Real-World Clinical Experience of Semaglutide in Secondary Care Diabetes: A Retrospective Observational Study
Open accessAbstract
The glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor analogue (GLP-1RA) semaglutide is associated with improvements in glycaemia and cardiovascular risk factors in clinical trials. The aim of this study was to examine the real-world impact of semaglutide administered by injection in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) across three secondary care sites in Wales. A retrospective evaluation of 189 patients with T2D initiated on semaglutide between January 2019 and June 2020 with at least one follow-up visit was undertaken. At baseline, participants had a mean age of 61.1 years, mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) of 77.8 mmol/mol (9.3%) and mean body weight of 101.8 kg. At 6 and 12 months of follow-up, mean HbA1c reductions of 13.3 mmol/mol (1.2%) and 16.4 mmol/mol (1.5%), respectively, were observed, and mean weight loss at 6 months was 3.0 kg (all p < 0.001). At 12 months, there were significant reductions in total cholesterol (0.5 mmol/L) and alanine transaminase (4.8 IU/L). Patients naïve to GLP-1RAs or with higher baseline HbA1c at baseline had greater glycaemic reductions, although clinically significant HbA1c reductions were also observed in those who switched from other GLP-1RAs, whose body mass index was < 35.0 and > 35.0 kg/m 2 or who had lower baseline HbA1c. Semaglutide was generally well tolerated, although adverse-effects limited use in 18 patients (9.5%). Semaglutide provided clinically and statistically significant reductions in HbA1c, body weight, lipids and liver enzymes.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In one retrospective study, 9.5% of 189 patients with T2DM starting subcutaneous semaglutide discontinued therapy because of GI complaints, while in 5.8% such adverse effects limited uptitration.
“In one retrospective study where 189 patients with T2DM starting subcutaneous semaglutide, 9.5% discontinued therapy because of GI complaints, while in 5.8% such adverse effects limited uptitration (39).”
From Safety of Semaglutide (2021) · cites this paper as [39]
The Methods and Results > Safety and Acceptability describe 189 patients and report that 11 (5.8%) had dose increases limited by gastrointestinal symptoms. The Results also report 18 discontinuations (9.5%), but one was due to tiredness rather than a gastrointestinal complaint; the source therefore does not support attributing all 9.5% to GI complaints. Page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredReal-world evidence, where available, has not shown major differences in for example hypoglycemia rate or drug discontinuation.
“real-world evidence—where available—has not shown major differences in for example hypoglycemia rate or drug discontinuation”
From Safety of Semaglutide (2021) · cites this paper as [39]
The Discussion (page unavailable) compares discontinuation due to side effects in this real-world cohort (9.5%) with the SUSTAIN-6 trial (13.1%), while noting that trial exposure was longer. The paper does not report a hypoglycemia rate or compare one with trial data, so that part of the claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 25 · Cited by 31
Research works printed but not linked: 17
- [1]Trikkalinou A Papazafiropoulou AK Melidonis A Type 2 diabetes and quality of life World J Diabetes 2017 8 120 129 10.4239/wjd.v8.i4.120 28465788 PMC5394731 · DOI
- [3]Gaede P Vedel P Larsen N Jensen GVH Parving H-H Pedersen O Multifactorial intervention and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes N Engl J Med 2003 348 383 393 10.1056/NEJMoa021778 12556541 · DOI · Paper page
- [5]Nissen SE Wolski K Effect of rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes N Engl J Med 2007 356 2457 2471 10.1056/NEJMoa072761 17517853 · DOI · Paper page
- [6]Hex N Bartlett C Wright D Taylor M Varley D Estimating the current and future costs of type 1 and type 2 diabetes in the UK, including direct health costs and indirect societal and productivity costs Diabet Med 2012 29 855 862 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2012.03698.x 22537247 · DOI · Paper page
- [8]American Diabetes Association. 9. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment: standards of medical care in diabetes—2020. Diabetes Care. 2020;43:S98–S110. 31862752
- [10]Chudleigh RA Bain SC Semaglutide injection for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 2020 13 7 675 684 10.1080/17512433.2020.1776108 32476529 · DOI
