Dataset Information

Appetite and food intake results from phase I studies of anamorelin.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Loss of appetite and body weight are potentially devastating, highly prevalent cancer complications. The ghrelin receptor is a mediator of appetite and metabolism, and anamorelin is a novel, orally administered ghrelin receptor agonist. Effects on appetite and food intake may influence body-weight gain but can be difficult to measure in multi-site studies. Here, we summarize two single-centre trials.

Methods

Both trials were phase I, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, partly/wholly crossover studies of healthy young adults. Study 102 tested single anamorelin doses of 1-20 mg. Assessments included post-dose self-ratings on 100 mm visual analogue scales for hunger, anticipated eating pleasure, and anticipated quantity of food consumption. Study 101 tested single 10, 25, and 50 mg doses. Assessments included the same scales plus caloric intake beginning 4 h post-dose.

Results

Study 102 treated 16 male subjects (mean age, 26.3 years). Mean hunger scores generally increased after all treatments, with significant differences from placebo (P < 0.05) in the 5 mg anamorelin group at 0.5 and 1 h post-dose (+8.2 and +13.2 mm). Results for other scales were similar. Study 101 treated nine male subjects (mean age, 26.3 years). Pooled findings for anamorelin 25 and 50 mg vs. placebo showed significant mean increases in hunger scores at all but 1 pre-prandial time point, including the first assessment, 0.5 h post-dose (+10.9 vs. +0.7 mm, P = 0.0077), and the last assessment, 4 h post-dose (+32.7 vs. +7.0 mm, P = 0.0170), with a significant mean 18.4% increase vs. placebo in caloric intake (P = 0.0148).

Conclusions

In single-centre studies of healthy adults, single anamorelin doses of 1-20 mg elicited modest increases in hunger, and single doses of 25 and 50 mg achieved significant increases in hunger and caloric intake. The findings are consistent with dose-related weight gain reported in a prior phase I study as well as multi-centre findings in cachectic cancer patients and expand the evidence supporting anamorelin as a potential intervention.

SUBMITTER: Blum RA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6818453 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The hypothalamic peptide oxytocin and its receptor are involved in a range of physiological processes, including parturition, lactation, cell growth, wound healing, and social behavior. More recently, increasing evidence has established the effects of oxytocin on food intake, energy expenditure, and peripheral metabolism. In this review, we provide a comprehensive description of the central oxytocinergic system in which oxytocin acts to shape eating behavior and metabolism. Next, we discuss the peripheral beneficial effects oxytocin exerts on key metabolic organs, including suppression of visceral adipose tissue inflammation, skeletal muscle regeneration, and bone tissue mineralization. A brief summary of oxytocin actions learned from animal models is presented, showing that weight loss induced by chronic oxytocin treatment is related not only to its anorexigenic effects, but also to the resulting increase in energy expenditure and lipolysis. Following an in-depth discussion on the technical challenges related to endogenous oxytocin measurements in humans, we synthesize data related to the association between endogenous oxytocin levels, weight status, metabolic syndrome, and bone health. We then review clinical trials showing that in humans, acute oxytocin administration reduces food intake, attenuates fMRI activation of food motivation brain areas, and increases activation of self-control brain regions. Further strengthening the role of oxytocin in appetite regulation, we review conditions of hypothalamic insult and certain genetic pathologies associated with oxytocin depletion that present with hyperphagia, extreme weight gain, and poor metabolic profile. Intranasal oxytocin is currently being evaluated in human clinical trials to learn whether oxytocin-based therapeutics can be used to treat obesity and its associated sequela. At the end of this review, we address the fundamental challenges that remain in translating this line of research to clinical care.

Project description:BackgroundType 2 resistant starch (RS2) has been shown to improve metabolic health outcomes and may increase satiety and suppress appetite and food intake in humans.ObjectiveThis study assessed whether 12 weeks of daily RS2 supplementation could influence appetite perception, food intake, and appetite-related gut hormones in adults with prediabetes, relative to the control (CTL) group.DesignThe study was a randomized controlled trial and analysis of secondary study end points.Participants/settingSixty-eight adults (body mass index ≥27) aged 35 to 75 years with prediabetes were enrolled in the study at Pennington Biomedical Research Center (2012 to 2016). Fifty-nine subjects were included in the analysis.InterventionParticipants were randomized to consume 45 g/day of high-amylose maize (RS2) or an isocaloric amount of the rapidly digestible starch amylopectin (CTL) for 12 weeks.Main outcome measuresSubjective appetite measures were assessed via visual analogue scale and the Eating Inventory; appetite-related gut hormones (glucagon-like peptide 1, peptide YY, and ghrelin) were measured during a standard mixed-meal test; and energy and macronutrient intake were assessed by a laboratory food intake (buffet) test, the Remote Food Photography Method, and SmartIntake app.Statistical analyses performedData were analyzed using linear mixed models, adjusting for treatment group and time as fixed effects, with a significance level of α=.05.ResultsRS2 had no effect on subjective measures of appetite, as assessed by visual analogue scale (P>0.05) and the Eating Inventory (P≥0.24), relative to the CTL group. There were no effects of RS2 supplementation on appetite-related gut hormones, including glucagon-like peptide 1 (P=0.61), peptide YY (P=0.34), and both total (P=0.26) and active (P=0.47) ghrelin compared with the CTL. RS2 had no effect on total energy (P=0.30), carbohydrate (P=0.11), protein (P=0.64), or fat (P=0.37) consumption in response to a buffet meal test, relative to the CTL. In addition, total energy (P=0.40), carbohydrate (P=0.15), protein (P=0.46), and fat (P=0.53) intake, as quantified by the Remote Food Photography Method, were also unaffected by RS2, relative to the CTL.ConclusionsRS2 supplementation did not increase satiety or reduce appetite and food intake in adults with prediabetes.

