LY3437943, a novel triple GIP, GLP-1, and glucagon receptor agonist in people with type 2 diabetes: a phase 1b, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, multiple-ascending dose trial.

BACKGROUND: Treating hyperglycaemia and obesity in individuals with type 2 diabetes using multi-receptor agonists can improve short-term and long-term outcomes. LY3437943 is a single peptide with agonist activity for glucagon, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptors that is currently in development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and for the treatment of obesity and associated comorbidities. We investigated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of multiple weekly doses of LY3437943 in people with type 2 diabetes in a 12-week study. METHODS: In this phase 1b, proof-of-concept, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, multiple-ascending dose trial, adults (aged 20-70 years) with type 2 diabetes for at least 3 months, a glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) value of 7·0-10·5%, body-mass index of 23-50 kg/m2, and stable bodyweight (<5% change in previous 3 months) were recruited at four centres in the USA. Using an interactive web-response system, participants were randomly assigned to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of LY3437943, placebo, or dulaglutide 1·5 mg over a 12-week period. Five ascending dose cohorts were studied, with randomisation in each cohort such that a minimum of nine participants received LY3437943, three received placebo, and one received dulaglutide 1·5 mg within each cohort. The top doses in the two highest dose cohorts were attained via stepwise dose escalations. The primary outcome was to investigate the safety and tolerability of LY3437943, and characterising the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics were secondary outcomes. Safety was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug, and pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug and had evaluable data. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04143802. FINDINGS: Between Dec 18, 2019, and Dec 28, 2020, 210 people were screened, of whom 72 were enrolled, received at least one dose of study drug, and were included in safety analyses. 15 participants had placebo, five had dulaglutide 1·5 mg and, for LY3437943, nine had 0·5 mg, nine had 1·5 mg, 11 had 3 mg, 11 had 3/6 mg, and 12 had 3/6/9/12 mg. 29 participants discontinued the study prematurely. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 33 (63%), three (60%), and eight (54%) participants who received LY3437943, dulaglutide 1·5 mg, and placebo, respectively, with gastrointestinal disorders being the most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events. The pharmacokinetics of LY3437943 were dose proportional and its half-life was approximately 6 days. At week 12, placebo-adjusted mean daily plasma glucose significantly decreased from baseline at the three highest dose LY3437943 groups (least-squares mean difference -2·8 mmol/L [90% CI -4·63 to -0·94] for 3 mg; -3·1 mmol/L [-4·91 to -1·22] for 3/6 mg; and -2·9 mmol/L [-4·70 to -1·01] for 3/6/9/12 mg). Placebo-adjusted sHbA1c also decreased significantly in the three highest dose groups (-1·4% [90% CI -2·17 to -0·56] for 3 mg; -1·6% [-2·37 to -0·75] for 3/6 mg; and -1·2% [-2·05 to -0·45] for 3/6/9/12 mg). Placebo-adjusted bodyweight reduction with LY3437943 appeared to be dose dependent (up to -8·96 kg [90% CI -11·16 to -6·75] in the 3/6/9/12 mg group). INTERPRETATION: In this early phase study, LY3437943 showed an acceptable safety profile, and its pharmacokinetics suggest suitability for once-weekly dosing. This finding, together with the pharmacodynamic findings of robust reductions in glucose and bodyweight, provides support for phase 2 development. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Current State and Opportunities with Long-acting Injectables: Industry Perspectives from the Innovation and Quality Consortium "Long-Acting Injectables" Working Group.

Long-acting injectable (LAI) formulations can provide several advantages over the more traditional oral formulation as drug product opportunities. LAI formulations can achieve sustained drug release for extended periods of time, which results in less frequent dosing requirements leading to higher patient adherence and more optimal therapeutic outcomes. This review article will provide an industry perspective on the development and associated challenges of long-acting injectable formulations. The LAIs described herein include polymer-based formulations, oil-based formulations, and crystalline drug suspensions. The review discusses manufacturing processes, including quality controls, considerations of the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API), biopharmaceutical properties and clinical requirements pertaining to LAI technology selection, and characterization of LAIs through in vitro, in vivo and in silico approaches. Lastly, the article includes a discussion around the current lack of suitable compendial and biorelevant in vitro models for the evaluation of LAIs and its subsequent impact on LAI product development and approval.

