Headache · 2022
Characterization of transit rates in the large intestine of mice following treatment with a CGRP antibody, CGRP receptor antibody, and small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Johnson Kirk W, Li Xia, Huang Xiaofang, Heinz Beverly A, Yu Jianliang, Li Baolin
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the effects of blocking calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) activity in a mouse model of gastrointestinal transport.
BACKGROUND: Migraine management using CGRP modulating therapies can cause constipation of varying frequency and severity. This variation might be due to the different mechanisms through which therapies block CGRP activity (e.g., blocking CGRP, or the CGRP receptor) with antibodies or receptor antagonists. The charcoal meal gastrointestinal transit assay was used to characterize constipation produced by these modes of therapy in transgenic mice expressing the human receptor activity-modifying protein 1 (hRAMP1) subunit of the CGRP receptor complex.
METHODS: Male and female hRAMP1 mice were dosed with compound or vehicle and challenged with a charcoal meal suspension via oral gavage. The mice were then humanely euthanized and the proportion of the length of the large intestine that the charcoal meal had traveled indicated gastrointestinal transit.
RESULTS: Antibody to the CGRP receptor produced % distance traveled (mean ± standard deviation) of 31.8 ± 8.2 (4 mg/kg; p = 0.001) and 33.2 ± 6.0 (30 mg/kg; p < 0.001) compared to 49.7 ± 8.3 (control) in female mice (n = 6-8), and 35.6 ± 13.5 (30 mg/kg, p = 0.019) compared to 50.2 ± 14.0 (control) in male mice (n = 10). Telcagepant (5 mg/kg, n = 8) resulted in % travel of 30.6 ± 14.7 versus 41.2 ± 8.3 (vehicle; p = 0.013) in male mice. Atogepant (3 mg/kg, n = 9) resulted in % travel of 30.6 ± 12.0, versus 41.2 ± 3.7 (control; p = 0.030) in female mice. The CGRP antibody galcanezumab (n = 7-10; p = 0.958 and p = 0.929) did not have a statistically significant effect.
CONCLUSIONS: These results are consistent with reported clinical data. Selectively blocking the CGRP receptor may have a greater impact on gastrointestinal transit than attenuating the activity of the ligand CGRP. This differential effect may be related to physiologically opposing mechanisms between the CGRP and AMY1 receptors, as the CGRP ligand antibody could inhibit the effects of CGRP at both the CGRP and AMY1 receptors.
BACKGROUND: Migraine management using CGRP modulating therapies can cause constipation of varying frequency and severity. This variation might be due to the different mechanisms through which therapies block CGRP activity (e.g., blocking CGRP, or the CGRP receptor) with antibodies or receptor antagonists. The charcoal meal gastrointestinal transit assay was used to characterize constipation produced by these modes of therapy in transgenic mice expressing the human receptor activity-modifying protein 1 (hRAMP1) subunit of the CGRP receptor complex.
METHODS: Male and female hRAMP1 mice were dosed with compound or vehicle and challenged with a charcoal meal suspension via oral gavage. The mice were then humanely euthanized and the proportion of the length of the large intestine that the charcoal meal had traveled indicated gastrointestinal transit.
RESULTS: Antibody to the CGRP receptor produced % distance traveled (mean ± standard deviation) of 31.8 ± 8.2 (4 mg/kg; p = 0.001) and 33.2 ± 6.0 (30 mg/kg; p < 0.001) compared to 49.7 ± 8.3 (control) in female mice (n = 6-8), and 35.6 ± 13.5 (30 mg/kg, p = 0.019) compared to 50.2 ± 14.0 (control) in male mice (n = 10). Telcagepant (5 mg/kg, n = 8) resulted in % travel of 30.6 ± 14.7 versus 41.2 ± 8.3 (vehicle; p = 0.013) in male mice. Atogepant (3 mg/kg, n = 9) resulted in % travel of 30.6 ± 12.0, versus 41.2 ± 3.7 (control; p = 0.030) in female mice. The CGRP antibody galcanezumab (n = 7-10; p = 0.958 and p = 0.929) did not have a statistically significant effect.
CONCLUSIONS: These results are consistent with reported clinical data. Selectively blocking the CGRP receptor may have a greater impact on gastrointestinal transit than attenuating the activity of the ligand CGRP. This differential effect may be related to physiologically opposing mechanisms between the CGRP and AMY1 receptors, as the CGRP ligand antibody could inhibit the effects of CGRP at both the CGRP and AMY1 receptors.