Pill alternative to Ozempic closer to hitting Australian shelves
Game-changing diabetes pills could hit Australian shelves within years, offering an alternative to popular injectable treatments like Ozempic that have been plagued with supply issues.
That's the prediction from Australian diabetes experts, as the first phase three clinical trial data was released for a new type of medicine that lowers blood sugar.
Once-a-day pill Orforglipron was shown to imitate a naturally occurring hormone that helps regulate blood sugar and appetite, according to the study published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine.
'It's really, really exciting,' Australian Diabetes Society chief executive Associate Professor Sof Andrikopoulos told AAP.
'The reduction in blood glucose and weight with Orforglipron is similar, if not a little bit better, than the similar clinical trials that were done for Ozempic and Mounjaro.'
The results of the trials, involving 500 adults with type 2 diabetes, were unveiled at the American Diabetes Association annual meeting in Chicago over the weekend.
Reported side effects were similar to existing medications like gastrointestinal issues, while the drug company did not flag any unexpected safety concerns.
The trial focused on diabetes treatment and not specifically weight loss.
Other oral diabetes medications already exist but this medication is significant as it's the first synthetic treatment to reach phase three trials, Prof Andrikopoulos said.
He expected approval from the Therapeutic Goods Administration would be 'reasonable straightforward' once it receives an application by drug developer Eli Lilly, which also makes Mounjaro.
The synthetic chemical is easier to make than other drugs involving modified peptides and doesn't need to be refrigerated, hoping it would be cheaper and easier to transport to remote areas than injectable treatments.
'These are potentially disease modifying therapies, and in that respect it's a game-changer,' Prof Andrikopoulos said.
'In terms of managing types of diabetes and obesity, I think we are at the cusp of being able to make a significant impact on reducing obesity in Australia and around the world.'
Sydney-based Endocrinologist Associate Professor Ted Wu treats many patients with diabetes and said physicians had been 'crying out' for oral alternatives to incretin injections.
While optimistic about the findings, he cautioned it was not a 'head to head' trial measuring the effectiveness of Orforglipron against injections but said it appears the results were very similar.
'As it stands, this looks like it offers all the advantages of the current incretin injections, but with all the advantages of an oral once-a-day medication and hopefully with far fewer supply issues,' he said.
Prof Wu said looking at past performance, the TGA would probably take between 12 and 24 months to approve the new drug.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
3 hours ago
- The Age
IVF ‘add-ons' are a toxic cherry on a cake iced with desperation and hope
Not all patients who seek fertility treatment are desperate like I was when I sought the help of an IVF specialist. But like anyone seeking medical intervention, IVF patients are vulnerable, often feel powerless and have dreams of starting or completing their family. Often they have also traversed varying forms of grief and loss. When this is combined with a profit-driven industry, you have a recipe for disaster. The IVF process is horrendously expensive and incredibly invasive. Statistically, only one in four transferred embryos will result in a live birth. Of the people who don't get pregnant on their first try, only half will get to a third attempt. The most cited reason for abandoning treatment is 'psychological stress'. Put simply: no one would choose to have IVF for shits and giggles. In the past two months, we've seen two cases of Monash IVF admitting to transferring the wrong embryos into patients, two other major clinics provide incorrect information to sperm donors, and a class action against a number of IVF companies for add-on genetic testing that may have incorrectly found embryos were 'abnormal', settle for $56 million. Nowhere is the toxic combination of 'baby want' and profit-seeking more evident than IVF add-ons. These additional 'treatments' are offered to allegedly improve the likelihood of a live birth. Examples include endometrial scratching (scratching the uterine lining to improve the chance of implantation), assisted hatching (a small hole is made in the outer layer of the embryo to aid implantation), and embryo glue (believed to improve embryo attachment to the uterine wall). The cost of these additional treatments can range into the thousands of dollars, but research published by the University of Melbourne in 2021 found that '77 per cent of the 40 Australian IVF clinic websites analysed make 'unsubstantiated claims of benefit about add-ons'. Loading Dr Karin Hammarberg, a senior research fellow at Monash University's School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine who has extensively researched IVF add-ons, says some add-ons have little to no evidence to support their use, and in some cases may have adverse effects. Though none of these add-ons are mandatory, when you speak to a vulnerable person spending thousands of dollars on a treatment and suggest, even subliminally, that these extra treatment options might improve their chances of realising their family, of course they're going to pony up. Speaking to this masthead last week after the latest bungle came to light, Professor Gab Kovacs, who spent decades in the Australian IVF sector, said that what happened 'is human error, and it will happen again,' adding, 'Probably, there are other mix-ups at other clinics that we don't know about.' It's chilling to consider.
