Semaglutide in Patients with Obesity-Related Heart Failure and Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Obesity and type 2 diabetes are prevalent in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and are characterized by a high symptom burden. No approved therapies specifically target obesity-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in persons with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients who had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, a body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) of 30 or more, and type 2 diabetes to receive once-weekly semaglutide (2.4 mg) or placebo for 52 weeks. The primary end points were the change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS; scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating fewer symptoms and physical limitations) and the change in body weight. Confirmatory secondary end points included the change in 6-minute walk distance; a hierarchical composite end point that included death, heart failure events, and differences in the change in the KCCQ-CSS and 6-minute walk distance; and the change in the C-reactive protein (CRP) level. RESULTS: A total of 616 participants underwent randomization. The mean change in the KCCQ-CSS was 13.7 points with semaglutide and 6.4 points with placebo (estimated difference, 7.3 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.1 to 10.4; P<0.001), and the mean percentage change in body weight was -9.8% with semaglutide and -3.4% with placebo (estimated difference, -6.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -7.6 to -5.2; P<0.001). The results for the confirmatory secondary end points favored semaglutide over placebo (estimated between-group difference in change in 6-minute walk distance, 14.3 m [95% CI, 3.7 to 24.9; P = 0.008]; win ratio for hierarchical composite end point, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.29 to 1.94; P<0.001]; and estimated treatment ratio for change in CRP level, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.55 to 0.80; P<0.001]). Serious adverse events were reported in 55 participants (17.7%) in the semaglutide group and 88 (28.8%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with obesity-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and type 2 diabetes, semaglutide led to larger reductions in heart failure-related symptoms and physical limitations and greater weight loss than placebo at 1 year. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; STEP-HFpEF DM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04916470.).

Semaglutide in Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction and Obesity.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is increasing in prevalence and is associated with a high symptom burden and functional impairment, especially in persons with obesity. No therapies have been approved to target obesity-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. METHODS: We randomly assigned 529 patients who had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and a body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) of 30 or higher to receive once-weekly semaglutide (2.4 mg) or placebo for 52 weeks. The dual primary end points were the change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS; scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating fewer symptoms and physical limitations) and the change in body weight. Confirmatory secondary end points included the change in the 6-minute walk distance; a hierarchical composite end point that included death, heart failure events, and differences in the change in the KCCQ-CSS and 6-minute walk distance; and the change in the C-reactive protein (CRP) level. RESULTS: The mean change in the KCCQ-CSS was 16.6 points with semaglutide and 8.7 points with placebo (estimated difference, 7.8 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.8 to 10.9; P<0.001), and the mean percentage change in body weight was -13.3% with semaglutide and -2.6% with placebo (estimated difference, -10.7 percentage points; 95% CI, -11.9 to -9.4; P<0.001). The mean change in the 6-minute walk distance was 21.5 m with semaglutide and 1.2 m with placebo (estimated difference, 20.3 m; 95% CI, 8.6 to 32.1; P<0.001). In the analysis of the hierarchical composite end point, semaglutide produced more wins than placebo (win ratio, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.37 to 2.15; P<0.001). The mean percentage change in the CRP level was -43.5% with semaglutide and -7.3% with placebo (estimated treatment ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.72; P<0.001). Serious adverse events were reported in 35 participants (13.3%) in the semaglutide group and 71 (26.7%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and obesity, treatment with semaglutide (2.4 mg) led to larger reductions in symptoms and physical limitations, greater improvements in exercise function, and greater weight loss than placebo. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; STEP-HFpEF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04788511.).

Semaglutide (SUSTAIN and PIONEER) reduces cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes across varying cardiovascular risk.

