage in a basal-bolus insulin regimen in people with T1D.

Aldosterone synthase inhibitor (BI 690517) therapy for people with diabetes and albuminuric chronic kidney disease: A multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase I trial.

AIM: This Phase I study evaluated the safety and early efficacy of an aldosterone synthase inhibitor (BI 690517) in people with diabetes and albuminuric chronic kidney disease. METHODS: Double-blind, placebo-controlled study (NCT03165240) at 40 sites across Europe. Eligible participants [estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥20 and <75 ml/min/1.73 m2; urine albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR) ≥200 and <3500 mg/g] were randomized 6:1 to receive once-daily oral BI 690517 3, 10 or 40 mg, or eplerenone 25-50 mg, or placebo, for 28 days. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with drug-related adverse events (AEs). Secondary endpoints included changes from baseline in the UACR. RESULTS: Fifty-eight participants were randomized and treated from 27 November 2017 to 16 April 2020 (BI 690517: 3 mg, n = 18; 10 mg, n = 13; 40 mg, n = 14; eplerenone, n = 4; placebo, n = 9) for 28 days. Eight (13.8%) participants experienced drug-related AEs [BI 690517: 3 mg (two of 18); 10 mg (four of 13); 40 mg (two of 14)], most frequently constipation [10 mg (one of 13); 40 mg (one of 14)] and hyperkalaemia [3 mg (one of 18); 10 mg (one of 13)]. Most AEs were mild to moderate; one participant experienced severe hyperkalaemia (serum potassium 6.9 mmol/L; BI 690517 10 mg). UACR responses [≥20% decrease from baseline (first morning void urine) after 28 days] were observed for 80.0% receiving BI 690517 40 mg (eight of 10) versus 37.5% receiving placebo (three of eight). Aldosterone levels were suppressed by BI 690517, but not eplerenone or placebo. CONCLUSIONS: BI 690517 was generally well tolerated, reduced plasma aldosterone and may decrease albuminuria in participants with diabetes and albuminuric chronic kidney disease.

First-in-human study of CPL207280, a novel G-protein-coupled receptor 40/free fatty acid receptor 1 agonist, in healthy volunteers after single and multiple administration.

AIM: To assess the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of single and multiple doses of CPL207280, a new G-protein-coupled receptor 40 agonist developed to treat type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: The phase 1 study in healthy volunteers (White, age 18-55 years, body mass index 18.5-29.9 kg/m2 ) was performed after single (24 subjects, 5-480 mg) and multiple (32 subjects, 60-480 mg) once-daily administration of CPL207280.  The effect of food intake and interaction with metformin were evaluated in additional cohort (12 subjects, 120 mg). The primary objective was the safety and tolerability of CPL207280. Secondary objectives included PK and pharmacodynamic (PD) characteristics (glucose, insulin, C-peptide, proinsulin, glucagon levels) observed during the 14-day treatment period. RESULTS: No deaths or serious adverse events (AEs) were reported. All reported AEs were classified as unrelated to the study product. No clinically significant differences in safety parameters were observed between cohorts and no food or metformin effect on safety parameters was identified. The ascending dose of CPL207280 caused an increase in the PK parameters maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax ) or area under the plasma concentration-time curve up to 24 h. However, dose-normalized Cmax decreased with ascending dose. There was no relationship between the CPL207280 dose or prandial state and terminal elimination half-life and terminal elimination rate constant. No clear relationship between CPL207280 dose and PD area under the effect curve values was observed. CONCLUSIONS: CPL207280 was found to be safe and well tolerated by healthy volunteers (with a low risk of hepatotoxicity) for up to 14 days of administration. The PK profile of CPL207280 supports single-daily administration and justifies further development of this therapy for patients with T2D.

REDOMA: Bayesian random-effects dose-optimization meta-analysis using spike-and-slab priors.

