Oral Semaglutide Versus Empagliflozin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled on Metformin: The PIONEER 2 Trial

OBJECTIVE: Efficacy and safety of the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) analog oral semaglutide and the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin were compared in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on metformin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to once-daily open-label treatment with oral semaglutide 14 mg (n = 412) or empagliflozin 25 mg (n = 410) in a 52-week trial. Key end points were change from baseline to week 26 in HbA1c (primary) and body weight (confirmatory secondary). Two estimands addressed efficacy-related questions: treatment policy (regardless of trial product discontinuation or rescue medication) and trial product (on trial product without rescue medication) in all randomized patients. RESULTS: Four-hundred (97.1%) patients in the oral semaglutide group and 387 (94.4%) in the empagliflozin group completed the trial. Oral semaglutide provided superior reductions in HbA1c versus empagliflozin at week 26 (treatment policy -1.3 vs. -0.9% [-14 vs. -9 mmol/mol], estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0.4% [95% CI -0.6, -0.3%] [-5 mmol/mol (-6, -3 mmol/mol)]; P < 0.0001). The treatment difference in HbA1c significantly favored oral semaglutide at week 26 for the trial product estimand (-1.4 vs. -0.9% [-15 vs. -9 mmol/mol], ETD -0.5% [95% CI -0.7, -0.4%] [-6 mmol/mol (-7, -5 mmol/mol)]; P < 0.0001) and at week 52 for both estimands (P < 0.0001). Superior weight loss was not confirmed at week 26 (treatment policy), but oral semaglutide was significantly better than empagliflozin at week 52 (trial product -4.7 vs. -3.8 kg; P = 0.0114). Gastrointestinal adverse events were more common with oral semaglutide. CONCLUSIONS: Oral semaglutide was superior to empagliflozin in reducing HbA1c but not body weight at 26 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on metformin. At week 52, HbA1c and body weight (trial product estimand) were significantly reduced versus empagliflozin. Oral semaglutide was well tolerated within the established safety profile of GLP-1 receptor agonists

Oral Semaglutide Versus Empagliflozin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled on Metformin: The PIONEER 2 Trial

OBJECTIVE: Efficacy and safety of the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) analog oral semaglutide and the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin were compared in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on metformin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to once-daily open-label treatment with oral semaglutide 14 mg (n = 412) or empagliflozin 25 mg (n = 410) in a 52-week trial. Key end points were change from baseline to week 26 in HbA1c (primary) and body weight (confirmatory secondary). Two estimands addressed efficacy-related questions: treatment policy (regardless of trial product discontinuation or rescue medication) and trial product (on trial product without rescue medication) in all randomized patients. RESULTS: Four-hundred (97.1%) patients in the oral semaglutide group and 387 (94.4%) in the empagliflozin group completed the trial. Oral semaglutide provided superior reductions in HbA1c versus empagliflozin at week 26 (treatment policy -1.3 vs. -0.9% [-14 vs. -9 mmol/mol], estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0.4% [95% CI -0.6, -0.3%] [-5 mmol/mol (-6, -3 mmol/mol)]; P < 0.0001). The treatment difference in HbA1c significantly favored oral semaglutide at week 26 for the trial product estimand (-1.4 vs. -0.9% [-15 vs. -9 mmol/mol], ETD -0.5% [95% CI -0.7, -0.4%] [-6 mmol/mol (-7, -5 mmol/mol)]; P < 0.0001) and at week 52 for both estimands (P < 0.0001). Superior weight loss was not confirmed at week 26 (treatment policy), but oral semaglutide was significantly better than empagliflozin at week 52 (trial product -4.7 vs. -3.8 kg; P = 0.0114). Gastrointestinal adverse events were more common with oral semaglutide. CONCLUSIONS: Oral semaglutide was superior to empagliflozin in reducing HbA1c but not body weight at 26 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on metformin. At week 52, HbA1c and body weight (trial product estimand) were significantly reduced versus empagliflozin. Oral semaglutide was well tolerated within the established safety profile of GLP-1 receptor agonists

Oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on metformin : the PIONEER 2 trial

