[The GLP-1 analogue battle: effects of semaglutide 0,5 mg/weekly versus liraglutide 3 mg/daily on anthropometric parameters after 3 months in a real world-scenario].

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q3 BUSINESS
Antelm Pujol Calafat, Joana Nicolau, Apolonia Gil, Jorge Blanco Anesto
{"title":"[The GLP-1 analogue battle: effects of semaglutide 0,5 mg/weekly versus liraglutide 3 mg/daily on anthropometric parameters after 3 months in a real world-scenario].","authors":"Antelm Pujol Calafat, Joana Nicolau, Apolonia Gil, Jorge Blanco Anesto","doi":"10.20960/nh.05244","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Background: the prevalence of obesity is reaching a pandemic status. The SCALE trials showed that liraglutide 3 mg among people with obesity (PwO) was effective to reduce bodyweight and related complications. The fact that almost two-thirds of patients did not achieve the desired weight loss with the maximum dose of liraglutide made almost mandatory the development of other pharmacological options. The STEP 1-5 trials showed the effectiveness of semaglutide in reducing bodyweight in a dose-dependent manner. Moreover, the STEP 8 trial proved the superiority of semaglutide 2,4 mg/week versus liraglutide 3 mg/daily. We aimed to assess the effects of subcutaneous (s.c.) semaglutide 0.5 mg/weekly compared with s.c. liraglutide 3 mg/daily in PwO on anthropometric parameters in a real world-scenario for 3 months. Methods: we retrospectively evaluated 179 PwO (91.9 % ♀, 45.7 ± 10 years, and 33.3 ± 7 kg/m2) who received treatment with aGLP-1 as add-on therapy to lifestyle interventions. Patients were evaluated at baseline and after 3 months. Ninety-nine patients were prescribed s.c. semaglutide 0.5 mg/weekly with an off-label indication for weight reduction. These patients were compared with 80 patients treated with s.c. liraglutide 3 mg/daily. The main reason for prescribing of s.c. semaglutide was economic. Body composition was evaluated using a bioimpedance device (Tanita MC 580M®). Results: baseline weight was significantly greater with semaglutide compared to liraglutide (97.19 ± 21.09 vs. 90.73 ± 21.88 kg; p < 0.01) as was fat mass (42.43 ± 15.04 vs. 34.84 ± 16.07 kg; p < 0.01), whereas baseline lean mass was lesser among subjects treated with semaglutide (31.62 ± 7.56 vs 45.69 ± 15.51 kg; p < 0.01). PwO experienced a significant reduction in weight using s.c. semaglutide 0.5 mg/weekly (96.67 ± 20.83 vs. 91.44 ± 19.6 kg; p < 0.01) or s.c. liraglutide 3 mg/daily (90.73 ± 21.88 vs. 80.13 ± 18.38 kg; p < 0.01) No significant differences were seen between the amount of weight lost (5.28 ± 4.22 vs 5.72 ± 1.62 kg; p = 0.5) in the two groups. Furthermore, both groups were comparable in fat mass (2.69 ± 5.34 vs 0.96 ± 4.22 kg; p = 0.3) and fat-free mass (0.86 ± 1.63 vs 1.03 ± 0.94 kg; p = 0.07) after 3 months of treatment with both aGLP1. Side effects were gastrointestinal and transient/comparable between groups Conclusions: subcutaneous semaglutide 0.5 mg and subcutaneous liraglutide 3 mg are effective treatments for reducing weight safely among PwO in a real-world scenario at short term and without a negative impact on fat-free mass. Moreover, low doses of semaglutide were similar to liraglutide 3 mg in reducing bodyweight at short term.</p>","PeriodicalId":19385,"journal":{"name":"Nutricion hospitalaria","volume":" ","pages":"1224-1230"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutricion hospitalaria","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20960/nh.05244","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Background: the prevalence of obesity is reaching a pandemic status. The SCALE trials showed that liraglutide 3 mg among people with obesity (PwO) was effective to reduce bodyweight and related complications. The fact that almost two-thirds of patients did not achieve the desired weight loss with the maximum dose of liraglutide made almost mandatory the development of other pharmacological options. The STEP 1-5 trials showed the effectiveness of semaglutide in reducing bodyweight in a dose-dependent manner. Moreover, the STEP 8 trial proved the superiority of semaglutide 2,4 mg/week versus liraglutide 3 mg/daily. We aimed to assess the effects of subcutaneous (s.c.) semaglutide 0.5 mg/weekly compared with s.c. liraglutide 3 mg/daily in PwO on anthropometric parameters in a real world-scenario for 3 months. Methods: we retrospectively evaluated 179 PwO (91.9 % ♀, 45.7 ± 10 years, and 33.3 ± 7 kg/m2) who received treatment with aGLP-1 as add-on therapy to lifestyle interventions. Patients were evaluated at baseline and after 3 months. Ninety-nine patients were prescribed s.c. semaglutide 0.5 mg/weekly with an off-label indication for weight reduction. These patients were compared with 80 patients treated with s.c. liraglutide 3 mg/daily. The main reason for prescribing of s.c. semaglutide was economic. Body composition was evaluated using a bioimpedance device (Tanita MC 580M®). Results: baseline weight was significantly greater with semaglutide compared to liraglutide (97.19 ± 21.09 vs. 90.73 ± 21.88 kg; p < 0.01) as was fat mass (42.43 ± 15.04 vs. 34.84 ± 16.07 kg; p < 0.01), whereas baseline lean mass was lesser among subjects treated with semaglutide (31.62 ± 7.56 vs 45.69 ± 15.51 kg; p < 0.01). PwO experienced a significant reduction in weight using s.c. semaglutide 0.5 mg/weekly (96.67 ± 20.83 vs. 91.44 ± 19.6 kg; p < 0.01) or s.c. liraglutide 3 mg/daily (90.73 ± 21.88 vs. 80.13 ± 18.38 kg; p < 0.01) No significant differences were seen between the amount of weight lost (5.28 ± 4.22 vs 5.72 ± 1.62 kg; p = 0.5) in the two groups. Furthermore, both groups were comparable in fat mass (2.69 ± 5.34 vs 0.96 ± 4.22 kg; p = 0.3) and fat-free mass (0.86 ± 1.63 vs 1.03 ± 0.94 kg; p = 0.07) after 3 months of treatment with both aGLP1. Side effects were gastrointestinal and transient/comparable between groups Conclusions: subcutaneous semaglutide 0.5 mg and subcutaneous liraglutide 3 mg are effective treatments for reducing weight safely among PwO in a real-world scenario at short term and without a negative impact on fat-free mass. Moreover, low doses of semaglutide were similar to liraglutide 3 mg in reducing bodyweight at short term.

