Effect of once-weekly semaglutide versus thrice-daily insulin aspart, both as add-on to metformin and optimized insulin glargine treatment in participants with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 11): A randomized, open-label, multinational, phase 3b trial

Assessment of Thyroid Carcinogenic Risk and Safety Profile of GLP1-RA Semaglutide (Ozempic) Therapy for Diabetes Mellitus and Obesity: A Systematic Literature Review

The broadening application of glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 receptor agonists, specifically semaglutide (Ozempic) for the management of diabetes and obesity brings a critical need to evaluate its safety profile, considering estimates of up to 20 million prescriptions per year in the US until 2035. This systematic review aims to assess the incidence of thyroid cancer and detail the spectrum of adverse events associated with semaglutide, focusing on its implications for patient care. Through a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases up to December 2023, ten randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 14,550 participants, with 7830 receiving semaglutide, were analyzed, with an additional number of 18 studies that were separately discussed because they reported data from the same RCTs. The review focused on thyroid cancer incidence, gastrointestinal symptoms, and other significant adverse events attributed to semaglutide. The incidence of thyroid cancer in semaglutide-treated patients was less than 1%, suggesting no significant risk. Adverse events were predominantly gastrointestinal, including nausea (2.05% to 19.95%) and diarrhea (1.4% to 13%). Nasopharyngitis and vomiting were also notable, with mean prevalences of 8.23% and 5.97%, respectively. Other adverse events included increased lipase levels (mean of 6.5%), headaches (mean prevalence of 7.92%), decreased appetite (reported consistently at 7%), influenza symptoms (mean prevalence of 5.23%), dyspepsia (mean prevalence of 5.18%), and constipation (mean prevalence of 6.91%). Serious adverse events varied from 7% to 25.2%, highlighting the need for vigilant patient monitoring. These findings underscore the gastrointestinal nature of semaglutide's adverse events, which, while prevalent, did not significantly deter from its clinical benefits in the treatment landscape. This systematic review provides a comprehensive assessment of semaglutide's safety profile, with a focus on gastrointestinal adverse events and a low incidence of thyroid cancer. Despite the prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms, semaglutide remains an efficacious option for managing diabetes and obesity. The detailed characterization of adverse events underscores the importance of monitoring and managing these effects in clinical practice, excluding the hypothesis of carcinogenesis.

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.

Weight loss associated with semaglutide treatment among people with HIV

OBJECTIVE

There is limited real-world evidence about the effectiveness of semaglutide for weight loss among people with HIV (PWH). We aimed to investigate weight change in a US cohort of PWH who initiated semaglutide treatment.

DESIGN

Observational study using the Centers for AIDS Research Network of Integrated Clinical Systems (CNICS) cohort.

METHODS

We identified adult PWH who initiated semaglutide between 2018 and 2022 and with at least two weight measurements. The primary outcome was within-person bodyweight change in kilograms at 1 year. The secondary outcome was within-person Hemoglobin A1c percentage (HbA1c) change. Both outcomes were estimated using multivariable linear mixed model.

RESULTS

In total, 222 new users of semaglutide met inclusion criteria. Mean follow-up was 1.1 years. Approximately 75% of new semaglutide users were men, and at baseline, mean age was 53 years [standard deviation (SD): 10], average weight was 108 kg (SD: 23), mean BMI was 35.5 kg/m 2 , mean HbA1c was 7.7% and 77% had clinically recognized diabetes. At baseline, 97% were on ART and 89% were virally suppressed (viral load < 50 copies/ml). In the adjusted mixed model analysis, treatment with semaglutide was associated with an average weight loss of 6.47 kg at 1 year (95% CI -7.67 to -5.18) and with a reduction in HbA1c of 1.07% at 1 year (95% CI -1.64 to -0.50) among the 157 PWH with a postindex HbA1c value.

CONCLUSION

Semaglutide was associated with significant weight loss and HbA1c reduction among PWH, comparable to results of previous studies from the general population.

Structured lifestyle modification as an adjunct to obesity pharmacotherapy: there is much to learn

We are at the start of an exciting new era of very effective pharmacotherapy for patients with obesity, with the latest generation of drugs approaching the efficacy of obesity surgery. Clinical trials of obesity drugs tend to emphasise the importance of participation in some form of structured lifestyle intervention for all trial participants. This usually consists of advice to reduce calorie intake and increase moderate to vigorous physical activity. There is strong evidence that structured lifestyle modification programmes improve health in patients with obesity and related disorders. However, there is no specific evidence that they improve the response to obesity medications. This is because of the way that drug trials for patients with obesity have traditionally been designed, with participants in the active drug treatment group being compared to participants on placebo drug treatment, but with both groups always receiving the same structured lifestyle intervention. While this approach is entirely reasonable, it makes it impossible to draw any inferences about the efficacy of structured lifestyle modification to augment the response to drug therapy. Given this genuine equipoise, a critical step in ensuring that our treatment of patients with obesity is robustly evidence-based is to determine whether "drug plus lifestyle" offer any advantage over "drug plus placebo" in large, well-designed and adequately powered clinical trials. We also need to determine the cost-effectiveness of these programmes.

