Search

In the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with obesity and HFpEF (STEP-HFpEF) program, semaglutide improved heart failure (HF)-related symptoms, physical limitations, and exercise function, and reduced bodyweight in patients with obesity-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Whether semaglutide improves functional status, as assessed by NYHA functional class, is unknown. The goal of this study was to examine the effects of semaglutide on change in NYHA functional class over time. We also investigated the effects of semaglutide on HF-related symptoms, physical limitations, and bodyweight and other trial endpoints across baseline NYHA functional class categories. This was a prespecified analysis of pooled data from 2 international, double-blind, randomized trials (STEP-HFpEF and STEP-HFpEF type 2 diabetes [STEP-HFpEF DM], comprising the STEP-HFpEF program), which collectively randomized 1,145 participants with obesity-related HFpEF to once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for 52 weeks. The outcome of interest for this analysis was the change in NYHA functional class (baseline to 52 weeks). We also investigated the effects of semaglutide on the dual primary, confirmatory secondary, and selected exploratory endpoints according to baseline NYHA functional class. More semaglutide-treated than placebo-treated patients had an improvement in NYHA functional class (32.6% vs 21.5%, respectively; OR: 2.20 [95% CI: 1.62-2.99; P < 0.001]) and fewer semaglutide-treated patients experienced deterioration in NYHA functional class (2.09% vs 5.24%, respectively; OR: 0.36 [95% CI: 0.19-0.70; P = 0.003]) at 52 weeks. Semaglutide (vs placebo) improved the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CCS) across NYHA functional class categories; this was especially pronounced in those in NYHA functional classes III/IV (10.5 points [95% CI: 6.6-14.4 points]) vs NYHA functional class II (6.0 points [95% CI: 3.4-8.6 points]) (P interaction = 0.06). By contrast, the degree of reduction in bodyweight was similar with semaglutide vs placebo regardless of baseline NYHA functional class category (NYHA functional class II, −8.4% [95% CI: −9.4% to −7.3%]; NYHA functional classes III/IV, −8.3% [95% CI: −9.9% to −6.8%]; P interaction = 0.96). Semaglutide consistently improved 6-minute walking distance (6MWD), the hierarchical composite endpoint (death, HF events, differences in KCCQ-CSS, and 6MWD changes), and reduced C-reactive protein and N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide across NYHA functional class categories (all P interactions = NS). In patients with obesity-related HFpEF, fewer semaglutide-treated than placebo-treated patients had a deterioration, and more had an improvement, in NYHA functional class at 52 weeks. Semaglutide consistently improved HF-related symptoms, physical limitations, and exercise function, and reduced bodyweight and biomarkers of inflammation and congestion in all NYHA functional class categories. Semaglutide-mediated improvements in health status were especially large in patients with NYHA functional classes III/IV. (Research Study to Look at How Well Semaglutide Works in People Living With Heart Failure and Obesity; NCT04788511) (Research Study to Look at How Well Semaglutide Works in People Living With Heart Failure, Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes; NCT04916470) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gastrointestinal adverse events (GI AEs) are common with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs). We aimed to identify risk predictors for GI AEs with once-weekly semaglutide to support clinicians identify high-risk patients. Data from SUSTAIN 1-10 and two SUSTAIN Japanese trials were used to assess the effects of age, region, ethnicity, diabetes duration, gender, renal function, smoking status, HbA1c, body weight (BW), alanine aminotransferase and bilirubin on the incidence of GI AEs with semaglutide vs. non-GLP-1RA comparators (exenatide extended release, dulaglutide and liraglutide were excluded). Changes in HbA1c and BW were assessed by GI AE status. Frailty (age, renal impairment, smoking) and female gender were associated with marginally higher risk of GI AEs than non-frailty and male gender, regardless of treatment. With semaglutide, patients with lower baseline BW were at higher risk of GI AEs vs. those with higher BW. With comparators, lower baseline BW was associated with lower risk than higher BW. These results were confirmed by formal statistical analysis (data not shown). Semaglutide reduced HbA1c and BW across the trials, regardless of GI AEs (Figure). In conclusion, GI AEs are hard to predict although they tend to be more common in frail vs. non-frail patients and females vs. males, regardless of treatment. Semaglutide reduced HbA1c and BW regardless of the presence/absence of GI AEs. Disclosure: T. Vilsbøll: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Mundipharma International, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Consultant; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lilly Diabetes, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Sanofi. S. Harring: Employee; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. I. Holst: Employee; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. F.K. Knop: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Mundipharma International, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi. Consultant; Self; Carmot Therapeutics, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk A/S. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Gubra, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi, Zealand Pharma A/S. Speaker's Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Norgine B.V., Novo Nordisk A/S. K. Kvist: Employee; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. I. Lingvay: Consultant; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Intarcia Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., MannKind Corporation, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi, TARGET PharmaSolutions, Valeritas, Inc. Other Relationship; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. Funding: Novo Nordisk A/S [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To assess what drives change in health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) in type 2 diabetes in the SUSTAIN 6 trial and identify potential mediators of the treatment effect of semaglutide on HRQoL scores. Materials and Methods: The Short Form (SF)‐36v2® questionnaire [comprising physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS)] was used to assess changes in HRQoL from baseline to week 104, by treatment, in a prespecified analysis. This post‐hoc analysis assessed change in PCS and MCS using the following factors as parameter/covariate, using descriptive statistics and linear regressions: major adverse cardiac events, hypoglycaemia, gastrointestinal adverse events, at least one episode of nausea, vomiting or diarrhoea, and change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), body weight, blood pressure, heart rate and estimated glomerular filtration rate. Results: Mean change in overall PCS score was +1.0 with semaglutide versus +0.4 with placebo, and +0.5 versus −0.2 for MCS. The treatment effect of semaglutide versus placebo (unadjusted estimate) was 0.7 [(95% confidence interval 0.1, 1.2); P = 0.018] on PCS and this was reduced when adjusted for change in HbA1c [0.4 (−0.2, 1.0), P =.167] and body weight [0.3 (−0.3, 0.9), P =.314]. The unadjusted treatment effect on MCS [0.7 (−0.0, 1.5), P =.054] was only reduced when adjusted for change in HbA1c [0.3 (−0.4, 1.1), P =.397]. When adjusting for all other parameters separately, the estimated effect of semaglutide on PCS and MCS qualitatively did not change. Conclusions: Semaglutide improved HRQoL versus placebo; greater improvements with semaglutide versus placebo were possibly mediated, in part, by change in HbA1c and body weight. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01720446 (SUSTAIN 6). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a heterogeneous disease with many therapies available. Current guidelines recommend individualized therapy, and this could be facilitated by using estimates of outcomes based on individual characteristics instead of population-level outcomes. There are challenges to defining and implementing individualized therapy in a data-driven and patient-oriented way. We propose criteria to aid implementation of individualized medicine, including: 1) robust insights based on high-quality clinical data, to guide treatment selection; 2) integration of patient-oriented outcomes with engagement of providers and patients; 3) provision of a user-friendly, efficient tool for use in the clinic. We are developing an interactive tool that draws on data from a wide range of randomized controlled trials, e.g., all treatment arms from the full phase 3a program for once-weekly semaglutide. The tool selects the appropriate trial from a database and shows the predicted change in outcomes on initiation/continuation with different therapies over 26-30 weeks. Estimates are based on characteristics such as age, BMI, and T2D duration (Figure). In conclusion, a tool such as this could help clinicians and patients use high-quality, large-scale data from contemporary trials to select individualized treatment regimens. Disclosure: A.R. Kahkoska: Other Relationship; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. J.B. Buse: Consultant; Self; Cirius Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Neurimmune. Research Support; Self; American Diabetes Association, National Institutes of Health, Novo Nordisk A/S, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Sanofi, Tolerion, Inc., vTv Therapeutics. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Mellitus Health, Pendulum Therapeutics, PhaseBio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Stability Health. Other Relationship; Self; ADOCIA, AstraZeneca, Dance Biopharm Holdings, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, MannKind Corporation, NovaTarg Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk A/S, Senseonics, Inc, vTv Therapeutics, Zafgen, Inc. S. Harring: Employee; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. I. Holst: Employee; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. F.K. Knop: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Mundipharma International, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi. Consultant; Self; Carmot Therapeutics, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk A/S. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Gubra, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi, Zealand Pharma A/S. Speaker's Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Norgine B.V., Novo Nordisk A/S. K. Kvist: Employee; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. R.E. Pratley: Other Relationship; Self; AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline plc., Glytec, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC., Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. Funding: Novo Nordisk A/S [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Treat‐to‐target, randomized controlled trials have confirmed lower rates of hypoglycaemia at equivalent glycaemic control with insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in patients with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D). Treat‐to‐target trials are designed to enable comparisons of safety and tolerability at a similar HbA1c level. In this post hoc analysis of the SWITCH 1 and 2 trials, we utilised a patient‐level modelling approach to compare how glycaemic control might differ between basal insulins at a similar rate of hypoglycaemia. Materials and Methods: Data for HbA1c and symptomatic hypoglycaemia from the SWITCH 1 and SWITCH 2 trials were analyzed separately for patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes, respectively. The association between the individual patient‐level risk of hypoglycaemia and HbA1c was investigated using a Poisson regression model and used to estimate potential differences in glycaemic control with degludec versus glargine U100, at the same rate of hypoglycaemia. Results: Improvements in glycaemic control increased the incidence of hypoglycaemia with both basal insulins across diabetes types. Our analysis suggests that patients could achieve a mean HbA1c reduction of 0.70 [0.05; 2.20]95% CI (for type 1 diabetes) or 0.96 [0.39; 1.99]95% CI (for type 2 diabetes) percentage points (8 [1; 24]95% CI or 10 [4; 22]95% CI mmol/mol, respectively) further with degludec than with glargine U100 before incurring an equivalent risk of hypoglycaemia. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that patients in clinical practice may be able to achieve lower glycaemia targets with degludec versus glargine U100, before incurring an equivalent risk of hypoglycaemia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]