MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413972009 · doi:10.1093/eurjpc/zwaf560

Effect of incretin-based therapies on blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· article· en· W4413972009 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Basile, Aurora Merolla, Costantino Mancusi, Carmine De Luca, Ilaria Fucile, Mario Enrico Canonico, Giuseppe Giugliano, Francesco Orso, Carmine Morisco, Giovanni Esposito

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Preventive Cardiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsHealth Care Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncretinInternal medicineBlood pressureConfidence intervalHypoglycemiaExenatideRandomized controlled trialPlaceboEndocrinologyType 2 diabetesInsulinDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Hypertension and obesity frequently coexist and synergistically increase cardiovascular (CV) risk. Incretin-based therapies with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1-RAs), gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP)/GLP1-RAs, and glucagon/GIP/GLP-1RAs lead to substantial weight loss. However, their antihypertensive efficacy and safety profile have not been comprehensively quantified. Our study aimed to evaluate the effects of incretin-based therapies on office systolic blood pressure (BP) (SBP), diastolic BP (DBP), all-cause mortality, and key safety outcomes, i.e. hypoglycaemia and pancreatitis episodes, in adults with overweight or obesity. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrial.gov from inception to 30 April 2024 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing incretin-based therapy with placebo and ≥1 month of follow-up. The primary outcome was change in SBP; secondary outcomes were change in DBP, all-cause mortality, hypoglycaemia, and pancreatitis. Random effects meta-analyses generated mean differences (MDs) or risk ratios (RRs) along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was explored with I2 statistics, subgroup analyses, and meta-regression. Eighty-five RCTs encompassing 90 977 participants (median follow-up time 8 months) met the eligibility criteria. GLP1-RAs reduced SBP by 3.4 mmHg (95% CI 2.8-4.0) and DBP by 0.9 mmHg (95% CI 0.5-1.2). A higher weight loss was significantly associated with a greater reduction in BP. The most significant BP reduction was associated with dual (SBP 5.1 mmHg; DBP 1.8 mmHg) and triple (SBP 6.6 mmHg; DBP 2.1 mmHg) receptor agonists. All-cause mortality was reduced by 18% (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.76-0.90). Incretin-based therapy did not increase the risk of hypoglycaemia (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.83-1.33) or pancreatitis (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61-1.15). CONCLUSION: Incretin-based therapy led to a modest but clinically meaningful BP reduction and lower all-cause mortality in adults with overweight or obesity, without excess in hypoglycaemia or pancreatitis episodes. There was a significant association between weight loss and the reduction in SBP and DBP. Dual and triple agonists exhibited the most pronounced antihypertensive effect. These findings support the use of incretin-based therapies as part of an integrated and multidisciplinary approach to managing obesity and hypertension, with multiple agonists showing particular promise. Our findings also underscore the need for long-term RCTs to clarify weight-independent mechanisms and the durability effect of BP reduction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Preventive CardiologySame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207