Semaglutide for the treatment of type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of safety and efficacy outcomes

Subcutaneously administered tirzepatide vs semaglutide for adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of s.c. administered tirzepatide vs s.c. administered semaglutide for adults of both sexes with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Cochrane up to 11 November 2023 for RCTs with an intervention duration of at least 12 weeks assessing s.c. tirzepatide at maintenance doses of 5 mg, 10 mg or 15 mg once weekly, or s.c. semaglutide at maintenance doses of 0.5 mg, 1.0 mg or 2.0 mg once weekly, in adults with type 2 diabetes, regardless of background glucose-lowering treatment. Eligible trials compared any of the specified doses of tirzepatide and semaglutide against each other, placebo or other glucose-lowering drugs. Primary outcomes were changes in HbA1c and body weight from baseline. Secondary outcomes were achievement of HbA1c target of ≤48 mmol/mol (≤6.5%) or <53 mmol/mol (<7.0%), body weight loss of at least 10%, and safety outcomes including gastrointestinal adverse events and severe hypoglycaemia. We used version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (ROB 2) to assess the risk of bias, conducted frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses and evaluated confidence in effect estimates utilising the Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework.

RESULTS

A total of 28 trials with 23,622 participants (44.2% female) were included. Compared with placebo, tirzepatide 15 mg was the most efficacious treatment in reducing HbA1c (mean difference -21.61 mmol/mol [-1.96%]) followed by tirzepatide 10 mg (-20.19 mmol/mol [-1.84%]), semaglutide 2.0 mg (-17.74 mmol/mol [-1.59%]), tirzepatide 5 mg (-17.60 mmol/mol [-1.60%]), semaglutide 1.0 mg (-15.25 mmol/mol [-1.39%]) and semaglutide 0.5 mg (-12.00 mmol/mol [-1.09%]). In between-drug comparisons, all tirzepatide doses were comparable with semaglutide 2.0 mg and superior to semaglutide 1.0 mg and 0.5 mg. Compared with placebo, tirzepatide was more efficacious than semaglutide for reducing body weight, with reductions ranging from 9.57 kg (tirzepatide 15 mg) to 5.27 kg (tirzepatide 5 mg). Semaglutide had a less pronounced effect, with reductions ranging from 4.97 kg (semaglutide 2.0 mg) to 2.52 kg (semaglutide 0.5 mg). In between-drug comparisons, tirzepatide 15 mg, 10 mg and 5 mg demonstrated greater efficacy than semaglutide 2.0 mg, 1.0 mg and 0.5 mg, respectively. Both drugs increased incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events compared with placebo, while neither tirzepatide nor semaglutide increased the risk of serious adverse events or severe hypoglycaemia.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Our data show that s.c. tirzepatide had a more pronounced effect on HbA1c and weight reduction compared with s.c. semaglutide in people with type 2 diabetes. Both drugs, particularly higher doses of tirzepatide, increased gastrointestinal adverse events.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration no. CRD42022382594.

Adverse effects with semaglutide: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

INTRODUCTION

Semaglutide is increasingly used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, overweight and other conditions. It is well known that semaglutide lowers blood glucose levels and leads to significant weight loss. Still, a systematic review has yet to investigate the adverse effects with semaglutide for all patient groups.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a systematic review and search major medical databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science) and clinical trial registries from their inception and onwards to identify relevant randomised clinical trials. We expect to conduct the literature search in July 2024. Two review authors will independently extract data and perform risk-of-bias assessments. We will include randomised clinical trials comparing oral or subcutaneous semaglutide versus placebo. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be myocardial infarction, stroke, all-cause hospitalisation and non-serious adverse events. Data will be synthesised by meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis; risk of bias will be assessed with Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2, an eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for statistical and clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol does not present any results. Findings of this systematic review will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42024499511.

