Skip to content

Methodology Study To Examine 6-Week Food Intake With Liraglutide In Obese Subjects

A 6-WEEK, RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, TWO-ARM, PARALLEL METHODOLOGY STUDY TO ASSESS THE EFFECT OF LIRAGLUTIDE ON FOOD INTAKE IN OBESE SUBJECTS

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 1
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03041792
Enrollment
61
Registered
2017-02-03
Start date
2017-02-20
Completion date
2018-01-16
Last updated
2019-07-26

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Obesity

Brief summary

This will be a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled, 2 arm, parallel group, methodology study to assess the effect of 6 weeks of liraglutide administration on food intake in obese subjects.

Interventions

DRUGLiraglutide

Liraglutide

OTHERPlacebo

Placebo

Sponsors

Pfizer
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
BASIC_SCIENCE
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Investigator)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 75 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Males and female subjects; * Body Mass Index 30-40 kg/m2;

Exclusion criteria

* Evidence of history of clinically significant hematological, renal, endocrine, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, hepatic, psychiatric, neurologic, or allergic disease (including drug allergises, but excluding untreated, asymptomatic, seasonal allergies at time of dosing)

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change From Baseline (Visit 3) in Mean Energy Intake During Ad Libitum Lunches at Visits 4 and 5Visit 3, Visit 4 and Visit 5The mean energy intake was collected to assess the effect of liraglutide on food intake in non-diabetic, obese participants. Observed food intake was measured as the total number of calories consumed during the specified time period, calculated as the difference of the total number of calories provided minus the total number of calories remaining after meals. Mean energy intakes at Visit 4 was defined as the mean values of the measurements at Study Day 20 and 21. Same definition applies to Visit 5 (Study Day 41 and 42). Baseline was defined as the mean of Visit 3 (Study Day -1 and 0).

