Incorporating and interpreting regulatory guidance on estimands in diabetes clinical trials: The PIONEER 1 randomized clinical trial as an example

Interaction between Permeation Enhancers and Lipid Bilayers

Permeation enhancers (PEs) are a class of molecules that interact with the epithelial membrane and transiently increase its transcellular permeability. Although there have been few clinical trials of PE coformulated drugs, the mechanism of action of PEs remains elusive. In this paper, the interaction between two archetypes of PEs [salcaprozate sodium (SNAC) and sodium caprate (C10)] and membranes is investigated with extensive all-atom molecular dynamics simulations. The simulations show that (1) the association between the neutral PEs and membranes is favored in free energy, (2) the propensity of neutral PE aggregation is larger in aqueous solution than in lipid bilayers, (3) the equilibrium distribution of neutral PEs in membranes is fast, e.g., accessible with unbiased MD simulations, and (4) the micelle of neutral PEs formed in aqueous solution does not rupture the membranes (e.g., not forming pores or breaking up the membrane) under simulation conditions. All results combined, this study indicates that PEs insert into the membranes in an equilibrium or near equilibrium process. This study lays the foundation for future investigations of how PEs impact the free energy of permeation for small molecules.

Beyond Weight Loss: Added Benefits Could Guide the Choice of Anti-Obesity Medications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To highlight the added benefits of approved and upcoming, centrally-acting, anti-obesity drugs, focusing not only on the most common metabolic and cardiovascular effects but also on their less explored clinical benefits and drawbacks, in order to provide clinicians with a tool for more comprehensive, pharmacological management of obesity.

RECENT FINDINGS

Obesity is increasingly prevalent worldwide and has become a challenge for healthcare systems and societies. Reduced life expectancy and cardiometabolic complications are some of the consequences of this complex disease. Recent insights into the pathophysiology of obesity have led to the development of several promising pharmacologic targets, so that even more effective drugs are on the horizon. The perspective of having a wider range of treatments increases the chance to personalize therapy. This primarily has the potential to take advantage of the long-term use of anti-obesity medication for safe, effective and sustainable weight loss, and to concomitantly address obesity complications/comorbidities when already established. The evolving scenario of the availability of anti-obesity drugs and the increasing knowledge of their added effects on obesity complications will allow clinicians to move into a new era of precision medicine.

Defining estimands in clinical trials: A unified procedure

The ICH E9 (R1) addendum proposes five strategies to define estimands by addressing intercurrent events. However, mathematical forms of these targeted quantities are lacking, which might lead to discordance between statisticians who estimate these quantities and clinicians, drug sponsors, and regulators who interpret them. To improve the concordance, we provide a unified four-step procedure for constructing the mathematical estimands. We apply the procedure for each strategy to derive the mathematical estimands and compare the five strategies in practical interpretations, data collection, and analytical methods. Finally, we show that the procedure can help ease tasks of defining estimands in settings with multiple types of intercurrent events using two real clinical trials.

A new era for oral peptides: SNAC and the development of oral semaglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) were first introduced for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in 2005. Despite the high efficacy and other benefits of GLP-1RAs, their uptake was initially limited by the fact that they could only be administered by injection. Semaglutide is a human GLP-1 analog that has been shown to significantly improve glycemic control and reduce body weight, in addition to improving cardiovascular outcomes, in patients with T2D. First approved as a once-weekly subcutaneous injection, semaglutide was considered an ideal peptide candidate for oral delivery with a permeation enhancer on account of its low molecular weight, long half-life, and high potency. An oral formulation of semaglutide was therefore developed by co-formulating semaglutide with sodium N-(8-[2-hydroxybenzoyl]amino)caprylate, a well-characterized transcellular permeation enhancer, to produce the first orally administered GLP-1RA. Pharmacokinetic analysis showed that stable steady-state concentrations could be achieved with once-daily dosing owing to the long half-life of oral semaglutide. Upper gastrointestinal disease and renal and hepatic impairment did not affect the pharmacokinetic profile. In the phase III PIONEER clinical trial program, oral semaglutide was shown to reduce glycated hemoglobin and body weight compared with placebo and active comparators in patients with T2D, with no new safety signals reported. Cardiovascular efficacy and safety are currently being assessed in a dedicated outcomes trial. The development of an oral GLP-1RA represents a significant milestone in the management of T2D, providing an additional efficacious treatment option for patients.

Changes in Glucose Metabolism and Glycemic Status With Once-Weekly Subcutaneous Semaglutide 2.4 mg Among Participants With Prediabetes in the STEP Program

OBJECTIVE

This analysis of 3,375 adults with overweight/obesity across the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with obesity (STEP) 1, 3, and 4 trials evaluated whether more participants with prediabetes had normoglycemia after 68 weeks' treatment with once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg plus lifestyle intervention versus placebo and assessed changes in glucose metabolism in participants with prediabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

STEP 1, 3, and 4 were phase 3, 68-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, multinational trials; STEP 4 had a 20-week semaglutide run-in and 48-week randomized period. Analyses included changes (week 0-68; before the washout period) in glycemic status (prespecified: STEP 1 and 3; post hoc: STEP 4), and in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and HOMA insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) among participants with prediabetes (post hoc).

RESULTS

Significantly more participants with baseline (week 0) prediabetes (n = 1,536) had normoglycemia at week 68 with semaglutide versus placebo (STEP 1, 84.1% vs. 47.8%; STEP 3, 89.5% vs. 55.0%; STEP 4, 89.8% vs. 70.4%; all P < 0.0001). Fewer participants with baseline normoglycemia had prediabetes at week 68 with semaglutide versus placebo (STEP 1, 2.9% vs. 10.9%; STEP 3, 3.2% vs. 5.8%; STEP 4, 1.1% vs. 5.0%). Semaglutide resulted in greater improvements in HbA1c, FPG, and HOMA-IR than placebo among participants with baseline prediabetes (all P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

STEP 1, 3, and 4 collectively provide a robust assessment of the effects of semaglutide on glucose metabolism and prediabetes in a large cohort of adults with overweight/obesity while on treatment. Among participants with baseline prediabetes, 68 weeks' treatment with semaglutide versus placebo led to significant improvements in glucose metabolism and a higher likelihood of normoglycemia.

Evaluating how clear the questions being investigated in randomised trials are: systematic review of estimands

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate how often the precise research question being addressed about an intervention (the estimand) is stated or can be determined from reported methods, and to identify what types of questions are being investigated in phase 2-4 randomised trials.

DESIGN

Systematic review of the clarity of research questions being investigated in randomised trials in 2020 in six leading general medical journals.

DATA SOURCE

PubMed search in February 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Phase 2-4 randomised trials, with no restrictions on medical conditions or interventions. Cluster randomised, crossover, non-inferiority, and equivalence trials were excluded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Number of trials that stated the precise primary question being addressed about an intervention (ie, the primary estimand), or for which the primary estimand could be determined unambiguously from the reported methods using statistical knowledge. Strategies used to handle post-randomisation events that affect the interpretation or existence of patient outcomes, such as intervention discontinuations or uses of additional drug treatments (known as intercurrent events), and the corresponding types of questions being investigated.

RESULTS

255 eligible randomised trials were identified. No trials clearly stated all the attributes of the estimand. In 117 (46%) of 255 trials, the primary estimand could be determined from the reported methods. Intercurrent events were reported in 242 (95%) of 255 trials; but the handling of these could only be determined in 125 (49%) of 255 trials. Most trials that provided this information considered the occurrence of intercurrent events as irrelevant in the calculation of the treatment effect and assessed the effect of the intervention regardless (96/125, 77%)-that is, they used a treatment policy strategy. Four (4%) of 99 trials with treatment non-adherence owing to adverse events estimated the treatment effect in a hypothetical setting (ie, the effect as if participants continued treatment despite adverse events), and 19 (79%) of 24 trials where some patients died estimated the treatment effect in a hypothetical setting (ie, the effect as if participants did not die).

CONCLUSIONS

The precise research question being investigated in most trials is unclear, mainly because of a lack of clarity on the approach to handling intercurrent events. Clear reporting of estimands is necessary in trial reports so that all stakeholders, including clinicians, patients and policy makers, can make fully informed decisions about medical interventions.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021238053.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Oral Semaglutide in Spain: A Long-Term Health Economic Analysis Based on the PIONEER Clinical Trials

INTRODUCTION

Novel glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist oral semaglutide has demonstrated greater improvements in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight versus oral medications empagliflozin and sitagliptin, and injectable GLP-1 analog liraglutide, in the PIONEER clinical trial program. Based on these data, the present analysis aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin, sitagliptin and liraglutide in Spain.

METHODS

Outcomes were projected over patients' lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (v9.0), discounted at 3.0% annually. Cohort characteristics and treatment effects were sourced from PIONEER 2 and 4 for the comparisons of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus empagliflozin 25 mg and liraglutide 1.8 mg, respectively, and PIONEER 3 for oral semaglutide 7 and 14 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg. Costs were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective in 2020 euros (EUR). Patients were assumed to receive initial therapies until HbA1c exceeded 7.5% and then treatment-intensified to basal insulin.