IcoSema: unveiling the future of diabetes management from a clinical pharmacology perspective

IcoSema, a groundbreaking approach to diabetes management, combines insulin icodec and semaglutide to offer a transformative treatment option. Insulin icodec delivers consistent glucose-lowering effects with once-weekly dosing, while semaglutide, a GLP-1 agonist, stimulates insulin secretion and aids in weight loss. This comprehensive article evaluates the potential of IcoSema from a clinical pharmacology perspective, examining the pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety, compliance and cost-effectiveness of its individual components, as well as considering comparable combination therapies like iGlarLixi and IDegLira. By analysing these crucial factors, the article aims to determine the potential of IcoSema in the field of diabetes management. The combination of insulin icodec and semaglutide has the potential to provide improved glycaemic control, weight management, and simplified treatment regimens, addressing common challenges faced in diabetes management. Safety, compliance and cost considerations are important aspects of evaluating this combination therapy. Ongoing trials investigating IcoSema are expected to provide valuable insights into its efficacy, safety and comparative effectiveness. By addressing concerns such as potential side effects, individual patient response and drug interactions, healthcare providers can optimize treatment outcomes and enhance the management of type 2 diabetes.

Gastrointestinal safety evaluation of semaglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Semaglutide, as an innovative weekly formulation, has attracted much attention. Nevertheless, the predominant occurrence of gastrointestinal adverse events (GIAEs) poses a noteworthy challenge linked to the use of this medication, substantially affecting its clinical applicability and the overall well-being of patients. Therefore, this systematic review aims to comprehensively discuss the GIAEs, providing a basis for clinical therapeutic decisions.

METHODS

We systematically searched 4 independent databases for randomized controlled trials investigating the application of semaglutide in managing type 2 diabetes mellitus. The search period spanned from the inception of the databases to December 2023. We conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis, employing Review Manager 5.4.1 software, to systematically analyze and evaluate potential biases. Our primary emphasis was on assessing the gastrointestinal safety profile of semaglutide.

RESULTS

The outcomes unveiled a noteworthy rise in the collective occurrence of GIAEs across all dosage groups of semaglutide in comparison with the control group (P < .05). Upon further analysis, it was observed that semaglutide showed a heightened occurrence of GIAEs in contrast to the placebo. However, statistically significant distinction was not observed when compared to the reduction of conventional doses or the transition to other types of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist. Additionally, an extended treatment duration with semaglutide (>30 weeks) demonstrated an association with a certain degree of decrease in the incidence of gastrointestinal events. Funnel plot assessment for publication bias demonstrated high-quality inclusion of studies with no apparent publication bias.

CONCLUSION

The frequency of GIAEs in using semaglutide was observed to be elevated in comparison to the control group. However, it was comparable to other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist or low-dose treatment regimens. Additionally, an extended treatment duration played a role in decreasing the frequency of GIAEs. These findings provide valuable insights for clinical practice. Nonetheless, further research is crucial to explore supplementary data indicators, informing clinical practices and better serving the interests of patients.

Response to semaglutide of non-drinker subjects with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Metabolic dysfunction-associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD) displays a worse prognosis in subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D); effective treatments are, so far, scanty. Semaglutide showed efficacy in improving steatohepatitis. We longitudinally observed a MASLD cohort of T2D subjects starting semaglutide, to detect an improvement of non-invasive surrogates of steatosis and fibro-inflammatory liver involvement, evaluating the role of mild alcohol consumption.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In 62 overweight/obese T2D subjects with MASLD (36 non-drinker and 26 mild alcohol consumers), anthropometric, bio-humoral and transient elastography (TE) data were collected before (T0) and after an average time of 6.4 month (T1) from injective semaglutide prescription. Circulating levels of hormones (GIP, GLP-1, glucagon, insulin) and inflammatory markers (TNFα, MCP-1, IL-18, IL-10) were measured. Steatotic and necro-inflammatory liver involvement was evaluated with FibroScan controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) and liver stiffness (LS), respectively.

RESULTS

Significant (p < 0.006) T0-T1 reductions of BMI, waist circumference, fasting glucose, and HbA1c were observed. AST (-10 ± 3 IU/L), ALT (-18 ± 5 IU/L), GGT (-33 ± 15 IU/L), CAP (-25 ± 8 dB/m) and LS (-0.8 ± 0.4 kPa) were reduced, too. GLP-1 increased (+ 95.9 pM, p < 0.0001) and IL-18 was reduced (-46.6 pg/ml, p = 0.0002). After adjustment for confounders, CAP improving was only related to GLP-1 increase (ß=-0.437, p = 0.0122). Mild alcohol intake did not influence these relations.

