Impact of semaglutide on high-sensitivity C-reactive protein: exploratory patient-level analyses of SUSTAIN and PIONEER randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Exploratory analysis to determine the effect of semaglutide versus comparators on high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) in subjects with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Trials of once-weekly subcutaneous (SUSTAIN 3) and once-daily oral (PIONEER 1, 2, 5) semaglutide with hsCRP data were analyzed. Subjects with type 2 diabetes (N = 2482) received semaglutide (n = 1328) or comparators (placebo, n = 339; exenatide extended-release, n = 405; empagliflozin, n = 410). hsCRP ratio to baseline at end-of-treatment was analyzed overall, by clinical cutoff (< 1.0, ≥ 1.0 to ≤ 3.0, or > 3.0 mg/L), by tertile, and by estimated glomerular filtration rate in PIONEER 5 (a trial which was conducted in a population with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease [CKD]). Mediation analyses assessed the effect of change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and/or change in body weight (BW) on hsCRP reductions. RESULTS: Geometric mean baseline hsCRP was similar across trials (range 2.7-3.0 mg/L). Semaglutide reduced hsCRP levels by clinical cutoffs and tertiles from baseline to end-of-treatment in all trials versus comparators (estimated treatment ratios [ETRs] versus comparators: 0.70-0.76; p < 0.01) except versus placebo in PIONEER 5 (ETR [95% CI]: 0.83 [0.67-1.03]; p > 0.05). The effect of semaglutide on hsCRP was partially mediated (20.6-61.8%) by change in HbA1c and BW. CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide reduced hsCRP ratios-to-baseline versus comparators in subjects with type 2 diabetes (not significant with CKD). This effect was partially mediated via reductions in HbA1c and BW and potentially by a direct effect of semaglutide. Semaglutide appears to have an anti-inflammatory effect, which is being further investigated in ongoing trials. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01885208 (first registered June 2013), NCT02906930 (first registered September 2016), NCT02863328 (first registered August 2016), NCT02827708 (first registered July 2016).

Impact of baseline characteristics and beta-cell function on the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous once-weekly semaglutide: A patient-level, pooled analysis of the SUSTAIN 1-5 trials.

AIM: To evaluate the impact of relevant patient-level characteristics on the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous, once-weekly semaglutide in subjects with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Exploratory post hoc analyses of pooled SUSTAIN 1-5 (phase 3a) randomized, controlled trials examined the change from baseline in HbA1c and body weight (BW), and the proportions of subjects achieving the composite endpoint (HbA1c < 7.0% [53 mmol/mol]), without weight gain or severe/blood glucose-confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemia at week 30 with semaglutide (0.5/1.0 mg) across clinically relevant patient subgroups: baseline HbA1c (≤7.5%, >7.5%-8.0%, >8.0%-8.5%, >8.5%-9.0% and > 9.0%), background medications, diabetes duration and pancreatic beta-cell function. RESULTS: Mean HbA1c (% point) reductions increased from lowest to highest HbA1c subgroups (-0.9%, -1.2%,-1.5%, -1.7% and -2.3% [effect of subgroup within treatment: P = 0.247] for semaglutide 0.5 mg, and -1.1%, -1.4%, -1.9%, -2.1% and -2.7% [P = 0.045] for semaglutide 1.0 mg), with mean HbA1c ranges at week 30 of 6.3%-7.3% and 6.1%-6.9%, respectively. The corresponding BW reductions generally decreased with increasing baseline HbA1c (-4.4, -3.9, -3.9, -3.3 and -2.9 kg [P = 0.004], and -6.4, -5.9, -5.2, -4.5 and -4.8 kg [P < 0.001], respectively). HbA1c and BW reductions were consistently greater for semaglutide 1.0 mg versus 0.5 mg across background medication, diabetes duration and pancreatic beta-cell function subgroups. Adverse events with semaglutide were consistent with the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist class, with gastrointestinal events the most common. CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide was consistently efficacious across the continuum of diabetes care in a broad spectrum of patient subgroups with a range of clinical characteristics.

