No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Comparative analysis of physicochemical properties, bioequivalence, safety and tolerability of the first domestic semaglutide
Abstract
Semaglutide is a representative of analogues of the incretin hormone human glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and is currently used in Russia for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM; in monotherapy and in combination therapy), including patients with obesity and overweight.
The aim of the work was to conduct a comparative assessment of the physicochemical properties, a biological activity, bioequivalence and safety, including tolerability and immunogenicity, of the drug Quincent® (semaglutide, 1.34 mg/ml, a solution for a subcutaneous administration, Promomed Rus LLC, Russia) and the drug Ozempic® (semaglutide, 1.34 mg/ml, a solution for a subcutaneous administration, Novo Nordisk A/S, Denmark) when administered to healthy volunteers.
Materials and methods. To assess the degree of similarity of the study drug Quincenta® (semaglutide, 1.34 mg/ml, a solution for a subcutaneous administration, Promomed Rus LLC, Russia) with a chemically synthesized active substance to the original (reference) drug Ozempic® (semaglutide, 1.34 mg/ml, a solution for a subcutaneous administration, Novo Nordisk A/S, Denmark), a comparative study of physicochemical properties and a biological activity was carried out. To assess the bioequivalence of the study drug and the reference drug, an open randomized parallel comparative study with the participation of healthy volunteers ( n =54), 54 participants of which had been included in the population, was conducted. The volunteers were randomized into 2 groups in a 1:1 ratio, and received a single dose subcutaneously either of the study drug (domestic semaglutide at a dose of 0.5 mg) or the reference drug (foreign semaglutide at a dose of 0.5 mg). The mode of administration was in the morning on an empty stomach. A semaglutide concentration was determined in serum samples using a previously validated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method. A quantitative determination of antibodies to semaglutide in the human serum by ELISA was carried out with a microplate photometer using ready-made kits pre-validated by the manufacturer. The conclusion about the bioequivalence of the compared drugs was made using an approach based on the assessment of 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of the geometric mean values of the parameters C max , AUC (0–t) of semaglutide in the measurement original units.
Results. The results of the comparative analysis of the study drug and the reference drug demonstrate the comparability of their physicochemical properties and biological activity. The results of the clinical study demonstrated the bioequivalence of the test drug and the reference drug. Thus, the pharmacokinetic parameters of the drugs were comparable to each other: the C max value for the study drug was 42.088±8.827 ng/ml, for the reference drug Ozempic® it was 42.2556±7.84. Herewith, the half-life for the study drug and the reference drug was 168.39±39.47 and 157.99±28.57 hours, respectively. The resulting 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of the C max and AUC 0–t values of the study drug and the reference drug were 90.89–109.15 and 91.66–111.27%, respectively. The tolerability of the drugs in the volunteers was notified as good. No adverse events were recorded during the study. No serious adverse events were reported throughout the study. According to the results of the immunogenicity analysis, no antibodies to Russian-made semaglutide were detected in the blood serum of the volunteers, which indicated the lack of Results. The results of a comparative analysis of the study drug and the reference drug demonstrate the comparability of physicochemical properties and biological activity. The results of the clinical study demonstrated the bioequivalence of the study drug and the reference drug. Thus, the pharmacokinetic parameters of the drugs were comparable to each other: the C max value for the study drug was 42.088±8.827 ng/ml, for the reference drug Ozempic® this figure was 42.2556±7.84. At the same time, the half-life for the study drug and the reference drug was 168.39±39.47 and 157.99±28.57 hours, respectively. The resulting 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of the C max and AUC 0–t values of the study drug and the reference drug were 90.89–109.15 and 91.66–111.27%, respectively. Tolerability of the drugs in volunteers was noted as good. No adverse events were recorded during the study. No serious adverse events were reported throughout the study. According to the results of the immunogenicity analysis, no antibodies to Russian-made semaglutide were detected in the blood serum of the volunteers, which indicated the lack of the drug immunogenicity.
Conclusion. In the course of the study, the comparability of the physicochemical properties and biological activity of the studied Russian drug with the chemically synthesized active substance Quincenta® to the reference drug Ozempic® was confirmed: the activity range of the studied drugs was within 80–120% in relation to the standard sample of semaglutide. The bioequivalence and a similar safety profile, including the immunogenicity and tolerability of the Russian drug Quincenta® (semaglutide 1.34 mg/ml, Promomed Rus LLC, Russia) were shown in comparison with the foreign drug Ozempic® (semaglutide 1.34 mg/ml, Novo Nordisk A/C, Denmark).
Introduction . Semaglutide preparations are an important therapeutic option for patients suffering from type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity due to their high efficacy and the expected increase in the prevalence of these diseases. Consequently, there is a growing need for the development of domestic analogs of semaglutide requiring bioequivalence studies. This study proposes the use of high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS) as an alternative to the widely used immunoassay for the quantitative determination of semaglutide in human serum.
Aim . To develop and validate a method for the quantitative determination of semaglutide in human serum using HPLC-MS/MS.
Materials and methods . Serum sample preparation was based on protein precipitation using an acetonitrile-methanol mixture. Liraglutide was selected as the internal standard. The mobile phase consisted of 0.3% formic acid in water and acetonitrile. The stationary phase was represented by a Phenomenex Kinetex C18 chromatographic column 100×3.0 mm, 5 μm, 100 Å. Ionization of semaglutide and liraglutide was performed in positive electrospray mode. Detection was carried out in multiple reaction monitoring mode (MRM).
Results . The method demonstrated high accuracy and precision, with relative error and relative standard deviation values of less than 15% across all quality control levels. The confirmed analytical ranges of the method were 0.50–200.00 ng/mL and 1.00–800.00 ng/mL. Over 3.400 volunteer samples were analyzed as part of the studies. Compared to the ELISA method, the proposed method provides higher selectivity and reproducibility of measurements.
Conclusions . The method has been developed that provides reproducible quantitative determination of semaglutide in human blood serum. The method was validated in accordance with EAEU requirements and was successfully applied in bioequivalence studies of semaglutide GP40331 (GEROPHARM LLC, Russia). The method is suitable for conducting pharmacokinetic studies of other semaglutide preparations.
Objectives
To update and assess the efficacy and tolerability of once weekly subcutaneous semaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).
Materials and methods
PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, Clinical trial, Springer, OVID, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang Data and China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP) were searched from inception to January 18, 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing subcutaneous semaglutide with placebo or any other antidiabetic agent in adults with T2D were eligible. The risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined to synthesize the results.
Results
A total of 17 trials enrolling 14,940 T2D patients were included. For efficacy, compared with placebo, semaglutide exhibited beneficial effects on glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) control [MD -0.97%, 95% CI (-1.33, -0.62), I² = 91%; MD -1.36%, 95% CI (-1.59, -1.13), I² = 84%, semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg, respectively], body weight reduction, blood pressure control. At the same time, subcutaneous semaglutide 0.5 and 1 mg reduced HbA1c by 0.56% (95% CI 0.32 to 0.80) and 0.63% (95% CI 0.35 to 0.91) compared to other glucose-lowering agents. For tolerability, semaglutide did not increase the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs), severe or blood glucose (BG) confirmed hypoglycaemia, acute pancreatitis and diabetic retinopathy compared to placebo or active comparators, but did increase the risk of nausea, diarrhea and vomiting.
Conclusions
Semaglutide has a better effect on glycaemic control and weight loss than other therapies. Nevertheless, semaglutide was associated with increased incidence of gastrointestinal-related disorders. Further large, multicenter randomized controlled clinical trials are still needed to obtain more robust evidence to better guide clinical treatment decisions.
The drug metabolism and drug degradation pathways may overlap, resulting in the formation of similar constituents. Therefore, the metabolism data can be helpful for deriving safe levels of degradation impurities and improving the quality of respective pharmaceutical products. The present article contains considerations on possible links between metabolic and degradation pathways for new antidiabetic drugs such as glutides, gliflozins, and gliptins. Special attention was paid to their reported metabolites and identified degradation products. At the same time, many interesting analytical approaches to conducting metabolism as well as degradation experiments were mentioned, including chromatographic methods and radioactive labeling of the drugs. The review addresses the analytical approaches elaborated for examining the metabolism and degradation pathways of glutides, i.e., glucagon like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and gliflozins, i.e., sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. The problems associated with the chromatographic analysis of the peptide compounds (glutides) and the polar drugs (gliflozins) were addressed. Furthermore, issues related to in vitro experiments and the use of stable isotopes were discussed.
Introduction:
SURE Netherlands (NCT03929679) evaluated the use of once-weekly (OW) semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), in routine clinical care for individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D).
Methods:
Adults (age ≥ 18 years) with T2D were enrolled into the single-arm study. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to end of study (EOS; approx. 30 weeks) in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). Secondary endpoints were change from baseline to EOS in body weight (BW) and waist circumference (WC). Proportions of participants achieving predefined HbA1c targets and weight-loss responses at EOS, safety, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and treatment satisfaction were assessed.
Results:
In total, 211 participants (mean age 60.5 years; diabetes duration 13.3 years) initiated semaglutide; most were receiving metformin (82.9%) and/or basal insulin (59.2%) at baseline, and 6.2% switched from another GLP-1RA. Mean baseline HbA1c, BW and WC were 8.6%, 105.2 kg and 118.8 cm. In the 186 (88.2%) participants receiving semaglutide at EOS, mean reduction in HbA1c with semaglutide was - 1.2%-points (95% [confidence interval] CI - 1.3; - 1.0; p < 0.0001), with 124 (70.5%), 95 (54.0%) and 65 (36.9%) participants achieving HbA1c targets of < 8.0%, < 7.5% and < 7.0%, respectively. Mean reduction in BW was - 7.8 kg [95% CI - 8.7; - 6.8; p < 0.0001], corresponding to relative reduction of - 7.5% [95% CI - 8.4; - 6.6; p < 0.0001]. Improvements in WC (- 8.8 cm [95% CI - 10.4; - 7.2; p < 0.0001]), HRQoL and treatment satisfaction were observed, including across most Short-Form 36 Health Survey domains. One serious adverse drug reaction (cholecystitis) was reported. Eight participants (all receiving concomitant insulin) experienced severe or documented hypoglycaemia.
Conclusion:
Individuals with T2D treated with OW semaglutide experienced significant and clinically relevant improvements in glycaemic control and BW from baseline. These results from a diverse real-world population in the Netherlands support the use of OW semaglutide in treating adults with T2D in routine clinical practice.
The STEP 5 trial assessed the efficacy and safety of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg versus placebo (both plus behavioral intervention) for long-term treatment of adults with obesity, or overweight with at least one weight-related comorbidity, without diabetes. The co-primary endpoints were the percentage change in body weight and achievement of weight loss of ≥5% at week 104. Efficacy was assessed among all randomized participants regardless of treatment discontinuation or rescue intervention. From 5 October 2018 to 1 February 2019, 304 participants were randomly assigned to semaglutide 2.4 mg (n = 152) or placebo (n = 152), 92.8% of whom completed the trial (attended the end-of-trial safety visit). Most participants were female (236 (77.6%)) and white (283 (93.1%)), with a mean (s.d.) age of 47.3 (11.0) years, body mass index of 38.5 (6.9) kg m–2 and weight of 106.0 (22.0) kg. The mean change in body weight from baseline to week 104 was −15.2% in the semaglutide group (n = 152) versus −2.6% with placebo (n = 152), for an estimated treatment difference of −12.6 %-points (95% confidence interval, −15.3 to −9.8; P < 0.0001). More participants in the semaglutide group than in the placebo group achieved weight loss ≥5% from baseline at week 104 (77.1% versus 34.4%; P < 0.0001). Gastrointestinal adverse events, mostly mild-to-moderate, were reported more often with semaglutide than with placebo (82.2% versus 53.9%). In summary, in adults with overweight (with at least one weight-related comorbidity) or obesity, semaglutide treatment led to substantial, sustained weight loss over 104 weeks versus placebo. NCT03693430
Aims
Aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of once-weekly semaglutide on different end-points indicative of metabolic control, cardiovascular risk, dietary behavior, and treatment satisfaction in T2DM.