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All-Causality)Baseline (Visit 3) up to 31 days post last dose (75 days)Adverse event (AE) was defined as any untoward medical occurrence in a study participant administered a product or medical device, regardless of its causal relationship with study treatment. An AE is considered treatment-emergent relative to a given treatment if: the event occurs for the first time during the effective duration of treatment and was not seen prior to the start of treatment (for example, during the baseline or run-in period); or the event was seen prior to the start of treatment but increased in severity during treatment.
Number of Participants With Abnormal 12-lead Electrocardiogram (ECG)Baseline (Visit 3) up to Visit 6 (Study Day 53)ECG categorical summarization criteria: 1) PR interval (the interval between the start of the P wave and the start of the QRS complex, corresponding to the time between the onset of the atrial depolarization and onset of ventricular depolarization): absolute value greater than or equal to (\>=) 300 msec, percent change \>=25% if baseline was greater than (\>) 200 msec, and \>=50% if baseline was less than or equal to (\<=) 200 msec; 2) QRS interval (time from ECG Q wave to the end of the S wave corresponding to ventricle depolarization): absolute value \>=200 msec, percent change \>=25% if baseline was 100 msec, and \>=50% if baseline was \<=100 msec; 3) QTcF interval (QT corrected for heart rate using Fridericia's formula): absolute value \>450 to \<=480 msec, \>480 to \<=500 msec, \>500 msec, an increase from baseline \>30 to \<=60 msec or \>60 msec. Baseline was defined as pre-treatment measurement on Day -2.
Number of Participants With Laboratory Abnormalities (Without Regard to Baseline Abnormality)Baseline (Visit 3) up to Visit 6 (Study Day 53)Below parameters were evaluated:1), Hematology: hemoglobin (HGB), hematocrit, erythrocytes (absolute value/mean corpuscular volume/mean corpuscular HGB/mean corpuscular HGB concentration), platelets, leukocytes, lymphocytes, neutrophils, basophils, monocytes; 2), clinical chemistry: bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, protein, albumin, blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, sodium, potassium, chloride, calcium, bicarbonate, amylase, triacylglycerol lipase; 3), urinalysis: pH, urine glucose, ketones, urine protein, urine hemoglobin, urobilinogen, urine bilirubin, nitrite, leukocyte esterase, urine erythrocytes, urine leukocytes, hyaline casts, bacteria.
Number of Participants With Vital Signs Data Meeting Categorical CriteriaBaseline (Visit 3) up to Visit 6 (Study Day 53)Absolute values and changes from baseline in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), pulse rate (PR) were recorded in supine position. Vital signs categorical summarization criteria were 1), blood pressure: SBP greater than or equal to (\>=) 30 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg) change from baseline, SBP less than (\<) 90 mm Hg; DBP \>=20 mm Hg change from baseline, DBP \<50 mm Hg; 2), PR \<40 or greater than (\>) 120 beats per minute (bpm). Baseline was defined as pre-treatment measurement on Day 1.
Change From Baseline in Appetite Score (Mean Rating Area Under Curve From Time 30 to 120 Minutes [AUC30-120min]) for Mean Lunch at Visits 4 and 5Visit 3, Visit 4 (Study Day 20 and 21) and Visit 5 (Study Day 41 and 42)Appetite, satiety, fullness, hunger, and prospective consumption were measured using a validated Visual Analog scale (VAS) questionnaire. VAS was an assessment in which participants place a vertical line across a validated 100 millimeter (mm) line with the example of Not At All Full and Totally Full at either end, scoring from 0 to 100. The overall appetite score was calculated as the average of the four individual scores \[satiety + fullness + (100 - prospective food consumption)+(100 - hunger)\] divided by 4. The VAS questionnaire was completed by the participant immediately prior to meal administration, and at 30, 60 and 120 minutes after start of the specified meals. Baseline of Mean Rating AUC30-120min was defined as the rating for mean lunch at Visit 3 (Study Day -1 and 0).
Change From Baseline in Satiety, Fullness, Prospective Food Consumption and Hunger Scores (Mean Rating AUC30-120min) for Mean Lunch at Visits 4 and 5Visit 3, Visit 4 (Study Day 20 and 21) and Visit 5 (Study Day 41 and 42)Satiety, fullness, hunger, and prospective consumption were measured at the study site using a validated VAS questionnaire. The VAS measurement of the subcomponent scores were the same as that of the appetite score. Baseline of Mean Rating AUC30-120min was defined as the rating for mean lunch at Visit 3 (Study Day -1 and 0).The VAS was an assessment in which subjects place a vertical line across a validated 100 millimeter (mm) line to rank their response to various questions. The line was anchored by responses such as Not At All Full and Totally Full at either end. Scoring consisted of measuring the distance in mm of the vertical line from the response at the left end. The scores (total and subscale) ranged from 0 to 100. The lower values represent the better outcomes.The overall appetite score was calculated as the average of the 4 individual scores \[satiety+fullness+(100-prospective food consumption)+(100-hunger)\] divided by 4.
Change From Baseline in Area Under the Plasma Concentration-Time Profile of Acetaminophen for 0-60 Minutes and 0-300 Minutes (AUC0-60min and AUC0-300min) After Acetaminophen Dose at Visits 4 and 5Prior to breakfast and at 30,60,90,120,180 and 300 minutes after intake of the acetaminophen with breakfast on Visit 3,Visit 4 (Study Day 20) and Visit 5 (Study Day 41)A non investigational medicinal product (acetaminophen 1.5 gram \[g\]) was administered as a challenge agent for the assessment of gastric emptying. The blood sampling for determining acetaminophen concentrations was performed at 7 time points: prior to breakfast and at 30, 60, 90, 120, 180 and 300 minutes after intake of the acetaminophen with breakfast. Baseline was calculated at Visit 3 (Study Day -1).
Change From Baseline in Mean 48-hour Energy Intake at Visits 4 and 5Visit 3, Visit 4 (Study Day 20 and 21) and Visit 5 (Study Day 41 and 42)Energy intake was measured over a period of 48 hours to assess day to day variability in food intake. Observed food intake was measured as the total number of calories consumed during the specified time period, calculated as the difference of the total number of calories provided minus the total number of calories remaining after meals. Baseline was defined as the 48 hour period at Visit 3 (Study Day -1 and 0).