Muvalaplin, an Oral Small Molecule Inhibitor of Lipoprotein(a) Formation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is associated with atherosclerotic disease and aortic stenosis. Lp(a) forms by bonding between apolipoprotein(a) (apo[a]) and apo B100. Muvalaplin is an orally administered small molecule that inhibits Lp(a) formation by blocking the apo(a)-apo B100 interaction while avoiding interaction with a homologous protein, plasminogen. Objective: To determine the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamic effects of muvalaplin. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 1 randomized, double-blind, parallel-design study enrolled 114 participants (55 assigned to a single-ascending dose; 59 assigned to a multiple-ascending dose group) at 1 site in the Netherlands. Interventions: The single ascending dose treatment evaluated the effect of a single dose of muvalaplin ranging from 1 mg to 800 mg or placebo taken by healthy participants with any Lp(a) level. The multiple ascending dose treatment evaluated the effect of taking daily doses of muvalaplin (30 mg to 800 mg) or placebo for 14 days in patients with Lp(a) levels of 30 mg/dL or higher. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and exploratory pharmacodynamic biomarkers. Results: Among 114 randomized (55 in the single ascending dose group: mean [SD] age, 29 [10] years, 35 females [64%], 2 American Indian or Alaska Native [4%], 50 White [91%], 3 multiracial [5%]; 59 in the multiple ascending dose group: mean [SD] age 32 [15] years; 34 females [58%]; 3 American Indian or Alaska Native [5%], 6 Black [10%], 47 White [80%], 3 multiracial [5%]), 105 completed the trial. Muvalaplin was not associated with tolerability concerns or clinically significant adverse effects. Oral doses of 30 mg to 800 mg for 14 days resulted in increasing muvalaplin plasma concentrations and half-life ranging from 70 to 414 hours. Muvalaplin lowered Lp(a) plasma levels within 24 hours after the first dose, with further Lp(a) reduction on repeated dosing. Maximum placebo-adjusted Lp(a) reduction was 63% to 65%, resulting in Lp(a) plasma levels less than 50 mg/dL in 93% of participants, with similar effects at daily doses of 100 mg or more. No clinically significant changes in plasminogen levels or activity were observed. Conclusion: Muvalaplin, a selective small molecule inhibitor of Lp(a) formation, was not associated with tolerability concerns and lowered Lp(a) levels up to 65% following daily administration for 14 days. Longer and larger trials will be required to further evaluate safety, tolerability, and effect of muvalaplin on Lp(a) levels and cardiovascular outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04472676.

A phase 1 multiple-ascending dose study of tirzepatide in Japanese participants with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To investigate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics (PD) of tirzepatide in Japanese participants with type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: This phase 1, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-dose, multiple-ascending dose study randomized participants to once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide or placebo. The tirzepatide treatment groups were: 5 mg (5 mg, weeks 1-8), 10 mg (2.5 mg, weeks 1-2; 5 mg, weeks 3-4; 10 mg, weeks 5-8), and 15 mg (5 mg, weeks 1-2; 10 mg, weeks 3-6; 15 mg, weeks 7-8). The primary outcome was tirzepatide safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Forty-eight participants were randomized. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were decreased appetite and gastrointestinal AEs, which were generally dose-dependent and mild in severity. The plasma tirzepatide concentration half-life was approximately 5 days. After 8 weeks of treatment, fasting plasma glucose decreased from baseline with tirzepatide versus placebo; the least squares (LS) mean decrease compared with placebo (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 52.7 (35.9-69.6), 69.1 (52.3-85.9), and 68.9 (53.2-84.6) mg/dL in the 5-, 10-, and 15-mg treatment groups, respectively (P < .0001 for all treatment groups). Tirzepatide also resulted in LS mean decreases from baseline versus placebo at 8 weeks in HbA1c up to 1.6% (95% CI 1.2%-1.9%; P < .0001 for all treatment groups) and body weight up to 6.6 kg (95% CI 5.3-7.9; P < .0001 for all treatment groups). CONCLUSIONS: All tirzepatide doses were well tolerated. The safety, tolerability, PK, and PD profiles of tirzepatide support further evaluation of once-weekly dosing in Japanese people with T2D.

The novel dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist tirzepatide transiently delays gastric emptying similarly to selective long-acting GLP-1 receptor agonists.

The effect of dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (RA) tirzepatide on gastric emptying (GE) was compared to that of GLP-1RAs in non-clinical and clinical studies. GE was assessed following acute and chronic treatment with tirzepatide in diet-induced obese mice versus semaglutide or long-acting GIP analogue alone. Participants [with and without type 2 diabetes (T2DM)] from a phase 1, 4-week multiple dose study received tirzepatide, dulaglutide or placebo. GE was assessed by acetaminophen absorption. In mice, tirzepatide delayed GE to a similar degree to that achieved with semaglutide; however, these acute inhibitory effects were abolished after 2 weeks of treatment. GIP analogue alone had no effect on GE or on GLP-1's effect on GE. In participants with and without T2DM, once-weekly tirzepatide (≥5 and ≥4.5 mg, respectively) delayed GE after a single dose. This effect diminished after multiple doses of tirzepatide or dulaglutide in healthy participants. In participants with T2DM treated with an escalation schedule of tirzepatide 5/5/10/10 or 5/5/10/15 mg, a residual GE delay was still observed after multiple doses. These data suggest that tirzepatide's activity on GE is comparable to that of selective GLP-1RAs.

Efficacy and tolerability of tirzepatide, a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist in patients with type 2 diabetes: A 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate different dose-escalation regimens.

