Real‐world safety profile of once‐weekly semaglutide in people with type 2 diabetes: Analysis of pooled data from the SemaglUtide Real‐world Evidence (SURE) programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To investigate, through post hoc analysis of nine studies from the SemaglUtide Real-world Evidence (SURE) programme, the safety of once-weekly (OW) semaglutide in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and in subpopulations in routine clinical practice, complementing findings from the phase 3 randomized clinical trial (RCT) SUSTAIN programme. METHODS: The SURE studies had a duration of ~30 weeks and included adults with diagnosed T2D treated with OW semaglutide. Safety information, including hypoglycaemic events, were collected and analysed for the total study population and for patient subgroups based on baseline patient characteristics, baseline co-medication and prescriber specialty. RESULTS: Of the total 3505 patients, 24.3% reported adverse events (AEs), with most patients reporting non-serious (22.3%) and mild (17.1%) AEs. AEs mainly belonged to the gastrointestinal disorders system organ class (16.3% of patients). In total, 5.1% of patients reported AEs that led to treatment discontinuation, 0.5% reported serious adverse drug reactions and 0.2% had an AE with a fatal outcome, reported as unrelated to treatment. Overall, 1.1% and 0.1% of patients reported level 2 and 3 hypoglycaemic events, respectively. A higher rate of level 2 hypoglycaemia was observed in patients with baseline microvascular complications treated with insulin versus those on insulin without these complications. CONCLUSIONS: Safety data reported in the real-world SURE studies were generally consistent with observations in phase 3 OW semaglutide RCTs. No new safety concerns were identified, highlighting that OW semaglutide is well tolerated by adults with T2D and in subpopulations in routine clinical practice.
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 | 0.052 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".