[GLP-1类似物之争:在真实世界场景中,塞马鲁肽0.5毫克/周和利拉鲁肽3毫克/天在3个月后对人体测量参数的影响]。
背景:肥胖症的发病率已达到大流行病的程度。SCALE试验表明,3毫克利拉鲁肽对肥胖症患者(PwO)有效,能减轻体重并减少相关并发症。由于近三分之二的患者在服用最大剂量的利拉鲁肽后体重没有达到理想的减轻效果,因此几乎必须开发其他药物治疗方案。STEP 1-5 试验表明,塞马鲁肽能以剂量依赖的方式有效减轻体重。此外,STEP 8 试验证明,与利拉鲁肽 3 毫克/天的剂量相比,塞马鲁肽 2.4 毫克/周的剂量更具优势。我们的目的是评估在真实世界场景中,与利拉鲁肽 3 毫克/天皮下注射相比,塞马鲁肽 0.5 毫克/周皮下注射对 PwO 人体测量参数的影响,为期 3 个月。方法:我们回顾性评估了 179 名接受 aGLP-1 作为生活方式干预附加疗法的 PwO(91.9 % ♀,45.7 ± 10 岁,33.3 ± 7 kg/m2)。对患者进行了基线评估和 3 个月后的评估。99名患者接受了semaglutide 0.5 mg/周的静脉注射治疗,标签外适应症为减轻体重。这些患者与接受利拉鲁肽静脉注射 3 毫克/天治疗的 80 名患者进行了比较。开具西药塞马鲁肽处方的主要原因是经济因素。使用生物阻抗仪(Tanita MC 580M®)评估身体成分。结果:与利拉鲁肽相比,使用塞马鲁肽的基线体重明显增加(97.19 ± 21.09 vs. 90.73 ± 21.88 kg; p < 0.01),脂肪量(42.43 ± 15.04 vs. 34.84 ± 16.07 kg; p < 0.01)也是如此,而使用塞马鲁肽治疗的受试者基线瘦肉量较少(31.62 ± 7.56 vs. 45.69 ± 15.51 kg; p < 0.01)。使用塞马鲁肽 0.5 毫克/周(96.67 ± 20.83 vs 91.44 ± 19.6 千克;p < 0.01)或利拉鲁肽 3 毫克/天(90.73 ± 21.88 vs 80.13 ± 18.38 千克;p < 0.01)的 PwO 体重明显减轻,但两组的体重减轻量无明显差异(5.28 ± 4.22 vs 5.72 ± 1.62 千克;p = 0.5)。此外,在使用两种 aGLP1 治疗 3 个月后,两组的脂肪量(2.69 ± 5.34 vs 0.96 ± 4.22 kg;p = 0.3)和去脂量(0.86 ± 1.63 vs 1.03 ± 0.94 kg;p = 0.07)相当。结论:在现实世界中,皮下注射 0.5 毫克的semaglutide 和 3 毫克的利拉鲁肽是在短期内安全减轻体重的有效治疗方法,而且不会对去脂体重产生负面影响。此外,在短期减轻体重方面,低剂量的塞马鲁肽与3毫克的利拉鲁肽效果相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nutricion hospitalaria
Nutricion hospitalaria 医学-营养学
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
181
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal Nutrición Hospitalaria was born following the SENPE Bulletin (1981-1983) and the SENPE journal (1984-1985). It is the official organ of expression of the Spanish Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. Throughout its 36 years of existence has been adapting to the rhythms and demands set by the scientific community and the trends of the editorial processes, being its most recent milestone the achievement of Impact Factor (JCR) in 2009. Its content covers the fields of the sciences of nutrition, with special emphasis on nutritional support.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信