Search

Aim To determine the antiobesity effect and safety of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) including liraglutide, exenatide and semaglutide treatment in overweight/obese patients without diabetes. The random-effect model was used to pool data extracted from included literatures. The weighted mean difference (WMD), odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to present the meta-analysis results (PROSPERO registration number: CRD 42020173199). The sources of intertrial heterogeneity, bias and the robustness of results were evaluated by subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and regression analysis, respectively. A total of 24 RCTs were recruited in the present analysis which included 5867 patients. The results showed that the treatment of overweight/obese patients without diabetes with GLP-1RAs including liraglutide, exenatide and semaglutide significantly achieved greater weight loss than placebo [WMD=-5.39, 95% CI (-6.82, -3.96)] and metformin [WMD=-5.46, 95% CI (-5.87, -5.05)]. The subgroup analysis showed that semaglutide displayed the most obvious antiobesity effect in terms of weight loss, the reduction of body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC). However, GLP-1RAs treatments had more gastrointestinal adverse events (such as nausea and vomiting) than placebo and Met. The subgroup analysis also represented that semaglutide displayed the lowest risk of gastrointestinal adverse events among three kinds of GLP-1RAs. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that GLP-1RA had a superior antiobesity effect than placebo/Met in overweight/obese patients without diabetes in terms of body weight, BMI, and WC, especially for semaglutide, which had more obvious antiobesity effect and lower GI adverse events than liraglutide and exenatide., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide versus comparators by patient characteristic subgroups in patients with type 2 diabetes., Materials and Methods: Change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight, and achievement of HbA1c <7.0% with oral semaglutide 7 mg, oral semaglutide 14 mg, flexibly dosed oral semaglutide (flex) and comparators were assessed across baseline subgroups (age, race, ethnicity, diabetes duration, body mass index and HbA1c) from the PIONEER programme. Treatment differences were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements for continuous variables and a logistic regression model for the binary endpoint. Pooled safety data were analysed descriptively., Results: Changes from baseline in HbA1c and body weight, and the odds of achieving HbA1c <7.0%, were greater with oral semaglutide 14 mg/flex (n = 1934) and higher or similar with oral semaglutide 7 mg (n = 823) versus comparators (n = 2077) across most subgroups. Changes in HbA1c with oral semaglutide 14 mg/flex were greater for patients with higher baseline HbA1c (HbA1c >9.0%: -1.7% to -2.6%; HbA1c <8.0%: -0.7% to -1.2%). In some trials, Asian patients experienced greater HbA1c reductions with oral semaglutide 14 mg/flex (-1.5% to -1.8%) than other racial groups (-0.6% to -1.6%). The overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) with oral semaglutide was similar to that with comparators and was consistent across subgroups. More gastrointestinal AEs were observed with oral semaglutide, versus comparators, across subgroups., Conclusions: Oral semaglutide demonstrated consistently greater HbA1c and body weight reductions across a range of patient characteristics, with greater HbA1c reductions seen at higher baseline HbA1c levels., (© 2022 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aim: To evaluate the cardiovascular (CV) efficacy of liraglutide and semaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and peripheral artery disease (PAD)., Materials and Methods: LEADER and SUSTAIN 6 trials investigated subcutaneous liraglutide (≤1.8 mg/day) and semaglutide (0.5 or 1.0 mg/week), respectively, versus placebo in patients with T2D and high CV risk (median follow-up: 3.8 and 2.1 years, respectively). The primary outcome was a composite of CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke (major adverse CV event [MACE]) according to the presence of PAD at baseline., Results: Overall, 1184/9340 (12.7%) patients in LEADER and 460/3297 (14.0%) in SUSTAIN 6 had PAD at baseline. Patients with PAD were at an ~35% increased risk of MACE versus those without (LEADER: hazard ratio [HR] 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-1.58; SUSTAIN 6: HR 1.33, 95% CI 0.94-1.83). The effects of both therapies on MACE were consistently beneficial in patients with PAD (liraglutide: HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.58-1.01; semaglutide: 0.61, 0.33-1.13) and without (liraglutide: HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79-1.00; semaglutide: HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.58-1.01; P interaction  = .34 for liraglutide and .49 for semaglutide). Absolute risk reductions for MACE were higher in patients with PAD (liraglutide: 4.13%-point, 95% CI -0.15-8.42; semaglutide: 4.63%-point, 95% CI -0.58-9.84) versus without (liraglutide:1.42%-point, 95% CI -0.03-2.87; semaglutide: 1.90%-point, 95% CI 0.00-3.80)., Conclusion: Both liraglutide and semaglutide reduce MACE with consistent CV efficacy regardless of PAD status., (© 2022 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aims/introduction: To assess the impact of baseline characteristics on the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes., Materials and Methods: In the Peptide InnOvatioN for Early diabEtes tReatment (PIONEER) 9 and 10 trials, Japanese patients were randomized to once-daily oral semaglutide (3, 7, or 14 mg) or a comparator (placebo or once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide 0.9 mg in PIONEER 9; once-weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide 0.75 mg in PIONEER 10) for 52 weeks, with 5 weeks of follow up. An exploratory analysis grouped patients in each trial according to baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA 1c ; ≤8.0, >8.0-≤9.0, or >9.0%), body mass index (<25, ≥25-<30, or ≥30 kg/m 2 ) and, for PIONEER 10 only, by background medication (sulfonylurea, glinide, thiazolidinedione, α-glucosidase inhibitor, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor). Efficacy (changes from baseline to week 26 in HbA 1c and bodyweight) and safety were assessed., Results: Seven hundred and one patients were included (PIONEER 9: N = 243; PIONEER 10: N = 458). In both trials, HbA 1c reductions increased as baseline HbA 1c increased; there were no other apparent patterns between the variables investigated and HbA 1c or bodyweight changes. There was one statistically significant subgroup interaction between baseline HbA 1c and estimated treatment differences in bodyweight change for oral semaglutide 14 mg versus placebo in PIONEER 9 (P = 0.0286). Baseline HbA 1c , baseline body mass index and background medication did not appear to affect the proportions of patients reporting adverse events., Conclusions: Oral semaglutide is effective across a range of baseline subgroups of Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes, with no unexpected safety findings., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Diabetes Investigation published by Asian Association for the Study of Diabetes (AASD) and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Aims: Currently, no head-to-head data are available comparing semaglutide 2.0 mg with dulaglutide 3.0 mg or 4.5 mg. We conducted an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of their effects on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes., Materials and Methods: Multilevel network meta-regression was conducted, based on a connected evidence network of published results from the A Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Dulaglutide (LY2189265) in Participants With Type 2 Diabetes 11 trial and individual patient data from the A Research Study to Compare Two Doses of Semaglutide Taken Once Weekly in People With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN) and SUSTAIN 7 trials., Results: Semaglutide 2.0 mg significantly reduced HbA1c vs dulaglutide 3.0 mg and 4.5 mg, with estimated treatment differences (ETDs) of -0.44% points (95% credible interval [CrI], -0.68 to -0.19) and -0.28% points (95% CrI, -0.52 to -0.03), respectively. Semaglutide 2.0 mg also significantly reduced body weight vs dulaglutide 3.0 mg and 4.5 mg with ETDs of -3.29 kg (95% CrI, -4.62 to -1.96) and -2.57 kg (95% CrI, -3.90 to -1.24), respectively. Odds of achieving HbA1c < 7.0% were significantly greater for semaglutide 2.0 vs dulaglutide 3.0 mg (odds ratio [OR]: 2.23 [95% CrI, 1.15-3.90]), whereas this did not reach significance for semaglutide 2.0 mg vs dulaglutide 4.5 mg (OR: 1.58 [95% CrI, 0.82-2.78]). Sensitivity analyses supported the main analysis findings., Conclusions: This ITC demonstrated significantly greater reductions from baseline in HbA1c and body weight with semaglutide 2.0 mg vs dulaglutide 3.0 mg and 4.5 mg. The findings of this study provide important comparative effectiveness information until randomized head-to-head studies become available., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society.)

