A novel nasal powder formulation of glucagon: toxicology studies in animal models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glucagon nasal powder (GNP), a novel intranasal formulation of glucagon being developed to treat insulin-induced severe hypoglycemia, contains synthetic glucagon (10% w/w), beta-cyclodextrin, and dodecylphosphocholine. The safety of this formulation was evaluated in four studies in animal models. METHODS: The first study evaluated 28-day sub-chronic toxicology in rats treated intranasally with 1 and 2 mg of GNP/day (0.1 and 0.2 mg glucagon/rat/day). The second study evaluated 28-day sub-chronic toxicology in dogs administered 20 and 40 mg of formulation/dog/day (2 and 4 mg glucagon/dog/day) intranasally. A pulmonary insufflation study assessed acute toxicology following intra-tracheal administration of 0.5 mg of GNP (0.05 mg glucagon) to rats. Local tolerance to 30 mg of GNP (equivalent to 3 mg glucagon, the final dose for humans) was tested through direct administration into the eyes of rabbits. RESULTS: There were no test article-related adverse effects on body weight and/or food consumption, ophthalmology, electrocardiography, hematology, coagulation parameters, clinical chemistry, urinalysis, or organ weights, and no macroscopic findings at necropsy in any study. In rats, direct intra-tracheal insufflation at a dose of 0.5 mg of GNP/rat (0.05 mg glucagon/rat) did not result in adverse clinical, macroscopic, or microscopic effects. In dogs, the only adverse findings following sub-chronic use were transient (<30 s) salivation and sneezing immediately post-treatment and mild to moderate reversible histological changes to the nasal mucosa. Daily dosing over 28 days in rats resulted in mild to moderate, unilateral or bilateral erosion/ulceration of the olfactory epithelium, frequently with minimal to mild, acute to sub-acute inflammation of the lamina propria at the dorsal turbinates of the nasal cavity in 2/10 males and 3/10 females in the high-dose group (0.2 mg glucagon/day). These lesions resolved completely over 14 days. Histological examination of tissues from both sub-chronic studies in dogs and rats revealed no microscopic findings. In rabbits, clinical observations noted in the GNP-treated eye and/or surrounding areas included ≥1 of the following: clear discharge, red conjunctiva, partial closure, and swelling of the peri-orbital area, which correlated with erythema and edema noted during ocular observations and grading. DISCUSSION: The studies reported here revealed no safety concerns associated with GNP in animal models. Studies published earlier have highlighted the local safety profile of intranasally administered cyclodextrins (a component of GNP). The choline group, the phosphate group, and the saturated 12-carbon aliphatic chain that are present in the dodecylphosphocholine excipient used in GNP are all present in the phospholipids and lecithins seen ubiquitously in mammalian cell membranes and are unlikely to pose safety concerns; this notion is supported by several studies conducted by the authors that revealed no safety concerns. Taken together, these results suggest that intranasal delivery of GNP holds promise as a future rescue medication for use by caregivers to treat insulin-induced hypoglycemic episodes in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSION: This novel drug product is well tolerated in animal models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it