CONCLUSION

Use of semaglutide in subjects with T2D and MASLD is associated with a significant decline of liver steatosis and necroinflammation proxies; mild alcohol assumption did not exert any influence. An independent effect of GLP-1 raise was observed on reduction of steatosis, irrespective of alcohol consumption.

Engineering peptide drug therapeutics through chemical conjugation and implication in clinics

The development of peptide drugs has made tremendous progress in the past few decades because of the advancements in modification chemistry and analytical technologies. The novel-designed peptide drugs have been modified through various biochemical methods with improved diagnostic, therapeutic, and drug-delivery strategies. Researchers found it a helping hand to overcome the inherent limitations of peptides and bring continued advancements in their applications. Furthermore, the emergence of peptide-drug conjugates (PDCs)-utilizes target-oriented peptide moieties as a vehicle for cytotoxic payloads via conjugation with cleavable chemical agents, resulting in the key foundation of the new era of targeted peptide drugs. This review summarizes the various classifications of peptide drugs, suitable chemical modification strategies to improve the ADME (adsorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion) features of peptide drugs, and recent (2015-early 2024) progress/achievements in peptide-based drug delivery systems as well as their fruitful implication in preclinical and clinical studies. Furthermore, we also summarized the brief description of other types of PDCs, including peptide-MOF conjugates and peptide-UCNP conjugates. The principal aim is to provide scattered and diversified knowledge in one place and to help researchers understand the pinching knots in the science of PDC development and progress toward a bright future of novel peptide drugs.

Peptide-Drug Conjugates: Design, Chemistry, and Drug Delivery System as a Novel Cancer Theranostic

The emergence of peptide-drug conjugates (PDCs) that utilize target-oriented peptide moieties as carriers of cytotoxic payloads, interconnected with various cleavable/noncleavable linkers, resulted in the key-foundation of the new era of targeted therapeutics. They are capable of retaining the integrity of conjugates in the blood circulatory system as well as releasing the drugs at the tumor microenvironment. Other valuable advantages are specificity and selectivity toward targeted-receptors, higher penetration ability, and drug-loading capacity, making them a suitable candidate to play their vital role as promising carrier agents. In this review, we summarized the types of cell-targeting (CTPs) and cell-penetrating peptides (CPPs) that have broad applications in the advancement of targeted drug-delivery systems (DDS). Moreover, the techniques to overcome the limitations of peptide-chemistry for their extensive implementation to construct the PDCs. Besides this, the diversified breakthrough of linker chemistry, and ample knowledge of various cytotoxic payloads used in PDCs in recent years, as well as the mechanism of action of PDCs was critically discussed. The principal aim is to provide scattered and diversified knowledge in one place and to help researchers understand the pinching knots in the science of PDC development, also their progression toward a bright future for PDCs as novel theranostics in clinical practice.

Glycemic Control, Weight Management, Cardiovascular Safety, and Cost-Effectiveness of Semaglutide for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Rapid Review and Meta-analysis of Real-World Studies

INTRODUCTION

Semaglutide is a high-profile glucose-lowering drug that medical decision-makers have acknowledged in recent years. This rapid review aims to provide evidence-based clinical recommendations for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with semaglutide.

METHODS

We conducted a rapid review of randomized controlled trial (RCT)-based meta-analyses (MAs) and systematic reviews (SRs) of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) compared to other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) or placebo in patients with T2DM. Prospective cohort real-world studies (RWS) were also retrieved and subjected to MA. Four databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and ISPOR, were searched from inception to 5 March 2023. The outcomes of interest were hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), body weight, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and economic outcomes such as quality-adjusted life-years and total cost.

