Search

Obesity is a growing epidemic within the USA. Because weight gain is associated with an increased risk of developing life-threatening comorbidities, such as hypertension or type 2 diabetes, there is great interest in developing non-invasive pharmacotherapeutics to help combat obesity. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are a class of antidiabetic medications that have shown promise in encouraging glycemic control and promoting weight loss in patients with or without type 2 diabetes. This literature review summarizes and discusses the weight loss results from the SUSTAIN (Semaglutide Unabated Sustainability in Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes), PIONEER (Peptide Innovation for Early Diabetes Treatment), and STEP (Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with Obesity) clinical trial programs. The SUSTAIN and PIONEER clinical trials studied the use of 1.0 mg, once-weekly, subcutaneous and oral semaglutide (a new GLP-1 homolog), respectively, on participants with type 2 diabetes. The STEP trial examined the effects of 2.4 mg, once-weekly, subcutaneous semaglutide on patients with obesity. Trial data and other pertinent articles were obtained via database search through the US National Library of Medicine Clinical Trials and the National Center for Biotechnology Information. All three clinical trials demonstrated that semaglutide (injected or oral) has superior efficacy compared with placebo and other antidiabetic medications in weight reduction, which led to Food and Drug Administration approval of Wegovy (semaglutide) for weight loss.

Aims: To determine the proportion of UK patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who meet the cardiovascular (CV) or combined CV/core eligibility criteria of the CV outcome trials (CVOTs) of UK-marketed glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) showing CV benefit (dulaglutide in REWIND, liraglutide in LEADER and injectable semaglutide in SUSTAIN-6). Materials and Methods: Adults with T2D on/before June 2018 were identified from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD primary care database and linked to Hospital Episode Statistics data (Protocol 19_262). Patient CV and clinical data were evaluated against the CVOTs’ eligibility criteria. Data were analysed descriptively. Results: The study cohort (N=33,118 patients with T2D) had a mean (SD) age of 66.0 (13.3) years and 56.6% were male. Almost two-thirds (64.5%) of the study cohort met the CV criteria for REWIND, versus 43.0% for both LEADER and SUSTAIN-6. The proportions of the study cohort who met the CVOTs’ criteria of ‘established CV disease’ and ‘CV risk factors only’ for REWIND were 22.4% and 42.1%, respectively, versus 38.7% and 4.3%, respectively, for both LEADER and SUSTAIN-6. The proportion of patients satisfying both CV and core criteria was 44.4% for REWIND, 13.3% for LEADER and 13.5% for SUSTAIN-6. Study findings remained consistent when restricted to GLP-1 RA users. Conclusions: REWIND captured a trial population more representative of the real-world T2D population in the UK than LEADER or SUSTAIN-6 with regard to both CV and combined CV/core eligibility criteria.

Aim: Perform a cost–effectiveness analysis of addition of subcutaneous semaglutide versus empagliflozin to usual treatment for patients with Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease in US setting. Materials & methods: A Markov decision model estimated the impact of each strategy using cardiovascular complication rates based on EMPA-REG and SUSTAIN-6 trials. Modeled cohorts were followed for 3 years at 1-month intervals beginning at age 66. Results: Compared with empagliflozin, semaglutide resulted in cost of US$19,964 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. In one-way sensitivity analysis, only semaglutide cost >US$36.25/day (base case US$18.04) resulted in empagliflozin being preferred at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$50,000/quality-adjusted life-year gained. Conclusion: For patients with Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, semaglutide is likely more cost-effective than empagliflozin added to usual treatment.

Oral semaglutide is the first-in-class glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist available in the form of pills administered per os. PIONEER — the clinical trial program assessing the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide — demonstrated the dose-­dependent efficacy of the drug: the reduction of up to -1,4% in terms of glucose-lowering effects and the decrease of up to 5 kg in terms of weight loss. Moreover, oral semaglutide is superior in this regard compared to empagliflozin 25 mg, liraglutide 1,8 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg according to the dedicated trials of clinical program. From the cardiovascular perspective oral semaglutide has been proven to be safe. Therapeutic concentration of semaglutide in oral form is reached under ­several conditions: taking tablets on a daily basis in a fasting state with up to half a glass of water and waiting 30 minutes before drinking, eating, or taking other drugs. Most frequent adverse events were GLP-1 associated gastrointestinal reactions (­nausea, vomiting and diarrhea), most of the events were transient and occurred generally during dose escalation.

Purpose Evidence of the efficacy and safety of semaglutide among patients with type 2 diabetes who were initiated on or were switched to semaglutide from other GLP-1 RAs remains limited. The objective of this study was to investigate the short-term effects of switching to semaglutide from other GLP-1 RAs. Methods This retrospective cohort study evaluated patients with type 2 diabetes who were initiated on or were switched to semaglutide due to poor diabetes control with other GLP-1 RAs or other medications, or obesity. HbA1c, body weight, serum creatinine, serum uric acid, parameters of lipid metabolism, and parameters of liver function were measured before and 6 months after administration of semaglutide. Results A total of 50 patients were registered in the study. After switching to semaglutide (n = 43), HbA1c and body weight significantly decreased (p p p = 0.04, p p = 0.04, p = 0.04, p = 0.02, p = 0.04), whereas serum creatinine did not change significantly (p = 0.51). Conclusions Semaglutide showed excellent efficacy, even in patients switched from other GLP-1 RAs. Semaglutide appears to be a promising agent for blood glucose and body weight control in obese type 2 diabetes mellitus patients and could be more potent in treating type 2 diabetes than existing GLP-1 RAs.

