Jessica R Castle1, Joseph El Youssef2, Deborah Branigan2, Brett Newswanger3, Poul Strange4, Martin Cummins3, Leon Shi5, Steven Prestrelski3. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Harold Schnitzer Diabetes Health Center Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA castleje@ohsu.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Harold Schnitzer Diabetes Health Center Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. 3. Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Austin, TX, USA. 4. Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Austin, TX, USA Integrated Medical Development, Princeton Junction, NJ, USA. 5. Integrated Medical Development, Princeton Junction, NJ, USA.
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.
RCT Entities:
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.
Authors: Nicholas Caputo; Jessica R Castle; Colin P Bergstrom; Julie M Carroll; Parkash A Bakhtiani; Melanie A Jackson; Charles T Roberts; Larry L David; W Kenneth Ward Journal: Peptides Date: 2013-05-04 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Morey W Haymond; Maria J Redondo; Siripoom McKay; Martin J Cummins; Brett Newswanger; John Kinzell; Steven Prestrelski Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-02-09 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Steven J Russell; Firas H El-Khatib; Manasi Sinha; Kendra L Magyar; Katherine McKeon; Laura G Goergen; Courtney Balliro; Mallory A Hillard; David M Nathan; Edward R Damiano Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-06-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ruth S Weinstock; Dongyuan Xing; David M Maahs; Aaron Michels; Michael R Rickels; Anne L Peters; Richard M Bergenstal; Breanne Harris; Stephanie N Dubose; Kellee M Miller; Roy W Beck Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2013-06-12 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Alejandro J Laguna Sanz; Christopher M Mulla; Kristen M Fowler; Emilie Cloutier; Allison B Goldfine; Brett Newswanger; Martin Cummins; Sunil Deshpande; Steven J Prestrelski; Poul Strange; Howard Zisser; Francis J Doyle; Eyal Dassau; Mary-Elizabeth Patti Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Caitlin L Maikawa; Andrea I d'Aquino; Rayhan A Lal; Bruce A Buckingham; Eric A Appel Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2021-01-27 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Christopher M Mulla; Stamatina Zavitsanou; Alejandro Jose Laguna Sanz; David Pober; Lauren Richardson; Pamela Walcott; Ipsa Arora; Brett Newswanger; Martin J Cummins; Steve J Prestrelski; Francis J Doyle; Eyal Dassau; Mary Elizabeth Patti Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Ingrid Anna Teigen; Marte Kierulf Åm; Sven Magnus Carlsen; Sverre Christian Christiansen Journal: Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet Date: 2021-06-07 Impact factor: 2.441