RESULTS

We identified 33 publications: 22 RCT-based MAs, 1 SR of CEAs, and 10 RWS. Evidence showed that semaglutide at usual doses was associated with superior reductions in HbA1c and weight compared to most GLP-1 RAs in patients with T2DM who were drug naive, receiving basal insulin, or using oral hypoglycemic agents, and it was also associated with a lower number of MACE and was more cost-effective. Further, once-weekly semaglutide resulted in a significant reduction in HbA1c levels (-1.1%) and body weight (-4.88 kg) in routine clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

This review consolidates the positive current evidence base for prescribing semaglutide to patients with T2DM, but further rigorous studies are still urgently required to develop practice guidelines as innovative drugs become commercially available.

Comparative effectiveness of GLP-1 receptor agonists on glycaemic control, body weight, and lipid profile for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) on glycaemic control, body weight, and lipid profile in adults with type 2 diabetes.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Embase from database inception to 19 August 2023.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Eligible randomised controlled trials enrolled adults with type 2 diabetes who received GLP-1RA treatments and compared effects with placebo or any GLP-1RA drug, with a follow-up duration of at least 12 weeks. Trials with a crossover design, non-inferiority studies comparing GLP-1RA and other drug classes without a placebo group, using withdrawn drugs, and non-English studies were deemed ineligible.

RESULTS

76 eligible trials involving 15 GLP-1RA drugs and 39 246 participants were included in this network meta-analysis; all subsequent estimates refer to the comparison with placebo. All 15 GLP-1RAs effectively lowered haemoglobin A1c and fasting plasma glucose concentrations. Tirzepatide induced the largest reduction of haemoglobin A1c concentrations (mean difference -2.10% (95% confidence interval -2.47% to -1.74%), surface under the cumulative ranking curve 94.2%; high confidence of evidence), and fasting plasma glucose concentrations (-3.12 mmol/L (-3.59 to -2.66), 97.2%; high confidence), and proved the most effective GLP-1RA drug for glycaemic control. Furthermore, GLP-1RAs were shown to have strong benefits to weight management for patients with type 2 diabetes. CagriSema (semaglutide with cagrilintide) resulted in the highest weight loss (mean difference -14.03 kg (95% confidence interval -17.05 to -11.00); high confidence of evidence), followed by tirzepatide (-8.47 kg (-9.68 to -7.26); high confidence). Semaglutide was effective in lowering the concentration of low density lipoprotein (-0.16 mmol/L (-0.30 to -0.02)) and total cholesterol (-0.48 mmol/L (-0.84 to -0.11)). Moreover, this study also raises awareness of gastrointestinal adverse events induced by GLP-1RAs, and concerns about safety are especially warranted for high dose administration.

CONCLUSIONS

GLP-1RAs are efficacious in treating adults with type 2 diabetes. Compared with the placebo, tirzepatide was the most effective GLP-1RA drug for glycaemic control by reducing haemoglobin A1c and fasting plasma glucose concentrations. GLP-1RAs also significantly improved weight management for type 2 diabetes, with CagriSema performing the best for weight loss. The results prompt safety concerns for GLP-1RAs, especially with high dose administration, regarding gastrointestinal adverse events.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022342845.

Evaluation and comparison of efficacy and safety of tirzepatide and semaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As new antidiabetic drugs, tirzepatide (Tir) and semaglutide (Sem) are progressively applied in clinical practice. However, their efficacy and safety profiles have not been comprehensively assessed. Therefore, a Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of Tir and Sem in treating type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from inception to April 3rd, 2023. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of Tir and Sem with placebo or the other antidiabetic drugs in treating T2DM were included. The efficacy outcomes included changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), body weight (BW), body mass index (BMI), and the proportion of participants with HbA1c< 7 %. The safety outcome was the proportion of participants experiencing gastrointestinal adverse events (GIAEs).