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Pre-assignment details

Overall, a total of 61 potential participants were randomized to the study, and 60 of them received study treatment.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Liraglutide
Liraglutide was administered subcutaneously via pen injection with dose titration to 3.0 milligram (mg) daily per Saxenda prescribing instructions.
30
Placebo
0.9% weight/volume (w/v) sodium chloride, United States Pharmacopeia (USP), was administered subcutaneously as placebo via syringe injection daily with matching volume to liraglutide dose.
26
Total56

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyAdverse Event40
Overall StudyDeath in the family02
Overall StudyRandomized but not treated01

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicLiraglutidePlaceboTotal
Age, Continuous43.0 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.88
48.1 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.63
45.4 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.89
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Asian
0 Participants1 Participants1 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Black or African American
9 Participants6 Participants15 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Other
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Unknown
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
White
21 Participants19 Participants40 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
22 Participants16 Participants38 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
8 Participants10 Participants18 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 320 / 28
other
Total, other adverse events
30 / 3218 / 28
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 320 / 28

Outcome results

Primary

Change From Baseline (Visit 3) in Mean Energy Intake During Ad Libitum Lunches at Visits 4 and 5

The mean energy intake was collected to assess the effect of liraglutide on food intake in non-diabetic, obese participants. Observed food intake was measured as the total number of calories consumed during the specified time period, calculated as the difference of the total number of calories provided minus the total number of calories remaining after meals. Mean energy intakes at Visit 4 was defined as the mean values of the measurements at Study Day 20 and 21. Same definition applies to Visit 5 (Study Day 41 and 42). Baseline was defined as the mean of Visit 3 (Study Day -1 and 0).

Time frame: Visit 3, Visit 4 and Visit 5

Population: Number of participants analyzed includes participants who met the criteria: completed baseline assessment of food intake;received at least 1 dose of randomized, blinded IP;completed at least 1 post baseline measurement(after taking randomized IP).Number analyzed includes participants contributing to mean energy intake at specified visits.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
LiraglutideChange From Baseline (Visit 3) in Mean Energy Intake During Ad Libitum Lunches at Visits 4 and 5Visit 4-254.48 kilocalories (kcal)Standard Deviation 160.67
LiraglutideChange From Baseline (Visit 3) in Mean Energy Intake During Ad Libitum Lunches at Visits 4 and 5Visit 5-278.78 kilocalories (kcal)Standard Deviation 190.09
PlaceboChange From Baseline (Visit 3) in Mean Energy Intake During Ad Libitum Lunches at Visits 4 and 5Visit 4-19.93 kilocalories (kcal)Standard Deviation 162.12
PlaceboChange From Baseline (Visit 3) in Mean Energy Intake During Ad Libitum Lunches at Visits 4 and 5Visit 5-37.43 kilocalories (kcal)Standard Deviation 164.49
Comparison: Visit 4p-value: 095% CI: [-322.25, -149.25]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Visit 5p-value: 095% CI: [-339.1, -148.15]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Appetite Score (Mean Rating Area Under Curve From Time 30 to 120 Minutes [AUC30-120min]) for Mean Lunch at Visits 4 and 5

Appetite, satiety, fullness, hunger, and prospective consumption were measured using a validated Visual Analog scale (VAS) questionnaire. VAS was an assessment in which participants place a vertical line across a validated 100 millimeter (mm) line with the example of Not At All Full and Totally Full at either end, scoring from 0 to 100. The overall appetite score was calculated as the average of the four individual scores \[satiety + fullness + (100 - prospective food consumption)+(100 - hunger)\] divided by 4. The VAS questionnaire was completed by the participant immediately prior to meal administration, and at 30, 60 and 120 minutes after start of the specified meals. Baseline of Mean Rating AUC30-120min was defined as the rating for mean lunch at Visit 3 (Study Day -1 and 0).