The rise of cutting-edge precision cancer treatments has led to a growing significance of the optimal biological dose (OBD) in modern oncology trials. These trials now prioritize the consideration of both toxicity and efficacy simultaneously when determining the most desirable dosage for treatment. Traditional approaches in early-phase oncology trials have conventionally relied on the assumption of a monotone relationship between treatment efficacy and dosage. However, this assumption may not hold valid for novel oncology therapies. In reality, the dose-efficacy curve of such treatments may reach a plateau at a specific dose, posing challenges for conventional methods in accurately identifying the OBD. Furthermore, achieving reliable identification of the OBD is typically not possible based on a single small-sample trial. With data from multiple phase I and phase I/II trials, we propose a novel Bayesian random-effects dose-optimization meta-analysis (REDOMA) approach to identify the OBD by synthesizing toxicity and efficacy data from each trial. The REDOMA method can address trials with heterogeneous characteristics. We adopt a curve-free approach based on a Gamma process prior to model the average dose-toxicity relationship. In addition, we utilize a Bayesian model selection framework that uses the spike-and-slab prior as an automatic variable selection technique to eliminate monotonic constraints on the dose-efficacy curve. The good performance of the REDOMA method is confirmed by extensive simulation studies.

Adaptive phase I-II clinical trial designs identifying optimal biological doses for targeted agents and immunotherapies.

Targeted agents and immunotherapies have revolutionized cancer treatment, offering promising options for various cancer types. Unlike traditional therapies the principle of "more is better" is not always applicable to these new therapies due to their unique biomedical mechanisms. As a result, various phase I-II clinical trial designs have been proposed to identify the optimal biological dose that maximizes the therapeutic effect of targeted therapies and immunotherapies by jointly monitoring both efficacy and toxicity outcomes. This review article examines several innovative phase I-II clinical trial designs that utilize accumulated efficacy and toxicity outcomes to adaptively determine doses for subsequent patients and identify the optimal biological dose, maximizing the overall therapeutic effect. Specifically, we highlight three categories of phase I-II designs: efficacy-driven, utility-based, and designs incorporating multiple efficacy endpoints. For each design, we review the dose-outcome model, the definition of the optimal biological dose, the dose-finding algorithm, and the software for trial implementation. To illustrate the concepts, we also present two real phase I-II trial examples utilizing the EffTox and ISO designs. Finally, we provide a classification tree to summarize the designs discussed in this article.

Risk-benefit trade-offs and precision utilities in phase I-II clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Identifying optimal doses in early-phase clinical trials is critically important. Therapies administered at doses that are either unsafe or biologically ineffective are unlikely to be successful in subsequent clinical trials or to obtain regulatory approval. Identifying appropriate doses for new agents is a complex process that involves balancing the risks and benefits of outcomes such as biological efficacy, toxicity, and patient quality of life. PURPOSE: While conventional phase I trials rely solely on toxicity to determine doses, phase I-II trials explicitly account for both efficacy and toxicity, which enables them to identify doses that provide the most favorable risk-benefit trade-offs. It is also important to account for patient covariates, since one-size-fits-all treatment decisions are likely to be suboptimal within subgroups determined by prognostic variables or biomarkers. Notably, the selection of estimands can influence our conclusions based on the prognostic subgroup studied. For example, assuming monotonicity of the probability of response, higher treatment doses may yield more pronounced efficacy in favorable prognosis compared to poor prognosis subgroups when the estimand is mean or median survival. Conversely, when the estimand is the 3-month survival probability, higher treatment doses produce more pronounced efficacy in poor prognosis compared to favorable prognosis subgroups. METHODS AND CONCLUSIONS: Herein, we first describe why it is essential to consider clinical practice when designing a clinical trial and outline a stepwise process for doing this. We then review a precision phase I-II design based on utilities tailored to prognostic subgroups that characterize efficacy-toxicity risk-benefit trade-offs. The design chooses each patient's dose to optimize their expected utility and allows patients in different prognostic subgroups to have different optimal doses. We illustrate the design with a dose-finding trial of a new therapeutic agent for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Optimal biological dose selection in dose-finding trials with model-assisted designs based on efficacy and toxicity: a simulation study.

