EMERGING THERAPIES: DRUGS AND REGIMENS

1926 Diabetes Care Volume 41, September 2018

Ildiko Lingvay,1 Cyrus V. Desouza,2

A 26-Week Randomized Katarina S. Lalic,3 Ludger Rose,4
Thomas Hansen,5 Jeppe Zacho,5 and
Controlled Trial of Semaglutide Thomas R. Pieber6

Once Daily Versus Liraglutide and

Placebo in Patients With Type 2
Diabetes Suboptimally Controlled
on Diet and Exercise With or
Without Metformin
Diabetes Care 2018;41:1926–1937 | https://doi.org/10.2337/dc17-2381

OBJECTIVE
To investigate the efficacy and safety of once-daily semaglutide in comparison with
once-daily liraglutide and placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This 26-week, multicenter, double-blind trial involved patients diagnosed with 1
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Cen-
type 2 diabetes with HbA1c 7.0–10.0% (53–86 mmol/mol) and treated with diet ter at Dallas, Dallas, TX
2
and exercise with or without metformin. Patients were randomized 2:2:1 to once- University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha,
NE
daily semaglutide, liraglutide, or placebo in one of four volume-matched doses 3
Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, and
(semaglutide 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, or 0.3 mg and liraglutide 0.3, 0.6, 1.2, or 1.8 mg, with Clinic for Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolic
both compared within each volume-matched dose group). Primary end point was Diseases, Clinical Center of Serbia, Belgrade,
change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26. Serbia
4
Institute for Diabetes Research in Münster,
RESULTS Münster, Germany
5
Novo Nordisk A/S, Søborg, Denmark
In total, 705 randomized patients were exposed to trial products. At week 26, a 6
Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria
dose-dependent change in HbA1c was observed with semaglutide from 21.1% Corresponding author: Thomas R. Pieber, thomas
(0.05 mg) to 21.9% (0.3 mg) and with liraglutide from 20.5% (0.3 mg) to 21.3% [email protected].
(1.8 mg) (all P < 0.001 in favor of volume-matched semaglutide dose). Change with Received 13 November 2017 and accepted 18
pooled placebo was 20.02% (P < 0.0001 vs. semaglutide). Gastrointestinal (GI) dis- June 2018.
orders were the most common adverse events (AEs) with semaglutide and liraglu- Clinical trial reg. no. NCT02461589, clinicaltrials
tide, occurring in 32.8–54.0% and 21.9–41.5% of patients, respectively. .gov.
This article contains Supplementary Data online
CONCLUSIONS at http://care.diabetesjournals.org/lookup/suppl/
doi:10.2337/dc17-2381/-/DC1.
Once-daily semaglutide at doses up to 0.3 mg/day resulted in greater reductions
This article is featured in a podcast available at
in HbA1c compared with liraglutide or placebo but with a higher frequency of GI
http://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/diabetes-
AEs. core-update-podcasts.
© 2018 by the American Diabetes Association.
Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) is a gut-derived peptide and a potent blood glucose Readers may use this article as long as the work
is properly cited, the use is educational and not
(BG)-lowering hormone (1). It functions in a glucose-dependent manner and is for profit, and the work is not altered. More infor-
therefore associated with a low risk of hypoglycemia (2). GLP-1 inhibits gastric mation is available at http://www.diabetesjournals
emptying and reduces body weight by lowering energy intake and inducing feelings .org/content/license.
care.diabetesjournals.org Lingvay and Associates 1927

of satiety, a mechanism thought to involve Patients were randomized in a 2:2:1 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 mg, respectively,
GLP-1 receptors expressed in the hypothal- ratio to semaglutide:liraglutide:placebo and liraglutide 0.3, 0.6, 1.2, and 1.8 mg,
amus, the region of the brain that regulates in one of four volume-matched doses respectively. The last treatment arm
satiety and appetite (3–5). For these rea- (described below and in Supplementary represents the semaglutide exploratory
sons, alongside evidence that some GLP-1 Fig. 1). The trial included an additional flexible escalation arm based on tolera-
receptor agonists can improve cardiovas- open-label treatment arm to explore bility to GI AEs (Supplementary Fig. 1).
cular outcomes (6,7), these therapies have whether a more flexible semaglutide The randomization session was per-
become integral in the treatment of type 2 titration scheme could improve tolera- formed in the interactive voice/web-
diabetes and are recommended early in bility. response system, which would allocate
the treatment guidelines (8,9). The trial was conducted in compliance the dispensing unit number of trial prod-
Semaglutide is a new human GLP-1 an- with the International Conference on uct to be dispensed to the patient. Pa-
alog for the treatment of patients with Harmonization Good Clinical Practice tients were assigned to the lowest
type 2 diabetes. It has 94% amino acid se- guidelines (17) and the Declaration of available number allocated to the trial
quence homology to native GLP-1; amino Helsinki (18). Written informed consent site. The patient number was a six-digit
acid substitutions in the semaglutide mol- was obtained from all patients before number. Randomization was performed
ecule confer increased albumin affinity any trial-related activities commenced, by the study sponsor.
while also making it resistant to degra- in line with institutional review board– A portion of the trial was double
dation by dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4). approved detailed informed consent blinded to the study sponsor, investiga-
Consequently, semaglutide has a half-life procedures: subjects were provided ver- tors, and patients. Semaglutide, liraglu-
of ;1 week (10). bal and written information about the tide, and placebo were visually identical
In the Semaglutide Unabated Sustain- trial and the procedures involved in a to fulfill the requirements for double-
ability in Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes form that they could read and under- blind procedures, and equal volumes
(SUSTAIN) phase 3a global clinical trial stand. Subjects were fully informed of of semaglutide, liraglutide, and placebo
program in patients with type 2 diabetes, their rights and responsibilities while were administered during treatment,
once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide participating in the trial, as well as the ensuring blinding within dose level.
0.5 mg and 1.0 mg showed superior and risks and benefits of being exposed to The treatment code for a particular pa-
clinically meaningful reductions in HbA1c the trial products (19). tient could be broken in a medical emer-
and body weight versus a range of com- gency; however, the treatment code
Trial Patients
parators (sitagliptin, exenatide extended was not broken for any patient during
Patients of either sex were eligible for
release, insulin glargine, and placebo) this trial.
inclusion if they were at least 18 years
(11–15). The most common adverse events
of age at the time of informed consent,
(AEs) with semaglutide were gastrointes- Trial Drug Administration
diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at least
tinal (GI) in nature (11–15). The effect of After a 2-week screening period, patients
90 days prior to screening, and on stable
semaglutide on gastric emptying was in- received trial medication for 26 weeks,
diabetes treatment consisting of diet
vestigated in a separate trial and showed followed by a 7-week follow-up period
and exercise 6 metformin ($1,500 mg
that although overall gastric emptying was (Supplementary Fig. 1). For the 12 blinded
daily or maximum tolerated dose docu-
similar to that of placebo, the observed treatment arms, patients were initiated
mented in the patient medical record) for
first-hour delay with semaglutide may con- on treatment with 0.05 mg semaglu-
at least 90 days prior to screening, with
tribute to a slower entry of glucose into tide, 0.3 mg liraglutide, or 50 mL placebo,
a HbA1c 7.0–10.0% (53–86 mmol/mol)
the circulation (16). all administered subcutaneously once
and a BMI 25.0–40.0 kg/m2.
This trial aimed to investigate the daily, titrated every 4 weeks up to their
Key exclusion criteria were a history
efficacy and safety of a wider dose range final randomized dose. This similar titra-
of chronic or idiopathic acute pancre-
of semaglutide administered once daily tion algorithm was used in all patients to
atitis and moderate-to-severe renal im-
in comparison with liraglutide and pla- ensure blinding across the products, and
pairment (estimated glomerular filtration
cebo in patients with type 2 diabetes. thus liraglutide was initiated at a lower
rate ,60 mL/min/1.73 m2). Full details of
dose and escalated at a slower pace
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS inclusion and exclusion criteria can be
than recommended in the label (20).
found in Supplementary Table 1.
Trial Design The fixed dose escalation in groups 1–13
This was a 26-week, multicenter, random- Randomization and Masking is described as follows: 1) semaglutide
ized, double-blind (within dose level), Eligible patients enrolled by the study 0.05 mg/day, 2) liraglutide 0.3 mg/day,
dose-finding trial comparing semaglu- investigators were randomly assigned 3) placebo 50 mL/day, 4) semaglutide
tide with liraglutide and placebo, all ad- into 1 of 12 treatment arms in a 2:2:1 0.05/0.1 mg/day, 5) liraglutide 0.3/0.6
ministered subcutaneously once daily, in ratio (semaglutide:liraglutide:placebo) mg/day, 6) placebo 50/100 mL/day, 7)
patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes within each of the four dosing levels semaglutide 0.05/0.1/0.2 mg/day, 8) lira-
and treated with diet and exercise with (50, 100, 200, and 300 mL) or to an glutide 0.3/0.6/1.2 mg/day, 9) placebo
or without metformin. There were 138 additional 13th semaglutide treatment 50/100/200 mL/day, 10) semaglutide
participating sites in 10 countries (Aus- arm with the same number of patients 0.05/0.1/0.2/0.3 mg/day, 11) liraglutide
tria, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, as the active treatment arms (Sup- 0.3/0.6/1.2/1.8 mg/day, 12) placebo 50/
Malaysia, Russia, Serbia, South Africa, plementary Fig. 1). This corresponds to 100/200/300 mL/day, and 13) semaglu-
U.K., and U.S.). the following daily doses: semaglutide tide flexible dose escalation from 0.05
1928 Semaglutide Versus Liraglutide or Placebo Diabetes Care Volume 41, September 2018

