Comparative pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study of liquid stable glucagon versus lyophilized glucagon in type 1 diabetes subjects

Jessica Castle, Joseph El Youssef, Deborah Branigan, Brett Newswanger, Poul Strange, Martin Cummins, Leon Shi, Steven Prestrelski

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: There is currently no stable liquid form of glucagon commercially available. The aim of this study is to assess the speed of absorption and onset of action of G-Pump™ glucagon at 3 doses as compared to GlucaGen®, all delivered subcutaneously via an OmniPod®. Methods: Nineteen adult subjects with type 1 diabetes participated in this Phase 2, randomized, double-blind, cross-over, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study. Subjects were given 0.3, 1.2, and 2.0 μg/kg each of G-Pump glucagon and GlucaGen via an OmniPod. Results: G-Pump glucagon effectively increased blood glucose levels in a dose-dependent fashion with a glucose Cmax of 183, 200, and 210 mg/dL at doses of 0.3, 1.2, and 2.0 μg/kg, respectively (P = ns vs GlucaGen). Mean increases in blood glucose from baseline were 29.2, 52.9, and 77.7 mg/dL for G-Pump doses of 0.3, 1.2, and 2.0 μg/kg, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between treatments in the glucose T50%-early or glucagon T50%-early with one exception. The glucagon T50%-early was greater following G-Pump treatment at the 2.0 μg/kg dose (13.9 ± 4.7 min) compared with GlucaGen treatment at the 2.0 μg/kg dose (11.0 ± 3.1 min, P = .018). There was more pain and erythema at the infusion site with G-Pump as compared to GlucaGen. No serious adverse events were reported, and no unexpected safety issues were observed. Conclusions: G-Pump glucagon is a novel, stable glucagon formulation with similar PK/PD properties as GlucaGen, but was associated with more pain and infusion site reactions as the dose increased, as compared to GlucaGen.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1101-1107
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of diabetes science and technology
Volume10
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 2016

Fingerprint

Pharmacodynamics
Pharmacokinetics
Medical problems
Glucagon
Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus
Pumps
Liquids
Glucose
Blood
Blood Glucose
Pain
Erythema
Therapeutics
Safety

Keywords

  • Artificial pancreas
  • Glucagon
  • Hypoglycemia
  • Type 1 diabetes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine
  • Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
  • Bioengineering
  • Medicine(all)
  • Biomedical Engineering

Cite this

Comparative pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study of liquid stable glucagon versus lyophilized glucagon in type 1 diabetes subjects. / Castle, Jessica; El Youssef, Joseph; Branigan, Deborah; Newswanger, Brett; Strange, Poul; Cummins, Martin; Shi, Leon; Prestrelski, Steven.

In: Journal of diabetes science and technology, Vol. 10, No. 5, 2016, p. 1101-1107.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Castle, Jessica ; El Youssef, Joseph ; Branigan, Deborah ; Newswanger, Brett ; Strange, Poul ; Cummins, Martin ; Shi, Leon ; Prestrelski, Steven. / Comparative pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study of liquid stable glucagon versus lyophilized glucagon in type 1 diabetes subjects. In: Journal of diabetes science and technology. 2016 ; Vol. 10, No. 5. pp. 1101-1107.
@article{f7eb9128146840d98d01e1f58a42fe82,
title = "Comparative pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study of liquid stable glucagon versus lyophilized glucagon in type 1 diabetes subjects",
abstract = "Background: There is currently no stable liquid form of glucagon commercially available. The aim of this study is to assess the speed of absorption and onset of action of G-Pump™ glucagon at 3 doses as compared to GlucaGen{\circledR}, all delivered subcutaneously via an OmniPod{\circledR}. Methods: Nineteen adult subjects with type 1 diabetes participated in this Phase 2, randomized, double-blind, cross-over, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study. Subjects were given 0.3, 1.2, and 2.0 μg/kg each of G-Pump glucagon and GlucaGen via an OmniPod. Results: G-Pump glucagon effectively increased blood glucose levels in a dose-dependent fashion with a glucose Cmax of 183, 200, and 210 mg/dL at doses of 0.3, 1.2, and 2.0 μg/kg, respectively (P = ns vs GlucaGen). Mean increases in blood glucose from baseline were 29.2, 52.9, and 77.7 mg/dL for G-Pump doses of 0.3, 1.2, and 2.0 μg/kg, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between treatments in the glucose T50{\%}-early or glucagon T50{\%}-early with one exception. The glucagon T50{\%}-early was greater following G-Pump treatment at the 2.0 μg/kg dose (13.9 ± 4.7 min) compared with GlucaGen treatment at the 2.0 μg/kg dose (11.0 ± 3.1 min, P = .018). There was more pain and erythema at the infusion site with G-Pump as compared to GlucaGen. No serious adverse events were reported, and no unexpected safety issues were observed. Conclusions: G-Pump glucagon is a novel, stable glucagon formulation with similar PK/PD properties as GlucaGen, but was associated with more pain and infusion site reactions as the dose increased, as compared to GlucaGen.",
keywords = "Artificial pancreas, Glucagon, Hypoglycemia, Type 1 diabetes",
author = "Jessica Castle and {El Youssef}, Joseph and Deborah Branigan and Brett Newswanger and Poul Strange and Martin Cummins and Leon Shi and Steven Prestrelski",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1177/1932296816653141",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "1101--1107",
journal = "Journal of diabetes science and technology",
issn = "1932-2968",
publisher = "Diabetes Technology Society",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study of liquid stable glucagon versus lyophilized glucagon in type 1 diabetes subjects

