Randomized trial evaluates non-inferiority and safety of Intas Semaglutide in diabetes patients inadequately controlled on metformin, suggesting a cost-effective treatment option.
Background Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic metabolic disorder with a rapidly rising global burden. Present study established the non-inferiority and evaluated the safety of Intas Semaglutide (test) compared to Innovator semaglutide (reference) in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled on metformin. Methods This prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter phase 3 trial, conducted between July-2025 and February-2026, enrolled adult patients (18-65 years) with T2DM and HbA1c level ≥7%–<10.5% at baseline, who had been on diet, exercise and metformin (≥1500 mg/day). Randomized (1:1) patients received either test or reference product, once weekly from 1-24 weeks. Primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c level. Secondary endpoints were the change in fasting blood glucose (FBG) level, post-prandial blood glucose (PPBG) level, bodyweight, body mass index (BMI), and lipid parameters. Safety assessment included monitoring of treatment emerged adverse events (TEAEs). Results Study analyzed 223 (safety set) and 217 (ITT set) patients. Baseline characteristics were comparable between treatment groups. In the ITT (LOCF) set, at week-24, LSM change in HbA1c was -1.50 vs. -1.65 in test vs. reference group, respectively; LSM difference was 0.16 (95% CI: -0.16 to 0.47, P=0.3266), confirming non-inferiority of the test product. Other efficacy parameters (FBG and PPBG levels, bodyweight and BMI) were also similarly reduced in the test group. The incidence, severity, and pattern of TEAEs were similar, without new safety signals identified. Conclusion Intas semaglutide showed non-inferiority to reference semaglutide with comparable efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety which may provide a cost-effective alternative treatment option in Indian patients with T2DM. Clinical trial registration number CTRI/2025/06/089290
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
C et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: