A Multicentre, Prospective, Non‐Interventional Single‐Arm Study Investigating the Impact of Once‐Daily Oral Semaglutide in a Real‐World Adult Population With Type 2 Diabetes in Mexico - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Search Log in Dashboard Publications Account settings Log out Search… Search NCBI Primary site navigation Search Logged in as: Dashboard Publications Account settings Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide PERMALINK Copy As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice Endocrinol Diabetes Metab . 2026 Apr 15;9(3):e70219. doi: 10.1002/edm2.70219 Search in PMC Search in PubMed View in NLM Catalog Add to search A Multicentre, Prospective, Non‐Interventional Single‐Arm Study Investigating the Impact of Once‐Daily Oral Semaglutide in a Real‐World Adult Population With Type 2 Diabetes in Mexico Guillermo González‐Gálvez Guillermo González‐Gálvez 1 Instituto Jalisciense de Investigación en Diabetes y Obesidad, Guadalajara, Mexico Find articles by Guillermo González‐Gálvez 1, ✉ , Juan C Garnica‐Cuellar Juan C Garnica‐Cuellar 2 Endocrinology Division, Centro Médico Nacional 20 de Noviembre, Institute for Social Security and Services for State, Mexico City, Mexico 3 Diabetes and Obesity Workgroup, Sociedad Mexicana de Nutrición y Endocrinología, Mexico City, Mexico Find articles by Juan C Garnica‐Cuellar 2, 3 , Miguel Ángel Colín‐García Miguel Ángel Colín‐García 4 Colegio Mexicano de Obesidad y Nutrición A.C. José María Rico, Mexico City, Mexico 5 Hospital Ángeles Santa Mónica, Mexico City, Mexico Find articles by Miguel Ángel Colín‐García 4, 5 , Aldo Ferreira‐Hermosillo Aldo Ferreira‐Hermosillo 6 Unidad de Investigación Médica en Enfermedades Endocrinas, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI, IMSS, Mexico City, Mexico Find articles by Aldo Ferreira‐Hermosillo 6 , Silvia A Jiménez‐Ramos Silvia A Jiménez‐Ramos 7 CICEJ Centro de Investigación Clínica Endocrinológica de Jalisco, Guadalajara, Mexico Find articles by Silvia A Jiménez‐Ramos 7 , Aleida Y Contreras‐Sandoval Aleida Y Contreras‐Sandoval 8 Novo Nordisk Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico Find articles by Aleida Y Contreras‐Sandoval 8 , Patricia Cruz‐Puente Patricia Cruz‐Puente 8 Novo Nordisk Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico Find articles by Patricia Cruz‐Puente 8 , Manuel Duarte‐Vega Manuel Duarte‐Vega 9 División de Medicina Interna, Hospital Civil Juan I. Menchaca, Guadalajara, Mexico Find articles by Manuel Duarte‐Vega 9 Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Instituto Jalisciense de Investigación en Diabetes y Obesidad, Guadalajara, Mexico 2 Endocrinology Division, Centro Médico Nacional 20 de Noviembre, Institute for Social Security and Services for State, Mexico City, Mexico 3 Diabetes and Obesity Workgroup, Sociedad Mexicana de Nutrición y Endocrinología, Mexico City, Mexico 4 Colegio Mexicano de Obesidad y Nutrición A.C. José María Rico, Mexico City, Mexico 5 Hospital Ángeles Santa Mónica, Mexico City, Mexico 6 Unidad de Investigación Médica en Enfermedades Endocrinas, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI, IMSS, Mexico City, Mexico 7 CICEJ Centro de Investigación Clínica Endocrinológica de Jalisco, Guadalajara, Mexico 8 Novo Nordisk Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico 9 División de Medicina Interna, Hospital Civil Juan I. Menchaca, Guadalajara, Mexico * Correspondence: Guillermo González‐Gálvez ( [email protected] ) ✉ Corresponding author. Revised 2026 Mar 13; Received 2026 Jan 16; Accepted 2026 Mar 18; Collection date 2026 May. © 2026 The Author(s). Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13083220 PMID: 41986942 ABSTRACT Background To investigate the oral semaglutide use among Mexican adults with type 2 diabetes. Methods PIONEER REAL was a multinational, open‐label study evaluating oral semaglutide in patients without prior injectable glucose‐lowering treatment. This analysis focuses on data from Mexico. Results Of 177 patients, 139 (78.5%) completed the study and 111 (62.7%) remained on treatment at the end. The mean (SD) age was 54.0 (10.96) years, 57.6% were women, 59.3% had obesity, and 44.6% had a medical history of cardiovascular disease. The average T2D duration was 5.7 years (SD 6.45), with mean HbA1c at 8.1% (SD 1.85). At week 38, mean HbA1c had decreased to 6.8% (estimated mean [SE] change in HbA1c, −1.3% [0.11]; p < 0.0001), and body weight had decreased from 87.8 kg (19.34) to 85.3 kg (estimated mean [SE] change in body weight, −4.3 kg [0.56]; p < 0.0001), as had waist circumference (estimated mean [SE] change, −3.7 cm [0.54]; p < 0.0001). Additionally, satisfaction with treatment increased over time. Only 6.2% of patients had adverse events leading to withdrawal of semaglutide. Conclusions According to this real‐world study, starting oral semaglutide treatment in Mexico is associated with notable decreases in both HbA1c levels and body weight among patients with type 2 diabetes. Satisfaction with treatment also improved significantly. Moreover, the safety profile is consistent with that of previous studies. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT04601753 . Keywords: diabetes treatment satisfaction, glycaemic control, Mexico, oral semaglutide, real‐world evidence, type 2 diabetes, weight loss Initiation of oral semaglutide in patients with T2D in routine clinical practice in Mexico significantly reduces HbA1c and weight and improves satisfaction with treatment. 1. Background Type 2 diabetes (T2D) represents a significant health issue in Mexico [ 1 ]. In fact, changes in dietary and physical activity patterns in Mexico have led to a significant increase in the prevalence of obesity and diabetes in recent decades [ 2 ]. In 2021, Mexico had 14.1 million people with diabetes, with 47.5% undiagnosed. By 2045, cases are expected to rise to 21.2 million. As a result, nearly 17% of adults currently have diabetes. Moreover, the health care costs associated with diabetes are huge in Mexico, with diabetes‐related expenditure in 2021 reaching US$19.9 billion in adults (20–79 years) [ 3 ]. Current guidelines recommend a patient‐centred approach to T2D, with the aim not only of achieving adequate glycaemic control, but also comprehensive management of all cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities to reduce the burden of diabetes [ 4 , 5 ]. Unfortunately, less than one‐third of patients in Mexico achieve recommended glycaemic targets [ 1 ]. Glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists (GLP‐1 RAs) are advised for managing hyperglycaemia in T2D, as they help with metabolic control and lower cardiovascular risk, especially for high‐risk patients, regardless of their HbA1c levels [ 4 , 5 ]. The PIONEER phase 3a clinical trial evaluated how effective and safe oral semaglutide is in over 9500 patients with T2D (with an average disease duration between 3.5 and 15 years). These patients were on various background treatments, including monotherapy, combinations with one or two oral glucose‐lowering agents, or combinations