Methods
This was a retrospective observational study conducted in a diabetes clinic. Changes in HbA1c, fasting blood glucose (FBG), weight, blood pressure, lipid profile, and number of antihypertensive drugs at 32 weeks (T1) after the first prescription of semaglutide (T0) were analyzed. Furthermore, at T1 patients were asked to fill-in the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) and the Control of Eating Questionnaire (COEQ).
Results
Overall, 104 patients were identified (mean age 63.6 ± 10.4 years, 58.7% men, diabetes duration 12.7 ± 8.7 years). After 32 weeks of treatment with semaglutide, HbA1c levels were reduced by 1.38%, FBG by − 56.53 mg/dl, weight by 6.03 kg. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure, total, HDL-, LDL-, and non –HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides significantly improved. The number of glucose-lowering and antihypertensive drugs also decreased. At T1, DTSQ score was 32.23 ± 1.44, whereas COEQ indicated low levels of hunger and good control of eating.
Conclusions
The study documented benefits of semaglutide on metabolic control and multiple CV risk factors, simplification of therapeutic schemes and high satisfaction with diabetes treatment, and eating behaviors indicative of healthy diet and reduced food intake.
Importance
Phase 3 trials have not compared semaglutide and liraglutide, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues available for weight management.
Objective
To compare the efficacy and adverse event profiles of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide, 2.4 mg, vs once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide, 3.0 mg (both with diet and physical activity), in people with overweight or obesity.
Design, Setting, and Participants
Randomized, open-label, 68-week, phase 3b trial conducted at 19 US sites from September 2019 (enrollment: September 11-November 26) to May 2021 (end of follow-up: May 11) in adults with body mass index of 30 or greater or 27 or greater with 1 or more weight-related comorbidities, without diabetes (N = 338).
Interventions
Participants were randomized (3:1:3:1) to receive once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide, 2.4 mg (16-week escalation; n = 126), or matching placebo, or once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide, 3.0 mg (4-week escalation; n = 127), or matching placebo, plus diet and physical activity. Participants unable to tolerate 2.4 mg of semaglutide could receive 1.7 mg; participants unable to tolerate 3.0 mg of liraglutide discontinued treatment and could restart the 4-week titration. Placebo groups were pooled (n = 85).
Main Outcomes and Measures
The primary end point was percentage change in body weight, and confirmatory secondary end points were achievement of 10% or more, 15% or more, and 20% or more weight loss, assessed for semaglutide vs liraglutide at week 68. Semaglutide vs liraglutide comparisons were open-label, with active treatment groups double-blinded against matched placebo groups. Comparisons of active treatments vs pooled placebo were supportive secondary end points.
Results
Of 338 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 49 [13] years; 265 women [78.4%]; mean [SD] body weight, 104.5 [23.8] kg; mean [SD] body mass index, 37.5 [6.8]), 319 (94.4%) completed the trial, and 271 (80.2%) completed treatment. The mean weight change from baseline was –15.8% with semaglutide vs –6.4% with liraglutide (difference, –9.4 percentage points [95% CI, –12.0 to –6.8]; P < .001); weight change with pooled placebo was –1.9%. Participants had significantly greater odds of achieving 10% or more, 15% or more, and 20% or more weight loss with semaglutide vs liraglutide (70.9% of participants vs 25.6% [odds ratio, 6.3 {95% CI, 3.5 to 11.2}], 55.6% vs 12.0% [odds ratio, 7.9 {95% CI, 4.1 to 15.4}], and 38.5% vs 6.0% [odds ratio, 8.2 {95% CI, 3.5 to 19.1}], respectively; all P < .001). Proportions of participants discontinuing treatment for any reason were 13.5% with semaglutide and 27.6% with liraglutide. Gastrointestinal adverse events were reported by 84.1% with semaglutide and 82.7% with liraglutide.
Conclusions and Relevance
Among adults with overweight or obesity without diabetes, once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide compared with once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide, added to counseling for diet and physical activity, resulted in significantly greater weight loss at 68 weeks.
Trial Registration
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04074161
Importance
The effect of continuing vs withdrawing treatment with semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, on weight loss maintenance in people with overweight or obesity is unknown.
Objective
To compare continued once-weekly treatment with subcutaneous semaglutide, 2.4 mg, with switch to placebo for weight maintenance (both with lifestyle intervention) in adults with overweight or obesity after a 20-week run-in with subcutaneous semaglutide titrated to 2.4 mg weekly.
Design, Setting, and Participants
Randomized, double-blind, 68-week phase 3a withdrawal study conducted at 73 sites in 10 countries from June 2018 to March 2020 in adults with body mass index of at least 30 (or ≥27 with ≥1 weight-related comorbidity) and without diabetes.
Interventions
A total of 902 participants received once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide during run-in. After 20 weeks (16 weeks of dose escalation; 4 weeks of maintenance dose), 803 participants (89.0%) who reached the 2.4-mg/wk semaglutide maintenance dose were randomized (2:1) to 48 weeks of continued subcutaneous semaglutide (n = 535) or switched to placebo (n = 268), plus lifestyle intervention in both groups.
Main Outcomes and Measures
The primary end point was percent change in body weight from week 20 to week 68; confirmatory secondary end points were changes in waist circumference, systolic blood pressure, and physical functioning (assessed using the Short Form 36 Version 2 Health Survey, Acute Version [SF-36]).
Results
Among 803 study participants who completed the 20-week run-in period (with a mean weight loss of 10.6%) and were randomized (mean age, 46 [SD, 12] years; 634 [79%] women; mean body weight, 107.2 kg [SD, 22.7 kg]), 787 participants (98.0%) completed the trial and 741 (92.3%) completed treatment. With continued semaglutide, mean body weight change from week 20 to week 68 was −7.9% vs +6.9% with the switch to placebo (difference, −14.8 [95% CI, −16.0 to −13.5] percentage points; P < .001). Waist circumference (−9.7 cm [95% CI, −10.9 to −8.5 cm]), systolic blood pressure (−3.9 mm Hg [95% CI, −5.8 to −2.0 mm Hg]), and SF-36 physical functioning score (2.5 [95% CI, 1.6-3.3]) also improved with continued subcutaneous semaglutide vs placebo (all P < .001). Gastrointestinal events were reported in 49.1% of participants who continued subcutaneous semaglutide vs 26.1% with placebo; similar proportions discontinued treatment because of adverse events with continued semaglutide (2.4%) and placebo (2.2%).
Conclusions and Relevance
Among adults with overweight or obesity who completed a 20-week run-in period with subcutaneous semaglutide, 2.4 mg once weekly, maintaining treatment with semaglutide compared with switching to placebo resulted in continued weight loss over the following 48 weeks.
Trial Registration
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03548987
Importance
Weight loss improves cardiometabolic risk factors in people with overweight or obesity. Intensive lifestyle intervention and pharmacotherapy are the most effective noninvasive weight loss approaches.
Objective
To compare the effects of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide, 2.4 mg vs placebo for weight management as an adjunct to intensive behavioral therapy with initial low-calorie diet in adults with overweight or obesity.
Design, Setting, and Participants
Randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 68-week, phase 3a study (STEP 3) conducted at 41 sites in the US from August 2018 to April 2020 in adults without diabetes (N = 611) and with either overweight (body mass index ≥27) plus at least 1 comorbidity or obesity (body mass index ≥30).
Interventions
Participants were randomized (2:1) to semaglutide, 2.4 mg (n = 407) or placebo (n = 204), both combined with a low-calorie diet for the first 8 weeks and intensive behavioral therapy (ie, 30 counseling visits) during 68 weeks.
Main Outcomes and Measures
The co–primary end points were percentage change in body weight and the loss of 5% or more of baseline weight by week 68. Confirmatory secondary end points included losses of at least 10% or 15% of baseline weight.
Results
Of 611 randomized participants (495 women [81.0%], mean age 46 years [SD, 13], body weight 105.8 kg [SD, 22.9], and body mass index 38.0 [SD, 6.7]), 567 (92.8%) completed the trial, and 505 (82.7%) were receiving treatment at trial end. At week 68, the estimated mean body weight change from baseline was –16.0% for semaglutide vs –5.7% for placebo (difference, −10.3 percentage points [95% CI, −12.0 to −8.6]; P < .001). More participants treated with semaglutide vs placebo lost at least 5% of baseline body weight (86.6% vs 47.6%, respectively; P < .001). A higher proportion of participants in the semaglutide vs placebo group achieved weight losses of at least 10% or 15% (75.3% vs 27.0% and 55.8% vs 13.2%, respectively; P < .001). Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequent with semaglutide (82.8%) vs placebo (63.2%). Treatment was discontinued owing to these events in 3.4% of semaglutide participants vs 0% of placebo participants.
Conclusions and Relevance
Among adults with overweight or obesity, once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide compared with placebo, used as an adjunct to intensive behavioral therapy and initial low-calorie diet, resulted in significantly greater weight loss during 68 weeks. Further research is needed to assess the durability of these findings.
Trial Registration
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03611582
Background:
Semaglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analog treatment for type 2 diabetes (T2D) available in subcutaneous (s.c.) and oral formulations. Two cardiovascular (CV) outcomes trials showed that in subjects with T2D at high risk of CV events there were fewer major adverse CV events (MACE; defined as CV death, non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction) with semaglutide than with placebo (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.74 [0.58;0.95] for once-weekly s.c. semaglutide and 0.79 [0.57;1.11] for once-daily oral semaglutide). However, there is little evidence for an effect of semaglutide on MACE in subjects not at high risk of CV events. This post hoc analysis examined CV effects of semaglutide in subjects across a continuum of baseline CV risk.
Methods:
Data from the s.c. (SUSTAIN) and oral (PIONEER) semaglutide phase 3a clinical trial programs were combined according to randomized treatment (semaglutide or comparators) and analyzed to assess time to first MACE and its individual components. A CV risk model was developed with independent data from the LEADER trial (liraglutide vs placebo), considering baseline variables common to all datasets. Semaglutide data were analyzed to assess effects of treatment as a function of CV risk predicted using the CV risk prediction model.
Results:
The CV risk prediction model performed satisfactorily when applied to the semaglutide data set (area under the curve: 0.77). There was a reduced relative and absolute risk of MACE for semaglutide vs comparators across the entire continuum of CV risk. While the relative risk reduction tended to be largest with low CV risk score, the largest absolute risk reduction was for intermediate to high CV risk score. Similar results were seen for relative risk reduction of the individual MACE components and also when only placebo comparator data were included.
Conclusion:
Semaglutide reduced the risk of MACE vs comparators across the continuum of baseline CV risk in a broad T2D population. Trial registrations ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02054897, NCT01930188, NCT01885208, NCT02128932, NCT02305381, NCT01720446, NCT02207374, NCT02254291, NCT02906930, NCT02863328, NCT02607865, NCT02863419, NCT02827708, NCT02692716, NCT02849080, NCT03021187, NCT03018028, NCT03015220.
It is unknown if the cardioprotective and renal effects of glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists are consistent across blood pressure (BP) categories in patients with type 2 diabetes and at high risk of cardiovascular events. Using data from the LEADER (9340 patients) and SUSTAIN 6 (3297 patients) trials, we evaluated post hoc the cardiorenal effect of liraglutide and semaglutide on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and nephropathy by baseline BP categories using a Cox proportional hazards model (treatment and subgroup as factors; adjusted for cardiorenal risk factors). Data from the two trials were analyzed separately. In the LEADER and SUSTAIN 6 trials, the prevalence of stage 1 hypertension was 30% and 31%, respectively, and of stage 2 hypertension 41% and 43%, respectively. There was no statistical heterogeneity across the BP categories for the effects of liraglutide (p = 0.06 for MACE; p = 0.14 for nephropathy) or semaglutide (p = 0.40 for MACE; p = 0.27 for nephropathy) versus placebo. This implies that liraglutide and semaglutide may be beneficial for patients with type 2 diabetes, irrespective of their baseline BP. Clinical Trial Registrations: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01179048 and NCT01720446. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Objective
To determine the comparative efficacy of once-weekly semaglutide relative to sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) licensed in Europe and North America among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled with 1–2 oral antidiabetics (OADs), using a network meta-analysis (NMA). Design systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data Sources EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched from January 1994 to August 2017.