RESULTS

Oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.13, 0.19 and 0.06 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus empagliflozin 25 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and liraglutide 1.8 mg, respectively, with direct costs EUR 168 higher versus empagliflozin and EUR 236 and 1415 lower versus sitagliptin and liraglutide, respectively. Oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EUR 1339 per QALY gained versus empagliflozin and was considered dominant (clinically superior and cost saving) versus sitagliptin and liraglutide. Additional analyses demonstrated that oral semaglutide 7 mg was associated with improvements of 0.11 QALYs and increased costs of EUR 226 versus sitagliptin and was therefore associated with an ICER of EUR 2011 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

Oral semaglutide 14 mg was dominant versus sitagliptin and liraglutide, and cost-effective versus empagliflozin, for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in Spain.

Efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide by subgroups of patient characteristics in the PIONEER phase 3 programme

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide versus comparators by patient characteristic subgroups in patients with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight, and achievement of HbA1c <7.0% with oral semaglutide 7 mg, oral semaglutide 14 mg, flexibly dosed oral semaglutide (flex) and comparators were assessed across baseline subgroups (age, race, ethnicity, diabetes duration, body mass index and HbA1c) from the PIONEER programme. Treatment differences were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements for continuous variables and a logistic regression model for the binary endpoint. Pooled safety data were analysed descriptively.

RESULTS

Changes from baseline in HbA1c and body weight, and the odds of achieving HbA1c <7.0%, were greater with oral semaglutide 14 mg/flex (n = 1934) and higher or similar with oral semaglutide 7 mg (n = 823) versus comparators (n = 2077) across most subgroups. Changes in HbA1c with oral semaglutide 14 mg/flex were greater for patients with higher baseline HbA1c (HbA1c >9.0%: -1.7% to -2.6%; HbA1c <8.0%: -0.7% to -1.2%). In some trials, Asian patients experienced greater HbA1c reductions with oral semaglutide 14 mg/flex (-1.5% to -1.8%) than other racial groups (-0.6% to -1.6%). The overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) with oral semaglutide was similar to that with comparators and was consistent across subgroups. More gastrointestinal AEs were observed with oral semaglutide, versus comparators, across subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral semaglutide demonstrated consistently greater HbA1c and body weight reductions across a range of patient characteristics, with greater HbA1c reductions seen at higher baseline HbA1c levels.

Long-Term Cost Effectiveness of Oral Semaglutide Versus Empagliflozin and Sitagliptin for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in the Swedish Setting

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of oral semaglutide versus other oral glucose-lowering drugs for the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Sweden.

METHODS

The Swedish Institute for Health Economics Diabetes Cohort Model was used to assess the cost effectiveness of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus empagliflozin 25 mg and oral semaglutide 14 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg, using data from the head-to-head PIONEER 2 and 3 trials, respectively, in which these treatments were added to metformin (± sulphonylurea). Base-case and scenario analyses were conducted. Robustness was evaluated with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

In the base-case analyses, greater initial lowering of glycated haemoglobin levels with oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin and oral semaglutide versus sitagliptin, respectively, resulted in reduced incidences of micro- and macrovascular complications and was associated with lower costs of complications and indirect costs. Treatment costs were higher for oral semaglutide, resulting in higher total lifetime costs than with empagliflozin (Swedish Krona [SEK] 1,245,570 vs. 1,210,172) and sitagliptin (SEK1,405,789 vs. 1,377,381). Oral semaglutide was shown to be cost effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SEK239,001 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) compared with empagliflozin and SEK120,848 per QALY compared with sitagliptin, from a payer perspective. ICERs were lower at SEK191,721 per QALY compared with empagliflozin and SEK95,234 per QALY compared with sitagliptin from a societal perspective. Results were similar in scenario analyses that incorporated cardiovascular effects, and also in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

In a Swedish setting, oral semaglutide was cost effective compared with empagliflozin and sitagliptin for patients with T2D inadequately controlled on oral glucose-lowering drugs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02863328 (PIONEER 2; registered 11 August 2016) and NCT02607865 (PIONEER 3; registered 18 November 2015).

An Indirect Treatment Comparison of Semaglutide 2.0 mg vs Dulaglutide 3.0 mg and 4.5 mg Using Multilevel Network Meta-regression

AIMS

Currently, no head-to-head data are available comparing semaglutide 2.0 mg with dulaglutide 3.0 mg or 4.5 mg. We conducted an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of their effects on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Multilevel network meta-regression was conducted, based on a connected evidence network of published results from the A Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Dulaglutide (LY2189265) in Participants With Type 2 Diabetes 11 trial and individual patient data from the A Research Study to Compare Two Doses of Semaglutide Taken Once Weekly in People With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN) and SUSTAIN 7 trials.

RESULTS

Semaglutide 2.0 mg significantly reduced HbA1c vs dulaglutide 3.0 mg and 4.5 mg, with estimated treatment differences (ETDs) of -0.44% points (95% credible interval [CrI], -0.68 to -0.19) and -0.28% points (95% CrI, -0.52 to -0.03), respectively. Semaglutide 2.0 mg also significantly reduced body weight vs dulaglutide 3.0 mg and 4.5 mg with ETDs of -3.29 kg (95% CrI, -4.62 to -1.96) and -2.57 kg (95% CrI, -3.90 to -1.24), respectively. Odds of achieving HbA1c < 7.0% were significantly greater for semaglutide 2.0 vs dulaglutide 3.0 mg (odds ratio [OR]: 2.23 [95% CrI, 1.15-3.90]), whereas this did not reach significance for semaglutide 2.0 mg vs dulaglutide 4.5 mg (OR: 1.58 [95% CrI, 0.82-2.78]). Sensitivity analyses supported the main analysis findings.

CONCLUSIONS

This ITC demonstrated significantly greater reductions from baseline in HbA1c and body weight with semaglutide 2.0 mg vs dulaglutide 3.0 mg and 4.5 mg. The findings of this study provide important comparative effectiveness information until randomized head-to-head studies become available.

The long-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin and dulaglutide in Portugal

BACKGROUND

Oral semaglutide is a novel glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analog that has been associated with improvements in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight versus sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor empagliflozin and injectable GLP-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide in the PIONEER 2 clinical trial and in a recent network meta-analysis (NMA), respectively. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus empagliflozin 25 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg for the treatment of type 2 diabetes from a healthcare payer perspective in Portugal.

METHODS

In two separate analyses, outcomes were projected over patients' lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (v9.0), discounted at 4% per annum. Clinical data were sourced from the PIONEER 2 trial and the NMA for the comparisons versus empagliflozin and dulaglutide, respectively. Patients were assumed to receive initial therapies until HbA1c exceeded 7.5%, then treatment-intensified to solely basal insulin therapy. Costs were accounted from a National Healthcare Service perspective in Portugal and expressed in 2021 euros (EUR). Utilities were taken from published sources.

RESULTS

Oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with improvements in life expectancy of 0.10 and 0.03 years, and quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.11 and 0.03 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), versus empagliflozin 25 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg, respectively. Improved clinical outcomes were due to a reduced cumulative incidence and increased time to onset of diabetes-related complications with oral semaglutide. Total costs were projected to be EUR 2548 and EUR 814 higher with oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin and dulaglutide, with higher acquisition costs partially offset by cost savings from avoidance of diabetes-related complications. Oral semaglutide 14 mg was therefore associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of EUR 23,571 and EUR 23,927 per QALY gained versus empagliflozin 25 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 30,000 per QALY gained, oral semaglutide 14 mg was considered cost-effective versus empagliflozin 25 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in Portugal.

Efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: A subgroup analysis by baseline variables in the PIONEER 9 and PIONEER 10 trials

Aims/Introduction

To assess the impact of baseline characteristics on the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

Materials and Methods

In the Peptide InnOvatioN for Early diabEtes tReatment (PIONEER) 9 and 10 trials, Japanese patients were randomized to once‐daily oral semaglutide (3, 7, or 14 mg) or a comparator (placebo or once‐daily subcutaneous liraglutide 0.9 mg in PIONEER 9; once‐weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide 0.75 mg in PIONEER 10) for 52 weeks, with 5 weeks of follow up. An exploratory analysis grouped patients in each trial according to baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c; ≤8.0, >8.0–≤9.0, or >9.0%), body mass index (<25, ≥25–<30, or ≥30 kg/m²) and, for PIONEER 10 only, by background medication (sulfonylurea, glinide, thiazolidinedione, α‐glucosidase inhibitor, sodium‐glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor). Efficacy (changes from baseline to week 26 in HbA_1c and bodyweight) and safety were assessed.

