MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395664929 · doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.04.041

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Once-Weekly Semaglutide for Weight Loss in Patients Without Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2024· review· en· W4395664929 on OpenAlexafffund
Areesha Moiz, Jeremy Y. Levett, Kristian B. Filion, Katya Peri, Mark J. Eisenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Cardiology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéMcGill University
KeywordsSemaglutideMeta-analysisMedicineRandomized controlled trialType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusWeight lossTerm (time)Internal medicineLiraglutideEndocrinologyObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, has demonstrated clinically important weight loss effects in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, its effects on sustained weight loss among individuals without diabetes remains unclear. Our objective was to examine the long-term efficacy and safety of semaglutide use for weight loss among individuals with overweight/obesity and without diabetes. MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Libraries were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that randomized participants with overweight/obesity but without diabetes to once-weekly 2.4 mg subcutaneous semaglutide versus placebo with follow-up of at least 68 weeks. The primary outcome was change in relative body weight from baseline to longest follow-up. Random-effects models with inverse variance weighting were used to estimate weighted mean differences (WMDs) and relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 4 RCTs (n=3,087) were included. Of the 3 trials which provided BMI by category (n=2,783), 94.0% of participants had a baseline BMI ≥30 kg/m2. Compared to placebo, use of semaglutide was associated with substantial decreases in long-term relative (WMD: -12.1%; 95% CI -13.5, -10.7) and absolute body weight (WMD: -12.3 kg; 95% CI -13.6, -11.0). At longest follow-up, 33.4% of participants randomized to semaglutide achieved ≥20% weight loss compared to 2.2% with placebo (RR: 15.08; 95% CI 9.31, 24.43). The risk of gastrointestinal adverse events was higher among semaglutide participants than placebo (RR: 1:47; 95% CI 1.28, 1.68); however, the majority of these events were transient, mild-to-moderate in severity, and did not require treatment discontinuation. In conclusion, semaglutide is efficacious for sustained weight loss among individuals with overweight/obesity and without diabetes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0890.012
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations82
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of CardiologySame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207