AIMS: Two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies were performed to characterize the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of the investigational metastin analogue, TAK-683, in healthy men. METHODS: We first investigated a single subcutaneous (s.c.) dose of TAK-683 (0.01-2.0 mg) in 60 subjects (TAK-683, n = 42; placebo, n = 18). We then assessed a single s.c. bolus of 0.03-1.0 mg TAK-683 on day 1, followed by a 0.01-2.0 mg day(-1) continuous infusion on days 2-13, to simulate a depot formulation, in 30 subjects (TAK-683, n = 25; placebo, n = 5) for 14 days. RESULTS:TAK-683 was well tolerated up to a dose of 2.0 mg day(-1) by continuous s.c. infusion for 14 days. Adverse events were similar between TAK-683 and placebo subjects at all dose levels. TAK-683plasma concentrations generally increased in proportion to dose with single and continuous dosing, with steady-state concentrations achieved by day 2 of continuous dosing. TAK-683 at 2.0 mg day(-1) suppressed testosterone below castration level (<50 ng dl(-1)) in four of five subjects by day 7 of continuous dosing. Luteinizing hormone and follicle stimulating hormone concentrations were suppressed with TAK-683 continuous dosing compared with placebo by up to 70 and 43%, respectively, but this was not consistently dose-dependent. CONCLUSIONS: In healthy men, s.c. administration of TAK-683 was well tolerated at all dose levels. The PK profile of TAK-683 was favourable, and TAK-683 suppressed testosterone profoundly during continuous dosing. Further investigation of metastin analogues is warranted for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: Two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies were performed to characterize the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of the investigational metastin analogue, TAK-683, in healthy men. METHODS: We first investigated a single subcutaneous (s.c.) dose of TAK-683 (0.01-2.0 mg) in 60 subjects (TAK-683, n = 42; placebo, n = 18). We then assessed a single s.c. bolus of 0.03-1.0 mg TAK-683 on day 1, followed by a 0.01-2.0 mg day(-1) continuous infusion on days 2-13, to simulate a depot formulation, in 30 subjects (TAK-683, n = 25; placebo, n = 5) for 14 days. RESULTS: TAK-683 was well tolerated up to a dose of 2.0 mg day(-1) by continuous s.c. infusion for 14 days. Adverse events were similar between TAK-683 and placebo subjects at all dose levels. TAK-683 plasma concentrations generally increased in proportion to dose with single and continuous dosing, with steady-state concentrations achieved by day 2 of continuous dosing. TAK-683 at 2.0 mg day(-1) suppressed testosterone below castration level (<50 ng dl(-1)) in four of five subjects by day 7 of continuous dosing. Luteinizing hormone and follicle stimulating hormone concentrations were suppressed with TAK-683 continuous dosing compared with placebo by up to 70 and 43%, respectively, but this was not consistently dose-dependent. CONCLUSIONS: In healthy men, s.c. administration of TAK-683 was well tolerated at all dose levels. The PK profile of TAK-683 was favourable, and TAK-683 suppressed testosterone profoundly during continuous dosing. Further investigation of metastin analogues is warranted for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer.
Authors: Howard I Scher; Xiaoyu Jia; Kim Chi; Ronald de Wit; William R Berry; Peter Albers; Brian Henick; David Waterhouse; Dean J Ruether; Peter J Rosen; Anthony A Meluch; Luke T Nordquist; Peter M Venner; Axel Heidenreich; Luis Chu; Glenn Heller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-04-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J H Lee; M E Miele; D J Hicks; K K Phillips; J M Trent; B E Weissman; D R Welch Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1996-12-04 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Stephanie B Seminara; Sophie Messager; Emmanouella E Chatzidaki; Rosemary R Thresher; James S Acierno; Jenna K Shagoury; Yousef Bo-Abbas; Wendy Kuohung; Kristine M Schwinof; Alan G Hendrick; Dirk Zahn; John Dixon; Ursula B Kaiser; Susan A Slaugenhaupt; James F Gusella; Stephen O'Rahilly; Mark B L Carlton; William F Crowley; Samuel A J R Aparicio; William H Colledge Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-10-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Christopher S Saigal; John L Gore; Tracey L Krupski; Janet Hanley; Matthias Schonlau; Mark S Litwin Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-10-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Suresh Ramaswamy; Stephanie B Seminara; Clifford R Pohl; Meloni J DiPietro; William F Crowley; Tony M Plant Journal: Endocrinology Date: 2007-04-05 Impact factor: 4.736
Authors: C Decourt; V Robert; K Anger; M Galibert; J-B Madinier; X Liu; H Dardente; D Lomet; A F Delmas; A Caraty; A E Herbison; G M Anderson; V Aucagne; M Beltramo Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Brian K Whitlock; Joseph A Daniel; Lisa L Amelse; Valeria M Tanco; Kelly A Chameroy; F Neal Schrick Journal: PeerJ Date: 2015-11-05 Impact factor: 2.984