4.2 Review

Exenatide: pharmacokinetics, clinical use, and future directions

Journal

EXPERT OPINION ON PHARMACOTHERAPY
Volume 18, Issue 6, Pages 555-571

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14656566.2017.1282463

Keywords

Exenatide; extended-release; glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist; glycemic control; type 2 diabetes

Funding

  1. AstraZeneca
  2. Novo Nordisk Fonden [NNF12OC1015904, NNF16OC0020224, NNF15OC0016230] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: The first-in-class glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) exenatide, which was initially approved in 2005, is available in twice-daily (BID) and once-weekly (QW) formulations. Clinical trial data suggest both formulations are effective and safe for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), both as monotherapy and as part of combination therapy. Since exenatide was approved, several other GLP-1RAs have become available for clinical use.Areas covered: Many ongoing clinical trials involving exenatide BID and exenatide QW are investigating new indications (exenatide BID) and new end points and combination therapies (exenatide QW). This review provides an overview of the delivery and pharmacokinetics of both formulations of exenatide, reviews existing data in T2D, and summarizes ongoing investigations.Expert opinion: Exenatide BID and QW have substantial clinical benefits. Comparisons with other GLP-1RAs demonstrate some differences in efficacy and safety profiles that make assessment of benefit:risk ratios complex. Head-to-head comparisons of QW GLP-1RA formulations may assist in the ranking of GLP-1RAs according to efficacy and safety. Results on the impact of exenatide QW on cardiovascular outcomes are eagerly awaited. The potential clinical utility of exenatide BID in other indications will clarify whether exenatide holds clinical promise in diagnoses other than T2D.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available