Proportion of participants with type 2 diabetes achieving a metabolic composite endpoint with once-weekly semaglutide treatment versus comparators: Post hoc pooled analysis from SUSTAIN 1-5, 7-10 and SUSTAIN China.

AIM: To compare the proportion of participants with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with once-weekly (OW) subcutaneous (SC) semaglutide versus comparators who achieved a composite metabolic endpoint. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SUSTAIN 1-5, 7-10 and SUSTAIN China trial data were pooled. Participants with T2D (aged ≥18 years) and glycated haemoglobin ≥7.0% (≥53 mmol/mol) who had been randomized to OW SC semaglutide (0.5 or 1.0 mg) or comparator in addition to background medication. Using patient-level data pooled by treatment, proportions of participants achieving the metabolic composite endpoint, defined as glycated haemoglobin <7% (<53 mmol/mol), blood pressure <140/90 mmHg and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol <130 mg/dl (<3.37 mmol/L), were evaluated following baseline adjustments. Endpoints were analysed per trial using a binomial logistic regression model with treatment, region/country and stratification factor as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate. Pooled analysis used logistic regression with treatment and trial as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate. RESULTS: This post hoc analysis included data from 7633 participants across 10 trials. The proportion of participants who achieved the metabolic composite endpoint was significantly higher with OW SC semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg versus comparators (23.7% and 32.0% vs. 11.5%, respectively; p < .0001). Likewise, when the OW SC semaglutide doses were pooled, significantly higher proportions of patients receiving semaglutide achieved the composite metabolic endpoint versus comparators (29.1% vs. 11.4%, respectively; p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with OW SC semaglutide versus comparators was associated with increased proportions of participants with T2D meeting the composite metabolic endpoint.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide 1.0mg vs once-daily liraglutide 1.2mg as add-on to 1-3 oral antidiabetic drugs in subjects with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 10).

AIMS: SUSTAIN 10 compared the efficacy and safety of the anticipated most frequent semaglutide dose (1.0mg) with the current most frequently prescribed liraglutide dose in Europe (1.2mg), reflecting clinical practice. METHODS: In this phase 3b, open-label trial, 577 adults with type 2 diabetes (HbA1c 7.0-11.0%) on 1-3 oral antidiabetic drugs were randomized 1:1 to subcutaneous once-weekly semaglutide 1.0mg or subcutaneous once-daily liraglutide 1.2mg. Primary and confirmatory secondary endpoints were changes in HbA1c and body weight from baseline to week 30, respectively. RESULTS: Mean HbA1c (baseline 8.2%) decreased by 1.7% with semaglutide and 1.0% with liraglutide (estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0.69%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.82 to -0.56, P<0.0001). Mean body weight (baseline 96.9kg) decreased by 5.8kg with semaglutide and 1.9kg with liraglutide (ETD -3.83kg; 95% CI -4.57 to -3.09, P<0.0001). The proportions of subjects achieving glycaemic targets of<7.0% and=6.5%, weight loss of=5% and=10%, and a composite endpoint of HbA1c<7.0% without severe or blood glucose-confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemia and no weight gain were greater with semaglutide vs liraglutide (all P<0.0001). Both treatments had similar safety profiles, except for more frequent gastrointestinal disorders (the most common adverse events [AEs]) and AEs leading to premature treatment discontinuation with semaglutide vs liraglutide (43.9% vs 38.3% and 11.4% vs 6.6%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Semaglutide was superior to liraglutide in reducing HbA1c and body weight. Safety profiles were generally similar, except for higher rates of gastrointestinal AEs with semaglutide vs liraglutide.

Efficacy of an intermittent energy restriction diet in a primary care setting.

PURPOSE: Intermittent energy restriction (IER) is a popular weight loss (WL) strategy; however, its efficacy in clinical practice remains unknown. The present study compared the effects of IER compared to continuous energy restriction (CER) on WL and cardiometabolic risk factors in primary care. METHODS: A (self-selected) cohort study was conducted at the Rotherham Institute for Obesity (RIO), a primary care-based weight management service. 197(24% male) obese patients volunteered to participate and selected their diet group. IER participants (n = 99) consumed ~ 2600 kJ for two days/week. CER participants (n = 98) restricted their diet by ~ 2100 kJ/day below estimated requirements. Both interventions were delivered alongside RIO standard care. Changes in anthropometry and cardiometabolic disease risk markers (fasting biochemistry and blood pressure) were assessed after a 6-month intervention period and then participants were followed up again 6 months later (month 12). RESULTS: 27 IER patients (27%) and 39 CER patients (40%) completed the 6-month weight loss phase. Among completers, mean (SEM) WL was greater in the IER group at 6 months (5.4 ± 1.1% versus 2.8 ± 0.6%; p = 0.01), as were reductions in fat mass (p < 0.001) and improvements in systolic blood pressure (p < 0.001). Fasting insulin (p = 0.873) and diastolic blood pressure (p = 0.701) were reduced similarly in both groups. However, in the IER group, changes in anthropometry and blood pressure in the IER group had reverted to baseline by 12-month follow-up, whilst the CER group maintained weight loss but showed an increase in blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Among completers, IER resulted in superior short-term changes in anthropometry and some cardiometabolic risk factors. However, rates of attrition and weight regain were higher compared with standard care, providing important insights in the implementations of IER within a "real-life" NHS setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN31465600.