Introduction Once-weekly (OW) semaglutide was associated with clinically relevant improvements in glycaemic control and body weight versus comparators in the SUSTAIN randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SURE UK, which is one of a series of individual studies that comprise the SURE programme, evaluated the use of OW semaglutide in a real-world patient population with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the UK. Methods In this prospective, observational study, adults (≥ 18 years) with ≥ 1 documented glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) value ≤ 12 weeks before semaglutide initiation were enrolled. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to end of study (EOS; ~ 30 weeks, although due to the COVID-19 pandemic, visits up to week 52 were permitted). Secondary endpoints included change in body weight, waist circumference and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Physicians were to report all episodes of documented or severe hypoglycaemia, fatal events, serious adverse drug reactions, pregnancies and adverse events (AEs) in foetuses/newborn infants; other AEs during the study period could be reported on a voluntary basis. Result The estimated mean change in HbA1c from baseline to EOS was − 16.3 mmol/mol [95% confidence interval (CI): − 18.22, − 14.37] (− 1.5%-points [95% CI − 1.67, − 1.31]; p

A new generation of anti-obesity drugs is in development or just arriving on the scene. The first, setmelanotide, has been approved for three ultrarare genetic conditions that cause obesity: pro-opiomelanocortin deficiency, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 1 (PCSK1, which encodes an important enzyme in the melanocortin pathway) mutation, and leptin receptor deficiency. Setmelanotide marks the initiation of a personalized medical approach to obesity. The second, 2.4 mg semaglutide once weekly, has been submitted to regulators in the United States and the European Union for approval in overweight patients (body mass index [BMI] ≥27 kg/m2), and those with both obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) and at least one weight-related comorbidity. This drug has been studied in five phase 3 clinical trials, four of which are discussed herein: semaglutide produces roughly double the weight loss that typically occurs in patients prescribed older anti-obesity medications. Semaglutide is already approved for treatment of diabetes, and this glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor analog is part of a class of drugs used widely in diabetes. The third, tirzepatide, is a glucose-insulin peptide and GLP-1 dual agonist in phase 3 trials for obesity management, and the fourth, bimagrumab is a new agent with a unique mechanism of action currently being assessed in phase 2 trials; both are generating much interest. The purpose of this narrative review is to lay the groundwork for a discussion of the clinical impact of these new medications on the clinical management of obesity. Further, we discuss the likely impact of these new anti-obesity medications on the future of obesity pharmacotherapy.

Subcutaneous semaglutide, at a 2.4 mg once-weekly maintenance dose, is approved in the United States for weight management in individuals with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or higher, or with a BMI of 27 kg/m2 or higher and at least one obesity-related co-morbidity. To investigate the usability of the semaglutide pen-injector in individuals who met these criteria, we report post hoc analysis of the summative (human factors validation) usability testing and safety analysis involving patients with type 2 diabetes (an obesity-related co-morbidity) with the same pen-injector, limited to the 26 out of 30 patients with a BMI of 27 kg/m2 or higher (11 pen-injector-naive, 15 pen-injector-experienced) and 15 non-pharmacist healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants performed two simulated injections into an injection pad. No potentially serious use errors occurred. Mean subjective ease-of-use rating on a seven-point scale, where 1 = difficult and 7 = easy, was 6.9 for the second injection in all three groups. These results suggest that the semaglutide pen-injector is easy to use and not associated with serious use errors when used by pen-injector-naive or pen-injector-experienced patients meeting the requirement for weight management with semaglutide treatment, and by non-pharmacist HCPs.

Background Tirzepatide is a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist that is under development for the treatment of type 2 dia...

ContextThe burden of cirrhosis from nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is reaching epidemic proportions in the United States. This calls for greater awareness among endocrinologists, who often see but may miss the diagnosis in adults with obesity or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) who are at the highest risk. At the same time, recent studies suggest that glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are beneficial vs nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) in this population. This minireview aims to assist endocrinologists to recognize the condition and recent work on the role of GLP-1RAs in NAFLD/NASH.Evidence acquisitionEvidence from observational studies, randomized controlled trials, and meta-analyses.Evidence synthesisEndocrinologists should lead multidisciplinary teams to implement recent consensus statements on NAFLD that call for screening and treatment of clinically significant fibrosis to prevent cirrhosis, especially in the high-risk groups (ie, people with obesity, prediabetes, or T2D). With no US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved agents, weight loss is central to successful management, with pharmacological treatment options limited today to vitamin E (in people without T2D) and diabetes medications that reverse steatohepatitis, such as pioglitazone or GLP-1RA. Recently, the benefit of GLP-1RAs in NAFLD, suggested from earlier trials, has been confirmed in adults with biopsy-proven NASH. In 2021, the FDA also approved semaglutide for obesity management.ConclusionA paradigm change is developing between the endocrinologist’s greater awareness about their critical role to curve the epidemic of NAFLD and new clinical care pathways that include a broader use of GLP-1RAs in the management of these complex patients.

The cardiovascular (CV) safety of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists has been established in robust cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs) in patients with type 2 diabetes at high CV risk. The GLP-1 receptor agonists liraglutide, dulaglutide, and injectable semaglutide demonstrated a significant CV benefit in these trials and now have indications to reduce the risk of major adverse CV events, including CV death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in adult patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease or high CV risk (dulaglutide). The dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors have also demonstrated CV safety in dedicated CVOTs but have not been associated with any CV benefit. Guidelines for the treatment of type 2 diabetes have evolved from a glucocentric focus to one that now focuses on reducing overall CV risk by personalizing therapy and using drugs such as GLP-1 receptor agonists with proven CV benefits.

Contains fulltext : 248734.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. For many years guidelines have listed optimal preventive therapy. More recently, novel therapeutic options have broadened the options for state-of-the-art CV risk management (CVRM). In the majority of patients with CVD, risk lowering can be achieved by utilising standard preventive medication combined with lifestyle modifications. In a minority of patients, add-on therapies should be considered to further reduce the large residual CV risk. However, the choice of which drug combination to prescribe and in which patients has become increasingly complicated, and is dependent on both the absolute CV risk and the reason for the high risk. In this review, we discuss therapeutic decisions in CVRM, focusing on (1) the absolute CV risk of the patient and (2) the pros and cons of novel treatment options.