The Potential Role of Digital Health in Obesity Care.

Obesity is a complex, multi-factorial, chronic condition which increases the risk of a wide range of diseases including type 2 diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease and certain cancers. The prevalence of obesity continues to rise and this places a huge economic burden on the healthcare system. Existing approaches to obesity treatment tend to focus on individual responsibility and diet and exercise, failing to recognise the complexity of the condition and the need for a whole-system approach. A new approach is needed that recognises the complexity of obesity and provides patient-centred, multidisciplinary care which more closely meets the needs of each individual with obesity. This review will discuss the role that digital health could play in this new approach and the challenges of ensuring equitable access to digital health for obesity care. Existing technologies, such as telehealth and mobile health apps and wearable devices, offer emerging opportunities to improve access to obesity care and enhance the quality, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of weight management interventions and long-term patient support. Future application of machine learning and artificial intelligence to obesity care could see interventions become increasingly automated and personalised.

Recommendations from a Working Group on Obesity Care Competencies for Healthcare Education in the UK: A Report by the Steering Committee.

INTRODUCTION: Obesity significantly increases the risk of developing (or worsening) more than 200 chronic diseases, and it is also a risk factor for severe COVID-19. With the rising prevalence of obesity in the UK, there is a need to develop obesity care competencies that apply to healthcare professionals (HCPs) at all levels of the health service, to increase the capacity for contemporary, evidence-based treatment that is effective, compassionate, and avoids stigmatising patients. METHODS: A UK Obesity Care Competencies Working Group consisting of experts by profession and experts by experience was created to provide a framework of obesity care competencies for HCPs involved in specialist obesity care (tiers 2-4 in the UK). The framework was adapted from a set of competencies recently published by the USA-based Obesity Medicine Education Collaborative (OMEC) and was intended to be adaptable to nurses and allied health professionals, as well as physicians, owing to the multidisciplinary team approach used in healthcare in the UK. RESULTS: The UK Obesity Care Competencies Working Group developed a set of 29 competencies, divided into five focal areas, namely obesity knowledge, patient care and procedural skills, practice-based learning and improvement, professionalism and interpersonal communication skills, and systems-based practice. The working group recommends that the obesity care competencies are targeted at HCPs training as specialists. The competencies could be imported into existing training programmes to help standardise obesity-related medical education and could also be used to direct a new General Practitioner with Extended Role (GPwER) qualification. CONCLUSION: This list of obesity care competencies aims to provide an initial framework to improve education for HCPs and therefore to improve patient care in obesity. The acceptance and integration of these competencies into the healthcare system should provide a stepping stone toward addressing trends in health inequality.

Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide 1 mg Versus Empagliflozin 25 mg for Treatment of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in the UK Setting.

INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes represents a continuing healthcare challenge, and choosing cost-effective treatments is crucial to ensure that healthcare resources are used efficiently. The present analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus empagliflozin 25 mg for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with inadequate glycaemic control on metformin monotherapy from a healthcare payer perspective in the UK. METHODS: Outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects of initiation of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg and empagliflozin 25 mg were based on an indirect comparison conducted using patient-level data, as there is currently no head-to-head clinical trial comparing these therapies. Modelled patients received treatments until glycated haemoglobin exceeded 7.5% (58 mmol/mol), at which point patients initiated basal insulin. The analysis captured pharmacy costs and costs of diabetes-related complications, expressed in 2019 pounds sterling (GBP). Projected outcomes were discounted at 3.5% annually. Scenario analyses were prepared to assess uncertainty around projected outcomes. RESULTS: Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was associated with increases in life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.12 years and 0.23 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, compared with empagliflozin 25 mg. Projected improvements in quality and duration of life resulted from a reduced cumulative incidence and a delayed time to onset of diabetes-related complications. Once-weekly semaglutide was associated with increased pharmacy costs, but this was partially offset by avoided costs of treating complications. Once-weekly semaglutide was associated with an increase in costs of GBP 1017 per patient, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 4439 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was projected to be a cost-effective treatment option from a healthcare payer perspective compared with empagliflozin 25 mg for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK setting.

Costs of the COVID-19 pandemic associated with obesity in Europe: A health-care cost model.

Excess weight is associated with severe outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to estimate the total secondary care costs by body mass index (BMI, kg/m2 ) category when hospitalized due to COVID-19 in Europe during the first wave of the pandemic from January to June 2020. Building a health-care cost model, this study aimed to estimate the total costs of COVID-19. Information on risk of hospitalization, admission to intensive care unit (ICU) and risk of ventilation were based on published data. Average cost per patient and in total were calculated based on risks of admission to ICU, risk of invasive mechanical ventilation and length of hospital stay when hospitalized and published costs associated with hospitalization. The total direct costs of secondary care during the first wave of COVID-19 in Europe were estimated at EUR 13.9 billon, whereof 76% accounted for treating people with overweight and obesity. The average cost per hospital admission increased with BMI, from EUR 15831 for BMI <25 kg/m2 to EUR 30982 for BMI ≥40 kg/m2 . This study reveals that excess weight contributes disproportionally to the costs of COVID-19. This might reflect that overweight and obesity caused the COVID-19 pandemic to result in more severe outcomes for citizens and higher secondary care costs throughout Europe.

A Relative Cost of Control Analysis of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Exenatide Extended-Release, Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg is a novel glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) that, in the SUSTAIN clinical trials, has demonstrated greater reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight than the other GLP-1 RAs exenatide extended-release (ER) 2 mg, dulaglutide 1.5 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the relative cost of control of achieving treatment goals in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with once-weekly semaglutide versus exenatide ER, dulaglutide and liraglutide from a UK perspective. METHODS: Proportions of patients reaching HbA1c targets (< 7.0% and < 7.5%), weight loss targets (≥ 5% reduction in body weight) and composite endpoints (HbA1c < 7.0% without weight gain or hypoglycaemia; reduction in HbA1c of ≥ 1% and weight loss of ≥ 5%) were obtained from the SUSTAIN clinical trials. Annual per patient treatment costs were based on wholesale acquisition costs from July 2019 in the UK. Cost of control was calculated by plotting relative treatment costs against relative efficacy. RESULTS: The annual per patient cost was similar for all GLP-1 RAs. Once-weekly semaglutide was superior to exenatide ER, dulaglutide and liraglutide in bringing patients to HbA1c and weight loss targets, and to composite endpoints. When looking at the composite endpoint of HbA1c < 7.0% without weight gain or hypoglycaemia, exenatide ER, dulaglutide and liraglutide were 50.0%, 21.6% and 51.3% less efficacious in achieving this, respectively, than once-weekly semaglutide. Consequently, the efficacy-to-cost ratios for once-weekly semaglutide were superior to all comparators in bringing patients to all endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: The present study showed that once-weekly semaglutide offers superior cost of control versus exenatide ER, dulaglutide and liraglutide in terms of achieving clinically relevant, single and composite endpoints. Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg would therefore represent good value for money in the UK setting.

Once-Weekly Semaglutide Reduces HbA1c and Body Weight in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Regardless of Background Common OAD: a Subgroup Analysis from SUSTAIN 2-4 and 10.