AIM: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of tirzepatide treatment using three different dose-escalation regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients were randomized (1:1:1:1) to receive either once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide or placebo. The tirzepatide dose groups and dose-escalation regimens were: 12 mg (4 mg weeks 0-3; 8 mg weeks 4-7; 12 mg weeks 8-11), 15 mg-1 (2.5 mg weeks 0-1; 5 mg weeks 2-3; 10 mg weeks 4-7; 15 mg weeks 8-11) and 15 mg-2 (2.5 mg weeks 0-3; 7.5 mg weeks 4-7; 15 mg weeks 8-11). The primary objective was to compare tirzepatide with placebo in HbA1c change from baseline at 12 weeks. RESULTS: Overall, 111 patients were randomized: placebo, 26; tirzepatide 12 mg, 29; tirzepatide 15 mg-1, 28; tirzepatide 15 mg-2, 28. The mean age was 57.4 years, HbA1c 8.4% and body mass index 31.9 kg/m2 . At week 12, absolute HbA1c change from baseline (SE) was greater in the tirzepatide treatment groups compared with placebo (placebo, +0.2% [0.21]; 12 mg, -1.7% [0.19]; 15 mg-1, -2.0% [0.20]; 15 mg-2, -1.8% [0.19]). The incidence of nausea was: placebo, 7.7%; 12 mg group, 24.1%; 15 mg-1 group, 39.3%; 15 mg-2 group, 35.7%. Three patients discontinued the treatment because of adverse events, one from each of the placebo, 12 mg and 15 mg-1 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Tirzepatide treatment for 12 weeks resulted in clinically significant reductions in HbA1c. This suggests that lower starting doses and smaller dose increments are associated with a more favourable side effect profile.

Efficacy and safety of LY3298176, a novel dual GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist, in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised, placebo-controlled and active comparator-controlled phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: LY3298176 is a novel dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist that is being developed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of co-stimulation of the GLP-1 and GIP receptors with LY3298176 compared with placebo or selective stimulation of GLP-1 receptors with dulaglutide in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomised, phase 2 study, patients with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1) to receive either once-weekly subcutaneous LY3298176 (1 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg), dulaglutide (1·5 mg), or placebo for 26 weeks. Assignment was stratified by baseline glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), metformin use, and body-mass index (BMI). Eligible participants (aged 18-75) had type 2 diabetes for at least 6 months (HbA1c 7·0-10·5%, inclusive), that was inadequately controlled with diet and exercise alone or with stable metformin therapy, and a BMI of 23-50 kg/m2. The primary efficacy outcome was change in HbA1c from baseline to 26 weeks in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (all patients who received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one postbaseline measurement of any outcome). Secondary endpoints, measured in the mITT on treatment dataset, were change in HbA1c from baseline to 12 weeks; change in mean bodyweight, fasting plasma glucose, waist circumference, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides, and proportion of patients reaching the HbA1c target (≤6·5% and <7·0%) from baseline to weeks 12 and 26; and proportion of patients with at least 5% and 10% bodyweight loss from baseline to 26 weeks. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03131687. FINDINGS: Between May 24, 2017, and March 28, 2018, 555 participants were assessed for eligibility, of whom 318 were randomly assigned to one of the six treatment groups. Because two participants did not receive treatment, the modified intention-to-treat and safety populations included 316 participants. 258 (81·7%) participants completed 26 weeks of treatment, and 283 (89·6%) completed the study. At baseline, mean age was 57 years (SD 9), BMI was 32·6 kg/m2 (5·9), duration from diagnosis of diabetes was 9 years (6), HbA1c was 8·1% (1·0), 53% of patients were men, and 47% were women. At 26 weeks, the effect of LY3298176 on change in HbA1c was dose-dependent and did not plateau. Mean changes from baseline in HbA1c with LY3298176 were -1·06% for 1 mg, -1·73% for 5 mg, -1·89% for 10 mg, and -1·94% for 15 mg, compared with -0·06% for placebo (posterior mean differences [80% credible set] vs placebo: -1·00% [-1·22 to -0·79] for 1 mg, -1·67% [-1·88 to -1·46] for 5 mg, -1·83% [-2·04 to -1·61] for 10 mg, and -1·89% [-2·11 to -1·67] for 15 mg). Compared with dulaglutide (-1·21%) the posterior mean differences (80% credible set) for change in HbA1c from baseline to 26 weeks with the LY3298176 doses were 0·15% (-0·08 to 0·38) for 1 mg, -0·52% (-0·72 to -0·31) for 5 mg, -0·67% (-0·89 to -0·46) for 10 mg, and -0·73% (-0·95 to -0·52) for 15 mg. At 26 weeks, 33-90% of patients treated with LY3298176 achieved the HbA1c target of less than 7·0% (vs 52% with dulaglutide, 12% with placebo) and 15-82% achieved the HbA1c target of at least 6·5% (vs 39% with dulaglutide, 2% with placebo). Changes in fasting plasma glucose ranged from -0·4 mmol/L to -3·4 mmol/L for LY3298176 (vs 0·9 mmol/L for placebo, -1·2 mmol/L for dulaglutide). Changes in mean bodyweight ranged from -0·9 kg to -11·3 kg for LY3298176 (vs -0·4 kg for placebo, -2·7 kg for dulaglutide). At 26 weeks, 14-71% of those treated with LY3298176 achieved the weight loss target of at least 5% (vs 22% with dulaglutide, 0% with placebo) and 6-39% achieved the weight loss target of at least 10% (vs 9% with dulaglutide, 0% with placebo). Changes in waist circumference ranged from -2·1 cm to -10·2 cm for LY3298176 (vs -1·3 cm for placebo, -2·5 cm for dulaglutide). Changes in total cholesterol ranged from 0·2 mmol/L to -0·3 mmol/L for LY3298176 (vs 0·3 mmol/L for placebo, -0·2 mmol/L for dulaglutide). Changes in HDL or LDL cholesterol did not differ between the LY3298176 and placebo groups. Changes in triglyceride concentration ranged from 0 mmol/L to -0·8 mmol/L for LY3298176 (vs 0·3 mmol/L for placebo, -0·3 mmol/L for dulaglutide). The 12-week outcomes were similar to those at 26 weeks for all secondary outcomes. 13 (4%) of 316 participants across the six treatment groups had 23 serious adverse events in total. Gastrointestinal events (nausea, diarrhoea, and vomiting) were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events. The incidence of gastrointestinal events was dose-related (23·1% for 1 mg LY3298176, 32·7% for 5 mg LY3298176, 51·0% for 10 mg LY3298176, and 66·0% for 15 mg LY3298176, 42·6% for dulaglutide, 9·8% for placebo); most events were mild to moderate in intensity and transient. Decreased appetite was the second most common adverse event (3·8% for 1 mg LY3298176, 20·0% for 5 mg LY3298176, 25·5% for 10 mg LY3298176, 18·9% for 15 mg LY3298176, 5·6% for dulaglutide, 2·0% for placebo). There were no reports of severe hypoglycaemia. One patient in the placebo group died from lung adenocarcinoma stage IV, which was unrelated to study treatment. INTERPRETATION: The dual GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist, LY3298176, showed significantly better efficacy with regard to glucose control and weight loss than did dulaglutide, with an acceptable safety and tolerability profile. Combined GIP and GLP-1 receptor stimulation might offer a new therapeutic option in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of everolimus in patients with renal angiomyolipoma and tuberous sclerosis complex or lymphangioleiomyomatosis.

AIMS: The purpose was to determine the exposure-response relationship of everolimus in patients with angiomyolipoma from the EXIST-2 trial and to analyze the correlation between exposure and plasma concentrations of angiogenic biomarkers in these patients. METHODS: One hundred and eighteen patients with angiomyolipoma associated with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) or sporadic lymphangioleiomyomatosis (sLAM) were randomly assigned 2 : 1 to receive everolimus 10 mg (n = 79) or placebo (n = 39) once daily. Blood samples for determining everolimus concentration were collected at weeks 2, 4, 12, 24 and 48 during double-blind treatment. Plasma samples for biomarker analysis were collected at baseline and weeks 4, 12, 24, 36, 48 and at the end of treatment. Concentrations of eight angiogenic biomarkers associated with tumour growth were determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). RESULTS: Peak and trough concentrations of everolimus in blood remained stable over time and similar to those reported in other indications. Substantial pharmacodynamic effects were observed in the everolimus, but not placebo, arm for three biomarkers: After 24 weeks of treatment, reduction of vascular endothelial growth factor D (VEGF-D) and collagen type IV (COL-IV) (mean fold-changes with 95% confidence intervals [CI] were 0.36 [0.33, 0.40], and 0.54 [0.51, 0.57], respectively, P < 0.001 for both), along with increased VEGF-A (mean fold-change of 1.59 [1.39, 1.80], P < 0.001), were seen. Furthermore, baseline VEGF-D and COL-IV levels were associated with angiomyolipoma size at baseline and with angiomyolipoma response to everolimus. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that plasma angiogenic markers may provide an objective measure of patient response to everolimus.

Feasibility of adding everolimus to carboplatin and paclitaxel, with or without bevacizumab, for treatment-naive, advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: One standard of care for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is paclitaxel plus carboplatin ± bevacizumab. This two-step phase I study evaluated the feasibility of adding everolimus to paclitaxel plus carboplatin ± bevacizumab for advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Adults with advanced NSCLC naive to systemic therapy were enrolled. A Bayesian dose-escalation model was used to identify feasible daily or weekly everolimus doses given with paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2) q21 days) and carboplatin (AUC 6 mg/mL/min q21 days) (step 1) and paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2) q21 days), carboplatin (AUC 6 mg/mL/min q21 days), and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg q21 days) (step 2). Primary endpoint was end-of-cycle 1 dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) rate. Secondary endpoints included safety; relative dose intensities of paclitaxel, carboplatin, and bevacizumab; pharmacokinetics; and tumor response. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were enrolled and received everolimus 5 mg/day plus carboplatin and paclitaxel (step 1 daily; n = 13); everolimus 30 mg/week plus carboplatin and paclitaxel (step 1 weekly; n = 13); everolimus 5 mg/day plus carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab (step 2 daily; n = 13); or everolimus 30 mg/week plus carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab (step 2 weekly; n = 13). End-of-cycle 1 DLT rate was 16.7 % (step 1 daily), 30.8 % (step 1 weekly), 30.0 % (step 2 daily), and 16.7 % (step 2 weekly). Cycle 1 DLTs were grade 3 neutropenia, anal abscess, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia and grade 4 myalgia, cellulitis, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, pulmonary embolism, and thrombocytopenia. The most common adverse events were neutropenia, fatigue, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. One patient (step 2 daily) experienced complete response, 10 patients partial response. CONCLUSIONS: The feasible everolimus doses given with carboplatin and paclitaxel ± bevacizumab were 5 mg/day and 30 mg/week. Neither schedule was very well tolerated in this unselected NSCLC population.

Phase I clinical trial of the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus in combination with oral topotecan for recurrent and advanced endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Preclinical data suggest that mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors may potentiate the efficacy of topotecan. We evaluated the optimal schedule of oral topotecan in combination with everolimus in patients with endometrial cancer. METHODS: Women with a history of advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer were enrolled. Escalating dose of oral topotecan (1.5 mg/m, 1.9 mg/m, and 2.3 mg/m) daily on days 1 to 5 and everolimus (5 mg every other day, 5 mg daily, and 10 mg daily) were administered in a 21-day cycle. A "run-in" treatment of topotecan daily for 5 days followed by everolimus for 7 days (4-7 doses depending on dose level) was administered for the purpose of pharmacokinetic assessments. RESULTS: Ten patients were enrolled on the study, and 9 were evaluable for safety analysis. A total of 28 cycles were administered (range, 1-10 cycles per patient). The patients had a median age of 73 years (range, 42-79 years). Previous lines of chemotherapy were 1 (n = 2), 2 (n = 5), 3 (n = 2), and 4 (n = 1). Seven patients had previous vaginal brachytherapy, and 2 had pelvic external beam radiation therapy. The median number of cycles (including cycle 1) is 2 (range, 1-10). Dose-limiting toxicity occurred in 3 patients (1 patient treated with 1.9-mg/m topotecan and 5-mg everolimus given every other day as well as 2 patients treated with 1.9-mg/m topotecan and 5-mg of everolimus daily) and included neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Seven patients were evaluable for response. Stable disease was the best response in 3 patients who completed the 3, 4, and 10 cycles each. CONCLUSIONS: The dose-limiting toxicity for the combination of oral topotecan and everolimus was myelosuppression. The maximum tolerated dose was topotecan 1.9 mg/m on days 1 to 5 in combination with oral everolimus 5 mg every other day. Administration of higher dose of each agent in combination was limited because of overlapping myelosuppression.

Population pharmacokinetics of the GIP/GLP receptor agonist tirzepatide.

Tirzepatide is a first-in-class glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist approved as for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. A population-based pharmacokinetic (PK) model was developed from 19 pooled studies. Tirzepatide pharmacokinetics were well-described by a two-compartment model with first order absorption and elimination. The tirzepatide population PK model utilized a semimechanistic allometry model to describe the relationship between body size and tirzepatide PK. The half-life of tirzepatide was ~5 days and enabled sustained exposure with once-weekly subcutaneous dosing. The covariate analysis suggested that adjustment of the dose regimen based on demographics or subpopulations was unnecessary. The tirzepatide PK model can be used to predict tirzepatide exposure for various scenarios or populations.

Model-based simulation of glycaemic effect and body weight loss when switching from semaglutide or dulaglutide to once weekly tirzepatide.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy endpoints of HbA1c and body weight loss after switching from the GLP-1 receptor agonists, semaglutide or dulaglutide, to treatment with the GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist (RA) tirzepatide. METHODS: Models were developed and validated to describe the HbA1c and weight loss time course for semaglutide (SUSTAIN 1-10), dulaglutide (AWARD-11) and tirzepatide (SURPASS 1-5, phase 3 global T2D program). The impact of switching from once weekly GLP-1 RAs to tirzepatide was described by simulating the efficacy time course. Semaglutide and dulaglutide doses were escalated in accordance with their respective labels. RESULTS: Model-predicted mean decreases from baseline in HbA1c and body weight for semaglutide 0.5 mg, 1 mg, and 2 mg were 1.22 to 1.79% and 3.62 to 6.87 kg respectively, at Week 26. Model-predicted mean decreases from baseline in HbA1c and body weight for dulaglutide 1.5 mg, 3 mg and 4.5 mg were 1.53 to 1.84% and 2.55 to 3.71 kg respectively, at Week 26. After switching to tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg HbA1c reductions were predicted to range between 1.95 to 2.46% and body weight reductions between 6.50 to 12.1 kg by Week 66. CONCLUSION: In this model-based simulation, switching from approved maintenance doses of semaglutide or dulaglutide to tirzepatide, even at the lowest approved maintenance dose of 5 mg, showed the potential to further improve HbA1c and body weight reductions.

Type 2 diabetes is a disease of elevated blood sugar levels. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are a type of medication used to treat type 2 diabetes that work on GLP-1 receptors in the body. Semaglutide and dulaglutide are examples of GLP-1 RAs, which lower blood sugar and body weight. Tirzepatide is a newer medication, which works on both GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptors. It reduces blood sugar and body weight in people living with type 2 diabetes. Healthcare professionals and patients are interested in how switching medication from semaglutide or dulaglutide to tirzepatide might change blood glucose levels and body weight. However, because tirzepatide is a newer medication, there is not much information available on this aspect. Data from clinical trials of these medications were used to predict the effects of switching from semaglutide or dulaglutide to tirzepatide. These model-based simulations showed that switching to tirzepatide may further reduce HbA1c (a measure of blood sugar) and body weight. This may provide useful information to healthcare professionals and patients when making decisions about treatment with these medications.