Methods
Randomised controlled trials with ≥20 weeks of treatment evaluating once-weekly semaglutide or SGLT-2is. Primary outcomes included change from baseline in: HbA1c, weight, systolic blood pressure, postprandial blood glucose and fasting plasma glucose. Fixed-effect and random-effect Bayesian NMA were used to indirectly compare treatment effects at 26 (±4) weeks. Metaregression and sensitivity analyses were conducted. Model selection was performed using the deviance information criterion and consistency was assessed by comparing indirect (edge-splitting) to direct evidence.
Results
Forty-eight publications representing 21 trials were included. The mean differences (MD) in change from baseline in HbA1c of once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg versus SGLT-2is ranged from −0.56% for canagliflozin 300 mg (95% credible interval (CrI): −0.76 to −0.33%), to −0.95% for dapagliflozin 5 mg (95% CrI: −1.20 to −0.69%). The MD in change from baseline in weight of once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg versus SGLT-2is ranged from −1.35 kg for canagliflozin 300 mg to −2.48 kg for dapagliflozin 5 mg, while change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose ranged from −0.41 mmol/L for canagliflozin 300 mg to −1.37 mmol/L for dapagliflozin 5 mg. Once-weekly semaglutide was not statistically differentiable than all SGLT-2is in reducing systolic blood pressure. NMA was not feasible for postprandial blood glucose and safety outcomes.
Conclusion
Once-weekly semaglutide demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful reductions in HbA1c and body weight in T2D patients inadequately controlled with 1–2 OADs compared to all SGLT-2is licensed in Europe and North America.
Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor analogues/agonists (GLP-1RAs) are well established as effective adjuncts to lifestyle modification in the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) as monotherapy or in combination with oral glucose-lowering drugs ± insulin. The six subcutaneous GLP-1RA formulations (i.e. twice-daily exenatide, once-daily liraglutide and lixisenatide, and once-weekly dulaglutide, exenatide and semaglutide) currently available in the EU and USA have many similarities, but also some unique features and properties. By stimulating GLP-1 receptors, GLP-1RAs increase insulin secretion and suppress glucagon release in a glucose-dependent manner, thereby improving clinical and patient-reported outcomes related to glycaemic control and weight. They also have been shown to reduce, or at least not increase, the risk of major cardiovascular outcomes. GLP-1RAs are generally well tolerated, with gastrointestinal and injection-site reactions being the most troublesome drug-related adverse events, and are associated with a very low intrinsic risk of hypoglycaemia. Treatment with GLP-1RAs should be customized to meet the clinical needs and personal preferences of the individual.
The discovery of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), an incretin hormone with important effects on glycemic control and body weight regulation, led to efforts to extend its half-life and make it therapeutically effective in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The development of short- and then long-acting GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) followed. Our article charts the discovery and development of the long-acting GLP-1 analogs liraglutide and, subsequently, semaglutide. We examine the chemistry employed in designing liraglutide and semaglutide, the human and non-human studies used to investigate their cellular targets and pharmacological effects, and ongoing investigations into new applications and formulations of these drugs. Reversible binding to albumin was used for the systemic protraction of liraglutide and semaglutide, with optimal fatty acid and linker combinations identified to maximize albumin binding while maintaining GLP-1 receptor (GLP-1R) potency. GLP-1RAs mediate their effects via this receptor, which is expressed in the pancreas, gastrointestinal tract, heart, lungs, kidneys, and brain. GLP-1Rs in the pancreas and brain have been shown to account for the respective improvements in glycemic control and body weight that are evident with liraglutide and semaglutide. Both liraglutide and semaglutide also positively affect cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in individuals with T2D, although the precise mechanism is still being explored. Significant weight loss, through an effect to reduce energy intake, led to the approval of liraglutide (3.0 mg) for the treatment of obesity, an indication currently under investigation with semaglutide. Other ongoing investigations with semaglutide include the treatment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NASH) and its use in an oral formulation for the treatment of T2D. In summary, rational design has led to the development of two long-acting GLP-1 analogs, liraglutide and semaglutide, that have made a vast contribution to the management of T2D in terms of improvements in glycemic control, body weight, blood pressure, lipids, beta-cell function, and CV outcomes. Furthermore, the development of an oral formulation for semaglutide may provide individuals with additional benefits in relation to treatment adherence. In addition to T2D, liraglutide is used in the treatment of obesity, while semaglutide is currently under investigation for use in obesity and NASH.
Background
Diabetes mellitus is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and has been associated with 2‐ to 4‐fold higher mortality. Diabetes mellitus–related mortality has not been reassessed in individuals receiving routine care in the United States in the contemporary era of CVD risk reduction.
Methods and Results
We retrospectively studied 963 648 adults receiving care in the US Veterans Affairs Healthcare System from 2002 to 2014; mean follow‐up was 8 years. We estimated associations of diabetes mellitus status and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) with all‐cause and CVD mortality using covariate‐adjusted incidence rates and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. Of participants, 34% had diabetes mellitus. Compared with nondiabetic individuals, patients with diabetes mellitus had 7.0 (95% CI, 6.7–7.4) and 3.5 (95% CI, 3.3–3.7) deaths/1000‐person‐years higher all‐cause and CVD mortality, respectively. The age‐, sex‐, race‐, and ethnicity‐adjusted hazard ratio for diabetes mellitus–related mortality was 1.29 (95% CI, 1.28–1.31), and declined with adjustment for CVD risk factors (hazard ratio, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.16–1.19]) and glycemia (hazard ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.02–1.05]). Among individuals with diabetes mellitus, CVD mortality increased as HbA1c exceeded 7% (hazard ratios, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.08–1.14], 1.25 [95% CI, 1.22–1.29], and 1.52 [95% CI, 1.48–1.56] for HbA1c 7%–7.9%, 8%–8.9%, and ≥9%, respectively, relative to HbA1c 6%–6.9%). HbA1c 6% to 6.9% was associated with the lowest mortality risk irrespective of CVD history or age.
Conclusions
Diabetes mellitus remains significantly associated with all‐cause and CVD mortality, although diabetes mellitus–related excess mortality is lower in the contemporary era than previously. We observed a gradient of mortality risk with increasing HbA1c >6% to 6.9%, suggesting HbA1c remains an informative predictor of outcomes even if causality cannot be inferred.
In recent years, the options in treatment of diabetes mellitus type 2 have substantially expanded (currently more than 40 molecules are approved), however, the number of patients with decompensation of diabetes for the period from 2003 to 2014 remains unchanged. In clinical guidelines injecting drugs are given the «final» role as the most effective drugs. However in clinical trials injecting drugs showed a lower adherence compared to oral drugs. Currently injectable glucose lowering drugs include not only insulin but also analogues of glucagon-like peptide-1 (aGLP-1). However, majority of studies of treatment compliance in type 2 diabetes mellitus considered only insulin. Reasons of low compliance are: 1) offering comprehensive programmes for education, monitoring and patient support by primary care physicians; 2) addressing cost and availability issues; 3) prescribing current insulin, also in combination with GLP-1 agonists; 4) use of more simple and convenient devices for injecting insulin.
Objective:
To estimate the long-term absolute risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) according to fasting glucose (FG) levels below the threshold of diabetes.
Research design and methods:
We pooled data from seven observational cohorts of U.S. black and white men and women followed from 1960 to 2015. We categorized FG as follows: <5.0, 5.0-5.5, 5.6-6.2, 6.3-6.9 mmol/L, and diabetes (FG ≥7.0 mmol/L or use of diabetes medications). CVD was defined as fatal/nonfatal coronary heart disease and fatal/nonfatal stroke. We estimated the risk of CVD by FG category at index age 55 years using a modified Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, adjusted for the competing risk of non-CVD death. We also assessed risk for incident CVD according to change in FG before 50 years of age, specifically among the categories <5.6 mmol/L, 5.6-6.9 mmol/L, and diabetes.
Results:
Our sample included 19,630 individuals (6,197 blacks and 11,015 women) without a prior CVD event. Risk for CVD through 85 years of age ranged from 15.3% (<5.0 mmol/L) to 38.6% (diabetes levels) among women and from 21.5% (5.0-5.5 mmol/L) to 47.7% (diabetes levels) among men. An FG of 6.3-6.9 mmol/L was associated with higher long-term CVD risk compared with the lowest FG among men but not women. Increases in glucose during midlife with conversion to diabetes were associated with higher cardiovascular risk (1.3- to 3.6-fold) than increases in glucose below the diabetes threshold.
Conclusions:
Middle-age individuals with diabetes have high long-term absolute risk for CVD. These data strongly support the importance of blood glucose monitoring in midlife for CVD prevention.
Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are well established as effective treatments for patients with type 2 diabetes. GLP-1 RAs augment insulin secretion and suppress glucagon release via the stimulation of GLP-1 receptors. Although all GLP-1 RAs share the same underlying mechanism of action, they differ in terms of formulations, administration, injection devices and dosages. With six GLP-1 RAs currently available in Europe (namely, immediate-release exenatide, lixisenatide, liraglutide; prolonged-release exenatide, dulaglutide and semaglutide), each with its own characteristics and administration requirements, physicians caring for patients in their routine practice face the challenge of being cognizant of all this information so they are able to select the agent that is most suitable for their patient and use it in an efficient and optimal way. The objective of this review is to bring together practical information on the use of these GLP-1 RAs that reflects their approved use.
Funding: Eli Lilly and Company.
Plain Language Summary: Plain language summary available for this article.
Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) belong to an important therapeutic class for treatment of type 2 diabetes. Six GLP-1 RAs, each utilizing a unique drug delivery strategy, are now approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and additional, novel GLP-1 RAs are still under development, making for a crowded marketplace and fierce competition among the manufacturers of these products. As rapid elimination is a major challenge for clinical application of GLP-1 RAs, various half-life extension strategies have been successfully employed including sequential modification, attachment of fatty-acid to peptide, fusion with human serum albumin, fusion with the fragment crystallizable (Fc) region of a monoclonal antibody, sustained drug delivery systems, and PEGylation. In this review, we discuss the scientific rationale of the various half-life extension strategies used for GLP-1 RA development. By analyzing and comparing different approved GLP-1 RAs and those in development, we focus on assessing how half-life extending strategies impact the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, patient usability and ultimately, the commercial success of GLP-1 RA products. We also anticipate future GLP-1 RA development trends. Since similar drug delivery strategies are also applied for developing other therapeutic peptides, we expect this case study of GLP-1 RAs will provide generalizable concepts for the rational design of therapeutic peptides products with extended duration of action.
Semaglutide is a human glucagon‐like peptide‐1 analog that has been co‐formulated with the absorption enhancer, sodium N‐(8‐[2‐hydroxybenzoyl] amino) caprylate, for oral administration. This trial (NCT02016911) investigated whether hepatic impairment affects the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of oral semaglutide. Subjects were classified into groups: normal hepatic function (n = 24), and mild (n = 12), moderate (n = 12), or severe (n = 8) hepatic impairment according to Child‐Pugh criteria, and received once‐daily oral semaglutide (5 mg for 5 days followed by 10 mg for 5 days). Semaglutide plasma concentrations were measured during dosing and for up to 21 days post‐last dose. Area under the semaglutide plasma concentration–time curve from 0–24 hours after the 10th dose (primary end point) and maximum semaglutide concentration after the 10th dose appeared similar across hepatic function groups. Similarly, there was no apparent effect of hepatic impairment on time to maximum semaglutide concentration (median range 1.0–1.5 hours) or half‐life (geometric mean range 142–156 hours). No safety concerns were identified in subjects with hepatic impairment receiving semaglutide. Reported adverse events were in line with those observed for other glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists. There was no apparent effect of hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of oral semaglutide. The results of this trial suggest that dose adjustment of oral semaglutide is not warranted in subjects with hepatic impairment.