Results

Seven hundred and one patients were included (PIONEER 9: N = 243; PIONEER 10: N = 458). In both trials, HbA_1c reductions increased as baseline HbA_1c increased; there were no other apparent patterns between the variables investigated and HbA_1c or bodyweight changes. There was one statistically significant subgroup interaction between baseline HbA_1c and estimated treatment differences in bodyweight change for oral semaglutide 14 mg versus placebo in PIONEER 9 (P = 0.0286). Baseline HbA_1c, baseline body mass index and background medication did not appear to affect the proportions of patients reporting adverse events.

Conclusions

Oral semaglutide is effective across a range of baseline subgroups of Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes, with no unexpected safety findings.

Efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide by baseline age in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: A subgroup analysis of the PIONEER 9 and 10 Japan trials

A post-hoc exploratory analysis of the PIONEER 9 and 10 trials evaluated the effect of baseline age (<65 and ≥65 years) on the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. In PIONEER 9 and 10, patients were randomized to once-daily oral semaglutide (3, 7 or 14 mg) or a comparator (placebo or once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide 0.9 mg [PIONEER 9]; once-weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide 0.75 mg [PIONEER 10]) for 52 weeks, with 5 weeks' follow-up. In total, 701 patients were included (PIONEER 9: N = 243; PIONEER 10: N = 458). Glycaemic efficacy of oral semaglutide was similar in Japanese patients aged <65 years compared with those ≥65 years, and there did not appear to be a clear pattern between age subgroup and body weight changes. Across treatment arms, adverse events generally occurred in greater proportions of patients aged ≥65 versus <65 years. There was generally a higher rate of premature trial product discontinuation because of adverse events in the older age group. These results indicate that oral semaglutide is efficacious in Japanese patients irrespective of age.

Estimands-a Basic Element for Clinical Trials. Part 29 of a Series on Evaluation of Scientific Publications

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are of central importance for the evaluation and comparison of treatments. The transparency and intelligibility of the treatment effect under investigation is an essential matter for physicians, patients, and health-care authorities. The estimand framework has been introduced because many trials are deficient in this respect.

METHODS

Introduction, definition, and application of the estimand framework on the basis of an example and a selective review of the literature.

RESULTS

The estimand framework provides a systematic approach to the definition of the treatment effect under investigation in a clinical trial. An estimand consists of five attributes: treatment, population, variable, population-level summary, and handling of intercurrent events. Each of these attributes is defined in an interdisciplinary discussion during the trial planning phase, based on the clinical question being asked. Special attention is given to the handling of intercurrent events (ICEs): these are events-e.g., discontinuation or modification of treatment or the use of emergency medication-that can occur once the treatment has begun and might affect the possibility of observing the endpoints or their interpretability. There are various strategies for the handling of ICEs; these can, for example, also reflect the existing intentionto- treat (ITT) principle. Per-protocol analyses, in contrast, are prone to bias and cannot be represented in a sensible manner by an estimand, although they may be performed as a supplementary analysis. The discussion of potential intercurrent events and how they should appropriately be handled in view of the aim of the trial must already take place in the planning phase.

CONCLUSION

Use of the estimand framework should make it easier for both physicians and patients to understand what trials reveal about the efficacy of treatment, and to compare the results of different trials.

Efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: A post hoc subgroup analysis of the PIONEER 1, 3, 4 and 8 trials

AIMS

To evaluate, through exploratory post hoc subgroup analyses, the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide versus comparators in Japanese patients enrolled in the global PIONEER 1, 3, 4 and 8 clinical trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients were randomized to once-daily oral semaglutide 3, 7 or 14 mg or comparator (placebo, sitagliptin 100 mg or liraglutide 1.8 mg). Change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight, and proportions of patients attaining HbA1c <7.0% (53 mmol/mol) and body weight loss ≥5%, were analysed at week 26 for all Japanese patients in each trial separately using the treatment policy estimand (regardless of treatment discontinuation or rescue medication use). Adverse events (AEs) were analysed descriptively.

RESULTS

Reductions in HbA1c from baseline in Japanese patients were 1.0% to 1.2% (11.3 mmol/mol to 13.3 mmol/mol) and 1.4% to 1.7% (15.7 mmol/mol to 18.3 mmol/mol) for oral semaglutide 7 mg and 14 mg, respectively. HbA1c reductions were similar or greater than with comparators. Body weight reductions were 1.0% to 2.7% and 3.7% to 4.7% for oral semaglutide 7 mg and 14 mg, respectively, and were generally greater with oral semaglutide than comparators. As expected, the main class of AEs was gastrointestinal, and these AEs comprised most commonly mild-to-moderate constipation, nausea and diarrhoea.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral semaglutide appears efficacious and well tolerated in Japanese patients across the type 2 diabetes spectrum.

An indirect treatment comparison of the efficacy of semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg

AIM

To compare the effects of semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg on HbA1c and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Bucher indirect comparison was conducted to compare efficacy outcomes of semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg using published results from the SUSTAIN 7 and AWARD-11 trials. Sensitivity analyses using individual patient data from SUSTAIN 7 and aggregate data from AWARD-11 were conducted to explore the impact of adjustment for cross-trial imbalances in baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

Semaglutide 1.0 mg significantly reduced HbA1c versus dulaglutide 3.0 mg, with an estimated treatment difference (ETD) of -0.24%-points (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.43, -0.05), with comparable reductions in HbA1c versus dulaglutide 4.5 mg with an ETD of -0.07%-points (95% CI -0.26, 0.12). Semaglutide 1.0 mg significantly reduced body weight versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg with an ETD of -2.65 kg (95% CI -3.57, -1.73) and -1.95 kg (95% CI -2.87, -1.03), respectively. Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis findings.

CONCLUSIONS

This indirect comparison showed significantly greater reductions in HbA1c with semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 mg and comparable HbA1c reductions versus dulaglutide 4.5 mg. Semaglutide 1.0 mg significantly reduced body weight versus both dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg. With several glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists available, information regarding their comparative efficacy can be valuable to clinicians.

The estimand framework and its application in substance use disorder clinical trials: a case study

Relapse rates among individuals with substance use disorder (SUD) remain high and new treatment approaches are needed, which require evaluation in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Measurement and interpretation challenges for SUD RCT data are often ignored or presented only in statistical analysis plans. Since different analytic approaches may result in different estimates and thus interpretations of the treatment effect, it is important to present this clearly throughout the trial. Inconsistencies between study analyses and objectives present further challenges for interpretation and cross-study comparisons. The recent International Council for Harmonization (ICH) addendum provides standardized language and a common framework for aligning trial objectives, design, conduct, and analysis. The framework focuses on estimands, which describe the treatment effect and link the trial objective with the scientific question and the analytic approach. The use of estimands offers SUD researchers and clinicians the opportunity to explicitly address events that affect measurement and interpretation at the outset of the trial. Furthermore, the use of standard terminology can lead to clearer interpretations of SUD trials and the treatments evaluated in SUD trials. Resources for understanding and applying estimands are needed to optimize the use of this new, helpful framework. This Perspective provides this resource for SUD researchers. Specifically, it highlights the relevance of estimands for SUD trials. Furthermore, it demonstrates how estimands can be used to develop clinically relevant analyses to address challenges in SUD trials. It also shows how a standardized framework can be employed to improve the interpretation and presentation of SUD study findings.

Oral Semaglutide, the First Ingestible Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist: Could It Be a Magic Bullet for Type 2 Diabetes?

The gastrointestinal tract secretes gut hormones in response to food consumption, and some of these stimulate insulin secretion. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) is an incretin peptide hormone released from the lower digestive tract that stimulates insulin secretion, suppresses glucagon secretion, and decreases hunger. GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) mimics the action of endogenous GLP-1, consequently reversing hyperglycemia and causing weight reduction, demonstrating its efficacy as an antidiabetic and antiobesity agent. Previously restricted to injection only, the invention of the absorption enhancer sodium N-(8-[2-hydroxybenzoyl]amino) caprylate resulted in the development of oral semaglutide, the first ingestible GLP-1RA. Oral semaglutide demonstrated its efficacy in glycemic management and body weight loss with a low risk of hypoglycemia as a monotherapy and in combination with other hypoglycemic medications in its clinical trial programs named Peptide Innovation for Early Diabetes Treatment. Consistent with other injectable GLP-1RAs, gastrointestinal side effects were often reported. Additionally, cardiovascular safety was established by demonstrating that oral semaglutide was not inferior to a placebo in terms of cardiovascular outcomes. Thus, oral semaglutide represents a novel treatment option that is particularly well-suited for patients with type 2 diabetes and/or obesity.

