Efficacy, Safety, and Mechanistic Insights of Cotadutide, a Dual Receptor Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 and Glucagon Agonist

CONTEXT

Cotadutide is a dual receptor agonist with balanced glucagon-like peptide-1 and glucagon activity.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate different doses of cotadutide and investigate underlying mechanisms for its glucose-lowering effects.

DESIGN/SETTING

Randomized, double-blind, phase 2a study conducted in 2 cohorts at 5 clinical trial sites.

PATIENTS

Participants were 65 adult overweight/obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus; 63 completed the study; 2 were withdrawn due to AEs.

INTERVENTION

Once-daily subcutaneous cotadutide or placebo for 49 days. Doses (50-300 µg) were uptitrated weekly (cohort 1) or biweekly (cohort 2).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Co-primary end points (cohort 1) were percentage changes from baseline to end of treatment in glucose (area under the curve from 0 to 4 hours [AUC0-4h]) post-mixed-meal tolerance test (MMTT) and weight. Exploratory measures included postprandial insulin and gastric emptying time (GET; cohort 2).

RESULTS

Patients received cotadutide (cohort 1, n = 26; cohort 2, n = 20) or placebo (cohort 1, n = 13; cohort 2, n = 6). Significant reductions were observed with cotadutide vs placebo in glucose AUC0-4h post MMTT (least squares mean [90% CI], -21.52% [-25.68, -17.37] vs 6.32% [0.45, 12.20]; P < 0.001) and body weight (-3.41% [-4.37, -2.44] vs -0.08% [-1.45, 1.28]; P = 0.002). A significant increase in insulin AUC0-4h post MMTT was observed with cotadutide (19.3 mU.h/L [5.9, 32.6]; P = 0.008) and GET was prolonged on day 43 with cotadutide vs placebo (t½: 117.2 minutes vs -42.9 minutes; P = 0.0392).

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that the glucose-lowering effects of cotadutide are mediated by enhanced insulin secretion and delayed gastric emptying.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03244800.

MEDI0382, a GLP-1/glucagon receptor dual agonist, meets safety and tolerability endpoints in a single-dose, healthy-subject, randomized, Phase 1 study

AIMS

MEDI0382 is a balanced glucagon-like peptide-1/glucagon receptor dual agonist under development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. The primary objective was to assess the safety of MEDI0382 in healthy subjects.

METHODS

In this placebo-controlled, double-blind, Phase 1 study, healthy subjects (aged 18-45 years) were randomized (3:1) to receive a single subcutaneous dose of MEDI0382 or placebo after ≥8 h of fasting. The study consisted of six cohorts that received study drug at 5 μg, 10 μg, 30 μg, 100 μg, 150 μg or 300 μg. The primary objective was safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints included assessments of pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity. All subjects were followed for up to 28 days.

RESULTS

A total of 36 subjects received MEDI0382 (n = 6 per cohort) and 12 subjects received placebo (n = 2 per cohort). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred more frequently with MEDI0382 vs. placebo, which was mostly due to an increased occurrence at MEDI0382 doses ≥150 μg. All TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity. The most common TEAEs were vomiting, nausea and dizziness. There appeared to be a dose-dependent increase in heart rate with MEDI0382 treatment. MEDI0382 showed linear pharmacokinetic profile (time to maximum plasma concentration: 4.50-9.00 h; elimination half-life: 9.54-12.07 h). No immunogenicity was observed in the study.

CONCLUSIONS

In this single-dose, Phase 1 study in healthy subjects, the safety and pharmacokinetic profiles of MEDI0382 support once-daily dosing and further clinical development of MEDI0382.

A Study to Investigate the Efficacy and Safety of an Anti-Interleukin-18 Monoclonal Antibody in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Objective

Evidence suggests that chronic subclinical inflammation plays an important role in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Circulating levels of interleukin (IL)-18 appear to be associated with a number of micro- and macrovascular comorbidities of obesity and T2DM. This study was designed to investigate whether inhibition of IL-18 had any therapeutic benefit in the treatment of T2DM. Preliminary efficacy, safety and tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of the anti-IL-18 monoclonal antibody, GSK1070806, were assessed.

Research Design and Methods

This was a multicentre, randomized, single-blind (sponsor-unblinded), placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase IIa trial. Obese patients of either sex, aged 18–70 years, with poorly controlled T2DM on metformin monotherapy were recruited. Patients received two doses, of placebo (n = 12), GSK1070806 0.25 mg/kg (n = 13) or GSK1070806 5 mg/kg (n = 12). The primary end-point was the change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose and weighted mean glucose area under the curve (AUC)(0–4 hours) postmixed meal test on Days 29, 57, and 85.

