George Tsoukas

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide monotherapy versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 1): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multinational, multicentre phase 3a trial

BACKGROUND Despite a broad range of pharmacological options for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, optimum glycaemic control remains challenging for many patients and new therapies are necessary. Semaglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue in phase 3 development for type 2 diabetes. We assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of semaglutide monotherapy, compared with placebo, in treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes who had insufficient glycaemic control with diet and exercise alone. METHODS We did a double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, international, placebo-controlled phase 3a trial (SUSTAIN 1) at 72 sites in Canada, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, UK, and USA (including hospitals, clinical research units, and private offices). Eligible participants were treatment-naive individuals aged 18 years or older with type 2 diabetes treated with only diet and exercise alone for at least 30 days before screening, with a baseline HbA1c of 7·0%-10·0% (53-86 mmol/mol). We randomly assigned participants (2:2:1:1) to either once-weekly subcutaneously injected semaglutide (0·5 mg or 1·0 mg), or volume-matched placebo (0·5 mg or 1·0 mg), for 30 weeks via prefilled PDS290 pen-injectors. Participants did their own injections and were encouraged to administer them on the same day of each week in the same area of their body; the time of day and proximity of meal times was not specified. We did the randomisation with an interactive voice or web response system. Investigators, participants, and the funder of the study remained masked throughout the trial. The primary endpoint was the change in mean HbA1c from baseline to week 30, and the confirmatory secondary endpoint was the change in mean bodyweight from baseline to week 30. We assessed efficacy and safety in the modified intention-to-treat population (ie, all participants who were exposed to at least one dose of study drug); both placebo groups were pooled for assessment. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02054897. FINDINGS Between February 3, 2014, and August 21, 2014, we randomly assigned 388 participants to treatment; 387 received at least one dose of study medication (128 0·5 mg semaglutide, 130 1·0 mg semaglutide, 129 placebo). 17 (13%) of those assigned to 0·5 mg semaglutide, 16 (12%) assigned to 1·0 mg semaglutide, and 14 (11%) assigned to placebo discontinued treatment; the main reason for discontinuation was gastrointestinal adverse events such as nausea. Mean baseline HbA1c was 8·05% (SD 0·85); at week 30, HbA1c significantly decreased by 1·45% (95% CI -1·65 to -1·26) with 0·5 mg semaglutide (estimated treatment difference vs placebo -1·43%, 95% CI -1·71 to -1·15; p<0·0001), significantly decreased by 1·55% (-1·74 to -1·36) with 1·0 mg semaglutide (estimated treatment difference vs placebo -1·53%, -1·81 to -1·25; p<0·0001), and non-significantly decreased by 0·02% (-0·23 to 0·18) with placebo. Mean baseline bodyweight was 91·93 kg (SD 23·83); at week 30, bodyweight significantly decreased by 3·73 kg (95% CI -4·54 to -2·91) with 0·5 mg semaglutide (estimated treatment difference vs placebo -2·75 kg, 95% CI -3·92 to -1·58; p<0·0001), significantly decreased by 4·53 kg (-5·34 to -3·72) with 1·0 mg semaglutide (estimated treatment difference vs placebo -3·56 kg, -4·74 to -2·38; p<0·0001), and non-significantly decreased by 0·98 kg (-1·82 to -0·13) with placebo. No deaths were reported in any of the study groups and most reported adverse events were of mild or moderate severity. The most frequently reported adverse events in both semaglutide groups were gastrointestinal in nature: nausea was reported in 26 (20%) who received 0·5 mg semaglutide, 31 (24%) who received 1·0 mg semaglutide, and 10 (8%) who received placebo, and diarrhoea was reported in 16 (13%) who received 0·5 mg semaglutide, 14 (11%) who received 1·0 mg semaglutide, and three (2%) who received placebo. INTERPRETATION Semaglutide significantly improved HbA1c and bodyweight in patients with type 2 diabetes compared with placebo, and showed a similar safety profile to currently available GLP-1 receptor agonists, representing a potential treatment option for such patients. FUNDING Novo Nordisk A/S, Denmark.

Prospective study evaluating the use of nasal glucagon for the treatment of moderate to severe hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes in a real‐world setting

In the present multicentre, open‐label, prospective, phase III study, we evaluated the real‐world effectiveness and ease of use of nasal glucagon (NG) in the treatment of moderate/severe hypoglycaemic events (HEs) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Patients and caregivers were taught how to use NG (3 mg) to treat moderate/severe HEs, record the time taken to awaken or return to normal status, and measure blood glucose (BG) levels over time. Questionnaires were used to collect information about adverse events and ease of use of NG. In the efficacy analysis population, 69 patients experienced 157 HEs. In 95.7% patients, HEs resolved within 30 minutes of NG administration. In all the 12 severe HEs, patients awakened or returned to normal status within 15 minutes of NG administration without additional external medical help. Most caregivers reported that NG was easy to use. Most adverse events were local and of low to moderate severity. In this study, a single, 3‐mg dose of NG demonstrated real‐life effectiveness in treating moderate and severe HEs in adults with T1D. NG was well tolerated and easy to use.

Prototyping a decision support system in the clinical environment: assessment of patients with osteoporosis OSTEODSS

Abstract This paper describes a prototype of a decision support system developed to assess patients with osteoporosis. The system was embedded into the clinical workflow environment. This system is being used in two clinics and one hospital center in Canada. Osteoporosis is a disorder with major physical and economical implications. Assessing and properly managing patients with osteoporosis is complex and requires high level of expertise. Expertise alone does not totally address the problem as it involves the attitudes and behavioral states of the general practitioner, the patient and the specialist. The systems architecture, subcomponents and integrated workflow are described. The system was developed based on the experiences of a specialist with 50 patients. As of the end of 2003, the system was used for 45 patients. The reports generated were shown to general practitioners who were not able to distinguish them from an actual specialist report. In this paper we present one case and demonstrate the main differences between the report generated by the system and a report produced by the specialist. Experiences in using the system as it is integrated into the clinical workflow are discussed. Valuable insights into the integration and use of web-based decision support systems are highlighted.