MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Oral Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in People With Type 2 Diabetes, According to SGLT2i Use: Prespecified Analyses of the SOUL Randomized Trial

2025· article· en· W4408960834 on OpenAlexaff
Nikolaus Marx, John Deanfield, Johannes F.E. Mann, Rosario Arechavaleta, Stephen C. Bain, Harpreet S. Bajaj, Katrine Tanggaard, Andreas L. Birkenfeld, John B. Buse, Žaklina Davicevic-Elez, Cyrus Desouza, Scott S. Emerson, Mads D.M. Engelmann, G. Kees Hovingh, Silvio E. Inzucchi, Pardeep S. Jhund, Sharon L. Mulvagh, Rodica Pop‐Busui, Neil R Poulter, Søren Rasmussen, Shih‐Te Tu, Darren K. McGuire

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityLMC Diabetes & Endocrinology (Canada)
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNovo Nordisk
KeywordsMedicineSemaglutideType 2 diabetesRandomized controlled trialDiabetes mellitusInternal medicinePhysical therapyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Both GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) receptor agonists and SGLT2 (sodium-glucose cotransporter-2) inhibitors (SGLT2i) improve cardiovascular outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease. However, there are limited data about the effect of combining these agents on cardiovascular and safety outcomes. METHODS: The SOUL trial (Semaglutide Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial; NCT03914326) randomized 9650 participants with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and/or chronic kidney disease to oral semaglutide or placebo. As prespecified, participants were analyzed according to baseline use of SGLT2i (yes, n=2596; no, n=7054), and subsequently for any use of SGLT2i during the trial (yes, n=4718; no, n=4932). The primary outcome was time to first major adverse cardiovascular event, defined as cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Safety was evaluated by comparing the incidence of serious adverse events. RESULTS: Over a mean follow-up of 47.5±10.9 months, the risk of the primary outcome in the overall trial population was 14% lower for oral semaglutide versus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77–0.96). In those taking SGLT2i at baseline, there were 143 of 1296 (semaglutide) versus 158 of 1300 (placebo) primary outcome events (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.71–1.11); and 436 of 3529 versus 510 of 3525, respectively, in participants not taking SGLT2i at baseline (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74–0.95; P -interaction, 0.66). An analysis of major adverse cardiovascular events by any in-trial SGLT2i use versus no use also showed no evidence of heterogeneity in the effects of oral semaglutide. The adverse event profiles of oral semaglutide with or without concomitant SGLT2i were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Oral semaglutide reduced major adverse cardiovascular event outcomes independently of concomitant SGLT2i treatment, and this combination appeared to be safe. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03914326.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.267 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations51
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207