to 0.3 mg/day (Supplementary Fig. 1) classification [21] or BG confirmed by and placebo at a type I error rate of 5%
(randomized in the same ratio as for the a plasma glucose value ,3.1 mmol/L (two sided). Two-sided P values testing
other semaglutide arms). [56 mg/dL] with symptoms consistent the null hypothesis of no difference are
The trial was double blinded within with hypoglycemia) (Supplementary presented, with P values ,5% deemed
(but not between) each dose level of Table 2). significant. There was no control for
semaglutide, liraglutide, and placebo, as The above noted end points were com- multiple testing.
treatment was volume matched. Thus, pared between each dose of semaglu- All analyses were based on the full
within each dose level, patients could be tide and volume-matched placebo, as well analysis set (FAS), which consisted of
treated with either semaglutide, liraglu- as each dose of semaglutide and the cor- data from all randomized patients expo-
tide, or placebo. An open-label design responding dose of liraglutide as follows: sed to trial product.
was chosen for the flexible-dosing arm 0.05 vs. 0.3, 0.1 vs. 0.6, 0.2 vs. 1.2, and 0.3 Categorical and binary efficacy and
to explore tolerability in a flexible esca- vs. 1.8 mg/day. safety end points were summarized us-
lation regimen for semaglutide. Patients Additional end points in the open-label ing counts and relative frequencies at all
in this arm were initiated on 0.05 mg arm were dose level at end of trial, time planned visits. Continuous efficacy end
semaglutide, but dose escalation could to last dose change, and average dose points including the primary HbA1c end
be modified and final dose reduced in during the trial. point were analyzed using a mixed model
patients with poor GI tolerability, based for repeated measurements (MMRM)
on investigator’s assessment. Adjudication of AEs including treatment, stratification factor
Once-daily trial product could be ad- An external event adjudication com- (metformin use at baseline [yes/no]) and
ministered at any time of day (preferably mittee (EAC) comprising independent region as fixed factors and the corre-
at the same time each day), irrespective external medical experts within spe- sponding baseline HbA1c value as cova-
of meals. cialized areas was established to per- riate. The MMRM was based on data
If fasting plasma glucose (FPG) values form blinded validation of safety focus obtained before treatment cessation and
exceeded the limits of 15.0 mmol/L (270 areas according to predefined diagnostic before any rescue medication and did
mg/dL) from randomization to end of criteria. not include data from the semaglutide
week 5, 13.3 mmol/L (240 mg/dL) from Collection and Analysis of the Data flexible-dosing arm. Data on lipids and
week 6 to 11, or 11.1 mmol/L (200 mg/dL) For assessment of efficacy and safety and on lipase and amylase activity were log-
from week 12 to end of trial, randomized data collection, each patient attended a transformed prior to statistical analysis.
treatment was discontinued and the pa- screening visit (visit 1) at the study site, The number of severe or BG-confirmed
tients were offered rescue medication at 10 site visits (visits 2, 4, 6, and 8–14), symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes
the investigator’s discretion (preferably three phone visits (visits 3, 5, and 7), and was analyzed using a negative binomial
excluding GLP-1 receptor agonists, DPP-4 a study site follow-up visit (visit 15). regression model that included factors
inhibitors, and amylin analogs) and at Patients randomized to the open-label for treatment and strata as fixed factors
the same time offered to discontinue ran- flexible dose arm had one additional visit and baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Data
domized treatment. (visit 12S). from the four placebo groups were
A central laboratory was responsible pooled.
Trial End Points for analyzing all clinical safety laboratory Prespecified sensitivity analyses were
The primary end point was change from tests, except for anti-semaglutide anti- performed to ascertain the robustness
baseline to week 26 in HbA1c with sema- bodies, pharmacokinetic samples, and of analyses of HbA1c and body weight.
glutide versus placebo. The secondary IgE antibodies. A special laboratory was re- The analyses included 1) an MMRM
end point was change from baseline to sponsible for analyzing serum antibodies based on all “in-trial” observed data be-
week 26 in HbA1c with semaglutide ver- to semaglutide and plasma concentra- tween baseline and the week 26 landmark
sus liraglutide. tions of semaglutide for pharmacokinetic visit, regardless of treatment adherence;
Key supportive secondary efficacy end assessments. Characterization of the in 2) a multiple-imputation ANCOVA where
points were change from baseline to vitro neutralizing effect of antibodies data from patients with missing records
week 26 in FPG, body weight, and systolic against semaglutide and native GLP-1 were imputed as if they had been switched
(SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pres- was performed by the study sponsor. from whichever randomized treatment
sure. Patient-reported outcomes were they had received to placebo; and 3) a
assessed using the Diabetes Treatment Statistical Analysis multiple-imputation ANCOVA where data
Satisfaction Questionnaire. Full details of Sample size was calculated based on a from patients with missing records were
the secondary efficacy end points are pro- comparison of change from baseline to imputed as if they had been switched from
vided in Supplementary Table 2. end of treatment (week 26) in HbA1c be- whichever randomized treatment/dosing
Supportive secondary safety end tween the highest dose of semaglutide volume they had received to the matching
points included number of treatment- once daily (0.3 mg) and the four pooled liraglutide-dosing volume.
emergent AEs and number of and oc- placebo arms. A placebo-adjusted treat- For comparison of semaglutide and
currence of treatment-emergent severe ment effect of 0.55% was used in the liraglutide in terms of efficacy and tol-
or BG-confirmed symptomatic hypo- sample size calculation, and the SD was erability, the ratio between semaglutide
glycemic episodes (defined as an epi- assumed to be 1.1%. A sample size of and liraglutide doses that achieved equal
sode that was severe according to 704 was calculated to yield 90% power to responses based on dose-response mod-
the American Diabetes Association detect a difference between semaglutide eling was evaluated to determine the
care.diabetesjournals.org Lingvay and Associates 1929

