Efficacy and Safety of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists for Weight Loss Among Adults Without Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and dual or triple co-agonists for weight loss among adults with overweight or obesity and without diabetes. PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy and safety of GLP-1 RAs and co-agonists for the treatment of obesity among adults without diabetes. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to 4 October 2024. STUDY SELECTION: Placebo-controlled RCTs in otherwise healthy participants with overweight or obesity. DATA EXTRACTION: The primary outcome was change in relative or absolute body weight from baseline to maximum on-treatment follow-up. Safety outcomes included death, serious adverse events (SAEs), any adverse events (AEs), and gastrointestinal AEs. DATA SYNTHESIS: ; mean age, 34 to 57 years) and 12 agents (3 commercially available agents [liraglutide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide] and 9 premarket agents for long-term weight management) were included. Treatment ranged from 16 to 104 weeks (median, 43 weeks). Compared with placebo, tirzepatide (15 mg once weekly) resulted in weight loss of up to 17.8% (95% CI, 16.3% to 19.3%) after 72 weeks of therapy; semaglutide (2.4 mg once weekly), up to 13.9% (CI, 11.0% to 16.7%) after 68 weeks; and liraglutide (3.0 mg once daily), up to 5.8% (CI, 3.6% to 8.0%) after 26 weeks. Retatrutide (12 mg once weekly) produced greater weight loss of up to 22.1% (CI, 19.3% to 24.9%) after 48 weeks; other novel single and combination GLP-1 agents were also efficacious to varying degrees. Although AEs were frequent (GLP-1 RA vs. placebo: 80% to 97% vs. 63% to 100%), the majority were gastrointestinal-related (47% to 84% vs. 13% to 63%, respectively), most commonly nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation. AEs requiring treatment discontinuation (0% to 26% vs. 0% to 9%, respectively) and SAEs (0% to 10% vs. 0% to 12%, respectively) were rare. LIMITATIONS: No head-to-head RCTs were available. Heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: GLP-1 RAs and co-agonists are efficacious for weight loss, with reported safety concerns predominantly gastrointestinal in nature, when used among adults with overweight or obesity and without diabetes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None. (PROSPERO: CRD42024505558).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".