Context
Combination therapy with insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) is increasingly important for treating type 2 diabetes (T2D). This trial assesses the efficacy and safety of semaglutide, a GLP-1RA, as an add-on to basal insulin.
Objective
To demonstrate the superiority of semaglutide versus placebo on glycaemic control as add-on to basal insulin in patients with T2D.
Design
Phase 3a, double blind, placebo-controlled, 30-week trial.
Setting
90 sites in five countries.
Patients
397 patients with uncontrolled T2D receiving stable therapy with basal insulin ± metformin.
Interventions
Subcutaneous semaglutide 0.5 or 1.0 mg once weekly, or volume-matched placebo.
Main Outcome Measures
Primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to Week 30. Confirmatory secondary endpoint was change in body weight from baseline to Week 30.
Results
At Week 30, mean HbA1c reductions (mean baseline value 8.4% [67.9 mmol/mol]) with semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg were 1.4% (15.8 mmol/mol) and 1.8% (20.2 mmol/mol), versus 0.1% (1.0 mmol/mol) with placebo (estimated treatment difference [ETD] [95% confidence interval (CI)] versus placebo –1.35 (14.8 mmol/mol), [–1.61; –1.10] and –1.75% (19.2 mmol/mol), [–2.01; –1.50]; both p<0.0001). Severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes were reported in 11 patients (17 events) and 14 (25 events) patients with semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1.0 mg, respectively, versus 7 patients (13 events) with placebo (estimated rate ratios versus placebo [95% CI], 2.08 [0.67; 6.51] and 2.41 [0.84; 6.96] for 0.5 and 1.0 mg; both p=nonsignificant). Mean body weight decreased with semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg, versus placebo from baseline to end-of-treatment: 3.7, 6.4 and 1.4 kg (ETD [95% CI], –2.31 [–3.33; –1.29], and –5.06 [–6.08; –4.04] kg; both p<0.0001). Premature treatment discontinuation due to adverse events were higher for semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg versus placebo (4.5, 6.1 and 0.8%), mainly due to gastrointestinal disorders.
Conclusions
Semaglutide, added to basal insulin, significantly reduced HbA1c and body weight in patients with uncontrolled T2D versus placebo.
Introduction:
Once-weekly semaglutide is a new glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue administered at a 1.0 or 0.5 mg dose. As head-to-head trials assessing once-weekly semaglutide as an add-on to 1-2 oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs) vs other GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are limited, a network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed. The objective was to assess the relative efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide vs GLP-1 RAs in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled on 1-2 OADs.
Methods:
A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in order to identify trials of GLP-1 RAs in patients inadequately controlled on 1-2 OADs. Data at 24 ± 4 weeks were extracted for efficacy and safety outcomes (feasible for analysis in a NMA), which included the key outcomes of change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and weight, as well as discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs). Data were synthesized using a NMA and a Bayesian framework.
Results:
In total, 26 studies were included across the base case analyses. Once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg was associated with significantly greater reductions in HbA1c and weight vs all GLP-1 RA comparators. Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg also achieved significantly greater reductions in HbA1c and weight compared with the majority of other GLP-1 RAs. Both doses of once-weekly semaglutide were associated with similar odds of discontinuation due to AEs compared with other GLP-1 RAs.
Conclusion:
Overall, once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg as an add-on to 1-2 OADs is the most efficacious GLP-1 RA in terms of the reduction of HbA1c and weight from baseline after 6 months of treatment. In addition, the analysis suggests that once-weekly semaglutide is well tolerated and not associated with an increase in discontinuations due to AEs compared with other GLP-1 RAs.
Funding:
Novo Nordisk.
Background:
Semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue, has been co-formulated with the absorption enhancer sodium N-(8-[2-hydroxybenzoyl] amino) caprylate (SNAC) as a tablet for oral administration. This trial (NCT02014259) investigated the pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of oral semaglutide in subjects with and without renal impairment.
Methods:
Subjects were categorised as having normal renal function (n = 24), mild (n = 12), moderate (n = 12) or severe (n = 12) renal impairment, or end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring haemodialysis (n = 11) and received once-daily oral semaglutide (5 mg for 5 days followed by 10 mg for 5 days) in the fasting state, followed by 30 min fasting after dosing. Semaglutide plasma concentrations were measured during dosing and for up to 21 days after the last dose.
Results:
Semaglutide exposure (area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to 24 h after the tenth dose and maximum concentration after the tenth dose) did not vary in a consistent pattern across the renal function groups. Similarly, there was no apparent effect of renal impairment on the semaglutide half-life (geometric mean range 152-165 h). Except for one subject in the ESRD group, semaglutide was not detected in urine. Haemodialysis did not affect the pharmacokinetics of semaglutide. Adverse events were in line with those observed for other GLP-1 receptor agonists and no safety concerns were identified.
Conclusion:
There was no apparent effect of renal impairment or haemodialysis on the pharmacokinetics of oral semaglutide. Based on this trial, renal impairment should not affect dose recommendations for oral semaglutide.
Aims:
To investigate whether the pharmacokinetic characteristics of semaglutide were altered in subjects with hepatic impairment, assessed using Child-Pugh criteria, versus those with normal hepatic function.
Methods:
In this multicentre, open-label, parallel-group trial (sponsor Novo Nordisk, ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02210871), four groups of subjects with normal hepatic function (n = 19) or mild (n = 8), moderate (n = 10) or severe (n =7) hepatic impairment received a single, subcutaneous dose of 0.5 mg semaglutide. Semaglutide plasma concentrations were assessed frequently for 35 days after dosing. The primary endpoint was area under the semaglutide plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC0-∞ ). No effect of hepatic impairment was declared if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the between-groups ratio (hepatic impairment/normal) was within the interval 0.70-1.43.
Results:
Semaglutide exposure was similar across all groups, with AUC0-∞ treatment ratios for mild impairment/normal of 0.95 (90% CI 0.77, 1.16), moderate impairment/normal 1.02 (0.93, 1.12), and severe impairment/normal 0.97 (0.84, 1.12). The maximum plasma semaglutide concentration (Cmax ) did not appear to be influenced by hepatic function, with mild impairment/normal treatment ratios of 0.99 (0.80, 1.23), moderate impairment/normal 1.02 (0.88, 1.18) and severe impairment/normal 1.15 (0.89, 1.48) (sensitivity analysis excluding one extreme semaglutide concentration: 1.05 (0.88, 1.25)). Ten subjects reported twelve mild or moderate non-serious adverse events. No unexpected safety or tolerability issues were observed.
Conclusions:
Semaglutide exposure did not appear to be affected by hepatic impairment, suggesting that no dose adjustment may be necessary in patients with hepatic impairment. Semaglutide was well tolerated and there were no unexpected safety issues.
Purpose:
This study aimed to investigate the effect of steady-state exposure to flibanserin, a 5-HT1A agonist/5-HT2A antagonist approved for the treatment of hypoactive sexual desire disorder in premenopausal women, on the single-dose pharmacokinetics of the contraceptive steroids ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel in healthy premenopausal women.
Methods:
Healthy female volunteers (N = 24) received 2 single doses of a combined oral contraceptive containing ethinylestradiol 30 μg and levonorgestrel 150 μg, either alone (reference) or preceded by treatment with flibanserin 100 mg once daily for 14 days (test). The 2 treatments were given in randomized order, with a 4-week washout period following the last administration of the first treatment. Plasma concentrations of ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel were measured over 48 hours after dosing for the determination of pharmacokinetic parameters; the primary end points were Cmax and AUC0-∞ of ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel.
Findings:
Of the 24 women enrolled (mean age, 38.0 years), 23 completed the study. Mean (SD) Cmax and AUC0-∞ values of ethinylestradiol were 66.7 (16.3) pg/mL and 693 (268) pg · h/mL, respectively, following the oral contraceptive alone, and 72.7 (25.5) pg/mL and 740 (235) pg · h/mL, respectively, when the oral contraceptive was preceded by flibanserin. In both cases, the 90% CIs of the reference/test ratios of Cmax and AUC0-∞ were within the range of 80% to 125%, indicating that flibanserin had no significant effect on the pharmacokinetic properties of ethinylestradiol. Similarly, the mean (SD) Cmax and AUC0-∞ values of levonorgestrel were 5.0 (1.6) ng/mL and 52.2 (18.7) ng · h/mL, respectively, with the oral contraceptive alone, and 5.0 (1.6) ng/mL and 53.3 (20.4) ng · h/mL, respectively, following flibanserin; again, in both cases, the 90% CIs of the reference/test ratios were within the range of 80% to 125%, indicating that flibanserin had no significant effect on the pharmacokinetic properties of levonorgestrel. All adverse events were mild to moderate in intensity (incidence: 12.5% and 70.8% with ethinylestradiol/levonorgestrel treatment alone and following administration of flibanserin, respectively).
Implications:
Pretreatment with flibanserin 100 mg once daily for 2 weeks did not produce a clinically relevant change in oral contraceptive drug exposure following single-dose administration of ethinylestradiol/levonorgestrel. This finding is relevant to women with hypoactive sexual desire disorder who might prefer oral contraceptives to other forms of birth control. EudraCT No: 2006-006960-46.
Aims/hypothesis:
Semaglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue in development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Its effects on first- and second-phase insulin secretion and other measures of beta cell function and glycaemic control were assessed.
Methods:
In this single-centre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial, conducted at the Profil Institut für Stoffwechselforschung, Germany, 75 adult (aged 18-64 years) participants with type 2 diabetes (eligibility: HbA1c of 6.5-9.0% (47.5-74.9 mmol/mol); BMI 20.0-35.0 kg/m(2); and treatment with diet and exercise and/or metformin monotherapy with a dose unchanged in the 30 days prior to screening) were randomised (1:1) to once-weekly s.c. semaglutide 1.0 mg (0.25, 0.5, 1.0 mg escalated) or placebo for 12 weeks. Co-primary endpoints were changes from baseline to end of treatment in the first (AUC0-10 min) and second (AUC10-120 min) insulin secretion phases, as measured by the IVGTT. An arginine stimulation test (AST) and a 24 h meal stimulation test were also conducted. A graded glucose infusion test (GGIT) assessed insulin secretion rate (ISR) in treated participants and a group of untreated healthy participants. Safety endpoints were also assessed.
Results:
In total, 37 participants received semaglutide and 38 received placebo. Following IVGTT, for insulin, both AUC0-10min and AUC10-120min were significantly increased with semaglutide (estimated treatment ratio [95% CI] 3.02 [2.53, 3.60] and 2.10 [1.86, 2.37], respectively; p < 0.0001). The 24 h meal test showed reduced fasting, postprandial and overall (AUC0-24h) glucose and glucagon responses with semaglutide (p < 0.0001). The AST showed that maximal insulin capacity increased following semaglutide treatment. During GGIT, semaglutide significantly increased ISR to levels similar to those in healthy participants. Semaglutide was well tolerated.
Conclusions/interpretation:
Twelve weeks of once-weekly treatment with semaglutide significantly improved beta cell function and glycaemic control in participants with type 2 diabetes.
Trial registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02212067 FUNDING: The study was funded by Novo Nordisk A/S.