Why ITT analysis is not always the answer for estimating treatment effects in clinical trials

For many years there has been a consensus among the Clinical Research community that ITT analysis represents the correct approach for the vast majority of trials. Recent worldwide regulatory guidance for pharmaceutical industry trials has allowed discussion of alternatives to the ITT approach to analysis; different treatment effects can be considered which may be more clinically meaningful and more relevant to patients and prescribers. The key concept is of a trial "estimand", a precise description of the estimated treatment effect. The strategy chosen to account for patients who discontinue treatment or take alternative medications which are not part of the randomised treatment regimen are important determinants of this treatment effect. One strategy to account for these events is treatment policy, which corresponds to an ITT approach. Alternative equally valid strategies address what the treatment effect is if the patient actually takes the treatment or does not use specific alternative medication. There is no single right answer to which strategy is most appropriate, the solution depends on the key clinical question of interest. The estimands framework discussed in the new guidance has been particularly useful in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic and has clarified what choices are available to account for the impact of COVID-19 on clinical trials. Specifically, an ITT approach addresses a treatment effect that may not be generalisable beyond the current pandemic.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide 2·0 mg versus 1·0 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN FORTE): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3B trial

BACKGROUND

Semaglutide is an effective treatment for type 2 diabetes; however, 20-30% of patients given semaglutide 1·0 mg do not reach glycaemic treatment goals. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide 2·0 mg versus 1·0 mg in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes on a stable dose of metformin with or without a sulfonylurea.

METHODS

We did a 40-week, randomised, active-controlled, parallel-group, double-blind, phase 3B trial (SUSTAIN FORTE) at 125 outpatient clinics in ten countries. Participants (≥18 years) with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (HbA_1c 8·0-10·0%) with metformin and with or without sulfonylurea were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web-response system to 2·0 mg or 1·0 mg once-weekly semaglutide. Participants, site personnel, the clinical study group, and investigators were masked to the randomised treatment. Outcomes included change from baseline at week 40 in HbA_1c (primary outcome) and bodyweight (secondary confirmatory outcome), evaluated through trial product estimand (no treatment discontinuation or without rescue medication) and treatment policy estimand (regardless of treatment discontinuation or rescue medication) strategies. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03989232; EudraCT, 2018-004529-96; and WHO, U1111-1224-5162.

FINDINGS

Between June 19 and Nov 28, 2019, of 1515 adults assessed for eligibility, 961 participants (mean age 58·0 years [SD 10·0]; 398 [41%] women) were included. Participants were randomly assigned to once-weekly semaglutide 2·0 mg (n=480 [50%]) or 1·0 mg (n=481 [50%]); 462 (96%) patients in the semaglutide 2·0 mg group and 471 (98%) in the semaglutide 1·0 mg group completed the trial. Mean baseline HbA_1c was 8·9% (SD 0·6; 73·3 mmol/mol [SD 6·9]) and BMI was 34·6 kg/m² (SD 7·0). Mean change in HbA_1c from baseline at week 40 was -2·2 percentage points with semaglutide 2·0 mg and -1·9 percentage points with semaglutide 1·0 mg (estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0·23 percentage points [95% CI -0·36 to -0·11]; p=0·0003; trial product estimand) and -2·1 percentage points with semaglutide 2·0 mg and -1·9 percentage points with semaglutide 1·0 mg (ETD -0·18 percentage points [-0·31 to -0·04]; p=0·0098; treatment policy estimand). Mean change in bodyweight from baseline at week 40 was -6·9 kg with semaglutide 2·0 mg and -6·0 kg with semaglutide 1·0 mg (ETD -0·93 kg [95% CI -1·68 to -0·18]; p=0·015; trial product estimand) and -6·4 kg with semaglutide 2·0 mg and -5·6 kg with semaglutide 1·0 mg (ETD -0·77 kg [-1·55 to 0·01]; p=0·054; treatment policy estimand). Gastrointestinal disorders were the most commonly reported adverse events (163 [34%] in the 2·0 mg group and 148 [31%] in the 1·0 mg group). Serious adverse events were similar between treatment groups, reported for 21 (4%) participants given semaglutide 2·0 mg and 25 (5%) participants given semaglutide 1·0 mg. Three deaths were reported during the trial (one in the semaglutide 1·0 mg group and two in the semaglutide 2·0 mg group).

INTERPRETATION

Semaglutide 2·0 mg was superior to 1·0 mg in reducing HbA_1c, with additional bodyweight loss and a similar safety profile. This higher dose provides a treatment intensification option for patients with type 2 diabetes treated with semaglutide in need of additional glycaemic control.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Estimands, Handling of Missing Data and Impact on Assumed Effect Size and Power in Pivotal COVID-19 Treatment Trials

Estimands play an important role for aligning study objectives, study design and analyses through a precise definition of the quantity of interest. For COVID-19 studies, apart from intercurrent events, high volume of missing data has been observed. We explore their impact on several estimands through a synthetic COVID-19 data generated from a discrete-time multi-state model. We compare estimators of these estimands based on their ability to closely match the true response rates and retain assumed power. The final choice of the estimand then needs to be aligned with clinically meaningful quantities of interest to patients, clinicians, regulators and payers.

A Randomized, Open-Label Comparison of Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec Titration Strategies Versus Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100

OBJECTIVE

Insulin icodec is a novel once-weekly basal insulin analog. This trial investigated the efficacy and safety of icodec using different once-weekly titration algorithms.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a phase 2, randomized, open-label, 16-week, treat-to-target study. Insulin-naive adults (n = 205) with type 2 diabetes and HbA_1c 7-10% while treated with oral glucose-lowering medications initiated once-weekly icodec titrations A (prebreakfast self-measured blood glucose target 80-130 mg/dL; adjustment ±21 units/week; n = 51), B (80-130 mg/dL; ±28 units/week; n = 51), or C (70-108 mg/dL; ±28 units/week; n = 52), or once-daily insulin glargine 100 units/mL (IGlar U100) (80-130 mg/dL; ±4 units/day; n = 51), all titrated weekly. Percentage of time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) during weeks 15 and 16 was measured using continuous glucose monitoring.

RESULTS

TIR improved from baseline (means: A, 57.0%; B, 55.2%; C, 51.0%; IGlar U100, 55.3%) to weeks 15 and 16 (estimated mean: A, 76.6%; B, 83.0%; C, 80.9%; IGlar U100, 75.9%). TIR was greater for titration B than for IGlar U100 (estimated treatment difference 7.08%-points; 95% CI 2.12 to 12.04; P = 0.005). No unexpected safety signals were observed. Level 2 hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL) was low in all groups (0.05, 0.15, 0.38, 0.00 events per patient-year of exposure for icodec titrations A, B, and C and IGlar U100, respectively), with no episodes of severe hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-weekly icodec was efficacious and well tolerated across all three titration algorithms investigated. The results for icodec titration A (80-130 mg/dL; ±21 units/week) displayed the best balance between glycemic control and risk of hypoglycemia.

Efficacy of Semaglutide in a Subcutaneous and an Oral Formulation

Despite the benefits of early and effective glycemic control in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D), achieving glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) targets is challenging in some patients. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) provide effective reductions in HbA1c and body weight. Semaglutide is the only GLP-1RA that is available in both an injectable and oral formulation. The efficacy of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide and once-daily oral semaglutide has been investigated in the global SUSTAIN and PIONEER phase III clinical trial programs in a range of clinical settings, including early T2D managed with diet and exercise only, more established T2D uncontrolled on one to three oral antidiabetic drugs, and advanced disease treated with insulin. Across the SUSTAIN program, once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 1.0 mg reduced HbA1c by 1.5-1.8% after 30-56 weeks, which was significantly more than sitagliptin, liraglutide, exenatide extended release, dulaglutide, canagliflozin, or insulin glargine. Across the PIONEER program, once-daily oral semaglutide 14 mg reduced HbA1c by 1.0-1.4%, significantly more than sitagliptin or empagliflozin, and to a similar extent as liraglutide after 26 weeks. In addition, subcutaneous semaglutide reduced body weight significantly more than all active comparators tested, while oral semaglutide reduced body weight more than sitagliptin and liraglutide, and to a similar extent as empagliflozin. Neither formulation of semaglutide has been associated with an increased risk of hypoglycemia and both improve various measures of health-related quality of life. Semaglutide offers the benefits of a highly effective GLP-1RA in both injectable and oral formulations. Selection of the most appropriate formulation can be made on an individual basis to best suit the patient's preferences and needs.

The long-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide in the Netherlands based on the PIONEER 2, 3 and 4 randomized controlled trials

AIMS

To assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of novel glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analog oral semaglutide versus sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor empagliflozin, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin and injectable GLP-1 analog liraglutide in the Netherlands, based on the results of the PIONEER clinical trials.

METHODS

Outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Clinical data were derived from PIONEER 2, 3 and 4. Patients were assumed to receive initial treatments until glycated hemoglobin exceeded 7.5%, then treatment-intensified to basal insulin therapy. Costs were accounted from a societal perspective in 2019 euros (EUR).

RESULTS

Oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.15, 0.22 and 0.09quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus empagliflozin 25 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and liraglutide 1.8 mg, respectively, with combined costs EUR1,032 higher, EUR115 higher and EUR1,267 lower. Oral semaglutide was therefore associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of EUR7,061 and EUR516 per QALY gained versus empagliflozin and sitagliptin, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on long-term projections, oral semaglutide 14 mg was considered cost-effective versus empagliflozin 25 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg and dominant versus liraglutide 1.8 mg for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the Netherlands.

