We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
REVIEW
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
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.
Acta Diabetologica 2015 April
AIMS: Glucagon is used as an emergency drug in hypoglycemia, mainly when the patient is unconscious. A few studies report on ineffectiveness of glucagon in relieving hypoglycemia. The present systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the effectiveness of glucagon alone and in comparison with dextrose and the effectiveness of intranasal glucagon in comparison with injected glucagon.
METHODS: Studies were grouped into three groups: (1) reports on glucagon ineffectiveness; (2) comparison of glucagon and dextrose; (3) comparison of intranasal glucagon and injected glucagon. In groups 2 and 3, only controlled studies were included in the analysis, whether randomized or non-randomized studies. Appropriate methodology (PRISMA statement) was adhered to, and publication bias was formally assessed. Sixteen studies, published in any language as full papers, were analysed to identify predictors of ineffectiveness, and they were included in a meta-analysis (random effects model) to study the effect of different strategies. Intervention effect (number of failures) was expressed as odds ratio (OR), with 95 % confidence intervals.
RESULTS: Failure rate ranged from 0.0 to 2.31 %, to 7.6 %, to 14.4 %, and to 59 %. Comparing glucagon and dextrose, the OR was 0.53 (0.20-1.42); comparing intranasal and intramuscular glucagon, the OR was 1.40 (0.18-10.93). Heterogeneity was low and not statistically significant. Publication bias was absent.
CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that ineffectiveness of glucagon is unfrequent, not different from dextrose; in addition, intranasal and injected glucagon are similarly effective. In the case of failure, a second dose can be administered.
METHODS: Studies were grouped into three groups: (1) reports on glucagon ineffectiveness; (2) comparison of glucagon and dextrose; (3) comparison of intranasal glucagon and injected glucagon. In groups 2 and 3, only controlled studies were included in the analysis, whether randomized or non-randomized studies. Appropriate methodology (PRISMA statement) was adhered to, and publication bias was formally assessed. Sixteen studies, published in any language as full papers, were analysed to identify predictors of ineffectiveness, and they were included in a meta-analysis (random effects model) to study the effect of different strategies. Intervention effect (number of failures) was expressed as odds ratio (OR), with 95 % confidence intervals.
RESULTS: Failure rate ranged from 0.0 to 2.31 %, to 7.6 %, to 14.4 %, and to 59 %. Comparing glucagon and dextrose, the OR was 0.53 (0.20-1.42); comparing intranasal and intramuscular glucagon, the OR was 1.40 (0.18-10.93). Heterogeneity was low and not statistically significant. Publication bias was absent.
CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that ineffectiveness of glucagon is unfrequent, not different from dextrose; in addition, intranasal and injected glucagon are similarly effective. In the case of failure, a second dose can be administered.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app