Time frame: Visit 3, Visit 4 (Study Day 20 and 21) and Visit 5 (Study Day 41 and 42)

Population: Number of participants analyzed includes participants who met the criteria: completed baseline assessment of food intake;received at least 1 dose of randomized, blinded IP;completed at least 1 post baseline measurement(after taking randomized IP).Number analyzed includes participants contributing to appetite score at specified visits.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
LiraglutideChange From Baseline in Appetite Score (Mean Rating Area Under Curve From Time 30 to 120 Minutes [AUC30-120min]) for Mean Lunch at Visits 4 and 5Visit 44.52 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.65
LiraglutideChange From Baseline in Appetite Score (Mean Rating Area Under Curve From Time 30 to 120 Minutes [AUC30-120min]) for Mean Lunch at Visits 4 and 5Visit 54.13 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.99
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Appetite Score (Mean Rating Area Under Curve From Time 30 to 120 Minutes [AUC30-120min]) for Mean Lunch at Visits 4 and 5Visit 4-0.60 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.22
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Appetite Score (Mean Rating Area Under Curve From Time 30 to 120 Minutes [AUC30-120min]) for Mean Lunch at Visits 4 and 5Visit 5-0.99 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.17
Comparison: Visit 4p-value: 0.026395% CI: [0.61, 9.29]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Visit 5p-value: 0.012195% CI: [1.22, 9.48]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Area Under the Plasma Concentration-Time Profile of Acetaminophen for 0-60 Minutes and 0-300 Minutes (AUC0-60min and AUC0-300min) After Acetaminophen Dose at Visits 4 and 5

A non investigational medicinal product (acetaminophen 1.5 gram \[g\]) was administered as a challenge agent for the assessment of gastric emptying. The blood sampling for determining acetaminophen concentrations was performed at 7 time points: prior to breakfast and at 30, 60, 90, 120, 180 and 300 minutes after intake of the acetaminophen with breakfast. Baseline was calculated at Visit 3 (Study Day -1).

Time frame: Prior to breakfast and at 30,60,90,120,180 and 300 minutes after intake of the acetaminophen with breakfast on Visit 3,Visit 4 (Study Day 20) and Visit 5 (Study Day 41)

Population: Number of participants analyzed includes participants who met the criteria: completed baseline assessment of food intake;received at least 1 dose of randomized, blinded IP;completed at least 1 post baseline measurement(after taking randomized IP).Number analyzed includes participants contributing to AUC0-60min and AUC0-300min at specified visits.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
LiraglutideChange From Baseline in Area Under the Plasma Concentration-Time Profile of Acetaminophen for 0-60 Minutes and 0-300 Minutes (AUC0-60min and AUC0-300min) After Acetaminophen Dose at Visits 4 and 5AUC0-60min (Visit 4)18.30 microgram*minute/milliliter (ug*min/mL)Standard Deviation 204.93
LiraglutideChange From Baseline in Area Under the Plasma Concentration-Time Profile of Acetaminophen for 0-60 Minutes and 0-300 Minutes (AUC0-60min and AUC0-300min) After Acetaminophen Dose at Visits 4 and 5AUC0-60min (Visit 5)81.19 microgram*minute/milliliter (ug*min/mL)Standard Deviation 166.47
LiraglutideChange From Baseline in Area Under the Plasma Concentration-Time Profile of Acetaminophen for 0-60 Minutes and 0-300 Minutes (AUC0-60min and AUC0-300min) After Acetaminophen Dose at Visits 4 and 5AUC0-300min (Visit 4)197.79 microgram*minute/milliliter (ug*min/mL)Standard Deviation 491.11
LiraglutideChange From Baseline in Area Under the Plasma Concentration-Time Profile of Acetaminophen for 0-60 Minutes and 0-300 Minutes (AUC0-60min and AUC0-300min) After Acetaminophen Dose at Visits 4 and 5AUC0-300min (Visit 5)394.22 microgram*minute/milliliter (ug*min/mL)Standard Deviation 401.62
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Area Under the Plasma Concentration-Time Profile of Acetaminophen for 0-60 Minutes and 0-300 Minutes (AUC0-60min and AUC0-300min) After Acetaminophen Dose at Visits 4 and 5AUC0-300min (Visit 5)47.31 microgram*minute/milliliter (ug*min/mL)Standard Deviation 564.52
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Area Under the Plasma Concentration-Time Profile of Acetaminophen for 0-60 Minutes and 0-300 Minutes (AUC0-60min and AUC0-300min) After Acetaminophen Dose at Visits 4 and 5AUC0-60min (Visit 4)-4.55 microgram*minute/milliliter (ug*min/mL)Standard Deviation 262.11
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Area Under the Plasma Concentration-Time Profile of Acetaminophen for 0-60 Minutes and 0-300 Minutes (AUC0-60min and AUC0-300min) After Acetaminophen Dose at Visits 4 and 5AUC0-300min (Visit 4)-12.92 microgram*minute/milliliter (ug*min/mL)Standard Deviation 489.5
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Area Under the Plasma Concentration-Time Profile of Acetaminophen for 0-60 Minutes and 0-300 Minutes (AUC0-60min and AUC0-300min) After Acetaminophen Dose at Visits 4 and 5AUC0-60min (Visit 5)-8.28 microgram*minute/milliliter (ug*min/mL)Standard Deviation 258.55
Comparison: AUC0-60min (Visit 4)p-value: 0.500895% CI: [-69.64, 140.76]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: AUC0-60min (Visit 5)p-value: 0.034895% CI: [7.86, 204.44]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: AUC0-300min (Visit 4)p-value: 0.10495% CI: [-45.59, 474.07]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: AUC0-300min (Visit 5)p-value: 0.015295% CI: [70.2, 626.66]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Mean 48-hour Energy Intake at Visits 4 and 5