Once-Daily Oral Semaglutide Versus Injectable GLP-1 RAs in People with Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled on Basal Insulin: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The relative efficacy and safety of once-daily oral semaglutide vs. injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled on basal insulin were assessed using network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed to identify randomised controlled trials of GLP-1 RAs in this population. Data at 26 ± 4 weeks were extracted for efficacy and safety outcomes feasible for the NMA: change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c), weight and blood pressure; HbA_1c target levels (< 7.0% and ≤ 6.5%); composite endpoint; incidence of nausea, vomiting or diarrhoea. Comparators of interest were all licensed doses of dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide and once-weekly injectable semaglutide.

RESULTS

The NMA included seven trials. Once-daily oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with significantly greater HbA_1c reductions vs. most comparators (treatment differences: - 0.42 to - 1.32%); differences vs. once-weekly injectable semaglutide (0.5 mg and 1 mg doses) were not statistically significant. Once-daily oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with significantly greater weight reductions vs. exenatide 2 mg and lixisenatide 20 μg (- 2.21 and - 2.39 kg respectively); non-statistically significant weight reductions in favour of once-daily oral semaglutide 14 mg were observed vs. all other comparators except once-weekly injectable semaglutide 1 mg. Similar trends were observed for the proportion of subjects achieving HbA_1c < 7.0% and ≤ 6.5% and the composite endpoint. Once-daily oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with similar odds of experiencing nausea, vomiting or diarrhoea vs. all comparators.

CONCLUSION

Once-daily oral semaglutide 14 mg, as an add-on to basal insulin, is an efficacious treatment for reducing HbA_1c and weight and meeting glycaemic targets at 26 ± 4 weeks. Once-daily oral semaglutide 14 mg also offers the option of an oral treatment with similar or better efficacy and similar tolerability vs. most injectable GLP-1 RAs.

Understanding estimands

Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for determining the efficacy of a new intervention. Trials conducted for regulatory approval of an intervention compare the effect of the intervention with the standard of care or placebo to demonstrate efficacy. Randomization attempts to ensure that all known and unknown confounding factors are evenly distributed between the groups, and that the groups will be comparable at the end of the study, so that any inter-group differences in outcomes can be attributed to the intervention. However, in reality, intercurrent events may impact the assessment and subsequent interpretation of the outcome of interest. To address this, International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) in 2017, released an addendum to the E9 guideline (ICH E9 R1) putting forth the concept of Estimands and Sensitivity Analysis in Clinical Trials. This addendum addresses how these intercurrent events are to be handled using the Estimand concept, which is now expected to be detailed in a separate section of the study protocol. In this paper, we discuss what estimands are, and their likely impact on how regulatory trial protocols and their statistical analyses plans are written and implemented. We also look at the application of the concept of estimands to routine clinical practice.

Oral Semaglutide Reduces HbA1c and Body Weight in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Regardless of Background Glucose-Lowering Medication: PIONEER Subgroup Analyses

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide, the first oral glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, were investigated in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the Peptide InnOvatioN for Early diabEtes tReatment (PIONEER) programme. The current post-hoc exploratory subgroup analyses evaluated outcomes by background medication and insulin regimen subgroups.

METHODS

Data from patients in the PIONEER 3-5, 7 and 8 trials receiving once-daily oral semaglutide (14 mg/flexibly dosed) or a comparator (placebo, sitagliptin 100 mg or liraglutide 1.8 mg) were analysed for efficacy (glycated haemoglobin [HbA_1c] and body weight changes from baseline to planned end of treatment) and safety outcomes. Patients were grouped according to background medication (metformin, sulphonylurea, thiazolidinedione, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor, insulin, or combinations thereof). Efficacy outcomes were analysed using the trial product estimand (which assumes that patients remained on the trial product without rescue medication use). A separate analysis by background insulin regimen (basal, premixed or basal-bolus) was done for PIONEER 8 using the treatment policy estimand (regardless of trial product discontinuation or rescue medication use). Safety outcomes were analysed descriptively for all patients.

RESULTS

In total, 2836 patients receiving oral semaglutide 14 mg/flexibly dosed or comparators were included. Baseline characteristics were generally similar across background medication subgroups within each trial. Diabetes duration tended to be longer in patients receiving more background medications. Greater HbA_1c and body weight reductions were seen across background medication subgroups with oral semaglutide (changes from baseline: - 1.0 to - 1.5% and - 2.2 to - 5.0 kg, respectively) than with comparators (except for similar HbA_1c reductions vs liraglutide). There were no statistically significant interactions by treatment and background medication subgroup for change in HbA_1c or body weight except for change in HbA_1c (background insulin vs insulin plus metformin) in PIONEER 8 (p = 0.0408). Changes in HbA_1c and body weight were generally similar across insulin regimen subgroups, without significant treatment interactions by subgroup, and the total daily insulin dose was decreased for patients receiving oral semaglutide. The incidence of adverse events was generally similar in background medication subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Oral semaglutide was effective at lowering HbA_1c and body weight, regardless of background medications, and appears suitable for a broad range of patients with T2D in combination with other glucose-lowering agents.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02607865 (PIONEER 3), NCT02863419 (PIONEER 4), NCT02827708 (PIONEER 5), NCT02849080 (PIONEER 7) and NCT03021187 (PIONEER 8).

Efficacy and Safety of Dulaglutide 3.0 mg and 4.5 mg Versus Dulaglutide 1.5 mg in Metformin-Treated Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in a Randomized Controlled Trial (AWARD-11)

OBJECTIVE

To compare efficacy and safety of dulaglutide at doses of 3.0 and 4.5 mg versus 1.5 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg, 3.0 mg, or 4.5 mg for 52 weeks. The primary objective was determining superiority of dulaglutide 3.0 mg and/or 4.5 mg over 1.5 mg in HbA_1c reduction at 36 weeks. Secondary superiority objectives included change in body weight. Two estimands addressed efficacy objectives: treatment regimen (regardless of treatment discontinuation or rescue medication) and efficacy (on treatment without rescue medication) in all randomly assigned patients.

RESULTS

Mean baseline HbA_1c and BMI in randomly assigned patients (N = 1,842) was 8.6% (70 mmol/mol) and 34.2 kg/m², respectively. At 36 weeks, dulaglutide 4.5 mg provided superior HbA_1c reductions compared with 1.5 mg (treatment-regimen estimand: -1.77 vs. -1.54% [-19.4 vs. -16.8 mmol/mol], estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0.24% (-2.6 mmol/mol), P < 0.001; efficacy estimand: -1.87 vs. -1.53% [-20.4 vs. -16.7 mmol/mol], ETD -0.34% (-3.7 mmol/mol), P < 0.001). Dulaglutide 3.0 mg was superior to 1.5 mg for reducing HbA_1c, using the efficacy estimand (ETD -0.17% [-1.9 mmol/mol]; P = 0.003) but not the treatment-regimen estimand (ETD -0.10% [-1.1 mmol/mol]; P = 0.096). Dulaglutide 4.5 mg was superior to 1.5 mg for weight loss at 36 weeks for both estimands (treatment regimen: -4.6 vs. -3.0 kg, ETD -1.6 kg, P < 0.001; efficacy: -4.7 vs. -3.1 kg, ETD -1.6 kg, P < 0.001). Common adverse events through 36 weeks included nausea (1.5 mg, 13.4%; 3 mg, 15.6%; 4.5 mg, 16.4%) and vomiting (1.5 mg, 5.6%; 3 mg, 8.3%; 4.5 mg, 9.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by metformin, escalation from dulaglutide 1.5 mg to 3.0 mg or 4.5 mg provided clinically relevant, dose-related reductions in HbA_1c and body weight with a similar safety profile.

Effect of Orally Administered Semaglutide Versus Dulaglutide on Diabetes-Related Quality of Life in Japanese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: The PIONEER 10 Randomized, Active-Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

In the randomized Peptide InnOvatioN for Early diabEtes tReatment (PIONEER) 10 trial, once-daily orally administered semaglutide-the first oral glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA)-was similarly tolerated with comparable (at 7 mg) or better (at 14 mg) efficacy versus the injectable GLP-1RA dulaglutide 0.75 mg. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in PIONEER 10 was assessed using the Japanese-specific Diabetes Therapy-Related Quality of Life (DTR-QoL) questionnaire.

METHODS

The DTR-QoL comprises 29 questions, providing four domain and total scores. Answers were converted to a score between 0 and 100, with higher scores indicating greater HRQoL. Two estimands were prespecified: treatment policy (regardless of treatment discontinuation or rescue medication use) and trial product (assuming on treatment without rescue medication) in all randomized patients. Outcomes were assessed at weeks 26 and 52.

