4.5 Article

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

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 84, 期 10, 页码 2325-2335

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.13688

关键词

diabetes; drug safety; pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics; Phase 1; randomized controlled trial

资金

  1. MedImmune

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimsMEDI0382 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. MethodsIn 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 8h of fasting. The study consisted of six cohorts that received study drug at 5g, 10g, 30g, 100g, 150g or 300g. The primary objective was safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints included assessments of pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity. All subjects were followed for up to 28 days. ResultsA 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 150g. 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: 4.50-9.00h; elimination half-life: 9.54-12.07h). No immunogenicity was observed in the study. ConclusionsIn 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.

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

4.5
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