With the emergence of molecular targeted agents and immunotherapies in anti-cancer treatment, a concept of optimal biological dose (OBD), accounting for efficacy and toxicity in the framework of dose-finding, has been widely introduced into phase I oncology clinical trials. Various model-assisted designs with dose-escalation rules based jointly on toxicity and efficacy are now available to establish the OBD, where the OBD is generally selected at the end of the trial using all toxicity and efficacy data obtained from the entire cohort. Several measures to select the OBD and multiple methods to estimate the efficacy probability have been developed for the OBD selection, leading to many options in practice; however, their comparative performance is still uncertain, and practitioners need to take special care of which approaches would be the best for their applications. Therefore, we conducted a comprehensive simulation study to demonstrate the operating characteristics of the OBD selection approaches. The simulation study revealed key features of utility functions measuring the toxicity-efficacy trade-off and suggested that the measure used to select the OBD could vary depending on the choice of the dose-escalation procedure. Modelling the efficacy probability might lead to limited gains in OBD selection.

A Personalized Dose-Finding Algorithm Based on Adaptive Gaussian Process Regression.

Dose-finding studies play a crucial role in drug development by identifying the optimal dose(s) for later studies while considering tolerability. This not only saves time and effort in proceeding with Phase III trials but also improves efficacy. In an era of precision medicine, it is not ideal to assume patient homogeneity in dose-finding studies as patients may respond differently to the drug. To address this, we propose a personalized dose-finding algorithm that assigns patients to individualized optimal biological doses. Our design follows a two-stage approach. Initially, patients are enrolled under broad eligibility criteria. Based on the Stage 1 data, we fit a regression model of toxicity and efficacy outcomes on dose and biomarkers to characterize treatment-sensitive patients. In the second stage, we restrict the trial population to sensitive patients, apply a personalized dose allocation algorithm, and choose the recommended dose at the end of the trial. Simulation study shows that the proposed design reliably enriches the trial population, minimizes the number of failures, and yields superior operating characteristics compared to several existing dose-finding designs in terms of both the percentage of correct selection and the number of patients treated at target dose(s).

Bayesian dose escalation with overdose and underdose control utilizing all toxicities in Phase I/II clinical trials.

Escalation with overdose control (EWOC) is a commonly used Bayesian adaptive design, which controls overdosing risk while estimating maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in cancer Phase I clinical trials. In 2010, Chen and his colleagues proposed a novel toxicity scoring system to fully utilize patients' toxicity information by using a normalized equivalent toxicity score (NETS) in the range 0 to 1 instead of a binary indicator of dose limiting toxicity (DLT). Later in 2015, by adding underdosing control into EWOC, escalation with overdose and underdose control (EWOUC) design was proposed to guarantee patients the minimum therapeutic effect of drug in Phase I/II clinical trials. In this paper, the EWOUC-NETS design is developed by integrating the advantages of EWOUC and NETS in a Bayesian context. Moreover, both toxicity response and efficacy are treated as continuous variables to maximize trial efficiency. The dose escalation decision is based on the posterior distribution of both toxicity and efficacy outcomes, which are recursively updated with accumulated data. We compare the operation characteristics of EWOUC-NETS and existing methods through simulation studies under five scenarios. The study results show that EWOUC-NETS design treating toxicity and efficacy outcomes as continuous variables can increase accuracy in identifying the optimized utility dose (OUD) and provide better therapeutic effects.

Comparative review of novel model-assisted designs for phase I/II clinical trials.

In recent years, both model-based and model-assisted designs have emerged to efficiently determine the optimal biological dose (OBD) in phase I/II trials for immunotherapy and targeted cellular agents. Model-based designs necessitate repeated model fitting and computationally intensive posterior sampling for each dose-assignment decision, limiting their practical application in real trials. On the other hand, model-assisted designs employ simple statistical models and facilitate the precalculation of a decision table for use throughout the trial, eliminating the need for repeated model fitting. Due to their simplicity and transparency, model-assisted designs are often preferred in phase I/II trials. In this paper, we systematically evaluate and compare the operating characteristics of several recent model-assisted phase I/II designs, including TEPI, PRINTE, Joint i3+3, BOIN-ET, STEIN, uTPI, and BOIN12, in addition to the well-known model-based EffTox design, using comprehensive numerical simulations. To ensure an unbiased comparison, we generated 10,000 dosing scenarios using a random scenario generation algorithm for each predetermined OBD location. We thoroughly assess various performance metrics, such as the selection percentages, average patient allocation to OBD, and overdose percentages across the eight designs. Based on these assessments, we offer design recommendations tailored to different objectives, sample sizes, and starting dose locations.

