4.4 Review

How Can a Good Idea Fail? Basal Insulin Peglispro [LY2605541] for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes

期刊

DIABETES THERAPY
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 9-22

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13300-016-0214-7

关键词

Basal insulin peglispro; Pharmacokinetics; Pharmacodynamics; Type 2 diabetes; Efficacy; Hypoglycemia

资金

  1. Institute of Health Carlos III [PI PI12/0235]
  2. Regional Ministry of Innovation, Science and Enterprise of the Autonomous Government of Andalusia [CTS-8181]
  3. FEDER funds
  4. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [Rio Hortega CM 14/00078]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Lack of control in diabetic patients has stimulated the development of new insulin analogues. One of these was basal insulin peglispro (BIL) or LY2605541; it had a large hydrodynamic size, flat pharmacokinetic profile, half life of 2-3 days and acted preferably in the liver. Methods: We reviewed the recent literature examining the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy and safety of BIL treatment in type 2 diabetes patients. Results: The pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic outline of BIL seemed to have an advantage over neutral protamine Hagedorn and glargine insulins. Recently, phase 3 studies suggested BIL was superior to glargine in reducing glucose levels in type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients in addition to causing less weight gain. It showed a different hypoglycaemia rate profile depending on the study population, with less nocturnal hypoglycaemia compared to glargine. Unfortunately, it caused higher transaminase and triglyceride levels, which led the company to discontinue development. The decision came after it had been analysed by the regulatory authorities and other external experts concerning the worse liver profile data from the IMAGINE trials. Conclusions: BIL was an adequate basal insulin analogue with interesting specific properties. Unfortunately the disadvantages as shown in the lipid values and liver function tests led to its failure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据