potency of semaglutide relative to liraglutide (i.e., the ratio between liraglutide 0.3 mg (P = 0.077) (Fig. 2C).
liraglutide. Dose-response modeling was the median effective dose of semaglu- The results of these analyses were sup-
performed on change from baseline in tide and liraglutide, representing the ported by all sensitivity analyses (data
HbA1c and body weight, using a three- conversion factor between equipotent not shown).
parameter Emax (maximum effect) model, doses of semaglutide and liraglutide) Dose-response modeling was per-
and performed on incidence of AEs lead- was ;28 (P , 0.0001) (Supplementary formed between semaglutide and lira-
ing to premature treatment discontinu- Fig. 3A and C). glutide for body weight. Liraglutide
ation and GI AEs using a logistic regression At week 26, the HbA1c target of #6.5% 1.8 mg was equipotent to semaglutide
model. was achieved by 43–73% of patients 0.06 mg; thus, the potency of semaglu-
treated with semaglutide, 14–42% trea- tide versus liraglutide (representing the
RESULTS ted with liraglutide, and 6% treated with conversion factor between equipotent
pooled placebo. The HbA1c target of doses of semaglutide and liraglutide)
Patient Disposition and Baseline
,7.0% was achieved by 58–89% of pa- was ;30 (P , 0.0001) (Supplementary
Characteristics
tients on semaglutide, 33–62% on liraglu- Fig. 3B and C).
The trial was initiated on 21 September
tide, and 13% on pooled placebo (Fig. 1D). At week 26, the 5% weight loss re-
2015 and completed on 13 October
sponse was achieved by 22–76% and
2016 per protocol. A total of 706 pa- FPG
16–42% of patients treated with semaglu-
tients were randomized, of whom 705 Between baseline and week 26, mean
tide and liraglutide, respectively, both in
were exposed to trial products and were FPG levels decreased in the semaglu-
a dose-dependent manner (Fig. 2D). The
included in the efficacy and safety anal- tide and liraglutide groups but not in
10% weight loss response was achieved
yses (Supplementary Fig. 2). Treatment the pooled placebo group (Fig. 1E). At
by 5–38% and 0–8% of patients in the
groups were well balanced in demo- week 26, the estimated mean change
semaglutide and liraglutide groups, re-
graphic and baseline characteristics (Ta- in FPG with semaglutide ranged from
spectively, both in a dose-dependent
ble 1). Mean (SD) age was 56.7 (9.9) 22.2 mmol/L (239.3 mg/dL) for the
manner. In comparison, 11 and 2% of
years, 46.2% of patients were women, 0.05 mg dose group to 23.35 mmol/L
placebo-treated patients achieved the
and mean (SD) HbA1c was 8.1% (0.8) (64.6 (260.4 mg/dL) for the 0.3 mg group
5% and 10% weight loss responses, re-
[9.2] mmol/mol), FPG 9.5 (2.6) mmol/L and with liraglutide ranged from 21.4
spectively.
(170.4 [46.6] mg/dL), BMI 32.8 (4.4) mmol/L (225.1 mg/dL) for the 0.3 mg
At week 26, significant reductions in
kg/m2, and duration of diabetes 7.2 (5.6) group to 22.0 mmol/L (236.6 mg/dL) for
waist circumference were observed in
years (Table 1). Details of on-treatment the 1.8 mg group. The change in FPG
all groups (Fig. 2E and Supplementary
administration of rescue medication are was 20.4 mmol/L (26.9 mg/dL) with
Data).
shown in Supplementary Table 3. pooled placebo. The estimated change
in FPG was significant for each dose
HbA1c (Primary Efficacy End Point) Blood Pressure
of semaglutide compared with pooled
Between baseline and week 26, mean SBP levels decreased from baseline until
placebo (P , 0.0001 for all) and be-
HbA1c decreased in the semaglutide and week 26 in all treatment groups (Supple-
tween each volume-matched dose of
liraglutide groups but not in the pooled mentary Fig. 4A). At week 26, estimated
semaglutide and liraglutide (P , 0.03
placebo group (Fig. 1A). At week 26, a mean change in SBP with semaglutide
for all).
dose-dependent estimated mean change ranged from 23.4 mmHg (0.1 mg dose
in HbA1c was observed with semaglu- Body Weight and Waist group) to 210.0 mmHg (0.3 mg), with
tide treatment ranging from 21.1% Circumference liraglutide ranged from 23.1 mmHg
(0.05 mg dose group) to 21.9% (0.3 mg). Between baseline and week 26, mean (0.6 mg) to 23.6 mmHg (1.8 mg), and
Changes in HbA1c with liraglutide treat- body weight (overall mean at baseline with placebo was 22.4 mmHg.
ment ranged from 20.5% (0.3 mg dose 94.3 kg) declined with semaglutide, lira- DBP levels from baseline until week
group) to 21.3% (1.8 mg) (Fig. 1B and glutide, and pooled placebo treatment 26 are shown in Supplementary Fig. 4B.
Supplementary Table 4). Change in HbA1c (Fig. 2A). At week 26, a dose-dependent At week 26, estimated mean change
with pooled placebo was 20.02% (Fig. estimated mean change in body weight in DBP with semaglutide ranged from
1B). The estimated change in HbA1c was observed with semaglutide treat- 20.1 mmHg (0.1 mg dose group) to
was significant for all semaglutide doses ment ranging from 22.8 kg (0.05 mg 23.9 mmHg (0.3 mg), with liraglutide
versus pooled placebo (P , 0.0001 dose group) to 28.2 kg (0.3 mg). Change ranged from 0.4 mmHg (1.2 and 1.8 mg)
for all) and for each volume-matched in body weight for the liraglutide groups to 21.7 mmHg (0.6 mg), and with pla-
dose of semaglutide versus liraglutide at week 26 ranged from 21.5 kg (0.3 mg cebo was 20.6 mmHg.
(P , 0.001 for all) (Fig. 1C). The results dose group) to 23.7 kg (1.8 mg). The Estimated treatment differences be-
of the primary analysis were supported change in body weight was 21.2 kg with tween semaglutide and placebo/liraglu-
by all sensitivity analyses (data not pooled placebo (Fig. 2B). The estimated tide are shown in Supplementary Fig. 4C.
shown). change in body weight was significant
Dose-response modeling was per- for all semaglutide doses versus pooled Other Secondary Efficacy End Points
formed for semaglutide and liraglutide placebo (P , 0.02 for all) and between Results for seven-point self-measured
on HbA1c. Liraglutide 1.8 mg was equi- each volume-matched dose of sema- BG, BMI, lipids, and the Diabetes Treat-
potent to semaglutide 0.062 mg; thus, glutide and liraglutide (P # 0.0003 for ment Satisfaction Questionnaire are de-
the potency of semaglutide versus all) except for semaglutide 0.05 mg vs. scribed in Supplementary Data.
 1930