Sydney Morning Herald
3 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
IVF ‘add-ons' are a toxic cherry on a cake iced with desperation and hope
Not all patients who seek fertility treatment are desperate like I was when I sought the help of an IVF specialist. But like anyone seeking medical intervention, IVF patients are vulnerable, often feel powerless and have dreams of starting or completing their family. Often they have also traversed varying forms of grief and loss. When this is combined with a profit-driven industry, you have a recipe for disaster. The IVF process is horrendously expensive and incredibly invasive. Statistically, only one in four transferred embryos will result in a live birth. Of the people who don't get pregnant on their first try, only half will get to a third attempt. The most cited reason for abandoning treatment is 'psychological stress'. Put simply: no one would choose to have IVF for shits and giggles. In the past two months, we've seen two cases of Monash IVF admitting to transferring the wrong embryos into patients, two other major clinics provide incorrect information to sperm donors, and a class action against a number of IVF companies for add-on genetic testing that may have incorrectly found embryos were 'abnormal', settle for $56 million. Nowhere is the toxic combination of 'baby want' and profit-seeking more evident than IVF add-ons. These additional 'treatments' are offered to allegedly improve the likelihood of a live birth. Examples include endometrial scratching (scratching the uterine lining to improve the chance of implantation), assisted hatching (a small hole is made in the outer layer of the embryo to aid implantation), and embryo glue (believed to improve embryo attachment to the uterine wall). The cost of these additional treatments can range into the thousands of dollars, but research published by the University of Melbourne in 2021 found that '77 per cent of the 40 Australian IVF clinic websites analysed make 'unsubstantiated claims of benefit about add-ons'. Loading Dr Karin Hammarberg, a senior research fellow at Monash University's School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine who has extensively researched IVF add-ons, says some add-ons have little to no evidence to support their use, and in some cases may have adverse effects. Though none of these add-ons are mandatory, when you speak to a vulnerable person spending thousands of dollars on a treatment and suggest, even subliminally, that these extra treatment options might improve their chances of realising their family, of course they're going to pony up. Speaking to this masthead last week after the latest bungle came to light, Professor Gab Kovacs, who spent decades in the Australian IVF sector, said that what happened 'is human error, and it will happen again,' adding, 'Probably, there are other mix-ups at other clinics that we don't know about.' It's chilling to consider.
ABC News
3 hours ago
- ABC News
Lab-grown meat has just been approved for consumption in Australia. What is it and how is it made?
In a kitchen in inner Sydney, chef Kevin Condon is listing the ingredients that go into his signature foie gras dish. Most aren't too striking: garlic, brandy, butter. But one is so rare that it's only just been approved for consumption in Australia. This foie gras, a specialty dish made from liver, is derived from Japanese quail — which is an uncommon sighting on any menu. But the meat itself didn't come from any slaughtered animal. It was "grown" from real meat cells in a factory. It's conventionally known as "lab-grown" or cell-cultured meat and has just been deemed safe to eat by Australia's food regulator. The novel food product is made by multiplying individual cells (taken from an animal, dead or alive) in a large tank of liquid, much like at a brewery, and then turning that paste into a food product, such as foie gras or mince. "We put the cells in a nutrient broth that is essentially recreating a lot of the conditions in which cells grow in our body. "There's amino acids, sugars … and that is what is actually allowing the cells to grow in a way that's very similar to what you'd see in a brewery," Ellen Dinsmoor explains on a recent tour of a lab-grown meat factory in Sydney. Ms Dinsmoor is the chief operating officer of Vow, one of two lab-grown meat startups in Australia. The other is Melbourne-based Magic Valley, whose business strategy is different, targeting the mass-market consumer with its mince products. After a two-year-long process, Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) has given the green light for Vow's product to be sold for consumption. The cultured Japanese quail foie gras is expected to be landing on the plates of diners in a few high-end restaurants in Sydney and Melbourne within months, if all goes to plan for the company. In their decision, FSANZ said: "Our assessment concluded that the product is safe for human consumption and presents no toxicological, nutritional or allergenic concerns. "The quail cell line was found to be genetically stable, and microbiological risks associated with its production can be effectively managed through established food safety controls." Despite this decision by the regulator, and the fact that cultivated meat has been made for well over a decade, only a handful of countries around the world have approved it as safe for sale, and Italy as well as several US states have banned it. Curtain University sustainability expert Dora Marinova says the industry has a way to go to convince consumers it's safe and nutritious to eat. "There isn't that much enthusiasm, mainly because people are not familiar with the product and also particularly young people are very sceptical," Professor Marinova