The effect of semaglutide on blood pressure in patients with type-2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the blood pressure (BP) lowering ability of semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), in individuals with type-2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing subcutaneous or oral semaglutide with placebo or other antihyperglycemic agents (AHAs) in T2D patients were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane Library. These screened studies included the outcomes of interest: systolic and/or diastolic BP. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were used to present the meta-analysis results. Pooled and sensitivity analyses were performed, and the risk of bias was evaluated.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine RCTs with a total of 26985 participants were recruited in the final analysis. The WMD in change from baseline in systolic BP (SBP) of semaglutide versus placebo or other AHAs was -2.31 mmHg (95% CI: -3.11 to -1.51), while that for diastolic BP (DBP) was 0.09 mmHg (95% CI: -0.16 to 0.33). It also reduced glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) by 0.75% (95% CI: -0.92 to -0.58) and body weight loss by 2.80 kg (95% CI: -3.51 to -2.08). The reduction in SBP was similar for subcutaneous and oral administration of semaglutide, with -2.36 (95% CI: -3.38 to -1.35) and -2.50 (95% CI: -3.48 to -1.53), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In T2D, SBP decreased significantly in the semaglutide group compared with placebo or other active controls. According to the efficacy results from this meta-analysis, subcutaneous and oral semaglutide have similar SBP-reducing effects. Therefore, the treatment of T2D patients with subcutaneous semaglutide or oral preparations is beneficial for reducing SBP.

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.

Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Agonists: What the Orthopaedic Surgeon Needs to Know

» Orthopaedic surgeons are increasingly likely to encounter patients with obesity and/or type 2 diabetes taking glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists for weight loss.» GLP-1 agonists are an effective treatment for weight loss with semaglutide and tirzepatide being the most effective agents. Randomized controlled trials using these agents have reported weight loss up to 21 kg (46 lb).» The use of GLP-1 agonists preoperatively can improve glycemic control, which can potentially reduce the risk of postoperative complications. However, multiple cases of intraoperative aspiration/regurgitation have been reported, potentially related to the effect of GLP-1 agonists on gastric emptying.» While efficacious, GLP-1 agonists may not produce sufficient weight loss to achieve body mass index cutoffs for total joint arthroplasty depending on individual patient factors, including starting bodyweight. Multifactorial approaches to weight loss with focus on lifestyle modification in addition to GLP-1 agonists should be considered in such patients.» Although GLP-1 agonists are efficacious agents for weight loss, they may not be accessible or affordable for all patients. Each patient's unique circumstances should be considered when creating an ideal weight loss plan during optimization efforts.

Semaglutide 2.4 mg/wk for weight loss in patients with severe obesity and with or without a history of bariatric surgery

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective cohort study aimed to assess the effectiveness of semaglutide 2.4 mg in patients with severe obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2 ) who had previously undergone bariatric surgery (BS) but failed to achieve satisfactory weight loss or experienced weight regain compared with patients without a history of BS with similar BMI.

METHODS

The authors analyzed data from 129 patients with a BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2 , including 39 with (BS+) and 90 without (BS-) a history of BS. The patients received semaglutide treatment for 24 weeks starting at 0.25 mg/wk and gradually increasing to reach a final dose of 2.4 mg/wk. The treatment outcomes were assessed based on the percentage of weight loss, changes in BMI, and waist circumference.

RESULTS

Semaglutide treatment resulted in significant 9.1% weight loss in the BS+ group, with no significant difference in weight loss between the BS+ and BS- groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first, to the authors' knowledge, to compare the effectiveness of semaglutide treatment in patients with versus those without a history of BS, providing valuable evidence of its efficacy. By focusing on individuals with severe obesity (BMI > 40 kg/m2 and associated comorbidities), it fills a gap in the current literature and highlights the potential of semaglutide 2.4 mg as a treatment option for this specific population.

Once-weekly semaglutide use in glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist naïve patients with type 2 diabetes in North Macedonia: Real-world data from the MIRAGE study

AIMS

The MIRAGE study aimed to evaluate the real-world use of once weekly (OW) subcutaneous semaglutide in glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist naïve type 2 diabetes patients in routine clinical practice in North Macedonia.