with insulin. These studies evaluated oral semaglutide at doses of 3 mg, 7 mg, and 14 mg in comparison to placebo or active comparators, including empagliflozin 25 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg, and liraglutide 1.8 mg (Supplementary Table 1 ) [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ]. In PIONEER 2, oral semaglutide 14 mg daily reduced HbA1c and body weight more than empagliflozin 25 mg over 52 weeks in 822 T2D patients on metformin [ 7 ]. The PIONEER 3 study found that, among 1864 patients with T2D who were not adequately managed with metformin (with or without sulfonylurea), taking oral semaglutide at doses of 7 mg/day or 14 mg/day led to significantly greater reductions in HbA1c and body weight compared to sitagliptin after 26 weeks of treatment [ 8 ]. PIONEER 6, which included 3183 patients with T2D at elevated cardiovascular risk, demonstrated that treatment with oral semaglutide 14 mg per day was associated with a tendency toward reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, as well as lower rates of both cardiovascular and all‐cause mortality, following a median follow‐up period of 69 weeks [ 11 ]. Clinical trials are the gold standard for evaluating treatment efficacy and safety, but their patient populations are more selective and closely monitored than those in real‐world settings. In this context, real‐world evidence studies can better reflect how a drug works in clinical practice, including effectiveness, safety, quality of life, and satisfaction with treatment. Moreover, non‐interventional studies provide relevant information in the general population, albeit in specific risk populations, such as elderly, fragile patients or patients with specific conditions. As a result, real‐world evidence provides important information that complements and completes data from clinical trials and interventional studies, making it more representative of patients undergoing treatment in daily clinical practice [ 14 , 15 ]. Real‐world data on the management of patients with T2D, including treatment with semaglutide, are very scarce, with the result that specific information is warranted [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. The PIONEER REAL trial, which was initiated by Novo Nordisk, involved 13 non‐interventional phase 4 studies in Europe (Denmark, Italy, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom), North America (Canada and Mexico), the Middle East (Saudi Arabia and Israel), and East Asia (Japan). The objective of PIONEER REAL was to evaluate the administration of oral semaglutide in standard clinical settings among adults with T2D who had not previously received injectable glucose‐lowering therapies [ 16 ]. In this study, we provide data from Mexico ( ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT04601753 ). 2. Methods The PIONEER REAL Mexico study was a multicentre, prospective, open‐label trial conducted at 26 locations throughout Mexico. Among the treating physicians, 55.4% were endocrinologists and 44.6% were primary care doctors. The study adhered to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and received approval from the independent ethics committee or institutional review board at each participating centre. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their enrolment in the study. Individuals diagnosed with T2D qualified for participation if they had never used injectable glucose‐lowering treatments before and began oral semaglutide as prescribed by their physician. In addition, patients had to have an HbA1c value recorded up to 90 days before visit 1 or taken at visit 1 in accordance with local clinical practice. Blood samples were analysed in local laboratories following standard clinical practices, with HbA1c measured according to each centre's approved protocol. Participants were excluded whether they were participating in a clinical trial receiving the investigational drug ≤ 30 days prior to enrolment or in the case of mental incapacity, unwillingness, or language barriers that would interfere with the normal performance of the study. No additional diagnostic, monitoring, or therapeutic interventions were performed before enrolment. Moreover, the decisions to initiate oral semaglutide, escalate the dose, and set the maintenance dose, as well as to modify concomitant nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatments, were at the discretion of the treating physician. At the beginning of the study (initiation of treatment, visit 1), demographic data, medical history data, and concomitant treatments for diabetes and other conditions were collected directly from the patient. Physicians also noted the reasons for starting oral semaglutide. Baseline data were obtained within 90 days preceding visit 1. Intermediate visits (visit 2. x ) could be scheduled according to local clinical practice; the end of study visit (EOS) (visit 3) was at 38 weeks after initiation of oral semaglutide (Supplementary Figure 1 ). The main endpoint was the change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to EOS. The secondary endpoints were: changes in body weight from the start to EOS (measured both as a percentage and in kilograms), changes in waist circumference (in centimetres) over the same period, the percentage of patients achieving HbA1c levels below 7%, and combined outcomes such as a reduction in HbA1c of at least 1% along with a decrease in body weight of at least 3% or 5% by the end of the study [ 17 ]. In addition, changes in satisfaction with treatment from baseline to the EOS were assessed using the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status (DTSQs). The DTSQs includes eight questions assessing diabetes treatment satisfaction on a Likert scale from 0 (very dissatisfied) to 6 (very satisfied); six items are summed for a total score [ 18 ]. Exploratory endpoints included patient continuation of oral semaglutide at EOS, daily dose at EOS, changes in other glucose‐lowering medications, incidence of self‐reported severe hypoglycaemia (needing external assistance), and physician‐assessed clinical success at EOS. Finally, adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) were also collected. 