MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410947248 · doi:10.7759/cureus.85250

Effect of Semaglutide Versus Placebo on Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction in Obese Patients: A Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4410947248 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carlos Mejia, M A García Hernández, Edwin A Garcia-Vasquez, Luis Miguel Palacios Brambila, Sergio Morales, Miguel Mendoza Romo, Jaqueline L Castillo, Mauricio Montelongo Quevedo, Jose R Flores Valdés

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSemaglutideEjection fractionHeart failurePlaceboCardiologyInternal medicineHeart failure with preserved ejection fractionDiabetes mellitusEndocrinologyAlternative medicineType 2 diabetesPathologyLiraglutide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heart failure (HF) is a major global health concern and can be classified into different phenotypes based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), including heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), reduced ejection fraction, and mildly reduced ejection fraction. This systematic review aims to determine the effect of semaglutide compared to placebo in obese patients with HFpEF. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, relevant studies published from January 2021 to August 2024 were identified through searches in PubMed and Science Direct. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies were considered; however, only two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one retrospective cohort ultimately met the inclusion criteria, encompassing a total of 1463 participants with HFpEF and obesity. The risk of bias was evaluated utilizing the Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for the retrospective cohort. In each study, participants were divided into two groups receiving either semaglutide or placebo. The findings after a 52-week follow-up showed that treatment with semaglutide 2.4 mg once weekly resulted in a significant reduction in biomarkers associated with HF. Specifically, baseline C-reactive protein (CRP) values decreased by 43% and 42% in the RCTs and 37% in the retrospective cohort. NT-proBNP levels declined by 20.90% and 23.20% in the RCTs and 15.80% in the cohort, compared to the placebo group. The reductions in CRP and NT-proBNP are clinically relevant, as elevated levels of these biomarkers are associated with worse outcomes in HFpEF. In addition, participants in the semaglutide group experienced a reduction in body weight ranging from 9% to 13% across the three studies, while those in the placebo group showed weight loss between 2% and 7% across the studies. Functional improvement was also observed, with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS) increasing by 13 to 16 points in the semaglutide group compared to the placebo. These results suggest that semaglutide may be a promising treatment for HFpEF in obese patients, offering not only significant weight loss but also improvements in biomarkers and quality of life. Therefore, semaglutide appears to provide potential cardiovascular and metabolic benefits in addition to its established weight-reducing effects, although findings should be interpreted with caution given the limited number of included studies.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.011
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207