↓ Skip to main content

Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
4040 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2163 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, September 2016
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1607141
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven P Marso, Stephen C Bain, Agostino Consoli, Freddy G Eliaschewitz, Esteban Jódar, Lawrence A Leiter, Ildiko Lingvay, Julio Rosenstock, Jochen Seufert, Mark L Warren, Vincent Woo, Oluf Hansen, Anders G Holst, Jonas Pettersson, Tina Vilsbøll

Abstract

Background Regulatory guidance specifies the need to establish cardiovascular safety of new diabetes therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes in order to rule out excess cardiovascular risk. The cardiovascular effects of semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue with an extended half-life of approximately 1 week, in type 2 diabetes are unknown. Methods We randomly assigned 3297 patients with type 2 diabetes who were on a standard-care regimen to receive once-weekly semaglutide (0.5 mg or 1.0 mg) or placebo for 104 weeks. The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. We hypothesized that semaglutide would be noninferior to placebo for the primary outcome. The noninferiority margin was 1.8 for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio. Results At baseline, 2735 of the patients (83.0%) had established cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or both. The primary outcome occurred in 108 of 1648 patients (6.6%) in the semaglutide group and in 146 of 1649 patients (8.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.95; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Nonfatal myocardial infarction occurred in 2.9% of the patients receiving semaglutide and in 3.9% of those receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.08; P=0.12); nonfatal stroke occurred in 1.6% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.99; P=0.04). Rates of death from cardiovascular causes were similar in the two groups. Rates of new or worsening nephropathy were lower in the semaglutide group, but rates of retinopathy complications (vitreous hemorrhage, blindness, or conditions requiring treatment with an intravitreal agent or photocoagulation) were significantly higher (hazard ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.11 to 2.78; P=0.02). Fewer serious adverse events occurred in the semaglutide group, although more patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events, mainly gastrointestinal. Conclusions In patients with type 2 diabetes who were at high cardiovascular risk, the rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke was significantly lower among patients receiving semaglutide than among those receiving placebo, an outcome that confirmed the noninferiority of semaglutide. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; SUSTAIN-6 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01720446 .).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 419 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 2,163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 2154 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 245 11%
Student > Bachelor 214 10%
Other 203 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 198 9%
Student > Master 164 8%
Other 470 22%
Unknown 669 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 845 39%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 163 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 101 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 59 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 57 3%
Other 182 8%
Unknown 756 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 920. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 April 2024.
All research outputs
#18,882
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#799
of 32,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#281
of 330,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#19
of 314 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,654 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 122.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,705 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 314 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.