MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of oral semaglutide on heart failure outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and/or chronic kidney disease participating in SOUL trial

2025· article· en· W7128058253 on OpenAlexaff
Rodica Pop-Busui, S Rasmussen, J E Deanfield, J B Buse, N Marx, Sharon L. Mulvagh, S E Inzucchi, J F E Mann, S Emerson, Neil Poulter, M D Engelmann, G K Hovingh, J P David, O W Nielsen, D K Mcguire

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemaglutideHeart failureEjection fractionKidney diseaseMaceType 2 diabetesHazard ratio

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background/Introduction In the SOUL trial, once-daily oral semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 14% compared with placebo in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and/or chronic kidney disease (CKD). Purpose To evaluate the effect of oral semaglutide versus placebo on heart failure (HF) outcomes in the SOUL trial in relation to baseline HF history (no HF, HF with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF], or HF with reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF]) and other baseline characteristics. Methods In SOUL, 9650 participants with T2D (HbA1c 6.5–10.0%) and ASCVD and/or CKD, all receiving standard of care, were randomised to oral semaglutide or placebo. Prespecified and centrally adjudicated HF outcomes included time to first occurrence of HF requiring hospitalisation, urgent HF visit, or cardiovascular (CV) death (3-point composite outcome). Cox proportional hazard models with treatment as a fixed factor were used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for comparing oral semaglutide with placebo. Results Mean (±SD) follow-up was 47.5±10.9 months. At baseline, mean (±SD) age was 66.1±7.6 years, 28.9% were female, and 23.1% had HF (10.3% with HFpEF; 6.1% with HFrEF, and 6.7% unknown). Participants with HF at baseline had a greater BMI (31.8 vs 29.8 kg/m²; p<0.0001), HbA1c (7.9 vs 7.7 %; p<0.0001), diastolic blood pressure (78.0 vs 77.0 mmHg; p=0.0056), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (2.4 vs 1.9 ug/L; p<0.0001) versus participants without HF at baseline. The HR with oral semaglutide for the primary MACE outcome were 0.83 (95% CI: 0.68–1.01) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.75–0.98) in participants with vs without HF, respectively. In the overall population, oral semaglutide demonstrated a non-significant 10% reduction in risk of the composite outcome (HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.79–1.03). Among participants with HF at baseline, oral semaglutide significantly reduced the risk of the 3-point composite HF outcome (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.63–0.96; p=0.0177) with no significant effect among participants without HF at baseline (Figure 1; interaction p-value=0.06). There was a trend towards more effective reduction in risk of the 3-point composite HF outcome with oral semaglutide versus placebo in participants with HFpEF and lower NYHA class, with relative risk reductions of 41% in HFpEF and 47% in NYHA Class I (Figure 2). Among participants with HF, serious adverse event proportions were similar with oral semaglutide (53.8%) and placebo (57.1%). Conclusion In individuals with T2D, ASCVD and/or CKD, oral semaglutide versus placebo reduced the risk of HF requiring hospitalisation, urgent HF visit, or CV death in those with a history of HF. This was attributed mostly to those with HFpEF and lower NYHA class, with no indication of harm in HFrEF. These data support the initiation of oral semaglutide in people with T2D and HF for reducing HF events.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207