Background
The pharmacokinetics and tolerability of semaglutide, a once-weekly human glucagon-like peptide-1 analog in development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, were investigated in subjects with/without renal impairment (RI). Methods
Fifty-six subjects, categorized into renal function groups [normal, mild, moderate, severe, and end-stage renal disease (ESRD)], received a single subcutaneous dose of semaglutide 0.5 mg. Semaglutide plasma concentrations were assessed ≤480 h post-dose; the primary endpoint was the area under the plasma concentration–time curve from time zero to infinity. ResultsSemaglutide exposure in subjects with mild/moderate RI and ESRD was similar to that in subjects with normal renal function. In subjects with severe RI, the mean exposure of semaglutide was 22% higher than in subjects with normal renal function, and the 95% confidence interval (1.02–1.47) for the ratio exceeded the pre-specified limits (0.70–1.43). When adjusted for differences in sex, age, and body weight between the groups, all comparisons were within the pre-specified clinically relevant limits. Across RI groups there was no relationship between creatinine clearance (CLCR) and semaglutide exposure, or between CLCR and semaglutide maximum plasma drug concentration (Cmax). Hemodialysis did not appear to affect the pharmacokinetics of semaglutide. No appreciable changes in safety parameters or vital signs and no serious adverse events were noted. One subject with severe RI reported two major hypoglycemic events. Conclusion
When adjusted for differences in sex, age, and body weight, semaglutide exposure was similar between subjects with RI and subjects with normal renal function. Semaglutide (0.5 mg) was well-tolerated. Dose adjustment may not be warranted for subjects with RI. ClinicalTrials.gov identifierNCT00833716.
Semaglutide is a human glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue in clinical development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The absorption, metabolism and excretion of a single 0.5 mg/450 μCi [16.7 MBq] subcutaneous dose of [³H]-radiolabelled semaglutide was investigated in healthy human subjects and compared with data from nonclinical studies.
Radioactivity in blood, plasma, urine and faeces was determined in humans, rats and monkeys; radioactivity in expired air was determined in humans and rats. Metabolites in plasma, urine and faeces were quantified following profiling and radiodetection. The blood-to-plasma ratio and pharmacokinetics of both radiolabelled semaglutide-related material and of semaglutide (in humans only) were assessed.
Intact semaglutide was the primary component circulating in plasma for humans and both nonclinical species, accounting for 69–83% of the total amount of semaglutide-related material, and was metabolised prior to excretion. Recovery of excreted radioactivity was 75.1% in humans, 72.1% in rats and 58.2% in monkeys. Urine and faeces were shown to be important routes of excretion, with urine as the primary route in both humans and animals. Semaglutide was metabolised through proteolytic cleavage of the peptide backbone and sequential beta-oxidation of the fatty acid sidechain, and metabolism was not confined to specific organs. Intact semaglutide in urine accounted for 3.1% of the administered dose in humans and less than 1% in rats; it was not detected in urine in monkeys.
The metabolite profiles of semaglutide in humans appear to be similar to the profiles from the nonclinical species investigated.
Aim:
To investigate the mechanism of action for body weight loss with semaglutide.
Materials and methods:
This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-period crossover trial investigated the effects of 12 weeks treatment with once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide, dose-escalated to 1.0 mg, in 30 subjects with obesity. Ad libitum energy intake, ratings of appetite, thirst, nausea and well-being, control of eating, food preference, resting metabolic rate, body weight and body composition were assessed.
Results:
After a standardised breakfast, semaglutide, compared with placebo, led to a lower ad libitum energy intake during lunch (-1255 kJ; P < 0.0001), and during the subsequent evening meal (P = 0.0401) and snacks (P = 0.0034), resulting in a 24% reduction in total energy intake across all ad libitum meals throughout the day (-3036 kJ; P < 0.0001). Fasting overall appetite suppression scores were improved with semaglutide versus placebo, while nausea ratings were similar. Semaglutide was associated with less hunger and food cravings, better control of eating and a lower preference for high-fat foods. Resting metabolic rate, adjusted for lean body mass, did not differ between treatments. Semaglutide led to a reduction from baseline in mean body weight of 5.0 kg, predominantly from body fat mass.
Conclusion:
After 12 weeks' treatment, ad libitum energy intake was substantially lower with semaglutide versus placebo with a corresponding loss of body weight observed with semaglutide. In addition to reduced energy intake, likely mechanisms for semaglutide-induced weight loss included less appetite and food cravings, better control of eating and lower relative preference for fatty, energy-dense foods.
Objective:
To investigate the dose-response relationship of semaglutide versus placebo and open-label liraglutide in terms of glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Research design and methods:
This was a 12-week, randomized, double-blind phase 2 trial. Patients (n = 415) were randomized to receive a subcutaneous injection of semaglutide once weekly without dose escalation (0.1-0.8 mg) or with dose escalation (E) (0.4 mg steps to 0.8 or 1.6 mg E over 1-2 weeks), open-label liraglutide once daily (1.2 or 1.8 mg), or placebo. The primary end point was change in HbA1c level from baseline. Secondary end points included change in body weight, safety, and tolerability.
Results:
Semaglutide dose-dependently reduced the level of HbA1c from baseline (8.1 ± 0.8%) to week 12 by up to -1.7%, and body weight by up to -4.8 kg (1.6 mg E, P < 0.001 vs. placebo). Up to 81% of patients achieved an HbA1c level of <7%. HbA1c level and weight reductions with semaglutide 1.6 mg E were greater than those with liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8 mg (based on unadjusted CIs), but adverse events (AEs) and withdrawals occurred more frequently. The incidence of nausea, vomiting, and withdrawal due to gastrointestinal AEs increased with the semaglutide dose; most events were mild to moderate, transient, and ameliorated by dose escalation. There were no major episodes of hypoglycemia and few cases of injection site reactions.
Conclusions:
After 12 weeks, semaglutide dose-dependently reduced HbA1c level and weight in patients with type 2 diabetes. No unexpected safety or tolerability concerns were identified; gastrointestinal AEs typical of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists were mitigated by dose escalation. On this basis, weekly semaglutide doses of 0.5 and 1.0 mg with a 4-week dose escalation were selected for phase 3.
Background Improved blood-glucose control decreases the progression of diabetic microvascular disease, but the effect on macrovascular complications is unknown. There is concern that sulphonylureas may increase cardiovascular mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes and that high insulin concentrations may enhance atheroma formation. We compared the effects of intensive blood-glucose control with either sulphonylurea or insulin and conventional treatment on the risk of microvascular and macrovascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes in a randomised controlled trial. Methods 3867 newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes, median age 54 years (IQR 48-60 years), who after 3 months' diet treatment had a mean of two fasting plasma glucose (FPG) concentrations of 6.1-15.0 mmol/L were randomly assigned intensive policy with a sulphonylurea (chlorpropamide, glibenclamide, or. glipizide) or with insulin, or conventional policy with diet. The aim in the intensive group was FPG less than 6 mmol/L. in the conventional group, the aim was the best achievable FPG with diet atone; drugs were added only if there were hyperglycaemic symptoms or FPG greater than 15 mmol/L. Three aggregate endpoints were used to assess differences between conventional and intensive treatment: any diabetes-related endpoint (sudden death, death from hyperglycaemia or hypoglycaemia, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure, stroke, renal failure, amputation [of at least one digit], vitreous haemorrhage, retinopathy requiring photocoagulation, blindness in one eye,or cataract extraction); diabetes-related death (death from myocardial infarction, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, renal disease, hyperglycaemia or hypoglycaemia, and sudden death); all-cause mortality. Single clinical endpoints and surrogate subclinical endpoints were also assessed. All analyses were by intention to treat and frequency of hypoglycaemia was also analysed by actual therapy. Findings Over 10 years, haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) was 7.0% (6.2-8.2) in the intensive group compared with 7.9% (6.9-8.8) in the conventional group-an 11% reduction. There was no difference in HbA(1c) among agents in the intensive group. Compared with the conventional group, the risk in the intensive group was 12% lower (95% CI 1-21, p=0.029) for any diabetes-related endpoint; 10% lower (-11 to 27, p=0.34) for any diabetes-related death; and 6% lower (-10 to 20, p=0.44) for all-cause mortality. Most of the risk reduction in the any diabetes-related aggregate endpoint was due to a 25% risk reduction (7-40, p=0.0099) in microvascular endpoints, including the need for retinal photocoagulation. There was no difference for any of the three aggregate endpoints the three intensive agents (chlorpropamide, glibenclamide, or insulin). Patients in the intensive group had more hypoglycaemic episodes than those in the conventional group on both types of analysis (both p<0.0001). The rates of major hypoglycaemic episodes per year were 0.7% with conventional treatment, 1.0% with chlorpropamide, 1.4% with glibenclamide, and 1.8% with insulin. Weight gain was significantly higher in the intensive group (mean 2.9 kg) than in the conventional group (p<0.001), and patients assigned insulin had a greater gain in weight (4.0 kg) than those assigned chlorpropamide (2.6 kg) or glibenclamide (1.7 kg). Interpretation Intensive blood-glucose control by either sulphonylureas or insulin substantially decreases the risk of microvascular complications, but not macrovascular disease, in patients with type 2 diabetes. None of the individual drugs had an adverse effect on cardiovascular outcomes. All intensive treatment increased the risk of hypoglycaemia.
Patients affected by diabetes show an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality that reduces their life expectancy by 5–15 years (depending on the age at diagnosis). An 18-year follow-up study from Finland demonstrated a similar impact of type 1 and type 2 diabetes on cardiovascular mortality, with an increased risk of 5.2 and 4.9 times for type 1 and type 2 diabetes, respectively (1). In type 1 diabetes, follow-up results from a large randomized clinical trial suggest that the improvement of metabolic control, obtained through intensive insulin treatment, can prevent CVD in the long term. On the other hand, despite some encouraging results (2,3), the results of trials assessing the long-term cardiovascular effects of improving metabolic control in type 2 diabetes are controversial. Here, we will present the main points supporting and will illustrate the main counterpoints challenging the importance of glucose control for prevention of CVD in diabetic patients.
### Pros
#### Pathophysiological effects of hyperglycemia on cardiovascular system.
There is convincing evidence from epidemiological and pathophysiological studies that hyperglycemia has a detrimental effect on cardiovascular risk profile in its own right. It is well known that among patients with type 2 diabetes, those with higher levels of blood glucose and HbA1c are at greater risk for CVD. Glycemic fluctuations and chronic hyperglycemia are triggers for inflammatory responses via increased endoplasmic reticulum stress and mitochondrial superoxide production. The molecular pathways underlying hyperglycemia, low-grade inflammation, and oxidative stress have been widely recognized in the pathogenesis of endothelial dysfunction, which represents the first step of atherogenesis. Through this pathway, hyperglycemia-induced early atherogenesis may lead to an increased probability of cardiovascular events later in life. Direct effects of glucose toxicity, oxidative stress, and low-grade inflammation act in a vicious cycle that determines impaired insulin sensitivity, β-cell loss, and endothelial dysfunction, thus leading to micro- and macrovascular complications …
The effect of semaglutide, a once-weekly human glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analog in development for type 2 diabetes (T2D), on the bioavailability of a combined oral contraceptive was investigated. Postmenopausal women with T2D (n=43) on diet/exercise ± metformin received ethinylestradiol (0.03 mg)/levonorgestrel (0.15 mg) once-daily for 8 days before (semaglutide-free) and during (steady-state 1.0 mg) semaglutide treatment (subcutaneous once-weekly; dose escalation: 0.25 mg 4 weeks; 0.5 mg 4 weeks; 1.0 mg 5 weeks). Bioequivalence of oral contraceptives was established if 90% CI for the ratio of pharmacokinetic parameters during semaglutide steady-state and semaglutide-free periods was within prespecified limits (0.80-1.25). The bioequivalence criterion was met for ethinylestradiol area under the curve (AUC0-24h ) for semaglutide steady-state/semaglutide-free; 1.11 [1.06-1.15]. AUC0-24h was 20% higher for levonorgestrel at semaglutide steady-state versus semaglutide-free (1.20 [1.15-1.26]). Cmax was within bioequivalence criterion for both contraceptives. Reductions (mean ± SD) in HbA1c (-1.1 ± 0.6%) and weight (-4.3 ± 3.1 kg) were observed. Semaglutide pharmacokinetics were compatible with once-weekly dosing; the semaglutide dose and dose-escalation regimen was well tolerated. Adverse events, mainly gastrointestinal, were mild to moderate in severity. Asymptomatic increases in mean amylase and lipase were observed. Three subjects had alanine aminotransferase =3x the upper limit of normal during semaglutide/oral contraceptive co-administration, but these resolved by follow-up. Semaglutide did not reduce the bioavailability of ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Uncertainties persist about the magnitude of associations of diabetes mellitus and fasting glucose concentration with risk of coronary heart disease and major stroke subtypes. We aimed to quantify these associations for a wide range of circumstances.