- [13]Carls GS Tuttle E Tan RD Understanding the gap between efficacy in randomized controlled trials and effectiveness in real-world use of GLP-1 RA and DPP-4 therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes Diabetes Care 2017 40 1469 1478 10.2337/dc16-2725 28801475 · DOI · Paper page
- [14]Babenko AY, Savitskaya DA, Kononova YA, et al. Predictors of effectiveness of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity. J Diabetes Res. 2019:1365162. PMC6421820 30944827
- [15]Sorli C Sichi H Tsoukas GM Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide monotherapy versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 1): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multinational, multicentre phase 3a trial Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2017 5 251 260 10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30013-X 28110911 · DOI · Paper page
- [17]Lingvay I Catarig A-M Frias JP Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide versus daily canagliflozin as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 8): a double-blind, phase 3b, randomised controlled trial Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2019 7 834 844 10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30311-0 31540867 · DOI · Paper page
- [18]Aroda VR Bain SC Cariou B Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide versus once-daily insulin glargine as add-on to metformin (with or without sulfonylureas) in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 4): a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre, multinational, phase 3a trial Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2017 5 355 366 10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30085-2 28344112 · DOI · Paper page
- [20]Ahmann AJ Capehorn M Charpentier G Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide versus exenatide ER in subjects with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 3): a 56-week, open-label, randomized clinical trial Diabetes Care 2017 43 1 9 29246950
- [21]Pratley RE Aroda VR Lingvay I Semaglutide versus dulaglutide once weekly in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 7): a randomised, open-label, phase 3b trial Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2018 6 1 12 10.1016/S2213-8587(18)30024-X 29397376 · DOI · Paper page
- [22]Capehorn MS, Catarig A‐M, Furberg JK, et al. Efficacy and safety of once‐weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg vs once‐daily liraglutide 1.2 mg as add‐on to 1–3 oral antidiabetic drugs in subjects with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 10). Diabetes Metab. 2020;46:100–9. 31539622
- [23]Williams DM Evans M Semaglutide: charting new horizons in GLP-1 analogue outcome studies Diabetes Ther 2020 11 2221 2235 10.1007/s13300-020-00917-8 32880877 PMC7471542 · DOI
- [25]Visaria J, Dang-Tan T, Petraro PV, Nepal BK, Willey V. 1006-P: real-world effectiveness of semaglutide in early users from a U.S. commercially insured (CI) and medicare advantage (MA) population. Diabetes. 2019;68(Suppl 1):1006-P. 10.2337/db19-1006-P. · DOI
- [26]Brown RE, Bech PG, Aronson R. Semaglutide once weekly in people with type 2 diabetes: Real-world analysis of the Canadian LMC diabetes registry (SPARE study). Diabetes Obes Metab. 2020;22(11):2013–20. 10.1111/dom.14117. PMC7689820 32538541 · DOI · Paper page
- Authors
- Williams, D. M., Ruslan, A. M., Khan, R., Vijayasingam, D., Iqbal, F., Shaikh, A., Lim, J., Chudleigh, R., Peter, R., Udiawar, M., Bain, S. C., Stephens, J. W., & Min, T.
- Affiliations
- Swansea Bay University Health Board (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Williams, David M.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Diabetes Therapy
- Published
- 2021-02-09
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 801-811
- ISSN
- 1869-6953 (ISSN-L)
- 1869-6961
- PMC
- PMC7872110
- OpenAlex
- W3126605140
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 4.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Diabetes Therapy (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Eli Lilly and Company
- AstraZeneca
- Sanofi
- Novo Nordisk
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Pharmacology and Obesity Treatment
- Keywords
- semaglutide, type 2 diabetes, GLP-1 receptor agonists, HbA1c, glycemic control, weight loss, lipid lowering, alanine aminotransferase, liver enzymes, adverse effects, real-world effectiveness, secondary care
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