Purpose: Greater medication adherence and persistence have been associated with improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This study compared adherence, persistence, and treatment patterns among patients naïve to glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists initiating once-weekly injectable treatment with dulaglutide versus semaglutide over 6-month (6M) and 12-month (12M) follow-up periods., Methods: This retrospective, observational cohort study used administrative claims data from three IBM MarketScan research databases. Data from adult patients with type 2 diabetes newly initiating treatment with dulaglutide or semaglutide between January 2018 and January 2020 (index date was defined as the earliest fill date), without evidence of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist use in the 6M baseline period, and with continuous enrollment in the 6M baseline and 6M or 12M follow-up period were included. Dulaglutide initiators were propensity score-matched, in a 1:1 ratio, to semaglutide initiators in each 6M and 12M follow-up cohort (26,284 and 13,837 pairs, respectively)., Findings: In the matched cohorts, baseline characteristics were balanced; the mean age was 53 years, and 50% of patients were women. Compared to semaglutide initiators, dulaglutide initiators were more adherent (6M, 63.4% vs 47.8%; 12M, 54.4% vs 43.3%; both, P < 0.0001), more persistent on therapy (6M, 72% vs 62%, 12M, 55.5% vs 45.3%, both, P < 0.001), and had more mean days of persistence (6M, 145 vs 132, 12M, 254.3 vs 220.7; both, P < 0.001)., Implications: At both 6M and 12M follow-up, dulaglutide initiators had significantly greater adherence and greater persistence compared with matched semaglutide initiators., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide among adults with overweight or obesity., Methods: We searched multiple electronic databases for randomized controlled trials that compared once-weekly semaglutide versus placebo in adults with overweight or obesity. The primary outcomes were the percentage change and absolute change in body weight. Secondary outcomes included achievement of categorical weight loss targets (at least 5, 10, 15, or 20%), cardiometabolic risk profiles, and health-related quality of life., Results: This meta-analysis included a total of four trials with 3447 patients. Once-weekly semaglutide was superior to placebo in terms of the percentage change and absolute change in body weight. Compared with placebo, once-weekly semaglutide also led to significant increases in the proportions of achievement of categorical weight reduction targets. Moreover, once-weekly semaglutide induced superior reductions in waist circumference and body-mass index compared with placebo. Furthermore, the effect on improving other cardiometabolic risk factors and health-related quality of life was more pronounced for once-weekly semaglutide relative to placebo., Conclusion: Among adults with overweight or obesity, once-weekly semaglutide could result in clinically meaningful weight loss, which was a promising therapy for treating overweight or obesity., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: We assessed the effect of once-weekly semaglutide and once-daily liraglutide on kidney outcomes in type 2 diabetes., Methods: Pooled (n=12 637) and by-trial data from SUSTAIN 6 (Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-Term Outcomes With Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes; n=3297) and LEADER (Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results; n=9340) were assessed for albuminuria change, annual slope of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) change, and time to persistent eGFR reduction (30%, 40%, 50%, and 57%) from baseline., Results: The median follow-up durations were 2.1 years for SUSTAIN 6 and 3.8 years for LEADER. In the pooled analysis, semaglutide/liraglutide lowered albuminuria from baseline to 2 years after randomization by 24% versus placebo (95% CI, 20%-27%; P <0.001). Significant reductions were also observed in by-trial data analyses ( P <0.001 for all), the largest being with semaglutide 1.0 mg (33% [95% CI, 24%-40%]; P <0.001) at 2 years. With semaglutide 1.0 mg and liraglutide, eGFR slope decline was significantly slowed by 0.87 and 0.26 mL/min/1.73 m 2 /y ( P <0.0001 and P <0.001), respectively, versus placebo. Effects appeared larger in patients with baseline eGFR <60 versus ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ( P interaction =0.06 and 0.008 for semaglutide 1.0 mg and liraglutide, respectively). Semaglutide/liraglutide significantly lowered risk of persistent 40% and 50% eGFR reductions versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86 [95% CI, 0.75-0.99]; P =0.039 and HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.66-0.97]; P =0.023, respectively). Similar, nonsignificant, directional results were observed for 30% and 57% eGFR reductions (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.84-1.02]; P =0.10 and HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.69-1.13]; P =0.34). In patients with baseline eGFR 30 to <60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , the likelihood of persistent reduction for all thresholds was increased, ranging from HR 0.71 for 30% reduction (95% CI, 0.59-0.85; P =0.0003, P interaction =0.017) to 0.54 for 57% reduction (95% CI, 0.36-0.81; P =0.003, P interaction =0.035)., Conclusions: In patients with type 2 diabetes, semaglutide/liraglutide offered kidney-protective effects, which appeared more pronounced in patients with preexisting chronic kidney disease.