3. Statistical Analysis Sample size was estimated using CI precision, mean change in the primary endpoint, and HbA1c change from baseline to EOS. The sample size was set to ensure a 90% chance of achieving a mean change from baseline of 95%, with a maximum half‐width of 0.30. A half‐width of 0.30 was selected to provide reliable assessment of glycaemic effectiveness consistent with diabetes guidelines [ 4 ]. The SD for mean HbA1c change was set at 1.7% based on prior studies [ 19 , 20 , 21 ]. Assuming that 75% of patients would have an available HbA1c measurement at end of study (EOS), it was necessary to initiate treatment with oral semaglutide in 194 patients to ensure that 145 patients had an HbA1c measurement available at EOS. The full analysis set (FAS) for the in‐study observation period comprised all eligible patients who provided informed consent and commenced treatment with oral semaglutide. The FAS was used to characterize the study population and to perform the primary and secondary analyses, as well as to describe all reported AEs. Descriptive statistics (mean, SD for continuous variables; proportion and count for categorical variables) summarized patient characteristics at the start of oral semaglutide. Analyses were performed based on a crude and an adjusted model. A mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) was used to analyse the primary and secondary endpoints—HbA1c, body weight, and waist circumference. This model included adjustments for age, baseline body mass index, time, and time‐squared as covariates, while sex, the number of oral glucose‐lowering agents at baseline, diabetes duration, and study site were treated as fixed factors, with random intercepts and slopes for time. Changes in the DTSQs at the end of the study were evaluated using analysis of covariance. In addition to the primary analysis, a pattern‐mixture model was applied to all patients during the in‐study observation period. Two conditional models were specified: one representing patients who continued treatment, and another for those who discontinued treatment. This model served as a sensitivity analysis of the primary analysis. Results from statistical analyses on primary and secondary endpoints were presented, if applicable, by the estimate of the relevant clinical parameter with the associated two‐sided 95% CI. All endpoint analyses were conducted using two‐sided statistical tests with a significance threshold of 0.05. Statistical evaluations were performed utilizing SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, North Carolina, USA). 4. Results Of 191 patients who signed informed consent, 7 were ineligible and 7 did not start oral semaglutide treatment. In total, 177 patients were included in the FAS. Of these, 139 patients (78.5%) finished the study. At EOS, 111 out of 177 patients (62.7%) remained on treatment (see Figure 1 ). FIGURE 1. Open in a new tab Study flow chart. † Participants who initiated oral semaglutide and attended the end of study visit. ‡ As recorded on the ‘Discontinuation of oral semaglutide form’ in the electronic case report form. § Participants who were receiving oral semaglutide treatment and attended the end of study visit. Percentage values were based on the full analysis set. Table 1 presents the baseline clinical characteristics for the overall study population (FAS). The mean (SD) age was 54.0 (10.96) years, 57.6% of patients were women, 59.3% had obesity, mean (SD) baseline body mass index was 32.3 (5.95) kg/m 2 , and waist circumference was 104.7 (14.76) cm. Mean (SD) T2D duration was 5.7 (6.45) years; mean HbA1c was 8.1% (1.85%). Cardiovascular history, including chronic kidney disease, microalbuminuria, hemoglobinopathy and dyslipidemia, was available for 79 patients (44.6%). TABLE 1. Baseline clinical characteristics (full analysis set, N = 177). Variables Value Biodemographic data Age, N 177 Mean (SD), years 54.0 (10.96) < 45 years, n (%) 36 (20.3) 45–65 years, n (%) 111 (62.7) 65–75 years, n (%) 28 (15.8) > 75 years, n (%) 2 (1.1) Sex (female), N 177 102 (57.6) Area of residence, N 174 Urban, n (%) 165 (94.8) Rural, n (%) 9 (5.2) Highest level of education, N 174 Did not attend/complete high school, n (%) 16 (9.2) High school or equivalent, n (%) 43 (24.7) Vocational or technical school, n (%) 22 (12.6) College or university degree, n (%) 79 (45.4) Postgraduate degree, n (%) 14 (8.0) Occupational status, N 175 Work full time, n (%) 107 (61.1) Work part time, n (%) 25 (14.3) Student, n (%) 1 (0.6) Student and work part time, n (%) 0 Not working (retired), n (%) 13 (7.4) Not working (disabled), n (%) 1 (0.6) Not working (other), n (%) 28 (16.0) Reimbursement status, N 174 Fully covered by third party (no own co‐payment), n (%) 25 (14.4) Partly covered by third party (partial own co‐payment), n (%) 12 (6.9) Not covered by third party (fully paid out of pocket), n (%) 137 (78.7) Physical examination Blood pressure, N 177 Systolic, mmHg 124.4 (12.88) Diastolic, mmHg 77.3 (9.27) Body mass index, N 177 Mean (SD), kg/m 2 32.3 (5.95) Underweight (< 18.5 kg/m 2 ), n (%) 0 Normal (18.5–< 25 kg/m 2 ), n (%) 16 (9.0) Overweight (25–< 30 kg/m 2 ), n (%) 56 (31.6) Obese (≥ 30 kg/m 2 ), n (%) 105 (59.3) Waist circumference, N 175 Mean (SD), cm 104.7 (14.76) Diabetes parameters Duration of T2D, N 177 Mean (SD), years 5.7 (6.45) < 1 years, n (%) 51 (28.8) 1 to 5 years, n (%) 55 (31.1) 5 to 10 years, n (%) 25 (14.1) > 10 years, n (%) 46 (26.0) Microvascular complications, N 177 Diabetic retinopathy, n (%) 1 (0.6) Diabetic neuropathy, n (%) 8 (4.5) Diabetic nephropathy, n (%) 3 (1.7) HbA1c level, N 176 < 16%, n (%) 176 (100) < 14%, n (%) 175 (99.4) < 12%, n (%) 167 (94.9) < 10%, n (%) 149 (84.7) < 8%, n (%) 102 (58.0) < 7.5%, n (%) < 83 (47.2) < 7%, n (%) 49 (27.8) Individualized HbA1c (%) target agreed with patient, N 177 Mean (SD), % 6.6 (0.56) ≤ 6.5%, n (%) 102 (57.6) > 6.5 to ≤ 7.0%, n (%) 68 (38.4) > 7.0 to ≤ 7.5%, n (%) 3 (1.7) > 7.5 to ≤ 8.0%, n (%) 1 (0.6) > 8.0%, n (%) 3 (1.7) Self‐reported severe hypoglycaemic episodes at baseline * , N , n (%) 177 0 Comorbidities Cardiovascular‐related¤ medical history, N 177 53 (29.9) Cardiovascular‐related¤ medical history including CKD, microalbuminuria, hemoglobinopathy, dyslipidemia, N , n (%) 177 79 (44.6) Smoking, N 177 Never smoked, n (%) 122 (68.9) Previous smoker, n (%) 36 (0.3) Current smoker, n (%) 19 (10.7) Nonpharmacological therapies ≥ 150 min/week of moderate physical activity, N , n (%) 177 53 (29.9) On a low‐calorie diet (≥ 500 kcal/day), N , n (%) 177 47 (26.6) Pharmacological therapies Concomitant anti‐diabetic medications at baseline, N 177 Metformin, n (%) 64 (36.2) Sulfonylureas, n (%) 10 (5.6) Alpha glucosidase inhibitors, n (%) 0 Thiazolidinediones, n (%) 3 (1.7) Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, n (%) 7 (4.0) Glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor (GLP‐1) analogues, n (%) 0 Sodium‐glucose co‐transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, n (%) 17 (9.6) Meglitinides, n (%) 0 Other * , n (%) 2 (1.1) No medication, n (%) 99 (55.9) Concomitant fixed dose combinations at baseline Vildagliptin and metformin, n (%) 1 (0.6) Dapagliflozin and metformin, n (%) 13 (7.3) Canagliflozin and metformin, n (%) 1 (0.6) Empagliflozin and metformin, n (%) 6 (3.4) Concomitant cardiovascular medications at baseline, N 88 Diuretics, n (%) 20 (22.7) Vasoprotectives, n (%) 3 (3.4) Beta blockers, n (%) 14 (15.9) Calcium channel blockers, n (%) 19 (21.6) Renin angiotensin system inhibitors, n (%) 58 (65.9) Lipid‐lowering treatment, n (%) 49 (55.7) Antiplatelets, n (%) 8 (9.1) Direct factor Xa inhibitors, n (%) 1 (1.1) Other * , n (%) 1 (1.1) Laboratory parameters Glycaemic parameters (SD) HbA1c ( N = 176), % 8.1 (1.85) HbA1c ( N = 176), mmol/mol 65.1 (20.24) FPG ( N = 170), mg/dL 162.6 (67.30) FPG ( N = 170), mmol/L 9.0 (3.73) Renal parameters (SD) Serum creatinine ( N = 160), mg/dL 0.8 (0.21) Serum creatinine ( N = 160), μmol/L 71.3 (18.73) eGFR (CKD‐EPI), N mL/min/1.73 m 2 160 92.8 (17.41) < 30 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , n (%) 1 (0.6) 30–< 60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , n (%) 9 (5.6) 60–< 90 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , n (%) 49 (30.6) ≥ 90 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , n (%) 101 (63.1) Lipid profile (SD) Total cholesterol ( N = 168), mg/dL 186.6 (44.26) Total cholesterol ( N = 168), mmol/L 4.8 (1.15) LDL cholesterol ( N = 152), mg/dL 111.9 (39.00) LDL cholesterol ( N = 152), mmol/L 2.9 (1.01) HDL cholesterol ( N = 154), mg/dL 44.3 (11.91) HDL cholesterol ( N = 154), mmol/L 1.1 (0.31) Triglycerides ( N = 168), mg/dL 207.6 (156.37) Triglycerides ( N = 168), mmol/L 2.3 (1.77) Open in a new tab Note: Cardiovascular‐related medical history includes atrial fibrillation, chronic heart failure, coronary heart disease, hypertension, peripheral artery disease, revascularization, stroke, or transient ischemic attack. Severe hypoglycaemia is defined as an episode of hypoglycaemia requiring the assistance of another person to actively administer carbohydrate or glucagon or take other corrective action. Abbreviations: %, percentages are based on patients with responses; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; FPG, fasting plasma glucose; N , number of patients with response; T2D, type 2 diabetes. * All episodes of severe hypoglycaemia occurring during the study between informed consent and treatment initiation visit (V1). The most frequently used anti‐hyperglycaemic medications at initiation of oral semaglutide were metformin (64 patients [36.2%]), sodium‐glucose transport protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors (17 patients [9.6%]), and sulfonylureas (10 patients [5.6%]). A total of 99 patients (55.9%) were not receiving other anti‐hyperglycaemic medications. Of 177 patients, 175 (98.9%) initiated the 3.0‐mg dose at baseline, and the remaining two (1.1%) initiated the 7.0‐mg dose. The reason for initiating oral semaglutide included improving glycaemic control in 170 patients (96.0%), reducing body weight in 129 patients (72.9%), addressing cardiovascular risk factors in 50 patients (28.2%), and simplifying the current treatment regimen in 28 patients (15.8%). The mean (SD) actual time of exposure to oral semaglutide was 30.6 (16.39) weeks. At the EOS, the mean (SD) oral semaglutide dose was 11.5 (3.54) mg. Out of the 177 patients in the FAS, 111 (62.7%) were taking oral semaglutide at EOS. Of 111 patients on oral semaglutide at EOS, 65.8% received 14.0 mg, 31.5% received 7.0 mg, and 2.7% received 3.0 mg. Out of 177 patients, 28 (15.8%) either started a new glucose‐lowering medication or had their existing dose (excluding oral semaglutide) increased. For 17 patients (9.6%), their original glucose‐lowering medication was discontinued or its dose (again, not including oral semaglutide) was reduced during the study. Additionally, among the 177 patients for whom data were available, clinical success was attained in 98 cases (71.0%), as evaluated by their respective treating physicians. Regarding the primary endpoint of the study (MMRM‐adjusted), HbA1c decreased from 8.1% (1.84) to 6.8% at week 38 (estimated mean [standard error (SE)] change in HbA1c, −1.3% [0.11]; p < 0.0001) (Figure 2 ). The prespecified secondary, sensitivity, and supplementary sensitivity analyses of the primary endpoint corroborated the findings of the primary analysis (see Supplementary Figure 2 ). Body weight decreased from 87.8 kg (19.34) to 85.3 kg at week 38 (estimated mean [SE] change in body weight, −4.3 kg [0.56]; p < 0.0001) (Figure 3 ). The crude MMRM model for change in body weight from baseline to week 38 generated results similar to those of the adjusted model (Supplementary Figure 3 ). Body weight decreased by ≥ 3% from baseline to EOS in 56.3% of patients and by ≥ 5% from baseline to EOS in 42.2% (Table 2 ). A significant reduction in waist circumference was also observed during the study (estimated mean [SE] change of −3.7 cm [0.54]; p < 0.0001) (Table 2 , Supplementary Figure 4 ). Additionally, at EOS, 60.5% of patients had attained HbA1c < 7%, 35.5% had achieved the combined goal of HbA1c reduction ≥ 1% and body weight reduction ≥ 3%, and 28.2% had reached the combined target of HbA1c reduction ≥ 1% and body weight reduction ≥ 5% (Supplementary Table 2 and Supplementary Figures 5 and 6 ). The observed mean (SD) DTSQs score increased from 24.7 (8.57) to 31.0 at the EOS (estimated mean [SE] change of 6.3 [0.47]; p < 0.0001). Similar results were obtained from the analysis of DTSQs using the crude analysis of covariance model (Table 2 , Supplementary Figure 7 ). Changes in laboratory parameters during the study are reported in Table 3 . Overall, there was a significant improvement in glycaemic parameters and lipid profile, with no significant changes in renal function. FIGURE 2. Open in a new tab Estimated mean HbA1c over time. plot—MMRM‐adjusted—in‐study—full analysis set. FIGURE 3. Open in a new tab Estimated mean body weight over time. plot—MMRM‐adjusted—in‐study—full analysis set. TABLE 2. Change in HbA1c, body weight, waist circumference, and DTSQs from baseline to week 38. * Estimate SD/SE 95% CI p HbA1c (%) Baseline 8.1 1.84 a Week 38 6.8 Absolute change from baseline to week 38 −1.3 0.11 −1.55; −1.10 < 0.0001 HbA1c (mmol/mol) Baseline 65.5 20.16 a Week 38 50.7 Absolute change from baseline to week 38 −14.5 1.24 −16.94; −12.04 < 0.0001 Body weight Baseline 87.8 19.34 a Week 38 85.3 Absolute change from baseline to week 38 (kg) −4.3 0.56 −5.39; −3.15 < 0.0001 Relative change from baseline to week 38 (%) −4.6 0.62 −5.80; −3.34 < 0.0001 Waist circumference (cm) Baseline 104.9 14.41 a Week 38 102.6 Absolute change from baseline to week 38 (cm) −3.7 0.54 −4.78; −2.63 < 0.0001 DTSQs score Baseline 24.7 8.57 a Week 38 31.0 Absolute change from baseline to week 38 6.3 0.47 5.35; 7.22 < 0.0001 Open in a new tab Note: Patients with at least one post‐baseline HbA1c/body weight/waist circumference value are included in the analysis. Estimated response and change in response are analysed from baseline to week 38 (as the EOS ranges from 34 to 52 weeks) using baseline HbA1c, age, baseline BMI, time, and time‐squared as covariates and sex, oral antidiabetics at baseline, diabetes duration, and site as fixed factors with random intercept and time (slope). Estimated response at EOS and change in response from baseline to EOS are analysed using baseline DTSQs, baseline HbA1c, age, and baseline body mass index as covariates and sex, oral antidiabetics at baseline, diabetes duration, and site as fixed factors. The p value is for no mean change in response. The DTSQs item score ranges from 0 (very dissatisfied) to 6 (very satisfied). Items 2 and 3 are rated as 0 (never) to 6 (most of time). All item scores, except 2 and 3, are added to a total score (range 0–36). Higher and lower DTSQs total scores indicate higher and lower treatment satisfaction, respectively. The p value is reported for no mean change in response. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; DTSQs, Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire‐status; EOS, end of study; MMRM, mixed model for repeated measurements; SD, standard deviation; SE, standard error. a Standard deviation reported. * Primary statistical analysis—MMRM‐adjusted. In‐study—full analysis set. TABLE 3. Changes in laboratory parameters during the study. Laboratory parameter (SD) Baseline Study end HbA1c, % 8.1 (1.85) 6.7 (1.32) HbA1c, mmol/mol 65.1 (20.24) 49.5 (14.46) FPG, mg/dL 162.6 (67.30) 123.5 (37.24) FPG, mmol/L 9.0 (3.73) 6.9 (2.07) Serum creatinine, mg/dl 0.8 (0.21) 0.8 (0.19) Serum creatinine, μmol/L 71.3 (18.73) 71.2 (16.94) eGFR (CKD‐EPI), mL/min/1.73 m 2 92.8 (17.41) 91.7 (14.61) Total cholesterol, mg/dL 186.6 (44.26) 171.6 (41.58) Total cholesterol, mmol/L 4.8 (1.15) 4.4 (1.08) LDL cholesterol, mg/dL 111.9 (39.00) 100.3 (35.09) LDL cholesterol, mmol/L 2.9 (1.01) 2.6 (0.91) HDL cholesterol, mg/dL 44.3 (11.91) 46.3 (17.61) HDL cholesterol, mmol/L 1.1 (0.31) 1.2 (0.46) Triglycerides, mg/dL 207.6 (156.37) 162.2 (89.02) Triglycerides, mmol/L 2.3 (1.77) 1.8 (1.01) Open in a new tab Abbreviations: eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; SD, standard deviation. Out of 211 adverse events (AEs) reported, 203 were classified as non‐serious (occurring in 81 patients: 150 mild and 53 moderate), while 8 serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in 6 patients. In terms of causality, 87 AEs in 46 patients (26%) were reported as probably related, 56 AEs in 26 patients (14.7%) were reported as possibly related, and 68 AEs in 44 patients (24.9%) were reported as unlikely in terms of causal relationship. The most frequently reported AEs were gastrointestinal disorders (127 AEs), including nausea (40 AEs), diarrhoea (23 AEs), constipation (20 AEs), dyspepsia (13 AEs), vomiting (10 AEs), and abdominal distension (5 AEs). Seventeen AEs in 11 patients (6.2%) led to withdrawal of oral semaglutide. One episode of severe hypoglycaemia was reported in one patient (0.6%). 5. Discussion The prospective real‐world PIONEER REAL Mexico study reported that oral semaglutide treatment was associated with significant reductions in HbA1c levels and body weight (decreases of 1.3% and 4.3 kg from baseline to end of study, respectively), as well as a notable improvement in treatment satisfaction. In addition, 71.0% of patients achieved clinical success, as assessed by their treating physician. These findings align with the PIONEER phase 3a trial (Supplementary Table 1 ) [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ] and a pooled analysis of seven country‐specific PIONEER REAL studies from Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK [ 16 ]. Type 2 diabetes has become a widespread public health concern in Mexico. This situation is expected to worsen in the coming years because of aging of the population and changes in lifestyle. In addition, glycaemic control is very far from optimal in Mexico, leading to a higher risk of complications and mortality. As a result, to reduce the burden of diabetes, it is necessary to develop health care policies that ensure a comprehensive approach to patients with T2D, including the prescription of antidiabetic drugs with proven cardiovascular benefit, like GLP‐1 RAs [ 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. In this context, real‐world studies provide relevant information that may facilitate the proper approach [ 14 , 15 ]. In our study, the mean age was 54.0 years, 57.6% of patients were women, 59.3% had obesity, and nearly 45% presented with a cardiovascular‐related medical history. In the PIONEER 6 trial, the average patient age was 66 years; women comprised 32% of the cohort, and 85% of participants were aged 50 years or older with either cardiovascular disease or chronic kidney disease [ 11 ]. Therefore, relevant differences were observed in the clinical profile between patients with T2D included in the PIONEER 6 trial and our real‐world data. As a result, although this was a non‐comparative single‐arm study, our data emphasise the importance of this type of study for assessing the impact of therapy in clinical practice. At initiation of oral semaglutide, 56% of patients in our study were not receiving other anti‐hyperglycaemic medications, 36% were taking metformin, and nearly 10% were receiving SGLT2 inhibitors. Previous studies performed in Mexico [ 26 , 27 ], together with our results, clearly suggest that real‐life patients with T2D are undertreated, thus potentially explaining, at least in part, the low proportion of patients achieving HbA1c targets in clinical practice [ 26 , 27 ]. Actually, nearly every time oral semaglutide was started, the main goal was to enhance glycaemic control. At EOS, 63% of patients remained on treatment with oral semaglutide; two‐thirds were taking 14.0 mg and almost one‐third 7.0 mg. In the PIONEER 7 trial, at week 52, 59% of patients received oral semaglutide 14 mg, although 12% remained on the 3‐mg dose [ 12 ], likely due to gastrointestinal AEs that could have limited dose escalation. Moreover, in the real‐world IGNITE study, 37.0% of patients received oral semaglutide 3 mg as their highest dose, suggesting that uptitration is not performed appropriately in some patients [ 28 ]. This observation, together with the insufficient increase in use of GLP‐1 RA in clinical practice [ 29 , 30 ], may reflect the potential need for education on the use of these drugs in the clinical care setting. Regarding the primary endpoint, HbA1c decreased significantly by 1.3% at the EOS. The sensitivity analyses confirmed this result, indicating the robustness of the data. Although direct comparisons cannot be made, these data suggest that reductions in HbA1c were similar to those found in the 52‐week phase 3 PIONEER trials [ 7 , 9 , 12 , 13 ]. Of note, whereas in phase 3 clinical trials patients were taking oral semaglutide at 14 mg, in our study, around two‐thirds were receiving 14.0 mg. As a result, the addition of oral semaglutide to patients with T2D would prove very useful for increasing the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c targets in clinical practice in Mexico, even when the 14.0‐mg dose is not attained [ 26 , 27 ]. At week 38 of our study, administration of oral semaglutide resulted in a statistically significant reduction in body weight by 4.6% (equivalent to 4.3 kg) and a decrease in waist circumference by 3.7 cm. Of note, 42% of patients achieved a body weight reduction of ≥ 5% from baseline to EOS. In the phase 3 PIONEER trials, the reduction in body weight with semaglutide 14 mg was around 2.6–4.3 kg [ 7 , 9 , 12 , 13 ]. Therefore, it seems that in clinical practice, the reduction in body weight could be even higher than in clinical trials. In fact, reducing body weight was the reason for starting oral semaglutide in 73% of our patients. Furthermore, when we analysed changes in laboratory parameters, we found a significant improvement not only in glycaemic parameters, but also in the lipid profile, with no