Introduction Oral delivery of proteins, including glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, is impeded by low gastrointestinal permeation. Oral semaglutide has been developed for once-daily oral administration by co-formulation of the GLP-1 analogue semaglutide with an absorption enhancer, sodium N-(8-[2-hydroxybenzoyl] amino) caprylate (SNAC, 300 mg). A randomised, partially double-blind, placebo-controlled thorough QT/corrected QT (QTc) trial was conducted to confirm the absence of unacceptable QTc interval prolongation with SNAC. QT is defined as interval on the electrocardiogram, measured from the start of the QRS complex to the end of the T wave. Methods Part A of the study sought to identify an appropriate dose of SNAC (which was substantially higher than that used in the oral semaglutide co-formulation) for QTc assessment. Three sequential healthy volunteer cohorts were randomised to escalating single oral doses of SNAC (1.2, 2.4 or 3.6 g) or placebo. Following identification of an appropriate dose, a cross-over trial was conducted (Part B). Healthy volunteers received one of four treatment sequences, including single oral doses of SNAC, moxifloxacin (positive control) and placebo. Primary objectives were to (1) assess adverse events (AEs) with escalating SNAC doses and (2) confirm that SNAC does not cause unacceptable QTc interval prolongation versus placebo, using the Fridericia heart rate-corrected QT interval (QTcF). Results All subjects completed Part A (N = 36) and 46 subjects completed Part B. In Part A, all AEs were mild to moderate in severity; no relationship was identified between AE incidence and SNAC dose. SNAC 3.6 g, the maximum investigated SNAC dose, was selected for Part B. There was no unacceptable prolongation of the QTcF interval with SNAC 3.6 g, and assay sensitivity was demonstrated with moxifloxacin as the positive control. There was no significant exposure–response relationship between SNAC concentration and QTcF interval, and no instances of QTc interval > 450 ms or increases > 30 ms. Conclusion This QT/QTc trial demonstrates that SNAC doses 12-fold higher than the 300 mg dose used in the oral formulation of semaglutide do not cause unacceptable prolongation of the QTcF interval. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02911870., Plain Language Summary Medications that are taken orally can be broken down by acid in the stomach before they are absorbed and therefore be less effective. Oral semaglutide is a novel type 2 diabetes medication that is formulated with the absorption enhancer sodium N-(8-[2-hydroxybenzoyl] amino) caprylate (SNAC), which helps to protect against semaglutide degradation in the stomach. Regulatory authority guidelines recommend that new therapies should be tested for prolongation of the QT interval, an important part of the heart’s electrical cycle. A previous trial demonstrated that semaglutide alone, which is currently available as an injectable diabetes therapy, did not prolong the QT interval when given in doses higher than those used in patients. Therefore, the current trial was conducted to assess whether the SNAC component of oral semaglutide has any relevant prolonging effect on the QT interval. Following regulatory guidelines for trials evaluating prolongation of the QT interval, the first part of the trial aimed to find a suitably high dose of SNAC. The second part of the trial aimed to confirm that SNAC does not prolong the QT interval. The results of this trial demonstrated that a 3.6 g dose of SNAC, which is 12-fold higher than the amount contained in oral semaglutide, does not prolong the QT interval. The safety and tolerability of SNAC 1.2 g, 2.4 g and 3.6 g were assessed in this trial and no concerns were identified. These results, taken alongside those of the previous QT interval study with subcutaneous semaglutide, indicate no relevant effect of oral semaglutide on the QT interval.

This communication provides a contemporary classification of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1RAs) based on indication, route, and frequency of administration, which could support a person-centric approach to treatment choice. It includes all recently developed GLP1RAs as well as those in advanced stages of clinical study. Keeping pace with current trends in pharmacology and metabolic medicine, it attempts to bring clarity and simplicity to a complex spread of information.

BACKGROUND: Oral semaglutide is the first orally administered glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) approved by the FDA. Clinical trials found that oral semaglutide 14 mg had a greater reduction in hemoglobin A1c (A1c) compared with empagliflozin 25 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg and was noninferior to liraglutide 1.8 mg. However, US cost-effectiveness data for oral semaglutide are limited and do not consider the costs of adverse events. OBJECTIVE: To assess the short-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide compared with empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A decision analysis over a 52-week time horizon was used to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide vs empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide from a US health care payer's perspective. Data on efficacy, adverse events, and discontinuation were derived from 52-week data from phase 3, head-to-head clinical trials (PIONEER 2, 3, and 4). Costs included drug and administration cost and treatment of gastrointestinal adverse events. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated as the difference in cost over the difference in A1c reduction between oral semaglutide and comparators. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, 52-week treatment costs with oral semaglutide were $2,660 and $3,104 higher and $2,337 less than empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide, respectively. Incremental (greater) A1c reductions were seen with oral semaglutide at 0.40%, 0.50%, and 0.30% vs empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide, respectively. ICERs per 1% reduction in A1c for oral semaglutide were $6,650 and $6,207 vs empagliflozin and sitagliptin, respectively. Oral semaglutide was dominant vs liraglutide (ICER of -$7,790). CONCLUSIONS: Oral semaglutide was dominant relative to liraglutide, offering a cost-saving GLP-1RA oral alternative. While there is not a recognized willingness-to-pay threshold for a 1% reduction in A1c, oral semaglutide may be cost-effective relative to empagliflozin and sitagliptin if a decision maker's willingness-to-pay threshold exceeds $6,650 and $6,207, respectively. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Oral semaglutide is the first oral glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for type 2 diabetes mellitus, demonstrating significant benefits in glycaemic control and weight reduction versus active comparators in the PIONEER phase 3a RCT programme. In this retrospective study, we present early data on the use of oral semaglutide in clinical practice, from the US IBM Explorys electronic health record database. In 782 patients prescribed oral semaglutide, 54.5% were women, and mean age (SD) was 57.8 years (11.3); 66.0% of patients received their prescription from a primary care practitioner. Although prescribing information recommends increasing the dose to 7 mg after 30 days, 37.3% of patients received a prescription only for the initial 3 mg dose. Mean BMI was 36.2 kg/m2 (7.6); mean HbA1c was 8.4% (1.8). Mean HbA1c change from baseline to approximately 6 months after oral semaglutide initiation was -0.9% (95% CI: -1.1; -0.6), with greater reductions in patients with higher baseline HbA1c. These data indicate prevalent early adoption of oral semaglutide in primary care, demonstrate real-world improvements in glycaemic control, and identify potential treatment gaps. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Aim To compare the effects of glucose-lowering drugs on body weight and blood pressure in adults with type 2 diabetes. Methods We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and grey literature sources until 29 September 2020 for randomized controlled trials of at least 24 weeks' duration assessing the effects of glucose-lowering drugs on body weight and blood pressure in adults with type 2 diabetes. We performed frequentist network meta-analyses and calculated weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals combining trial arms of different approved doses of a given intervention into a single group. We evaluated the confidence in pooled estimates using the CINeMA (Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis) framework. Results In total, 424 trials (276 336 patients) assessing 21 antidiabetic medications from nine drug classes were included. Subcutaneous semaglutide was the most efficacious in reducing body weight followed by oral semaglutide, exenatide twice-daily, liraglutide, and the sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors empagliflozin, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin and ertugliflozin. The same agents also conferred the greatest reductions in systolic blood pressure. Metformin had a modest effect in reducing body weight and systolic blood pressure. Diastolic blood pressure was reduced with the SGLT-2 inhibitors pioglitazone, exenatide twice-daily and semaglutide. In subgroup analyses of trials with over 52 weeks' duration, semaglutide and SGLT-2 inhibitors reduced both body weight and systolic blood pressure. Conclusions Semaglutide and SGLT-2 inhibitors conferred reductions both in body weight and blood pressure that were sustainable for over 1 year of treatment. These agents may be preferable treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes who are overweight/obese and/or hypertensive.