Results

Thirty-seven patients were randomized to one of the three treatment arms. There were no statistically significant effects of GSK1070806 doses on fasting plasma glucose levels, or weighted mean glucose AUC(0–4 hours) compared with placebo.

Conclusions

GSK1070806 was well tolerated, and inhibition of IL-18 did not lead to any improvements in glucose control. However, because of study limitations, smaller, potentially clinically meaningful effects of IL-18 inhibition cannot be excluded.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01648153

Cardiovascular safety of albiglutide in the Harmony programme: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Albiglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, a new class of drugs used to treat type 2 diabetes. We did a prospective meta-analysis of the cardiovascular safety of albiglutide as stipulated by the US Food and Drug Administration recommendations for the assessment of new treatments for diabetes.

METHODS

We did a meta-analysis of eight phase 3 trials and one phase 2b trial in which patients were randomly assigned to albiglutide, placebo, or active comparators (glimepiride, insulin glargine, insulin lispro, liraglutide, pioglitazone, or sitagliptin). The safety population included 5107 patients, of whom 2524 took albiglutide (4870 person-years) and 2583 took comparators (5213 person-years). Possible major cardiovascular events were recorded prospectively and adjudicated by an independent endpoint committee masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was a composite of first occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (ie, cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke) or hospital admission for unstable angina. Secondary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events alone, all-cause mortality, silent myocardial infarction, hospital admission for heart failure, chest pain, other angina, and subdural or extradural haemorrhage. The occurrence of all other adverse events classified by the investigators as cardiovascular events were documented, but these were not adjudicated.

FINDINGS

The primary endpoint was not significantly different between albiglutide and all comparators (58 events vs 58 events; hazard ratio [HR] 1·00, 95% CI 0·68-1·49, p=0·0019 for non-inferiority). Major adverse cardiovascular event alone was also not significantly different (52 events vs 53; HR, 0·99; 95% CI, 0·65-1·49). When albiglutide was compared separately with placebo or active comparators, we noted no significant differences. We detected no significant differences in the other secondary endpoints. More patients had atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter in the albiglutide group (35 [1·4%] of 2524 patients; 8·6 events per 1000 patient-years) than in the all-comparators group (16 [0·6%] of 2583 patients; 3·4 events per 1000 patient-years).

INTERPRETATION

Cardiovascular events were not significantly more likely to occur with albiglutide than with all comparators. Because the upper bound of the 95% CI for major adverse cardiovascular event plus hospital admission for unstable angina was greater than 1·3, a dedicated study with a cardiovascular endpoint is underway to confirm the safety of albiglutide.

FUNDING

GlaxoSmithKline.

A randomized, parallel group, double-blind, multicentre study comparing the efficacy and safety of Avandamet (rosiglitazone/metformin) and metformin on long-term glycaemic control and bone mineral density after 80 weeks of treatment in drug-naïve type 2 diabetes mellitus patients

AIM

The purpose of this study was to evaluate if superior glycaemic control could be achieved with Avandamet® (rosiglitazone/metformin/AVM) compared with metformin (MET) monotherapy, and if glycaemic effects attained with AVM are durable over 18 months of treatment. Bone mineral density (BMD) and bone biomarkers were evaluated in a subgroup of patients.

METHODS

This was a phase IV, randomized, double-blind, multi-centre study in 688, drug naÏve, male and female patients who had an established clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Patients were randomized in a 1 : 1 ratio either to AVM or MET.

RESULTS

As initial therapy in patients with T2DM, AVM was superior to MET in achieving statistically significant reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) (p < 0.0001) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (p < 0.001), with more patients reaching recommended HbA1c and FPG targets for intensive glycaemic control. The glycaemic effects attained with AVM compared to MET monotherapy were durable over 18 months of treatment. In the bone substudy, AVM was associated with a significantly lower BMD in comparison with MET at week 80 in the lumbar spine and total hip (p < 0.0012 and p = 0.0005, respectively). Between-treatment differences were not statistically significant for distal one-third of radius BMD, femoral neck BMD or total BMD.

CONCLUSION

Superior glycaemic control was achieved with AVM compared with MET monotherapy. The superior glycaemic effects were shown to be durable over 18 months of treatment. AVM was associated with a significantly reduced BMD in comparison with MET at week 80 in the lumbar spine and total hip.