Real-world use of oral versus subcutaneous semaglutide in a cohort of type 2 diabetic patients: which option to which patient?

PURPOSE: To evaluate the variables influencing the therapeutic choice toward oral versus subcutaneous semaglutide in a cohort of diabetic subjects. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data of 292 patients followed at the Diabetes Unit of the University Hospital of Siena and the Hospital of Grosseto, who were prescribed oral (n = 115) or subcutaneous (n = 177) semaglutide between October 2021 and October 2022. RESULTS: Oral semaglutide was preferentially prescribed in older subjects with longer disease duration in replacement of other antidiabetic drugs, while subcutaneous semaglutide was preferentially prescribed in add-on to metformin in subjects with higher body weight and BMI. After 6 months, both formulations significantly improved glycemic control and body weight, however injectable semaglutide showed a greater efficacy on A1c levels, weight loss, BMI and waist circumference reduction. No differences were found in terms of adverse events. CONCLUSION: In our experience, injectable semaglutide is preferred in patients with excess weight and shorter disease duration, while the oral formulation was used later and especially after therapeutic failure of previous therapies. Follow-up data indicate similar tolerability and efficacy of both formulations, despite subcutaneous semaglutide demonstrated greater efficacy.

Postpartum screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus in women with gestational diabetes: Is it really performed?

AIMS: This study evaluates the adherence to postpartum type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) screening in women with previous gestational diabetes (GDM) and identifies elements associated with poor attendance. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data from 650 consecutive women with GDM between 2016 and 2018, who should had 75 g-OGTT, 4-12 weeks after delivery. Impaired glucose regulation (IGR) was defined according with ADA criteria. RESULTS: Only 41% of women had postpartum OGTT. Of these, 1.9% received T2DM diagnosis, with IGR prevalence of 18%. After introducing a recommendation letter, adherence to screening increased (47% in 2017 and 43% in 2018 vs. 32% in 2016). Screening procedure was less common in women with: no-family history of T2DM (38% vs. 46%; p < 0.05), age <35 (33% vs. 47%; p < 0.01), lower level of education (32% no-high-school-diploma vs. 35% high-school-diploma vs. 49% university-degree; p < 0.01) and unstable employment (35% vs. 44%; p < 0.05). At multivariate logistic regression analysis, age <35 years (OR 1.61; 95%CI: 1.14-2.28) and lowest educational level (OR 1.64; 95% CI: 1.13-2.37, compared to University degree) were independently associated with non-adherence. CONCLUSION: Only 41% of women had postpartum T2DM screening. Women with lower attendance are those with age <35 years or low educational level. Further strategies are needed to implement postpartum test.