RESULTS

A total of 38 studies involving 34,166 participants were included. Compared to 1 mg of subcutaneous Sem (Sem SC), 5 mg, 10 mg and 15 mg of Tir demonstrated superior efficacy in reducing HbA1c (mean difference (MD), [95 % CI], -0.22 [-0.40, -0.03] %, -0.42 [-0.60, -0.24] % and -0.53 [-0.71, -0.35] %, respectively) and BW (MD [95 % CI], -1.48 [-2.53, -0.43] kg, -4.00 [-5.05, -2.95] kg and -5.71 [-6.73, -4.68] kg, respectively). Conversely, 7 mg and 14 mg of oral Sem (Sem PO) displayed inferior efficacy in reducing HbA1c (MD [95 % CI], 0.47 [0.26, 0.68] % and 0.35 [0.16, 0.54] %, respectively) and BW (MD [95 % CI], 2.36 [1.24, 3.48] kg and 1.11 [0.10, 2.13] kg). However, 20 mg and 40 mg of Sem PO were non-inferior in reducing HbA1c (MD [95 % CI], 0.13 [-0.29, 0.55] % and 0.01 [-0.38, 0.40] %, respectively) and BW (MD [95 % CI], -0.41 [-2.71, 1.90] kg and -1.32 [-3.58, 0.92] kg). In terms of safety, compared to 1 mg of Sem SC, 5 mg, 10 mg and 15 mg of Tir did not significantly increase the incidence of GIAEs (odd ratio (OR) [95 % CI], 0.70 [0.42, 1.10], 0.87 [0.52, 1.36] and 0.99 [0.60, 1.54], respectively), while 7 mg of Sem PO showed a lower incidence of GIAEs (OR [95 % CI], 0.48 [0.25, 0.83]). Compared to insulin, 0.5 mg of Sem SC, 1 mg of Sem SC, 5 mg of Tir, 10 mg of Tir and 15 mg of Tir displayed better efficacy in lowering HbA1c (MD [95 % CI], -0.40 [-0.63, -0.18] %, -0.69 [-0.90, -0.48] %, -0.91 [-1.10, -0.72] %, -1.11 [-1.30, -0.92] % and -1.22 [-1.41, -1.03] %, respectively) and BW (MD [95 % CI], -5.34[-6.60, -4.09] kg, -6.70 [-7.90,-5.51] kg, -8.18 [-9.27, -7.10] kg, -10.70 [-11.79, -9.61] kg and -12.41 [-13.49,-11.33] kg, respectively). According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value, among all the included interventions, 15 mg of Tir exhibited the most potent effect in reducing HbA1c (99.81 %) and BW (99.98 %), followed by 10 mg of Tir (96.83 % and 95.72 %), 5 mg of Tir (92.88 % and 86.04 %), 1 mg of Sem SC (85.85 % and 74.97 %), 40 mg of Sem PO (83.66 % and 84.31 %), 20 mg of Sem PO (76.98 % and 77.12 %), 300 mg of Can (49.93 % and 60.89 %), insulin (36.38 % and 0.22 %) and 100 mg of Sit (12.28 % and 18.51 %) respectively. Meanwhile, 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg of Tir (48.32 %, 30.96 %, and 21.07 %, respectively), 0.5 mg and 1 mg of Sem SC (33.54 % and 24.77 %, respectively) significantly increased the incidence of GIAEs.

CONCLUSION

Both Tir and Sem demonstrated favorable antidiabetic effects and were particularly suitable for T2DM patients who were obese or overweight. Despite a high incidence of GIAEs, their safety profile was deemed acceptable. Tir was the best option among all the included interventions.

Does Semaglutide Use Decrease Complications and Costs Following Total Knee Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus (DM) and obesity are associated with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) complications. Semaglutide, a medication for DM and weight loss, can potentially affect TKA outcomes. This study investigated whether semaglutide use during TKA demonstrates fewer: (1) medical complications; (2) implant-related complications; (3) readmissions; and (4) costs.

METHODS

A retrospective query was performed using a National database to 2021. Patients undergoing TKA for osteoarthritis with DM and semaglutide use were successfully propensity score-matched to controls semaglutide = 7,051; control = 34,524. Outcomes included 90-day postoperative medical complications, 2-year implant-related complications, 90-day readmissions, in-hospital lengths of stay, and costs. Multivariate logistical regressions calculated odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals, and P values (P < .003 as significance threshold after Bonferroni correction).