METHODS

MIRAGE was a multicentre, single-arm, retrospective and 30-weeks study, conducted in North Macedonia. Primary [change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)] and secondary endpoints [change in body weight, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), lipid parameters, blood pressure, waist circumference, glycaemic and weight-loss target achievement] were evaluated between baseline and end of study (EOS).

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics of 314 patients enrolled in the study were, mean age: 55.5 years, HbA1c: 9.0 %, diabetes duration: 7.8 years, body weight: 105.2 kg and waist circumference: 114 cm. Patients at EOS experienced statistically significant estimated mean change in HbA1c: -2.2 % points, body weight: -9.0 kg, and FPG: -4.1 mmol/L (all p < 0.0001). At EOS, 62.1 % patients achieved HbA1c < 7 %, and 79.3 % had ≥ 1 % HbA1c reduction. A weight reduction of ≥ 3 % and ≥ 5 % was noted in 88.3 % and 73.3 % patients, respectively. No new safety concern has emerged.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from MIRAGE study demonstrated glycaemic and weight-loss benefits of semaglutide, with improvements in other cardiometabolic parameters. The study supports real-world OW subcutaneous semaglutide use in North Macedonia.

The role of weight control in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus: Perspectives on semaglutide

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are widely used to address multiple aspects of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) management, including glycaemic control, weight loss, and cardiovascular risk reduction. Semaglutide, a well-established GLP-1 RA approved for T2DM treatment and weight management, demonstrates marked efficacy in achieving these clinically important goals. The American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) consensus report emphasizes the importance of a holistic approach to T2DM treatment, with weight control as a key component for improving patient outcomes. Notably, semaglutide is mentioned in the consensus report as having 'very high' efficacy for both glucose lowering and weight loss in T2DM treatment. Nevertheless, as has been observed with other weight-lowering drugs, weight loss observed with semaglutide appears less profound in individuals with T2DM than in those with obesity without T2DM, a phenomenon requiring further investigation. The semaglutide safety and tolerability profiles are well established, and it is approved in some countries to reduce cardiovascular risk in certain populations with T2DM. Thus, semaglutide offers a well-established therapeutic option that aligns well with guideline recommendations for T2DM management, emphasizing the high importance of weight control and amelioration of other cardiometabolic risk factors.

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.

A Comprehensive Review on Weight Loss Associated with Anti-Diabetic Medications

Obesity is a complex metabolic condition that can have a negative impact on one's health and even result in mortality. The management of obesity has been addressed in a number of ways, including lifestyle changes, medication using appetite suppressants and thermogenics, and bariatric surgery for individuals who are severely obese. Liraglutide and semaglutide are two of the five Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved anti-obesity drugs that are FDA-approved agents for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. In order to highlight the positive effects of these drugs as anti-obesity treatments, we analyzed the weight loss effects of T2DM agents that have demonstrated weight loss effects in this study by evaluating clinical studies that were published for each agent. Many clinical studies have revealed that some antihyperglycemic medications can help people lose weight, while others either cause weight gain or neutral results. Acarbose has mild weight loss effects and metformin and sodium-dependent glucose cotransporter proteins-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors have modest weight loss effects; however, some glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists had the greatest impact on weight loss. Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors showed a neutral or mild weight loss effect. To sum up, some of the GLP-1 agonist drugs show promise as weight-loss treatments.

Once-weekly semaglutide use in patients with type 2 diabetes: Real-world data from the SURE Italy observational study

AIMS

SURE Italy, a multicentre, prospective, open-label, observational, real-world study, investigated once-weekly semaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in routine clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adults with T2D and ≥1 documented glycated haemoglobin (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, waist circumference and patient-reported outcomes, 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.

RESULTS

Of 579 patients who initiated semaglutide (full analysis set), 491 completed the study on treatment (EAS). Mean baseline HbA1c was 8.0%, and 20.7% (120 of 579) of patients had HbA1c <7.0%. Mean semaglutide dose at EOS was 0.66 ± 0.28 mg. In the EAS, mean HbA1c and body weight decreased by 1.1%-point (95% confidence interval 1.20, 1.05; P < .0001) and 4.2 kg (95% confidence interval 4.63, 3.67; P < .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. Patient-reported outcomes improved from baseline to EOS. No new safety concerns were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

In routine clinical practice in Italy, patients with T2D treated with once-weekly semaglutide for 30 weeks achieved clinically significant improvements in HbA1c, body weight and other outcomes.