Introduction Oral semaglutide is a novel tablet formulation of the human glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue semaglutide. In two trials, the effects of prior food ingestion (food effect), post-dose fasting period and water volume with dosing (dosing conditions) on oral semaglutide pharmacokinetics were investigated. Methods Subjects received once-daily oral semaglutide for 10 days. In the food-effect trial, 78 healthy subjects were randomised 1:1:1 to fed (meal 30 min pre-dose; 240 mL water with dosing), fasting (overnight until 4 h post-dose; 240 mL) or reference (fasting overnight until 30 min post-dose; 120 mL) arms. In the dosing conditions trial, 161 healthy men were randomised into eight dosing groups (overnight fasted with 50/120 mL water and 15/30/60/120 min post-dose fasting). Semaglutide plasma concentrations were measured frequently until 504 h after the 10th dose. Results In the food-effect trial, limited or no measurable semaglutide exposure was observed in the fed arm, while all subjects in the fasting arm had measurable semaglutide exposure. Area under the semaglutide concentration–time curve (AUC0–24h,semaglutide,day10) and maximum semaglutide concentration (Cmax,semaglutide,day10) were numerically greater by approximately 40% for the fasting versus reference arm (p = 0.082 and p = 0.080, respectively). In the dosing conditions trial, AUC0–24h,semaglutide,day10 and Cmax,semaglutide,day10 were not different between water volumes (p = 0.541 and p = 0.676), but increased with longer post-dose fasting (p

The glucose intolerance of diabetes aggravates atherosclerosis indirectly through its effect on lipids and endothelial function. The cardiovascular (CV) impact of this metabolic disturbance is seen in the worsening of atherosclerotic vascular disease predominantly manifest as progression of coronary and cerebrovascular disease. The microvascular changes induced by prolonged glucose intolerance lead to ultrastructural changes in the glomerular basement membrane and renal mesangium which alters intrarenal haemodynamics, which may become evident initially as proteinuria and later lead to a decline in glomerular filtration rate. As the kidney plays a central role in blood pressure control, these changes have far-reaching CV consequences in patients with diabetes.Despite this, glucose lowering has been shown to have only a modest impact on CV outcomes in diabetes. The new antidiabetic medications have been studied in clinical trials designed to assure safety as grounded in the FDA guidance of 2008. Whilst a direct comparison of results from these trials is not possible in view of heterogeneity in trial design, the individual CV outcome measures have broadly re-defined their role in terms of equivalence (non-inferiority) and/or benefit (superiority). The composite endpoint of CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke (major adverse cardiovascular events, MACE) may be perceived as surrogate markers for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). This has been universally accepted as the primary endpoint in these cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) and has been helpful in understanding the possible CV impact these drugs may have on patients with diabetes.The dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-IV) inhibitors (sitagliptin, alogliptin, saxagliptin, linagliptin), two sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors (dapagliflozin and ertugliflozin) and two glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) drugs (lixisenatide and extended-release exenatide) have demonstrated non-inferiority on MACE outcomes with comparators – that is, they have assured CV safety when used in conjunction with other glucose-lowering treatment to improve glycaemic control. Four GLP-1 agonists (liraglutide, albiglutide, semaglutide and dula- glutide) and two SGLT2 inhibitors (empagliflozin and canagliflozin) have demonstrated CV benefit on MACE outcomes; such demonstration of superiority may be seen as evidence for benefit. The SGLT2 inhibitors canagliflozin, empagliflozin, dapagliflozin and ertugliflozin have all demonstrated a significant benefit in reducing the risk of hospitalisation due to heart failure (HHF) as a secondary/ exploratory outcome measure in their CVOTs. Further confirmation of benefit in heart failure independent of the presence of glucose intolerance has been demonstrated with dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in heart failure patients with or without diabetes. However, a comparable benefit in heart failure has not so far been seen in studies with the DPP-IV inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists. Albiglutide is not available in the UK and may have little relevance to the practising clinician other than through the information it contributes about the possible mechanisms of action of GLP-1 RA medications.

