Glucagon for hypoglycemic episodes in insulin-treated diabetic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis with a comparison of glucagon with dextrose and of different glucagon formulations

Clinical Pharmacology of Glucagon

Glucagon was discovered about a hundred years ago and its role in health and disease is under continuous investigation. Glucagon is a counter regulatory hormone secreted by alpha cells of the pancreas in response to multiple stimuli. Although some of glucagon's actions and its clinical application have been described, clinical experience with glucagon has been historically overshadowed by that of insulin. To date, the role of glucagon's actions in pharmacotherapy has been under explored. Glucagon plays a considerable role as a hormonal regulator via its known actions on the liver. The rise in obesity and diabetes mellitus prevalence is bringing focus to glucagon's known physiological roles and possible clinical applications. Six glucagon products and a glucagon analog are approved for use in the United States. Clinical pharmacology studies provide crucial support of glucagon's actions as evident from comprehensive pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics evaluations in humans. Here, we briefly describe the established physiological role of glucagon in humans and its known relationship with disease. We later summarize the clinical pharmacology of available glucagon products with different routes of administration.

Emerging Adult and Caregiver Psychosocial Experiences with Severe Hypoglycemic Events and the Perceived Impact of Nasal Glucagon: A Cross-Sectional Study

INTRODUCTION

Severe hypoglycemic events are distressing. Although past studies have shown that young adulthood is a potentially distressing time, few studies have explored distress about severe hypoglycemia in this age group. The real-world psychosocial experiences of potential severe hypoglycemic events and the perceived impact of glucagon treatments like nasal glucagon are currently unknown. We explored perceptions of severe hypoglycemic events and impact of nasal glucagon on psychosocial experiences with these events in emerging adults with type 1 diabetes and caregivers of emerging adults and children/teens. Further, we compared perceptions of preparedness and protection in handling severe hypoglycemic events with nasal glucagon versus the emergency glucagon kit that requires reconstitution (e-kit).

METHODS

This observational, cross-sectional study enrolled emerging adults (aged 18-26; N = 364) with type 1 diabetes, caregivers of emerging adults (aged 18-26; N = 138) with type 1 diabetes, and caregivers of children/teens (aged 4-17; N = 315) with type 1 diabetes. Participants completed an online survey about their experiences with severe hypoglycemia, perceptions of nasal glucagon impact on psychosocial experiences, and perceptions of feeling prepared and protected with nasal glucagon and the e-kit.

RESULTS

Many emerging adults (63.7%) agreed that the experience of severe hypoglycemic events was distressing; 33.3% and 46.7% of caregivers of emerging adults and children/teens, respectively, reported distress. Participants reported positive perceptions of nasal glucagon impact, particularly improved confidence in other people's ability to help during severe hypoglycemic events: emerging adults, 81.4%; caregivers of emerging adults, 77.6%; caregivers of children/teens, 75.5%. Participants demonstrated higher perceptions of preparedness and protection for nasal glucagon than for the e-kit (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Participants reported improved confidence in other people's ability to help during severe hypoglycemic events since having nasal glucagon available. This suggests that nasal glucagon may help broaden the support network for young people with type 1 diabetes and their caregivers.

Treatment of insulin poisoning: A 100-year review

BACKGROUND

Insulin poisoning, as opposed to hypoglycaemia induced by therapeutic doses of insulin, is rare, and guidelines on management differ. We have reviewed the evidence on treatment of insulin poisoning.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE and J-Stage with no restrictions of date or language for controlled studies on treatment of insulin poisoning, collected published cases of insulin poisoning from 1923, and used data from the UK National Poisons Information Service.