INTRODUCTION: Despite treatment with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), achieving effective glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes (T2D) remains a challenge. The objective of this post hoc analysis of data from the SUSTAIN 2, 3, 4 and 10 active-controlled trials was to assess the efficacy and safety of the once-weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) semaglutide in patients on background treatment with metformin (MET), with or without a sulphonylurea (SU). METHODS: Data from the randomised phase 3 trials SUSTAIN 2, 3, 4 and 10 for subjects who received background MET alone or MET + SU were analysed. Change from baseline in HbA1c and body weight at the end of treatment visit (week 30 in SUSTAIN 4 and 10, week 56 in SUSTAIN 2 and 3), and rates of hypoglycaemia and adverse events leading to premature treatment discontinuation were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 3411 subjects were included in the full analysis set (3410 in the safety analysis set). Across the four trials, semaglutide significantly reduced HbA1c (estimated treatment difference [ETD] - 0.32 to - 0.79%-points for semaglutide 0.5 mg, and - 0.38 to - 1.07%-points for semaglutide 1.0 mg vs comparators; p < 0.01) in subjects receiving both MET and MET + SU. Regardless of background OAD, semaglutide significantly reduced body weight (ETD - 2.35 to - 4.72 kg for semaglutide 0.5 mg, and - 2.96 to - 6.76 kg for semaglutide 1.0 mg vs comparators; p < 0.0001). Across the trials, hypoglycaemic events were more common with background MET + SU than MET alone, in subjects receiving either semaglutide or a comparator. The rate of adverse events (AEs) leading to premature treatment discontinuations in subjects treated with semaglutide were generally consistent regardless of background therapy. CONCLUSION: Semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1.0 mg significantly improve glycaemic control (HbA1c) and body weight in subjects with T2D, with a similar tolerability profile, regardless of whether they receive background MET or MET + SU. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01930188 (SUSTAIN 2), NCT01885208 (SUSTAIN 3), NCT02128932 (SUSTAIN 4) and NCT03191396 (SUSTAIN 10).

Evaluating the Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Once-Daily Liraglutide for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg is a novel glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes that has demonstrated significantly greater reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight than the GLP-1 RA once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg in the SUSTAIN 10 trial. The present analysis aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg from a UK healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: Long-term outcomes were projected using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (version 9.0), with baseline characteristics and treatment effects sourced from SUSTAIN 10. Patients were assumed to initiate treatment with GLP-1 RAs and continue treatment until HbA1c exceeded 7.5%, at which point GLP-1 RAs were discontinued and basal insulin was initiated. Pharmacy costs and costs of complications were measured in 2018 pounds sterling (GBP), with future costs and outcomes discounted at 3.5% per annum. Utilities were taken from published sources. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was associated with an increase in discounted life expectancy of 0.21 years and discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.30 quality-adjusted life-years, compared with once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg. Clinical benefits were achieved at reduced costs, with lifetime cost savings of GBP 140 per patient with semaglutide versus liraglutide, owing to a reduction in diabetes-related complications, in particular cardiovascular disease (mean cost saving of GBP 279 per patient). Therefore, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was dominant compared with once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg. The results of the sensitivity analyses were similar, demonstrating the robustness of the base-case analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg is a cost-effective treatment option versus once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg, based on the SUSTAIN 10 trial, from a UK healthcare payer perspective.

Efficacy of Once-Weekly Semaglutide vs Empagliflozin Added to Metformin in Type 2 Diabetes: Patient-Level Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: No head-to-head trials have directly compared once-weekly (OW) semaglutide, a human glucagon-like peptide-1 analog, with empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor, in type 2 diabetes (T2D). OBJECTIVE: We indirectly compared the efficacy of OW semaglutide 1 mg vs once-daily (OD) empagliflozin 25 mg in patients with T2D inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy, using individual patient data (IPD) and meta-regression methodology. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS: IPD for patients with T2D receiving metformin monotherapy and randomized to OW semaglutide 1 mg (SUSTAIN 2, 3, 8 trials), or to OD empagliflozin 25 mg (PIONEER 2 trial) were included. Meta-regression analyses were adjusted for potential prognostic factors and effect modifiers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy outcomes were change from baseline to end-of-treatment (~1 year) in HbA1c (%-point) and body weight (kg). Responder outcomes and other clinically relevant efficacy measures were analyzed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between OW semaglutide (n = 995) and empagliflozin (n = 410). Our analyses showed that OW semaglutide significantly reduced mean HbA1c and body weight vs empagliflozin (estimated treatment difference: -0.61%-point [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.72; -0.49] and -1.65 kg [95% CI: -2.22; -1.08], respectively; both P < 0.0001). Complementary analyses supported the robustness of these results. A significantly greater proportion of patients on OW semaglutide vs empagliflozin also achieved HbA1c targets and weight-loss responses. CONCLUSIONS: This indirect comparison suggests that OW semaglutide 1 mg provides superior reductions in HbA1c and body weight vs OD empagliflozin 25 mg in patients with T2D when added to metformin monotherapy.