Aim: To evaluate HbA1c and body weight changes when semaglutide 0.5- or 1.0-mg once-weekly (QW) is switched to dulaglutide 3.0- or 4.5-mg QW via exposure-response modelling., Methods: HbA1c and body weight time-course models were developed and validated with data from the SUSTAIN 1 to 10 trials for semaglutide and the AWARD-11 trial for dulaglutide. Simulations were conducted for HbA1c and body weight over 52 weeks. In the initial 26 weeks, semaglutide was initiated at 0.25-mg and titrated to 0.5- or 1.0-mg QW via 4-weekly stepwise titration, followed by 26 weeks of dulaglutide initiated at 0.75- or 1.5-mg QW and escalated to 3.0- or 4.5-mg QW via 4-weekly stepwise titration., Results: At 26 weeks, model-predicted mean changes from baseline in HbA1c and weight for semaglutide 0.5 mg were up to -1.55% and -3.44 kg, respectively. After switching to dulaglutide 3.0 mg, further reductions were 0.19% and 1.40 kg, respectively, at 52 weeks. Predicted mean HbA1c and weight changes for semaglutide 1.0 mg at 26 weeks were -1.84% and -4.96 kg, respectively; after switching to dulaglutide 4.5 mg, HbA1c was maintained with additional weight reduction of up to 0.57 kg at 52 weeks. Glycaemic control was preserved when switching from semaglutide 1.0 mg to dulaglutide 3.0 mg., Conclusion: Switching from semaglutide 0.5 mg to dulaglutide 3.0 or 4.5 mg with dose escalation potentially yields additional HbA1c and weight reductions; switching from semaglutide 1.0 mg to dulaglutide 4.5 mg may enhance weight loss., (© 2021 Eli Lilly and Company. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

What Is Known and Objective: The purpose of this review paper is to review the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous semaglutide, marketed as Wegovy, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist for obesity management., Methods: A MEDLINE search (1970 to June 2021) was conducted to identify Phase 3 trials of subcutaneous semaglutide for obesity management. Published Phase 3 trials from The Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with obesity (STEP) program were reviewed and summarized., Results and Discussion: Based on four Phase 3 trials, subcutaneous semaglutide as 2.4 mg once weekly was compared in efficacy and safety among 5000 randomized participants who were overweight or had obesity. A change in body weight from baseline to end of study was the primary outcome in the STEP program. Participants who received semaglutide had a dose-dependent reduction in body weight from baseline, compared to placebo. Higher percentages of participants had 5%-10% weight reduction from baseline when receiving subcutaneous semaglutide. The patient population was mainly middle-aged female participants with Class II obesity. Additional studies are needed, especially active-comparator trials, to determine the efficacy and safety of semaglutide in a diverse patient population., What Is New and Conclusion: Subcutaneous semaglutide is another available option as adjunct therapy to lifestyle modifications for people who are overweight or have obesity based on body weight and body mass index. It resulted in more weight reduction than placebo with gastrointestinal adverse events being the most common safety concerns. Clinical utilization of subcutaneous semaglutide will be determined, as insurance coverage will be a limitation for this new medication., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

A post-hoc exploratory analysis of the PIONEER 9 and 10 trials evaluated the effect of baseline age (<65 and ≥65 years) on the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. In PIONEER 9 and 10, patients were randomized to once-daily oral semaglutide (3, 7 or 14 mg) or a comparator (placebo or once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide 0.9 mg [PIONEER 9]; once-weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide 0.75 mg [PIONEER 10]) for 52 weeks, with 5 weeks' follow-up. In total, 701 patients were included (PIONEER 9: N = 243; PIONEER 10: N = 458). Glycaemic efficacy of oral semaglutide was similar in Japanese patients aged <65 years compared with those ≥65 years, and there did not appear to be a clear pattern between age subgroup and body weight changes. Across treatment arms, adverse events generally occurred in greater proportions of patients aged ≥65 versus <65 years. There was generally a higher rate of premature trial product discontinuation because of adverse events in the older age group. These results indicate that oral semaglutide is efficacious in Japanese patients irrespective of age., (© 2021 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Context: Tirzepatide substantially reduced hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and body weight in subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D) compared with the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist dulaglutide. Improved glycemic control was associated with lower circulating triglycerides and lipoprotein markers and improved markers of beta-cell function and insulin resistance (IR), effects only partially attributable to weight loss., Objective: Assess plasma metabolome changes mediated by tirzepatide., Design: Phase 2b trial participants were randomly assigned to receive weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide, dulaglutide, or placebo for 26 weeks. Post hoc exploratory metabolomics and lipidomics analyses were performed., Setting: Post hoc analysis., Participants: 259 subjects with T2D., Intervention(s): Tirzepatide (1, 5, 10, 15 mg), dulaglutide (1.5 mg), or placebo., Main Outcome Measure(s): Changes in metabolite levels in response to tirzepatide were assessed against baseline levels, dulaglutide, and placebo using multiplicity correction., Results: At 26 weeks, a higher dose tirzepatide modulated a cluster of metabolites and lipids associated with IR, obesity, and future T2D risk. Branched-chain amino acids, direct catabolic products glutamate, 3-hydroxyisobutyrate, branched-chain ketoacids, and indirect byproducts such as 2-hydroxybutyrate decreased compared to baseline and placebo. Changes were significantly larger with tirzepatide compared with dulaglutide and directly proportional to reductions of HbA1c, homeostatic model assessment 2-IR indices, and proinsulin levels. Proportional to metabolite changes, triglycerides and diglycerides were lowered significantly compared to baseline, dulaglutide, and placebo, with a bias toward shorter and highly saturated species., Conclusions: Tirzepatide reduces body weight and improves glycemic control and uniquely modulates metabolites associated with T2D risk and metabolic dysregulation in a direction consistent with improved metabolic health., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Importance: Phase 3 trials have not compared semaglutide and liraglutide, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues available for weight management., Objective: To compare the efficacy and adverse event profiles of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide, 2.4 mg, vs once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide, 3.0 mg (both with diet and physical activity), in people with overweight or obesity., Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, open-label, 68-week, phase 3b trial conducted at 19 US sites from September 2019 (enrollment: September 11-November 26) to May 2021 (end of follow-up: May 11) in adults with body mass index of 30 or greater or 27 or greater with 1 or more weight-related comorbidities, without diabetes (N = 338)., Interventions: Participants were randomized (3:1:3:1) to receive once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide, 2.4 mg (16-week escalation; n = 126), or matching placebo, or once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide, 3.0 mg (4-week escalation; n = 127), or matching placebo, plus diet and physical activity. Participants unable to tolerate 2.4 mg of semaglutide could receive 1.7 mg; participants unable to tolerate 3.0 mg of liraglutide discontinued treatment and could restart the 4-week titration. Placebo groups were pooled (n = 85)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was percentage change in body weight, and confirmatory secondary end points were achievement of 10% or more, 15% or more, and 20% or more weight loss, assessed for semaglutide vs liraglutide at week 68. Semaglutide vs liraglutide comparisons were open-label, with active treatment groups double-blinded against matched placebo groups. Comparisons of active treatments vs pooled placebo were supportive secondary end points., Results: Of 338 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 49 [13] years; 265 women [78.4%]; mean [SD] body weight, 104.5 [23.8] kg; mean [SD] body mass index, 37.5 [6.8]), 319 (94.4%) completed the trial, and 271 (80.2%) completed treatment. The mean weight change from baseline was -15.8% with semaglutide vs -6.4% with liraglutide (difference, -9.4 percentage points [95% CI, -12.0 to -6.8]; P < .001); weight change with pooled placebo was -1.9%. Participants had significantly greater odds of achieving 10% or more, 15% or more, and 20% or more weight loss with semaglutide vs liraglutide (70.9% of participants vs 25.6% [odds ratio, 6.3 {95% CI, 3.5 to 11.2}], 55.6% vs 12.0% [odds ratio, 7.9 {95% CI, 4.1 to 15.4}], and 38.5% vs 6.0% [odds ratio, 8.2 {95% CI, 3.5 to 19.1}], respectively; all P < .001). Proportions of participants discontinuing treatment for any reason were 13.5% with semaglutide and 27.6% with liraglutide. Gastrointestinal adverse events were reported by 84.1% with semaglutide and 82.7% with liraglutide., Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with overweight or obesity without diabetes, once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide compared with once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide, added to counseling for diet and physical activity, resulted in significantly greater weight loss at 68 weeks., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04074161.