RESULTS

We identified no controlled trials of treatment in insulin poisoning and few relevant experimental studies. Case reports described 315 admissions (301 patients) with insulin poisoning between 1923 and 2022. The insulin with the longest duration of action was long-acting in 83 cases, medium-acting in 116, short-acting in 36 and a rapid-acting analogue in 16. Decontamination by surgical excision of the injection site was reported in six cases. To restore and maintain euglycaemia, almost all cases were treated with glucose, infused for a median 51 hours, interquartile range 16-96 h in 179 cases; 14 patients received glucagon and nine octreotide; adrenaline was tried occasionally. Both corticosteroids and mannitol were occasionally given to mitigate hypoglycaemic brain damage. There were 29 deaths reported, 22/156 (86% survival) up to 1999 and 7/159 (96% survival) between 2000 and 2022 (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no randomized controlled trial to guide treatment of insulin poisoning. Treatment with glucose infusion, sometimes supplemented with glucagon, is almost always effective in restoring euglycaemia, but optimum treatments to maintain euglycaemia and restore cerebral function remain uncertain.

Glucagon for Neonatal Hypoglycaemia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Glucagon is often used in neonatal hypoglycaemia, but its effects have not been systematically assessed. We undertook a systematic review to determine the efficacy and safety of glucagon treatment for neonatal hypoglycaemia.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from inception until May 2021. We included studies that reported one or more prespecified outcomes and compared glucagon with placebo or no glucagon. Studies were excluded if the majority (>70%) of participants were >1 month of age. Two authors independently extracted data. We used ROB-2/modified ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias, GRADE for certainty of evidence, and RevMan for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

100 studies were screened, 37 reviewed in full, and seven single-arm non-randomised intervention studies, involving 348 infants, were included (no trials). Data were insufficient to undertake meta-analysis of the critical outcomes (time to blood glucose normalization, recurrent hypoglycaemia, neurocognitive impairment). In 3 studies, ≥80% of neonates achieved normoglycaemia within 4 h of glucagon administration. However, recurrent hypoglycaemia was common (up to 55%). Glucagon increased blood glucose concentration at 1-2 h by 2.3 mmol/L (95% CI 2.1, 2.5) (low certainty evidence, 6 studies, N = 323). There were few data for other important clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

There is a paucity of evidence about the efficacy and safety of glucagon for treatment of neonatal hypoglycaemia. Low certainty evidence suggests that glucagon may increase blood glucose by ∼2.3 mmol/L but recurrent hypoglycaemia appears common. High-quality, randomized controlled trials are required to determine the role of glucagon in managing neonatal hypoglycaemia.

New Fast Acting Glucagon for Recovery from Hypoglycemia, a Life-Threatening Situation: Nasal Powder and Injected Stable Solutions

The goal of diabetes care is to achieve and maintain good glycemic control over time, so as to prevent or delay the development of micro- and macrovascular complications in type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, numerous barriers hinder the achievement of this goal, first of all the frequent episodes of hypoglycemia typical in patients treated with insulin as T1D patients, or sulphonylureas as T2D patients. The prevention strategy and treatment of hypoglycemia are important for the well-being of patients with diabetes. Hypoglycemia is strongly associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease in diabetic patients, due probably to the release of inflammatory markers and prothrombotic effects triggered by hypoglycemia. Treatment of hypoglycemia is traditionally based on administration of carbohydrates or of glucagon via intramuscular (IM) or subcutaneous injection (SC). The injection of traditional glucagon is cumbersome, such that glucagon is an under-utilized drug. In 1983, it was shown for the first time that intranasal (IN) glucagon increases blood glucose levels in healthy volunteers, and in 1989-1992 that IN glucagon is similar to IM glucagon in resolving hypoglycemia in normal volunteers and in patients with diabetes, both adults and children. IN glucagon was developed in 2010 and continued in 2015; in 2019 IN glucagon obtained approval in the US, Canada, and Europe for severe hypoglycemia in children and adults. In the 2010s, two ready-to-use injectable formulations, a stable non-aqueous glucagon solution and the glucagon analog dasiglucagon, were developed, showing an efficacy similar to traditional glucagon, and approved in the US in 2020 and in 2021, respectively, for severe hypoglycemia in adults and in children. Fast-acting glucagon (nasal administration and injected solutions) appears to represent a major breakthrough in the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in insulin-treated patients with diabetes, both adults and children. It is anticipated that the availability of fast-acting glucagon will expand the use of glucagon, improve overall metabolic control, and prevent hypoglycemia-related complications, in particular cardiovascular complications and cognitive impairment.