Tirzepatide Immunogenicity on Pharmacokinetics, Efficacy, and Safety: Analysis of Data From Phase 3 Studies.

CONTEXT: Antidrug antibodies (ADA) can potentially affect drug pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy. OBJECTIVE: This work aimed to evaluate treatment-emergent (TE) ADA in tirzepatide (TZP)-treated participants across 7 phase 3 trials and their potential effect on pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety. METHODS: ADA were assessed at baseline and throughout the study until end point, defined as week 40 (SURPASS-1, -2, and -5) or week 52 (SURPASS-3, -4, Japan-Mono, and Japan-Combo). Samples for ADA characterization were collected at SURPASS trial sites. Participants included ADA-evaluable TZP-treated patients with type 2 diabetes (N = 5025). Interventions included TZP 5, 10, or 15 mg. ADA were detected and characterized for their ability to cross-react with native glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (nGIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (nGLP-1), neutralize tirzepatide activity on GIP and GLP-1 receptors, and neutralize nGIP and nGLP-1. RESULTS: TE ADA developed in 51.1% of tirzepatide-treated patients. Proportions were similar across dose groups. Maximum ADA titers ranged from 1:20 to 1: 81 920 among TE ADA+ patients. Neutralizing antibodies (NAb) against TZP activity on GIP and GLP-1 receptors were observed in 1.9% and 2.1% of patients, respectively. Less than 1.0% of patients had cross-reactive NAb against nGIP or nGLP-1. TE ADA status, ADA titer, and NAb status had no effect on the pharmacokinetics or efficacy of TZP. More TE ADA+ patients experienced hypersensitivity reactions or injection site reactions than TE ADA- patients. The majority of hypersensitivity and injection site reactions were nonserious and nonsevere, and most events occurred and/or resolved irrespective of TE ADA status or titer. CONCLUSION: Immunogenicity did not affect TZP pharmacokinetics or efficacy. The majority of hypersensitivity or injection site reactions experienced by TE ADA+ patients were mild to moderate in severity.

Effects of Tirzepatide vs Semaglutide on ß-cell Function, Insulin Sensitivity, and Glucose Control During a Meal Test.

CONTEXT: In a clinical study, tirzepatide, a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide/glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GIP/GLP-1RA), provided superior glycemic control vs the GLP-1RA semaglutide. The physiologic mechanisms are incompletely understood. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate treatment effects by model-based analyses of mixed-meal tolerance test (MMTT) data. DESIGN: A 28-week double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Two clinical research centers in Germany. PATIENTS: Patients with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin. INTERVENTIONS: Tirzepatide 15 mg, semaglutide 1 mg, placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Glycemic control, model-derived ß-cell function indices including insulin secretion rate (ISR) at 7.2-mmol/L glucose (ISR7.2), ß-cell glucose (ß-CG) sensitivity, insulin sensitivity, and estimated hepatic insulin-to-glucagon ratio. RESULTS: Tirzepatide significantly reduced fasting glucose and MMTT total glucose area under the curve (AUC) vs semaglutide (P < 0.01). Incremental glucose AUC did not differ significantly between treatments; therefore, greater total glucose AUC reduction with tirzepatide was mainly attributable to greater suppression of fasting glucose. A greater reduction in total ISR AUC was achieved with tirzepatide vs semaglutide (P < 0.01), in the context of greater improvement in insulin sensitivity with tirzepatide (P < 0.01). ISR7.2 was significantly increased with tirzepatide vs semaglutide (P < 0.05), showing improved ß-CG responsiveness. MMTT-derived ß-CG sensitivity was increased but not significantly different between treatments. Both treatments reduced fasting glucagon and total glucagon AUC, with glucagon AUC significantly reduced with tirzepatide vs semaglutide (P < 0.01). The estimated hepatic insulin-to-glucagon ratio did not change substantially with either treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the greater glycemic control observed for tirzepatide manifests as improved fasting glucose and glucose excursion control, due to improvements in ISR, insulin sensitivity, and glucagon suppression.

A Phase 1 Multiple Dose Study of Tirzepatide in Chinese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: To investigate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics (PD) of tirzepatide in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: In this phase 1, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple dose study, patients were randomized into one of two cohorts to receive once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide or placebo. The initial tirzepatide dose in both cohorts was 2.5 mg, which was increased by 2.5 mg every 4 weeks to a maximum final dose of 10.0 mg at week 16 (Cohort 1) or 15.0 mg at week 24 (Cohort 2). The primary outcome was the safety and tolerability of tirzepatide. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were randomized (tirzepatide 2.5-10.0 mg: n = 10, tirzepatide 2.5-15.0 mg: n = 10, placebo: n = 4); 22 completed the study. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) among patients receiving tirzepatide were diarrhea and decreased appetite; most TEAEs were mild and resolved spontaneously with no serious adverse events reported in the tirzepatide groups and one in the placebo group. The plasma concentration half-life of tirzepatide was approximately 5-6 days. Mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) decreased over time from baseline in the 2.5-10.0 mg (- 2.4%) and 2.5-15.0 mg (- 1.6%) tirzepatide groups, at week 16 and week 24, respectively, but remained steady in patients receiving placebo. Body weight decreased from baseline by - 4.2 kg at week 16 in the tirzepatide 2.5-10.0 mg group and by - 6.7 kg at week 24 in the 2.5-15.0 mg group. Mean fasting plasma glucose levels fell from baseline by - 4.6 mmol/L in the tirzepatide 2.5-10.0 mg group at week 16 and by - 3.7 mmol/L at week 24 in the tirzepatide 2.5-15.0 mg group. CONCLUSIONS: Tirzepatide was well tolerated in this population of Chinese patients with T2D. The safety, tolerability, PK, and PD profile of tirzepatide support once-weekly dosing in this population. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04235959.