RESULTS

Mean baseline DTR-QoL domain scores were similar between treatment arms and were generally lower (giving more scope for improvement) for "anxiety and dissatisfaction with treatment" (62.1-65.3) and "satisfaction with treatment" (53.9-57.9) than "burden on social activities and daily activities" (76.5-77.7) and "hypoglycemia" (83.5-88.2). Using the treatment policy estimand, orally administered semaglutide 7 and 14 mg improved HRQoL versus dulaglutide 0.75 mg for the total score (estimated mean change from baseline [CfB] 7.3 and 8.1 vs 3.3; estimated treatment difference [ETD] 3.9 and 4.8) and the "anxiety and dissatisfaction with treatment" domain (CfB 9.7 and 10.9 vs 3.7; ETD 6.0 and 7.2) at week 52. Orally administered semaglutide 14 mg improved the "satisfaction with treatment" domain versus dulaglutide 0.75 mg (CFB 13.8 vs 5.7; ETD 8.1). DTR-QoL scores for orally administered semaglutide tended to be more durable (sustained over time) than for dulaglutide. Outcomes for the trial product estimand were similar.

CONCLUSION

Orally administered semaglutide 7 and 14 mg improved the patients' HRQoL measured by the Japanese-specific DTR-QoL instrument versus dulaglutide 0.75 mg at week 52.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03015220.

Will oral semaglutide be a game-changer in the management of type 2 diabetes in primary care?

GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are recommended for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), particularly those at high cardiovascular risk. Oral semaglutide is the first oral GLP-1RA. In clinical trials, oral semaglutide 14 mg reduced mean HbA_1c by approximately 1.1-1.5% and reduced body weight by up to 5 kg. These changes were significantly greater compared with empagliflozin, sitagliptin and liraglutide (p < 0.05 for estimated treatment differences at 52 weeks in patients on treatment without rescue medication use). The most common side effects were gastrointestinal, mainly mild-to-moderate and transient nausea. Oral semaglutide may change the paradigm of T2D treatment in primary care.

Estimating and reporting treatment effects in clinical trials for weight management: using estimands to interpret effects of intercurrent events and missing data

In the approval process for new weight management therapies, regulators typically require estimates of effect size. Usually, as with other drug evaluations, the placebo-adjusted treatment effect (i.e., the difference between weight losses with pharmacotherapy and placebo, when given as an adjunct to lifestyle intervention) is provided from data in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). At first glance, this may seem appropriate and straightforward. However, weight loss is not a simple direct drug effect, but is also mediated by other factors such as changes in diet and physical activity. Interpreting observed differences between treatment arms in weight management RCTs can be challenging; intercurrent events that occur after treatment initiation may affect the interpretation of results at the end of treatment. Utilizing estimands helps to address these uncertainties and improve transparency in clinical trial reporting by better matching the treatment-effect estimates to the scientific and/or clinical questions of interest. Estimands aim to provide an indication of trial outcomes that might be expected in the same patients under different conditions. This article reviews how intercurrent events during weight management trials can influence placebo-adjusted treatment effects, depending on how they are accounted for and how missing data are handled. The most appropriate method for statistical analysis is also discussed, including assessment of the last observation carried forward approach, and more recent methods, such as multiple imputation and mixed models for repeated measures. The use of each of these approaches, and that of estimands, is discussed in the context of the SCALE phase 3a and 3b RCTs evaluating the effect of liraglutide 3.0 mg for the treatment of obesity.

Long-term efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide and the effect of switching from sitagliptin to oral semaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 52-week, randomized, open-label extension of the PIONEER 7 trial

INTRODUCTION

The PIONEER 7 trial demonstrated superior glycemic control and weight loss with once-daily oral semaglutide with flexible dose adjustment versus sitagliptin 100 mg in type 2 diabetes. This 52-week extension evaluated long-term oral semaglutide treatment and switching from sitagliptin to oral semaglutide.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A 52-week, open-label extension commenced after the 52-week main phase. Patients on oral semaglutide in the main phase continued treatment (n=184; durability part); those on sitagliptin were rerandomized to continued sitagliptin (n=98) or oral semaglutide (n=100; initiated at 3 mg) (switch part). Oral semaglutide was dose-adjusted (3, 7, or 14 mg) every 8 weeks based on glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) (target <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol)) and tolerability. Secondary endpoints (no primary) included changes in HbA_1c and body weight.

RESULTS

In the durability part, mean (SD) changes in HbA_1c and body weight from week 0 were -1.5% (0.8) and -1.3% (1.0) and -2.8 kg (3.8) and -3.7 kg (5.2) at weeks 52 and 104, respectively. In the switch part, mean changes in HbA_1c from week 52 to week 104 were -0.2% for oral semaglutide and 0.1% for sitagliptin (difference -0.3% (95% CI -0.6 to 0.0); p=0.0791 (superiority not confirmed)). More patients achieved HbA_1c <7.0% with oral semaglutide (52.6%) than sitagliptin (28.6%; p=0.0011) and fewer received rescue medication (9% vs 23.5%). Respective mean changes in body weight were -2.4 kg and -0.9 kg (difference -1.5 kg (95% CI -2.8 to -0.1); p=0.0321). Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported with oral semaglutide.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term oral semaglutide with flexible dose adjustment maintained HbA_1c reductions, with additional body weight reductions, and was well tolerated. Switching from sitagliptin to flexibly dosed oral semaglutide maintained HbA_1c reductions, helped more patients achieve HbA_1c targets with less use of additional glucose-lowering medication, and offers the potential for additional reductions in body weight.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02849080.

Treatment estimands in clinical trials of patients hospitalised for COVID-19: ensuring trials ask the right questions

When designing a clinical trial, explicitly defining the treatment estimands of interest (that which is to be estimated) can help to clarify trial objectives and ensure the questions being addressed by the trial are clinically meaningful. There are several challenges when defining estimands. Here, we discuss a number of these in the context of trials of treatments for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and make suggestions for how estimands should be defined for key outcomes. We suggest that treatment effects should usually be measured as differences in proportions (or risk or odds ratios) for outcomes such as death and requirement for ventilation, and differences in means for outcomes such as the number of days ventilated. We further recommend that truncation due to death should be handled differently depending on whether a patient- or resource-focused perspective is taken; for the former, a composite approach should be used, while for the latter, a while-alive approach is preferred. Finally, we suggest that discontinuation of randomised treatment should be handled from a treatment policy perspective, where non-adherence is ignored in the analysis (i.e. intention to treat).

Integrating oral semaglutide into clinical practice in primary care: for whom, when, and how?

Oral semaglutide is the first US Food and Drug Administration-approved oral glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Prior articles within this supplement reviewed the PIONEER trial program, which demonstrated that oral semaglutide reduced glycated hemoglobin and body weight when given to patients with uncontrolled T2D on various background therapies, and had a safety profile consistent with subcutaneous GLP-1RAs. This article provides guidance on integrating oral semaglutide into clinical practice in primary care. Patient populations with T2D who may gain benefit from oral semaglutide include those with inadequate glycemic control taking one or more oral glucose-lowering medication (e.g. after metformin), patients for whom weight loss would be beneficial, patients at risk of hypoglycemia, those who would historically have been considered for treatment with a subcutaneous GLP-1RA, and those receiving basal insulin who require treatment intensification. Like other GLP-1RAs, oral semaglutide is contraindicated in those with personal/family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma, and in those with multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, as noted in a boxed warning in the prescribing information. Oral semaglutide has not been studied in those with a history of pancreatitis, is not recommended in patients with suspected/confirmed pancreatitis, and is not indicated in type 1 diabetes. When initiating oral semaglutide, gradual dose escalation is recommended to minimize the risk of gastrointestinal adverse events. As food and excess liquid reduce oral semaglutide absorption, patients should swallow the tablet with up to 4 fl oz/120 mL of water on an empty stomach upon waking, and should wait at least 30 minutes before eating, drinking, or taking other oral medications. Those managing patients should be aware of the potential impact of these dosing conditions on concomitant medications. When counseling patients, it is important to discuss these administration instructions, realistic therapeutic expectations, and strategies for mitigation of gastrointestinal events. Oral semaglutide provides a new option for add-on to initial T2D therapy (or later in the treatment paradigm), with the potential to enable more patients to benefit from the improvements in glycemic control, reductions in body weight, and low risk of hypoglycemia afforded by GLP-1RAs.