A co-formulation of pramlintide and insulin A21G (ADO09) improves postprandial glucose and short-term control of mean glucose, time in range, and body weight versus insulin aspart in adults with type 1 diabetes.

AIM: Pramlintide improves postprandial glucose but requires additional injections. We investigated the pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, efficacy and safety of ADO09, pramlintide/insulin A21G co-formulation, in type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This double-blinded, randomized, two-period cross-over study compared prandial administration of ADO09 or insulin aspart over 24 days in T1D using either ≤40 U bolus insulin per day [low-dose group (LD), n = 28] or 40-75 U [high-dose group (HD), n = 16]. Glycaemic responses through continuous glucose monitoring, and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics profiles following mixed-meal-tolerance tests were evaluated at baseline and at the end of treatment. RESULTS: Glucose increments from 0 to 4 h after mixed-meal-tolerance test (primary endpoint) were 39% (not statistically significantly) lower with ADO09 in the low-dose group and 69% lower in the high-dose group. Mean continuous glucose monitoring glucose during ambulatory treatment was lower with ADO09 than with aspart (LD: -8.2 ± 7.9 mg/dl, p = .0001; HD: -7.0 ± 10 mg/ml, p = .0127), and time-in-range (70-180 mg/dl) improved (LD: +4%, p = .0134; HD: +4%, p = .0432). Body weight declined significantly with ADO09 (LD: -0.8 kg; HD: -1.6 kg). Hypoglycaemic events were slightly more frequent with ADO09 versus aspart (LD: 142 vs. 115; HD: 96 vs. 79). Gastrointestinal events occurred more frequently with ADO09 but were generally transient, and no other safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with aspart, ADO09 was well tolerated and effective in T1D across a wide range of dosage, significantly improving the average blood glucose level and body weight during 24 days of ambulatory treatment. Meal test profiles confirmed improvement of glycaemic patterns and other responses with ADO09.

Safety, tolerability, pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics following once-daily doses of BI 187004, an inhibitor of 11 beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-1, over 28 days in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and overweight or obesity.

AIMS: To study the oral 11 beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-1 (11ß-HSD1) inhibitor BI 187004 (NCT02150824), as monotherapy and in combination with metformin, versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) affected by overweight or obesity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Phase II, randomized controlled trial investigated multiple rising doses of BI 187004 as monotherapy (Arm 1: 20, 80 or 240 mg) and in combination with metformin (Arm 2: 240 mg), in adults with T2DM and a body mass index of 28-40 kg/m2 . RESULTS: In total, 103 patients (Arm 1: n = 62, Arm 2: n = 41) were included in this study. BI 187004 was rapidly absorbed and exposure increased approximately dose-dependently. Target engagement of 11ß-HSD1 was observed with near-full inhibition of 11ß-HSD1 in the liver [decreased (5α-tetrahydrocortisol + 5ß-tetrahydrocortisol)/tetrahydrocortisone ratio]; hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis activation was also seen (increased total urinary corticosteroids). No clinically relevant changes from baseline with BI 187004 treatment were observed for bodyweight or meal tolerance test parameters, or in most efficacy endpoints testing glucose and lipid metabolism; a significant increase was observed in weighted mean plasma glucose (p < .05 for 80 and 240 mg BI 187004) but not fasting plasma glucose. Drug-related adverse events were reported for 14 patients (22.6%) in Arm 1 and 10 patients (24.4%) in Arm 2, most frequently headache, diarrhoea, flushing and dizziness. A dose-dependent increase in heart rate was seen with BI 187004 treatment. CONCLUSIONS: BI 187004 was generally well tolerated in patients with T2DM. Despite complete 11ß-HSD1 inhibition, no clinically relevant effects were observed with BI 187004.