OBJECTIVE: Efficacy and safety of the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) analog oral semaglutide and the sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin were compared in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on metformin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to once-daily open-label treatment with oral semaglutide 14 mg (n = 412) or empagliflozin 25 mg (n =410) in a 52-week trial. Key end points were change from baseline to week 26 in HbA1c (primary) and body weight (confirmatory secondary). Two estimands addressed efficacy-related questions: treatment policy (regardless of trial product discontinuation or rescue medication) and trial product (on trial product without rescue medication) in all randomized patients. RESULTS: Four hundred (97.1%) patients in the oral semaglutide group and 387 (94.4%) in the empagliflozin group completed the trial. Oral semaglutide provided superior reductions in HbA1c versus empagliflozin at week 26 (treatment policy –1.3% vs. –0.9% [–14 vs. –9 mmol/mol], estimated treatment difference [ETD] –0.4% [95% CI –0.6, –0.3] [–5 mmol/mol (–6, –3)]; P < 0.0001). The treatment difference in HbA1c significantly favored oral semaglutide at week 26 for the trial product estimand (–1.4% vs. –0.9% [–15 vs. –9mmol/mol],ETD–0.5% [95%CI –0.7, –0.4] [–6mmol/mol (–7, –5)]; P < 0.0001) and at week 52 for both estimands (P < 0.0001). Superior weight loss was not confirmed at week 26 (treatment policy), but oral semaglutide was significantly better than empagliflozin at week 52 (trial product -4.7 vs. -3.8 kg; P = 0.0114). Gastrointestinal adverse events were more common with oral semaglutide. CONCLUSIONS: Oral semaglutide was superior to empagliflozin in reducing HbA1c but not body weight at 26 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on metformin. At week 52,HbA1c and body weight (trial product estimand) were significantly reduced versus empagliflozin. Oral semaglutide was well tolerated within the established safety profile of GLP-1 receptor agonists

The Procalcitonin And Survival Study (PASS) – A Randomised multi-center investigator-initiated trial to investigate whether daily measurements biomarker <it>Procalcitonin </it>and pro-active diagnostic and therapeutic responses to abnormal Procalcitonin levels, can improve survival in intensive care unit patients. Calculated sample size (target population): 1000 patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Sepsis and complications to sepsis are major causes of mortality in critically ill patients. Rapid treatment of sepsis is of crucial importance for survival of patients. The infectious status of the critically ill patient is often difficult to assess because symptoms cannot be expressed and signs may present atypically. The established biological markers of inflammation (leucocytes, C-reactive protein) may often be influenced by other parameters than infection, and may be unacceptably slowly released after progression of an infection. At the same time, lack of a relevant antimicrobial therapy in an early course of infection may be fatal for the patient. Specific and rapid markers of bacterial infection have been sought for use in these patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Multi-centre randomized controlled interventional trial. Powered for superiority and non-inferiority on all measured end points. Complies with, "Good Clinical Practice" (ICH-GCP Guideline (CPMP/ICH/135/95, Directive 2001/20/EC)). Inclusion: 1) Age ≥ 18 years of age, 2) Admitted to the participating intensive care units, 3) Signed written informed consent.</p> <p>Exclusion: 1) Known hyper-bilirubinaemia. or hypertriglyceridaemia, 2) Likely that safety is compromised by blood sampling, 3) Pregnant or breast feeding.</p> <p>Computerized Randomisation: Two arms (1:1), n = 500 per arm: Arm 1: standard of care. Arm 2: standard of care and Procalcitonin guided diagnostics and treatment of infection.</p> <p>Primary Trial Objective: To address whether daily Procalcitonin measurements and immediate diagnostic and therapeutic response on day-to-day changes in procalcitonin can reduce the mortality of critically ill patients.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>For the first time ever, a mortality-endpoint, large scale randomized controlled trial with a biomarker-guided strategy compared to the best standard of care, is conducted in an Intensive care setting. Results will, with a high statistical power answer the question: Can the survival of critically ill patients be improved by actively using biomarker procalcitonin in the treatment of infections? 700 critically ill patients are currently included of 1000 planned (June 2008). Two interim analyses have been passed without any safety or futility issues, and the third interim analysis is soon to take place. Trial registration number at clinicaltrials.gov: Id. nr.: NCT00271752).</p