Semaglutide's kidney protection holds across the cardio-kidney-metabolic spectrum

Design

Prespecified pooled participant-level analysis of three phase 3 RCTs (SELECT, FLOW, SOUL)

Population

30,787 adults with cardio-kidney-metabolic disease, with and without diabetes

Primary outcome

Kidney composite: ≥50% eGFR decline, kidney failure, kidney or cardiovascular death

Effect

HR 0.84 (95% CI 0.77–0.91); narrower composite HR 0.80 (0.69–0.92)

A prespecified pooled analysis of participant-level data from SELECT, FLOW and SOUL — 30,787 people on subcutaneous or oral semaglutide or placebo, followed about 3.5 to 4 years — examined a kidney composite: a persistent 50% or greater fall in eGFR, kidney failure, kidney-related death or cardiovascular death.

Semaglutide cut the composite, with 973 first events against 1,134 on placebo (hazard ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.77–0.91); a narrower composite excluding cardiovascular death also fell (hazard ratio 0.80, 0.69–0.92). The pooled population spanned chronic kidney disease, atherosclerotic disease, and people with and without diabetes, and the benefit held across them. Serious adverse events were numerically lower on semaglutide.

This supports semaglutide for kidney and cardiovascular protection beyond its glucose and weight effects, across a broad cardio-kidney-metabolic group — consistent with the ADA–EASD push to use it earlier. In India semaglutide is available but costly, so access, not evidence, is the limiting factor.

• Consider semaglutide for cardiorenal protection in cardio-kidney-metabolic disease, including patients without diabetes.
• The kidney composite fell by about 16% (hazard ratio 0.84), driven by eGFR decline, kidney failure and death.
• Benefit was consistent whether semaglutide was injected or oral and across baseline risk.
• Serious adverse events were no higher — numerically lower — than on placebo.
• Cost, not evidence, is the main barrier to using semaglutide this way in India.

Why it matters

It extends semaglutide's kidney benefit beyond diabetic kidney disease to a broad at-risk population, widening who might be offered it.

Don't overread it

This pools three trials with different doses, routes and populations — a participant-level synthesis, not one trial designed to answer the kidney question.

The statistics, in plain English

A hazard ratio of 0.84 means a 16% lower rate of the composite; the confidence interval (0.77–0.91) sits entirely below 1.0, so the benefit is statistically secure, though pooling across different trials weakens it against a single dedicated kidney trial.

Read the rest in the app

You have read your two free briefings this month. The app carries all 27 specialties, every morning, free — and this finding is waiting in it.

Get Daily Doctor — free

Scan to keep reading on your phone. No account needed to start.