New Zealand pharmacy body issues counselling standards for liraglutide initiation
The evidence base is thin and the document says so, which is to its credit.
TheCompound Journal
Reporting on incretins, compounding & the peptide supply chain
Exposure
Selectivity, potency and efficacy are three different measurements. The trade routinely reports none of them.
An earlier version of this article stated that semaglutide’s acylation uses a C16 fatty-acid chain. It uses a C18 diacid linked through a spacer; the C16 chain is liraglutide’s.
The most useful thing an editor can do with a drug class this heavily covered is insist on the distinction between a mechanism and a metaphor. Appetite suppression is a metaphor. Delayed gastric emptying mediated by vagal afferent signalling and central integration in the area postrema is a mechanism. The two are related, they are not interchangeable, and the difference determines which side effects are expected, which are dose-limiting, and which resolve.
The GLP-1 receptor belongs to class B of the G-protein-coupled receptor superfamily — the secretin-like receptors — which is a structural classification with practical consequences. Class B receptors have a large extracellular domain that captures the C-terminal portion of a peptide ligand first, in what is usually described as a two-domain binding model: the extracellular domain provides affinity, and the N-terminal residues of the peptide then insert into the transmembrane bundle to provide activation.
That architecture is why these receptors are difficult small-molecule targets and why, for two decades, every marketed agonist was a peptide. It is also why the orally available non-peptide agonists now in late-stage development are genuinely notable pharmacology rather than a formulation trick: they bind a site that a peptide does not occupy in the same way, and they activate the receptor through a partially distinct mechanism.1
The consequence for a reader trying to compare molecules is that structural class predicts a great deal about route, durability and formulation, and rather less about efficacy.
When the GLP-1 receptor is activated it can couple to Gαs, raising cyclic AMP, and it can recruit beta-arrestin, which contributes to receptor internalisation and desensitisation. An agonist that favours the first over the second is described as G-protein-biased. The therapeutic argument for bias is that sustained cAMP signalling without proportionate internalisation should produce a more durable effect at the same occupancy.
The evidence for that argument is real but narrower than its popularity suggests. Bias is measured in transfected cell systems at receptor densities that bear no relationship to a beta cell or a vagal afferent, and the translation from a bias factor in vitro to a clinical difference in vivo has been demonstrated convincingly for very few ligands.2 The Journal’s position is that bias is a legitimate and probably important variable, that it is one of several plausible explanations for the differences observed between molecules, and that anybody presenting it as the explanation is ahead of the data.
Cagrilintide is not a GLP-1 receptor agonist. It is repeatedly described as one, including by people who should know.
On class confusionThree quantities are routinely conflated in discussions of this class. Affinity is how tightly a ligand binds, usually reported as a dissociation constant. Potency is the concentration producing half-maximal response, reported as an EC50. Efficacy is the maximal response achievable, reported relative to a reference agonist. A molecule can be more potent and less efficacious than another, and a molecule can bind a second receptor with high affinity and produce almost no response there.
Selectivity is the ratio of activities across receptors, and it is where the current pipeline diverges most sharply. Reported GIP-to-GLP-1 activity ratios for dual agonists vary by more than an order of magnitude between molecules; glucagon receptor arms in triple agonists vary similarly. Those ratios are properties of the sequence and they are not adjustable by dose. Two molecules with different ratios are different drugs at every dose, which is the reason head-to-head trials cannot be replaced by cross-trial comparison.3
| Molecule | Durability strategy | Approx. half-life | Route |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exenatide (BID) | Exendin-4 backbone, DPP-4 resistant | 2.4 h | Subcutaneous |
| Liraglutide | C16 acylation, albumin binding | 13 h | Subcutaneous |
| Dulaglutide | Fc fusion | ≈5 days | Subcutaneous |
| Semaglutide | Aib8 substitution + C18 diacid acylation | ≈7 days | Subcutaneous / oral |
| Tirzepatide | Aib substitution + C20 diacid acylation | ≈5 days | Subcutaneous |
| Orforglipron | Non-peptide, hepatic clearance | ≈29–49 h | Oral |
| Half-lives are population means from labelling and published pharmacokinetic studies; individual values vary substantially with renal function and body weight. | |||
Three engineering strategies account for essentially every long-acting agonist on the market. The first is substitution at the DPP-4 cleavage site: replacing the alanine at position 8 with a residue the enzyme cannot process removes the fastest route of degradation. The second is acylation with a fatty-acid chain, which promotes reversible binding to serum albumin; albumin-bound drug is protected from renal filtration and enzymatic attack, and dissociates slowly to provide a circulating depot. The third is fusion to a large carrier — an immunoglobulin Fc fragment, for instance — which raises the hydrodynamic radius above the glomerular filtration threshold.
