Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with obesity and prevalent heart failure: a prespecified analysis of the SELECT trial

Background: Semaglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, reduces the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in people with overweight or obesity, but the effects of this drug on outcomes in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and heart failure are unknown. We report a prespecified analysis of the effect of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2·4 mg on ischaemic and heart failure cardiovascular outcomes. We aimed to investigate if semaglutide was beneficial in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease with a history of heart failure compared with placebo; if there was a difference in outcome in patients designated as having heart failure with preserved ejection fraction compared with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; and if the efficacy and safety of semaglutide in patients with heart failure was related to baseline characteristics or subtype of heart failure. Methods: The SELECT trial was a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, event-driven phase 3 trial in 41 countries. Adults aged 45 years and older, with a BMI of 27 kg/m2 or greater and established cardiovascular disease were eligible for the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a block size of four using an interactive web response system in a double-blind manner to escalating doses of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide over 16 weeks to a target dose of 2·4 mg, or placebo. In a prespecified analysis, we examined the effect of semaglutide compared with placebo in patients with and without a history of heart failure at enrolment, subclassified as heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, or unclassified heart failure. Endpoints comprised MACE (a composite of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, and cardiovascular death); a composite heart failure outcome (cardiovascular death or hospitalisation or urgent hospital visit for heart failure); cardiovascular death; and all-cause death. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03574597. Findings: Between Oct 31, 2018, and March 31, 2021, 17 604 patients with a mean age of 61·6 years (SD 8·9) and a mean BMI of 33·4 kg/m2 (5·0) were randomly assigned to receive semaglutide (8803 [50·0%] patients) or placebo (8801 [50·0%] patients). 4286 (24·3%) of 17 604 patients had a history of investigator-defined heart failure at enrolment: 2273 (53·0%) of 4286 patients had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, 1347 (31·4%) had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and 666 (15·5%) had unclassified heart failure. Baseline characteristics were similar between patients with and without heart failure. Patients with heart failure had a higher incidence of clinical events. Semaglutide improved all outcome measures in patients with heart failure at random assignment compared with those without heart failure (hazard ratio [HR] 0·72, 95% CI 0·60-0·87 for MACE; 0·79, 0·64-0·98 for the heart failure composite endpoint; 0·76, 0·59-0·97 for cardiovascular death; and 0·81, 0·66-1·00 for all-cause death; all pinteraction>0·19). Treatment with semaglutide resulted in improved outcomes in both the heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HR 0·65, 95% CI 0·49-0·87 for MACE; 0·79, 0·58-1·08 for the composite heart failure endpoint) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction groups (0·69, 0·51-0·91 for MACE; 0·75, 0·52-1·07 for the composite heart failure endpoint), although patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction had higher absolute event rates than those with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. For MACE and the heart failure composite, there were no significant differences in benefits across baseline age, sex, BMI, New York Heart Association status, and diuretic use. Serious adverse events were less frequent with semaglutide versus placebo, regardless of heart failure subtype. Interpretation: In patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular diease and overweight or obesity, treatment with semaglutide 2·4 mg reduced MACE and composite heart failure endpoints compared with placebo in those with and without clinical heart failure, regardless of heart failure subtype. Our findings could facilitate prescribing and result in improved clinical outcomes for this patient group. Funding: Novo Nordisk

Efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide with flexible dose adjustment versus sitagliptin in type 2 diabetes (PIONEER 7): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3a trial