Obesity is a chronic disease associated with many complications. Weight loss of 5–15% can improve many obesity-related complications. Despite the benefits of weight reduction, there are many challenges in losing weight and maintaining long-term weight loss. Pharmacotherapy can help people with obesity achieve and maintain their target weight loss, thereby reducing the risk of obesity-related complications. The prevalence of obesity in the USA has been increasing over the past few decades, and despite the availability of approved anti-obesity medications (AOMs), people with obesity may not be accessing or receiving treatment at levels consistent with the disease prevalence. Reasons for low levels of initiation and long-term use of AOMs may include reluctance of public health and medical organizations to recognize obesity as a disease, lack of reimbursement, provider inexperience, and misperceptions about the efficacy and safety of available treatments. This article aims to inform primary care providers about the mechanism of action of one class of AOMs, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), in weight loss and longer-term maintenance of weight loss, and the efficacy and safety of this treatment class. GLP-1RA therapy was initially developed to treat type 2 diabetes. Owing to their effectiveness in reducing body weight, once-daily subcutaneous administration of liraglutide 3.0 mg has been approved, and once-weekly subcutaneous administration of semaglutide 2.4 mg is being investigated in phase III trials, for obesity management. Considerations regarding adverse effects and contraindications for different drug classes are provided to help guide treatment decision-making when considering pharmacotherapy for weight management in patients with obesity. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01710-0., Plain Language Summary Obesity is a growing public health issue that increases the risk of developing heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and osteoarthritis. Weight loss can reduce the risk of developing these health problems but, despite this, levels of obesity remain high. Achieving and maintaining weight loss is challenging for many individuals. There is therefore a need for some patients to take medications to help them lose weight and prevent weight regain. Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are a type of medication originally developed to treat type 2 diabetes, but are now being used for the treatment of obesity because they are effective at helping people to lose weight. One GLP-1RA, liraglutide, has been approved to treat obesity, and another, semaglutide, is in clinical trials. GLP-1RAs work by reducing the appetite and feelings of hunger, slowing the release of food from the stomach, and increasing feelings of fullness after eating. Most people can tolerate GLP-1RAs well. The most common side effects (nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea) are usually mild and occur in the first few weeks of treatment, reducing over time. Because of the difficulties many people face in maintaining weight loss, lifelong treatment may be needed. In clinical trials, GLP-1RAs were well tolerated and effective at helping people prevent weight regain, and may be a good option for long-term weight control and lowering patients’ chances of serious health problems. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01710-0.

Objective The absorption, distribution and elimination of oral semaglutide, the first oral glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist for treating type 2 diabetes, was investigated using a population pharmacokinetic model based on data from clinical pharmacology trials. Methods A previously developed, two-compartment pharmacokinetic model, based on subcutaneous and intravenous semaglutide, was extended to include data from six oral semaglutide trials conducted in either healthy volunteers or subjects with renal or hepatic impairment. Five trials employed multiple doses of oral semaglutide (5–10 mg) and one was a single-dose (10 mg) trial. In a separate analysis, the model was re-estimated using data from a trial in subjects with type 2 diabetes. Results The model accurately described concentration profiles across trials. Post-dose fasting time, co-ingestion of a large water volume, and body weight were the most important covariates affecting semaglutide exposure. Bioavailability was 0.8% when oral semaglutide was dosed using the recommended dosing conditions (30 min post-dose fasting time, administered with ≤ 120 mL of water), increasing with a longer post-dose fasting time and decreasing with higher water volume. Within-subject variability in bioavailability was 137%, which with once-daily dosing and a long half-life translates into 33% within-subject variability in steady-state exposure. There was no significant difference in oral bioavailability of semaglutide in healthy subjects and subjects with type 2 diabetes. Conclusions The updated model provided a general characterisation of semaglutide pharmacokinetics following oral, subcutaneous and intravenous administration in healthy subjects and subjects with type 2 diabetes. Within-individual variation of oral bioavailability was relatively high, but reduced considerably at steady state. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT01572753, NCT01619345, NCT02014259, NCT02016911, NCT02249871, NCT02172313, NCT02877355. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40262-021-01025-x.

Summary Background Cagrilintide, a long-acting amylin analogue, and semaglutide 2·4 mg, a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue, are both being investigated as options for weight management. We aimed to determine the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of this drug combination. Methods In this randomised, placebo-controlled, multiple-ascending dose, phase 1b trial, individuals aged 18–55 years with a body-mass index 27·0−39·9 kg/m2 and who were otherwise healthy were recruited from a single centre in the USA. The trial included six sequential overlapping cohorts, and in each cohort eligible participants were randomly assigned (3:1) to once-weekly subcutaneous cagrilintide (0·16, 0·30, 0·60, 1·2, 2·4, or 4·5 mg) or matched placebo, in combination with once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2·4 mg, without lifestyle interventions. In each cohort, the doses of cagrilintide and semaglutide were co-escalated in 4-week intervals to the desired dose over 16 weeks, participants were treated at the target dose for 4 weeks, and then followed up for 5 weeks. Participants, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was number of treatment-emergent adverse events from baseline to end of follow-up. Secondary pharmacokinetic endpoints assessed from day of last dose (week 19) to end of treatment (week 20) were area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 168 h (AUC0–168 h) and maximum concentration [Cmax] of cagrilintide and semaglutide; exploratory pharmacokinetic endpoints were half-life, time to Cmax [tmax], plasma clearance, and volume of distribution of cagrilintide and semaglutide; and exploratory pharmacodynamic endpoints were changes in bodyweight, glycaemic parameters, and hormones. Safety, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic endpoints were assessed in all participants who were exposed to at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03600480, and is now complete. Findings Between July 25, 2018, and Dec 17, 2019, 285 individuals were screened and 96 were randomly assigned to cagrilintide (0·16–2·4 mg group n=12; 4·5 mg group n=11) or placebo (n=24), in combination with semaglutide 2·4 mg, of whom 95 were exposed to treatment (one patient in 0·60 mg cagrilintide group was not exposed) and included in the safety and full analysis datasets. The mean age was 40·6 years (SD 9·2), 56 (59%) of 95 participants were men and 51 (54%) were Black or African American. Of 566 adverse events reported in 92 participants (69 [97%] of 71 participants assigned to 0·16–4·5 mg cagrilintide and 23 [96%] of 24 assigned to placebo), 207 (37%) were gastrointestinal disorders. Most adverse events were mild to moderate in severity and the proportion of participants with one or more adverse event was similar across treatment groups. Exposure was proportional to cagrilintide dose and did not affect semaglutide exposure or elimination. AUC0–168 h ranged from 926 nmol × h/L to 24 271 nmol × h/L, and Cmax ranged from 6·14 nmol/L to 170 nmol/L with cagrilintide 0·16–4·5 mg. AUC0–168 h ranged from 12 757 nmol × h/L to 15 305 nmol × h/L, and Cmax ranged from 96·4 nmol/L to 120 nmol/L with semaglutide 2·4 mg. Cagrilintide 0·16−4·5 mg had a half-life of 159–195 h, with a median tmax of 24–72 h. Semaglutide 2·4 mg had a half-life of 145–165 h, with a median tmax of 12–24 h. Plasma clearance and volume of distribution for both cagrilintide and semaglutide were similar across treatment groups. At week 20, mean percentage bodyweight reductions were greater with cagrilintide 1·2 and 2·4 mg than with placebo (15·7% [SE 1·6] for cagrilintide 1·2 mg and 17·1% [1·5] for cagrilintide 2·4 mg vs 9·8% [1·2] for pooled placebo cohorts 1–5; estimated treatment difference of −6·0% [95% CI −9·9 to −2·0] for cagrilintide 1·2 mg and −7·4% [−11·2 to −3·5] for cagrilintide 2·4 mg vs pooled placebo), and with cagrilintide 4·5 mg than with matched placebo (15·4% [1·3] vs 8·0% [2·2]; estimated treatment difference −7·4% [−12·8 to −2·1]), all in combination with semaglutide 2·4 mg. Glycaemic parameters improved in all treatment groups, independently of cagrilintide dose. Changes in hormones were similar across treatment groups. Interpretation Concomitant treatment with cagrilintide and semaglutide 2·4 mg was well tolerated with an acceptable safety profile. Future larger and longer trials are needed to fully assess the efficacy and safety of this treatment combination. Funding Novo Nordisk A/S.

The obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus epidemics demonstrate that simply emphasizing a healthy lifestyle is insufficient. While weight loss medications have historically been considered “cosmetic”, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RAs) also reduce cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes. Therefore, we assessed whether GLP1-RAs warrant use in patients who are overweight (body mass index 27.0–29.9 kg/m2) without weight-related comorbidity. We reviewed trials of available GLP1-RAs with a natural GLP1 backbone given their trend toward cardiovascular benefit and excluded trials requiring concurrent antidiabetic agents associated with weight gain. We assessed 20 phase III trials of GLP1-RAs studied in cardiovascular outcome trials. The GLP1-RAs consistently produced weight loss. Hypoglycemia risk with GLP1-RAs was generally low without other precipitating factors, whereas gastrointestinal adverse effects were common. Dulaglutide 1.5 mg weekly did not produce sufficient weight loss to support its use specifically for weight loss, while data supporting dulaglutide 3.0 or 4.5 mg weekly were limited to a single trial. Weight loss was sufficient with liraglutide 1.8 mg daily in one trial and was consistently sufficient with liraglutide 3.0 mg daily. Oral and injectable semaglutide at both doses consistently produced weight loss, though demonstrated a potential increased risk for retinopathy. Overall, we suggest five GLP1-RAs can be used in the treatment of overweight (body mass index 27.0–29.9 kg/m2 without weight-related comorbidity) with shared decision making to address each medications’ key limitation: liraglutide 1.8 mg daily (less demonstrated weight loss), liraglutide 3.0 mg daily (no cardiovascular outcome trial at this dose), and oral and injectable semaglutide at both doses (uncertain retinopathy risk and pending cardiovascular outcome trial of high-dose semaglutide). Use should be limited to patients who fail, refuse, or cannot access lifestyle interventions for weight loss, and should be accompanied by standard restrictions on and monitoring of weight loss medications. We expect additional and earlier use of weight loss therapies to help clinicians curb the obesity and type 2 diabetes epidemics.

Background: Once weekly (OW) semaglutide 0.5-1.0 mg is a glucagon-like type-1 receptor agonist (GLR-1 RA) approved for treatment of type 2 diabetes and is currently under evaluation for treatment of obesity at a higher dose of 2.4 mg OW. Objective: to provide an appraisal of WO semaglutide 2.4 mg for treatment of obesity. Methods: Pubmed research up to March 22. Randomized trials, pertinent animal studies, and reviews are included. Search terms were glucagon-like type 1 receptor agonists, weight loss, obesity, semaglutide, safety, efficacy. Results: WO semaglutide 2.4 mg was evaluated as a weight loss agent in 3 well-designed clinical trials of 68 week-duration. In one trial including patients with type 2 diabetes, the difference in weight loss from baseline to week 68 between OW semaglutide and placebo was - 6.2 percentage points (95% CI, -7.3 to -5.2; P

