Efficacy and safety of semaglutide for weight management: evidence from the STEP program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obesity is a global health challenge. It is a multifactorial, complex, and progressive disease associated with various health complications and increased mortality. Lifestyle modifications are central to weight management but may be insufficient to maintain clinically meaningful weight loss. Pharmacotherapies are recommended as an adjunct to lifestyle interventions to induce and sustain clinically meaningful weight loss and reduce the risk of comorbidities in appropriate patients. Glucagon-like peptide-1 is an incretin metabolic hormone responsible for a range of physiological effects, including glucose and appetite regulation. Several glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) have been approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes since 2005 including exenatide (short- and extended-release), lixisenatide, liraglutide, dulaglutide, albiglutide, and semaglutide. Of these, semaglutide (subcutaneous) and liraglutide are currently US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for chronic weight management in patients with or without diabetes. The phase 3 Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with obesity (STEP) program was designed to investigate the effect of semaglutide versus placebo on weight loss, safety, and tolerability in adults with overweight or obesity. Following the submission of the results of the STEP 1-4 trials, the FDA approved once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg for chronic weight management in people with overweight or obesity in April 2021. Data from the program demonstrated that semaglutide (2.4 mg once weekly) achieved significant and sustained weight loss, together with improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors compared with placebo, and was generally well tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with other GLP-1RAs. The most common adverse events reported in STEP 1-5 were gastrointestinal events, which were transient, mild-to-moderate in severity, and typically resolved without permanent treatment discontinuation. This article reviews the data from STEP 1-5 and highlights clinically relevant findings for primary care providers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".