Background: Oral semaglutide is the first oral formulation of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist developed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of flexible dose adjustments of oral semaglutide with sitagliptin 100 mg. Methods: In this 52-week, multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3a trial, we recruited patients with type 2 diabetes from 81 sites in ten countries. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older (19 years or older in South Korea), had type 2 diabetes (diagnosed ≥90 days before screening), HbA1c of 7·5–9·5% (58–80 mmol/mol), and were inadequately controlled on stable daily doses of one or two oral glucose-lowering drugs (for 90 days or more before screening). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by use of an interactive web-response system, stratified by background glucose-lowering medication at screening, to oral semaglutide with flexible dose adjustments to 3, 7, or 14 mg once daily or sitagliptin 100 mg once daily. To approximate treatment individualisation in clinical practice, oral semaglutide dose could be adjusted on the basis of prespecified HbA1c and tolerability criteria. Two efficacy-related estimands were prespecified: treatment policy (regardless of treatment discontinuation or use of rescue medication) and trial product (on treatment and without use of rescue medication) for participants randomly assigned to treatment. The primary endpoint was achievement of HbA1c of less than 7% (53 mmol/mol) at week 52 and the confirmatory secondary efficacy endpoint was change in bodyweight from baseline to week 52. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02849080, and European Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT number 2015-005593-38, and an open-label extension is ongoing. Findings: Between Sept 20, 2016, and Feb 7, 2017, of 804 patients assessed for eligibility, 504 were eligible and randomly assigned to oral semaglutide (n=253) or sitagliptin (n=251). Most participants were male (285 [57%] of 504) with a mean age of 57·4 years (SD 9·9). All participants were given at least one dose of their allocated study drug except for one participant in the sitagliptin group. From a mean baseline HbA1c of 8·3% (SD 0·6%; 67 mmol/mol [SD 6·4]), a greater proportion of participants achieved an HbA1c of less than 7% with oral semaglutide than did with sitagliptin (treatment policy estimand: 58% [134 of 230] vs 25% [60 of 238]; and trial product estimand: 63% [123 of 196] vs 28% [52 of 184]). The odds of achieving an HbA1c of less than 7% was significantly better with oral semaglutide than sitagliptin (treatment policy estimand: odds ratio [OR] 4·40, 95% CI 2·89–6·70, p<0·0001; and trial product estimand: 5·54, 3·54–8·68, p<0·0001). The odds of decreasing mean bodyweight from baseline to week 52 were higher with oral semaglutide than with sitagliptin (estimated mean change in bodyweight, treatment policy estimand: −2·6 kg [SE 0·3] vs −0·7 kg [SE 0·2], estimated treatment difference [ETD] −1·9 kg, 95% CI −2·6 to −1·2; p<0·0001; and trial product estimand: −2·9 kg [SE 0·3] vs −0·8 kg [SE 0·3], ETD −2·2 kg, −2·9 to −1·5; p<0·0001). Adverse events occurred in 197 (78%) of 253 participants in the oral semaglutide group versus 172 (69%) of 250 in the sitagliptin group, and nausea was the most common adverse event with oral semaglutide (53 [21%]). Two deaths occurred in the sitagliptin group during the trial. Interpretation: Oral semaglutide, with flexible dose adjustment, based on efficacy and tolerability, provided superior glycaemic control and weight loss compared with sitagliptin, and with a safety profile consistent with subcutaneous GLP-1 receptor agonists. Funding: Novo Nordisk A/S

Evacetrapib and Cardiovascular Outcomes in High-Risk Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: The cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor evacetrapib substantially raises the high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level, reduces the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level, and enhances cellular cholesterol efflux capacity. We sought to determine the effect of evacetrapib on major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with high-risk vascular disease. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, we enrolled 12,092 patients who had at least one of the following conditions: an acute coronary syndrome within the previous 30 to 365 days, cerebrovascular atherosclerotic disease, peripheral vascular arterial disease, or diabetes mellitus with coronary artery disease. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either evacetrapib at a dose of 130 mg or matching placebo, administered daily, in addition to standard medical therapy. The primary efficacy end point was the first occurrence of any component of the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina. RESULTS: At 3 months, a 31.1% decrease in the mean LDL cholesterol level was observed with evacetrapib versus a 6.0% increase with placebo, and a 133.2% increase in the mean HDL cholesterol level was seen with evacetrapib versus a 1.6% increase with placebo. After 1363 of the planned 1670 primary end-point events had occurred, the data and safety monitoring board recommended that the trial be terminated early because of a lack of efficacy. After a median of 26 months of evacetrapib or placebo, a primary end-point event occurred in 12.9% of the patients in the evacetrapib group and in 12.8% of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.91 to 1.11; P=0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Although the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor evacetrapib had favorable effects on established lipid biomarkers, treatment with evacetrapib did not result in a lower rate of cardiovascular events than placebo among patients with high-risk vascular disease. (Funded by Eli Lilly; ACCELERATE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01687998 .)