Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Oral semaglutide is a tablet co-formulation of the human glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analog semaglutide with the absorption enhancer sodium N -(8-[2-hydroxybenzoyl] amino) caprylate (SNAC). The absorption of coadministered oral drugs may be altered due to enhancement by SNAC, potential gastric emptying delay by semaglutide, or other mechanisms. Two one-sequence crossover trials investigated the effect of oral semaglutide on the pharmacokinetics of lisinopril, warfarin, digoxin, and metformin. Methods In trial 1, 52 healthy subjects received lisinopril (20 mg single dose) or warfarin (25 mg single dose) with subsequent coadministration with SNAC alone (300 mg single dose), followed by oral semaglutide 20 mg once daily (steady state). In trial 2, 32 healthy subjects received digoxin (500 μg single dose) or metformin (850 mg twice daily for 4 days), with subsequent coadministration with SNAC alone followed by oral semaglutide, as in trial 1. Results There were no apparent effects of oral semaglutide on area under the plasma concentration–time curve (AUC) and maximum plasma concentration ( C max ) for lisinopril, warfarin, and digoxin. The AUC of metformin was increased by 32% (90% confidence interval 1.23–1.43) by oral semaglutide coadministration versus metformin alone, whereas the C max was unaffected. SNAC alone did not affect exposure of lisinopril, warfarin, digoxin, or metformin. Adverse events were in line with those previously observed for GLP-1 receptor agonists. Conclusions Oral semaglutide or SNAC alone did not appear to affect the exposure of lisinopril, warfarin, or digoxin, and, based on its wide therapeutic index, the higher metformin exposure with oral semaglutide was not considered clinically relevant.

In patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, weekly semaglutide significantly reduced risks of major kidney events, cardiovascular events, and death from any cause while slowing loss of kidney function.

Cagrilintide, a long-acting amylin analogue, and semaglutide 2·4 mg, a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue, are both being investigated as options for weight management. We aimed to determine the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of this drug combination. In this randomised, placebo-controlled, multiple-ascending dose, phase 1b trial, individuals aged 18–55 years with a body-mass index 27·0−39·9 kg/m2 and who were otherwise healthy were recruited from a single centre in the USA. The trial included six sequential overlapping cohorts, and in each cohort eligible participants were randomly assigned (3:1) to once-weekly subcutaneous cagrilintide (0·16, 0·30, 0·60, 1·2, 2·4, or 4·5 mg) or matched placebo, in combination with once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2·4 mg, without lifestyle interventions. In each cohort, the doses of cagrilintide and semaglutide were co-escalated in 4-week intervals to the desired dose over 16 weeks, participants were treated at the target dose for 4 weeks, and then followed up for 5 weeks. Participants, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was number of treatment-emergent adverse events from baseline to end of follow-up. Secondary pharmacokinetic endpoints assessed from day of last dose (week 19) to end of treatment (week 20) were area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 168 h (AUC0–168 h) and maximum concentration [Cmax] of cagrilintide and semaglutide; exploratory pharmacokinetic endpoints were half-life, time to Cmax [tmax], plasma clearance, and volume of distribution of cagrilintide and semaglutide; and exploratory pharmacodynamic endpoints were changes in bodyweight, glycaemic parameters, and hormones. Safety, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic endpoints were assessed in all participants who were exposed to at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03600480, and is now complete. Between July 25, 2018, and Dec 17, 2019, 285 individuals were screened and 96 were randomly assigned to cagrilintide (0·16–2·4 mg group n=12; 4·5 mg group n=11) or placebo (n=24), in combination with semaglutide 2·4 mg, of whom 95 were exposed to treatment (one patient in 0·60 mg cagrilintide group was not exposed) and included in the safety and full analysis datasets. The mean age was 40·6 years (SD 9·2), 56 (59%) of 95 participants were men and 51 (54%) were Black or African American. Of 566 adverse events reported in 92 participants (69 [97%] of 71 participants assigned to 0·16–4·5 mg cagrilintide and 23 [96%] of 24 assigned to placebo), 207 (37%) were gastrointestinal disorders. Most adverse events were mild to moderate in severity and the proportion of participants with one or more adverse event was similar across treatment groups. Exposure was proportional to cagrilintide dose and did not affect semaglutide exposure or elimination. AUC0–168 h ranged from 926 nmol × h/L to 24 271 nmol × h/L, and Cmax ranged from 6·14 nmol/L to 170 nmol/L with cagrilintide 0·16–4·5 mg. AUC0–168 h ranged from 12 757 nmol × h/L to 15 305 nmol × h/L, and Cmax ranged from 96·4 nmol/L to 120 nmol/L with semaglutide 2·4 mg. Cagrilintide 0·16−4·5 mg had a half-life of 159–195 h, with a median tmax of 24–72 h. Semaglutide 2·4 mg had a half-life of 145–165 h, with a median tmax of 12–24 h. Plasma clearance and volume of distribution for both cagrilintide and semaglutide were similar across treatment groups. At week 20, mean percentage bodyweight reductions were greater with cagrilintide 1·2 and 2·4 mg than with placebo (15·7% [SE 1·6] for cagrilintide 1·2 mg and 17·1% [1·5] for cagrilintide 2·4 mg vs 9·8% [1·2] for pooled placebo cohorts 1–5; estimated treatment difference of −6·0% [95% CI −9·9 to −2·0] for cagrilintide 1·2 mg and −7·4% [−11·2 to −3·5] for cagrilintide 2·4 mg vs pooled placebo), and with cagrilintide 4·5 mg than with matched placebo (15·4% [1·3] vs 8·0% [2·2]; estimated treatment difference −7·4% [−12·8 to −2·1]), all in combination with semaglutide 2·4 mg. Glycaemic parameters improved in all treatment groups, independently of cagrilintide dose. Changes in hormones were similar across treatment groups. Concomitant treatment with cagrilintide and semaglutide 2·4 mg was well tolerated with an acceptable safety profile. Future larger and longer trials are needed to fully assess the efficacy and safety of this treatment combination. Novo Nordisk A/S.