Oral Semaglutide Versus Empagliflozin, Sitagliptin and Liraglutide in the UK: Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Based on the PIONEER Clinical Trial Programme.

INTRODUCTION: The PIONEER trial programme showed that, after 52 weeks, the novel oral glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue semaglutide 14 mg was associated with significantly greater reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) versus a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (empagliflozin 25 mg), a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (sitagliptin 100 mg) and an injectable GLP-1 analogue (liraglutide 1.8 mg). The aim of the present analysis was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus each of these comparators in the UK setting. METHODS: Analyses were performed from a healthcare payer perspective using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model, in which outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes (50 years). Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were based on 52-week data from the PIONEER 2, 3 and 4 randomised controlled trials, comparing oral semaglutide with empagliflozin, sitagliptin and liraglutide, respectively. Treatment switching occurred when HbA1c exceeded 7.5% (58 mmol/mol). Utilities, treatment costs and costs of diabetes-related complications (in pounds sterling [GBP]) were taken from published sources. The acquisition cost of oral semaglutide was assumed to match that of once-weekly semaglutide. RESULTS: Oral semaglutide was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.09 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus empagliflozin, 0.20 QALYs versus sitagliptin and 0.07 QALYs versus liraglutide. Direct costs over a patient's lifetime were GBP 971 and GBP 963 higher with oral semaglutide than with empagliflozin and sitagliptin, respectively, but GBP 1551 lower versus liraglutide. Oral semaglutide was associated with a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications versus all comparators. Therefore, oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of GBP 11,006 and 4930 per QALY gained versus empagliflozin 25 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg, respectively, and was more effective and less costly (dominant) versus liraglutide 1.8 mg. CONCLUSION: Oral semaglutide was cost-effective versus empagliflozin and sitagliptin, and dominant versus liraglutide, for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK.

Physician-patient communication at prescription of an additional oral drug for type 2 diabetes and its links to patient outcomes - New findings from the global IntroDia® study.

AIMS: To investigate experiences of people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) at the clinic visit when an additional oral antidiabetes drug (OAD) is prescribed, and how this affects their quality of life, self-management and key outcomes. METHODS: We surveyed adults with T2DM from a large multinational study of patient-physician communication during early T2DM treatment (IntroDia®). We examined their experiences when an additional OAD is prescribed ("add-on") after initial OAD monotherapy, focusing on 24 key conversational elements, overall patient-perceived communication quality (PPCQ), and associations with current patient-reported outcomes. The links between PPCQ and people's efforts to delay add-on therapy were also assessed. RESULTS: 4235 people with T2DM prescribed an additional OAD, or a combination of two, were analysed. Exploratory factor analyses of the conversational elements during add-on yielded three coherent, meaningful factors: Encouraging (Cronbach's α = 0.62), Collaborative (α = 0.81), and Discouraging (α = 0.81). PPCQ was positively associated with Encouraging (ß = +1.252, p < 0.001) and Collaborative (ß = +1.206, p < 0.001), but negatively associated with Discouraging (ß = -0.895, p < 0.001). Better PPCQ at add-on was associated with less diabetes distress, greater well-being and better self-care at the present time. Approximately 20% of people bargained (two-thirds successfully) with their physician to delay additional medication. Non-bargaining individuals reported significantly better mean PPCQ, diabetes distress, well-being and self-care than those who bargained. CONCLUSIONS: Encouraging and patient-inclusive conversations at add-on moments may improve patient well-being and self-care outcomes. People with T2DM who attempted to delay additional medication reported poorer PPCQ and outcomes.

Physician experiences when discussing the need for additional oral medication with type 2 diabetes patients: Insights from the cross-national IntroDia® study.

AIMS: Physician-patient communication when discussing the need for additional oral medication for type 2 diabetes (add-on) may affect the self-care of people with this condition. We aimed to investigate physicians' recalled experiences of the add-on consultation. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of physicians treating people with type 2 diabetes in 26 countries, as part of a large cross-national study of physician-patient communication during early treatment of type 2 diabetes (IntroDia®). The survey battery included novel questions about physician experiences at add-on and the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy. RESULTS: Of 9247 eligible physicians, 6753 responded (73.0% response rate). Most (82%) agreed that physician-patient discussions at add-on strongly influence patients' disease acceptance and treatment adherence. Half the physicians reported ≥1 challenge in most or all add-on conversations, with a significant inverse relationship between frequency of challenges and Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy score (standardised ß coefficient: -0.313; p < 0.001). Physicians estimated that only around half their patients with type 2 diabetes follow their self-care advice. Exploratory factor analysis of physician beliefs about why their patients did not follow recommendations yielded two distinct dimensions: psychosocial barriers (e.g. depressed mood) and personal failings of the patient (e.g. not enough willpower) (r = 0.37, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' empathy and beliefs about their patients may play a significant role in their success with the add-on conversation and, consequently, promotion of patient engagement and self-care. Although the study was limited by its retrospective, cross-sectional nature, the findings from IntroDia® may inform efforts to improve diabetes care.

Reductions in Insulin Resistance are Mediated Primarily via Weight Loss in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes on Semaglutide.

CONTEXT: Semaglutide, a once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 analog approved for use in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), demonstrated superior body weight (BW) reductions and decreased insulin resistance (IR) vs comparators across the Semaglutide Unabated Sustainability in Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN) 1-3 clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between IR and BW across the SUSTAIN 1-3 trials. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of the SUSTAIN 1-3 trials. SETTING: Three hundred and eleven sites in 30 countries. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: 2432 subjects with T2D. INTERVENTIONS: Semaglutide 0.5 or 1.0 mg, placebo or active comparator (sitagliptin 100 mg, exenatide extended release 2.0 mg). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: To assess the extent of the effect on IR that is mediated (indirect effect) and not mediated (direct effect) by the effect on BW. RESULTS: Across SUSTAIN 1-3, mean BW was significantly reduced with semaglutide 0.5 mg (3.7 kg to 4.3 kg; P < 0.0001) and semaglutide 1.0 mg (4.5 kg to 6.1 kg; P < 0.0001) vs comparators (1.0 kg to 1.9 kg). There were greater reductions in IR with semaglutide 0.5 mg (27% to 36%) and semaglutide 1.0 mg (32% to 46%) vs comparators (17% to 28%). Greater reductions in BW were generally associated with greater decreases in IR. The effect on IR was primarily mediated by weight loss (70% to 80% and 34% to 94%, for semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1.0 mg, respectively, vs comparator). CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide consistently reduced BW and IR in subjects with T2D in SUSTAIN 1-3. In this analysis, IR improvement was positively associated with, and primarily mediated by, the effect of semaglutide on BW.

Efficacy and Safety of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Exenatide ER in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN 3): A 56-Week, Open-Label, Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg s.c. with exenatide extended release (ER) 2.0 mg s.c. in subjects with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this phase 3a, open-label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial, 813 subjects with type 2 diabetes taking oral antidiabetic drugs were randomized (1:1) to semaglutide 1.0 mg or exenatide ER 2.0 mg for 56 weeks. The primary end point was change from baseline in HbA1c at week 56. RESULTS: Mean HbA1c (8.3% [67.7 mmol/mol] at baseline) was reduced by 1.5% (16.8 mmol/mol) with semaglutide and 0.9% (10.0 mmol/mol) with exenatide ER (estimated treatment difference vs. exenatide ER [ETD] -0.62% [95% CI -0.80, -0.44] [-6.78 mmol/mol (95% CI -8.70, -4.86)]; P < 0.0001 for noninferiority and superiority). Mean body weight (95.8 kg at baseline) was reduced by 5.6 kg with semaglutide and 1.9 kg with exenatide ER (ETD -3.78 kg [95% CI -4.58, -2.98]; P < 0.0001). Significantly more subjects treated with semaglutide (67%) achieved HbA1c <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) versus those taking exenatide ER (40%). Both treatments had similar safety profiles, but gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in semaglutide-treated subjects (41.8%) than in exenatide ER-treated subjects (33.3%); injection-site reactions were more frequent with exenatide ER (22.0%) than with semaglutide (1.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide 1.0 mg was superior to exenatide ER 2.0 mg in improving glycemic control and reducing body weight after 56 weeks of treatment; the drugs had comparable safety profiles. These results indicate that semaglutide treatment is highly effective for subjects with type 2 diabetes who are inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs.

Physician-patient communication at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and its links to patient outcomes: New results from the global IntroDia® study.

AIMS: To investigate patient experiences during the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), focusing on how physician-patient communication at diagnosis influences patients' psychosocial stress and subsequent self-management and outcomes. METHODS: We surveyed adults with T2DM in 26 countries in a large cross-national study of physician-patient communication during early T2DM treatment (IntroDia®). The self-report questionnaire assessed retrospectively patient experiences during diagnosis conversations (focusing on 43 possible conversational elements, and communication quality) and potential effects on patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Data from 3628 people with T2DM who had been prescribed oral treatment at diagnosis were analysed. Exploratory factor analyses of the conversational elements yielded four coherent, meaningful factors: Encouraging (Cronbach's α=0.86); Collaborative (α=0.88); Recommending Other Resources (α=0.75); and Discouraging (α=0.72). Patient-perceived communication quality (PPCQ) at diagnosis was positively associated with Encouraging (ß=+1.764, p<0.001) and Collaborative (ß=+0.347, p<0.001), negatively associated with Discouraging (ß=-1.181, p<0.001) and not associated with Recommending Other Resources (ß=+0.087, p=0.096), using a stable path model. PPCQ was associated with less current diabetes distress, greater current well-being and better current self-care. Conversation elements comprising factors associated with better PPCQ (Encouraging and Collaborative) were recalled more frequently by patients than elements associated with poor PPCQ (Discouraging). CONCLUSIONS: Better physician-patient communication at T2DM diagnosis may contribute to subsequent greater patient well-being and self-care, and may be enhanced by greater physician use of Collaborative and Encouraging conversation elements.

Obesity Treatment in the UK Health System.

In the UK, as in most other countries in the world, levels of obesity are increasing. According to the Kinsey report, obesity has the second largest public health impact after smoking, and it is inextricably linked to physical inactivity. Since the UK Health and Social Care Act reforms of 2012, there has been a significant restructuring of the National Health Service (NHS). As a consequence, NHS England and the Department of Health have issued new policy guidelines regarding the commissioning of obesity treatment. A 4-tier model of care is now widely accepted and ranges from primary activity, through community weight management and specialist weight management for severe and complex obesity, to bariatric surgery. However, although there are clear care pathways and clinical guidelines for evidence-based practice, there remains no single stakeholder willing to take overall responsibility for obesity care. There is a lack of provision of adequate services characterised by a noticeable 'postcode lottery', and little political will to change the obesogenic environment.