Therapeutic uses of gastrointestinal peptides

The GI tract is one of nature's great pharmacies. Most, if not all, biologically active peptides can be found there, and it is quite likely that others remain to be discovered. Our ability to exploit this resource has expanded considerably over the past two decades. Advances in analytical techniques have allowed investigators to rapidly isolate and purify new compounds from tissue extracts. Sequencing and de novo synthesis of newly discovered peptides are now routine, and the structural modifications required to alter activity and tailor a compound to a particular use are easily made. A number of gastrointestinal peptides or their analogues for use in clinical studies are available from commercial sources (see Table 7). Somatostatin is the first gut peptide to successfully complete development and yield a pharmaceutical compound with a broad range of action. Several of the peptides discussed in this article have similar potential. TRH stands out as a candidate because of its effectiveness in the treatment of experimental spinal cord injury and a variety of shock states. Such a broad range of action in critical fields may justify the intensive development required to yield potent, long-acting, and highly specific analogues. Similarly, the antimetastatic and immunostimulant properties of the enkephalins offer promise for new therapies in the treatment of AIDS, ARC, and cancer. Studies with amylin may lead to new and more precise regimens of blood sugar control in insulin-dependent diabetics and could in turn, prevent some of the worst long-term effects of the disease. The development of effective intranasal forms of GHRH could spare children with GH-GHRH deficiency the distress of repeated injections and help to prevent excessive GH blood levels. Secretin, glucagon, or CGRP might be used one day in cardiovascular emergencies, and VIP or its analogues could prove effective in the treatment of asthma. Although preliminary results with many of these peptides are encouraging, further progress will require the development of standardized experimental models and a more rigorous approach to experimental design. Many of the studies reported here suffered from small patient numbers, a narrow or nonexistent range of doses, or the use of only one or two dosing regimens. Lack of objective criteria for determining the level of response, e.g., in studies of mental illness or degenerative diseases, and the ethical problems of withholding treatment from some patients to establish proper controls further hamper research in this area. If the questions of efficacy and safety are to be resolved, thorough, well-planned trials will be required.