Purpose Previous research suggests that treatment process can have an influence on patient preference and health state utilities. This study examined preferences and estimated utilities for treatment processes of two daily oral treatment regimens and two weekly injectable regimens for treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods Participants with T2D in the UK reported preferences and valued four health state vignettes in time trade-off utility interviews. The vignettes had identical descriptions of T2D but differed in treatment process: (1) daily simple oral treatment (tablets without administration requirements), (2) daily oral semaglutide (with administration requirements per product label), (3) weekly dulaglutide injection, (4) weekly semaglutide injection. Results Interviews were completed by 201 participants (52.7% male; mean age = 58.7). Preferences between treatment processes varied widely. Mean utilities were 0.890 for simple oral, 0.880 for oral semaglutide, 0.878 for dulaglutide injection, and 0.859 for semaglutide injection (with higher scores indicating greater preference). All pairwise comparisons found statistically significant differences between utilities (p Conclusions Results suggest that routes of administration cannot be compared using only the simplest descriptions (e.g., oral versus injectable). Dose frequency and specific details of the treatment process administration had an impact on patient preference and health state utilities. The utilities estimated in this study may be useful in cost-utility models comparing these treatments for T2D. Results also suggest that it may be helpful to consider patient preferences for treatment process when selecting medications for patients in clinical settings.

Introduction The superior efficacy and safety of semaglutide once-weekly (QW), compared with dulaglutide, liraglutide, or exenatide QW, have been demonstrated in the SUSTAIN trials. This study assessed treatment persistence and adherence to semaglutide QW versus dulaglutide, liraglutide, or exenatide QW in a real-world setting. Methods This retrospective, database study used Optum’s de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database to identify glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) treatment-naïve adult patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating semaglutide QW, dulaglutide, liraglutide, or exenatide QW between January 1, 2018 and April 30, 2019. Persistence (time remaining on treatment) was assessed with Kaplan–Meier survival estimates and Cox proportional hazard models. Adherence was assessed using proportion of days covered (PDC) and proportion of patients with PDC > 80%. Results Of 56,715 patients included, 3279 received semaglutide QW, 27,891 dulaglutide, 17,186 liraglutide, and 8359 exenatide QW. Patients initiating semaglutide QW were younger and with lower percentage of Medicare coverage than patients initiating the comparators. Persistence at 360 days was significantly higher for semaglutide QW (67.0%) versus dulaglutide (56.0%), liraglutide (40.4%), and exenatide QW (35.5%); p

BACKGROUND: Oral semaglutide is the first oral formulation of a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist to be approved in the United States for glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). While oral semaglutide is not indicated for reduction of cardiovascular event risk, its label does include evidence of no increase in cardiovascular risk in people who received oral semaglutide. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental value of oral semaglutide added to existing antihyperglycemic treatment for people with T2DM with additional risk for cardiovascular disease. METHODS: We estimated the lifetime cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide added to current antihyperglycemic treatment for T2DM using a microsimulation model based primarily on the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Model 2 (OM2) equations. Oral semaglutide added to current antihyperglycemic treatment was separately compared with (a) ongoing background antihyperglycemic treatment, (b) sitagliptin, (c) empagliflozin, and (d) liraglutide. Comparators sitagliptin, empagliflozin, and liraglutide were added to ongoing antihyperglycemic treatment. We applied hazard ratios derived from a network meta-analysis for cardiovascular and renal outcomes to the UKPDS OM2 estimated baseline rates. Health state utilities and costs were derived from the published literature. We estimated total costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), clinical events, and cost per major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) avoided, over a lifetime time horizon using discount rates of 3% for costs and outcomes. RESULTS: The lifetime total cost for people treated with oral semaglutide was $311,300, with costs for the other comparators ranging from $262,800 (background treatment alone) to $287,800 (liraglutide). Oral semaglutide resulted in the fewest MACE, including the fewest cardiovascular deaths. Among the 5 modeled treatment strategies, oral semaglutide had the highest LYs gained (8.43 vs. 7.76 [background treatment alone] to 8.29 [empagliflozin and liraglutide]) and the highest QALYs gained (4.11 vs. 3.70 [background treatment alone] to 4.03 [empagliflozin]). Oral semaglutide would likely be considered cost-effective compared with liraglutide (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] = $40,100), and moderately cost-effective versus background treatment alone ([ICER] = $117,500/QALY) and sitagliptin (ICER = $145,200/QALY). The ICER for oral semaglutide compared with empagliflozin was approximately $458,400 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: As modeled, oral semaglutide as an add-on therapy to background antihyperglycemic treatment produced incremental benefits in MACE avoided, along with greater QALYs compared with background antihyperglycemic treatment alone. Oral semaglutide use resulted in better outcomes than background treatment alone or sitagliptin, and similar outcomes to liraglutide or empagliflozin with overlapping 95% confidence ranges for QALYs. Oral semaglutide was estimated to be cost-effective compared with liraglutide and to have incremental cost-effectiveness ratios between $100,000 and $150,000 per QALY versus sitagliptin and background therapy alone, but it did not meet these thresholds compared with empagliflozin. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER reports grants from Laura and John Arnold Foundation, California Health Care Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Rind, Fazioli, Chapman, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Guzauskas and Hansen have nothing to disclose. Study results were presented at the New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (New England CEPAC), November 14, 2019, at Brown University, Providence, RI.

The relative efficacy of different sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in reducing cardiorenal events in type 2 diabetic adults is unclear. We searched PubMed and Embase. Three primary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), and kidney function progression (KFP). Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We calculated surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to rank drug treatments. Subcutaneous semaglutide (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55-0.96) and albiglutide (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63-0.93) significantly reduced MACE versus lixisenatide. Canagliflozin (HRs: 0.69, 0.68, 0.67 and 0.58) and empagliflozin (HRs: 0.70, 0.69, 0.68 and 0.59) significantly reduced HHF versus dulaglutide, exenatide, lixisenatide and subcutaneous semaglutide. Dapagliflozin (HRs: 0.62, 0.60, 0.68 and 0.63) and empagliflozin (HRs: 0.64, 0.61, 0.69 and 0.64) significantly reduced KFP versus dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide and lixisenatide. Different drug treatments had the maximum SUCRA values as for preventing different cardiorenal endpoints. Different GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors have different efficacy in preventing cardiorenal endpoints in type 2 diabetes, and the most efficacious drugs are different as for preventing different cardiorenal endpoints.