We undertook a meta-analysis of individual records of diabetes, fasting blood glucose concentration, and other risk factors in people without initial vascular disease from studies in the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration. We combined within-study regressions that were adjusted for age, sex, smoking, systolic blood pressure, and body-mass index to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for vascular disease.
Analyses included data for 698 782 people (52 765 non-fatal or fatal vascular outcomes; 8.49 million person-years at risk) from 102 prospective studies. Adjusted HRs with diabetes were: 2.00 (95% CI 1.83-2.19) for coronary heart disease; 2.27 (1.95-2.65) for ischaemic stroke; 1.56 (1.19-2.05) for haemorrhagic stroke; 1.84 (1.59-2.13) for unclassified stroke; and 1.73 (1.51-1.98) for the aggregate of other vascular deaths. HRs did not change appreciably after further adjustment for lipid, inflammatory, or renal markers. HRs for coronary heart disease were higher in women than in men, at 40-59 years than at 70 years and older, and with fatal than with non-fatal disease. At an adult population-wide prevalence of 10%, diabetes was estimated to account for 11% (10-12%) of vascular deaths. Fasting blood glucose concentration was non-linearly related to vascular risk, with no significant associations between 3.90 mmol/L and 5.59 mmol/L. Compared with fasting blood glucose concentrations of 3.90-5.59 mmol/L, HRs for coronary heart disease were: 1.07 (0.97-1.18) for lower than 3.90 mmol/L; 1.11 (1.04-1.18) for 5.60-6.09 mmol/L; and 1.17 (1.08-1.26) for 6.10-6.99 mmol/L. In people without a history of diabetes, information about fasting blood glucose concentration or impaired fasting glucose status did not significantly improve metrics of vascular disease prediction when added to information about several conventional risk factors.
Diabetes confers about a two-fold excess risk for a wide range of vascular diseases, independently from other conventional risk factors. In people without diabetes, fasting blood glucose concentration is modestly and non-linearly associated with risk of vascular disease.
British Heart Foundation, UK Medical Research Council, and Pfizer.
Aims:
SURE Italy, a multicentre, prospective, open-label, observational, real-world study, investigated once-weekly (OW) semaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in routine clinical practice.
Materials and methods:
Adults with T2D and ≥1 documented HbA1c level within 12 weeks of semaglutide initiation were enrolled. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to end of study (EOS; ~30 weeks). Other endpoints included changes in body weight (BW), waist circumference and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7.0% or <6.5%, weight loss ≥5% and a post-hoc composite endpoint (HbA1c reduction of ≥1%-point and weight loss ≥5%). These endpoints were reported for patients on semaglutide at EOS (effectiveness analysis set [EAS]). Safety data were reported in the full analysis set (FAS).
Results:
Of 579 patients who initiated semaglutide (FAS), 491 completed the study on treatment (EAS). Mean baseline HbA1c was 8.0%, and 20.7% (120/579) of patients had HbA1c <7.0%. Mean semaglutide dose at EOS was 0.66 ± 0.28 mg. In the EAS, mean HbA1c and BW decreased by 1.1%-point (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20,1.05; p<0.0001) and 4.2 kg (95% CI 4.63,3.67; p<0.0001), respectively. At EOS, 61.7% and 40.8% of patients achieved HbA1c <7.0% and <6.5%, respectively, 40.5% achieved weight loss ≥5% and 25.3% achieved the post-hoc composite endpoint. PROs improved from baseline to EOS. No new safety concerns were identified.
Conclusions:
In routine clinical practice in Italy, patients with T2D treated with OW semaglutide for 30 weeks achieved clinically significant improvements in HbA1c , BW and other outcomes. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
The American Diabetes Association (ADA) “Standards of Care in Diabetes” includes the ADA’s current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA’s clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.
Under the guideline issued by Food and Drug Administration (FDA), ANDAs for Certain Highly Purified Synthetic Peptide Drug Products That Refer to Listed Drugs of rDNA Origin Guidance for Industry, a synthetic Semaglutide that is intended to be a “generic” of the approved rDNA origin Semaglutide is under exploring. Thus, each peptide-related impurity that is 0.10 percent of the drug substance or greater need to be identified for Semaglutide covered by this guidance. Among others, characterization of the low-level D-amino acid (D form) isomeric impurities are always the most challenging ones. Reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography (RP-UPLC) was used to separate the impurities, followed by high resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) to determine the molecular weight of the impurities that existed in both formulations. Following the targeted D form isomers off-line collection, the samples went through lyophilization, deuterated hydrochloric acid (D-HCl) hydrolyzation with low level D/L form shifting suppression substrates, chiral derivatization and RP-UPLC tandem mass spectrometry analysis of different amino acids by comparing with standards. Herein, we reported an accurate, straightforward characterization method with low limit of detection for the low-level D-Ser⁸, D-His¹ and D-Asp⁹ Semaglutide impurities in Semaglutide formulations. The developed UPLC tandem HRMS method entails a valuable step forward in the detection of trace levels of the D-isomers of Semaglutide and other peptide products.
Background
This trial assessed the efficacy and safety of the GLP-1 analogue once a week subcutaneous semaglutide 2·4 mg versus semaglutide 1·0 mg (the dose approved for diabetes treatment) and placebo for weight management in adults with overweight or obesity, and type 2 diabetes.
Methods
This double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3, superiority study enrolled adults with a body-mass index of at least 27 kg/m² and glycated haemoglobin 7–10% (53–86 mmol/mol) who had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at least 180 days before screening. Patients were recruited from 149 outpatient clinics in 12 countries across Europe, North America, South America, the Middle East, South Africa, and Asia. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1:1) via an interactive web-response system and stratified by background glucose-lowering medication and glycated haemoglobin, to subcutaneous injection of semaglutide 2·4 mg, or semaglutide 1·0 mg, or visually matching placebo, once a week for 68 weeks, plus a lifestyle intervention. Patients, investigators, and those assessing outcomes were masked to group assignment. Coprimary endpoints were percentage change in bodyweight and achievement of weight reduction of at least 5% at 68 weeks for semaglutide 2·4 mg versus placebo, assessed by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03552757 and is closed to new participants.
Findings
From June 4 to Nov 14, 2018, 1595 patients were screened, of whom 1210 were randomly assigned to semaglutide 2·4 mg (n=404), semaglutide 1·0 mg (n=403), or placebo (n=403) and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Estimated change in mean bodyweight from baseline to week 68 was −9·6% (SE 0·4) with semaglutide 2·4 mg vs −3·4% (0·4) with placebo. Estimated treatment difference for semaglutide 2·4 mg versus placebo was −6·2 percentage points (95% CI −7·3 to −5·2; p<0·0001). At week 68, more patients on semaglutide 2·4 mg than on placebo achieved weight reductions of at least 5% (267 [68·8%] of 388 vs 107 [28·5%] of 376; odds ratio 4·88, 95% CI 3·58 to 6·64; p<0·0001). Adverse events were more frequent with semaglutide 2·4 mg (in 353 [87·6%] of 403 patients) and 1·0 mg (329 [81·8%] of 402) than with placebo (309 [76·9%] of 402). Gastrointestinal adverse events, which were mostly mild to moderate, were reported in 256 (63·5%) of 403 patients with semaglutide 2·4 mg, 231 (57·5%) of 402 with semaglutide 1·0 mg, and 138 (34·3%) of 402 with placebo.
Interpretation
In adults with overweight or obesity, and type 2 diabetes, semaglutide 2·4 mg once a week achieved a superior and clinically meaningful decrease in bodyweight compared with placebo.
Funding
Novo Nordisk.
Background
Obesity is a global health challenge with few pharmacologic options. Whether adults with obesity can achieve weight loss with once-weekly semaglutide at a dose of 2.4 mg as an adjunct to lifestyle intervention has not been confirmed.
Methods
In this double-blind trial, we enrolled 1961 adults with a body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) of 30 or greater (≥27 in persons with ≥1 weight-related coexisting condition), who did not have diabetes, and randomly assigned them, in a 2:1 ratio, to 68 weeks of treatment with once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide (at a dose of 2.4 mg) or placebo, plus lifestyle intervention. The coprimary end points were the percentage change in body weight and weight reduction of at least 5%. The primary estimand (a precise description of the treatment effect reflecting the objective of the clinical trial) assessed effects regardless of treatment discontinuation or rescue interventions.
Results
The mean change in body weight from baseline to week 68 was −14.9% in the semaglutide group as compared with −2.4% with placebo, for an estimated treatment difference of −12.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], −13.4 to −11.5; P<0.001). More participants in the semaglutide group than in the placebo group achieved weight reductions of 5% or more (1047 participants [86.4%] vs. 182 [31.5%]), 10% or more (838 [69.1%] vs. 69 [12.0%]), and 15% or more (612 [50.5%] vs. 28 [4.9%]) at week 68 (P<0.001 for all three comparisons of odds). The change in body weight from baseline to week 68 was −15.3 kg in the semaglutide group as compared with −2.6 kg in the placebo group (estimated treatment difference, −12.7 kg; 95% CI, −13.7 to −11.7). Participants who received semaglutide had a greater improvement with respect to cardiometabolic risk factors and a greater increase in participant-reported physical functioning from baseline than those who received placebo. Nausea and diarrhea were the most common adverse events with semaglutide; they were typically transient and mild-to-moderate in severity and subsided with time. More participants in the semaglutide group than in the placebo group discontinued treatment owing to gastrointestinal events (59 [4.5%] vs. 5 [0.8%]).
Conclusions
In participants with overweight or obesity, 2.4 mg of semaglutide once weekly plus lifestyle intervention was associated with sustained, clinically relevant reduction in body weight. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; STEP 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03548935).
Aim:
To compare the efficacy and tolerability of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) in adults with type 2 diabetes.
Materials and methods:
Electronic databases were searched from inception to 24th April 2019 for randomised controlled trials reporting change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c ) at approximately 24 and/or 52 weeks for SGLT-2is and/or GLP-1RAs (classified as short- and long-acting). Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted to compare within and between SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA classes for cardiometabolic efficacy and adverse events (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018091306).
Results:
64 trials (53 trials of 24 weeks; 7 trials of 52 weeks; 4 trials of both 24 and 52 weeks), comprising of 31,384 participants were identified. Compared to placebo, all treatments improved HbA1c . Long-acting GLP-1RAs reduced HbA1c compared to short-acting GLP-1RAs and SGLT-2is, with semaglutide showing greater reduction compared to placebo (24 weeks: -1.49% (95% credible interval [CrI]: -1.76, -1.22), 52 weeks: -1.38% (-2.05, -0.71)) and all other treatments. Long-acting GLP-1RAs showed benefits in body weight and waist circumference reduction, while SGLT-2is reduced blood pressure. SGLT-2is showed increased odds of genital infection in comparison to long-acting GLP-1RAs (odds ratio (95% CrI): 5.26 (1.45, 25.00)), while GLP-1RAs showed increased odds of diarrhoea in comparison to SGLT-2is (short-acting GLP-1RAs: 1.65 (1.09, 2.49), long-acting GLP-1RAs: 2.23 (1.51, 3.28)). No other differences were found between SGLT-2is and GLP-1RAs in adverse events.