Real-world data comparing the effectiveness of various glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are limited. We investigated the clinical effectiveness of liraglutide and dulaglutide in Japanese T2DM in a real-world setting. This retrospective study included 179 patients with T2DM who were treated with GLP-1 RA for at least 12 months (liraglutide, n = 97; dulaglutide, n = 82). We used stabilized propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to reduce selection bias and confounding by observed covariates. Changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at the end of the 12-month treatment were evaluated. After adjustment by stabilized propensity score-based IPTW, no significant differences were observed in patient characteristics between the liraglutide and dulaglutide groups. HbA1c was significantly lower at 12 months in both groups (liraglutide, 8.9 to 7.4%; dulaglutide, 8.7 to 7.5%). Multivariate linear regression analysis showed no differences in the extent of changes in HbA1c at 12 months between the two agents. High baseline HbA1c, the addition of GLP-1 RA treatment modality, and in-hospital initiation of GLP-1 RA treatment were identified as significant contributing factors to HbA1c reduction. The effects of liraglutide and dulaglutide on lowering HbA1c levels at 12 months were comparable in a real-world setting., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Introduction: This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of a single dulaglutide dose in Chinese healthy subjects and of multiple dulaglutide doses in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)., Methods: This two-part, double-blind, placebo-controlled study included 16 healthy subjects randomized to receive a single dose of placebo and two of three dulaglutide doses (0.5 mg, 0.75 mg, or 1.5 mg) in three treatment periods, and 42 patients with T2DM randomized to receive placebo or one of the three dulaglutide doses once weekly for 4 weeks. Pharmacokinetics and safety parameters were assessed in all participants, and pharmacodynamics effects were investigated in patients with T2DM., Results: Following a single-dose administration of 0.5 mg, 0.75 mg, or 1.5 mg dulaglutide in healthy subjects, geometric mean maximum concentrations (C max ) were 29.4, 44.2, and 81.5 ng/mL, respectively. Following weekly administration in patients with T2DM for 4 weeks, C max were 26.3, 41.4, and 70.2 ng/mL, respectively, with accumulation ratios of 1.33-1.39. Geometric mean for half-life of 4-5 days and median time to C max (t max ) of approximately 48 h were observed in both study populations. Dose-proportional increases in drug exposure were observed after both single and multiple dosing. Significant reductions in baseline-corrected fasting glucose and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) were observed in patients with T2DM who received dulaglutide 0.75 mg and 1.5 mg. Dulaglutide was well tolerated, with the majority of adverse events being gastrointestinal disorders of mild severity., Conclusions: Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety profiles of dulaglutide demonstrated in the present study support a once-weekly dosing regimen in Chinese patients with T2DM., Trial Registration: NCT01667900 (ClinicalTrials.gov)., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Healthcare Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Aim: We evaluated gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs) with once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg in adults with overweight or obesity and their contribution to weight loss (WL)., Materials and Methods: AE analyses pooled data from the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) 1-3 trials for participants randomized to 68 weeks of semaglutide 2.4 mg (n = 2117) or placebo (n = 1262). WL was analysed by presence/absence of GI AEs. Mediation analysis estimated WL effects mediated by and unrelated to GI AEs. GI tolerability with semaglutide 2.4 mg maintenance and cessation after dose escalation was evaluated using STEP 4 data among 803 participants tolerating 20 weeks of semaglutide run-in., Results: GI AEs were more common with semaglutide 2.4 mg than placebo, with most frequently nausea (43.9% vs. 16.1% of participants), diarrhoea (29.7% vs. 15.9%), vomiting (24.5% vs. 6.3%) and constipation (24.2% vs. 11.1%). Most GI AEs with semaglutide were non-serious (99.5% of AEs), mild-to-moderate (98.1%), transient and occurred most frequently during/shortly after dose escalation. Few semaglutide-treated participants (4.3%) permanently discontinued treatment for GI AEs. In STEP 1-3, mean WL with semaglutide 2.4 mg was similar in participants without (9.6%-17.1%) versus with GI AEs (11.4%-17.7%). Consistent with this observation, mediation analysis found that GI AEs contributed little to semaglutide-induced WL: of the additional 7.6%-14.4% WL with semaglutide versus placebo, <1 percentage point was mediated by GI AEs. In STEP 4, semaglutide 2.4 mg maintenance was well tolerated., Conclusions: GI AEs were more common with semaglutide 2.4 mg than placebo, but typically mild-to-moderate and transient. Semaglutide-induced WL was largely independent of GI AEs., (© 2021 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background/objectives: The weight loss following Semaglutide treatment, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, might be responsible for some effects observed on the nonalcoholic fatty liver disease of obese mice., Subjects/methods: Two groups of C57BL/6 male mice (n = 30/group) were fed the diets Control (C) or high-fat (HF) for 16 weeks. Then, separated into six new groups for an additional four weeks (n = 10/group) and treated with Semaglutide (S, 40 µg/kg) or paired feeding (PF) with S groups (C; C-S; C-PF; HF; HF-S; HF-PF)., Results: Semaglutide reduced energy consumption leading to weight loss. Simultaneously it improved glucose intolerance, glycated hemoglobin, insulin resistance/sensitivity, plasma lipids, and gastric inhibitory polypeptide. Semaglutide and paired feeding mitigated liver steatosis and adipose differentiation-related protein (Plin2) expression. Semaglutide also improved hormones and adipokines, reduced lipogenesis and inflammation, and increased beta-oxidation. Semaglutide lessened liver glucose uptake and endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress. Among the 14 genes analyzed, 13 were modified by Semaglutide (93 %, six genes were changed exclusively by Semaglutide, and seven other genes were affected by the combination of Semaglutide and paired feeding). In seven genes, the paired diet showed no effect (50% of the genes tested). No marker was affected exclusively by paired feeding., Conclusions: Semaglutide and the consequent weight loss reduced obese mice liver inflammation, insulin resistance, and ER stress. However, weight loss alone did show few or no action on some significant study findings, like liver steatosis, leptin, insulin, resistin, and amylin. Furthermore, hepatic inflammation mediated by MCP-1 and partially by TNF-alpha and IL6 were also not reduced by weight loss. Furthermore, weight loss alone did not lessen hepatic lipogenesis as determined by the findings of SREBP-1c, CHREBP, PPAR-alpha, and SIRT1. Semaglutide was implicated in improving glucose uptake and lessening ER stress by reducing GADD45, independent of weight loss., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Cardiovascular events related to atherosclerosis are responsible for high morbidity and mortality among patients with type 2 diabetes. Improvement in care, especially in early stages, is crucial. Oral semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue, controls blood glucose and results in significant body weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes. Beyond these well-known