Energy intake was measured over a period of 48 hours to assess day to day variability in food intake. Observed food intake was measured as the total number of calories consumed during the specified time period, calculated as the difference of the total number of calories provided minus the total number of calories remaining after meals. Baseline was defined as the 48 hour period at Visit 3 (Study Day -1 and 0).

Time frame: Visit 3, Visit 4 (Study Day 20 and 21) and Visit 5 (Study Day 41 and 42)

Population: Number of participants analyzed includes participants who met the criteria: completed baseline assessment of food intake;received at least 1 dose of randomized, blinded IP;completed at least 1 post baseline measurement(after taking randomized IP).Number analyzed includes participants contributing to mean 48-hour energy intake at specified visits.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
LiraglutideChange From Baseline in Mean 48-hour Energy Intake at Visits 4 and 5Visit 4-1058.8 kcalStandard Deviation 627.61
LiraglutideChange From Baseline in Mean 48-hour Energy Intake at Visits 4 and 5Visit 5-1152.5 kcalStandard Deviation 745.71
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Mean 48-hour Energy Intake at Visits 4 and 5Visit 4-205.64 kcalStandard Deviation 608.51
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Mean 48-hour Energy Intake at Visits 4 and 5Visit 5-242.84 kcalStandard Deviation 681.37
Comparison: Visit 4p-value: 095% CI: [-1196.1, -523.1]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Visit 5p-value: 095% CI: [-1317.3, -539.86]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Satiety, Fullness, Prospective Food Consumption and Hunger Scores (Mean Rating AUC30-120min) for Mean Lunch at Visits 4 and 5

Satiety, fullness, hunger, and prospective consumption were measured at the study site using a validated VAS questionnaire. The VAS measurement of the subcomponent scores were the same as that of the appetite score. Baseline of Mean Rating AUC30-120min was defined as the rating for mean lunch at Visit 3 (Study Day -1 and 0).The VAS was an assessment in which subjects place a vertical line across a validated 100 millimeter (mm) line to rank their response to various questions. The line was anchored by responses such as Not At All Full and Totally Full at either end. Scoring consisted of measuring the distance in mm of the vertical line from the response at the left end. The scores (total and subscale) ranged from 0 to 100. The lower values represent the better outcomes.The overall appetite score was calculated as the average of the 4 individual scores \[satiety+fullness+(100-prospective food consumption)+(100-hunger)\] divided by 4.