Table 1—Baseline characteristics of the FAS

Semaglutide Liraglutide
Flexible Pooled
0.05 mg 0.1 mg 0.2 mg 0.3 mg dose 0.3 mg 0.6 mg 1.2 mg 1.8 mg placebo Total
Semaglutide Versus Liraglutide or Placebo

n 64 63 65 63 64 64 64 64 65 129 705
Age (years) 57.5 (9.8) 57.5 (10.0) 58.4 (9.6) 54.8 (9.7) 54.8 (9.7) 57.2 (10.8) 59.5 (9.8) 53.7 (11.4) 55.8 (9.2) 57.1 (9.2) 56.7 (9.9)
HbA1c (%) 7.9 (0.7) 7.9 (0.8) 8.0 (0.8) 8.2 (0.8) 8.1 (0.9) 8.1 (0.9) 8.1 (0.8) 8.1 (0.9) 8.1 (0.8) 8.1 (0.9) 8.1 (0.8)
FPG (mmol/L, mg/dL) 9.3 (2.6), 9.0 (2.2), 9.2 (2.3), 9.7 (2.6), 9.8 (2.7), 9.3 (2.5), 9.3 (2.3), 9.9 (2.7), 9.2 (2.4), 9.7 (3.0), 9.5 (2.6),
166.9 (46.9) 161.6 (40.0) 165.7 (41.1) 174.2 (46.2) 177.0 (47.9) 168.0 (45.8) 168.3 (41.9) 178.5 (48.7) 165.5 (44.1) 174.3 (53.8) 170.4 (46.6)
Diabetes duration (years) 6.5 (4.6) 8.1 (7.3) 7.2 (5.7) 6.5 (4.4) 8.0 (7.1) 8.1 (7.1) 6.8 (4.6) 6.9 (4.9) 6.6 (5.2) 7.1 (4.5) 7.2 (5.6)
Body weight (kg) 93.4 (18.3) 92.4 (17.2) 98.1 (17.9) 94.8 (17.8) 95.3 (15.4) 92.3 (17.5) 92.7 (16.5) 96.7 (18.3) 93.4 (19.3) 94.0 (17.8) 94.3 (17.6)
BMI (kg/m2) 32.3 (4.6) 32.4 (4.5) 32.8 (4.5) 33.1 (4.7) 33.2 (4.4) 32.9 (3.9) 33.0 (4.3) 33.3 (4.3) 32.1 (4.5) 32.8 (4.2) 32.8 (4.4)
Female sex 31 (48.4) 28 (44.4) 22 (33.9) 31 (49.2) 28 (43.8) 35 (54.7) 32 (50.0) 30 (46.9) 32 (49.2) 57 (44.2) 326 (46.2)
Race, n (%)
Asian 6 (9.4) 9 (14.3) 5 (7.7) 7 (11.1) 4 (6.3) 4 (6.3) 2 (3.1) 4 (6.3) 11 (16.9) 14 (10.9) 66 (9.4)
Black or African American 9 (14.1) 4 (6.3) 6 (9.2) 11 (17.5) 4 (6.3) 4 (6.3) 4 (6.3) 6 (9.4) 4 (6.2) 11 (8.5) 63 (8.9)
White 49 (76.6) 50 (79.4) 51 (78.5) 44 (69.8) 52 (81.3) 53 (82.8) 56 (87.5) 54 (84.4) 48 (73.8) 103 (79.8) 560 (79.4)
Other d d 3 (4.6) 1 (1.6) 4 (6.3) 3 (4.7) 2 (3.1) d 2 (3.1) 1 (0.8) 16 (2.3)
Ethnicity, n (%)
Hispanic or Latino 9 (14.1) 7 (11.1) 6 (9.2) 4 (6.4) 7 (10.9) 7 (10.9) 6 (9.4) 6 (9.4) 8 (12.3) 16 (12.4) 76 (10.8)
Not Hispanic or Latino 55 (85.9) 56 (88.9) 59 (90.8) 59 (93.7) 57 (89.1) 57 (89.1) 58 (90.6) 58 (90.6) 57 (87.7) 113 (87.6) 629 (89.2)
Renal function,* n (%)
Normal (eGFR $90 mL/min/
1.73 m2) 36 (56.3) 34 (54.0) 34 (52.3) 43 (68.3) 46 (71.9) 39 (60.9) 33 (51.6) 44 (68.8) 45 (69.2) 78 (60.5) 432 (61.3)
Mild dysfunction (eGFR
60 to ,90 mL/min/1.73 m2) 28 (43.8) 28 (44.4) 31 (47.7) 20 (31.7) 18 (28.1) 24 (37.5) 31 (48.4) 19 (29.7) 20 (30.8) 51 (39.5) 270 (38.3)
Moderate dysfunction (eGFR
30 to ,60 mL/min/1.73 m2) d 1 (1.6) d d d 1 (1.6) d 1 (1.6) d d 3 (0.4)
Data are means (SD) unless otherwise indicated. eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate. *Based on estimated glomerular filtration rate using the MDRD formula.
Diabetes Care Volume 41, September 2018
care.diabetesjournals.org Lingvay and Associates 1931

