A randomized phase I study of BI 1820237, a novel neuropeptide Y receptor type 2 agonist, alone or in combination with low-dose liraglutide in otherwise healthy men with overweight or obesity.

AIMS: Pharmacotherapeutic options for obesity treatment include glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists, for example, liraglutide. However, an unmet need remains, particularly in patients with a high body mass index (BMI), as GLP-1R agonists are associated with gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs) and some patients do not respond to treatment. Neuropeptide Y (NPY) and peptide YY bind G-protein-coupled Y receptors and represent attractive targets for modulating bodyweight. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This first-in-human, three-part, partially blinded phase I study (NCT04903509) investigated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of single ascending doses of the peptidic NPY2R agonist BI 1820237, with/without low-dose liraglutide: part 1 (participants randomized to receive BI 1820237: 0.075-2.4 mg or placebo), part 2 (BI 1820237: 1.2 mg or placebo) and part 3 (BI 1820237: 0.025-1.2 mg + liraglutide 0.6 mg or placebo + liraglutide 0.6 mg). Primary endpoint is the proportion of participants with drug-related AEs. Secondary endpoints are tolerability, PK and PD. RESULTS: In total, 95 otherwise healthy men with increased BMI (25.0-34.9 kg/m2) were randomized. Drug-related AEs, mainly gastrointestinal events, were reported by 39.0% of participants (n = 23) in parts 1 + 2 and 30.6% of participants (n = 11) in part 3; one drug-related AE (11.1%, part 3) was reported in a participant receiving placebo with liraglutide. Post-dose paracetamol PK suggested that BI 1820237 and low-dose liraglutide exhibited additive effects on gastric emptying. CONCLUSIONS: BI 1820237 treatment was associated with transient nausea and vomiting at higher doses. No differences in tolerability were observed when combined with liraglutide; effects on gastric emptying appeared additive.

Efficacy and safety of the ghrelin-O-acyltransferase inhibitor BI 1356225 in overweight/obesity: Data from two Phase I, randomised, placebo-controlled studies.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a complex disease associated with multiple concurrent complications, and the coordinated targeting of multiple pathways in pharmacological treatment may improve weight loss outcomes. During synthesis, ghrelin is converted from the 'inactive' unacylated ghrelin (UAG) to the active acylated ghrelin (AG) by the enzyme ghrelin-O-acyltransferase (GOAT), stimulating appetite and food intake. AIMS: To report the results of two Phase I studies investigating single rising doses (SRDs) or multiple rising doses (MRDs) of the novel oral GOAT inhibitor BI 1356225 versus placebo in male and postmenopausal/sterilised female subjects with overweight or obesity. METHODS: The SRD study investigated single doses of BI 1356225 (0.1-20.0 mg) in healthy male subjects with a BMI of 18.5-29.9 kg/m2 (SRD cohort) and assessed doses of 2.5 mg BI 1356225 under fed and fasted conditions (bioavailability [BA] cohort). The MRD study investigated multiple doses of BI 1356225 (0.2, 1.0, 2.5 or 10.0 mg) or 5.0 mg BI 1356225 with a single dose of midazolam and celecoxib (drug-drug interaction part) over 28 days in adults with a BMI of 27.0-39.9 kg/m2. RESULTS: Sixty-five subjects were treated in the SRD study. Drug-related adverse events (AEs) were reported for five subjects (9.1 %) in the SRD cohort and two subjects (20.0 %) in the BA cohort, with the most frequent being headache (SRD: n = 4, 9.8 %; BA: n = 1, 10.0 %). In the MRD study, two (2.3 %) of the 87 subjects treated discontinued treatment because of AEs. Drug-related AEs were reported for 18 subjects (20.7 %), did not increase with dose and were most frequently reported as headache (n = 5, 5.7 %) and gastrointestinal disorders (n = 5, 5.7 %). In both studies, exposure parameters (area under the concentration-time curve [AUC] and maximum plasma concentration [Cmax]) of BI 1356225 increased across dose groups, although this was less than dose-proportional across the entire dose range. In the BA cohort of the SRD study, AUC0-∞ was slightly increased and Cmax slightly decreased in fed versus fasted conditions, with fed/fasted ratios (90 % CI) of 101.10 % (92.42, 110.60) and 91.67 % (78.50, 107.05), respectively. In both studies, AG concentrations and the AG/UAG ratio were dose-dependently decreased after BI 1356225 treatment from baseline versus placebo. In the MRD study, UAG concentrations were increased from baseline, but not dose-dependently. No differences were observed in bodyweight, appetite, food cravings, ad libitum food uptake or obesity-related biomarkers after 28 days of treatment with BI 1356225. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with SRDs and MRDs of BI 1356225 was well tolerated by healthy males and subjects with overweight/obesity. BI 1356225 treatment over 28 days reduced AG concentrations and the AG/UAG ratio by >80 %, but no effect was seen on bodyweight, hunger/satiety, control of eating or energy intake. Although, at 4 weeks, the MRD study was fairly short, a reduction in bodyweight would be expected to be evident by this time, suggesting that a reduction of AG via a GOAT inhibitor is not sufficient to induce clinically relevant bodyweight loss.

Efficacy and safety of propafenone sustained release in the prophylaxis of symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (The European Rythmol/Rytmonorm Atrial Fibrillation Trial [ERAFT] Study).

We report a double-blind, multicenter, multinational, placebo-controlled, and well-controlled trial to prove that the sustained-release (SR) formulation of propafenone is superior to placebo in preventing symptoms of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). A total of 594 patients were enrolled in the qualifying period of the study and 293 patients were randomized at 53 centers. There were significant increases in the arrhythmia-free periods from day 5 of randomization to the first recurrence of symptomatic atrial arrhythmia in the propafenone SR 325 mg twice daily (p = 0.004) and propafenone SR 425 mg twice daily (p = 0.003) treatment groups compared with placebo. The median arrhythmia-free time was 9 days in the placebo group, 35 days in the propafenone SR 325 mg twice daily group, and 44 days in the propafenone SR 425 mg twice daily group. There was a significant reduction in average heart rate during the first recurrence of symptomatic arrhythmia after day 5 in the low-dose propafenone group compared with placebo. The median treatment failure time from day 5 (arrhythmia recurrence, adverse events, and withdrawals) was prolonged from 8 days in the placebo group to 19 days in the propafenone SR 325 mg twice daily group (p = 0.002) and to 24 days in the propafenone SR 425 mg twice daily group (p = 0.006). The percentage of patients with >/=1 serious adverse event was similar in the propafenone SR treatment groups (propafenone SR 325 mg twice daily, 10.0%; propafenone SR 425 mg twice daily, 11.2%) but lower in the placebo group (1.1%). In conclusion, the SR formulation of propafenone is superior to placebo, well-tolerated, and prevents symptoms of paroxysmal AF.