ArticlePloS one2024
Analysis of aggregation profile of glucagon using SEC-HPLC and FFF-MALS methods.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently, the first generic glucagon for injection was approved for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia. Unlike its brand name recombinant glucagon, the generic glucagon is synthetic. Since glucagon has a high propensity to form aggregates in solution, it is essential to assess the aggregation profile of the synthetic glucagon compared to the recombinant glucagon. In this study, two robust separation methods, size-exclusion chromatography (SEC-HPLC) and field-flow fractionation coupled with a multi-angle light scattering detector (FFF-MALS), were employed to characterize generic and brand glucagon aggregation in six lots (three newly released, three expired). The presence of aggregation in samples was determined from the generated chromatograms and analyzed. The study showed that both products have comparable aggregation profiles. The SEC-HPLC demonstrated that in both glucagon versions, the expired lots had a higher percentage of dimers than the newly released lots, but even at expiration, the amount was negligible (∼0.1%). The FFF-MALS method did not detect any dimers or higher molecular weight aggregates. Further evaluation of the detection limit found that FFF-MALS was unable to detect aggregates at amounts lower than 0.5% of total glucagon. The negligible amounts of dimer detected in the generic and brand glucagon indicate that both versions are physically stable and are not prone to aggregation under clinically relevant conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.