Introduction. Hypoglycemic drugs affect the bone quality and the risk of fractures in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We aimed to investigate the effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and insulin on bone mineral density (BMD) in T2DM. Methods. In this single-blinded study, a total of 65 patients with T2DM were randomly assigned into four groups for 52 weeks: the exenatide group (n=19), dulaglutide group (n=19), insulin glargine group (n=10), and placebo (n=17). General clinical data were collected, and BMD was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Results. Compared with baseline, the glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) decreased significantly in the exenatide (8.11±0.24% vs. 7.40±0.16%, P=0.007), dulaglutide (8.77±0.37% vs. 7.06±0.28%, P<0.001), and insulin glargine (8.57±0.24% vs. 7.23±0.25%, P<0.001) groups after treatment. In the exenatide group, the BMD of the total hip increased. In the dulaglutide group, only the BMD of the femoral neck decreased (P=0.027), but the magnitude of decrease was less than that in the placebo group; the BMD of L1-L4, femoral neck, and total hip decreased significantly (P<0.05) in the placebo group, while in the insulin glargine group, the BMD of L2, L4, and L1-4 increased (P<0.05). Compared with the placebo group, the BMD of the femoral neck and total hip in the exenatide group and the insulin glargine group were increased significantly (P<0.05); compared with the exenatide group, the BMD of L4 in the insulin glargine group was also increased (P=0.001). Conclusions. Compared with the placebo, GLP-1RAs demonstrated an increase of BMD at multiple sites of the body after treatment, which may not exacerbate the consequences of bone fragility. Therefore, GLP-1RAs might be considered for patients with T2DM. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01648582.

Obesity and type 2 diabetes are prevalent chronic diseases effectively managed by semaglutide. Here we studied the effects of semaglutide on the circulating proteome using baseline and end-of-treatment serum samples from two phase 3 trials in participants with overweight or obesity, with or without diabetes: STEP 1 ( n  = 1,311) and STEP 2 ( n  = 645). We identified evidence supporting broad effects of semaglutide, implicating processes related to body weight regulation, glycemic control, lipid metabolism and inflammatory pathways. Several proteins were regulated with semaglutide, after accounting for changes in body weight and HbA 1c at end of trial, suggesting effects of semaglutide on the proteome beyond weight loss and glucose lowering. A comparison of semaglutide with real-world proteomic profiles revealed potential benefits on disease-specific proteomic signatures including the downregulation of specific proteins associated with cardiovascular disease risk, supporting its reported effects of lowering cardiovascular disease risk and potential drug repurposing opportunities. This study showcases the potential of proteomics data gathered from randomized trials for providing insights into disease mechanisms and drug repurposing opportunities. These data also highlight the unmet need for, and importance of, examining proteomic changes in response to weight loss pharmacotherapy in future trials. Using serum samples collected from participants of the STEP 1 and STEP 2 trials, the authors have uncovered changes to the proteome upon semaglutide treatment, which can shed light on the mechanism of action of the drug driving its benefits in obesity-related conditions.