Glucagon for hypoglycaemia treatment in type 1 diabetes

To achieve strict glycaemic control and avoid chronic diabetes complications, individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) are recommended to follow an intensive insulin regimen. However, the risk and fear of hypoglycaemia often prevent individuals from achieving the treatment goals. Apart from early insulin suspension in insulin pump users, carbohydrate ingestion is the only option for preventing and treating non-severe hypoglycaemic events. These rescue treatments may give extra calories and cause overweight. As an alternative, the use of low-dose glucagon to counter hypoglycaemia has been proposed as a tool to raise glucose concentrations without adding extra calories. Previously, the commercially available glucagon formulations required reconstitution from powder to a solution before being injected subcutaneously or intramuscularly-making it practical only for treating severe hypoglycaemia. Several companies have developed more stable formulations that do not require the time-consuming reconstitution process before use. As well as treating severe hypoglycaemia, non-severe and impending hypoglycaemia can also be treated with lower doses of glucagon. Once available, low-dose glucagon can be either delivered manually, as an injection, or automatically, by an infusion pump. This review focuses on the role and perspectives of using glucagon to treat and prevent hypoglycaemia in T1D.

Intranasal versus injectable glucagon for hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Glucagon is used to resolve severe hypoglycemia in unconscious patients with diabetes, requiring third-party assistance. A few studies have shown that intranasal (IN) glucagon causes resolution of hypoglycemia in insulin-treated patients with type 1 (T1DM) diabetes. This systematic review and meta-analysis updates the comparison of the effectiveness of IN glucagon with injected intramuscular/subcutaneous (IM/SC) glucagon in treatment of hypoglycemia in T1DM.

METHODS

Controlled randomized studies were considered; eight studies, published in English, were included in a meta-analysis (random-effects model). Intervention effect (resolution of hypoglycemia) was expressed as odds ratio (OR), with 95% confidence intervals. Meta-regression was employed to correlate the effect with size of studies, age of patients, basal blood glucose levels.

RESULTS

In a total of 467 treatments in 269 patients with IN and IM/SC glucagon, the OR IN versus IM/SC was 0.61 (CI 0.13-2.82); since four of eight studies showed 100% effectiveness, a simulation was made with 1 failure for each treatment; in this simulation analysis, the OR was 0.80 (95% CI 0.28-2.32). Heterogeneity was low and not statistically significant. Publication bias was absent, and quality of papers was high. At meta-regression, no correlation was found between the effect and number of patients in each study, age of patients, basal blood glucose levels. No study formally compared IN versus IM/SC in unconscious patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis indicates that in conscious T1DM patients IN glucagon and IM/SC glucagon are equally effective in resolution of hypoglycemia.

NASAL GLUCAGON DELIVERY IS MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN INJECTABLE DELIVERY: A SIMULATED SEVERE HYPOGLYCEMIA RESCUE

Objective: A severe hypoglycemia (SH) episode is an acute, high-stress moment for the caregivers of persons with diabetes (PWD). We compared the success rates of nasal glucagon (NG) and injectable glucagon (IG) administration for PWD-trained and untrained users in treating simulated SH episodes. Methods: Thirty-two PWD-trained users and 33 untrained users administered NG and IG to high-fidelity manikins simulating treatment of an SH emergency. Simulation rooms resembled common locations with typical diabetic supplies and stressor elements mimicking real-life SH environments. Success rate and time to administer glucagon were measured. Results: Of all the PWD-trained and untrained users, 58/64 (90.6%) could successfully deliver NG, while 5/63 (7.9%) could successfully deliver IG. For NG simulations, 28/31 (90.3%) PWD-trained users and 30/33 (90.9%) untrained users could successfully administer the dose (mean time 47.3 seconds and 44.5 seconds, respectively). For IG simulations, 5/32 (15.6%) PWD-trained users successfully injected IG (mean time 81.8 seconds), whereas none (0/31 [0%]) of the untrained users were successful. Reasons for unsuccessful administration of NG included oral administration and incomplete pushing of the device plunger. For IG, inability to perform reconstitution steps, partial dose delivery, and injection at an inappropriate site were the causes for failure. Conclusion: With or without training, the success rate for administering NG was 90.6%, whereas it was only 7.9% for IG. NG was easily and quickly administered even by untrained users, whereas training was necessary for successful administration of IG. NG may expand the community of caregivers who can help PWD during an SH episode. Abbreviations: IG = injectable glucagon; NG = nasal glucagon; PWD = person with diabetes; SH = severe hypoglycemia; T1D = type 1 diabetes; T2D = type 2 diabetes.