Figure 1—Mean change in HbA1c from baseline over time (A) and at week 26 (B), estimated treatment difference for the percentage change in HbA1c (C)
and patients achieving ,7.0% HbA1c target at week 26 (D), and mean change in FPG (mmol/L) from baseline over time (E). A: Observed “on treatment
until rescue medication” data. Mean estimates are from an MMRM analysis with treatment, region, and stratum as fixed factors and baseline value
as covariate, all nested within visit, and are adjusted according to observed baseline distribution. Error bars are 61*SEM; dashed line is the total
average value at baseline. B: Observed “on treatment until rescue medication” data. Mean estimates are from an MMRM analysis with treatment,
region, and stratum as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit, and are adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.
Error bars are 61*SEM; solid line is the total average value at baseline. C: Summary of ETDs and associated CIs from statistical analyses of the parameters
at week 26 using the “on treatment until rescue medication” data. The MMRM used for analysis included treatment, region, stratum, and baseline
value, all nested within visit. D: Analyses of “on treatment until rescue medication” data. The binary end point was analyzed using a logistic regression
model with treatment, stratum, and region as fixed factors and the baseline weight value as covariate. Before analysis, missing data were imputed from
an MMRM with treatment and region and baseline value, all nested within visit. E: Observed “on treatment until rescue medication” data. Mean
estimates are from an MMRM analysis with treatment, region, and stratum as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit, and
are adjusted according to observed baseline distribution. Error bars are 61*SEM; dashed line is the total average value at baseline. According to the
protocol, only the fixed treatment arms were analyzed statistically. ADA, American Diabetes Association; ETD, estimated treatment difference.

Safety 17.2–25.4% of patients receiving sema- semaglutide versus liraglutide was 12.8
The proportion of patients reporting AEs glutide vs. 9.4–20.0% receiving liraglu- (P , 0.0001) (Supplementary Fig. 3C).
with semaglutide was dose dependent tide, diarrhea in 10.9–25.4 vs. 7.8–10.8%, Comparable proportions of patients
and comparable with that of the liraglu- and vomiting in 6.3–9.5 vs. 1.6–10.9% across all treatment groups reported
tide groups (Supplementary Table 5). The (Table 2 and Supplementary Table 6). serious AEs (Supplementary Table 5); no
most common AEs in the semaglutide The majority of these GI events oc- clustering was identified within organ
and liraglutide arms were GI disorders, curred during the first 12 weeks of treat- systems. There was one fatality in the
and the incidence was higher with sema- ment (Supplementary Fig. 5). Liraglutide trial in the liraglutide arm (1.8 mg group);
glutide than liraglutide (32.8–54.0% 1.8 mg was equivalent to semaglutide this was due to sudden cardiac death in a
with semaglutide and 21.9–41.5% with 0.14 mg for patients reporting at least patient with a history of ischemic heart
liraglutide). Nausea was reported in one GI AE; thus, the dose ratio for disease.
1932 Semaglutide Versus Liraglutide or Placebo Diabetes Care Volume 41, September 2018

Figure 1dContinued.

The proportion of patients with AEs premature treatment discontinuation in events (6.2%). Liraglutide 1.8 mg was
leading to premature treatment discon- the semaglutide and liraglutide groups equivalent to semaglutide 0.24 mg for
tinuation was higher with pooled placebo were GI AEs (1.6–4.7 and 1.6–3.1%, re- patients discontinuing treatment due to
(10.9%) than with semaglutide (6.3–7.9%) spectively)dmainly nausea, vomiting, and AEs; thus, the dose ratio for semaglutide
and liraglutide (3.1–7.8%) (Supplementary diarrheadwhereas in the pooled pla- versus liraglutide was 7.4 (P = 0.0006)
Table 5). The majority of AEs leading to cebo group were mainly hyperglycemia (Supplementary Fig. 3C).
care.diabetesjournals.org Lingvay and Associates 1933

Figure 2—Mean change in body weight (kg) from baseline over time (A) and at week 26 (B), estimated treatment difference for mean change in body
weight (C) and patients achieving $5% weight loss response at week 26 (D), and mean change in waist circumference from baseline over time (E).
A: Observed “on treatment until rescue medication” data. Mean estimates are from an MMRM analysis with treatment, region, and stratum as fixed
factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit, and are adjusted according to observed baseline distribution. Error bars are 61*SEM;
dashed line is the total average value at baseline. B: Observed “on treatment until rescue medication” data. Mean estimates are from an MMRM
analysis with treatment, region, and stratum as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit, and are adjusted according
to observed baseline distribution. Error bars are 61*SEM; solid line is the total average value at baseline. C: Summary of estimated treatment
differences and associated CIs from statistical analyses of the parameters at week 26 using the “on treatment until rescue medication” data. The
MMRM used for analysis included treatment, region, stratum, and baseline value, all nested within visit. D and E: Analyses of “on treatment until
rescue medication” data. The binary end point was analyzed using a logistic regression model with treatment, stratum, and region as fixed factors
and the baseline weight value as covariate. Before analysis, missing data were imputed from an MMRM with treatment and region and baseline value,
all nested within visit. Observed “on treatment until rescue medication” data. Mean estimates are from an MMRM analysis with treatment, region,
and stratum as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit, and are adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.
Error bars are 61*SEM; dashed line is the total average value at baseline. According to the protocol, only the fixed treatment arms were analyzed
statistically. ETD, estimated treatment difference.

The incidence of severe or BG- for all semaglutide and liraglutide doses than twofold increase in lipase from
confirmed symptomatic hypoglycemia compared with pooled placebo (ratio to baseline was 1.6–6.3% with semaglutide
was similar among all groups (3.1–4.6% baseline for lipase 1.18–1.52 and 1.32– and 1.6–7.8% with liraglutide vs. 0.8–
with semaglutide, 0–4.6% with liraglu- 1.44 vs. 0.93 and for amylase 1.13–1.23 2.8% with placebo; a more than three-
tide, and 3.1% with pooled placebo) (Sup- and 1.13–1.15 vs. 0.99), with no differ- fold increase was reported in 1.6–3.1
plementary Table 7). ence between semaglutide and liraglu- and 3.1 vs. 0.9% of patients, respectively.
Two AEs of pancreatitis (semaglutide tide groups (except semaglutide 0.2 mg There were no patients with a more
0.2 mg and semaglutide 0.05 mg groups) vs. liraglutide 1.2 mg, where a higher than twofold increase in amylase levels
were sent for event adjudication by the increase in amylase activity was observed in any of the treatment groups.
EAC; neither event was confirmed. Mean in the semaglutide arm [P = 0.0060]) EAC-confirmed cardiovascular events
lipase and amylase values from baseline (Supplementary Table 8). At week 26, were reported in two patients (four
to week 26 were significantly increased the proportion of patients with a more events) on semaglutide 0.05 mg, three
1934 Semaglutide Versus Liraglutide or Placebo Diabetes Care Volume 41, September 2018