RESULTS

Semaglutide cohorts had higher incidence and odds of myocardial infarction (1.0 versus 0.7%; OR 1.49; P = .003), acute kidney injury (4.9 versus 3.9%; OR 1.28; P < .001), pneumonia (2.8 versus 1.7%; OR 1.67; P < .001), and hypoglycemic events (1.9 versus 1.2%; OR 1.55; P < .001), but lower odds of sepsis (0 versus 0.4%; OR 0.23; P < .001). Semaglutide cohorts also had lower odds of prosthetic joint infections (2.1 versus 3.0%; OR 0.70; P < .001) and readmission (7.0 versus 9.4%; OR 0.71; P < .001), and trended toward lower odds of revisions (4.0 versus 4.5%; OR 0.86; P = .02) and 90-day costs ($15,291.66 versus $16,798.46; P = .012).

CONCLUSION

Semaglutide use during TKA decreased risk for sepsis, prosthetic joint infections, and readmissions, but also increased risk for myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury, pneumonia, and hypoglycemic events.

Semaglutide and cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

French national health care insurance system database has suggested 1-3 years use of glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RA) (exenatide, liraglutide and dulaglutide) may be linked with increased occurrence of thyroid cancer. Similar data on semaglutide is not-available. Hence, we undertook this systematic review to look at the safety of semaglutide focussing on different cancers.

METHODS

Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world studies involving patients receiving semaglutide in the intervention-arm. Primary outcome was to evaluate the occurrence of pancreatic and thyroid cancers. Secondary outcomes were to the evaluate occurrence of any other malignancies or severe adverse-events.

RESULTS

Data from 37 RCTs and 19 real-world studies having 16,839 patients in placebo-control group, 16,550 patients in active-control group and 13,330 patients in real-world studies were analysed. Compared to placebo, occurrence of pancreatic cancer [OR 0.25 (95%CI: 0.03-2.24); P = 0.21], thyroid cancer [OR 2.04 (95%CI: 0.33-12.61); P = 0.44; I2 = 0%] and all neoplasms (benign, malignant and otherwise unspecified) [OR 0.95 (95%CI:0.62-1.45); P = 0.82; I2 = 0%] was similar in the semaglutide group. Compared to active controls, occurrence of pancreatic cancer [OR 0.40 (95%CI:0.09-1.87); P = 0.26; I2 = 0%], thyroid cancer [OR 1.19 (95%CI:0.15-9.66); P = 0.87; I2 = 0%] and all neoplasms (benign, malignant and otherwise unspecified) [OR 0.91 (95% CI: 0.44-1.89); P = 0.79; I2 = 0%] were similar in the semaglutide group. Real-world data analysis revealed single case each of pancreatic cancer and B-cell lymphoma.

CONCLUSION

Semaglutide use in RCTs and real-world studies was not associated with an increased risk of any types of cancer, and this conclusion is supported by a high grade of evidence.

Treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists is associated with significant weight loss and favorable headache outcomes in idiopathic intracranial hypertension

BACKGROUND

In idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH), sustained weight loss is the main pillar in modifying disease course, whereby glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1-RAs) could present an attractive treatment option.

METHODS

In this open-label, single-center, case-control pilot study, patients with IIH (pwIIH) and a body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 30 kg/m² were offered to receive a GLP-1-RA (semaglutide, liraglutide) in addition to the usual care weight management (UCWM). Patients electing for UCWM only served as a control group matched for age-, sex- and BMI (1:2 ratio). The primary endpoint was the percentage weight loss at six months (M6) compared to baseline. Secondary endpoints included the rate of patients with a weight loss of ≥ 10%, monthly headache days (MHD), the rate of patients with a ≥ 30% and ≥ 50% reduction in MHD, visual outcome parameters, and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

We included 39 pwIIH (mean age 33.6 years [SD 8.0], 92.3% female, median BMI 36.3 kg/m² [IQR 31.4-38.3]), with 13 patients being treated with GLP-1-RAs. At M6, mean weight loss was significantly higher in the GLP-1-RA group (-12.0% [3.3] vs. -2.8% [4.7]; p < 0.001). Accordingly, weight loss of ≥ 10% was more common in this group (69.2% vs. 4.0%; p < 0.001). Median reduction in MHD was significantly higher in the GLP-1-RA group (-4 [-10.5, 0.5] vs. 0 [-3, 1]; p = 0.02), and the 50% responder rate was 76.9% vs. 40.0% (p = 0.04). Visual outcome parameters did not change significantly from baseline to M6. Median reduction in acetazolamide dosage was significantly higher in the GLP-1-RA group (-16.5% [-50, 0] vs. 0% [-25, 50]; p = 0.04). AEs were mild or moderate and attributed to gastrointestinal symptoms in 9/13 patients. None of the AEs led to premature treatment discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

This open-label, single-center pilot study suggests that GLP-1-RAs are an effective and safe treatment option for achieving significant weight loss with a favorable effect on headache, leading to reduced acetazolamide dosage in pwIIH.