Time frame: Visit 3, Visit 4 (Study Day 20 and 21) and Visit 5 (Study Day 41 and 42)

Population: Number of participants analyzed includes participants who met the criteria: completed baseline assessment of food intake;received at least 1 dose of randomized, blinded IP;completed at least 1 post baseline measurement(after taking randomized IP).Number analyzed includes participants contributing to VAS scores at specified visits.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
LiraglutideChange From Baseline in Satiety, Fullness, Prospective Food Consumption and Hunger Scores (Mean Rating AUC30-120min) for Mean Lunch at Visits 4 and 5Satiety (Visit 4)3.94 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.5
LiraglutideChange From Baseline in Satiety, Fullness, Prospective Food Consumption and Hunger Scores (Mean Rating AUC30-120min) for Mean Lunch at Visits 4 and 5Satiety (Visit 5)4.51 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.79
LiraglutideChange From Baseline in Satiety, Fullness, Prospective Food Consumption and Hunger Scores (Mean Rating AUC30-120min) for Mean Lunch at Visits 4 and 5Fullness (Visit 4)4.04 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.52
LiraglutideChange From Baseline in Satiety, Fullness, Prospective Food Consumption and Hunger Scores (Mean Rating AUC30-120min) for Mean Lunch at Visits 4 and 5Fullness (Visit 5)2.40 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.08
LiraglutideChange From Baseline in Satiety, Fullness, Prospective Food Consumption and Hunger Scores (Mean Rating AUC30-120min) for Mean Lunch at Visits 4 and 5Prospective food consumption (Visit 4)-7.74 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.87
LiraglutideChange From Baseline in Satiety, Fullness, Prospective Food Consumption and Hunger Scores (Mean Rating AUC30-120min) for Mean Lunch at Visits 4 and 5Prospective food consumption (Visit 5)-6.18 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 16.92
LiraglutideChange From Baseline in Satiety, Fullness, Prospective Food Consumption and Hunger Scores (Mean Rating AUC30-120min) for Mean Lunch at Visits 4 and 5Hunger (Visit 4)-3.71 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.97
LiraglutideChange From Baseline in Satiety, Fullness, Prospective Food Consumption and Hunger Scores (Mean Rating AUC30-120min) for Mean Lunch at Visits 4 and 5Hunger (Visit 5)-3.41 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.96
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Satiety, Fullness, Prospective Food Consumption and Hunger Scores (Mean Rating AUC30-120min) for Mean Lunch at Visits 4 and 5Hunger (Visit 5)2.63 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 13
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Satiety, Fullness, Prospective Food Consumption and Hunger Scores (Mean Rating AUC30-120min) for Mean Lunch at Visits 4 and 5Satiety (Visit 4)-0.55 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.52
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Satiety, Fullness, Prospective Food Consumption and Hunger Scores (Mean Rating AUC30-120min) for Mean Lunch at Visits 4 and 5Prospective food consumption (Visit 4)1.59 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.38
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Satiety, Fullness, Prospective Food Consumption and Hunger Scores (Mean Rating AUC30-120min) for Mean Lunch at Visits 4 and 5Satiety (Visit 5)1.02 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.26
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Satiety, Fullness, Prospective Food Consumption and Hunger Scores (Mean Rating AUC30-120min) for Mean Lunch at Visits 4 and 5Hunger (Visit 4)2.13 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.88
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Satiety, Fullness, Prospective Food Consumption and Hunger Scores (Mean Rating AUC30-120min) for Mean Lunch at Visits 4 and 5Fullness (Visit 4)1.88 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.85
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Satiety, Fullness, Prospective Food Consumption and Hunger Scores (Mean Rating AUC30-120min) for Mean Lunch at Visits 4 and 5Prospective food consumption (Visit 5)4.23 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 14.46
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Satiety, Fullness, Prospective Food Consumption and Hunger Scores (Mean Rating AUC30-120min) for Mean Lunch at Visits 4 and 5Fullness (Visit 5)1.89 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.17
Comparison: Satiety (Visit 4)p-value: 0.176895% CI: [-1.85, 9.82]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Satiety (Visit 5)p-value: 0.113795% CI: [-0.85, 7.7]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Fullness (Visit 4)p-value: 0.185895% CI: [-1.41, 7.11]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Fullness (Visit 5)p-value: 0.528895% CI: [-3.05, 5.86]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Prospective food consumption (Visit 4)p-value: 0.005495% CI: [-14.3, -2.61]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Prospective food consumption (Visit 5)p-value: 0.011795% CI: [-17.29, -2.27]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Hunger (Visit 4)p-value: 0.009395% CI: [-11.48, -1.69]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Hunger (Visit 5)p-value: 0.029695% CI: [-12.12, -0.66]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Number of Participants With Abnormal 12-lead Electrocardiogram (ECG)