Figure 2dContinued.

patients (six events) on liraglutide 1.8 mg, one pancreatic carcinoma with semaglutide groups: by 0.7–2.8 bpm with semaglu-
and one patient (one event) on pooled 0.05 mg, one basal cell skin cell carcinoma tide, by 2.4–5.4 bpm with liraglutide, and
placebo during the on-treatment obser- with liraglutide 0.6 mg, and one prostate by 0.8 bpm with pooled placebo.
vation period. adenocarcinoma with liraglutide 1.8 mg. AEs related to diabetic retinopathy
There were four EAC-confirmed neo- Pulse rate (baseline 74 beats per min- were reported during study follow-up
plasms, three of which were malignant: ute [bpm]) increased in all treatment in five patients: one in each of the
care.diabetesjournals.org Lingvay and Associates 1935

Table 2—Most frequent (‡5%) GI disorders on treatment by preferred term (predefined MedDRA search)
Semaglutide Semaglutide Semaglutide Semaglutide Semaglutide flexible
0.05 mg, n = 64 0.1 mg, n = 63 0.2 mg, n = 65 0.3 mg, n = 63 dose, n = 64
N % E R N % E R N % E R N % E R N % E R
GI AEs 21 32.8 61 162 28 44.4 90 236 30 46.2 106 283 34 54.0 101 268 36 56.3 128 322
Nausea 11 17.2 16 42 12 19.0 20 52 14 21.5 22 59 16 25.4 22 58 25 39.1 34 85
Diarrhea 7 10.9 10 26 10 15.9 13 34 10 15.4 15 40 16 25.4 29 77 11 17.2 22 55
Vomiting 6 9.4 10 26 4 6.3 13 34 6 9.2 9 24 6 9.5 8 21 6 9.4 8 20
Constipation 2 3.1 2 5 4 6.3 4 10 6 9.2 11 29 5 7.9 7 19 4 6.3 6 15
Dyspepsia 1 1.6 6 16 5 7.9 7 18 5 7.7 8 21 6 9.5 6 16 4 6.3 4 10
Abdominal discomfort 2 3.1 2 5 3 4.8 4 10 1 1.5 1 3 2 3.2 3 8 4 6.3 4 10
Abdominal pain 2 3.1 4 11 2 3.2 4 10 3 4.6 7 19 5 7.9 6 16 4 6.3 7 18
Flatulence 2 3.1 2 5 1 1.6 5 13 4 6.2 6 16 1 1.6 1 3 6 9.4 9 23
Abdominal pain, upper 0 d d d 1 1.6 1 3 4 6.2 5 13 4 6.3 4 11 6 9.4 8 20
Gastroesophageal reflux disease 0 d d d 4 6.3 8 21 3 4.6 3 8 3 4.8 3 8 4 6.3 5 13
Liraglutide Liraglutide Liraglutide Liraglutide Pooled placebo,
0.3 mg, n = 64 0.6 mg, n = 64 1.2 mg, n = 64 1.8 mg, n = 65 n = 129
N % E R N % E R N % E R N % E R N % E R
GI AEs 14 21.9 25 65 19 29.7 62 161 20 31.3 40 106 27 41.5 81 207 29 22.5 54 73
Nausea 6 9.4 7 18 7 10.9 11 29 7 10.9 11 29 13 20.0 18 46 6 4.7 7 9
Diarrhea 5 7.8 5 13 5 7.8 9 23 5 7.8 8 21 7 10.8 15 38 14 10.9 18 24
Vomiting 1 1.6 1 3 7 10.9 10 26 1 1.6 1 3 5 7.7 8 20 3 2.3 3 4
Constipation 0 d d d 3 4.7 3 8 1 1.6 2 5 7 10.8 7 18 4 3.1 4 5
Dyspepsia 2 3.1 2 5 3 4.7 3 8 1 1.6 1 3 3 4.6 3 8 1 0.8 1 1
Abdominal discomfort 1 1.6 1 3 3 4.7 5 13 2 3.1 2 5 4 6.2 13 33 3 2.3 4 5
Abdominal pain 3 4.7 3 8 0 d d d 4 6.3 4 11 0 d d d 0 d d d
E, number of events; MedDRA, Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities; N, number of patients experiencing at least one event; R, event rate
per 100 years of exposure; %, percentage of patients experiencing at least one event. GI AEs were defined as any of the AEs listed in the table. All
AEs, either observed by the investigator or subject, were reported by the investigator and evaluated. The “on treatment” overview includes
treatment-emergent AEs with onset at or after the date of the first trial product dose and before or at the date of the last trial product dose plus
7 weeks plus the 7 days’ visit window for the end-of-treatment follow-up visit (56 days). The observation time is the duration of this period.

semaglutide 0.1 and 0.3 mg and liraglu- 0.3 mg dose, and an additional one-third Safety
tide 0.3, 0.6, and 1.2 mg groups. of patients were by week 14. At week AEs were reported in 82.8% of patients
There were no reported clinically rel- 26, 80% of patients were receiving sema- in the semaglutide flexible-dosing arm
evant effects on biochemistry, hematol- glutide 0.3 mg. The median time to and serious AEs in 6.3% of patients. No
ogy, urinalysis, electrocardiogram, or reach specific doses was 5.7 weeks for fatalities were reported. The proportion
physical examination. No anti-semaglutide the 0.1 mg dose, 9.9 weeks for 0.2 mg, of patients with AEs leading to prema-
antibodies were detected in any of the and 13.7 weeks for 0.3 mg. Mean dose ture treatment discontinuation was 4.7%
fixed-dose treatment groups during the at 26 weeks for patients in the open- (three patients reported four events,
trial or at week 26. Additional safety re- label flexible-dosing group is shown in Sup- three of which were GI in nature).
sults are shown in Supplementary Data plementary Fig. 6B. In total, 56.3% of patients experi-
and Supplementary Table 9. enced GI disorders. The most common
Efficacy GI events were nausea (39.1%), diarrhea
Semaglutide Flexible-Dosing Arm Mean change in HbA1c at week 26 in (17.2%), and vomiting, flatulence, and
Patient Disposition and Dosing the semaglutide flexible-dosing arm was upper-abdominal pain (9.4% each)
A total of 65 patients were randomized 21.7% (Fig. 1B). A total of 67% and 84% (Table 2). The proportion of patients
to the semaglutide flexible-dosing arm. of patients achieved the HbA1c treatment across the fixed-dose semaglutide arms
Sixty-four patients were exposed to treat- targets of #6.5% (48 mmol/mol) and reporting nausea, diarrhea, and vomit-
ment; of these, 90.6% completed treat- ,7.0% (53 mmol/mol) (Fig. 1D), respec- ing was 17.2–25.4, 10.9–25.4, and 6.3–
ment (Supplementary Fig. 2). tively. 9.5%, respectively (Table 2). The majority
Patient characteristics at baseline are Mean change in body weight at week of these GI events occurred during the
shown in Table 1. 26 in the semaglutide flexible-dosing first 12 weeks of treatment (Supple-
The dose history of the 64 exposed arm was 26.4 kg (Fig. 2B). A total of 72% mentary Fig. 5).
patients is shown in Supplementary Fig. and 19% of patients achieved weight loss Further details of AEs in the semaglu-
6A. Overall, dose escalation was delayed responses of $5% (Fig. 2D) and $10%, tide flexible-dosing arm are detailed in
by 2 weeks for most patients compared respectively. Supplementary Data.
with the 4-week default planned time Throughout the trial, the overall trend
points (dotted lines). in HbA1c and body weight decrease was CONCLUSIONS
After week 12, approximately one- comparable with the semaglutide 0.2 mg In this phase 2, 26-week, randomized,
third of patients were receiving the group. double-blind (within dose level), dose-
1936 Semaglutide Versus Liraglutide or Placebo Diabetes Care Volume 41, September 2018

