Impact of Oral Semaglutide on Kidney Outcomes in People With Type 2 Diabetes: Results From the SOUL Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of oral semaglutide on kidney outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and/or chronic kidney disease (CKD). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: SOUL (NCT03914326), a double-blind randomized controlled trial, compared oral semaglutide with placebo in people with T2D, ASCVD, and/or CKD, showing a 14% reduction in risk of major adverse cardiovascular (CV) events. Prespecified kidney outcomes included a five-point composite (≥50% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR], persistent eGFR <15 mL/min/1.73 m2, initiation of chronic kidney replacement therapy, or death from kidney or CV causes); a four-point composite (excluding CV death); and eGFR decline. Prespecified subgroups were also assessed, including those with eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 at baseline. RESULTS: Among 9,650 participants, mean eGFR was 73.8 mL/min/1.73 m2, and follow-up was 47.5 months. The five-point outcome occurred in 403 (8.4%) and 435 (9.0%) participants taking oral semaglutide versus placebo, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 0.91; 95% CI 0.80, 1.05; P = 0.19). The four-point outcome occurred in 112 (2.3%) and 129 (2.7%) participants, respectively (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.66, 1.10; P = 0.22). Mean annual eGFR decline was less with oral semaglutide than placebo (-1.67 vs. -2.06 mL/min/1.73 m2; estimated treatment difference 0.40 [95% CI 0.27, 0.53; P < 0.0001). These effects were similar across most subgroups, including those with eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Serious adverse events occurred at similar rates in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In people with T2D and ASCVD and/or CKD but with overall mostly preserved eGFR, orally administered semaglutide, compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce adverse kidney outcomes but did slow the decline in eGFR.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".