4.8 Article

A Placebo-Controlled Trial of Subcutaneous Semaglutide in Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis

期刊

NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
卷 384, 期 12, 页码 1113-1124

出版社

MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2028395

关键词

-

资金

  1. Novo Nordisk
  2. NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre
  3. Pharmaxis
  4. Boehringer Ingelheim
  5. Cirius Therapeutics
  6. Novartis
  7. Echosens
  8. Poxel
  9. Zydus
  10. Inventiva
  11. Conatus Pharmaceuticals
  12. Gilead
  13. Mallinckrodt
  14. Salix Pharmaceuticals
  15. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  16. Merck
  17. EchoSens-Sandhill Scientific
  18. Sequana Medical
  19. Indalo Therapeutics
  20. Genentech
  21. Immuron
  22. Pfizer
  23. Second Genome
  24. Tobira Therapeutics-Allergan
  25. CiVi Biopharma
  26. Corcept Therapeutics
  27. CymaBay Therapeutics
  28. Galectin Therapeutics
  29. Galmed Pharmaceuticals
  30. GenFit
  31. Hepion Pharmaceuticals
  32. HighTide Therapeutics
  33. Intercept Pharmaceuticals
  34. Madrigal Pharmaceuticals
  35. NGM Biopharmaceuticals
  36. NorthSea Therapeutics
  37. Novartis Pharmaceuticals
  38. Sagimet Biosciences
  39. ENYO Pharma
  40. Viking Therapeutics
  41. Gilead Sciences
  42. Allergan
  43. Perspectum
  44. Fractyl

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This phase 2 trial demonstrated that treatment with semaglutide resulted in a significantly higher percentage of patients with NASH resolution compared to placebo in patients with NASH, but did not show a significant between-group difference in the percentage of patients with an improvement in fibrosis stage.
BACKGROUND Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a common disease that is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, but treatment options are limited. The efficacy and safety of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist semaglutide in patients with NASH is not known. METHODS We conducted a 72-week, double-blind phase 2 trial involving patients with biopsyconfirmed NASH and liver fibrosis of stage F1, F2, or F3. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 3:3:3:1:1:1 ratio, to receive once-daily subcutaneous semaglutide at a dose of 0.1, 0.2, or 0.4 mg or corresponding placebo. The primary end point was resolution of NASH with no worsening of fibrosis. The confirmatory secondary end point was an improvement of at least one fibrosis stage with no worsening of NASH. The analyses of these end points were performed only in patients with stage F2 or F3 fibrosis; other analyses were performed in all the patients. RESULTS In total, 320 patients (of whom 230 had stage F2 or F3 fibrosis) were randomly assigned to receive semaglutide at a dose of 0.1 mg (80 patients), 0.2 mg (78 patients), or 0.4 mg (82 patients) or to receive placebo (80 patients). The percentage of patients in whom NASH resolution was achieved with no worsening of fibrosis was 40% in the 0.1-mg group, 36% in the 0.2-mg group, 59% in the 0.4-mg group, and 17% in the placebo group (P<0.001 for semaglutide 0.4 mg vs. placebo). An improvement in fibrosis stage occurred in 43% of the patients in the 0.4-mg group and in 33% of the patients in the placebo group (P = 0.48). The mean percent weight loss was 13% in the 0.4-mg group and 1% in the placebo group. The incidence of nausea, constipation, and vomiting was higher in the 0.4-mg group than in the placebo group (nausea, 42% vs. 11%; constipation, 22% vs. 12%; and vomiting, 15% vs. 2%). Malignant neoplasms were reported in 3 patients who received semaglutide (1%) and in no patients who received placebo. Overall, neoplasms (benign, malignant, or unspecified) were reported in 15% of the patients in the semaglutide groups and in 8% in the placebo group; no pattern of occurrence in specific organs was observed. CONCLUSIONS This phase 2 trial involving patients with NASH showed that treatment with semaglutide resulted in a significantly higher percentage of patients with NASH resolution than placebo. However, the trial did not show a significant between-group difference in the percentage of patients with an improvement in fibrosis stage.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据