Effect of Semaglutide on Insulin Sensitivity and Cardiometabolic Risk Factors in Adolescents With Obesity: The STEP TEENS Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This secondary analysis of the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with obesity (STEP) TEENS (NCT04102189) study investigated the effect of semaglutide 2.4 mg versus placebo on insulin sensitivity and cardiometabolic risk factors. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The STEP TEENS phase 3a randomized study in adolescents (aged 12 to <18 years) with obesity demonstrated that once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg provided a significantly greater percentage reduction in BMI than placebo at week 68 (estimated difference -16.7 percentage points; P = 0.0001). This analysis investigated changes in insulin sensitivity and cardiometabolic risk factors from baseline to week 68. RESULTS: Overall, 193 participants without type 2 diabetes were included in the analysis. Participants receiving semaglutide 2.4 mg (n = 129) compared with those receiving placebo (n = 64) had greater reductions from baseline in fasting serum insulin (-33.6% vs. -10.1%; P = 0.0012), homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) score (-35.0% vs. -5.3%; P = 0.0002), glycemic measures (glycated hemoglobin: P < 0.0001; fasting plasma glucose: P = 0.0181), alanine aminotransferase (ALT; -17.9% vs. -3.3%; P = 0.0232), waist-to-height ratio (P < 0.0001), triglycerides (P < 0.0001), LDL cholesterol (P = 0.0105), and total cholesterol (P < 0.0001). Moreover, greater improvements in insulin sensitivity, glycemic measures, and cardiometabolic risk factors were seen in semaglutide 2.4 mg recipients with BMI reductions of ≥20% versus <20%. CONCLUSIONS: These novel data support semaglutide 2.4 mg as an efficacious obesity treatment in adolescents with obesity and advance its application by showing associated improvements in insulin sensitivity, glycemic measures, ALT, and other cardiometabolic risk factors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".