Tirzepatide Reduces Appetite, Energy Intake, and Fat Mass in People With Type 2 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of tirzepatide on body composition, appetite, and energy intake to address the potential mechanisms involved in body weight loss with tirzepatide. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a secondary analysis of a randomized, double-blind, parallel-arm study, the effects of tirzepatide 15 mg (N = 45), semaglutide 1 mg (N = 44), and placebo (N = 28) on body weight and composition, appetite, and energy intake were assessed at baseline and week 28. RESULTS: Tirzepatide treatment demonstrated significant reductions in body weight compared with placebo and semaglutide, resulting in greater fat mass reduction. Tirzepatide and semaglutide significantly reduced appetite versus placebo. Appetite scores and energy intake reductions did not differ between tirzepatide and semaglutide. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in energy intake during ad libitum lunch were not sufficient to explain the different weight outcomes. Further evaluation is needed to assess mechanistic differences related to tirzepatide actions on 24-h energy intake, substrate utilization, and energy expenditure.

A phase I study of temozolomide and everolimus (RAD001) in patients with newly diagnosed and progressive glioblastoma either receiving or not receiving enzyme-inducing anticonvulsants: an NCIC CTG study.

PURPOSE: This phase I trial was designed to determine the recommended phase II dose(s) of everolimus (RAD001) with temozolomide (TMZ) in patients with glioblastoma (GBM). Patients receiving enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs (EIAEDs) and those not receiving EIAEDs (NEIAEDs) were studied separately. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Enrollment was restricted to patients with proven GBM, either newly diagnosed or at first progression. Temozolomide was administered at a starting dose of 150 mg/m(2)/day for 5 days every 28 days, and everolimus was administered continuously at a starting dose of 2.5 mg orally on a daily schedule starting on day 2 of cycle 1 in 28-day cycles. RESULTS: Thirteen patients receiving EIAEDs and 19 not receiving EIAEDs were enrolled and received 83 and 116 cycles respectively. Everolimus 10 mg daily plus TMZ 150 mg/m(2)/day for 5 days was declared the recommended phase II dose for the NEIAEDs cohort. In the EIAEDs group, doses were well tolerated without DLTs, and pharmacokinetic parameters indicated decreased everolimus exposure. Temozolomide pharmacokinetic parameters were unaffected by EIAEDs or everolimus. In the subset of 28 patients with measurable disease, 3 had partial responses (all NEIAEDs) and 16 had stable disease. CONCLUSION: A dosage of 10 mg everolimus daily with TMZ 150 mg/m(2)/day for five consecutive days every 28 days in patients is the recommended dose for this regimen. Everolimus clearance is increased by EIAEDs, and patients receiving EIAEDs should be switched to NEIAEDs before starting this regimen.

Effects of Hepatic Impairment on the Pharmacokinetics of the Dual GIP and GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Tirzepatide.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Tirzepatide, a novel, once-weekly, dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, is approved in the US as a treatment for type 2 diabetes and is under development for long-term weight management, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of tirzepatide in participants with hepatic impairment (with or without type 2 diabetes) versus healthy participants with normal hepatic function. METHODS: Participants in this parallel, single-dose, open-label study were categorized by hepatic impairment defined by the baseline Child-Pugh (CP) score A (mild impairment; n = 6), B (moderate impairment; n = 6), or C (severe impairment; n = 7) or normal hepatic function (n = 13). All participants received a single subcutaneous 5-mg dose of tirzepatide. Blood samples were collected to determine tirzepatide plasma concentrations to estimate pharmacokinetic parameters. The primary pharmacokinetic parameters of area under the drug concentration-time curve from zero to infinity (AUC0-∞) and maximum observed drug concentration (Cmax) were evaluated using an analysis of covariance. The geometric least-squares means (LSM) and mean ratios for each group, between control and hepatic impairment levels, and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. The analysis of the time to maximum observed drug concentration was based on a nonparametric method. The relationships between the pharmacokinetic parameters and CP classification parameters (serum albumin level, total bilirubin level, and international normalized ratio) were also assessed. Adverse events were monitored to assess safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Tirzepatide exposure, based on AUC0-∞ and Cmax, was similar across the control and hepatic impairment groups. Statistical analysis showed no difference in the geometric LSM AUC0-∞ or Cmax between participants in the control group and the hepatic impairment groups, with the 90% CI for the ratios of geometric LSM spanning unity (AUC0-∞ ratio of geometric LSM vs control [90% CI 1.08 [0.879, 1.32], 0.960 [0.790, 1.17], and 0.852 [0.699, 1.04] and Cmax ratio of geometric LSM vs control [90% CI]: 0.916 [0.726, 1.16], 1.00 [0.802, 1.25], and 0.972 [0.784, 1.21] for mild, moderate and severe hepatic impairment groups, respectively). There was no change in median time to Cmax of tirzepatide across all groups (time to Cmax median difference vs control [90% CI]: 0 [- 4.00, 12.00], 0 [- 12.00, 12.00], and 0 [- 11.83, 4.17], respectively). There was no significant relationship between the exposure of tirzepatide and the CP score (p > 0.1 for AUC0-∞, Cmax, and apparent total body clearance). Similarly, there was no clinically relevant relationship between the exposure of tirzepatide and serum albumin level, total bilirubin level, or international normalized ratio. The geometric LSM half-life values were also similar across the control and hepatic impairment groups. No notable differences in safety profiles were observed between participants with hepatic impairment and healthy control participants. CONCLUSIONS: Tirzepatide pharmacokinetics was similar in participants with varying degrees of hepatic impairment compared with healthy participants. Thus, people with hepatic impairment treated with tirzepatide may not require dose adjustments. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier number NCT03940742.