Mini-doses of glucagon to prevent hypoglycemia in children with type 1 diabetes refusing food: a case series

AIMS

Hypoglycemia in small children with type 1 diabetes is difficult to manage if nausea, vomit or food refusal occurs. If oral carbohydrate cannot be used, there is a hypothetical risk of severe hypoglycemia. The present article describes the effect on glucose of small doses of subcutaneous glucagon to revert hypoglycemia and prevent severe events in small children with type 1 diabetes using a continuous glucose monitoring.

METHODS

We analyzed 4 episodes of impending or mild hypoglycemia in 3 children with type 1 diabetes who refused to eat carbohydrates. Using a standard U-100 insulin syringe, children received one "unit" (10 μg) of glucagon subcutaneously for every year of age up to 15 units (150 μg). If the blood glucose did not increase within 30 min, the initial dosage was repeated at that time. Instructions were given by phone from the physician. At the following visit data from continuous glucose monitoring devices, insulin pump and glucometer were downloaded and reviewed retrospectively from the physician.

RESULTS

Blood glucose from continuous glucose monitoring after one and 2 h was 127 ± 80 mg/dl and 165 ± 78 mg/dl, respectively. After a glucagon injection, there was a single recurrence of hypoglycemia, requiring another shot. The glucagon was well tolerated, except for nausea, present before the injection. None of the children were taken to our hospital because of concerns for hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSION

Mini-doses of glucagon given subcutaneously were effective and safe in preventing frank or impending hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes children refusing food.

Usability of Nasal Glucagon Device: Partially Randomized Caregiver and Third-Party User Experience Trial with Simulated Administration at a Japanese Site

INTRODUCTION

Glucagon is the only approved medicine for severe hypoglycemia available for caregivers of people with diabetes. Nasal glucagon (NG) was recently approved in the USA as a needle-free, ready-to-use alternative to injectable glucagon. This simulated user experience study in Japan compared NG and intramuscular glucagon (IMG) administration by caregivers, and NG administration by untrained third parties.

METHODS

This was an open-label, single-center, partially randomized crossover, simulated user experience trial conducted in Japan (October 2018 to December 2018). Caregivers who live with and care for a relative with diabetes were randomized (1:1, stratified by patient diabetes type 1 or 2) to one of two simulated administration sequences (group 1: NG then IMG; group 2: IMG then NG). Caregivers received training on each device 2 weeks before simulated administration of the device. Third parties received no training and only conducted simulated NG administration. Outcome measures included the percentage of successful administrations (based on critical step completion and dose; primary outcome), time to complete administration, and user satisfaction/preferences.

RESULTS

In caregivers (N = 19), the percentage of successful administrations was greater (89.5% vs 26.3%, P < 0.001) and mean time to complete administration was shorter (23.9 vs 207.3 s, P < 0.001) with NG than with IMG. In third parties (N = 20), 95% of NG administration attempts were successful (mean time to complete administration, 55.5 s). All caregivers and 80% of third parties reported that the NG device was easy to use. All caregivers and 70% of third parties were confident and willing to use the device in a real emergency, and more than 80% of caregivers preferred the NG device to IMG.

CONCLUSION

This simulated user experience study confirmed that glucagon administration using a nasal delivery device was quicker, easier, and had a higher success rate than intramuscular administration in Japan, where the glucagon injection kit is not available.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly. Plain language summary available for this article.