Obesity is a major public health issue, and new pharmaceuticals for weight management are needed. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue semaglutide in comparison with liraglutide and a placebo in promoting weight loss. We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo and active controlled, multicentre, dose-ranging, phase 2 trial. The study was done in eight countries involving 71 clinical sites. Eligible participants were adults (≥18 years) without diabetes and with a body-mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or more. We randomly assigned participants (6:1) to each active treatment group (ie, semaglutide [0·05 mg, 0·1 mg, 0·2 mg, 0·3 mg, or 0·4 mg; initiated at 0·05 mg per day and incrementally escalated every 4 weeks] or liraglutide [3·0 mg; initiated at 0·6 mg per day and escalated by 0·6 mg per week]) or matching placebo group (equal injection volume and escalation schedule to active treatment group) using a block size of 56. All treatment doses were delivered once-daily via subcutaneous injections. Participants and investigators were masked to the assigned study treatment but not the target dose. The primary endpoint was percentage weight loss at week 52. The primary analysis was done using intention-to-treat ANCOVA estimation with missing data derived from the placebo pool. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02453711. Between Oct 1, 2015, and Feb 11, 2016, 957 individuals were randomly assigned (102–103 participants per active treatment group and 136 in the pooled placebo group). Mean baseline characteristics included age 47 years, bodyweight 111·5 kg, and BMI 39·3 kg/m2. Bodyweight data were available for 891 (93%) of 957 participants at week 52. Estimated mean weight loss was −2·3% for the placebo group versus −6·0% (0·05 mg), −8·6% (0·1 mg), −11·6% (0·2 mg), −11·2% (0·3 mg), and −13·8% (0·4 mg) for the semaglutide groups. All semaglutide groups versus placebo were significant (unadjusted p≤0·0010), and remained significant after adjustment for multiple testing (p≤0·0055). Mean bodyweight reductions for 0·2 mg or more of semaglutide versus liraglutide were all significant (−13·8% to −11·2% vs −7·8%). Estimated weight loss of 10% or more occurred in 10% of participants receiving placebo compared with 37–65% receiving 0·1 mg or more of semaglutide (p<0·0001 vs placebo). All semaglutide doses were generally well tolerated, with no new safety concerns. The most common adverse events were dose-related gastrointestinal symptoms, primarily nausea, as seen previously with GLP-1 receptor agonists. In combination with dietary and physical activity counselling, semaglutide was well tolerated over 52 weeks and showed clinically relevant weight loss compared with placebo at all doses. Novo Nordisk A/S.

Abstract Context In previous SURPASS studies tirzepatide reduced hemoglobin glycated A1c (HbA1c) and body weight and improved markers of insulin sensitivity and β-cell function to a greater extent than comparators. Objective Explore changes in biomarkers of β-cell function and insulin sensitivity and in efficacy profiles in baseline biomarker quartile analyses with tirzepatide compared to semaglutide. Design Post hoc analysis of SURPASS-2 phase 3 trial (participants randomly assigned to receive weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide or semaglutide for 40 weeks). Setting Post hoc analysis of 128 sites in 8 countries. Participants A total of 1879 participants with type 2 diabetes. Interventions Once-weekly tirzepatide (5, 10, 15 mg) or semaglutide 1 mg. Main outcomes measures Change in homeostatic model assessment indices for pancreatic β-cell function (HOMA2-B) and for insulin resistance (HOMA2-IR), fasting glucagon, fasting C-peptide, and fasting insulin. Results At week 40, a greater increase in HOMA2-B was seen with tirzepatide (5, 10, 15 mg) doses (96.9-120.4%) than with semaglutide 1 mg (84.0%) (P < .05). There was a greater reduction in HOMA2-IR with all doses of tirzepatide (15.5%-24.0%) than with semaglutide 1 mg (5.1%) (P < .05). Tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg resulted in a significant reduction in both fasting C-peptide (5.2%-6.0%) and fasting glucagon (53.0%-55.3%) compared with an increase of C–peptide (3.3%) and a reduction of glucagon (47.7%) with semaglutide 1 mg (P < .05). HbA1c and body weight reductions were greater with all tirzepatide doses than semaglutide within each HOMA2-B and HOMA2-IR baseline quartile. Conclusion In this post hoc analysis, improvements in HbA1c and weight loss were consistent and significantly higher with tirzepatide, regardless of baseline β-cell function and insulin resistance, compared with semaglutide.