Peptide-drug conjugates (PDCs): a novel trend of research and development on targeted therapy, hype or hope?

Peptide-drug conjugates (PDCs) are the next generation of targeted therapeutics drug after antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), with the core benefits of enhanced cellular permeability and improved drug selectivity. Two drugs are now approved for market by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and in the last two years, the pharmaceutical companies have been developing PDCs as targeted therapeutic candidates for cancer, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), metabolic diseases, and so on. The therapeutic benefits of PDCs are significant, but poor stability, low bioactivity, long research and development time, and slow clinical development process as therapeutic agents of PDC, how can we design PDCs more effectively and what is the future direction of PDCs? This review summarises the components and functions of PDCs for therapeutic, from drug target screening and PDC design improvement strategies to clinical applications to improve the permeability, targeting, and stability of the various components of PDCs. This holds great promise for the future of PDCs, such as bicyclic peptide‒toxin coupling or supramolecular nanostructures for peptide-conjugated drugs. The mode of drug delivery is determined according to the PDC design and current clinical trials are summarised. The way is shown for future PDC development.

Association between different GLP-1 receptor agonists and gastrointestinal adverse reactions: A real-world disproportionality study based on FDA adverse event reporting system database

OBJECTIVE

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have significantly improved clinical effects on glycemic control. However, real-world data concerning the difference in gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs) among different GLP-1 RAs are still lacking. Our study aimed to characterize and compare gastrointestinal AEs among different marketed GLP-1 RAs (exenatide, liraglutide, dulaglutide, lixisenatide, and semaglutide) based on real-world data.

METHODS

Disproportionality analysis was used to evaluate the association between GLP-1 RAs and gastrointestinal adverse events. Data were extracted from the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database between January 2018 and September 2022. Clinical characteristics, the time-to-onset, and the severe proportion of GLP-1 RAs-associated gastrointestinal AEs were further analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 21,281 reports of gastrointestinal toxicity were analyzed out of 81,752 adverse event reports, and the median age of the included patients was 62 (interquartile range [IQR] 54-70) years old. Overall GLP-1 RAs were associated with increased risk of gastrointestinal system disorders (ROR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.44-1.49), which were further attributed to liraglutide (ROR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.28-2.51), dulaglutide (ROR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.36-1.42), and semaglutide (ROR, 3.00; 95% CI, 2.89-3.11). Adverse events uncovered in the labels included gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastritis, bezoar, breath odor, intra-abdominal hematoma, etc. Furthermore, it was observed that semaglutide had the greatest risk of nausea (ROR, 7.41; 95% CI, 7.10-7.74), diarrhea (ROR, 3.55; 95% CI, 3.35-3.77), vomiting (ROR, 6.67; 95% CI, 6.32-7.05), and constipation (ROR, 6.17; 95% CI, 5.72-6.66); liraglutide had the greatest risk of abdominal pain upper (ROR, 4.63; 95% CI, 4.12-5.21) and pancreatitis (ROR, 32.67; 95% CI, 29.44-36.25). Most gastrointestinal AEs tended to occur within one month. Liraglutide had the highest severe rate of gastrointestinal AEs (23.31%), while dulaglutide had the lowest, with a severe rate of 12.29%.

CONCLUSION

GLP-1 RA were significantly associated with gastrointestinal AEs, and the association was further attributed to liraglutide, dulaglutide, and semaglutide. In addition, semaglutide had the greatest risk of nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, constipation, and pancreatitis, while liraglutide had the greatest risk of upper abdominal pain. Our study provided valuable evidence for selecting appropriate GLP-1 RAs to avoid the occurrence of GLP-1 RA-induced gastrointestinal AEs.