Efficacy and Safety of Once-Weekly Semaglutide 2.0 mg vs. 1.0 mg by Baseline HbA1c and BMI: SUSTAIN FORTE Subgroup Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.0 mg showed superior efficacy with similar safety vs. 1.0 mg in 961 participants with type 2 diabetes (HbA 8.0-10.0%) after 40 weeks in SUSTAIN FORTE. We assessed the effect of semaglutide 2.0 mg vs. 1.0 mg on HbA and body weight (BW) in prespecified baseline (BL) HbA (<9.0%, ≥ 9.0%) and BMI (<35, ≥ 35 kg/m ) subgroups. Mean BL HbA was 8.9% and BMI 34.6 kg/m . For HbA and BW, estimated treatment differences favored semaglutide 2.0 mg vs. 1.0 mg across all BL HbA and BMI subgroups. Treatment-by-subgroup interactions were nonsignificant (HbA , p=0.55 and p=0.41; BW, p=0.40 and p=0.13;). Greater mean HbA reductions were observed for both doses in the higher vs. lower BL HbA subgroup. Conversely, greater mean BW reductions were observed for both doses in the lower vs. higher BL HbA subgroup. Similar mean HbA reductions were observed across BL BMI subgroups, while greater mean BW reductions were observed for both doses in the higher vs. lower BL BMI subgroup). Overall, the incidence of adverse events was similar for both doses and across BL HbA and BMI subgroups with no new safety concerns identified. In line with the results in the overall population, semaglutide 2.0 mg provided consistently greater reductions in HbA and BW vs. 1.0 mg across BL HbA and BMI subgroups. Publication History Article published online: 26 May 2022 © 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".