icon-folder.gif   Conference Reports for NATAP  
 
  The Liver Meeting
Digital Experience
AASLD
November 13 - 16 - 2020
Back grey_arrow_rt.gif
 
 
 
SEMAGLUTIDE TREATMENT IN SUBJECTS WITH NAFLD: EFFECTS ASSESSED BY MAGNETIC RESONANCE ELASTOGRAPHY AND MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING PROTON DENSITY FAT FRACTION
 
 
  At weeks 24, 48 and 72, total liver volume, liver fat volume, visceral and sc abdominal fat volumes were reduced with sema vs PBO (all p<0 .0001).
 
AASLD 2020 Nov 11-16
 
Anne Flint1, Grit Andersen2, Paul Hockings3, Lars Johansson3, Anni Morsing1, Mads Sundby Palle1, Thomas J Vogl4 and Leona Plum-Moerschel2, (1)Novo Nordisk a/S, (2)Profil, (3) Antaros Medical, (4)Goethe-Universitat Frankfurt
 
Background: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is thought to be the liver manifestation of metabolic syndrome . Among glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP- 1RAs), semaglutide (sema) has the most pronounced effect on body weight (BW) . This study investigated the effect of sema on NAFLD, using non-invasive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) methods and exploratory biomarkers.
 
Methods: 67 subjects with NAFLD (MRI proton density fat fraction [MRI-PDFF] ≥10%) and increased liver stiffness (magnetic resonance elastography [MRE] 2 .50-4 .63 kPa) were randomly assigned 1:1 to subcutaneous (sc) sema 0 .4 mg/day or placebo (PBO) for 72 weeks . Liver stiffness and liver fat content were measured by MRE and MRI-PDFF, respectively, after 24, 48 and 72 weeks of treatment . Liver enzymes (ALT, AST, GGT) and exploratory blood-based biomarkers for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) were measured along with FibroScan, visceral and sc abdominal fat, BW and metabolic parameters.
 
Results: At 48 weeks, there was no difference in liver stiffness (primary endpoint) between the sema and PBO groups (MRE, estimated treatment ratio (ETR) [95%CI]: 0 .96 [0 .89-1 .03], p=0 .2798), and no difference in liver stiffness was observed at week 72. The number of subjects with MRE values increasing ≥15%, indicating increased fibrosis, was lower for sema vs PBO at week 48 (1 vs 8, respectively). At week 48, the sema group had a 58% reduction in liver fat vs PBO (MRI-PDFF; ETR [95%CI]: 0 .47 [0 .36-0 .60], p<0 .0001); this reduction was maintained through week 72. Over 70% of subjects in the sema group had a reduction of ≥30% in liver fat. At weeks 24, 48 and 72, total liver volume, liver fat volume, visceral and sc abdominal fat volumes were reduced with sema vs PBO (all p<0 .0001). FibroScan results were in line with MRI results. Relative to PBO, sema treatment led to BW loss of 10% (p<0 .0001), HbA1c decrease of 1%-points (p<0 .0001; subjects with type 2 diabetes) and decreases in liver enzymes of 18-28% (p<0.05). Biomarkers of inflammation decreased with sema treatment . Safety and tolerability were consistent with previous observations for sema and other GLP-1RAs.
 
Conclusion: Sema significantly reduced liver fat, which together with other findings, suggests a positive impact on disease activity and metabolic profile in a NAFLD population. After sema treatment, no apparent improvement in liver stiffness was observed, but fewer subjects had substantial increases in this marker of fibrosis.

1202201

1202202

1202203