Clinical review of the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes considered for injectable GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy or currently on insulin therapy

Injectable therapies such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and insulin are high-efficacy options for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who require treatment intensification. In addition to high glycemic efficacy, GLP-1RAs offer weight loss benefits, and some agents have been shown to reduce cardiovascular risk. This article summarizes data from two clinical studies with the first oral GLP-1RA, oral semaglutide, in situations where injectable therapy is often considered, and provides guidance on use in primary care. PIONEER 4 compared oral semaglutide 14 mg with an injectable GLP-1RA, liraglutide 1.8 mg, or placebo in patients uncontrolled on oral glucose-lowering therapies. PIONEER 8 compared oral semaglutide with placebo in patients with T2D already on insulin therapy. Treatment with oral semaglutide gave similar reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA_{1 c}) compared with liraglutide at 26 weeks, and significantly greater reductions at 52 weeks. Changes in body weight with oral semaglutide were significantly greater compared with liraglutide after 26 and 52 weeks. Adding oral semaglutide 7 or 14 mg to insulin resulted in significant reductions in HbA_{1 c} and body weight at both 26 and 52 weeks compared with placebo, and facilitated a decrease in total daily insulin dosage. Oral semaglutide was associated with low proportions of patients experiencing severe or blood glucose-confirmed symptomatic hypoglycemia when added to oral glucose-lowering therapies, and did not increase the incidence of such events when added to insulin. The tolerability profile of oral semaglutide was consistent with that seen for injectable GLP-1RAs, with gastrointestinal side effects seen most frequently; most were transient and tended to occur during dose escalation. For patients requiring treatment intensification after oral therapy or as add-on to insulin, oral semaglutide provides effective glucose lowering and body weight loss, with low risk of hypoglycemia, thus broadening the range of therapeutic options for treatment of T2D in primary care.

What is an estimand & how does it relate to quantifying the effect of treatment on patient-reported quality of life outcomes in clinical trials?

BACKGROUND

Published in 2019, a new addendum to the ICH E9 guideline presents the estimand framework as a systematic approach to ensure alignment among clinical trial objectives, trial execution/conduct, statistical analyses, and interpretation of results. The use of the estimand framework for describing clinical trial objectives has yet to be extensively considered in the context of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). We discuss the application of the estimand framework to PRO objectives when designing clinical trials in the future, with a focus on PRO outcomes in oncology trial settings as our example. MAIN: We describe the components of an estimand and take a naïve PRO trial objective to illustrate how to apply attributes described in the estimand framework to inform construction of a detailed clinical trial objective and its related estimand. We discuss identifying potential post-randomization events that alter the interpretation of the endpoint or render its observation impossible (also defined as intercurrent events) in the context of PRO endpoints, and the implications of how to handle intercurrent events in the construction of the PRO objective. Using a simple objective statement, "What is the effect of treatment X on patient's quality of life?", we build up an example estimand statement and also use a previously published phase III oncology clinical trial to illustrate how an estimand for a PRO objective could have been written to align to the estimate framework.

CONCLUSION

The use of the estimand framework, as described in the new ICH E9 (R1) addendum guideline will become a key common framework for developing clinical trial objectives for evaluating effects of treatment. In the context of considering PROs, the framework provides an opportunity to more precisely specify and build the rationale for patient-focused objectives. This will help to ensure that clinical trials used for registration are designed and analysed appropriately, enabling all stakeholders to accurately interpret conclusions about the treatment effects for patient-focused outcomes.

Efficacy, safety and cardiovascular outcomes of once-daily oral semaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes: The PIONEER programme

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are recommended for glycaemic management in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Oral semaglutide, the first oral GLP-1RA, has recently been approved for clinical use, based on the results of the randomized, Phase 3a Peptide InnOvatioN for Early diabEtes tReatment (PIONEER) clinical trials. The PIONEER programme tested oral semaglutide in patients with T2D of duration ranging from 3.5 to 15 years, from monotherapy through to insulin add-on, in global populations and two trials dedicated to Japanese patients. Outcomes (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] and body weight reduction, plus other relevant efficacy and safety endpoints) were tested against both placebo and active standard-of-care medications. A separate trial evaluated the cardiovascular safety of oral semaglutide in patients with T2D at high cardiovascular risk. Over periods of treatment up to 78 weeks, oral semaglutide 7 and 14 mg once daily reduced HbA1c and body weight across the spectrum of T2D, and improved other diabetes-related endpoints, such as fasting plasma glucose. Oral semaglutide provided significantly better efficacy than placebo and commonly used glucose-lowering medications from the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (sitagliptin) and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (empagliflozin) classes, as well as the subcutaneous GLP-1RAs liraglutide and dulaglutide. Oral semaglutide was well tolerated in line with the known safety profile of GLP-1RAs, with transient gastrointestinal events being the most common side effects reported. Cardiovascular safety was demonstrated for oral semaglutide in patients with cardiovascular disease or high cardiovascular risk. The results of the PIONEER programme suggest that oral semaglutide is efficacious and well tolerated for glycaemic control of T2D. The availability of oral semaglutide may help to broaden treatment choice and facilitate adoption of earlier GLP-1RA treatment in the paradigm of T2D management.

Liraglutide as add-on to sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes: LIRA-ADD2SGLT2i, a 26-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

AIM

To compare the effect of liraglutide or placebo added on to sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) ± metformin on glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with type 2 diabetes on a stable SGLT2i dose ± metformin (with HbA1c 7.0%-9.5% and body mass index [BMI] ≥ 20 kg/m² ) were randomized 2:1 to add-on liraglutide 1.8 mg/day or placebo in this parallel, double-blind, multinational trial. Primary and confirmatory secondary endpoints were changes in HbA1c and body weight from baseline to week 26, respectively. The proportions of patients achieving HbA1c (<7.0%) targets and safety events after week 26 were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 303 patients randomized (one in error), 280 completed treatment. Mean changes in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 with liraglutide (n = 202) and placebo (n = 100) were - 0.98% and - 0.30%, respectively (estimated treatment difference [ETD]: -0.68% [95% CI: -0.89, -0.48]; P < 0.001). Mean body weight changes from baseline were - 2.81 versus -1.99 kg, respectively (ETD: -0.82 kg [95% CI: -1.73, 0.09]; P = 0.077); 51.8% of liraglutide-treated patients achieved HbA1c < 7.0% versus 23.2% receiving placebo (odds ratio: 5.1 [95% CI: 2.67, 9.87]; P < 0.001). More patients treated with liraglutide reported ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse events (66.3%) versus placebo (47.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Liraglutide significantly improved glycaemic control compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes, insufficiently controlled with SGLT2is with/without metformin, with no unexpected safety findings.

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Liraglutide for Adolescents with Obesity

BACKGROUND

Obesity is a chronic disease with limited treatment options in pediatric patients. Liraglutide may be useful for weight management in adolescents with obesity.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind trial, which consisted of a 56-week treatment period and a 26-week follow-up period, we enrolled adolescents (12 to <18 years of age) with obesity and a poor response to lifestyle therapy alone. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either liraglutide (3.0 mg) or placebo subcutaneously once daily, in addition to lifestyle therapy. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the body-mass index (BMI; the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) standard-deviation score at week 56.

RESULTS

A total of 125 participants were assigned to the liraglutide group and 126 to the placebo group. Liraglutide was superior to placebo with regard to the change from baseline in the BMI standard-deviation score at week 56 (estimated difference, -0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.37 to -0.08; P = 0.002). A reduction in BMI of at least 5% was observed in 51 of 113 participants in the liraglutide group and in 20 of 105 participants in the placebo group (estimated percentage, 43.3% vs. 18.7%), and a reduction in BMI of at least 10% was observed in 33 and 9, respectively (estimated percentage, 26.1% vs. 8.1%). A greater reduction was observed with liraglutide than with placebo for BMI (estimated difference, -4.64 percentage points) and for body weight (estimated difference, -4.50 kg [for absolute change] and -5.01 percentage points [for relative change]). After discontinuation, a greater increase in the BMI standard-deviation score was observed with liraglutide than with placebo (estimated difference, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.23). More participants in the liraglutide group than in the placebo group had gastrointestinal adverse events (81 of 125 [64.8%] vs. 46 of 126 [36.5%]) and adverse events that led to discontinuation of the trial treatment (13 [10.4%] vs. 0). Few participants in either group had serious adverse events (3 [2.4%] vs. 5 [4.0%]). One suicide, which occurred in the liraglutide group, was assessed by the investigator as unlikely to be related to the trial treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In adolescents with obesity, the use of liraglutide (3.0 mg) plus lifestyle therapy led to a significantly greater reduction in the BMI standard-deviation score than placebo plus lifestyle therapy. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; NN8022-4180 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02918279.).

A head-to-head Caco-2 assay comparison of the mechanisms of action of the intestinal permeation enhancers: SNAC and sodium caprate (C10)

Salcaprozate sodium (SNAC) and sodium caprate (C₁₀) are the two leading intestinal permeation enhancers (PEs) in oral peptide formulations in clinical trials. There is debate over their mechanism of action on intestinal epithelia. The aims were: (i) to compare their effects on the barrier function by measuring transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER), permeability of FITC-4000 (FD4) across Caco-2 monolayers, and on immunohistochemistry of tight junction (TJ)-associated proteins; and (ii) to compare cellular parameters using conventional end-point cytotoxicity assays and quantitative high content analysis (HCA) of multiple sub-lethal parameters in Caco-2 cells. C₁₀ (8.5 mM) reversibly reduced TEER and increased FD4 permeability across monolayers, whereas SNAC had no effects on either parameter except at cytotoxic concentrations. C₁₀ exposure induced reorganization of three TJ proteins, whereas SNAC only affected claudin-5 localization. High concentrations of C₁₀ and SNAC were required to cause end-point toxicology changes in vitro. SNAC was less potent than C₁₀ at inducing lysosomal and nuclear changes and plasma membrane perturbation. In parallel, HCA revealed that both agents displayed detergent-like features that reflect initial membrane fluidization followed by changes in intracellular parameters. In conclusion, FD4 permeability increases in monolayers in response to C₁₀ were in the range of concentrations that altered end-point cytotoxicity and HCA parameters. For SNAC, while HCA parameters were also altered in a similar overall pattern as C₁₀, they did not lead to increased paracellular flux. These assays show that both agents are primarily surfactants, but C₁₀ has additional TJ-opening effects. While these in vitro assays illucidate their epithelial mechanism of action, clinical experience suggests that they over-estimate their toxicology in the dynamic intestinal environment.