Abstract Context In a clinical study, tirzepatide, a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide/glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GIP/GLP-1RA), provided superior glycemic control vs the GLP-1RA semaglutide. The physiologic mechanisms are incompletely understood. Objective This work aimed to evaluate treatment effects by model-based analyses of mixed-meal tolerance test (MMTT) data. Methods A 28-week double–blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of patients with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin was conducted at 2 clinical research centers in Germany. Interventions included tirzepatide 15 mg, semaglutide 1 mg, and placebo. Main outcome measures included glycemic control, model-derived β-cell function indices including insulin secretion rate (ISR) at 7.2–mmol/L glucose (ISR7.2), β-cell glucose sensitivity (β-CGS), insulin sensitivity, and estimated hepatic insulin-to-glucagon ratio. Results Tirzepatide significantly reduced fasting glucose and MMTT total glucose area under the curve (AUC) vs semaglutide (P < .01). Incremental glucose AUC did not differ significantly between treatments; therefore, greater total glucose AUC reduction with tirzepatide was mainly attributable to greater suppression of fasting glucose. A greater reduction in total ISR AUC was achieved with tirzepatide vs semaglutide (P < .01), in the context of greater improvement in insulin sensitivity with tirzepatide (P < .01). ISR7.2 was significantly increased with tirzepatide vs semaglutide (P < .05), showing improved β-CGS. MMTT-derived β-CGS was increased but not significantly different between treatments. Both treatments reduced fasting glucagon and total glucagon AUC, with glucagon AUC significantly reduced with tirzepatide vs semaglutide (P < .01). The estimated hepatic insulin-to-glucagon ratio did not change substantially with either treatment. Conclusion These results suggest that the greater glycemic control observed for tirzepatide manifests as improved fasting glucose and glucose excursion control, due to improvements in ISR, insulin sensitivity, and glucagon suppression.

Background: GLP-1 analogues are a relatively new class of medications that form the cornerstone of diabetes treatment. They possess invaluable glucose-lowering properties without hypoglycemic effects as well as strong cardioprotective effects. The gut microbiome has become the focus of numerous studies, demonstrating its influence not only on the gut but also on the overall well-being of the entire body. However, the effects of GLP-1 analogs on gut microbiota remain uncertain. Scope of review: Our systematic review (based on PRISMA guidelines) aimed to gather knowledge on the effects of GLP-1 analogue medications on the composition, richness, and abundance of gut microbiota in both animal and human models. Conclusions: Thirty-eight studies were included in this systematic review. GLP-1 analogues have demonstrated a notable impact on the composition, richness, and diversity of gut microbiota. We can conclude, following the obtained research results of our study, that liraglutide promotes the growth of beneficial genera relevant for beneficial metabolic functions. Exenatide and exendin-4 administration showed various effects on the microbiome composition in animal and human studies. In animal models, it increased genera associated with improved metabolism; however, in human models, genera linked to better metabolic functions and escalated inflammation increased. Following dulaglutide administration, increases in Bacteroides, Akkermansia, and Ruminococcus, genera connected to an improved metabolic model, were significant. Finally, varied results were obtained after semaglutide treatment, in which A. muciniphila, known for its positive metabolic functions, increased; however, microbial diversity decreased. Semaglutide treatment provided various results indicating many confounding factors in semaglutide’s impact on the gut microbiota. Results varied due to dissimilarities in the studied populations and the duration of the studies. Further research is essential to confirm these findings and to better recognize their implications for the clinical outcomes of patients.

Recent studies have demonstrated the efficacy of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in enhancing glycemic control, regulating body weight, and modulating lipid metabolism. However, their effects on lipoprotein subfractions have not been clarified. The objective of this 52-week, single-center, randomized trial was to compare the effects of subcutaneous semaglutide administered once weekly and oral sitagliptin administered once daily on anthropometric measurements and lipoprotein subfractions measured by Lipoprint gelelectrophoresis in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). A total of 34 obese individuals with T2DM were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned to receive semaglutide (n = 18) or sitagliptin (n = 16). Thirty-one age- and body weight-matched non-diabetic obese individuals served as controls. Semaglutide treatment resulted in significant reductions in body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and HbA1c, along with improvements in lipid parameters, including reductions in LDL cholesterol and non-HDL cholesterol levels, and redistribution of LDL and HDL subfractions toward a less atherogenic profile. Conversely, sitagliptin elicited modest glycemic improvements without substantial alterations in lipid composition. Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that fluctuations in lipoprotein subfractions were not influenced by changes in BMI or HbA1c. These results support the pleiotropic metabolic benefits of semaglutide and its potential role in managing the cardiometabolic risk of T2DM.