Nasal Glucagon Versus Injectable Glucagon for Severe Hypoglycemia: A Cost-Offset and Budget Impact Analysis

BACKGROUND

Severe hypoglycemic events (SHEs) in patients with diabetes are associated with substantial health care costs in the United States (US). Injectable glucagon (IG) is currently available for treatment of severe hypoglycemia but is associated with frequent handling errors. Nasal glucagon (NG) is a novel, easier-to-use treatment that is more often administered successfully. The economic impact of this usability advantage was explored in cost-offset and budget impact analyses for the US setting.

METHODS

A health economic model was developed to estimate mean costs per SHE for which treatment was attempted using NG or IG, which differed only in the probability of treatment success, based on a published usability study. The budget impact of NG was projected over 2 years for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes treated with basal-bolus insulin (T2D-BB). Epidemiologic and cost data were sourced from the literature and/or fee schedules.

RESULTS

Mean costs were $992 lower if NG was used compared with IG per SHE for which a user attempted treatment. NG was estimated to reduce SHE-related spending by $1.1 million and $230 000 over 2 years in 10 000 patients each with T1D and T2D-BB, respectively. Reduced spending resulted from reduced professional emergency services utilization as successful treatment was more likely with NG.

CONCLUSIONS

The usability advantage of NG over IG was projected to reduce SHE-related treatment costs in the US setting. NG has the potential to improve hypoglycemia emergency care and reduce SHE-related treatment costs.

New uses and formulations of glucagon for hypoglycaemia

Hypoglycaemia is the more frequent complication of insulin therapy and the main barrier to tight glycaemic control. Injectable glucagon and oral intake of carbohydrates are the recommended treatments for severe and non-severe hypoglycaemia episodes, respectively. Nasal glucagon is currently being developed as a ready-to-use device, to simplify severe hypoglycaemia rescue. Stable forms of liquid glucagon could open the field for different approaches for mild to moderate hypoglycaemia treatment, such as mini-doses of glucagon or continuous subcutaneous glucagon infusion as a part of dual-hormone closed-loop systems. Pharmaceutical companies are developing stable forms of native glucagon or glucagon analogues for that purpose.

Therapeutic Use of Intranasal Glucagon: Resolution of Hypoglycemia

Episodes of hypoglycemia are frequent in patients with diabetes treated with insulin or sulphonylureas. Hypoglycemia can lead to severe acute complications, and, as such, both prevention and treatment of hypoglycemia are important for the well-being of patients with diabetes. The experience of hypoglycemia also leads to fear of hypoglycemia, that in turn can limit optimal glycemic control in patients, especially with type 1 diabetes. Treatment of hypoglycemia is still based on administration of carbohydrates (oral or parenteral according to the level of consciousness) or of glucagon (intramuscular or subcutaneous injection). In 1983, it was shown for the first time that intranasal (IN) glucagon drops (with sodium glycocholate as a promoter) increase blood glucose levels in healthy volunteers. During the following decade, several authors showed the efficacy of IN glucagon (drops, powders, and sprays) to resolve hypoglycemia in normal volunteers and in patients with diabetes, both adults and children. Only in 2010, based on evaluation of patients' beliefs and patients' expectations, a canadian pharmaceutical company (Locemia Solutions, Montreal, Canada) reinitiated efforts to develop glucagon for IN administration. The project has been continued by Eli Lilly, that is seeking to obtain registration in order to make IN glucagon available to insulin users (children and adolescents) worldwide. IN glucagon is as effective as injectable glucagon, and devoid of most of the technical difficulties associated with administration of injectable glucagon. IN glucagon appears to represent a major breakthrough in the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in insulin-treated patients with diabetes, both children and adults.