tells ABC News, while tucking into a salad wrap at a Perth cafe. Because lab-grown meat companies are starting from scratch — literally, with an animal's microscopic individual cells — the world is their oyster in terms of what creatures they can make into meat. "We can grow meat from any animal," Ms Dinsmoor explains, standing in the company's headquarters in front of a brainstorming whiteboard that includes ideas such as crocodile medallions and shark fin soup. "We look at all of the animals out there and we say, what would taste the most delicious? What would be the most nutritious for people? "Our cell library has over 50 different types of cells in it!" Vow even made a "woolly mammoth meatball" (made from cultured cells from the DNA of woolly mammoths and African elephants) two years ago in a publicity stunt to showcase the potential of its technology — though no one actually ate it. The creators of Vow say they first designed the product to address global food shortages, where current systems don't produce enough food to feed a growing global population. However, Ms Dinsmoor admits cell-cultured meat is not currently a viable alternative to conventional farmed meat, as it could not yet be produced at a large enough scale. "I'd love to say it is, but this facility you see behind me is actually the largest operational cultured meat facility in the world. "And right now what you see here, while impressive, can't feed all of Australia, let alone many other countries," she tells The Business, from Vow's factory in inner Sydney, where a giant bioreactor is currently "growing" meat cells for their product. Other key industry claims include that lab-made meat is more environmentally friendly as it does not require large farmland for animals to be grown, and that it is more ethical as the animal does not have to be slaughtered to produce meat. Monash University biotechnology research scientist Paul Wood says, at present, the process of making lab-grown meat is quite energy intensive: "So unless you're using totally renewable energy, then you're not going to be more sustainable on an energy basis." Aside from considerations such as the safety of the product and ethical claims, the other key question is commercial: will people buy it? Curtin University's Professor Marinova has been studying cell-cultured meat and the views of consumers. "People are curious … but whether they will stick to this choice when there are other alternatives is something that the industry will need to be prepared to respond to in a way that they can attract, sustain and maintain interest in the consumers." She says a degree of hesitancy or uncertainty still exists about the product, even now it has been approved for sale by the food regulator. Professor Marinova has been speaking to gen Z consumers in particular, who she says are "not confident at all" about the product, yet. "They're quite innovative as [a] generation … they're actually quite curious, they are quite inquisitive, and they are open to new dietary choices. "As long as we have the right messages and the right information, they can probably be convinced. But at the moment they're not." She says for younger consumers in particular, the perception of the product being more environmentally friendly was a key selling point. "Most of these businesses are building on the environmental concerns that people have because there is more awareness of the high environmental footprint of the food choices that we have, and particularly meat and red meat has a very, very high associated greenhouse gas emissions, land use." Vow's Ellen Dinsmoor says the carbon footprint of cell-based meat had the potential to be lower, given it could be produced in an inner-city lab like theirs. The high costs and energy use associated with making lab-grown meat at this stage have meant it is largely a niche product, according to Professor Wood. "I've always said it'll remain a niche product — a niche product in high-value markets." He says the industry has recently faced challenges from cost pressures and a drop in investor interest in the alternative meat sector. "I think the biggest issue is cost and scale. This is an expensive product to make. You need special equipment, you need expensive media [the liquid chemicals in which the cells grow]." Some startups will find scaling up a challenge because of the high production cost and lack of funding interest for the sector currently, Professor Wood notes. Vow's Ms Dinsmoor confirms the drop-off in investment interest. "Food tech is not the space to be right now — artificial intelligence is, and especially because the plant-based sector, which we're often lumped in with, has not done well over the last few years," she says. Based on the current trajectory, Professor Wood said the global market could shrink further as companies consolidated. "I think we're up to about 170 companies around the world. We are already seeing some of those companies either going out of business or being purchased," he observed. Professor Dora Marinova believes lab-grown meat would likely remain as a complementary food product, rather than replace conventionally farmed meat altogether. While Sydney-based Vow had plans to grow off the back of approvals from Food Standards Australia, earlier this year they were forced to lay off 25 per cent of their staff. "Right now, we don't have the time or budget to double down on research and development," Ms Dinsmoor explained. "Most of the folks affected by those lay-offs in January were scientists, engineers, many of whom had been with the company since its earliest days. She says the company hopes to be selling at a profitable margin within the first few months of launching their quail product in Australia this year.