AU - Castle, Jessica

AU - El Youssef, Joseph

AU - Branigan, Deborah

AU - Newswanger, Brett

AU - Strange, Poul

AU - Cummins, Martin

AU - Shi, Leon

AU - Prestrelski, Steven

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Background: There is currently no stable liquid form of glucagon commercially available. The aim of this study is to assess the speed of absorption and onset of action of G-Pump™ glucagon at 3 doses as compared to GlucaGen®, all delivered subcutaneously via an OmniPod®. Methods: Nineteen adult subjects with type 1 diabetes participated in this Phase 2, randomized, double-blind, cross-over, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study. Subjects were given 0.3, 1.2, and 2.0 μg/kg each of G-Pump glucagon and GlucaGen via an OmniPod. Results: G-Pump glucagon effectively increased blood glucose levels in a dose-dependent fashion with a glucose Cmax of 183, 200, and 210 mg/dL at doses of 0.3, 1.2, and 2.0 μg/kg, respectively (P = ns vs GlucaGen). Mean increases in blood glucose from baseline were 29.2, 52.9, and 77.7 mg/dL for G-Pump doses of 0.3, 1.2, and 2.0 μg/kg, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between treatments in the glucose T50%-early or glucagon T50%-early with one exception. The glucagon T50%-early was greater following G-Pump treatment at the 2.0 μg/kg dose (13.9 ± 4.7 min) compared with GlucaGen treatment at the 2.0 μg/kg dose (11.0 ± 3.1 min, P = .018). There was more pain and erythema at the infusion site with G-Pump as compared to GlucaGen. No serious adverse events were reported, and no unexpected safety issues were observed. Conclusions: G-Pump glucagon is a novel, stable glucagon formulation with similar PK/PD properties as GlucaGen, but was associated with more pain and infusion site reactions as the dose increased, as compared to GlucaGen.

AB - Background: There is currently no stable liquid form of glucagon commercially available. The aim of this study is to assess the speed of absorption and onset of action of G-Pump™ glucagon at 3 doses as compared to GlucaGen®, all delivered subcutaneously via an OmniPod®. Methods: Nineteen adult subjects with type 1 diabetes participated in this Phase 2, randomized, double-blind, cross-over, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study. Subjects were given 0.3, 1.2, and 2.0 μg/kg each of G-Pump glucagon and GlucaGen via an OmniPod. Results: G-Pump glucagon effectively increased blood glucose levels in a dose-dependent fashion with a glucose Cmax of 183, 200, and 210 mg/dL at doses of 0.3, 1.2, and 2.0 μg/kg, respectively (P = ns vs GlucaGen). Mean increases in blood glucose from baseline were 29.2, 52.9, and 77.7 mg/dL for G-Pump doses of 0.3, 1.2, and 2.0 μg/kg, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between treatments in the glucose T50%-early or glucagon T50%-early with one exception. The glucagon T50%-early was greater following G-Pump treatment at the 2.0 μg/kg dose (13.9 ± 4.7 min) compared with GlucaGen treatment at the 2.0 μg/kg dose (11.0 ± 3.1 min, P = .018). There was more pain and erythema at the infusion site with G-Pump as compared to GlucaGen. No serious adverse events were reported, and no unexpected safety issues were observed. Conclusions: G-Pump glucagon is a novel, stable glucagon formulation with similar PK/PD properties as GlucaGen, but was associated with more pain and infusion site reactions as the dose increased, as compared to GlucaGen.

KW - Artificial pancreas

KW - Glucagon

KW - Hypoglycemia

KW - Type 1 diabetes

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85012950019&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85012950019&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1932296816653141

DO - 10.1177/1932296816653141

M3 - Article

C2 - 27325390

AN - SCOPUS:85012950019

VL - 10

SP - 1101

EP - 1107

JO - Journal of diabetes science and technology

JF - Journal of diabetes science and technology

SN - 1932-2968

IS - 5

ER -