Effects of subcutaneous tirzepatide versus placebo or semaglutide on pancreatic islet function and insulin sensitivity in adults with type 2 diabetes: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-arm, phase 1 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Tirzepatide, a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 receptor agonist, shows a remarkable ability to lower blood glucose, enabling many patients with long-standing type 2 diabetes to achieve normoglycaemia. We aimed to understand the physiological mechanisms underlying the action of tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-arm, phase 1 study was done at two centres in Germany. Eligible patients were aged 20-74 years, had type 2 diabetes for at least 6 months, and were being treated with lifestyle advice and stable doses of metformin, with or without one additional stable dose of another oral antihyperglycaemic medicine, 3 months before study entry. Via a randomisation table, patients were randomly assigned (3:3:2) to subcutaneously receive either tirzepatide 15 mg, semaglutide 1 mg, or placebo once per week. Endpoint measurements were done at baseline and the last week of therapy (week 28). The primary endpoint was the effect of tirzepatide versus placebo on the change in clamp disposition index (combining measures of insulin secretion and sensitivity) from baseline to week 28 of treatment and was analysed in the pharmacodynamic analysis set, which comprised all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of a study drug and had evaluable pharmacodynamic data. Safety was analysed in the safety population, which comprised all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of a study drug. Secondary endpoints included the effect of tirzepatide versus semaglutide on the change in clamp disposition index from baseline to week 28 of treatment, glucose control, total insulin secretion rate, M value (insulin sensitivity), and fasting and postprandial glucagon concentrations. Exploratory endpoints included the change in fasting and postprandial insulin concentrations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03951753, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between June 28, 2019, and April 8, 2021, we screened 184 individuals and enrolled 117 participants, all of whom were included in the safety population (45 in the tirzepatide 15 mg group, 44 in the semaglutide 1 mg group, and 28 in the placebo group). Because of discontinuations and exclusions due to missing or unevaluable data, 39 patients in each treatment group and 24 patients in the placebo group comprised the pharmacodynamic analysis set. With tirzepatide, the clamp disposition index increased from a least squares mean of 0·3 pmol m-2 L min-2 kg-1 (SE 0·03) at baseline by 1·9 pmol m-2 L min-2 kg-1 (0·16) to total 2·3 pmol m-2 L min-2 kg-1 (SE 0·16) at week 28 and, with placebo, the clamp disposition index did not change much from baseline (least squares mean at baseline 0·4 pmol m-2 L min-2 kg-1 [SE 0·04]; change from baseline 0·0 pmol m-2 L min-2 kg-1 [0·03]; least squares mean at week 28 0·3 [SE 0·03]; estimated treatment difference [ETD] tirzepatide vs placebo 1·92 [95% CI 1·59-2·24]; p<0·0001). The improvement with tirzepatide in clamp disposition index was significantly greater than with semaglutide (ETD 0·84 pmol m-2 L min-2 kg-1 [95% CI 0·46-1·21]). This result reflected significant improvements in total insulin secretion rate (ETD 102·09 pmol min-1 m-2 [51·84-152·33]) and insulin sensitivity (ETD 1·52 mg min-1 kg-1 [0·53-2·52]) for tirzepatide versus semaglutide. On meal tolerance testing, tirzepatide significantly reduced glucose excursions (lower insulin and glucagon concentrations) compared with placebo, with effects on these variables being greater than with semaglutide. The safety profiles of tirzepatide and semaglutide were similar, with gastrointestinal adverse events being the most common (11 [24%], 13 [30%], and seven [25%] with nausea; nine [20%], 13 [30%], and six [21%] with diarrhoea; and three [7%], five [11%], and one [4%] with vomiting, for tirzepatide, semaglutide, and placebo, respectively). There were no deaths. INTERPRETATION: The glycaemic efficacy of GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes results from concurrent improvements in key components of diabetes pathophysiology, namely ß-cell function, insulin sensitivity, and glucagon secretion. These effects were large and help to explain the remarkable glucose-lowering ability of tirzepatide seen in phase 3 studies. FUNDING: Eli Lilly.