Person-Centered Primary Care and Type 2 Diabetes: Beyond Blood Glucose Control

With an estimated 9% of persons in the United States diagnosed with diabetes, primary care providers such as midwives and nurse practitioners are increasingly working with persons who have diabetes and are seeking primary care services. This article reviews the current literature with regard to the initial evaluation of individuals who are diagnosed with diabetes, and what is entailed in comprehensive continuing management of care. A person-centered interprofessional approach to care of the person with diabetes is presented. Recommendations are given that address dietary habits, activities of daily living, medication regimens, and potential alternative therapies. Social constructs related to effective care of individuals with diabetes also are addressed. Knowledge of current research that has identified effective care practices for individuals with diabetes is imperative to ensuring their well-being, and promoting a person-centered and interprofessional approach is best for offering optimal care to those diagnosed with diabetes.

Intranasal glucagon for hypoglycaemia in diabetic patients. An old dream is becoming reality?

In 1983 it was shown that glucagon administered intranasally (IN) was absorbed through the nasal mucosa and increased blood glucose in healthy subjects. Shortly thereafter, it was shown that IN glucagon counteracts with hypoglycaemia in insulin-treated diabetic patients. In spite of this evidence, IN glucagon was not developed by any pharmaceutical company before 2010, when renewed interest led to intensive evaluation of a possible remedy for hypoglycaemia in insulin-treated diabetic adults and children. IN glucagon is now being developed as a needle-free device that delivers glucagon powder for treatment of severe hypoglycaemia; the ease of using this device stands in stark contrast to the difficulties encountered in use of the current intramuscular glucagon emergency kits. Studies have demonstrated the efficacy, safety and ease-of-use of this IN glucagon preparation, and suggest IN glucagon as a promising alternative to injectable glucagon for treating severe hypoglycaemia in children and adults who use insulin. This would meet the unmet medical need for an easily administered glucagon preparation.

Intraperitoneal, subcutaneous and intravenous glucagon delivery and subsequent glucose response in rats: a randomized controlled crossover trial

OBJECTIVE

Hypoglycemia is a frequent and potentially dangerous event among patients with diabetes mellitus type 1. Subcutaneous glucagon is an emergency treatment to counteract severe hypoglycemia. The effect of intraperitoneal glucagon delivery is sparsely studied. We performed a direct comparison of the blood glucose response following intraperitoneally, subcutaneously and intravenously administered glucagon.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This is a prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label, crossover trial in 20 octreotide-treated rats. Three interventions, 1  week apart, in a randomized order, were done in each rat. All 20 rats were given intraperitoneal and subcutaneous glucagon injections, from which 5 rats were given intravenous glucagon injections and 15 rats received placebo (intraperitoneal isotonic saline) injection. The dose of glucagon was 5 µg/kg body weight for all routes of administration. Blood glucose levels were measured before and until 60 min after the glucagon/placebo injections.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo-treated rats, a significant increase in blood glucose was observed 4 min after intraperitoneal glucagon administration (p=0.009), whereas after subcutaneous and intravenous glucagon administration significant increases were seen after 8 min (p=0.002  and p<0.001, respectively). In intraperitoneally treated compared with subcutaneously treated rats, the increase in blood glucose was higher after 4 min (p=0.019) and lower after 40 min (p=0.005) and 50 min (p=0.011). The maximum glucose response occurred earlier after intraperitoneal compared with subcutaneous glucagon injection (25 min vs 35 min; p=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Glucagon administered intraperitoneally gives a faster glucose response compared with subcutaneously administered glucagon in rats. If repeatable in humans, the more rapid glucose response may be of importance in a dual-hormone artificial pancreas using the intraperitoneal route for administration of insulin and glucagon.

Emergency treatment of hypoglycaemia: a guideline and evidence review

AIM

To examine the current treatment guidelines for the emergency management of hypoglycaemia and the evidence underpinning recommendations.

METHODS

International diabetes agencies were searched for hypoglycaemia treatment guidelines. Guidelines were assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. An electronic database search was conducted for evidence regarding emergency treatment of hypoglycaemia in adults, and relevant articles were critically appraised.

RESULTS

Of the international diabetes agencies, six sets of guidelines were deemed relevant and of sufficient detail for appraisal by AGREE II. The evidence search returned 2649 articles, of which 17 pertaining to the emergency management of hypoglycaemia were included. High-quality evidence for the management of hypoglycaemia was lacking, limiting treatment recommendations. In general, guidelines and studies were somewhat concordant and recommended 15-20 g of oral glucose or sucrose, repeated after 10-15 min for treatment of the responsive adult, and 10% intravenous dextrose or 1 mg intramuscular glucagon for treatment of the unresponsive adult. No evidence was found for other treatment approaches.