effects, an interesting aspect of this drug is its antiatherogenic activity, which should be further explored in clinical practice. This paper reviews the evidence related to oral semaglutide decreasing cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes, focusing on the drug's antiatherosclerotic properties. The glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue restores endothelial dysfunction, induces vasodilatation, and reduces plasma lipids. Oral semaglutide showed cardiovascular safety profile, with significant reduced risk of death from cardiovascular events. Based on current data, clinicians should consider oral semaglutide for type 2 diabetes management., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Aims: To evaluate, through exploratory post hoc subgroup analyses, the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide versus comparators in Japanese patients enrolled in the global PIONEER 1, 3, 4 and 8 clinical trials., Materials and Methods: Patients were randomized to once-daily oral semaglutide 3, 7 or 14 mg or comparator (placebo, sitagliptin 100 mg or liraglutide 1.8 mg). Change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight, and proportions of patients attaining HbA1c <7.0% (53 mmol/mol) and body weight loss ≥5%, were analysed at week 26 for all Japanese patients in each trial separately using the treatment policy estimand (regardless of treatment discontinuation or rescue medication use). Adverse events (AEs) were analysed descriptively., Results: Reductions in HbA1c from baseline in Japanese patients were 1.0% to 1.2% (11.3 mmol/mol to 13.3 mmol/mol) and 1.4% to 1.7% (15.7 mmol/mol to 18.3 mmol/mol) for oral semaglutide 7 mg and 14 mg, respectively. HbA1c reductions were similar or greater than with comparators. Body weight reductions were 1.0% to 2.7% and 3.7% to 4.7% for oral semaglutide 7 mg and 14 mg, respectively, and were generally greater with oral semaglutide than comparators. As expected, the main class of AEs was gastrointestinal, and these AEs comprised most commonly mild-to-moderate constipation, nausea and diarrhoea., Conclusions: Oral semaglutide appears efficacious and well tolerated in Japanese patients across the type 2 diabetes spectrum., (© 2021 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The AWARD-11 trial demonstrated the safety and efficacy of dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg compared to dulaglutide 1.5 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin. This post hoc analysis examined the change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and proportions of patients achieving HbA1c <7% at weeks 36 and 52 with dulaglutide 1.5 mg, 3.0 mg or 4.5 mg across clinically relevant baseline HbA1c subgroups (<8%; 8.0% to < 9.0%; 9.0% to < 10%; and ≥ 10%). Mean reductions in HbA1c were observed across all baseline HbA1c subgroups at 36 weeks (range of HbA1c change: 1.5 mg: -1.0% to -2.2%; 3.0 mg: -1.2% to -2.5%; and 4.5 mg: -1.2% to -3.2%). More patients randomized to 3.0 mg or 4.5 mg (vs. 1.5 mg) achieved HbA1c <7% at 36 weeks regardless of baseline HbA1c; the difference in proportions was greater at higher baseline HbA1c (P-interaction = 0.096). Similar patterns in glycaemic improvement and proportions achieving HbA1c <7% were observed at 52 weeks. Hypoglycaemia and gastrointestinal adverse events were similar among the HbA1c subgroups. Glycaemic control was improved with dulaglutide dose escalation from 1.5 mg to 3.0 mg or 4.5 mg across baseline HbA1c subgroups (<8%; 8.0% to < 9.0%; 9.0% to < 10%; and ≥ 10%)., (© 2021 Eli Lilly and Company. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aim: Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) who require injectable therapy have been conventionally treated with insulin. A glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist was recently recommended as first-line injectable treatment, but few studies have investigated the effects of switching from insulin to dulaglutide. This study investigated the clinical efficacy and parameters affecting responses to dulaglutide as an alternative to insulin in patients with T2DM in a real-world clinical setting., Methods: Ninety-eight patients with T2DM who were switched from insulin to dulaglutide therapy were retrospectively evaluated. Changes in HbA1c concentrations were assessed after 6 months of consistent treatment with dulaglutide. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to evaluate parameters affecting the response to dulaglutide treatment., Results: After treatment with dulaglutide for 6 months, patients experienced changes in HbA1c of -0.95% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.30% to -0.59%, P < 0.001) and in body weight of -1.75 kg (95% CI: -2.42 to -1.08 kg, P < 0.001). Multiple linear regression analysis showed that higher baseline HbA1c was significantly associated with a greater reduction in HbA1c. The most frequent adverse events were gastrointestinal symptoms., Conclusion: Switching from insulin to dulaglutide can lead to significant improvement in HbA1c levels and body weight ​reduction in T2DM patients over 6 months. Higher baseline HbA1c is associated with a better clinical response to dulaglutide., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aim: To compare the effects of semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg on HbA1c and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes., Materials and Methods: A Bucher indirect comparison was conducted to compare efficacy outcomes of semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg using published results from the SUSTAIN 7 and AWARD-11 trials. Sensitivity analyses using individual patient data from SUSTAIN 7 and aggregate data from AWARD-11 were conducted to explore the impact of adjustment for cross-trial imbalances in baseline characteristics., Results: Semaglutide 1.0 mg significantly reduced HbA1c versus dulaglutide 3.0 mg, with an estimated treatment difference (ETD) of -0.24%-points (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.43, -0.05), with comparable reductions in HbA1c versus dulaglutide 4.5 mg with an ETD of -0.07%-points (95% CI -0.26, 0.12). Semaglutide 1.0 mg significantly reduced body weight versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg with an ETD of -2.65 kg (95% CI -3.57, -1.73) and -1.95 kg (95% CI -2.87, -1.03), respectively. Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis findings., Conclusions: This indirect comparison showed significantly greater reductions in HbA1c with semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 mg and comparable HbA1c reductions versus dulaglutide 4.5 mg. Semaglutide 1.0 mg significantly reduced body weight versus both dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg. With several glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists available, information regarding their comparative efficacy can be valuable to clinicians., (© 2021 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background and Aims: To evaluate the change in circulating serum irisin and interleukin-6 (IL-6), in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) after 6 and 12 months of GLP-1 treatment., Methods and Results: Eighty-five patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with insulin or other hypoglycaemic drugs were added to dulaglutide (N° = 44) and liraglutide (N° = 41) treatment. After 6 months of GLP-1 analogues a significant decrease in BMI (p < 0.001), waist circumference (WC) (p < 0.001), fasting blood glucose (p < 0.001), HbA1c (p < 0.001), total cholesterol (p < 0.001), LDL-cholesterol (p = 0.003), triglycerides (p = 0.017), IL-6 (p = 0.045) and a significant increase in serum irisin (p < 0.001) were observed compared to baseline. After 12 months of treatment no significant differences were found compared to the levels at 6 months. The change in irisin from baseline (Δ&#95;irisin) was significantly related to the changes in total-cholesterol (Δ&#95;total-cholesterol) (r = -0.293; p = 0.020), while the change in IL-6 (Δ&#95;IL-6) was significantly related to the changes in WC (Δ&#95;WC) (r = 0.347; p = 0.006)., Conclusions: Additive treatment with GLP1-analogues results in an increase in serum circulating irisin levels and a decrease in IL-6. The post-treatment change in irisin was correlated with a decrease in total cholesterol, while the change in IL-6 was correlated with a decrease in WC., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 The Italian Diabetes Society, the Italian Society for the Study of Atherosclerosis, the Italian Society of Human Nutrition and the Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

