Premium
Safety and efficacy of semaglutide once weekly vs sitagliptin once daily, both as monotherapy in J apanese people with type 2 diabetes
Author(s) -
Seino Yutaka,
Terauchi Yasuo,
Osonoi Takeshi,
Yabe Daisuke,
Abe Nobuyuki,
Nishida Tomoyuki,
Zacho Jeppe,
Kaneko Shizuka
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
diabetes, obesity and metabolism
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.445
H-Index - 128
eISSN - 1463-1326
pISSN - 1462-8902
DOI - 10.1111/dom.13082
Subject(s) - semaglutide , sitagliptin , medicine , adverse effect , type 2 diabetes , clinical endpoint , randomized controlled trial , confidence interval , pharmacology , diabetes mellitus , endocrinology , liraglutide
Aims To assess the safety and efficacy of monotherapy with once‐weekly subcutaneous (s.c.) semaglutide vs sitagliptin in Japanese people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods In this phase IIIa randomized, open‐label, parallel‐group, active‐controlled, multicentre trial, Japanese adults with T2D treated with diet and exercise only or oral antidiabetic drug monotherapy (washed out during the run‐in period) received once‐weekly s.c. semaglutide (0.5 or 1.0 mg) or once‐daily oral sitagliptin 100 mg. The primary endpoint was number of treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) after 30 weeks. Results Overall, 308 participants were randomized and exposed to treatment, with similar baseline characteristics across the groups. In total, 2.9% of participants in both the semaglutide 0.5 mg and the sitagliptin group prematurely discontinued treatment, compared with 14.7% in the semaglutide 1.0 mg group. The majority of discontinuations in the semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg groups were attributable to adverse events (AEs). More TEAEs were reported in semaglutide‐ vs sitagliptin‐treated participants (74.8%, 71.6% and 66.0% in the semaglutide 0.5 mg, semaglutide 1.0 mg and sitagliptin groups, respectively). AEs were mainly mild to moderate. Gastrointestinal AEs, most frequently reported with semaglutide, diminished in frequency over time. The mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c [baseline 8.1%]) decreased by 1.9% and 2.2% with semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg, respectively, vs 0.7% with sitagliptin (estimated treatment difference [ETD] vs sitagliptin −1.13%, 95% confidence interval [CI] −1.32; −0.94, and −1.44%, 95% CI −1.63; −1.24; both P < .0001). Body weight (baseline 69.3 kg) was reduced by 2.2 and 3.9 kg with semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg, respectively (ETD −2.22 kg, 95% CI −3.02; −1.42 and −3.88 kg, 95% CI −4.70; −3.07; both P < .0001). Conclusions In Japanese people with T2D, more TEAEs were reported with semaglutide than with sitagliptin; however, the semaglutide safety profile was similar to that of other glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists. Semaglutide significantly reduced HbA1c and body weight compared with sitagliptin.