significant changes in renal function, thus suggesting an added value in the comprehensive management of patients with T2D, as current guidelines recommend [ 4 , 5 ]. In summary, the observed reductions in HbA1c, body weight, waist circumference, and improvements in lipid profiles among real‐world patients indicate that oral semaglutide supports comprehensive management of cardiovascular risk factors in individuals with T2D. These effects extend beyond glycaemic control, positioning oral semaglutide as an effective therapeutic option for managing such patients. Satisfaction with oral semaglutide was high and increased over time. Moreover, clinical success was achieved in 71.0% of patients, as assessed by their treating physician. Overall, oral semaglutide was well tolerated, and the rate of side effects matched those found in phase 3 clinical trials [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ]. Thus, most AEs were mild to moderate in intensity, mainly involving gastrointestinal disorders, and only 17 AEs in 11 patients (6.2%) led to withdrawal of oral semaglutide. Only one episode of severe hypoglycaemia was reported (0.6%). These findings are consistent with a recent meta‐analysis indicating that combining semaglutide with basal insulin yields significant improvements in glycaemic control and reductions in body weight, without an increased risk of hypoglycaemia. This evidence supports the safety profile of semaglutide [ 31 ]. Importantly, because this was a non‐interventional study, the oral semaglutide dose depended entirely on the physician's judgement. Many patients remained on 7 or 3 mg at EOS to maintain proper glucose control, which does not necessarily mean they could not tolerate a higher dose. This study has important strengths that highlight the significance of the results. This prospective multicentre study included 26 sites with both endocrinology and primary care, enhancing clinical representativeness. Key endpoints were HbA1c, weight, waist circumference, and DTSQs. Mixed models for repeated measures and sensitivity analyses addressed discontinuation effects, which were transparently reported (~63% remained on oral semaglutide at EOS). Safety data, primarily GI events and low severe hypoglycaemia, matched expected class effects. However, our study is subject to some limitations. Since it was a single‐arm, non‐comparative observational study, we were unable to rule out reasons other than use of oral semaglutide to explain the reduction in HbA1c and body weight. Although it would have provided valuable insights, there was no comparison of baseline characteristics between those who completed the study and those who did not. Additionally, missing data for each endpoint (HbA1c, weight, waist) were not quantified, and information regarding medication adherence was not collected. Since there was no plan to impute the missing data, there was no way to check for robustness of the data in alternative assumptions. On the other hand, since no control group was available, the relative effectiveness of semaglutide could be determined. Furthermore, concomitant antidiabetic drugs were only documented at baseline, not tracked over time, which may affect the results. However, our findings were consistent with those of previous studies, and our sensitivity analyses reinforce the validity of our results in clinical practice. Since most patients had cardiovascular disease or risk factors, our results may not apply to lower‐risk T2D subpopulations. Additionally, to establish the representativeness of the sample and its applicability to the Mexican population, it should be taken into account that the sample was predominantly urban, and most participants paid out of pocket for treatment. In summary, our data suggests that the introduction of oral semaglutide therapy into routine clinical practice in Mexico is associated with notable decreases in HbA1c levels and body weight among patients with type 2 diabetes, as well as a significant enhancement in treatment satisfaction. Furthermore, the safety profile aligned with findings documented in prior research. Our findings suggest that oral semaglutide can be used in clinical practice as first‐line therapy in patients with T2D in Mexico to improve glycaemic control and reduce body weight as part of a comprehensive management program. Author Contributions Guillermo González‐Gálvez: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, validation, writing – review and editing. Aleida Y. Contreras‐Sandoval: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, validation, writing – review and editing. Patricia Cruz‐Puente: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, validation, writing – review and editing. Juan C. Garnica‐Cuellar: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, validation, writing – review and editing. Miguel Ángel Colín‐García: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, validation, writing – review and editing. Manuel Duarte‐Vega: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, validation, writing – review and editing. Aldo Ferreira‐Hermosillo: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, validation, writing – review and editing. Silvia A. Jiménez‐Ramos: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, validation, writing – review and editing. Funding Novo Nordisk provided funding for writing and editorial support. However, Novo Nordisk did not affect how data was collected, analysed or interpreted. Novo Nordisk Pharma Ltd. sponsored this study, which was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT04601753 . Disclosure Medical writing and editorial assistance were provided by Content Ed Net (Madrid, Spain). Editorial management was conducted by Reprints Unlimited Mexico. These services were funded by Novo Nordisk, in accordance with Good Publication Practice guidelines ( www.ismpp.org/gpp‐2022 ). Ethics Statement The research followed the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and received approval from the independent ethics committee or institutional review board at each participating centre. All participants gave written informed consent before enrolment. Conflicts of Interest Aleida Y. Contreras‐Sandoval and Patricia Cruz‐Puente are employees of Novo Nordisk. The rest of the authors declare not competing interests for this publication. Supporting information Supplementary Figure 1. Study design. Supplementary Figure 2. HbA1c (%): change from baseline to week 38. Supplementary Figure 3. Body weight (kg and %): change from baseline to week 38*. Supplementary Figure 4. Proportion of participants achieving body weight reduction ≥ 3%, body weight reduction ≥ 5%, and HbA1c < 7% at EOS. Supplementary Figure 5. Proportion of participants achieving the composite endpoints of HbA1c and body weight reduction at EOS. Supplementary Figure 6. Mean estimated waist circumference over time*. Supplementary Figure 7. DTSQs at baseline and end of study*. Supplementary Table 1. Change in HbA1c, body weight, and proportion of patients attaining HbA1c < 7% in the Pioneer