Background Oral semaglutide is the first oral glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist for glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes is commonly associated with renal impairment, restricting treatment options. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate renal impairment. Methods This randomised, double-blind, phase 3a trial was undertaken at 88 sites in eight countries. Patients aged 18 years and older, with type 2 diabetes, an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 30-59 mL/min per 1•73 m², and who had been receiving a stable dose of metformin or sulfonylurea, or both, or basal insulin with or without metformin for the past 90 days were eligible. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by use of an interactive web-response system, with stratification by glucose-lowering medication and renal function, to receive oral semaglutide (dose escalated to 14 mg once daily) or matching placebo for 26 weeks, in addition to background medication. Participants and site staff were masked to assignment. Two efficacy-related estimands were defined: treatment policy (regardless of treatment discontinuation or rescue medication) and trial product (on treatment without rescue medication) in all participants randomly assigned. Endpoints were change from baseline to week 26 in HbA1c (primary endpoint) and bodyweight (confirmatory secondary endpoint), assessed in all participants with sufficient data. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02827708, and the European Clinical Trials Registry, number EudraCT 2015-005326-19, and is now complete.

Serology tests have a high degree of specificity for IBD while routine laboratory test have a higher sensitivity. When serology is combined with rectal bleeding, Hgb, and ESR, the sensitivity of screening children for IBD is significantly improved. However the large majority of children with IBD can be identified with a clinical history and routine laboratory tests as needing an endoscopic procedure with little benefit of adding serology.

No abstract

supplementary data for Table S1, reviewed data of all previous cases. CMB made a critical revision of the manuscript, helped in the acquisition of data, provided supplementary data for Table S1, reviewed data of all previous cases. All authors revised and gave the approval of the final manuscript.