Conclusion:
Long-acting GLP-1RAs showed superiority in reducing HbA1c levels, body weight and waist circumference. SGLT-2is showed reductions in blood pressure levels. This review provide essential evidence to guide treatment recommendations in the management of type 2 diabetes. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Abbreviations: A1C = hemoglobin A1C; AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists; ABCD = adiposity-based chronic disease; ACCORD = Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes; ACCORD BP = Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Blood Pressure; ACE = American College of Endocrinology; ACEI = angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; AGI = alpha-glucosidase inhibitor; apo B = apolipoprotein B; ARB = angiotensin II receptor blocker; ASCVD = atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; BAS = bile acid sequestrant; BMI = body mass index; BP = blood pressure; CCB = calcium channel blocker; CGM = continuous glucose monitoring; CHD = coronary heart disease; CKD = chronic kidney disease; DKA = diabetic ketoacidosis; DPP4 = dipeptidyl peptidase 4; eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate; EPA = eicosapentaenoic acid; ER = extended release; FDA = Food and Drug Administration; GLP1 = glucagon-like peptide 1; HDL-C = high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol; HeFH = heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia; LDL-C = low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-P = low-density-lipoprotein particle; Look AHEAD = Look Action for Health in Diabetes; NPH = neutral protamine Hagedorn; OSA = obstructive sleep apnea; PCSK9 = proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 serine protease; RCT = randomized controlled trial; SU = sulfonylurea; SGLT2 = sodium-glucose cotransporter 2; SMBG = self-monitoring of blood glucose; T2D = type 2 diabetes; TZD = thiazolidinedione
Background: Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists differ in their structure and duration of action and have
been studied in trials of varying sizes and with different patient populations, with inconsistent effects on cardiovascular
outcomes reported. We aimed to synthesise the available evidence by doing a systematic review and meta-analysis of
cardiovascular outcome trials of these drugs.
Methods: We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for eligible
placebo-controlled trials reporting major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; ie, cardiovascular death, stroke,
or myocardial infarction) up to June 15, 2019. We did a meta-analysis using a random-effects model to estimate overall
hazard ratios (HRs) for MACE, its components, death from any cause, hospital admission for heart failure, kidney
outcomes, and key safety outcomes (severe hypoglycaemia, pancreatitis, and pancreatic cancer). We also examined
MACE in several subgroups based on patient characteristics (history of cardiovascular disease, BMI, age, baseline HbA1c,
and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate), trial duration, treatment dosing interval, and structural homology.
Findings: Of 27 publications screened, seven trials, with a combined total of 56 004 participants, were included: ELIXA
(lixisenatide), LEADER (liraglutide), SUSTAIN-6 (semaglutide), EXSCEL (exenatide), Harmony Outcomes
(albiglutide), REWIND (dulaglutide), and PIONEER 6 (oral semaglutide). Overall, GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment
reduced MACE by 12% (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·82–0·94; p<0·0001). There was no statistically significant heterogeneity
across the subgroups examined. HRs were 0·88 (95% CI 0·81–0·96; p=0·003) for death from cardiovascular causes,
0·84 (0·76–0·93; p<0·0001) for fatal or non-fatal stroke, and 0·91 (0·84–1·00; p=0·043) for fatal or non-fatal
myocardial infarction. GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment reduced all-cause mortality by 12% (0·88, 0·83–0·95;
p=0·001), hospital admission for heart failure by 9% (0·91, 0·83–0·99; p=0·028), and a broad composite kidney
outcome (development of new-onset macroalbuminuria, decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate [or increase in
creatinine], progression to end-stage kidney disease, or death attributable to kidney causes) by 17% (0·83, 0·78–0·89;
p<0·0001), mainly due to a reduction in urinary albumin excretion. There was no increase in risk of severe
hypoglycaemia, pancreatitis, or pancreatic cancer.
Interpretation: Treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists has beneficial effects on cardiovascular, mortality, and kidney
outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Background:
Despite common mechanisms of actions, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists differ in structure, pharmacokinetic profile, and clinical effects. This head-to-head trial compared semaglutide with dulaglutide in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes.
Methods:
This was an open-label, parallel-group, phase 3b trial done at 194 hospitals, clinical institutions or private practices in 16 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had type 2 diabetes with HbA1c 7·0-10·5% (53·0-91·0 mmol/mol) on metformin monotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) by use of an interactive web-response system to once a week treatment with either semaglutide 0·5 mg, dulaglutide 0·75 mg, semaglutide 1·0 mg, or dulaglutide 1·5 mg subcutaneously. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in percentage HbA1c; the confirmatory secondary endpoint was change in bodyweight, both at week 40. The primary analysis population included all randomly assigned patients exposed to at least one dose of trial product obtained while on treatment and before the onset of rescue medication. The safety population included all randomly assigned patients exposed to at least one dose of trial product obtained while on treatment. The trial was powered for HbA1c non-inferiority (margin 0·4%) and bodyweight superiority. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02648204.
Findings:
Between Jan 6, 2016, and June 22, 2016, 1201 patients were randomly assigned to treatment; of these, 301 were exposed to semaglutide 0·5 mg, 299 to dulaglutide 0·75 mg, 300 to semaglutide 1·0 mg, and 299 to dulaglutide 1·5 mg. 72 (6%) patients withdrew from the trial (22 receiving semaglutide 0·5 mg, 13 receiving dulaglutide 0·75 mg, 21 receiving semaglutide 1·0 mg, and 16 receiving dulaglutide 1·5 mg). From overall baseline mean, mean percentage HbA1c was reduced by 1·5 (SE 0·06) percentage points with semaglutide 0·5 mg versus 1·1 (0·05) percentage points with dulaglutide 0·75 mg (estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0·40 percentage points [95% CI -0·55 to -0·25]; p<0·0001) and by 1·8 (0·06) percentage points with semaglutide 1·0 mg versus 1·4 (0·06) percentage points with dulaglutide 1·5 mg (ETD -0·41 percentage points [-0·57 to -0·25]; p<0·0001). From overall baseline mean, mean bodyweight was reduced by 4·6 kg (SE 0·28) with semaglutide 0·5 mg compared with 2·3 kg (0·27) with dulaglutide 0·75 mg (ETD -2·26 kg [-3·02 to -1·51]; p<0·0001) and by 6·5 kg (0·28) with semaglutide 1·0 mg compared with 3·0 kg (0·27) with dulaglutide 1·5 mg (ETD -3·55 kg [-4·32 to -2·78]; p<0·0001). Gastrointestinal disorders were the most frequently reported adverse event, occurring in 129 (43%) of 301 patients receiving semaglutide 0·5 mg, 133 (44%) of 300 patients receiving semaglutide 1·0 mg, 100 (33%) of 299 patients receiving dulaglutide 0·75 mg, and in 143 (48%) of 299 patients receiving dulaglutide 1·5 mg. Gastrointestinal disorders were also the most common reason for discontinuing treatment with semaglutide and dulaglutide. There were six fatalities: one in each semaglutide group and two in each dulaglutide group.
Interpretation:
At low and high doses, semaglutide was superior to dulaglutide in improving glycaemic control and reducing bodyweight, enabling a significantly greater number of patients with type 2 diabetes to achieve clinically meaningful glycaemic targets and weight loss, with a similar safety profile.
Funding:
Novo Nordisk.
Objective:
To compare the efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg s.c. with exenatide extended release (ER) 2.0 mg s.c. in subjects with type 2 diabetes.
Research design and methods:
In this phase 3a, open-label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial, 813 subjects with type 2 diabetes taking oral antidiabetic drugs were randomized (1:1) to semaglutide 1.0 mg or exenatide ER 2.0 mg for 56 weeks. The primary end point was change from baseline in HbA1c at week 56.
Results:
Mean HbA1c (8.3% [67.7 mmol/mol] at baseline) was reduced by 1.5% (16.8 mmol/mol) with semaglutide and 0.9% (10.0 mmol/mol) with exenatide ER (estimated treatment difference vs. exenatide ER [ETD] -0.62% [95% CI -0.80, -0.44] [-6.78 mmol/mol (95% CI -8.70, -4.86)]; P < 0.0001 for noninferiority and superiority). Mean body weight (95.8 kg at baseline) was reduced by 5.6 kg with semaglutide and 1.9 kg with exenatide ER (ETD -3.78 kg [95% CI -4.58, -2.98]; P < 0.0001). Significantly more subjects treated with semaglutide (67%) achieved HbA1c <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) versus those taking exenatide ER (40%). Both treatments had similar safety profiles, but gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in semaglutide-treated subjects (41.8%) than in exenatide ER-treated subjects (33.3%); injection-site reactions were more frequent with exenatide ER (22.0%) than with semaglutide (1.2%).
Conclusions:
Semaglutide 1.0 mg was superior to exenatide ER 2.0 mg in improving glycemic control and reducing body weight after 56 weeks of treatment; the drugs had comparable safety profiles. These results indicate that semaglutide treatment is highly effective for subjects with type 2 diabetes who are inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs.
Objective:
We investigated the association of early achieved HbA1c level and magnitude of HbA1c reduction with subsequent risk of cardiovascular events or death in patients with type 2 diabetes who initiate metformin.
Research design and methods:
This was a population-based cohort study including all metformin initiators with HbA1c tests in Northern Denmark, 2000-2012. Six months after metformin initiation, we classified patients by HbA1c achieved (<6.5% or higher) and by magnitude of HbA1c change from the pretreatment baseline. We used Cox regression to examine subsequent rates of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or death, controlling for baseline HbA1c and other confounding factors.
Results:
We included 24,752 metformin initiators (median age 62.5 years, 55% males) with a median follow-up of 2.6 years. The risk of a combined outcome event gradually increased with rising levels of HbA1c achieved compared with a target HbA1c of <6.5%: adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.18 (95% CI 1.07-1.30) for 6.5-6.99%, HR 1.23 (1.09-1.40) for 7.0-7.49%, HR 1.34 (1.14-1.57) for 7.5-7.99%, and HR 1.59 (1.37-1.84) for ≥8%. Results were consistent for individual outcome events and robust by age group and other patient characteristics. A large absolute HbA1c reduction from baseline also predicted outcome: adjusted HR 0.80 (0.65-0.97) for Δ = -4, HR 0.98 (0.80-1.20) for Δ = -3, HR 0.92 (0.78-1.08) for Δ = -2, and HR 0.99 (0.89-1.10) for Δ = -1 compared with no HbA1c change (Δ = 0).
Conclusions:
A large initial HbA1c reduction and achievement of low HbA1c levels within 6 months after metformin initiation are associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events and death in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Background:
Semaglutide is a novel glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue, suitable for once-weekly subcutaneous administration, in development for treatment of type 2 diabetes. We assessed the efficacy and safety of semaglutide versus the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin, thiazolidinediones, or both.
Methods:
We did a 56-week, phase 3a, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, parallel-group, multinational, multicentre trial (SUSTAIN 2) at 128 sites in 18 countries. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years (or at least 20 years in Japan) and diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, with insufficient glycaemic control (HbA1c 7·0-10·5% [53·0-91·0 mmol/mol]) despite stable treatment with metformin, thiazolidinediones, or both. We randomly assigned participants (2:2:1:1) using an interactive voice or web response system to 56 weeks of treatment with subcutaneous semaglutide 0·5 mg once weekly plus oral sitagliptin placebo once daily, subcutaneous semaglutide 1·0 mg once weekly plus oral sitagliptin placebo once daily, oral sitagliptin 100 mg once daily plus subcutaneous semaglutide placebo 0·5 mg once weekly, or oral sitagliptin 100 mg once daily plus subcutaneous semaglutide placebo 1·0 mg once weekly. The two oral sitagliptin 100 mg groups (with semaglutide placebo 0·5 mg and 1·0 mg) were pooled for the analyses. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 56, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of study drug); change in bodyweight from baseline to week 56 was the confirmatory secondary endpoint. Safety endpoints included adverse events and hypoglycaemic episodes. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01930188.