AIM: To investigate the effects of semaglutide versus comparators on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: cardiovascular [CV] death, nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI] and nonfatal stroke) and hospitalization for heart failure (HF) in the SUSTAIN (subcutaneous semaglutide) and PIONEER (oral semaglutide) trials across subgroups of varying CV risk. METHODS: Post hoc analyses of individual patient-level data combined from SUSTAIN 6 and PIONEER 6 were performed to assess MACE and HF. MACE were analysed in subjects with and without: established CV disease and/or chronic kidney disease; prior MI or stroke; and prior HF. MACE in the SUSTAIN and PIONEER glycaemic efficacy trials were also assessed. RESULTS: In SUSTAIN 6 and PIONEER 6 combined, the hazard ratio (HR) for effect of semaglutide versus placebo on overall MACE was 0.76 (95% CI 0.62, 0.92), which was mainly driven by the effect on nonfatal stroke (HR 0.65 [95% CI 0.43, 0.97]). The HR for hospitalization for HF was 1.03 (95% CI 0.75, 1.40). The HRs for MACE were <1.0 in all subgroups, except for those with prior HF (HR 1.06 [95% CI 0.72, 1.57]); P-values for interaction of subgroup on treatment effect were >0.05, except for HF (0.046). In the combined glycaemic efficacy trials, the HR for effect of semaglutide versus comparators on MACE was 0.85 (95% CI 0.55, 1.33). CONCLUSIONS: In SUSTAIN and PIONEER combined, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue semaglutide showed consistent effects on MACE versus comparators across varying CV risk. No effect of semaglutide on MACE was observed in subjects with prior HF.

Trial design and baseline data for LIRA-PRIME: A randomized trial investigating the efficacy of liraglutide in controlling glycaemia in type 2 diabetes in a primary care setting.

AIMS: Using a pragmatic approach, the LIRA-PRIME trial aims to address a knowledge gap by comparing efficacy in controlling glycaemia with glucagon-like peptide-1 analog liraglutide vs oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) uncontrolled with metformin monotherapy in primary care practice. We report the study design and patient baseline characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This 104-week, two-arm, open-label, active-controlled trial is active in 219 primary care practices across nine countries. At screening, eligible patients with T2D were at least 18 years of age, had been using a stable daily dose of metformin ≥1500 mg or the maximum tolerated dose for ≥60 days, and had a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) of 7.5% to 9.0%, measured ≤90 days before screening. Patients were randomized (1:1) to liraglutide or OAD, both in addition to pre-trial metformin. Individual OADs were chosen by the treating physician based on local guidelines. The primary endpoint is time to inadequate glycaemic control, defined as HbA1c above 7.0% at two scheduled consecutive visits after the first 26 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: The trial randomized 1997 patients with a mean (standard deviation) age of 56.9 (10.8) years, T2D duration of 7.2 (5.9) years (range, <1-47 years), and HbA1c of 8.2%. One-fifth of patients had a history of diabetes complications, and most were overweight (24.8%) or had obesity (65.3%). CONCLUSIONS: This pragmatically designed, large-scale, multinational, randomized clinical trial will help guide treatment decisions for patients with T2D who are inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy and treated in primary care.

Hypomethylation and up-regulation of PD-1 in T cells by azacytidine in MDS/AML patients: A rationale for combined targeting of PD-1 and DNA methylation.

The hypomethylating agents (HMAs) are standard therapy for patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS); however, the majority of the patients will lose their response to HMAs over time due to unknown mechanisms. It has recently been shown that T cell expression of the immunoinhibitory receptor PD-1 is regulated by DNA methylation. In 12 of 27 patients (44%) PD-1 promoter demethylation was observed in sorted peripheral blood T cells isolated over consecutive cycles of treatment with 5-azacytidine (5-aza). The PD-1 promoter demethylation correlated with an increase in PD-1 expression. Moreover, demethylation of the PD-1 promoter correlated with a significantly worse overall response rate (8% vs. 60%, p = 0.014), and a trend towards a shorter overall survival (p = 0.11) was observed. A significantly higher baseline methylation level of the PD-1 promoter was observed in T cells of non-responding patients compared to healthy controls (p = 0.023). Accordingly, in addition to their beneficial function, HMAs induce PD-1 expression on T cells in the MDS microenvironment, thereby likely hampering the immune response against the MDS blasts. Thus, we suggest that activation of the PD-1 checkpoint during HMA treatment can be a possible resistance mechanism, which may be overcome by combination therapy with a PD-1 pathway inhibitor.

Predicting response to epigenetic therapy.

Drugs targeting the epigenome are new promising cancer treatment modalities; however, not all patients receive the same benefit from these drugs. In contrast to conventional chemotherapy, responses may take several months after the initiation of treatment to occur. Accordingly, identification of good pretreatment predictors of response is of great value. Many clinical parameters and molecular targets have been tested in preclinical and clinical studies with varying results, leaving room for optimization. Here we provide an overview of markers that may predict the efficacy of FDA- and EMA-approved epigenetic drugs.