BackgroundPrimary polydipsia, characterized by excessive fluid intake, carries the risk of water intoxication and hyponatremia, but treatment options are scarce. Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) reduces appetite and food intake. In experimental models, GLP-1 has also been shown to play a role in thirst and drinking behavior. The aim of this trial was to investigate whether GLP-1 receptor agonists reduce fluid intake in patients with primary polydipsia.MethodsIn this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-week crossover trial, 34 patients with primary polydipsia received weekly dulaglutide (1.5 mg, Trulicity) in one treatment segment and placebo (0.9% sodium chloride) in the other. During the last treatment week, patients attended an 8-hour evaluation visit with free access to water. The primary endpoint was total fluid intake during the evaluation visits. Treatment effects were estimated using linear mixed-effects models. In a subset of 15 patients and an additional 15 matched controls, thirst perception and neuronal activity in response to beverage pictures were assessed by functional MRI.RESULTsPatients on dulaglutide reduced their fluid intake by 490 mL (95% CI: -780, -199; P = 0.002), from 2950 mL (95% CI: 2435, 3465) on placebo to 2460 mL (95% CI: 1946, 2475) on dulaglutide (model estimates), corresponding to a relative reduction of 17%. Twenty-four-hour urinary output was reduced by -943 mL (95% CI: -1473, -413; P = 0.001). Thirst perception in response to beverage pictures was higher for patients with primary polydipsia than for controls, and lower for patients on dulaglutide versus placebo, but functional activity was similar among groups and treatments.CONCLUSIONSGLP-1 receptor agonists reduce fluid intake and thirst perception in patients with primary polydipsia and could therefore be a treatment option for these patients.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02770885.FundingSwiss National Science Foundation (grant 32473B&#95;162608); University Hospital and University of Basel; Young Talents in Clinical Research grant from the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences and the Gottfried & Julia Bangerter-Rhyner Foundation; Top-up Grant from the PhD Programme in Health Sciences, University of Basel.

Introduction: Healthcare providers (HCPs) see many patients with obesity-related complications and are therefore well placed to help treat obesity itself. However, limited collated information exists to help HCPs with the practical use of anti-obesity medications (AOMs). We focus on the initiation and maintenance of a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for weight management, liraglutide 3.0 mg. Literature search was conducted between 25-28 November 2019 on PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov. Areas covered: Clinical trial and real-world data describing weight-loss efficacy, cardiometabolic risk factors, incidence of adverse events (AEs), and persistence are presented to assist HCPs with patient discussions. Practical considerations to overcome barriers to optimal use are provided, equipping HCPs with the information required to aid with adherence to and persistence with AOMs. The use of other GLP-1- RA therapies in obesity is discussed in light of the recent US Food and Drug Administration approval of semaglutide 2.4 mg for weight management. Expert opinion: Liraglutide 3.0 mg provides benefits regarding weight loss and improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors. Promising areas of future research in the field of obesity include dual receptor agonists and the combination of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists with other molecules.

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg versus 1.5 mg when used as an add-on to metformin in subgroups defined by age (<65 and ≥65 years)., Materials and Methods: Of 1842 patients included in this post hoc analysis, 438 were aged 65 years or older and 1404 were younger than 65 years. The intent-to-treat (ITT) population, while on treatment without rescue medication, was used for all efficacy analyses; the ITT population without rescue medication was used for hypoglycaemia analyses; all other safety analyses used the ITT population., Results: Patients aged 65 years or older and those younger than 65 years had a mean age of 69.5 and 53.2 years, respectively. In each age subgroup, the reduction from baseline in HbA1c and body weight (BW), and the proportion of patients achieving a composite endpoint of HbA1c of less than 7% (<53 mmol/mol) with no weight gain and no documented symptomatic or severe hypoglycaemia, were larger for dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg compared with dulaglutide 1.5 mg, but the treatment-by-age interactions were not significant. The safety profile for the additional dulaglutide doses was consistent with that of dulaglutide 1.5 mg and was similar between the age subgroups., Conclusion: Dulaglutide doses of 3.0 or 4.5 mg provided clinically relevant, dose-related improvements in HbA1c and BW with no significant treatment-by-age interactions, and with a similar safety profile across age subgroups., (© 2021 Eli Lilly and Company. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

What Is Known and Objective: One of the effective and consistent ways to achieve glycaemic control for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is once-daily basal insulin. But it is also associated with adverse outcomes such as hypoglycaemia. Dulaglutide, a novel long-acting GLP-1 receptor agonist, may be a more suitable therapy. The present meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide compared with insulin glargine for the treatment of T2DM., Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library from inception to December 2020. Randomized clinical trials comparing dulaglutide with insulin glargine in adults with T2DM were included. Revman5.2 software was used for meta-analysis., Results and Discussion: We included 5 studies with 3383 randomized participants. Compared with insulin glargine, dulaglutide 1.5 mg led to greater mean HbA1c reduction (MD = -0.33%, 95% CI = -0.52, -0.15) whereas dulaglutide 0.75 mg did not (MD = -0.21%, 95% CI = -0.43, 0.01). Body weight loss was seen with dulaglutide whereas weight gain was seen with insulin glargine. The risk of hypoglycaemia was lower in dulaglutide 0.75 mg and 1.5 mg groups than in insulin glargine group,whereas dulaglutide had a statistically higher gastrointestinal adverse events incidence than insulin glargine., What Is New and Conclusions: Compared with insulin glargine, dulaglutide may serve as an effective alternative to provide improvement in glycaemic control with weight loss and less hypoglycaemia in patients with T2DM. It may be a more suitable therapy instead of basal insulin., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aim: To evaluate the impact of dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg versus 1.5 mg on