Findings:
Between Dec 2, 2013, and Aug 5, 2015, we randomly assigned 1231 participants; of the 1225 included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, 409 received semaglutide 0·5 mg, 409 received semaglutide 1·0 mg, and 407 received sitagliptin 100 mg. Mean baseline HbA1c was 8·1% (SD 0·93); at week 56, HbA1c was reduced by 1·3% in the semaglutide 0·5 mg group, 1·6% in the semaglutide 1·0 mg group, and 0·5% with sitagliptin (estimated treatment difference vs sitagliptin -0·77% [95% CI -0·92 to -0·62] with semaglutide 0·5 mg and -1·06% [-1·21 to -0·91] with semaglutide 1·0 mg; p<0·0001 for non-inferiority and for superiority, for both semaglutide doses vs sitagliptin). Mean baseline bodyweight was 89·5 kg (SD 20·3); at week 56, bodyweight reduced by 4·3 kg with semaglutide 0·5 mg, 6·1 kg with semaglutide 1·0 mg, and 1·9 kg with sitagliptin (estimated treatment difference vs sitagliptin -2·35 kg [95% CI -3·06 to -1·63] with semaglutide 0·5 mg and -4·20 kg [-4·91 to -3·49] with semaglutide 1·0 mg; p<0·0001 for superiority, for both semaglutide doses vs sitagliptin). The proportion of patients who discontinued treatment because of adverse events was 33 (8%) for semaglutide 0·5 mg, 39 (10%) for semaglutide 1·0 mg, and 12 (3%) for sitagliptin. The most frequently reported adverse events in both semaglutide groups were gastrointestinal in nature: nausea was reported in 73 (18%) who received semaglutide 0·5 mg, 72 (18%) who received semaglutide 1·0 mg, and 30 (7%) who received placebo, and diarrhoea was reported in 54 (13%) who received semaglutide 0·5 mg, 53 (13%) who received semaglutide 1·0 mg, and 29 (7%) who received placebo. Seven (2%) patients in the semaglutide 0·5 mg group, two (<1%) in the semaglutide 1·0 mg group, and five (1%) in the sitagliptin group had blood-glucose confirmed hypoglycaemia. There were six fatal events (two in the semaglutide 0·5 mg group, one in the semaglutide 1·0 mg group, and three in the sitagliptin group); none were considered likely to be related to the trial drugs.
Interpretation:
Once-weekly semaglutide was superior to sitagliptin at improving glycaemic control and reducing bodyweight in participants with type 2 diabetes on metformin, thiazolidinediones, or both, and had a similar safety profile to that of other GLP-1 receptor agonists. Semaglutide seems to be an effective add-on treatment option for this patient population.
Funding:
Novo Nordisk A/S.
Background
Several pharmacological treatment options are available for type 2 diabetes; however, many patients do not achieve optimum glycaemic control and therefore new therapies are necessary. We assessed the efficacy and safety of semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue in clinical development, compared with insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes who were inadequately controlled with metformin (with or without sulfonylureas).
Methods
We did a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, parallel-group, multicentre, multinational, phase 3a trial (SUSTAIN 4) at 196 sites in 14 countries. Eligible participants were insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes, aged 18 years and older, who had insufficient glycaemic control with metformin either alone or in combination with a sulfonylurea. We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to either subcutaneous once-weekly 0·5 mg or 1·0 mg semaglutide (doses reached after following a fixed dose-escalation regimen) or once-daily insulin glargine (starting dose 10 IU per day, then titrated weekly to a pre-breakfast self-measured plasma glucose target of 4·0–5·5 mmol/L [72–99 mg/dL]) for 30 weeks. In all treatment groups, previous background metformin and sulfonylurea treatment was continued throughout the trial. We did the randomisation using an interactive voice or web response system. The primary endpoint was change in mean HbA1c from baseline to week 30 and the confirmatory secondary endpoint was the change in mean bodyweight from baseline to week 30. We assessed efficacy and safety in the modified intention-to-treat population (mITT; all randomly assigned participants who were exposed to at least one dose of study drug) and used a margin of 0·3% to establish non-inferiority in HbA1c reduction. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02128932.
Findings
Between Aug 4, 2014, and Sept 3, 2015, we randomly assigned 1089 participants to treatment; the mITT population consisted of 362 participants assigned to 0·5 mg semaglutide, 360 to 1·0 mg semaglutide, and 360 to insulin glargine. 49 (14%) participants assigned to 0·5 mg semaglutide discontinued treatment prematurely, compared with 55 (15%) assigned to 1·0 mg semaglutide, and 26 (7%) assigned to insulin glargine. Most discontinuations were due to adverse events—mostly gastrointestinal with semaglutide, and others such as skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (eg, rash, pruritus, and urticaria) with insulin glargine. From a mean baseline HbA1c of 8·17% (SD 0·89), at week 30, 0·5 and 1·0 mg semaglutide achieved reductions of 1·21% (95% CI 1·10–1·31) and 1·64% (1·54–1·74), respectively, versus 0·83% (0·73–0·93) with insulin glargine; estimated treatment difference versus insulin glargine −0·38% (95% CI −0·52 to −0·24) with 0·5 mg semaglutide and −0·81% (−0·96 to −0·67) with 1·0 mg semaglutide (both p<0·0001). Mean bodyweight at baseline was 93·45 kg (SD 21·79); at week 30, 0·5 and 1·0 mg semaglutide achieved weight losses of 3·47 kg (95% CI 3·00–3·93) and 5·17 kg (4·71–5·66), respectively, versus a weight gain of 1·15 kg (0·70–1·61) with insulin glargine; estimated treatment difference versus insulin glargine −4·62 kg (95% CI −5·27 to −3·96) with 0·5 mg semaglutide and −6·33 kg (−6·99 to −5·67) with 1·0 mg semaglutide (both p<0·0001). Severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemia was reported by 16 (4%) participants with 0·5 mg semaglutide and 20 (6%) with 1·0 mg semaglutide versus 38 (11%) with insulin glargine (p=0·0021 and p=0·0202 for 0·5 mg and 1·0 mg semaglutide vs insulin glargine, respectively). Severe hypoglycaemia was reported by two (<1%) participants with 0·5 mg semaglutide, five (1%) with 1·0 mg semaglutide, and five (1%) with insulin glargine. Six deaths were reported: four (1%) in the 0·5 mg semaglutide group (three cardiovascular deaths, one pancreatic carcinoma, which was assessed as being possibly related to study medication) and two (<1%) in the insulin glargine group (both cardiovascular death). The most frequently reported adverse events were nausea with semaglutide, reported in 77 (21%) patients with 0·5 mg and in 80 (22%) with 1·0 mg, and nasopharyngitis reported in 44 (12%) patients with insulin glargine.
Interpretation
Compared with insulin glargine, semaglutide resulted in greater reductions in HbA1c and weight, with fewer hypoglycaemic episodes, and was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that of other GLP-1 receptor agonists.
Funding
Novo Nordisk A/S.
Background
Despite a broad range of pharmacological options for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, optimum glycaemic control remains challenging for many patients and new therapies are necessary. Semaglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue in phase 3 development for type 2 diabetes. We assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of semaglutide monotherapy, compared with placebo, in treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes who had insufficient glycaemic control with diet and exercise alone.
Methods
We did a double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, international, placebo-controlled phase 3a trial (SUSTAIN 1) at 72 sites in Canada, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, UK, and USA (including hospitals, clinical research units, and private offices). Eligible participants were treatment-naive individuals aged 18 years or older with type 2 diabetes treated with only diet and exercise alone for at least 30 days before screening, with a baseline HbA1c of 7·0%–10·0% (53–86 mmol/mol). We randomly assigned participants (2:2:1:1) to either once-weekly subcutaneously injected semaglutide (0·5 mg or 1·0 mg), or volume-matched placebo (0·5 mg or 1·0 mg), for 30 weeks via prefilled PDS290 pen-injectors. Participants did their own injections and were encouraged to administer them on the same day of each week in the same area of their body; the time of day and proximity of meal times was not specified. We did the randomisation with an interactive voice or web response system. Investigators, participants, and the funder of the study remained masked throughout the trial. The primary endpoint was the change in mean HbA1c from baseline to week 30, and the confirmatory secondary endpoint was the change in mean bodyweight from baseline to week 30. We assessed efficacy and safety in the modified intention-to-treat population (ie, all participants who were exposed to at least one dose of study drug); both placebo groups were pooled for assessment. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02054897.
Findings
Between February 3, 2014, and August 21, 2014, we randomly assigned 388 participants to treatment; 387 received at least one dose of study medication (128 0·5 mg semaglutide, 130 1·0 mg semaglutide, 129 placebo). 17 (13%) of those assigned to 0·5 mg semaglutide, 16 (12%) assigned to 1·0 mg semaglutide, and 14 (11%) assigned to placebo discontinued treatment; the main reason for discontinuation was gastrointestinal adverse events such as nausea. Mean baseline HbA1c was 8·05% (SD 0·85); at week 30, HbA1c significantly decreased by 1·45% (95% CI −1·65 to −1·26) with 0·5 mg semaglutide (estimated treatment difference vs placebo −1·43%, 95% CI −1·71 to −1·15; p<0·0001), significantly decreased by 1·55% (−1·74 to −1·36) with 1·0 mg semaglutide (estimated treatment difference vs placebo −1·53%, −1·81 to −1·25; p<0·0001), and non-significantly decreased by 0·02% (−0·23 to 0·18) with placebo. Mean baseline bodyweight was 91·93 kg (SD 23·83); at week 30, bodyweight significantly decreased by 3·73 kg (95% CI −4·54 to −2·91) with 0·5 mg semaglutide (estimated treatment difference vs placebo −2·75 kg, 95% CI −3·92 to −1·58; p<0·0001), significantly decreased by 4·53 kg (−5·34 to −3·72) with 1·0 mg semaglutide (estimated treatment difference vs placebo −3·56 kg, −4·74 to −2·38; p<0·0001), and non-significantly decreased by 0·98 kg (−1·82 to −0·13) with placebo. No deaths were reported in any of the study groups and most reported adverse events were of mild or moderate severity. The most frequently reported adverse events in both semaglutide groups were gastrointestinal in nature: nausea was reported in 26 (20%) who received 0·5 mg semaglutide, 31 (24%) who received 1·0 mg semaglutide, and 10 (8%) who received placebo, and diarrhoea was reported in 16 (13%) who received 0·5 mg semaglutide, 14 (11%) who received 1·0 mg semaglutide, and three (2%) who received placebo.
Interpretation
Semaglutide significantly improved HbA1c and bodyweight in patients with type 2 diabetes compared with placebo, and showed a similar safety profile to currently available GLP-1 receptor agonists, representing a potential treatment option for such patients.
Funding
Novo Nordisk A/S, Denmark.
We assessed whether overnight home use of automated closed loop insulin delivery (artificial pancreas) improves glucose control.
Methods: We studied 24 adults with type 1 diabetes in a multicentre crossover study design comparing four weeks of overnight closed loop using a model predictive control algorithm to direct insulin delivery, with four weeks of insulin pump therapy in which participants used real-time display of continuous glucose monitoring independent of their pumps as control. Primary outcome was time when glucose was in the target range of 3•9 and 8•0mmol/l between midnight to 07:00. Analyses were by intention to treat. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01440140.
Findings: Closed loop was utilised over median 8•3 (interquartile range 6•0, 9•6)hours on 555nights (86%). Proportion of time when overnight glucose was in target range was significantly higher during closed loop compared to control by 13•5% (95% CI, 7•3-19•7; p