finding trial in patients with type 2 dia- stronger albumin binding compared profile. In addition, a major limitation was
betes, semaglutide administered subcu- with liraglutide, or greater affinity for that GI AEs were assessed by patient
taneously once daily led to significantly the GLP-1 receptor (10), may be a con- self-reporting, a method whereby accu-
greater glycemic control compared with tributing factor. racy and consistency are known to be low
placebo or liraglutide. The weekly sum of Notably, semaglutide doses were ini- because it relies on the patient’s aware-
the semaglutide doses tested in this trial tiated at 0.05 mg and patients dosed to ness and perception of their symptoms.
was equivalent to 0.35–2.1 mg/week. In a maximum of 0.3 mg, while liraglutide Self-reporting can be particularly inaccu-
the SUSTAIN program, only the semaglu- doses were initiated using a subthera- rate if the symptoms are embarrassing
tide dose of 0.5 and 1 mg once weekly peutic dose (0.3 mg) and increased to a (e.g., fecal incontinence) (22). In addi-
was evaluated, while the current analysis maximum of 1.8 mg (slower titration tion, reporting may have been influenced
evaluated the efficacy and tolerability compared with label) (20). Therefore, by an expectation of experiencing GI
of semaglutide at higher doses than pre- it is possible that the lower rate of GI AEs, as patients had been advised of
viously studied. AEs observed with liraglutide may also this risk in the informed consent form
Treatment with semaglutide also led be due to the slower titration of liraglu- prior to commencing the trial. A validated
to significantly greater weight loss com- tide, which was employed to preserve measure for GI AEs that asks patients
pared with pooled placebo or liraglu- the blinded nature of the study. specifically about their symptoms, such
tide. This effect was dose dependent, Interestingly, the GI AE rate in the as the Gastrointestinal System Rating
with observed weight reductions of up open-label, flexible-dosing group was Scale (23), would have been more ap-
to 8.2 kg, approximately seven times similar to that in the semaglutide 0.3 propriate. Also, this trial only enrolled
greater than with pooled placebo mg group despite a delay in titration individuals who were either treatment
(1.2 kg) and more than double the max- (median time to reach the 0.3 mg dose naı̈ve or treated with metformin; there-
imum weight reduction observed with was 13.7 weeks vs. 12 weeks in the fixed- fore, results should not be extrapolated
liraglutide (3.7 kg). titration group). This may be due to the to patients with more advanced disease.
The reductions in HbA1c and body open-label nature of the dosing, and Based on the clinical results of this
weight were generally dose dependent therefore patient anticipation of GI AEs, study, including the GI AE profile, paired
across all fixed-dose groups, with greater or to chance, owing to variability and the with the general changing focus toward
and linear reductions from semaglutide small group size. Conversely, the propor- weekly injections of GLP-1 receptor ago-
0.05 mg to semaglutide 0.3 mg vs. lira- tion of patients with AEs leading to nists for type 2 diabetes, there are no
glutide 0.3 mg to liraglutide 1.8 mg. premature treatment discontinuation current plans for further development
GI AEs were the most frequently re- was the lowest in this group at 4.7%, of semaglutide once daily.
ported AEs with semaglutide once daily suggesting good patient adherence and In conclusion, in this 26-week phase
and liraglutide once daily. These AEs tolerability despite the occurrence of GI 2 trial in patients with type 2 diabetes,
mainly occurred in the initial 12 weeks AEs. treatment with semaglutide once daily
of treatment, and the majority were mild The efficacy of semaglutide with re- at doses up to 0.3 mg/day resulted in
to moderate. A dose response was seen, spect to HbA1c and body weight in the greater reductions in HbA1c compared
with a higher number of GI AEs reported open-label, flexible-dosing group was sim- with once-daily liraglutide and pooled
with higher doses of semaglutide. ilar to that in the semaglutide 0.2 mg arm. placebo. Based on dose-response mod-
The potency of semaglutide (based This is possibly due to the combination of eling, the liraglutide 1.8 mg dose is
on the ratio between liraglutide’s and delayed titration and relatively short trial equivalent to semaglutide 0.06 mg at
semaglutide’s equipotent doses) was 28 duration, which resulted in only 12 weeks of lowering HbA1c as well as body weight.
times higher than liraglutide for HbA1c follow-up on the final dose in this group, The incidence of GI AEs was higher with
reduction and 30 times higher for leading to a shorter semaglutide mainte- the semaglutide doses than the liraglu-
weight loss. In contrast, the equivalent nance period at the given dose compared tide doses, although no new safety con-
dose ratio between semaglutide and with the other groups. cerns were identified with semaglutide
liraglutide was only 12.8 for GI AEs and The trial was robust in terms of pa- once daily.
7.4 for treatment discontinuation owing tients being randomized and controlled
to AEs. This suggests that greater reduc- within each dosing volumedboth with
tions in HbA1c and body weight might placebo and liraglutidedfor each sema-
Acknowledgments. The authors thank all the
be achieved with semaglutide without an glutide dose. However, the trial had a participants, investigators, and trial site staff
increase in the risk of GI AEs compared number of limitations. First, the trial who were involved in the conduct of the trial.
with liraglutide. Nevertheless, discontin- duration was relatively short (the high- The authors also thank Gurudutt Nayak (Novo
uation owing to GI AEs occurred more est fixed-dose arm had only 14 weeks of Nordisk) for review of and input into the man-
uscript and Saroshi Amirthalingam and Sola
frequently with semaglutide than liraglu- dose maintenance after the titration Neunie (both AXON Communications, London,
tide; therefore, the greater efficacy of period) and the maximum effects were U.K.) for medical writing and editorial assistance,
semaglutide was not sufficient to main- not reached, especially in the higher-dose who received compensation from Novo Nordisk.
tain adherence to treatment. The rea- semaglutide arms. Second, the investi- Duality of Interest. This trial was funded by
sons for this difference in potency are gated treatment arms were relatively Novo Nordisk. I.L. has received research grants
from Novo Nordisk, Merck, Pfizer, GI Dynamics,
speculative. However, the properties small. Third, liraglutide was titrated at Novartis; consulting fees from Novo Nordisk,
of semaglutide, such as greater free a slower rate than label, thus poten- Lilly, Sanofi, and AstraZeneca; and other services
drug concentrations in the plasma and tially affecting its efficacy and tolerability (travel/editorial support) from Sanofi, Boehringer
care.diabetesjournals.org Lingvay and Associates 1937

Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk. C.V.D. Trial Investigators. Liraglutide and cardiovas- 15. Rodbard HW, Lingvay I, Reed J, et al. Sema-
has a consulting agreement with Novo Nordisk cular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J glutide added to basal insulin in type 2 diabetes
and has received research support from Janssen Med 2016;375:311–322 (SUSTAIN 5): a randomized, controlled trial. J Clin
and Theracos. T.H. is an employee of Novo 7. Marso SP, Bain SC, Consoli A, et al.; SUSTAIN-6 Endrocinol Metab 2018;103:2291–2301
Nordisk. J.Z. is an employee and stock owner Investigators. Semaglutide and cardiovascular 16. Hjerpsted JB, Flint A, Brooks A, Axelsen MB,
of Novo Nordisk. T.R.P. has received research outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Kvist T, Blundell J. Semaglutide improves post-
grants from AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk; Engl J Med 2016;375:1834–1844 prandial glucose and lipid metabolism, and
has received consulting fees from Adocia, Astra- 8. American Diabetes Association. Standards of
delays first-hour gastric emptying in subjects
Zeneca, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Roche Diabe- Medical Care in Diabetesd2017. Diabetes Care
tes Care; and is Chief Scientific Officer of CBmed with obesity. Diabetes Obes Metab 2018;20:
2017;40 (Suppl. 1):S1–S135
(Center for Biomarker Research in Medicine), a 9. Handelsman Y, Bloomgarden ZT, Grunberger 610–619
public-owned research company. No other po- G, et al. American Association of Clinical Endo- 17. International Conference on Harmonisation
tential conflicts of interest relevant to this article crinologists and American College of Endocrinol- Working Group. ICH harmonised tripartite guide-
were reported. ogy - clinical practice guidelines for developing line: guideline for good clinical practice E6 (R1)
Author Contributions. I.L., T.H., J.Z., and T.R.P. a diabetes mellitus comprehensive care plan - [Internet]. Available from https://www.ich.org/
researched data, reviewed and edited the man- 2015. Endocr Pract 2015;21(Suppl. 1):1–87 fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/
uscript, and contributed to the discussion. C.V.D. 10. Lau J, Bloch P, Schäffer L, et al. Discovery of Efficacy/E6/E6_R1_Guideline.pdf. Accessed 5 June
reviewed and edited the manuscript and con- the once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) 2018
tributed to the discussion. K.S.L. researched data analogue semaglutide. J Med Chem 2015;58: 18. World Medical Association. World Medical
and reviewed and edited the manuscript. L.R. 7370–7380 Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical prin-
researched data and reviewed and edited the 11. Sorli C, Harashima SI, Tsoukas GM, et al. ciples for medical research involving human
manuscript. T.R.P. is the guarantor of this work Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide subjects. JAMA 2013;310:2191–2194
and, as such, had full access to all the data in the monotherapy versus placebo in patients with 19. European Commission. Informed consent
study and takes responsibility for the integrity of type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 1): a double-blind, ran-
the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. guidance document [Internet]. Available from
domised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, mul-
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/
tinational, multicentre phase 3a trial. Lancet
References Diabetes Endocrinol 2017;5:251–260 ref/fp7/89807/informed-consent_en.pdf. Accessed
12. Ahrén B, Masmiquel L, Kumar H, et al. 6 February 2018
1. Toft-Nielsen MB, Madsbad S, Holst JJ. Con-
Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide 20. Novo Nordisk. Victoza (liraglutide) summary
tinuous subcutaneous infusion of glucagon-like
peptide 1 lowers plasma glucose and reduces versus once-daily sitagliptin as an add-on to of product characteristics [Internet]. Available
appetite in type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes metformin, thiazolidinediones, or both, in pa- from http://wwwmedicinesorguk/emc/medicine/
Care 1999;22:1137–1143 tients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 2): a 21986. Accessed 6 February 2018
2. Nadkarni P, Chepurny OG, Holz GG. Regula- 56-week, double-blind, phase 3a, randomised 21. Seaquist ER, Anderson J, Childs B, et al.
tion of glucose homeostasis by GLP-1. Prog Mol trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2017;5:341– Hypoglycemia and diabetes: a report of a work-
Biol Transl Sci 2014;121:23–65 354 group of the American Diabetes Association
3. Nauck MA. Incretin-based therapies for type 13. Ahmann AJ, Capehorn M, Charpentier G, and the Endocrine Society. Diabetes Care 2013;
2 diabetes mellitus: properties, functions, and et al. Efficacy and safety of once-weekly sema- 36:1384–1395
clinical implications. Am J Med 2011;124(Suppl.): glutide versus exenatide ER in subjects with 22. Rayner CK, Jones KL, Wu T, Horowitz M. Gut
S3–S18 type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 3): a 56-week, open- feelings about diabetes and GLP-1 receptor
4. Flint A, Raben A, Astrup A, Holst JJ. Glucagon- label, randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Care
agonists: lessons to be learnt from studies in
like peptide 1 promotes satiety and suppresses 2018;41:258–266
functional gastrointestinal disorders. Diabetes
energy intake in humans. J Clin Invest 1998;101: 14. Aroda VR, Bain SC, Cariou B, et al. Efficacy
and safety of once-weekly semaglutide versus Obes Metab 2017;19:309–312
515–520
once-daily insulin glargine as add-on to metfor- 23. Horowitz M, Vilsbøll T, Zdravkovic M,
5. Secher A, Jelsing J, Baquero AF, et al. The
arcuate nucleus mediates GLP-1 receptor agonist min (with or without sulfonylureas) in insulin- Hammer M, Madsbad S. Patient-reported rating
liraglutide-dependent weight loss. J Clin Invest naive patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 4): of gastrointestinal adverse effects during treat-
2014;124:4473–4488 a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, mul- ment of type 2 diabetes with the once-daily hu-
6. Marso SP, Daniels GH, Brown-Frandsen K, ticentre, multinational, phase 3a trial. Lancet man GLP-1 analogue, liraglutide. Diabetes Obes
et al.; LEADER Steering Committee; LEADER Diabetes Endocrinol 2017;5:355–366 Metab 2008;10:593–596