studies. Supplementary Table 2. Proportion of patients with a significant reduction in HbA1c and body weight. EDM2-9-e70219-s001.docx (508.6KB, docx) Acknowledgements The authors thank the participants, investigators, and staff involved in the study. List of investigators by centre: Centres Physician(s) CICEJ Centro de Investigacion Clinica Endocrinologica de Jalisco S.C. Mexico Silvia Jimenez Ramos Diana Larios Hospital Angeles del Pedregal, Mexico City, Mexico Berenice Garcia Guzman Hospital Angeles Puebla, Col Reserva Territorial Atlixcayotl Puebla, Mexico Samuel Vargas Bello Hospital Angeles Lindavista, Mexico City, Mexico Juan Carlos Garnica Cuellar Claudia Itzel Herrera Diaz Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI, IMSS, Mexico City, Mexico Aldo Ferreira‐Hermosillo Médica Sur, Mexico City, Mexico German Gonzalez De La Cruz Centro Metabólico, Tijuana, Baja California Norte, Mexico Alberto Navarro Lara Blanca Isaura Acosta Gallo Jesus Eduardo Ortiz Solis Healthy Steps, Morelia Michoacan, Mexico Ana Rosa Escobedo Regina Estefania Herrera Gonzalez Keila Corina Perez Parcero Hospital Angeles Santa Monica, Mexico City, Mexico Miguel Angel Colín García Gabriela Nahim Barron Reyes Núcleo Medico Sagitario, Zapopan Jalisco, Mexico Carlos Torres Diaz German Anguiano Torres Centro de Atención e Investigación Cardiovascular del Potosí, Burocratas del Estado San Luis Potosi, Mexico Jose Luis Arenas Leon Yunnuen Castro Jose de Jesus Rivera Arellano ICLE S.C. Guadalajara Jalisco, Mexico Manuel Duarte Vega Santiago Delgadillo Centeno Instituto Jalisciense de Investigacion en Diabetes y Obesidad S.C. Guadalajara Jalisco, Mexico Guillermo Gonzalez Galvez Blanca Leticia Sanchez Michel Hospital Angeles Lomas, Valle de las Palmas Huixquilucan, Mexico Luisa Geraldine Villanueva Rodriguez Luis Francisco Valdes Corona Hospital Angeles Pedregal, Mexico City, Mexico Enrique Juan Diaz Greene Instituto de Diabetes, Obesidad y Nutricion S.C. Emiliano Zapata Cuautla Morelos, Mexico Leobardo Sauque Reyna Aliyanet Isamara Porcayo Ascencio Centro Investigacion en Artritis y Osteoporosis S.C. Cuauhtemoc Sur Mexicali Baja California, Norte, Mexico Francisco Javier López Maldonado Dr. De la Garza Private Practice, San Pedro Garza Garcia Monterrey Nuevo León, Mexico Natalia Eloisa de la Garza Hernandez Hospital Angeles Puebla, Reserva Territorial Atlixcayotl Puebla, Mexico Mario Iván Urbina Sánchez Ximena Marcela Macip Lanzagorta Médica Sur, Delegacion Tlalpan Mexico City, Mexico Bernardette Rivas Gómez Bio Investigacion Amarc S C. Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico Pedro Mendoza Martinez Karina Sánchez Valencia María Eugenia Aguilar Martínez FAICIC S. de R.L. de C.V. Ricardo Flores Magon Veracruz, Mexico Alejandro Quintin Barrat Zindy Yazmin Zarate Hinojosa Hospital Cardiologica Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes, Mexico Francisco Serna Vela Vanessa Sánchez Cháirez Ana Elena Ramírez Ibarra Consultoria Integral De Salud Ocupacional, SC. Guadalupe, Mexico Blanca Lilia Sandoval de Leon Jose Antonio Sanchez Morales Jose Antonio Sanchez Sandoval Médica Sur, Delegacion Tlalpan, Mexico City, Mexico Miguel Ángel Gómez Sámano Anna Paula Guerrero Castillo Investigacion Medica Sonora S.C. Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico Diego Espinoza Peralta Centro de Investigacion Medica de Occidente, S.C. Zapopan Jalisco, Mexico Emilia Susana Pelayo Orozco Open in a new tab Data Availability Statement Data supporting this study's findings can be requested from the corresponding author. References 1. Bello‐Chavolla O. Y., Rojas‐Martinez R., Aguilar‐Salinas C. A., and Hernández‐Avila M., “Epidemiology of Diabetes Mellitus in Mexico,” Nutrition Reviews 75 (2017): 4–12. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 2. Barquera S., Campos‐Nonato I., Aguilar‐Salinas C., Lopez‐Ridaura R., Arredondo A., and Rivera‐Dommarco J., “Diabetes in Mexico: Cost and Management of Diabetes and Its Complications and Challenges for Health Policy,” Globalization and Health 9 (2013): 3. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 3. International Diabetes Federation , “IDF Diabetes Atlas, 10th Edition 2021,” (2021), https://diabetesatlas.org/idfawp/resource‐files/2021/07/IDF_Atlas_10th_Edition_2021.pdf . 4. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee , “9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycaemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes‐2025,” Diabetes Care 48 (2025): S181–S206. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 5. Marx N., Federici M., Schütt K., et al., “2023 ESC Guidelines for the Management of Cardiovascular Disease in Patients With Diabetes,” European Heart Journal 44, no. 39 (2023): 4043–4140. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 6. Aroda V. R., Rosenstock J., Terauchi Y., et al., “PIONEER 1: Randomized Clinical Trial of the Efficacy and Safety of Oral Semaglutide Monotherapy in Comparison With Placebo in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes,” Diabetes Care 42, no. 9 (2019): 1724–1732. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 7. Rodbard H. W., Rosenstock J., Canani L. H., et al., “Oral Semaglutide Versus Empagliflozin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled on Metformin: The PIONEER 2 Trial,” Diabetes Care 42, no. 12 (2019): 2272–2281. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 8. Rosenstock J., Allison D., Birkenfeld A. L., et al., “Effect of Additional Oral Semaglutide vs Sitagliptin on Glycated Hemoglobin in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled With Metformin Alone or With Sulfonylurea: The PIONEER 3 Randomized Clinical Trial,” Journal of the American Medical Association 321, no. 15 (2019): 1466–1480. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 9. Pratley R., Amod A., Hoff S. T., et al., “Oral Semaglutide Versus Subcutaneous Liraglutide and Placebo in Type 2 Diabetes (PIONEER 4): A Randomised, Double‐Blind, Phase 3a Trial,” Lancet 394, no. 10192 (2019): 39–50. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 10. Mosenzon O., Blicher T. M., Rosenlund S., et al., “Efficacy and Safety of Oral Semaglutide in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Moderate Renal Impairment (PIONEER 5): A Placebo‐Controlled, Randomised, Phase 3a Trial,” Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology 7, no. 7 (2019): 515–527. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 11. Husain M., Birkenfeld A. L., Donsmark M., et al., “Oral Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes,” New England Journal of Medicine 381, no. 9 (2019): 841–851. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 12. Pieber T. R., Bode B., Mertens A., et al., “Efficacy and Safety of Oral Semaglutide With Flexible Dose Adjustment Versus Sitagliptin in Type 2 Diabetes (PIONEER 7): A Multicentre, Open‐Label, Randomised, Phase 3a Trial,” Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology 7 (2019): 528–539. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 13. Zinman B., Aroda V. R., Buse J. B., et al., “Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Oral Semaglutide Versus Placebo Added to Insulin With or Without Metformin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: The PIONEER 8 Trial,” Diabetes Care 42, no. 12 (2019): 2262–2271. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 14. Eichler H.‐G., Pignatti F., Schwarzer‐Daum B., et al., “Randomized Controlled Trials Versus Real World Evidence: Neither Magic nor Myth,” Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 109, no. 5 (2021): 1212–1218. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 15. Collins R., Bowman L., Landray M., and Peto R., “The Magic of Randomization Versus the Myth of Real‐World Evidence,” New England Journal of Medicine 382, no. 7 (2020): 674–678. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 16. Rudofsky G., Amadid H., Braae U. C., et al., “Oral Semaglutide Use in Type 2 Diabetes: A Pooled Analysis of Clinical and Patient‐Reported Outcomes From Seven PIONEER REAL Prospective Real‐World Studies,” Diabetes Therapy 16, no. 1 (2025): 73–87. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 17. Dungan K. M., Bardtrum L., Christiansen E., et al., “Greater Combined Reductions of HbA1c ≥ 1.0% and Body Weight Loss ≥ 5.0% or ≥ 10.0% With Orally Administered Semaglutide Versus Comparators,” Diabetes Therapy 14, no. 8 (2023): 1415–1425. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 18. Baccaro F., Novelli Poisson P., Arduin J., and Hilliar V., “Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) of in Non‐Ambulatory Type 2 Diabetic Patients,” Boletín de la Asociación Médica de Puerto Rico 108, no. 1 (2016): 57–62. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 19. Gautier J.‐F., Martinez L., Penfornis A., et al., “Effectiveness and Persistence With Liraglutide Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in Routine Clinical Practice—EVIDENCE: A Prospective, 2‐Year Follow‐Up, Observational, Post‐Marketing Study,” Advances in Therapy 32, no. 9 (2015): 838–853. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 20. Buysman E. K., Liu F., Hammer M., and Langer J., “Impact of Medication Adherence and Persistence on Clinical and Economic Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Treated With Liraglutide: A Retrospective Cohort Study,” Advances in Therapy 32, no. 4 (2015): 341–355. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 21. Lee W. C., Dekoven M., Bouchard J., Massoudi M., and Langer J., “Improved Real‐World Glycaemic Outcomes With Liraglutide Versus Other Incretin‐Based Therapies in Type 2 Diabetes,” Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism 16, no. 9 (2014): 819–826. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 22. Alegre‐Díaz J., Herrington W., López‐Cervantes M., et al., “Diabetes and Cause‐Specific Mortality in Mexico City,” New England Journal of Medicine 375, no. 20 (2016): 1961–1971. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 23. Seiglie J. A., Franco R. R., Wirtz V. J., et al., “Regional and State‐Level Patterns of Type 2 Diabetes Prevalence in Mexico Over the Last Three Decades,” Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 177 (2021): 108927. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 24. Montoya A., Gallardo‐Rincón H., Silva‐Tinoco R., et al., “Type 2 Diabetes Epidemic in Mexico. Burden of Disease 1990‐2021 Analysis and Implications for Public Policies,” Gaceta Médica de Mexico 159, no. 6 (2023): 474–486. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 25. Rojas‐Martínez R., Escamilla‐Nuñez C., Aguilar‐Salinas C. A., Castro‐Porras L., Romero‐Martínez M., and Lazcano‐Ponce E., “Trends in the Mortality of Diabetes in Mexico From 1998 to 2022: A Joinpoint Regression and Age‐Period‐Cohort Effect Analysis,” Public Health 226 (2024): 128–137. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 26. Aguilar‐Ramirez D., Alegre‐Díaz J., Gnatiuc L., et al., “Changes in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes in Mexico City Between 1998‐2004 and 2015‐2019,” Diabetes Care 44, no. 4 (2021): 944–951. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 27. Basto‐Abreu A. C., López‐Olmedo N., Rojas‐Martínez R., et al., “Prevalence of Diabetes and Glycemic Control in Mexico: National Results From 2018 and 2020,” Salud Pública de Mexico 63 (2021): 725–733. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 28. Aroda V. R., Faurby M., Lophaven S., Noone J., Wolden M. L., and Lingvay I., “Insights Into the Early Use of Oral Semaglutide in Routine Clinical Practice: The IGNITE Study,” Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism 23, no. 9 (2021): 2177–2182. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 29. Gul U., Aung T., Martin M., et al., “A Comprehensive Review of the Role of GLP‐1 Agonists in Weight Management and Their Effect on Metabolic Parameters Such as Blood Glucose, Cholesterol, and Blood Pressure,” Cureus 16, no. 12 (2024): e76519. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 30. Palomo‐Piñón S., Aguilar‐Alonso J. A., Chávez‐Iñiguez J. S., et al., “Strategies to Address Diabetic Kidney Disease Burden in Mexico: A Narrative Review by the Mexican College of Nephrologists,” Frontiers in Medicine 11 (2024): 1376115. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 31. Chen B., Tao L., Tian M., and Ji Z., “Efficacy and Safety of Combination of Semaglutide and Basal Insulin in Patients With of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis,” Clinical Nutrition ESPEN 66 (2025): 564–572. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Supplementary Materials Supplementary Figure 1. Study design. Supplementary Figure 2. HbA1c (%): change from baseline to week 38. Supplementary Figure 3. Body weight (kg and %): change from baseline to week 38*. Supplementary Figure 4. Proportion of participants achieving body weight reduction ≥ 3%, body weight reduction ≥ 5%, and HbA1c < 7% at EOS. Supplementary Figure 5. Proportion of participants achieving the composite endpoints of HbA1c and body weight reduction at EOS. Supplementary Figure 6. Mean estimated waist circumference over time*. Supplementary Figure 7. DTSQs at baseline and end of study*. Supplementary Table 1. Change in HbA1c, body weight, and proportion of patients attaining HbA1c < 7% in the Pioneer studies. Supplementary Table 2. Proportion of patients with a significant reduction in HbA1c and body weight. EDM2-9-e70219-s001.docx (508.6KB, docx) Data Availability Statement Data supporting this study's findings can be requested from the corresponding author. Articles from Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism are provided here courtesy of Wiley ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (1.1 MB) Cite Collections Permalink PERMALINK Copy RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Cite Copy Download .nbib .nbib Format: AMA APA MLA NLM Add to Collections Create a new collection Add to an existing collection Name your collection * Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again Add Cancel Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top