Semaglutide uses the first two, with a C18 diacid linked through a spacer. Liraglutide uses a shorter C16 chain and achieves roughly thirteen hours rather than seven days, which is a useful demonstration of how much the chain contributes. Dulaglutide takes the fusion route. The strategies are not interchangeable and they produce different distribution and clearance behaviour, not merely different durations.4
An orally bioavailable small molecule that activates a class B GPCR was, for a long time, considered close to impossible. The current crop of non-peptide GLP-1 receptor agonists achieves it by binding a site that overlaps only partially with the peptide binding pocket, stabilising an active conformation without the two-domain capture mechanism.
Pharmacologically this matters for three reasons. Absorption does not depend on a permeation enhancer, so bioavailability is far less variable and far less dependent on fasting state than oral semaglutide’s. Elimination is hepatic rather than largely renal and proteolytic, which changes the interaction profile. And potency at the receptor is achieved without a fatty-acid albumin depot, so the concentration-time profile looks like a conventional small molecule rather than a peptide. None of this predicts efficacy; all of it predicts a different practical drug.
Agonist: a ligand that binds a receptor and produces a response. Full agonist: one producing the maximal response the system permits. Partial agonist: one producing less than maximal response even at full occupancy. Analogue: a molecule structurally derived from a natural ligand. Mimetic: a molecule reproducing a natural ligand’s effect without structural derivation.
Orthosteric site: the binding site the natural ligand occupies. Allosteric site: a distinct site whose occupancy modulates activity at the orthosteric one. Biased agonism: preferential activation of one downstream pathway over another. Tachyphylaxis: diminishing response to repeated administration. Steady state: the condition in which the rate of drug entering the body equals the rate leaving it.
Precision here is not pedantry. Several of the arguments this publication receives by post turn out, on inspection, to be disagreements about which of these words the writer meant.
Three things, on the Journal’s assessment. First, the demonstration that a dual agonist could produce weight reduction approaching bariatric-surgical magnitude moved the field’s expectations, and with them the design of every subsequent programme. Second, the cardiovascular and renal outcome results reframed the class from metabolic-cosmetic to cardiometabolic, which changed reimbursement arguments far more than it changed prescribing.
Third, and least remarked, the pharmacology of oral administration became tractable. That is a manufacturing and access story as much as a scientific one: an oral small molecule has a completely different cost structure, cold-chain requirement and supply profile from an injectable peptide, and if it holds up in phase 3 it will do more to change who can get treated than any of the receptor science described above.
Two things follow practically from the pharmacology above, and only two. Consistency of dosing interval matters more than consistency of hour. And an interruption long enough to clear the drug is an interruption long enough to reset tolerability, which means resumption is a fresh escalation and not a continuation. Everything else in this piece is background.
Selected from correspondence received on this article. Writers are identified by initial, surname and city, verified before printing. Replies are from the desk that filed the piece or from the standards editor. Write to letters@compoundjournal.com.
The claim that nothing at baseline predicts response is too strong. Surely baseline BMI, sex and diabetes status shift the expected outcome — the trials stratify on exactly those variables.
— J. Kettleborough, Nottingham
They shift the mean, which is why the trials stratify. They barely narrow the distribution around it, which is the claim we made. Both statements are in the responder analyses and we should have distinguished them more carefully in the paragraph you are objecting to.
The evidence base is thin and the document says so, which is to its credit.
The evidence base is thin and the document says so, which is to its credit.
Every withdrawal trial compared full dose against nothing. The clinically interesting comparison — full dose against a reduced one — has not been randomised.
The evidence base is thin and the document says so, which is to its credit.
A drug that delays gastric emptying complicates the assumption behind every fasting instruction in perioperative medicine. The professional bodies have moved twice on this…
A rotation scheme that is too complicated will not be followed. We describe the simple ones that are.