Background The first oral glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) comprises semaglutide co-formulated with the absorption enhancer, sodium N-(8-[2-hydroxybenzoyl] amino) caprylate (SNAC). Oral semaglutide may alter the pharmacokinetics of co-administered drugs via effects of semaglutide or SNAC. Two separate one-sequence crossover trials investigated the effects of oral semaglutide and SNAC on the pharmacokinetics of ethinylestradiol, levonorgestrel, furosemide and rosuvastatin. Methods Healthy, postmenopausal women (n = 25) received once-daily combined ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel (Trial 1) and healthy male and female subjects (n = 41) received single doses of furosemide and rosuvastatin (Trial 2), either alone, with SNAC alone or with oral semaglutide. Lack of drug–drug interaction was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of area under the plasma concentration–time curve (AUC) or maximum concentration (Cmax), with/without oral semaglutide, were within a pre-specified interval (0.80–1.25). Results The AUC values of ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel were not affected by oral semaglutide co-administration (estimated ratios [90% CI] 1.06 [1.01–1.10] and 1.06 [0.97–1.17], respectively); Cmax was not affected. The no-effect criterion was not met for furosemide or rosuvastatin for the AUC (1.28 [1.16–1.42] and 1.41 [1.24–1.60], respectively) or Cmax. SNAC alone did not affect the AUC or Cmax of ethinylestradiol, levonorgestrel or rosuvastatin; the Cmax of furosemide was slightly decreased. Adverse events were similar to those previously observed for GLP-1RAs (both trials). Conclusion Co-administration with oral semaglutide did not affect the pharmacokinetics of ethinylestradiol or levonorgestrel. There was a small increase in exposure of furosemide and rosuvastatin; however, these increases are not expected to be of clinical relevance. Clinical Trial Registration Numbers NCT02845219 and NCT03010475. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at (10.1007/s40262-020-00976-x).

Background: The SUSTAIN-6 trial showed significantly higher rates of retinopathy complications in the semaglutide group compared to placebo. Observational studies have not consistently corroborated this finding, raising questions about the appropriateness of composite variables and whether the relationship exists across the entire drug class or is limited to individual glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists (GLP-1RAs). The study objective was to evaluate the difference between using individual and composite terms to assess associations between GLP-1RAs and diabetic retinopathy events. Research Design and Methods: Reports from the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System were utilized to examine relationships between GLP-1RAs and diabetic retinopathy events. A disproportionality analysis was conducted using the proportional reporting ratio. Results: Four GLP-1RAs demonstrated signals for diabetic retinopathy events. The GLP-1RA drug class had four diabetic retinopathy signals. Only semaglutide had a signal for the composite diabetic retinopathy outcome. The GLP-1RA drug class and the composite diabetic retinopathy outcome did not meet the PRR signal thresholds. Conclusions: The use of drug class level and composite outcome variables may mask diabetic retinopathy signals in comparison to individual drug assessments. Our results support the SUSTAIN-6 trial findings and suggest an association between four GLP-1RAs and diabetic retinopathy events.

There are numerous treatment options currently available for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus; however, a multitude of patients continue to have inadequately controlled glycemic levels with their current antihyperglycemic regimen. Furthermore, the American Diabetes Association guidelines increasingly highlight the importance of multifactorial management and optimizing medication regimens that include cardiovascular, renal, and/or weight benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists belong to a novel class of type 2 diabetes mellitus agents that are becoming increasingly prevalent owing to their ability to improve glycemic status without the risk of hypoglycemia. Currently, there are three US Food and Drug Administration-approved glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, subcutaneous semaglutide, dulaglutide, and liraglutide, that also have an indication for reducing major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular disease. However, these agents are not often the first options because of their subcutaneous administration. Nevertheless, co-formulation of oral semaglutide with an absorption enhancer has shown to increase its bioavailability and has made its oral absorption possible. In the PIONEER trials, oral semaglutide effectively lowered blood glucose levels, and showed benefits on weight and cardiovascular outcomes; however, there is no Food and Drug Administration indication approved yet as the SOUL trial is still ongoing. Such characteristics of oral semaglutide may improve and increase its use compared to subcutaneous agents and possibly lead to earlier cardiovascular protection in addition to achieving glycemic control.

BACKGROUND: Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a common disease that is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, but treatment options are limited. The efficacy and safety of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist semaglutide in patients with NASH is not known.METHODS: We conducted a 72-week, double-blind phase 2 trial involving patients with biopsy-confirmed NASH and liver fibrosis of stage F1, F2, or F3. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 3:3:3:1:1:1 ratio, to receive once-daily subcutaneous semaglutide at a dose of 0.1, 0.2, or 0.4 mg or corresponding placebo. The primary end point was resolution of NASH with no worsening of fibrosis. The confirmatory secondary end point was an improvement of at least one fibrosis stage with no worsening of NASH. The analyses of these end points were performed only in patients with stage F2 or F3 fibrosis; other analyses were performed in all the patients.RESULTS: In total, 320 patients (of whom 230 had stage F2 or F3 fibrosis) were randomly assigned to receive semaglutide at a dose of 0.1 mg (80 patients), 0.2 mg (78 patients), or 0.4 mg (82 patients) or to receive placebo (80 patients). The percentage of patients in whom NASH resolution was achieved with no worsening of fibrosis was 40% in the 0.1-mg group, 36% in the 0.2-mg group, 59% in the 0.4-mg group, and 17% in the placebo group (PCONCLUSIONS: This phase 2 trial involving patients with NASH showed that treatment with semaglutide resulted in a significantly higher percentage of patients with NASH resolution than placebo. However, the trial did not show a significant between-group difference in the percentage of patients with an improvement in fibrosis stage. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02970942.).