Kay Maltby

Effects of the mu-opioid receptor antagonist GSK1521498 on hedonic and consummatory eating behaviour: a proof of mechanism study in binge-eating obese subjects

The opioid system is implicated in the hedonic and motivational processing of food, and in binge eating, a behaviour strongly linked to obesity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of 4 weeks of treatment with the mu-opioid receptor antagonist GSK1521498 on eating behaviour in binge-eating obese subjects. Adults with body mass index ⩾30 kg m−2 and binge eating scale scores ⩾19 received 1-week single-blind placebo run-in, and were then randomized to 28 days with either 2 mg day−1 GSK1521498, 5 mg day−1 GSK1521498 or placebo (N=21 per arm) in a double-blind parallel group design. The outcome measures were body weight, fat mass, hedonic and consummatory eating behaviour during inpatient food challenges, safety and pharmacokinetics. The primary analysis was the comparison of change scores in the higher-dose treatment group versus placebo using analysis of covariance at each relevant time point. GSK1521498 (2 mg and 5 mg) was not different from placebo in its effects on weight, fat mass and binge eating scores. However, compared with placebo, GSK1521498 5 mg day−1 caused a significant reduction in hedonic responses to sweetened dairy products and reduced calorific intake, particularly of high-fat foods during ad libitum buffet meals, with some of these effects correlating with systemic exposure of GSK1521498. There were no significant effects of GSK1521498 2 mg day−1 on eating behaviour, indicating dose dependency of pharmacodynamics. GSK1521498 was generally well tolerated and no previously unidentified safety signals were detected. The potential for these findings to translate into clinically significant effects in the context of binge eating and weight regain prevention requires further investigation.

Neural and Behavioral Effects of a Novel Mu Opioid Receptor Antagonist in Binge-Eating Obese People

Background Binge eating is associated with obesity and has been conceptualized as “food addiction.” However, this view has received only inconsistent support in humans, and limited evidence relates key neurocircuitry to the disorder. Moreover, relatively few studies have used pharmacologic functional magnetic resonance imaging to probe the underlying basis of altered eating behaviors. Methods In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study, we explored the effects of a potent mu-opioid receptor antagonist, GSK1521498, in obese individuals with moderate binge eating. Subjects were tested during a baseline placebo run-in period and retested after 28-days of drug (n = 21) or placebo (n = 21) treatment. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging and behavioral measures, we determined the drug’s effects on brain responses to food images and, separately, on motivation to expend energy to view comparable images. Results Compared with placebo, GSK1521498 was associated with a significant reduction in pallidum/putamen responses to pictures of high-calorie food and a reduction in motivation to view images of high-calorie food. Intriguingly, although motivational responding was reduced, subjective liking for the same images actually increased following drug treatment. Conclusions Stimulus-specific putamen/pallidal responses in obese people with binge eating are sensitive to altered mu-opioid function. This neuromodulation was accompanied by reductions in motivational responding, as measured by grip force, although subjective liking responses to the same stimuli actually increased. As well as providing evidence for a link between the opioid system and food-related behavior in binge-eating obese individuals, these results support a dissociation across measures of motivation and liking associated with food-related stimuli in these individuals.

Opioid receptor modulation of hedonic taste preference and food intake: a single-dose safety, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic investigation with GSK1521498, a novel μ-opioid receptor inverse agonist.

Endogenous opioids and μ‐opioid receptors have been linked to hedonic and rewarding aspects of palatable food intake. The authors examined the safety, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic profile of GSK1521498, a μ‐opioid receptor inverse agonist that is being investigated primarily for the treatment of overeating behavior in obesity. In healthy participants, GSK1521498 oral solution and capsule formulations were well tolerated up to a dose of 100 mg. After single doses (10–150 mg), the maximum concentration (Cmax) and area under the curve (AUC) in plasma increased in a dose‐proportional manner. GSK1521498 selectively reduced sensory hedonic ratings of high‐sugar and high‐fat dairy products and caloric intake of high‐fat/high‐sucrose snack foods. These findings provide encouraging data in support of the development of GSK1521498 for the treatment of disorders of maladaptive ingestive behavior or compulsive consumption.

Multiple-dose safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of the μ-opioid receptor inverse agonist GSK1521498.

The endogenous opioid system and μ‐opioid receptors in particular have been demonstrated to play a fundamental role in hedonic and motivational behaviors reinforced by rewards. In healthy participants, the authors examined the multiple‐dose safety, pharmacokinetic, and secondary pharmacodynamic profile of GSK1521498, a μ‐opioid receptor inverse agonist that is being developed for treatment of disorders of compulsive consumption. Clinically relevant doses of GSK1521498 (2, 5, and 10 mg) following once‐daily administration for 10 days, were well tolerated with no clinically relevant changes in vital signs, chemistry, or hematologic parameters and with a favorable neuropsychiatric profile. Following oral administration, median first time to reach maximum observed plasma concentration for GSK1521498 occurred 2 to 5 hours after dosing, with individual values ranging from 1 to 8 hours. Systemic exposure to GSK1521498 (area under the curve [0–∞] and maximum observed plasma concentration) increased in a slightly greater‐than‐dose‐proportional manner, and steady‐state plasma levels were reached within approximately 7 days. The secondary pharmacodynamic effects of GSK1521498 on cognition and pain threshold and tolerance were dose related, with mild to moderate impairments in measures of attention and reductions of pressure pain threshold and tolerance at the highest dose. These findings provide encouraging safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic data in support of the continued clinical development of GSK1521498.