ECG categorical summarization criteria: 1) PR interval (the interval between the start of the P wave and the start of the QRS complex, corresponding to the time between the onset of the atrial depolarization and onset of ventricular depolarization): absolute value greater than or equal to (\>=) 300 msec, percent change \>=25% if baseline was greater than (\>) 200 msec, and \>=50% if baseline was less than or equal to (\<=) 200 msec; 2) QRS interval (time from ECG Q wave to the end of the S wave corresponding to ventricle depolarization): absolute value \>=200 msec, percent change \>=25% if baseline was 100 msec, and \>=50% if baseline was \<=100 msec; 3) QTcF interval (QT corrected for heart rate using Fridericia's formula): absolute value \>450 to \<=480 msec, \>480 to \<=500 msec, \>500 msec, an increase from baseline \>30 to \<=60 msec or \>60 msec. Baseline was defined as pre-treatment measurement on Day -2.

Time frame: Baseline (Visit 3) up to Visit 6 (Study Day 53)

Population: All participants who received at least one dose of study medication classified according to the actual study treatment received. Follow-up readings have been excluded from presentation, and 4 participants have been excluded from presentation because they only have follow up readings in post-dose phase.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
LiraglutideNumber of Participants With Abnormal 12-lead Electrocardiogram (ECG)QRS interval >=200 msec0 Participants
LiraglutideNumber of Participants With Abnormal 12-lead Electrocardiogram (ECG)PR interval percent increase >=25/50%0 Participants
LiraglutideNumber of Participants With Abnormal 12-lead Electrocardiogram (ECG)QTcF >480 - <=500 msec0 Participants
LiraglutideNumber of Participants With Abnormal 12-lead Electrocardiogram (ECG)QRS interval percent increase >=25/50%0 Participants
LiraglutideNumber of Participants With Abnormal 12-lead Electrocardiogram (ECG)QTcF >450 - <=480 msec2 Participants
LiraglutideNumber of Participants With Abnormal 12-lead Electrocardiogram (ECG)QTcF increase >30 - <=60 msec2 Participants
LiraglutideNumber of Participants With Abnormal 12-lead Electrocardiogram (ECG)QTcF >500 msec0 Participants
LiraglutideNumber of Participants With Abnormal 12-lead Electrocardiogram (ECG)QTcF increase >60 msec0 Participants
LiraglutideNumber of Participants With Abnormal 12-lead Electrocardiogram (ECG)PR interval >=300 milliseconds (msec)0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Abnormal 12-lead Electrocardiogram (ECG)QTcF increase >60 msec0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Abnormal 12-lead Electrocardiogram (ECG)PR interval >=300 milliseconds (msec)0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Abnormal 12-lead Electrocardiogram (ECG)QRS interval >=200 msec0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Abnormal 12-lead Electrocardiogram (ECG)QTcF >450 - <=480 msec2 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Abnormal 12-lead Electrocardiogram (ECG)QTcF >480 - <=500 msec0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Abnormal 12-lead Electrocardiogram (ECG)QTcF >500 msec0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Abnormal 12-lead Electrocardiogram (ECG)PR interval percent increase >=25/50%0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Abnormal 12-lead Electrocardiogram (ECG)QRS interval percent increase >=25/50%0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Abnormal 12-lead Electrocardiogram (ECG)QTcF increase >30 - <=60 msec1 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants With Laboratory Abnormalities (Without Regard to Baseline Abnormality)

Below parameters were evaluated:1), Hematology: hemoglobin (HGB), hematocrit, erythrocytes (absolute value/mean corpuscular volume/mean corpuscular HGB/mean corpuscular HGB concentration), platelets, leukocytes, lymphocytes, neutrophils, basophils, monocytes; 2), clinical chemistry: bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, protein, albumin, blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, sodium, potassium, chloride, calcium, bicarbonate, amylase, triacylglycerol lipase; 3), urinalysis: pH, urine glucose, ketones, urine protein, urine hemoglobin, urobilinogen, urine bilirubin, nitrite, leukocyte esterase, urine erythrocytes, urine leukocytes, hyaline casts, bacteria.

