Once-weekly semaglutide versus placebo in adults with increased fracture risk: a randomised, double-blinded, two-centre, phase 2 trial.

Background: Previous studies have indicated that glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) may enhance bone formation and have neutral or beneficial effects on fracture risk. We evaluated the effect of the GLP-1RA semaglutide on the bone formation marker Procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (PINP) in adults with increased fracture risk. Methods: This randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, phase 2 clinical trial was conducted at two public hospitals in Denmark. We enrolled 64 men and women with increased fracture risk based on a T-score < -1.0 at the total hip or lumbar spine and/or low-energy fracture within three years of recruitment. Participants were randomised (1:1) to receive once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 1.0 mg or placebo. The primary outcome was changes in plasma (P)-PINP from baseline to week 52. Primary and safety outcomes were assessed and evaluated for all participants. This trial is complete and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04702516. Findings: Between March 24 and December 8, 2021, 55 (86%) postmenopausal women and nine men with a mean age of 63 years (SD 5.5) and BMI of 27.5 kg/m2 (SD 4.5) were enrolled. There was no effect on changes in P-PINP from baseline to week 52 between the two groups (estimated treatment difference (ETD) semaglutide versus placebo 3.8 µg/L [95% CI -5.6 to 13.3]; p = 0.418), and no difference in P-PINP levels between groups at week 52 (semaglutide 64.3 µg/L versus placebo 62.3 µg/L [95% CI -10.8 to 15.0]; p = 0.749). The secondary outcomes showed higher plasma levels of bone resorption marker Collagen type I cross-linked C-terminal telopeptide (P-CTX) in the semaglutide group than in the placebo group (ETD 166.4 ng/L [95% CI 25.5-307.3]; p = 0.021). Compared to placebo, lumbar spine and total hip areal bone mineral densities (aBMD) were lower in the semaglutide group after 52 weeks ((ETD lumbar spine -0.018 g/cm3 [95% CI -0.031 to -0.005]; p = 0.007); ETD total hip -0.020 g/cm2 ([95% CI -0.032 to -0.008]; p = 0.001). Treatment differences in femoral neck aBMD were not observed ([95% CI [-0.017 to 0.006]; p = 0.328). Further, body weight was lower in the semaglutide group than in the placebo group after 52 weeks (ETD -6.8 kg [95% CI -8.8 to -4.7]; p < 0.001). Thirty-one [97%] in the semaglutide group and 18 [56%] in the placebo group experienced at least one adverse event, including four serious events (two in each group). No episodes of hypoglycaemia or deaths were reported. Interpretation: In adults with increased fracture risk, semaglutide once weekly did not increase bone formation based on the bone formation marker P-PINP. The observed increase in bone resorption in the semaglutide group may be explained by the accompanying weight loss. Funding: Region of Southern Denmark, Novo Nordisk Foundation, and Gangsted Foundation. Novo Nordisk provided the investigational drug and placebo.

The Danish landscape of providing support for caregivers of people with potentially life-threatening disease: A cross-sectional study among representatives of health services in Danish municipalities and hospitals.

AIMS: (a) To investigate support for caregivers of people diagnosed with stroke, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), dementia, or heart disease provided across healthcare settings in Denmark; (b) to assess differences in caregiver support across diagnoses and settings. METHODS: A cross-sectional nationwide survey among professionals representing healthcare settings at municipalities (n = 479) and hospital wards and outpatient clinics (n = 425). The survey assessed identification of caregivers and support initiatives. RESULTS: The response rate was 81% for municipalities and 49% for hospitals. Identification of caregivers was frequent in dementia care (81% and 100%) and less frequent in COPD care (58% and 64%) in municipalities and hospitals, respectively. Caregiver support differed significantly across diagnoses within municipalities (p = 0.009) and hospitals (p < 0.001). Systematic identification of vulnerable caregivers was <25% for all diagnoses except dementia. The most common support initiatives involving caregivers were primarily aimed at the ill person and included guidance about the disease and consequences for everyday life and lifestyle changes. Caregivers were least involved in support initiatives addressing physical training, work retention, sexuality, or cohabitation. CONCLUSIONS: Disparities and significant differences across diagnoses exist in the identification of caregivers and the provision of support initiatives. Support initiatives involving caregivers primarily targeted patients. Future studies should investigate how caregivers' needs can be met across different diagnoses and healthcare settings and investigate potential changes in caregivers' needs during disease trajectories. In clinical practice, identification of vulnerable caregivers should be a major focus, and disease-specific clinical guidelines may be required to ensure sufficient support for caregivers.