The opioid receptor pharmacology of GSK1521498 compared to other ligands with differential effects on compulsive reward-related behaviours

RationaleThe novel opioid receptor antagonist, GSK1421498, has been shown to attenuate reward-driven compulsive behaviours, such as stimulant drug seeking or binge eating, in animals and humans. Here, we report new data on the receptor pharmacology of GSK121498, in comparison to naltrexone, naloxone, 6-β-naltrexol and nalmefene.ObjectivesTo determine whether the novel opioid antagonist, GSK1521498, is an orthosteric or allosteric antagonist at the μ opioid receptor (MOPr) and whether it has neutral antagonist or inverse agonist properties.MethodsA combination of radioligand binding assays and [35S]GTPγS binding assays was employed.ResultsGSK1521498 completely displaced [3H]naloxone binding to MOPr and did not alter the rate of [3H]naloxone dissociation from MOPr observations compatible with it binding to the orthosteric site on MOPr. GSK1521498 exhibited inverse agonism when MOPr was overexpressed but not when the level of MOPr expression was low. In parallel studies under conditions of high receptor expression density, naloxone, naltrexone, 6-β-naltrexol and nalmefene exhibited partial agonism, not inverse agonism as has been reported previously for naloxone and naltrexone. In brain tissue from mice receiving a prolonged morphine pre-treatment, GSK1521498 exhibited slight inverse agonism.ConclusionsDifferences between GSK1521498 and naltrexone in their effects on compulsive reward seeking are arguably linked to the more selective and complete MOPr antagonism of GSK1521498 versus the partial MOPr agonism of naltrexone. GSK1521498 is also pharmacologically differentiated by its inverse agonist efficacy at high levels of MOPr expression, but this may be less likely to contribute to behavioural differentiation at patho-physiological levels of expression.

Opioid Antagonists and the A118G Polymorphism in the μ-Opioid Receptor Gene: Effects of GSK1521498 and Naltrexone in Healthy Drinkers Stratified by OPRM1 Genotype.

The A118G single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP rs1799971) in the μ-opioid receptor gene, OPRM1, has been much studied in relation to alcohol use disorders. The reported effects of allelic variation at this SNP on alcohol-related behaviors, and on opioid receptor antagonist treatments, have been inconsistent. We investigated the pharmacogenetic interaction between A118G variation and the effects of two μ-opioid receptor antagonists in a clinical lab setting. Fifty-six overweight and moderate–heavy drinkers were prospectively stratified by genotype (29 AA homozygotes, 27 carriers of at least 1 G allele) in a double-blind placebo-controlled, three-period crossover design with naltrexone (NTX; 25 mg OD for 2 days, then 50 mg OD for 3 days) and GSK1521498 (10 mg OD for 5 days). The primary end point was regional brain activation by the contrast between alcohol and neutral tastes measured using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Secondary end points included other fMRI contrasts, subjective responses to intravenous alcohol challenge, and food intake. GSK1521498 (but not NTX) significantly attenuated fMRI activation by appetitive tastes in the midbrain and amygdala. GSK1521498 (and NTX to a lesser extent) significantly affected self-reported responses to alcohol infusion. Both drugs reduced food intake. Across all end points, there was less robust evidence for significant effects of OPRM1 allelic variation, or for pharmacogenetic interactions between genotype and drug treatment. These results do not support strong modulatory effects of OPRM1 genetic variation on opioid receptor antagonist attenuation of alcohol- and food-related behaviors. However, they do support further investigation of GSK1521498 as a potential therapeutic for alcohol use and eating disorders.

The effects of alcohol on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the selective mu-opioid receptor antagonist GSK1521498 in healthy subjects.

The mu‐opioid system has a key role in hedonic and motivational processes critical to substance addiction. However, existing mu‐opioid antagonists have had limited success as anti‐addiction treatments. GSK1521498 is a selective and potent mu‐opioid antagonist being developed for the treatment of overeating and substance addictions. In this study, 28 healthy participants were administered single doses of GSK1521498 20 mg, ethanol 0.5 g/kg body weight, or both in combination, in a double blind placebo controlled four‐way crossover design. The primary objective was to determine the risk of significant adverse pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic (PK) interactions. The effects of GSK1521498 on hedonic and consummatory responses to alcohol and the attentional processing of alcohol‐related stimuli, and their modulation by the OPRM1 A118G polymorphism were also explored. GSK1521498 20 mg was well tolerated alone and in combination with ethanol. There were mild transient effects of GSK1521498 on alertness and mood that were greater when it was combined with ethanol. These effects were not of clinical significance. There were no effects of GSK1521498 on reaction time, hedonic or consummatory responses. These findings provide encouraging safety and PK data to support continued development of GSK1521498 for the treatment of alcohol addiction.

Effects of the BDNF Val66Met polymorphism and met allele load on declarative memory related neural networks.

It has been suggested that the BDNF Val66Met polymorphism modulates episodic memory performance via effects on hippocampal neural circuitry. However, fMRI studies have yielded inconsistent results in this respect. Moreover, very few studies have examined the effect of met allele load on activation of memory circuitry. In the present study, we carried out a comprehensive analysis of the effects of the BDNF polymorphism on brain responses during episodic memory encoding and retrieval, including an investigation of the effect of met allele load on memory related activation in the medial temporal lobe. In contrast to previous studies, we found no evidence for an effect of BDNF genotype or met load during episodic memory encoding. Met allele carriers showed increased activation during successful retrieval in right hippocampus but this was contrast-specific and unaffected by met allele load. These results suggest that the BDNF Val66Met polymorphism does not, as previously claimed, exert an observable effect on neural systems underlying encoding of new information into episodic memory but may exert a subtle effect on the efficiency with which such information can be retrieved.