Time frame: Baseline (Visit 3) up to Visit 6 (Study Day 53)

Population: All participants who received at least one dose of study medication classified according to the actual study treatment received.

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
LiraglutideNumber of Participants With Laboratory Abnormalities (Without Regard to Baseline Abnormality)32 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Laboratory Abnormalities (Without Regard to Baseline Abnormality)26 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All-Causality)

Adverse event (AE) was defined as any untoward medical occurrence in a study participant administered a product or medical device, regardless of its causal relationship with study treatment. An AE is considered treatment-emergent relative to a given treatment if: the event occurs for the first time during the effective duration of treatment and was not seen prior to the start of treatment (for example, during the baseline or run-in period); or the event was seen prior to the start of treatment but increased in severity during treatment.

Time frame: Baseline (Visit 3) up to 31 days post last dose (75 days)

Population: The safety analysis population included all participants who received at least one dose of study medication classified according to the actual study treatment received.

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
LiraglutideNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All-Causality)31 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All-Causality)20 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants With Vital Signs Data Meeting Categorical Criteria

Absolute values and changes from baseline in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), pulse rate (PR) were recorded in supine position. Vital signs categorical summarization criteria were 1), blood pressure: SBP greater than or equal to (\>=) 30 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg) change from baseline, SBP less than (\<) 90 mm Hg; DBP \>=20 mm Hg change from baseline, DBP \<50 mm Hg; 2), PR \<40 or greater than (\>) 120 beats per minute (bpm). Baseline was defined as pre-treatment measurement on Day 1.

Time frame: Baseline (Visit 3) up to Visit 6 (Study Day 53)

Population: All participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication classified according to the actual study treatment received. Follow-up readings have been excluded from presentation, and 4 participants have been excluded from presentation because they only have follow up readings in post-dose phase.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
LiraglutideNumber of Participants With Vital Signs Data Meeting Categorical CriteriaSupine DBP <50 mmHg3 Participants
LiraglutideNumber of Participants With Vital Signs Data Meeting Categorical CriteriaSupine PR <40 bpm0 Participants
LiraglutideNumber of Participants With Vital Signs Data Meeting Categorical CriteriaSupine PR >120 bpm0 Participants
LiraglutideNumber of Participants With Vital Signs Data Meeting Categorical CriteriaSupine SBP <90 mmHg1 Participants
LiraglutideNumber of Participants With Vital Signs Data Meeting Categorical CriteriaIncrease in supine DBP >=20 mmHg3 Participants
LiraglutideNumber of Participants With Vital Signs Data Meeting Categorical CriteriaIncrease in supine SBP >=30 mmHg1 Participants
LiraglutideNumber of Participants With Vital Signs Data Meeting Categorical CriteriaDecrease in supine DBP >=20 mmHg3 Participants
LiraglutideNumber of Participants With Vital Signs Data Meeting Categorical CriteriaDecrease in supine SBP >=30 mmHg1 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Vital Signs Data Meeting Categorical CriteriaDecrease in supine SBP >=30 mmHg0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Vital Signs Data Meeting Categorical CriteriaSupine DBP <50 mmHg5 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Vital Signs Data Meeting Categorical CriteriaIncrease in supine DBP >=20 mmHg1 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Vital Signs Data Meeting Categorical CriteriaSupine PR <40 bpm0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Vital Signs Data Meeting Categorical CriteriaDecrease in supine DBP >=20 mmHg9 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Vital Signs Data Meeting Categorical CriteriaSupine PR >120 bpm0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Vital Signs Data Meeting Categorical CriteriaIncrease in supine SBP >=30 mmHg1 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Vital Signs Data Meeting Categorical CriteriaSupine SBP <90 mmHg2 Participants

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026