Dataset Information

Comparative Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Study of Liquid Stable Glucagon Versus Lyophilized Glucagon in Type 1 Diabetes Subjects.

ABSTRACT: 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®.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.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 ?g/kg dose (13.9 ± 4.7 min) compared with GlucaGen treatment at the 2.0 ?g/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.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.

SUBMITTER: Castle JR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5032962 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Study of Liquid Stable Glucagon Versus Lyophilized Glucagon in Type 1 Diabetes Subjects.

Castle Jessica R JR Youssef Joseph El JE Branigan Deborah D Newswanger Brett B Strange Poul P Cummins Martin M Shi Leon L Prestrelski Steven S

Journal of diabetes science and technology 20160822 5

<h4>Background</h4>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®.<h4>Methods</h4>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-P ...[more]

PMID: 27325390

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAbsorption of current rapid-acting insulins is too slow for patients with diabetes mellitus to achieve optimal postprandial glucose control. Faster-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) is insulin aspart in a new formulation with faster early absorption. We compared the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties of faster aspart and insulin aspart across a clinically relevant dose range.MethodsIn this randomised, double-blind, crossover trial, 46 subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus received single subcutaneous doses of faster aspart and insulin aspart at 0.1, 0.2 (repeated three times to estimate within-subject variability) and 0.4 U/kg in a euglycaemic clamp setting (target 5.5 mmol/L).ResultsConsistently for the three doses, faster aspart demonstrated faster onset and greater early absorption and glucose-lowering effect versus insulin aspart. Across all three doses, onset of appearance occurred approximately twice as fast (approximately 5 min earlier) and early insulin exposure (AUCIAsp,0-30min) was approximately 1.5- to 2-fold greater for faster aspart versus insulin aspart. Likewise, onset of action occurred approximately 5 min faster and early glucose-lowering effect (AUCGIR,0-30min) was approximately 1.5- to 2-fold larger for faster aspart versus insulin aspart. Relative bioavailability was approximately 100% and total glucose-lowering effect was similar for faster aspart versus insulin aspart. Dose-concentration and dose-response relationships were comparable between faster aspart and insulin aspart. Within-subject variability in glucose-lowering effect was low for faster aspart (coefficient of variation approximately 20%) and not significantly different from insulin aspart.ConclusionThe faster onset and greater early insulin exposure and glucose-lowering effect with faster aspart versus insulin aspart are preserved across a broad range of doses and consistently observed from day to day. CLINICALTRIALS.Gov identifierNCT02033239.

Project description:Rosuvastatin and ezetimibe are commonly applied in lipid-lowering pharmacotherapy. However, the pharmacokinetic (PK) interaction was not clear by the coadministration of rosuvastatin and ezetimibe. This study investigated the pharmacodynamic (PD) and PK interactions between rosuvastatin and ezetimibe through a crossover clinical trial.A randomized, open-label, multiple-dose, two-treatment, two-period, two-sequence crossover study with two treatment parts was conducted in healthy male subjects. Study part A involved rosuvastatin, and study part B involved ezetimibe. A total of 25 subjects in both parts completed the PK and PD evaluations. Rosuvastatin (20 mg) or ezetimibe (10 mg) was administered once daily for 7 days as monotherapy or co-therapy. The plasma concentrations of rosuvastatin, total ezetimibe and free ezetimibe were measured for 72 h after day 7. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and total cholesterol (TC) were investigated for the PD assessments on day 1 (pretreatment) and day 8.Rosuvastatin and ezetimibe presented multiple peaks. The 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean ratios for the peak plasma concentration at steady state (Cmax,ss) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve during the dosing interval at steady state (AUC?,ss) of rosuvastatin and total ezetimibe were within the range 0.8-1.25. However, the coadministration increased the systemic exposure of free ezetimibe. In the PD assessments, rosuvastatin and ezetimibe monotherapy reduced the LDL-C and TC levels effectively. In addition, the lipid-lowering effects of the coadministration corresponded to an approximate summation of the effects of rosuvastatin and ezetimibe monotherapy. However, no significant changes in HDL-C were observed with rosuvastatin or ezetimibe treatment. No significant safety issue was noted.The coadministration of rosuvastatin and ezetimibe revealed a bioequivalent PK interaction. Additional lipid-lowering effects, including decreased LDL-C and TC, were observed as expected in combination therapy without significant safety concern.

Dataset Information

Comparative Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Study of Liquid Stable Glucagon Versus Lyophilized Glucagon in Type 1 Diabetes Subjects.

Publications

Comparative Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Study of Liquid Stable Glucagon Versus Lyophilized Glucagon in Type 1 Diabetes Subjects.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure