Efficacy and safety of once weekly semaglutide 2·4 mg for weight management in a predominantly east Asian population with overweight or obesity (STEP 7): a double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Data on the benefits of the once weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide 2·4 mg for weight management in people from east Asia are insufficient. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of once weekly semaglutide 2·4 mg versus placebo for weight management in a predominantly east Asian adult population. METHODS: This randomised phase 3a, double-blind multicentre controlled trial (STEP 7) recruited participants from 23 hospitals and trial centres in China, Hong Kong, Brazil, and South Korea. Adults with overweight or obesity, with or without type 2 diabetes, were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive a subcutaneous injection of either semaglutide 2·4 mg or placebo once a week for 44 weeks, plus a diet and physical activity intervention. Randomisation was done in blocks of six with an interactive web response system and was stratified by diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. Participants, investigators, and the trial sponsor were masked to treatment allocation until after database lock. Primary endpoints were percentage change in mean bodyweight and proportion of participants having reached a weight reduction of at least 5% of bodyweight from baseline to week 44. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04251156, and is now complete. FINDINGS: From Dec 8, 2020, to Aug 23, 2022, 448 participants were screened, of whom 375 were randomly assigned to either the semaglutide 2·4 mg group (n=249) or the placebo group (n=126). Estimated mean percentage change in bodyweight from baseline to week 44 was -12·1% (SE 0·5) with semaglutide 2·4 mg versus -3·6% (0·7) with placebo (estimated treatment difference -8·5 percentage points [95% CI -10·2 to -6·8]; p<0·0001). At week 44, the proportion of participants who lost 5% or more of their bodyweight was higher in the semaglutide 2·4 mg group than in the placebo group (203/238 [85%] vs 36/116 [31%]); odds ratio 13·1 (95% CI 7·4-23·1; p<0·0001). Adverse events were reported by 231 (93%) of 249 participants in the semaglutide 2·4 mg group and 108 (86%) of 126 participants in the placebo group, the most common of which were gastrointestinal disorders (168/249, 67% vs 45/126, 36%). INTERPRETATION: The results of this study support the use of semaglutide 2·4 mg for weight management in people of east Asian ethnicity with overweight or obesity and with or without type 2 diabetes. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk. TRANSLATIONS: For the Mandarin, Portuguese and South Korean translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide versus once-daily sitagliptin as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes in SUSTAIN China: A 30-week, double-blind, phase 3a, randomized trial.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue, versus once-daily sitagliptin as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in a multiregional clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the 30-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active comparator SUSTAIN China trial, 868 adults with T2D inadequately controlled on metformin (HbA1c 7.0%-10.5%) were randomized to receive once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg (n = 288), semaglutide 1.0 mg (n = 290) or once-daily sitagliptin 100 mg (n = 290). The primary and confirmatory secondary endpoints were change from baseline to week 30 in HbA1c and body weight, respectively. RESULTS: The trial enrolled ~70% (605/868) of the patients in China, and the remaining patients from four other countries, including the Republic of Korea. Both doses of semaglutide were superior to sitagliptin in reducing HbA1c and body weight after 30 weeks of treatment. The odds of achieving target HbA1c of less than 7.0% (53 mmol/mol), weight loss of 5% or higher, or 10% or higher, and the composite endpoint of HbA1c less than 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) without severe or blood glucose-confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemia no weight gain, were all significantly higher with both semaglutide doses compared with sitagliptin. The safety profile for semaglutide was consistent with the known class effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists (RAs). Consistent efficacy and safety findings were seen in the Chinese subpopulation. CONCLUSIONS: Once-weekly semaglutide was superior to sitagliptin in improving glycaemic control and reducing body weight in patients with T2D inadequately controlled on metformin. The safety and tolerability profiles were consistent with those of semaglutide and other GLP-1 RAs. Semaglutide is an effective once-weekly treatment option for the Chinese population.

Oral Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Establishing cardiovascular safety of new therapies for type 2 diabetes is important. Safety data are available for the subcutaneous form of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist semaglutide but are needed for oral semaglutide. METHODS: We assessed cardiovascular outcomes of once-daily oral semaglutide in an event-driven, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients at high cardiovascular risk (age of ≥50 years with established cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease, or age of ≥60 years with cardiovascular risk factors only). The primary outcome in a time-to-event analysis was the first occurrence of a major adverse cardiovascular event (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke). The trial was designed to rule out 80% excess cardiovascular risk as compared with placebo (noninferiority margin of 1.8 for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio for the primary outcome). RESULTS: A total of 3183 patients were randomly assigned to receive oral semaglutide or placebo. The mean age of the patients was 66 years; 2695 patients (84.7%) were 50 years of age or older and had cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease. The median time in the trial was 15.9 months. Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 61 of 1591 patients (3.8%) in the oral semaglutide group and 76 of 1592 (4.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 1.11; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Results for components of the primary outcome were as follows: death from cardiovascular causes, 15 of 1591 patients (0.9%) in the oral semaglutide group and 30 of 1592 (1.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.92); nonfatal myocardial infarction, 37 of 1591 patients (2.3%) and 31 of 1592 (1.9%), respectively (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.90); and nonfatal stroke, 12 of 1591 patients (0.8%) and 16 of 1592 (1.0%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.57). Death from any cause occurred in 23 of 1591 patients (1.4%) in the oral semaglutide group and 45 of 1592 (2.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.84). Gastrointestinal adverse events leading to discontinuation of oral semaglutide or placebo were more common with oral semaglutide. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with type 2 diabetes, the cardiovascular risk profile of oral semaglutide was not inferior to that of placebo. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; PIONEER 6 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02692716.).

Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Regulatory guidance specifies the need to establish cardiovascular safety of new diabetes therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes in order to rule out excess cardiovascular risk. The cardiovascular effects of semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue with an extended half-life of approximately 1 week, in type 2 diabetes are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned 3297 patients with type 2 diabetes who were on a standard-care regimen to receive once-weekly semaglutide (0.5 mg or 1.0 mg) or placebo for 104 weeks. The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. We hypothesized that semaglutide would be noninferior to placebo for the primary outcome. The noninferiority margin was 1.8 for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio. RESULTS: At baseline, 2735 of the patients (83.0%) had established cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or both. The primary outcome occurred in 108 of 1648 patients (6.6%) in the semaglutide group and in 146 of 1649 patients (8.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.95; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Nonfatal myocardial infarction occurred in 2.9% of the patients receiving semaglutide and in 3.9% of those receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.08; P=0.12); nonfatal stroke occurred in 1.6% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.99; P=0.04). Rates of death from cardiovascular causes were similar in the two groups. Rates of new or worsening nephropathy were lower in the semaglutide group, but rates of retinopathy complications (vitreous hemorrhage, blindness, or conditions requiring treatment with an intravitreal agent or photocoagulation) were significantly higher (hazard ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.11 to 2.78; P=0.02). Fewer serious adverse events occurred in the semaglutide group, although more patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events, mainly gastrointestinal. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes who were at high cardiovascular risk, the rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke was significantly lower among patients receiving semaglutide than among those receiving placebo, an outcome that confirmed the noninferiority of semaglutide. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; SUSTAIN-6 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01720446 .).

Custo-efetividade e impacto orçamentário da saxagliptina como terapia adicional à metformina para o tratamento do diabetes mellitus tipo 2 no sistema de saúde suplementar do Brasil / Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of saxagliptine as additional therapy to metformin for the treatment of diabetes mellitus type 2 in the brazilian private health system

OBJETIVOS: Comparar custos e benefícios clínicos de três terapias adicionais à metformina (MF) para pacientes com diabetes mellitus tipo 2 (DMT2). MÉTODOS: Um modelo de simulação de eventos discretos foi construído para estimar a relação custo-utilidade (custo por QALY) da saxagliptina como uma terapia adicional à MF comparada à rosiglitazona ou pioglitazona. Um modelo de impacto orçamentário (BIM - Budget Impact Model) foi construído para simular o impacto econômico da adoção de saxagliptina no contexto do Sistema Suplementar de Saúde brasileiro. RESULTADOS: O custo de aquisição da medicação para o grupo de pacientes hipotéticos analisados, para o horizonte temporal de três anos, foi de R$ 10.850.185,00, R$ 14.836.265,00 e R$ 14.679.099,00 para saxagliptina, pioglitazona e rosiglitazona, respectivamente. Saxagliptina exibiu menores custos e maior efetividade em ambas as comparações, com economias projetadas para os três primeiros anos de -R$ 3.874,00 e -R$ 3.996,00, respectivamente. O BIM estimou uma economia cumulativa de R$ 417.958,00 com o reembolso da saxagliptina em três anos a partir da perspectiva de uma operadora de plano de saúde com 1 milhão de vidas cobertas. CONCLUSÃO: Da perspectiva da fonte pagadora privada, a projeção é de que o acréscimo de saxagliptina à MF poupe custos quando comparado ao acréscimo de rosiglitazona ou pioglitazona em pacientes com DMT2 que não atingiram a meta de hemoglobina glicada (HbA1c) com metformina em monoterapia. O BIM, para a inclusão de saxagliptina nas listas de reembolso das operadoras de planos de saúde, indicou uma economia significativa para o horizonte de 3 anos.

OBJECTIVES: To compare costs and clinical benefits of three additional therapies to metformin (MF) for patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2). METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was built to estimate the cost-utility ratio (cost per quality-adjusted life years [QALY]) of saxagliptine as an additional therapy to MF when compared to rosiglitazone or pioglitazone. A budget impact model (BIM) was built to simulate the economic impact of saxagliptine use in the context of the Brazilian private health system. RESULTS: The acquiring medication costs for the hypothetical patient group analyzed in a time frame of three years, were R$ 10,850,185, R$ 14,836,265 and R$ 14,679,099 for saxagliptine, pioglitazone and rosiglitazone, respectively. Saxagliptine showed lower costs and greater effectiveness in both comparisons, with projected savings for the first three years of R$ 3,874 and R$ 3,996, respectively. The BIM estimated cumulative savings of R$ 417,958 with the repayment of saxagliptine in three years from the perspective of a health plan with 1,000,000 covered individuals. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of private paying source, the projection is that adding saxagliptine with MF save costs when compared with the addition of rosiglitazone or pioglitazone in patients with DM2 that have not reached the HbA1c goal with metformin monotherapy. The BIM of including saxagliptine in the reimbursement lists of health plans indicated significant savings on the three-year horizon.