body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) based on exploratory analyses of the AWARD-11 trial., Materials and Methods: Patients were randomized to once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 (n = 612), 3.0 (n = 616) or 4.5 mg (n = 614) for 52 weeks. The primary objective was superiority of dulaglutide 3.0 and/or 4.5 mg over 1.5 mg in HbA1c reduction at 36 weeks. Secondary and exploratory assessments included weight reduction in the overall trial population and baseline body mass index (BMI) and HbA1c subgroups., Results: At baseline, patients had a mean age of 57.1 years, HbA1c 8.6% (70 mmol/mol), weight 95.7 kg and BMI 34.2 kg/m 2 . At 36 weeks, dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg were superior to 1.5 mg for weight change from baseline (1.5 mg, -3.1 kg; 3.0 mg, -4.0 kg [P = .001]; 4.5 mg, -4.7 kg [P < .001]). Higher dulaglutide doses were associated with numerically greater weight reduction compared with 1.5 mg in each baseline BMI and HbA1c subgroup. Absolute weight reduction increased with increasing BMI category, but percentage weight loss was similar between subgroups. Weight reductions with dulaglutide were greater in patients with lower versus higher baseline HbA1c., Conclusions: In patients with T2D, inadequately controlled by metformin, incremental weight loss was observed with dulaglutide 1.5, 3.0 and 4.5 mg doses regardless of baseline BMI or HbA1c. Although absolute weight loss was numerically greater in patients with higher baseline BMI, percentage of weight loss was similar between BMI subgroups., (© 2021 Eli Lilly and Company. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The REWIND trial demonstrated cardiovascular (CV) benefits to patients with type 2 diabetes and multiple CV risk factors or established CV disease. This exploratory analysis evaluated the degree to which the effect of dulaglutide on CV risk factors could statistically account for its effects on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in the REWIND trial., Methods: Potential mediators of established CV risk factors that were significantly reduced by dulaglutide were assessed in a post hoc analysis using repeated measures mixed models and included glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and urine albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR). These factors, for which the change in level during follow-up was significantly associated with incident MACE, were identified using Cox regression modeling. Each identified variable was then included as a covariate in the Cox model assessing the effect of dulaglutide on MACE to estimate the degree to which the hazard ratio of dulaglutide vs placebo was attenuated. The combined effect of the variables associated with attenuation was assessed by including all variables in an additional Cox model., Results: Although all evaluated variables were significantly improved by treatment, only changes in HbA1c and UACR were associated with MACE and a reduction in the effect of dulaglutide on this outcome was observed. The observed hazard ratio for MACE for dulaglutide vs placebo reduced by 36.1% by the updated mean HbA1c, and by 28.5% by the updated mean UACR. A similar pattern was observed for change from baseline in HbA1c and UACR and a reduction of 16.7% and 25.4%, respectively in the hazard ratio for MACE with dulaglutide vs placebo was observed. When HbA1c and UACR were both included, the observed hazard ratio reduced by 65.4% for the updated mean and 41.7% for the change from baseline with no HbA1c-UACR interaction (P interaction = 0.75 and 0.15, respectively)., Conclusions: Treatment-induced improvement in HbA1c and UACR, but not changes in weight, systolic blood pressure, or LDL cholesterol, appear to partly mediate the beneficial effects of dulaglutide on MACE outcomes. These observations suggest that the proven effects of dulaglutide on cardiovascular disease benefit are partially related to changes in glycemic control and albuminuria, with residual unexplained benefit. Clinicaltrials.gov; Trial registration number: NCT01394952. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01394952., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

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 diabetes. The efficacy and safety of once-weekly tirzepatide as compared with semaglutide, a selective GLP-1 receptor agonist, are unknown., Methods: In an open-label, 40-week, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 1879 patients, in a 1:1:1:1 ratio, to receive tirzepatide at a dose of 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg or semaglutide at a dose of 1 mg. At baseline, the mean glycated hemoglobin level was 8.28%, the mean age 56.6 years, and the mean weight 93.7 kg. The primary end point was the change in the glycated hemoglobin level from baseline to 40 weeks., Results: The estimated mean change from baseline in the glycated hemoglobin level was -2.01 percentage points, -2.24 percentage points, and -2.30 percentage points with 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg of tirzepatide, respectively, and -1.86 percentage points with semaglutide; the estimated differences between the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg tirzepatide groups and the semaglutide group were -0.15 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.28 to -0.03; P = 0.02), -0.39 percentage points (95% CI, -0.51 to -0.26; P<0.001), and -0.45 percentage points (95% CI, -0.57 to -0.32; P<0.001), respectively. Tirzepatide at all doses was noninferior and superior to semaglutide. Reductions in body weight were greater with tirzepatide than with semaglutide (least-squares mean estimated treatment difference, -1.9 kg, -3.6 kg, and -5.5 kg, respectively; P<0.001 for all comparisons). The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal and were primarily mild to moderate in severity in the tirzepatide and semaglutide groups (nausea, 17 to 22% and 18%; diarrhea, 13 to 16% and 12%; and vomiting, 6 to 10% and 8%, respectively). Of the patients who received tirzepatide, hypoglycemia (blood glucose level, <54 mg per deciliter) was reported in 0.6% (5-mg group), 0.2% (10-mg group), and 1.7% (15-mg group); hypoglycemia was reported in 0.4% of those who received semaglutide. Serious adverse events were reported in 5 to 7% of the patients who received tirzepatide and in 3% of those who received semaglutide., Conclusions: In patients with type 2 diabetes, tirzepatide was noninferior and superior to semaglutide with respect to the mean change in the glycated hemoglobin level from baseline to 40 weeks. (Funded by Eli Lilly; SURPASS-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03987919.