The development of oral semaglutide, an oral GLP-1 analog, for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) are effective agents for achieving glycemic control. Oral semaglutide is the first oral formulation of a GLP-1RA to be approved in the USA. This agent may lead to earlier initiation of GLP-1RA therapy in the type 2 diabetes continuum of care, and represents a valuable treatment option for patients with a preference for oral therapy. The efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide was assessed in the PIONEER clinical trial program, which included 9543 patients (1293 Japanese). The program included 10 trials, two of which were conducted specifically in Japan. Across the whole program, oral semaglutide was shown to be effective in helping patients achieve glycemic control and reducing body weight. The highest approved dose of oral semaglutide (14 mg) reduced glycated hemoglobin significantly more than placebo, empagliflozin, dulaglutide, and sitagliptin, and was non-inferior to liraglutide. Superior reductions in body weight were also observed with oral semaglutide 14 mg compared with placebo, sitagliptin, and liraglutide, and similar body weight reductions were seen vs. empagliflozin. In all the PIONEER trials, oral semaglutide was well tolerated; there were no unexpected safety concerns and the safety profile was consistent with other GLP-1RAs. Oral semaglutide also demonstrated a favorable cardiovascular safety profile, and significant reductions in cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality vs. placebo in the PIONEER 6 trial. Oral semaglutide, therefore, represents an effective treatment option, that may lead to earlier initiation of GLP-1RA therapy in the diabetes treatment landscape.

Oral Semaglutide Versus Empagliflozin, Sitagliptin and Liraglutide in the UK: Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Based on the PIONEER Clinical Trial Programme

INTRODUCTION

The PIONEER trial programme showed that, after 52 weeks, the novel oral glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue semaglutide 14 mg was associated with significantly greater reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) versus a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (empagliflozin 25 mg), a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (sitagliptin 100 mg) and an injectable GLP-1 analogue (liraglutide 1.8 mg). The aim of the present analysis was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus each of these comparators in the UK setting.

METHODS

Analyses were performed from a healthcare payer perspective using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model, in which outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes (50 years). Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were based on 52-week data from the PIONEER 2, 3 and 4 randomised controlled trials, comparing oral semaglutide with empagliflozin, sitagliptin and liraglutide, respectively. Treatment switching occurred when HbA1c exceeded 7.5% (58 mmol/mol). Utilities, treatment costs and costs of diabetes-related complications (in pounds sterling [GBP]) were taken from published sources. The acquisition cost of oral semaglutide was assumed to match that of once-weekly semaglutide.

RESULTS

Oral semaglutide was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.09 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus empagliflozin, 0.20 QALYs versus sitagliptin and 0.07 QALYs versus liraglutide. Direct costs over a patient's lifetime were GBP 971 and GBP 963 higher with oral semaglutide than with empagliflozin and sitagliptin, respectively, but GBP 1551 lower versus liraglutide. Oral semaglutide was associated with a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications versus all comparators. Therefore, oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of GBP 11,006 and 4930 per QALY gained versus empagliflozin 25 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg, respectively, and was more effective and less costly (dominant) versus liraglutide 1.8 mg.

CONCLUSION

Oral semaglutide was cost-effective versus empagliflozin and sitagliptin, and dominant versus liraglutide, for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK.

Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Oral Semaglutide Versus Placebo Added to Insulin With or Without Metformin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: The PIONEER 8 Trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of oral semaglutide added to insulin with or without metformin.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on insulin with or without metformin were randomized to oral semaglutide 3 mg (N = 184), 7 mg (N = 182), or 14 mg (N = 181) or to placebo (N = 184) in a 52-week, double-blind trial. End points were change from baseline to week 26 in HbA1c (primary) and body weight (confirmatory secondary). Two estimands were defined: treatment policy (effect regardless of trial product discontinuation or rescue medication) and trial product (effect assuming trial product continuation without rescue medication) in randomized patients.

RESULTS

Oral semaglutide was superior to placebo in reducing HbA1c (estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0.5% [95% CI -0.7, -0.3], -0.9% [-1.1, -0.7], and -1.2% [-1.4, -1.0] for 3, 7, and 14 mg, respectively; P < 0.001) and body weight (ETD -0.9 kg [95% CI -1.8, -0.0], -2.0 kg [-3.0, -1.0], and -3.3 kg [-4.2, -2.3]; P = 0.0392 for 3 mg, P ≤ 0.0001 for 7 and 14 mg) at week 26 (treatment policy estimand). Significantly greater dose-dependent HbA1c and body weight reductions versus placebo were achieved with oral semaglutide at weeks 26 and 52 (both estimands). The most frequent adverse event with oral semaglutide was nausea (11.4-23.2% of patients vs. 7.1% with placebo; mostly mild to moderate).

CONCLUSIONS

Oral semaglutide was superior to placebo in reducing HbA1c and body weight when added to insulin with or without metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. The safety profile was consistent with other glucagon-like peptide 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 HbA_1c (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 HbA_1c 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 HbA_1c 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)]; 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 HbA_1c but not body weight at 26 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on metformin. At week 52, HbA_1c 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.

Orally Administered Semaglutide Versus GLP-1 RAs in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Previously Receiving 1-2 Oral Antidiabetics: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Orally administered semaglutide is the first glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for oral administration. As head-to-head trials assessing orally administered semaglutide as an add-on to 1-2 oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) vs other GLP-1 RAs are limited, a network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to assess the relative efficacy and safety of orally administered semaglutide 14 mg once-daily (QD) vs injectable GLP-1 RAs in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on 1-2 OADs.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials of GLP-1 RAs in patients inadequately controlled on 1-2 OADs. Data at 26 ± 4 weeks were extracted for efficacy and safety outcomes feasible for the NMA: change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), weight, HbA1c target levels (< 7.0% and ≤ 6.5%), blood pressure, and any gastrointestinal adverse events specified in system organ class. Data were synthesised using NMA and a Bayesian framework.

RESULTS

In total, 27 studies were included in the analyses. Orally administered semaglutide 14 mg QD was associated with significantly greater reductions in HbA1c vs most comparators, and numerically greater reductions vs semaglutide 0.5 mg once-weekly (QW), dulaglutide 1.5 mg QW and liraglutide 1.8 mg QD. HbA1c reductions with semaglutide 1 mg QW were numerically greater than those with orally administered semaglutide 14 mg QD. Reductions in body weight for orally administered semaglutide 14 mg QD were significantly greater than all comparators except semaglutide QW (both doses). Orally administered semaglutide QD 14 mg was associated with statistically similar odds of experiencing gastrointestinal adverse events vs injectable GLP-1 RAs.

CONCLUSION

Orally administered semaglutide 14 mg QD as an add-on to 1-2 OADs is one of the most efficacious GLP-1 RAs for reducing HbA1c and body weight at 26 ± 4 weeks. Orally administered semaglutide 14 mg QD is well tolerated, with a safety profile in line with the GLP-1 RA class.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Incorporating and interpreting regulatory guidance on estimands in diabetes clinical trials: The PIONEER 1 randomized clinical trial as an example

Regulatory guidelines describe the use of estimands in designing and conducting clinical trials. Estimands ensure alignment of the objectives with the design, conduct and analysis of a trial. An estimand is defined by four inter-related attributes: the population of interest, the variable (endpoint) of interest, the way intercurrent events are handled and the population level summary. A trial may employ multiple estimands to evaluate treatment effects from different perspectives in order to address different scientific questions. As estimands may be an unfamiliar concept for many clinicians treating diabetes, this paper reviews the estimand concept and uses the PIONEER 1 phase 3a clinical trial, which investigated the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide vs placebo, as an example of the way in which estimands can be implemented and interpreted. In the PIONEER 1 trial, two estimands were employed for each efficacy endpoint and were labelled as: (a) the treatment policy estimand, used to assess the treatment effect regardless of use of rescue medication or discontinuation of trial product, and provides a broad perspective of the treatment effect in the population of patients with type 2 diabetes in clinical practice; and (b) the trial product estimand, used to assess the treatment effect if all patients had continued to use trial product for the planned duration of the trial without rescue medication, thereby providing information on the anticipated treatment effect of the medication. Both approaches are complementary to understanding the effect of the studied treatments.