CONCLUSION

Evidence for the emergency treatment of hypoglycaemia in adults is limited, is often low grade and mostly pre-dates contemporary management of diabetes. Guideline recommendations are limited by the lack of randomized trials. Further high-quality studies are required to inform the optimum management of this frequently occurring emergency condition.

Faster Use and Fewer Failures with Needle-Free Nasal Glucagon Versus Injectable Glucagon in Severe Hypoglycemia Rescue: A Simulation Study

BACKGROUND

During severe hypoglycemic episodes, people with diabetes depend on others to help with treatment. We compared needle-free nasal glucagon and commercially available injectable glucagon for ease of use by caregivers of people with diabetes and by others in treating simulated episodes of severe hypoglycemia.

METHODS

Sixteen instructed caregivers and 15 noninstructed acquaintances administered nasal and injectable glucagon to manikins, simulating unconscious people with diabetes during severe hypoglycemia episodes.

RESULTS

With nasal glucagon, 15 caregivers (94%) and 14 acquaintances (93%) administered a full dose (mean time 0.27 and 0.44 min, respectively). One caregiver and one acquaintance did not administer nasal glucagon because they did not fully depress the plunger on the device. Two caregivers deliberately administered both insulin and nasal glucagon, believing that insulin would also help the patient. With injectable glucagon, eight caregivers (50%) injected glucagon (mean time 1.89 min), but only two (13%) administered the full dose. Three acquaintances (20%) injected a partial dose of injectable glucagon (mean time 2.40 min); none gave a full dose. Errors included injecting diluent only, bending the needle, and injecting with an empty syringe. Two caregivers and one acquaintance injected insulin because they confused insulin with injectable glucagon.

CONCLUSIONS

More than 90% of participants delivered full doses of nasal glucagon, while 13% and 0% of caregivers and acquaintances delivered full doses of injectable glucagon, indicating that nasal glucagon is easier for nonmedically trained people to administer. Thus, nasal glucagon has the potential to substantially improve treatment for patients experiencing a life-threatening episode of severe hypoglycemia.

Glucagon Nasal Powder: A Promising Alternative to Intramuscular Glucagon in Youth With Type 1 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Treatment of severe hypoglycemia outside of the hospital setting is limited to intramuscular glucagon requiring reconstitution prior to injection. The current study examined the safety and dose-response relationships of a needle-free intranasal glucagon preparation in youth aged 4 to <17 years.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 48 youth with type 1 diabetes completed the study at seven clinical centers. Participants in the two youngest cohorts (4 to <8 and 8 to <12 years old) were randomly assigned to receive either 2 or 3 mg intranasal glucagon in two separate sessions or to receive a single, weight-based dose of intramuscular glucagon. Participants aged 12 to <17 years received 1 mg intramuscular glucagon in one session and 3 mg intranasal glucagon in the other session. Glucagon was given after glucose was lowered to <80 mg/dL (mean nadir ranged between 67 and 75 mg/dL).

RESULTS

All 24 intramuscular and 58 of the 59 intranasal doses produced a ≥25 mg/dL rise in glucose from nadir within 20 min of dosing. Times to peak plasma glucose and glucagon levels were similar under both intramuscular and intranasal conditions. Transient nausea occurred in 67% of intramuscular sessions versus 42% of intranasal sessions (P = 0.05); the efficacy and safety of the 2- and 3-mg intranasal doses were similar in the youngest cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this phase 1, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic study support the potential efficacy of a needle-free glucagon nasal powder delivery system for treatment of hypoglycemia in youth with type 1 diabetes. Given the similar frequency and transient nature of adverse effects of the 2- and 3-mg intranasal doses in the two youngest cohorts, a single 3-mg intranasal dose appears to be appropriate for use across the entire 4- to <17-year age range.