A phase 2 liver trial where the add-on drug didn't help — and the base drug quietly did
Read the Sunday Brief →

Study wrapper · #146

Real-world weight loss with injectable semaglutide vs dulaglutide for diabetes.

Spitery A, Lobkovich A, Thomas E The American journal of managed care. 2026.
MixedCohortMentions: Semaglutide

Editor's note

A single-center retrospective cohort (120 adults, 60 per arm) comparing weekly injectable semaglutide with dulaglutide in an urban, predominantly African American population with type 2 diabetes, a group often underrepresented in trials, which is a notable strength. At 52 weeks, researchers reported greater weight loss with semaglutide than dulaglutide (-6.51% vs -1.14% of body weight; -15.98 vs -4.93 kg) and more patients reaching >=5% and >=10% loss, plus a larger HbA1c reduction (-2.15% vs -1.36%). The direction is consistent with head-to-head trial data (e.g., SUSTAIN 7). Caveats: small sample, single site, retrospective design with potential confounding by dosing and adherence, and wide real-world variability. Weight it as a useful real-world confirmation in an underrepresented population that semaglutide was associated with greater weight and glycemic reductions than dulaglutide, while recognizing the modest size limits precision.

Plain-language abstract

This look-back study compared two weekly injectable diabetes drugs, semaglutide (Ozempic) and dulaglutide (Trulicity), in 120 adults with type 2 diabetes at a city clinic where most patients were African American, a group not always well represented in trials. Researchers reviewed records to see how body weight and blood sugar changed over 52 weeks, with 60 patients on each drug. People taking semaglutide lost more weight than those on dulaglutide, about 6.5% versus 1.1% of body weight (roughly 16 kg versus 5 kg). More semaglutide patients reached at least 5% and at least 10% weight loss. Semaglutide also lowered long-term blood sugar (HbA1c) more than dulaglutide. Because this was a small, single-clinic study based on existing records rather than a randomized trial, the results are best seen as real-world support for the difference rather than definitive proof.