Effects of Semaglutide on Albuminuria and Kidney Function in People With Overweight or Obesity With or Without Type 2 Diabetes: Exploratory Analysis From the STEP 1, 2, and 3 Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: These post hoc analyses of the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with obesity (STEP) 1-3 trials (NCT03548935, NCT03552757, and NCT03611582) explored the effects of semaglutide (up to 2.4 mg) on kidney function. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: STEP 1-3 included adults with overweight/obesity; STEP 2 patients also had type 2 diabetes. Participants received once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 1.0 mg (STEP 2 only), 2.4 mg, or placebo for 68 weeks, plus lifestyle intervention (STEP 1 and 2) or intensive behavioral therapy (STEP 3). Changes in urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) and UACR status from baseline to week 68 were assessed for STEP 2. Changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were assessed from pooled STEP 1-3 data. RESULTS: In STEP 2, 1,205 (99.6% total cohort) patients had UACR data; geometric mean baseline UACR was 13.7, 12.5, and 13.2 mg/g with semaglutide 1.0 mg, 2.4 mg, and placebo, respectively. At week 68, UACR changes were -14.8% and -20.6% with semaglutide 1.0 mg and 2.4 mg, respectively, and +18.3% with placebo (between-group differences [95% CI] vs. placebo: -28.0% [-37.3, -17.3], P < 0.0001 for semaglutide 1.0 mg; -32.9% [-41.6, -23.0], P = 0.003 for semaglutide 2.4 mg). UACR status improved in greater proportions of patients with semaglutide 1.0 mg and 2.4 mg versus placebo (P = 0.0004 and P = 0.0014, respectively). In the pooled STEP 1-3 analyses, 3,379 participants had eGFR data; there was no difference between semaglutide 2.4 mg and placebo in eGFR trajectories at week 68. CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide improved UACR in adults with overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes. In participants with normal kidney function, semaglutide did not have an effect on eGFR decline.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".