Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide monotherapy versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 1): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multinational, multicentre phase 3a trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite a broad range of pharmacological options for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, optimum glycaemic control remains challenging for many patients and new therapies are necessary. Semaglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue in phase 3 development for type 2 diabetes. We assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of semaglutide monotherapy, compared with placebo, in treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes who had insufficient glycaemic control with diet and exercise alone. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, international, placebo-controlled phase 3a trial (SUSTAIN 1) at 72 sites in Canada, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, UK, and USA (including hospitals, clinical research units, and private offices). Eligible participants were treatment-naive individuals aged 18 years or older with type 2 diabetes treated with only diet and exercise alone for at least 30 days before screening, with a baseline HbA1c of 7·0%-10·0% (53-86 mmol/mol). We randomly assigned participants (2:2:1:1) to either once-weekly subcutaneously injected semaglutide (0·5 mg or 1·0 mg), or volume-matched placebo (0·5 mg or 1·0 mg), for 30 weeks via prefilled PDS290 pen-injectors. Participants did their own injections and were encouraged to administer them on the same day of each week in the same area of their body; the time of day and proximity of meal times was not specified. We did the randomisation with an interactive voice or web response system. Investigators, participants, and the funder of the study remained masked throughout the trial. The primary endpoint was the change in mean HbA1c from baseline to week 30, and the confirmatory secondary endpoint was the change in mean bodyweight from baseline to week 30. We assessed efficacy and safety in the modified intention-to-treat population (ie, all participants who were exposed to at least one dose of study drug); both placebo groups were pooled for assessment. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02054897. FINDINGS: Between February 3, 2014, and August 21, 2014, we randomly assigned 388 participants to treatment; 387 received at least one dose of study medication (128 0·5 mg semaglutide, 130 1·0 mg semaglutide, 129 placebo). 17 (13%) of those assigned to 0·5 mg semaglutide, 16 (12%) assigned to 1·0 mg semaglutide, and 14 (11%) assigned to placebo discontinued treatment; the main reason for discontinuation was gastrointestinal adverse events such as nausea. Mean baseline HbA1c was 8·05% (SD 0·85); at week 30, HbA1c significantly decreased by 1·45% (95% CI -1·65 to -1·26) with 0·5 mg semaglutide (estimated treatment difference vs placebo -1·43%, 95% CI -1·71 to -1·15; p<0·0001), significantly decreased by 1·55% (-1·74 to -1·36) with 1·0 mg semaglutide (estimated treatment difference vs placebo -1·53%, -1·81 to -1·25; p<0·0001), and non-significantly decreased by 0·02% (-0·23 to 0·18) with placebo. Mean baseline bodyweight was 91·93 kg (SD 23·83); at week 30, bodyweight significantly decreased by 3·73 kg (95% CI -4·54 to -2·91) with 0·5 mg semaglutide (estimated treatment difference vs placebo -2·75 kg, 95% CI -3·92 to -1·58; p<0·0001), significantly decreased by 4·53 kg (-5·34 to -3·72) with 1·0 mg semaglutide (estimated treatment difference vs placebo -3·56 kg, -4·74 to -2·38; p<0·0001), and non-significantly decreased by 0·98 kg (-1·82 to -0·13) with placebo. No deaths were reported in any of the study groups and most reported adverse events were of mild or moderate severity. The most frequently reported adverse events in both semaglutide groups were gastrointestinal in nature: nausea was reported in 26 (20%) who received 0·5 mg semaglutide, 31 (24%) who received 1·0 mg semaglutide, and 10 (8%) who received placebo, and diarrhoea was reported in 16 (13%) who received 0·5 mg semaglutide, 14 (11%) who received 1·0 mg semaglutide, and three (2%) who received placebo. INTERPRETATION: Semaglutide significantly improved HbA1c and bodyweight in patients with type 2 diabetes compared with placebo, and showed a similar safety profile to currently available GLP-1 receptor agonists, representing a potential treatment option for such patients. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk A/S, Denmark.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide versus once-daily sitagliptin as an add-on to metformin, thiazolidinediones, or both, in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 2): a 56-week, double-blind, phase 3a, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Semaglutide is a novel glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue, suitable for once-weekly subcutaneous administration, in development for treatment of type 2 diabetes. We assessed the efficacy and safety of semaglutide versus the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin, thiazolidinediones, or both. METHODS: We did a 56-week, phase 3a, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, parallel-group, multinational, multicentre trial (SUSTAIN 2) at 128 sites in 18 countries. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years (or at least 20 years in Japan) and diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, with insufficient glycaemic control (HbA1c 7·0-10·5% [53·0-91·0 mmol/mol]) despite stable treatment with metformin, thiazolidinediones, or both. We randomly assigned participants (2:2:1:1) using an interactive voice or web response system to 56 weeks of treatment with subcutaneous semaglutide 0·5 mg once weekly plus oral sitagliptin placebo once daily, subcutaneous semaglutide 1·0 mg once weekly plus oral sitagliptin placebo once daily, oral sitagliptin 100 mg once daily plus subcutaneous semaglutide placebo 0·5 mg once weekly, or oral sitagliptin 100 mg once daily plus subcutaneous semaglutide placebo 1·0 mg once weekly. The two oral sitagliptin 100 mg groups (with semaglutide placebo 0·5 mg and 1·0 mg) were pooled for the analyses. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 56, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of study drug); change in bodyweight from baseline to week 56 was the confirmatory secondary endpoint. Safety endpoints included adverse events and hypoglycaemic episodes. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01930188. FINDINGS: Between Dec 2, 2013, and Aug 5, 2015, we randomly assigned 1231 participants; of the 1225 included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, 409 received semaglutide 0·5 mg, 409 received semaglutide 1·0 mg, and 407 received sitagliptin 100 mg. Mean baseline HbA1c was 8·1% (SD 0·93); at week 56, HbA1c was reduced by 1·3% in the semaglutide 0·5 mg group, 1·6% in the semaglutide 1·0 mg group, and 0·5% with sitagliptin (estimated treatment difference vs sitagliptin -0·77% [95% CI -0·92 to -0·62] with semaglutide 0·5 mg and -1·06% [-1·21 to -0·91] with semaglutide 1·0 mg; p<0·0001 for non-inferiority and for superiority, for both semaglutide doses vs sitagliptin). Mean baseline bodyweight was 89·5 kg (SD 20·3); at week 56, bodyweight reduced by 4·3 kg with semaglutide 0·5 mg, 6·1 kg with semaglutide 1·0 mg, and 1·9 kg with sitagliptin (estimated treatment difference vs sitagliptin -2·35 kg [95% CI -3·06 to -1·63] with semaglutide 0·5 mg and -4·20 kg [-4·91 to -3·49] with semaglutide 1·0 mg; p<0·0001 for superiority, for both semaglutide doses vs sitagliptin). The proportion of patients who discontinued treatment because of adverse events was 33 (8%) for semaglutide 0·5 mg, 39 (10%) for semaglutide 1·0 mg, and 12 (3%) for sitagliptin. The most frequently reported adverse events in both semaglutide groups were gastrointestinal in nature: nausea was reported in 73 (18%) who received semaglutide 0·5 mg, 72 (18%) who received semaglutide 1·0 mg, and 30 (7%) who received placebo, and diarrhoea was reported in 54 (13%) who received semaglutide 0·5 mg, 53 (13%) who received semaglutide 1·0 mg, and 29 (7%) who received placebo. Seven (2%) patients in the semaglutide 0·5 mg group, two (<1%) in the semaglutide 1·0 mg group, and five (1%) in the sitagliptin group had blood-glucose confirmed hypoglycaemia. There were six fatal events (two in the semaglutide 0·5 mg group, one in the semaglutide 1·0 mg group, and three in the sitagliptin group); none were considered likely to be related to the trial drugs. INTERPRETATION: Once-weekly semaglutide was superior to sitagliptin at improving glycaemic control and reducing bodyweight in participants with type 2 diabetes on metformin, thiazolidinediones, or both, and had a similar safety profile to that of other GLP-1 receptor agonists. Semaglutide seems to be an effective add-on treatment option for this patient population. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk A/S.

[Low mortality following salicylic poisoning]. / Lav dødelighed efter acetylsalicylsyreforgiftning.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of the study was to identify possible prognostic factors in patients with salicylic poisoning. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A chart review on 53 patients with salicylic poisoning was performed. Clinical and biochemical data were registered for all patients with a serum level of salicylic acid higher than or equal to 2 mmol/l in the 2004-2008 period. The patients were divided into groups according to the outcome of the poisoning. A complicated outcome was defined as: hospital stay > 48 hours, dialysis, persisting complications at discharge or death. RESULTS: In the group with complicated outcome, chronic poisoning (43% versus 13%, p = 0.02) and medical diseases (24% versus 9%, p = 0.07) were more prevalent and the proportion of elderly (55 years versus 38 years, p = 0.003) and alcoholics (48% vs. 25%, p = 0.09) were higher. The mortality was low, with only one fatality among the acutely poisoned and none among the chronically poisoned. Neurological symptoms (somnolence and confusion) were the only symptoms which differed significantly between the two groups (67% versus 28%, p = 0.006), as well as being the only variable independently emerging as a risk factor in the multivariate logistic regression analysis with an odds ratio of 6.6 (95% confidence interval: 1.5-28.9) for a complicated outcome. A significantly lower level of bicarbonate was seen in the group with complicated outcome. Among the other biochemical data, only haemoglobin and certain liver enzymes differed between the two groups, probably due to pre-existing differences. CONCLUSION: Mortality after salicylic poisoning is low. Chronic poisonings, old age or concurrent medical diseases are associated with a complicated outcome. If neurological symptoms or low standard-HCO3- are present, the prognosis is poor.