Safety, tolerability, pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of the soluble guanylyl cyclase activator BI 685509 in patients with diabetic kidney disease: A randomized trial.

AIMS: Albuminuria is associated with abnormalities in the nitric oxide (NO)-soluble guanylyl cyclase (sGC)-cyclic guanosine monophosphate pathway. We assessed safety and efficacy of the NO-independent sGC activator BI 685509 in patients with diabetic kidney disease and albuminuria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this Phase Ib trial (NCT03165227), we randomized patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 20-75 mL/min/1.73 m2 and urinary albumin:creatinine ratio (UACR) 200-3500 mg/g to oral BI 685509 (1 mg three times daily, n = 20; 3 mg once daily, n = 19; 3 mg three times daily, n = 20, after final titration) or placebo (n = 15) for 28 days. Changes from baseline in UACR in first morning void (UACRFMV ) and 10-hour (UACR10h ) urine (3 mg once daily/three times daily only) were assessed. RESULTS: Baseline median eGFR and UACR were 47.0 mL/min/1.73 m2 and 641.5 mg/g, respectively. Twelve patients had drug-related adverse events (AEs; 16.2%: BI 685509, n = 9; placebo, n = 3), most frequently hypotension (4.1%: BI 685509, n = 2; placebo, n = 1) and diarrhoea (2.7%: BI 685509, n = 2; placebo, n = 0). Four patients experienced AEs leading to study discontinuation (5.4%: BI 685509, n = 3; placebo, n = 1). Placebo-corrected mean UACRFMV decreased from baseline in the 3-mg once-daily (28.8%, P = 0.23) and three-times-daily groups (10.2%, P = 0.71) and increased in the 1-mg three-times-daily group (6.6%, P = 0.82); changes were not significant. UACR10h decreased by 35.3% (3 mg once daily, P = 0.34) and 56.7% (3 mg three times daily, P = 0.09); ≥50.0% of patients (UACR10h 3 mg once daily/three times daily) responded (≥20% UACR decrease from baseline). CONCLUSIONS: BI 685509 was generally well tolerated. Effects on UACR lowering merit further investigation.

Orforglipron (LY3502970), a novel, oral non-peptide glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist: A Phase 1a, blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized, single- and multiple-ascending-dose study in healthy participants.

AIM: To evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of single and multiple doses of orforglipron (LY3502970), an oral, non-peptide glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) in healthy participants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 1 study. Overtly healthy adults aged 18 to 65 years with body mass index of 20 to 40 kg/m2 and glycated haemoglobin concentration of 47.5 mmol/mol (<6.5%) were eligible. In Part A, participants received single-dose orforglipron, with four cohorts receiving escalating doses (0.3-6 mg). In Part B, participants received 4 weeks of daily repeated oral orforglipron with doses escalating weekly to four different final target doses (2-24 mg). RESULTS: Ninety-two participants enrolled and received at least one study drug dose (32 in Part A [mean age 43.4 years] and 60 in Part B [mean age 42.5 years]). The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal tract-related. Pharmacokinetics were approximately dose proportional, and the mean t1/2 was 24.6 to 35.3 hours after a single dose (0.3-6 mg). On Day 28, the mean t1/2 was 48.1 to 67.5 hours across the dose range (2-24 mg). Substantial reductions in body weight of up to 5.4 kg were observed after 4 weeks in orforglipron-treated participants, compared to a reduction of 2.4 kg with placebo (P < 0.05). Orforglipron decreased fasting glucose levels across Days 1 to 28, and gastric emptying was delayed on Day 28. CONCLUSIONS: Orforglipron's long half-life (25-68 hours) allows once-daily oral dosing, without water and food restrictions. Orforglipron had a pharmacodynamic and safety profile similar to that of injectable GLP-1RAs, which supports continued clinical development.