Once-weekly semaglutide versus insulin aspart for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK: A long-term cost-effectiveness analysis based on SUSTAIN 11

AIM

To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus insulin aspart in the UK.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Long-term outcomes were projected over patients' lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (vers 9.0). SUSTAIN 11 was used to inform baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects. Patients were modelled to receive once-weekly semaglutide plus basal insulin for 3 years before intensifying to basal-bolus insulin, compared with basal-bolus insulin for lifetimes in the aspart arm. Costs were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective in the UK, expressed in 2021 pounds sterling (GBP).

RESULTS

Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.18 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus insulin aspart, due to a reduced incidence and delayed time to onset of diabetes-related complications. Direct costs were estimated to be GBP 800 higher with semaglutide, with higher treatment costs partially offset by cost savings from avoidance of diabetes-related complications. Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was therefore associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 4457 per QALY gained versus insulin aspart.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of GBP 20 000 per QALY gained, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was projected to be highly cost-effective versus insulin aspart for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK.

An Indirect Comparison of Basal Insulin Plus Once-Weekly Semaglutide and Fully Optimised Basal-Bolus Insulin in Type 2 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

To date, there have been few head-to-head comparisons between semaglutide once-weekly (OW) and short-acting meal-time insulin in participants with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with basal insulin and requiring treatment intensification. This indirect comparison evaluated the effects of these regimens on glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c), body weight, hypoglycaemia, and other clinically relevant outcomes.

METHODS

A post-hoc, unanchored, individual participant data meta-analysis was conducted on the basis of data from single treatment arms in the SUSTAIN 5 and DUAL 7 trials. Semaglutide 0.5 mg OW and 1.0 mg OW plus basal insulin were compared with an optimised (treat-to-target) basal-bolus regimen of insulin glargine and insulin aspart over 26 weeks, using regression adjustment to account for baseline differences between the trials.

RESULTS

Over 26 weeks, semaglutide 1.0 mg OW plus basal insulin reduced mean HbA_1c by significantly more than the basal-bolus regimen (treatment difference: - 0.36%; p = 0.003), while semaglutide 0.5 mg OW plus basal insulin was comparable with basal-bolus insulin (treatment difference: 0.08%, p = 0.53). Both doses of semaglutide were associated with significant weight loss relative to insulin intensification (treatment differences: 6.8-9.4 kg; p < 0.001). At both doses, semaglutide intensification required less basal insulin per day than bolus intensification, and more participants on semaglutide met HbA_1c targets of < 7.0% and ≤ 6.5% without hypoglycaemia or weight gain (odds ratio [OR] for < 7.0%, 21.9; OR for ≤ 6.5%, 16.2; both p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In T2D uncontrolled by basal insulin, intensification with semaglutide 1.0 mg OW was associated with better glycaemic control, weight loss, and reduced hypoglycaemia versus a basal-bolus regimen, while limiting the treatment burden associated with frequent injections. Clinicians could consider treatment intensification with semaglutide when T2D is uncontrolled by basal insulin, especially when weight management is a priority. Effective glycaemic control coupled with weight management can alleviate the burden of diabetes-associated complications.

Association of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists with cardiac arrhythmias in patients with type 2 diabetes or obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have been highly recommended for glycemic control and weight reduction. However, evidence has accumulated that GLP-1 RAs treatment is related to an increase in heart rate, which could potentially induce cardiac arrhythmias. This study aims to investigate the association of GLP-1 RAs therapy with incident arrhythmias in diabetic and obese patients.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from inception up to May 25, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing GLP-1 RAs with placebo or active control for adults with type 2 diabetes or obesity were included. The outcomes of interest were prespecified as incident atrial fibrillation (AF), atrial flutter (AFL), ventricular arrhythmias (VAs), and sudden cardiac death (SCD). Mantel-Haenszel relative risk (MH-RR) with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was estimated using a fixed-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 56 RCTs involving 79,720 participants (44,028 GLP-1 RAs vs 35,692 control: mean age 57.3 years) were included from 7692 citations. GLP-1 RAs use overall did not significantly increase the risk of AF (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83-1.12), AFL (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59-1.17), VAs (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.92-1.67), and SCD (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.67-1.19), compared with controls. In further subgroup analyses, we observed an increasing trend toward incident AF with dulaglutide (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.03-1.90) while an inverse trend with oral semaglutide (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21-0.87). Additionally, higher doses of GLP-1 RAs (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.11-2.40) and higher baseline BMI (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.04-2.48) might significantly increase the risk of VAs. No significant differences were identified in other subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

GLP-1 RAs therapy was not associated with an overall higher risk of arrhythmias, demonstrating an assuring cardiovascular safety profile. Further studies are required to determine whether the potential antiarrhythmic or arrhythmogenic effect of GLP-1 RAs is drug-specific and varies from doses or baseline BMI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42022339389.