Clinical efficacy and safety of dasiglucagon in severe hypoglycemia associated with patients of type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Background and aims

This study was carried out to analyze the clinical safety and efficacy of dasiglucagon for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

Methods

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the safety and efficacy of dasiglucagon in the treatment of hypoglycemia in patients with T1DM. Furthermore, time required for the recovery of blood glucose or to elevate blood glucose levels ≥20.0 mg/dL from baseline was analyzed. The data was analyzed in version 5.4 of review manager 5 (RevMan).

Results

We included five published RCTs with a total of 347 patients . Dasiglucagon was significantly better at reducing the recovery time of blood glucose or increasing blood glucose levels 20.0 mg/dL from baseline compared to glucagon [pooled mean difference (PMD): 1.08%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.96 to 0.21, p = 0.02] and placebo (PMD: − 23.30%, 95% CI: 23.97 to 22.63, p < 0.00001). Overall, the safety outcome results of dasiglucagon were comparable with the native glucagon.

Conclusions

Dasiglucagon appears to be a promising human glucagon analog peptide for the safe and effective treatment of severe hypoglycemia in T1DM.

KEYWORDS:

• Hypoglycemia
• effectiveness
• type 1 diabetes mellitus
• glucagon-analog peptide
• dasiglucagon

Author contributions

S Dholariya, D Parchwani, and R Singh were engaged in the study’s conceptualization and design, collecting and interpreting data, preparation of the initial draft manuscript, and statistical analysis of the findings. S Dutta was involved in the manuscript’s critical editing for important intellectual content. All authors have provided final approval and agreed to be held accountable for all parts of the work to ensure accuracy and authenticity.

Declarations of interest

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Reviewer disclosures

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/17512433.2023.2138343

Additional information

Funding

This paper was not funded.