Orforglipron (LY3502970), a novel, oral non-peptide glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist: A Phase 1b, multicentre, blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized, multiple-ascending-dose study in people with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To report the results of a Phase 1b trial evaluating the safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of orforglipron (LY3502970), an oral, non-peptide glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 1 study evaluating five different dosing regimens. The first group established that weekly dose escalation of the daily doses of orforglipron was generally well tolerated. This enabled a parallel-arm design for the four groups following. Participants were randomized 3:1 to daily doses of orforglipron or placebo for 12 weeks. Eligible participants with T2D were aged 18 to 70 years and had glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels ≥53.0 mmol/mol (7.0%) and ≤91.3 mmol/mol (10.5%). RESULTS: A total of 51 participants received orforglipron and 17 received placebo. In the placebo and orforglipron groups, respectively, baseline HbA1c was 8.1% and 8.0%, and baseline body weight was 90.3 and 88.4 kg. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal-related, and occurred early in treatment, similar to findings with other GLP-1RAs. At Week 12, mean t1/2 ranged from 29 to 49 hours. Mean HbA1c change ranged from -1.5% to -1.8% across orforglipron doses, versus -0.4% with placebo, and body weight change was -0.24 to -5.8 kg across orforglipron doses, versus 0.5 kg with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Orforglipron treatment resulted in meaningful reductions in HbA1c and body weight, with an adverse event profile consistent with that of other GLP-1RAs. Orforglipron may provide a safe and effective once-daily oral treatment alternative to injectable GLP-1RAs or peptide oral formulations without water and food restrictions.

A 1-year pilot study of intralymphatic injections of GAD-alum in individuals with latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA) with signs of high immunity: No safety concerns and resemblance to juvenile type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: To test, for the first time in latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA), the effects of autoantigen-specific immunotherapy by intralymphatic administration of aluminium-formulated recombinant human glutamic acid decarboxylase 65 (GAD-alum); specifically, to test if this treatment is safe, to test whether it induces a strong immunological response akin to a similar protocol in type 1 diabetes and to look for associations with preserved beta-cell function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three GAD-alum injections, 4 µg each, were administered 1 month apart into an inguinal lymph node in 14 people with newly diagnosed LADA (age 30-62 years) presenting with high levels of antibodies against glutamic acid decarboxylase (GADA). Adverse effects, immunological variables and beta-cell function were monitored, with detailed measurements at 5 and 12 months from baseline. RESULTS: Clinical adverse effects were minor and transient and measured laboratory variables were unaffected. All participants completed the study. Treatment raised levels of GADA, elicited strong effects on reactivity of peripheral blood mononuclear cells to GAD and raised cytokine/chemokine levels. Beta-cell function appeared stable preferentially in the seven participants carrying human leukocyte antigen (HLA) haplotypes DR3DQ2, as assessed by C-peptide glucagon tests (P < 0.05 vs. seven non-carriers). CONCLUSION: Intralymphatic treatment with GAD-alum in LADA is without clinical or other safety concerns over a 12-month period. As in a similar protocol used in type 1 diabetes, treatment exerts a strong immunological impact and is compatible with protection of beta-cell function preferentially in HLA-DR3DQ2 LADA patients. These findings pave the way for a randomized controlled trial in this important subgroup of LADA patients.

A Bayesian phase I-II clinical trial design to find the biological optimal dose on drug combination.

In recent years, combined therapy shows expected treatment effect as they increase dose intensity, work on multiple targets and benefit more patients for antitumor treatment. However, dose -finding designs for combined therapy face a number of challenges. Therefore, under the framework of phase I-II, we propose a two-stage dose -finding design to identify the biologically optimal dose combination (BODC), defined as the one with the maximum posterior mean utility under acceptable safety. We model the probabilities of toxicity and efficacy by using linear logistic regression models and conduct Bayesian model selection (BMS) procedure to define the most likely pattern of dose-response surface. The BMS can adaptively select the most suitable model during the trial, making the results robust. We investigated the operating characteristics of the proposed design through simulation studies under various practical scenarios and showed that the proposed design is robust and performed well.