Project description:BackgroundSome weight loss medications, including liraglutide 3.0 mg, are thought to facilitate weight loss by improving appetite control. However, no studies have evaluated their long-term appetitive effects.Subjects/methodsThis study examined changes in appetite in a subsample of 113 adults with obesity (76.1% female, 55.8% white, BMI = 38.8 ± 4.8 kg/m2) who participated in a 52-week trial. Participants were randomized to intensive behavioral therapy alone (IBT-alone), IBT with liraglutide 3.0 mg/day (IBT-liraglutide), or IBT-liraglutide combined with a 12-week meal replacement diet (Multi-component). Participants rated their hunger, fullness after meals, liking of meals, and food preoccupation (all as experienced over the past week) using visual analogue scales (0-100 mm). Ratings were completed at baseline and eight subsequent visits over the year.ResultsAt week 52, participants treated by IBT-alone lost 6.2 ± 1.6% of baseline weight, compared with 11.8 ± 1.6% and 12.1 ± 1.5% in the IBT-liraglutide and Multi-component groups, respectively. Compared to IBT-alone, IBT-liraglutide participants reported larger reductions at week 6 in hunger (-0.3 ± 4.2 vs -16.8 ± 4.0 mm, p = .005) and food preoccupation (+0.2 ± 3.7 vs -16.3 ± 3.6 mm, p = .002) and larger increases in fullness (-5.1 ± 3.2 vs +9.8 ± 3.0 mm, p = .001). These significant differences persisted at all assessments through week 24. There were no differences between IBT-alone and IBT-liraglutide in meal liking. IBT-alone and Multi-component participants differed in hunger at week 6, and in food preoccupation at all assessments through week 24. Multi-component participants reported reduced liking of meals relative to the IBT-alone and IBT-liraglutide groups through weeks 40 and 52, respectively. There were no other differences among any groups at week 52.ConclusionsConsistent with short-term studies, IBT-liraglutide participants reported greater improvements in hunger, fullness, and food preoccupation than those assigned to IBT-alone. Differences in appetite persisted for 24 weeks but were not maintained at week 52, despite the relatively greater weight losses in the liraglutide-treated participants at the trial's end.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough protein-rich plant foods have recently been touted as an equivalent to animal products, limited data exist regarding the effects of animal vs. plant proteins on appetite, satiety, and subsequent food intake.ObjectiveThe objective was to determine whether a high-protein beef lunch alters the appetitive, hormonal, and neural signals controlling food intake regulation vs. a macronutrient and fiber-matched (MF) or serving size-matched (SS) soy lunch in healthy adults.MethodsA randomized, double-blind, crossover design study was completed in 21 adults (aged 23 ± 1 y; body mass index: 23.8 ± 0.6 kg/m²; mean ± SEM) to compare 400-kcal MF and SS lunches varying in protein quality. The MF lunches contained 24-g beef protein or 24-g soy protein, whereas the SS lunches contained 1 serving of beef (24-g protein/1-g fiber) or soy (14-g protein/5-g fiber). Pre- and postlunch appetite questionnaires and blood sampling were completed over an 8-h period until dinner was voluntarily requested. In addition, pre- and postlunch functional MRI brain scans were completed to assess neural activation in response to food stimuli.ResultsOn average, dinner was requested at ∼250 ± 20 min postlunch with no differences between beef vs. soy within the MF and SS conditions. Furthermore, no differences in hunger, fullness, peptide YY, or glucagon-like peptide-1 responses were observed after the beef vs. soy lunches within the MF and SS conditions. The SS beef meal led to reductions in anterior cingulate activation (-22 ± 6%) vs. soy (+7 ± 9%; P < 0.01) and greater reductions in insular activation (-30 ± 6%) vs. SS soy (-7 ± 10%; P < 0.01). The participants consumed ∼945 ± 78 kcal after the MF meals and 910 ± 74 kcal after the SS meals with no differences between beef vs. soy.ConclusionsWhen comparing 2 high-quality protein sources, such as beef and soy, the type of protein consumed within a mixed meal elicited very little effect on appetite, satiety, and food intake in healthy adults.