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Aim: To evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics of cotadutide, a dual glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucagon receptor agonist, in overweight Asian participants with or without type 2 diabetes (T2D)., Materials and Methods: In the phase 1, randomized, blinded, single-ascending dose study, 24 Japanese and eight Chinese healthy adults (body mass index [BMI] 23-40 kg/m 2 ) received one subcutaneous dose of cotadutide (50-150 or 100 μg, respectively) or placebo. The primary endpoint was safety. In the phase 2a, randomized, double-blinded, parallel dose-ranging study with forced uptitration, 61 Japanese adults with T2D (BMI 24-40 kg/m 2 ; HbA1c 7.0%-10.5%) received cotadutide (100, 200, 300 μg) or placebo for 48 days. Co-primary endpoints were safety/tolerability, change in glucose AUC 0-4h and body weight., Results: Significant reductions from baseline to day 48 were observed with cotadutide for glucose AUC 0-4h (33.6%-42.1% reduction vs. +2.5% with placebo; 95% CIs: 100 μg -45.7%, -33.7%; 200 μg -35.6%, -23.7%; 300 μg -45.0%, -30.8%; placebo 3.4%, 8.3%) and body weight (1.3%-2.5% decrease vs. +0.8% with placebo; 95% CIs: 100 μg -3.4%, -0.8%; 200 μg -4.7%, -2.0%; 300 μg -4.6%, -2.1%; placebo -2.1%, 0.4%). The most common adverse events with cotadutide were mild gastrointestinal symptoms with no serious adverse events. Increased pulse rate with cotadutide versus placebo is consistent with GLP-1 monoagonists., Conclusions: Once-daily cotadutide was effective and well tolerated up to 300 μg in overweight Japanese patients with T2D. Further evaluation in Asian populations is warranted., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Diabetes is a major risk factor for erectile dysfunction, however, the effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists on erectile dysfunction is unknown. We aimed to assess the incidence, prevalence, and progression of erectile dysfunction in men treated with dulaglutide compared with placebo, and to determine whether dulaglutide's effect on erectile dysfunction was consistent with its effect on other diabetes-related outcomes., Methods: The Researching Cardiovascular Events with a Weekly Incretin in Diabetes (REWIND) trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial of the effect of dulaglutide on cardiovascular outcomes. REWIND was done at 371 sites in 24 countries. Men and women aged older than 50 years with type 2 diabetes, who had either a previous cardiovascular event or cardiovascular risk factors, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either dulaglutide or placebo. Participating men were offered the opportunity to complete the standardised International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) questionnaire at baseline, 2 years, 5 years, and study end. We did an exploratory analysis, in which we included participants who completed a baseline and at least 1 follow-up IIEF questionnaire. The primary outcome for these analyses was the first occurrence of moderate or severe erectile dysfunction following randomisation, assessed by the erectile function subscores on IIEF. This analysis was part of the REWIND trial, which is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01394952., Findings: Between Aug 18, 2011, and Aug 14, 2013, 3725 (70·1%) of 5312 male participants with a mean age of 65·5 years (SD 6·4 years) were analysed, of whom 1487 (39·9%) had a history of cardiovascular disease, and 2104 (56·5%) had moderate or severe erectile dysfunction at baseline. The incidence of erectile dysfunction following randomisation was 21·3 per 100 person-years in the dulaglutide group and 22·0 per 100 person-years in the placebo group (HR 0·92, 95% CI 0·85-0·99, p=0·021). Men in the dulaglutide group also had a lesser fall in erectile function subscore compared with the placebo group, with a least square mean difference of 0·61 (95% CI 0·18-1·05, p=0·006)., Interpretation: Long-term use of dulaglutide might reduce the incidence of moderate or severe erectile dysfunction in men with type 2 diabetes., Funding: Eli Lilly and Company., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests HSB has received speaking honoraria from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk, and research funding paid to LMC Healthcare from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ceapro, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Tricida. HCG holds the McMaster–Sanofi Population Health Institute Chair in Diabetes Research and Care and reports research grants from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi, honoraria for speaking from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, DKSH, and Zuellig, and consulting fees from Abbott, Covance, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Pfizer and Kowa. JB reports consulting fees from Medtronic and Eli Lilly, and grant support from Eli Lilly, ReCor, and Ablative Solutions. HC reports grants from the University of Edinburgh, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Bayer, Roche, and Eli Lilly. IC reports personal fees from Medtronic, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Merck Sharp and Dohme. WCC reports a research grant to his institution (University of Tennessee, TN, USA) for the REWIND trial. GRD has received honoraria for lectures from Bayer and Eli Lilly. EF reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bioton, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Polfa–Tarchomin, Sanofi, and Servier. FL reports honoraria from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and research grants from the Population Health Research Institute. LAL reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Servier, GlaxoSmithKline, and Lexicon. PL-J reports speaking honorarium from Menarini and Abbott. JP reports payment through the University of Washington (WA, USA) for the REWIND trial. JES reports grants from Eli Lilly and Astra Zeneca, and personal fees from Astra Zeneca, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Abbott, and Pfizer. DX reports grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Coco Cola India, the Indian Council of Medical Research, Pfizer, the UK Medical Research Council, and Wellcome Trust, and speaker fees from Eli Lilly and Sanofi. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) semaglutide is the most recently approved agent of this drug class, and the only GLP-1RA currently available as both subcutaneous and oral formulation. While GLP-1RAs effectively improve glycemic control and cause weight loss, potential safety concerns have arisen over the years. For semaglutide, such concerns have been addressed in the extensive phase 3 registration trials including cardiovascular outcome trials for both subcutaneous (SUSTAIN: Semaglutide Unabated Sustainability in Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes) and oral (PIONEER: Peptide InnOvatioN for the Early diabEtes tReatment) semaglutide and are being studied in further trials and registries, including real world data studies. In the current review we discuss the occurrence of adverse events associated with semaglutide focusing on hypoglycemia, gastrointestinal side effects, pancreatic safety (pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer), thyroid cancer, gallbladder events, cardiovascular aspects, acute kidney injury, diabetic retinopathy (DRP) complications and injection-site and allergic reactions and where available, we highlight potential underlying mechanisms. Furthermore, we discuss whether effects are specific for semaglutide or a class effect. We conclude that semaglutide induces mostly mild-to-moderate and transient gastrointestinal disturbances and increases the risk of biliary disease (cholelithiasis). No unexpected safety issues have arisen to date, and the established safety profile for semaglutide is similar to that of other GLP-1RAs where definitive conclusions for pancreatic and thyroid cancer cannot be drawn at this point due to low incidence of these conditions. Due to its potent glucose-lowering effect, patients at risk for deterioration of existing DRP should be carefully monitored if treated with semaglutide, particularly if also treated with insulin. Given the beneficial metabolic and cardiovascular actions of semaglutide, and the low risk for severe adverse events, semaglutide has an overall favorable risk/benefit profile for patient with type 2 diabetes., Competing Interests: DVR has acted as a consultant and received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi and has received research operating funds from the Boehringer Ingelheim–Eli Lilly Diabetes Alliance, MSD, AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk. The remaining author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The authors declare that this article received funding from Novo Nordisk. The funder had the following involvement in the article: medical writing support., (Copyright © 2021 Smits and Van Raalte.)